(Dr. Lybrand has invited this (his) letter (below) to be published and discussed here and elsewhere.)
To: The Free Grace Community
From: Fred Lybrand, President, Free Grace Alliance
Re: Jody Dillow and the Gospel
To Whom this may interest---
Over the past year or so I have had a good number of you inquire about many things regarding the direction and shape of Free Grace thinking. Among them has been a concern about Jody Dillow, a man of significant influence among us all through his teaching (especially in his work "The Reign of the Servant Kings") and pioneering missions work.
You need make no mistake here; I am writing to support and honor Jody. He has been a dear brother and an excellent thinker (not to mention that my wife is a better wife to me because of Linda Dillow's ministry!).
The issue regarding Jody is one of concern over the GES Gospel (aka 'crossless gospel'). Jody doesn't exactly engage in these issues, especially as he is endeavoring to bring the BEE training to the eastern world, and by means of the internet seminary work he is involved with, to the whole world.
I was especially caught off guard when I received feedback from his endorsement of my new book on Faith and Works ("Back to Faith") where he said,
It is with this in mind that I simply want to say that he and I have had some good conversations and he has specifically given me permission to publish the following statement regarding his view of the gospel:
Now, this statement is not meant to be an exhaustive description of the gospel; but I do believe it stands for itself; and I feel very comfortable standing with Jody. We are all engaged in the process of discussion and growth as we promote and defend the grace of God. For my part, this statement is fine...though I can see it inviting a few questions as well. What I know for sure is that Jody is in the same Chafer / Ryrie traditional free grace world I dearly love. Of course, I don't exactly agree with Chafer or Ryrie on everything (I don't even agree with myself on some things!), but I am grateful for Jody's clear statement you see above.
I hope this satisfies the questions many of you have raised and trust we will all continue to faithfully (and fervently) labor together.
To Whom this may interest---
Over the past year or so I have had a good number of you inquire about many things regarding the direction and shape of Free Grace thinking. Among them has been a concern about Jody Dillow, a man of significant influence among us all through his teaching (especially in his work "The Reign of the Servant Kings") and pioneering missions work.
You need make no mistake here; I am writing to support and honor Jody. He has been a dear brother and an excellent thinker (not to mention that my wife is a better wife to me because of Linda Dillow's ministry!).
The issue regarding Jody is one of concern over the GES Gospel (aka 'crossless gospel'). Jody doesn't exactly engage in these issues, especially as he is endeavoring to bring the BEE training to the eastern world, and by means of the internet seminary work he is involved with, to the whole world.
I was especially caught off guard when I received feedback from his endorsement of my new book on Faith and Works ("Back to Faith") where he said,
"Fred Lybrand's analysis of the common saying, 'Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone,' exposes the logical and biblical fallacies inherent in Calvin's famous statement. With careful exegesis he dissects James' discussion of faith and works with fresh insight into this controversial passage. When I read his doctoral dissertation I immediately encouraged him to publish this so that many others could benefit. The book is well written and finally puts Calvin's cliché to rest---where it belongs."
- Jody Dillow
It is with this in mind that I simply want to say that he and I have had some good conversations and he has specifically given me permission to publish the following statement regarding his view of the gospel:
“I believe that in order for one to be saved he has to believe that Jesus is the Christ (that is, the Lamb of God who takes away sin and the Messiah), the Son of God (that is, He is God), and in believing one can have eternal life through His name. One must trust in Christ’s forgiveness for sin wrought for him at Calvary as an essential element of saving faith.”
- Jody Dillow (by permission, email correspondence, September 4, 2009)
Now, this statement is not meant to be an exhaustive description of the gospel; but I do believe it stands for itself; and I feel very comfortable standing with Jody. We are all engaged in the process of discussion and growth as we promote and defend the grace of God. For my part, this statement is fine...though I can see it inviting a few questions as well. What I know for sure is that Jody is in the same Chafer / Ryrie traditional free grace world I dearly love. Of course, I don't exactly agree with Chafer or Ryrie on everything (I don't even agree with myself on some things!), but I am grateful for Jody's clear statement you see above.
I hope this satisfies the questions many of you have raised and trust we will all continue to faithfully (and fervently) labor together.
God bless you all,
Fred Lybrand
132 comments:
I will be back this afternoon and at that time I will remove comment moderation, which is on. Apologies but I've been receiving some spam lately.... Please leave a comment if you would like and it will appear soon, or check out Fred Lybrand's blog and join a conversation there.... :D
Michele
Fred,
The more I think about it, the more it sounds as if everyone is saying essentially the same thing. Aren't these minor distinctions on what you would include and another FG person would exclude, as mandatory to be believed for saving faith?
It sounds to me as if Dillow's "bullseye" is the promise of eternal life; not 1 Cor 15, though 1 Cor 15, it sounds as if, is assumed to be the context for that bullseye. How do you read it?
Thanks,
Michele
Michele,
Interesting. Of course, minor doesn't mean unnecessary. I guess the question is what makes a distinction a minor one...
For example, someone from another viewpoint could assert that eternal life is a minor distinction. Or, all of these elements could simply be different expressions of the same basic thing (like following, walking, obeying, serving, fruit-bearing, etc. in sanctification).
What makes a distinction minor?
FRL
Hi Fred,
If you don't mind investing the time and effort, I do have some questions.
1 Cor 2:2 "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
Should I take that literally? Only those things and none others? Or is that a summary statement on the teachings regarding the gospel as a whole.
I appreciate this immensely,
Michele
Hi Fred,
Just want to directly answer your replies. You asked,
What makes a distinction minor?
None of the essential truths about the gospel, being officially left out, is a minor issue. I wonder if you would agree with that.
Does order matter? Order would be an example of what I am thinking when I say "minor."
You also said,
"Or, all of these elements could simply be different expressions of the same basic thing (like following, walking, obeying, serving, fruit-bearing, etc. in sanctification)."
I am not thinking that these truths (1 Cor 15 vs. John 20:31, etc.) are interchangeable in the sense that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. But in the sense where the scriptures represent a Spirit and not a Letter, I believe (thus far and I have a long long way to go) that there may be a smallish degree of grace that God may give in all truth including the truths of the gospel.
Is the order in which you would state the COSF exactly as Dillow's?
Thanks again!
Gar-y
I's peekin muself.
>:-F
Michele,
You said-
1 Cor 2:2 "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
Should I take that literally? Only those things and none others? Or is that a summary statement on the teachings regarding the gospel as a whole.
................
The passage you mention is actually a complaint on Paul's part concerning the immaturity of the Corinthians.
Notice in in Chapter 3 he says---
" But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, ESV)
Clearly the passage you mention is referring to the very basics (milk in some sense of basic food). He is discussing their growth not trying to get them 'saved'.
On the other hand, Paul clearly saw the cross as both in the gospel and in the basics---
"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:17-18, ESV)
The 'word of the cross' is both equated with the gospel (in context) and with the basics of growth...which, of course, makes perfect sense.
1 Corinthians isn't a treatise on the gospel since it is a letter to a struggling church; but, it does show us what Paul believed the gospel to be (especially as it included the cross).
Is this what you are asking about?
FRL
Michele,
Good on "essential does not equal minor"
Now, as to order...I have never thought about it or heard it offered as a question.
My first guess would be that in the final analysis 'order' does not matter. Since we are dealing with language and concepts it is given to a bit of a different game than a recipe. Toulmin's model of reasoning does a fair job of explaining this.
Yet, from an analytical viewpoint there may be a sequence (get 'em lost before you save 'em). Yet, even there one could hear the gospel and then ask "Why?"---to find out that they are in need of it.
Thoughts tend to be a system, meaning the parts must work together for the whole to make sense...and, something must make sense to believe it.
Order can really affect meaning, as in the difference between (Matt 18:22)
seventy times seven
&
seventy seven times
...so order can matter in sentence strucutres, etc.; but when it comes to the gospel, all that will matter is what one must believe to be saved.
The order of what is believed can't really seem to make one whit of difference...unless the order changes the gospel.
Yet, if it isn't the gospel one believes, then that one will not be saved. Belief in the wrong thing won't save anyone.
Grace,
FRL
Hi Fred,
After the two years (is that what it was?) you spent meditating on the end of 1 Cor 1 I feel inadequate to spend only one weekend to contemplate that section! :D Let me ask, how/where does 1 Cor ch.s 1 and 2 contribute to the discussion of the content of saving faith?
Hi Fred,
It sounds like you are saying that order matters so long as the presentation is logical and not removed of its persuasive component. Otherwise order does not really matter so much. Is that right? Does it matter to you if the cross is presented as the persuasive material to convince them that Jesus offers eternal life? Or conversely does it matter to you if the promise of eternal life and other invitation-promise verses are presented as the persuasive material to believe that Jesus died for their sins on the cross? Which is the proper bullseye, which the improper? You believe the COSF components identically to Dillow's (is that right), but what do you take his bullseye (centerpiece) to be from his statement/your conversations with him?
God bless you!
Michele,
So how does 1 Cor 1/2 fit the discussion concerning content?
Well, I think it ends the debate about the cross in the saving content. Specifically, Paul calls it the message of the cross...equates it with the gospel...and says that it is a stumbling block to the unsaved.
Clearly Paul saw the cross as a central and necessary. He didn't call it the message (word) of eternal life or the message of entering the kingdom or the message of getting saved forever.
He might well speak of such things, but the point in 1 Cor is that he simply called it the message (word)of the cross.
Again,
"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:17-18, ESV)
Baptism is clearly distinguished from the gospel...but the cross is clearly equated with it.
It is unavoidable. No one has even attempted to answer this to my knowledge...(they stick to 1 Cor 15). Frankly, an attempted answer will display the bias in needing it not to mean what it clearly means.
Paul considered the message of the cross to be the message of God's power to save.
In thinking our theology through, we have to consider how passages fit together...not how one passage dominates another.
When Zane and Bob make John 6:47 THE GOSPEL they are engaged in something entirely arbitrary (nevermind the immediate context includes the cross..."eating the bread / His flesh". They could just as easily elevate John 5:24...but then believing in the Father would be necessary content.
The content question can get messy (how much explicit / how much implicit)...blah, blah, blah (sorry, Monday is always a tired day to me :-)! The truth is that the Bible expresses the gospel from a number of angles, but always consistently. Additionally, the content is clearly unveiled over time unto the 'full' message we have today---which clearly includes our Lord's person and work.
Paul's message is the message we are to share...it matches Christ's message (at times) and doesn't (at times). The reason it may 'mismatch' is simply that more info came along from God in the finished work of Christ...and...at times Christ's message in a context isn't about getting saved from hell-to-heaven (so people attempt to equate 'all' the messages of Paul and Christ).
What is really funny in the diminishing debate about all of this is the simple fact that the GES Gospel folks wouldn't fault us for sharing the 'whole' message...nor would they say that telling someone to believe in the cross along with Christ's promise of eternal life is wrong--- so why the fuss?
The answer is that those of us who believe Paul's 'message of the cross' is a fair description of the saving message...are also in the difficult spot of saying that the GES Gospel really doesn't give a person enough content to be saved (anymore than Gen. 15 does).
Now, if the GES Gospel folks share more than necessary (including the cross)...I say 'yea' for them! But how long will it be before they leave Paul's message completely off? How long before believe Jesus's promise is all you need? Maybe God will save them...but He has made it clear to us in His Word to preach Christ and Him crucified. And, in particular, He made this clear through Paul.
Grace,
FRL
Michele,
On your point about "bullseye" above...I'm not familiar with this part of the discussion.
What do you mean by bullseye?
The way it sounds, you (or others?) must think there is a centerpiece to the gospel...along with some outer piece(s).
I don't see it that way at all...there is the gospel by which we are saved. Even if I am so limited as to not be able to identify it, there is still simply THE gospel by which we are saved.
I believe Zane (and any others) are mistaken to ever use the word minimal (and I have shared this with them). There is no minimal and no maximal...there is just IT. To share more than the gospel is simply to share more than the gospel...and...to share less than the gospel is to share less than the gospel.
In target images...it is a coin to hit or miss, not a bullseye to aim for.
But, I may not at all understand what you are aiming at :-) ...so just help me out of my misunderstanding.
Thanks,
FRL
Michele,
As I thought about it, I posted a simpler explanation to your earlier question on my blog...but, it really should have been posted here first.
So here you go:
I’ve had a number of discussions on the cross (plan to have a few more before heaven). For me, the issue really came down to 1 Cor 1:18-25. What I want to do is especially HIGHLIGHT the point by removing some text (with ellipses). The whole text is also below.
So here:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God
…it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe
…we preach Christ crucified
…to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called
…the power of God.
It is pretty glaring that Paul’s message was the cross, and the message was what saved (and what stumbled) those to whom he preached it.
It is the message of the cross that is in view, & Paul identifies it as the saving message in this passage. Don’t you think the debate over the GES Gospel ends here? If one wanted God to say it clearer, how should He have said it?
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
” For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25, ESV)
Fred said this on his blog:
Hi All,
"I’m going to follow up and invite Jim Reitman to get into a one-on-one discussion about the Content issue. It isn’t restricted to other related aspects, but I really want to understand and clarify what the issue is about without Jim feeling like he is getting walloped…and let me add…I’m not totally fond of the experience myself."
Well Fred, I'm glad to see you finally get the point...at least part of it anyway. Maybe you'll understand the rest later. So I guess I'll be on my way now... I don't care much for blogging these days anyway.
Hi Fred,
I can understand feeling worn out. Time has slipped away from me this week. I have read your replies, and I'm going to chew on them. Let me share this comment to go on in the discussion. This is my thought on the COSF matter. I greatly desire feedback, challenge etc.
While Peter was still speaking the message in Acts 10, the Spirit fell. I have a feeling that the Spirit falls while we are still contemplating the Seed, the Word of God.
acts 10:44 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message."
It is interesting that this chapter ten translates this same phrase "while he was still" a few times.
acts 10:19 "While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him...."
acts 10:17 "While Peter was still wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent.. stopped at the gate."
Ron Shea has said, if I recall his comments correctly, a few times in the last year or so that it is not enough to understand that Jesus "died for our sins according to the scriptures," etc. etc. People can understand factually that this is true but never believe (the "trust" meaning of that English word). In the same way, someone might hear many times how Jesus offers eternal life and is the only way to God, but it won't be convincing as personally necessary to investigate it with whether they believe that (trust) till after they also believe that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but God sent His Son to die and shed His blood as a perfect lamb without blemish, in our place. Another words... individuals need different bullseyes of the actual content that causes them to believe the rest of the content, of saving faith. I've heard that justification happens in an instant. If this is true, someone will need to prove that faith cannot instantaneously be borne through being persuaded by part of the COSF.
What's more, again all my current thought.... It is possible that someone can have faith, biblical faith (I want to speak your language here) based off of being persuaded by the Word of God in the gospel, and have an incomplete or partial gospel, and still believe. I don't think there is any way someone can call this faith an unbiblical one. And try as anyone might, I am not convinced by anything thus far that the one who hears part of the gospel is handicapped by law, from faith.
Indeed - the fact that Dillow lists all these things as he does, above, as the COSF says that each piece is important (capable) of generating justification, at least in their part.
This comment has a portion of reasoning, logic. What it is not is my being able to tell you from a life time or even a few years of study, what the Bible has to say on COSF. I certainly don't think myself sufficient without that dedication. I hope this can send me in a starting-direction for what to study next.
thanks!
Hi Gary,
I've been so busy lately! :( Here I go again. I'll be back a little later today or tomorrow.
:-F
Michele,
I certainly appreciate your desire to be still...and your wrestlings.
There is a paragraph I want to comment on:
What's more, again all my current thought.... It is possible that someone can have faith, biblical faith (I want to speak your language here) based off of being persuaded by the Word of God in the gospel, and have an incomplete or partial gospel, and still believe. .
So here I go (you are in italics if I'm doing this right).
What's more, again all my current thought.... It is possible that someone can have faith, biblical faith (I want to speak your language here) based off of being persuaded by the Word of God in the gospel, and have an incomplete or partial gospel, and still believe.
First, I wouldn't use a phrase like 'being persuaded by the Word of God', though I would say that they are persuaded THAT the Word of God is true (on a particular point in your thought here). I'm not sure I know 'how' someone becomes persuaded.
Second, if someone has a partial gospel but believes it...then he/she would have to be fully lost (I'm assuming people are saved by believing the gospel, not by being elect, etc.). It would sort of like believing in Jes instead of believing in Jesus. It is all the letters of the name that spell Jesus. Maybe one is lucky in that he/she puts it together by implication---but then it is whole, not partial.
I don't think there is any way someone can call this faith an unbiblical one. And try as anyone might, I am not convinced by anything thus far that the one who hears part of the gospel is handicapped by law, from faith
The faith is certainly not unbiblical, but it isn't posited in the right (complete) thing. There are loads of truths in the bible that one can believe, but that won't save. There is a gospel by which we are saved...believing something other than the gospel will not save. And, of course, believing only part of the gospel is to not believe the gospel.
This is why the whole 'minimal' thing is mistaken (I think). There is no minimal, no maximal: only the gospel. They are handicapped because they haven't heard the gospel. Again, they just have the letter "J" and "e" to work with.
I hope this is in the right direction of what you are wrestling with.
Thanks,
FRL
Hi Fred,
Thanks for being patient with me. I have to cut this reply in to two posts.
You asked for clarification for what it is I believe at this time, so that you can give a helpful response. You said,
"The way it sounds, you (or others?) must think there is a centerpiece to the gospel...along with some outer piece(s)."
(Just me maybe.) If I could use circles in a diagram to illustrate relationships, imagine "COSF" the smallest circle on the interior, wholly surrounded within a larger circle labeled "COGP" (the Content of the Gospel Preached), and lastly the largest circle of all embracing the two smaller circles, labeled, "COG" (the Content of the Gospel).
I have read some discussion on whether there should be any difference between that which is preached and that which is believed, for justification with God. When I sat down with Pastor Stegall we looked through the book of Acts and he showed me from Acts 18 how he is convinced that the gospel preached in Acts 13 is the gospel that the Galatian church received. Even in being unsure on that point, I walked away with an appreciation from Acts how much preaching there really is, post-resurrection. It contains a lot of information (and I "repented"). Though, I mean lets be honest; every sermon in Acts includes or excludes some information in each instance, which is why subset-ting the COGP from the larger COG is necessary.
The question that needs to be asked, it seems to me, is how did the apostles intend to categorize or not categorize the information of the Word? I don't see a lot of protective barriers in the scriptures indicating that they were highly bothered that sanctification-gospel truths would be used as justification-truths (excluding issues of legalism), and visa-versa. Therefore it seems to me that the apostles wanted Truth to be rich, in preaching. If there is a sense in which there is some compartmentalization of Truth into categories, what kind of examples can we find? "First things" (1 cor 15) "milk and meat" (heb 5) and I am sure there are some more that I don't think about. Do we find (again, outside of issues of legalism) any warnings against exchanging "justificational-truth" from "sanctificational truth"? I think I agree with you, if I understand you correctly Fred, that the message of the cross is the power of God to us who are being saved, meaning, it is transformational instruction for both sorts of righteousness. I think about how 1 John commands that we hold to what we've heard from the beginning.
More thoughts in the next comment....
Continued thought from above comment....
So, I have defined my understanding of the "COG" (the content of the gospel), the "COGP" (the content of the gospel preached). Let me define the narrowest content issue in this discussion, to my ears; the "COSF".
After knowing an acquaintance for a year or two, a fellow college housemate became a believer from atheism. Her testimony was, "I'm so glad, and it is such a comfort to know that there is a God." Now you and I are thinking she hasn't learned much, or, maybe we're thinking that she needs to be probed whether she's heard or believed or will confess the revelation of Jesus Christ which is the only way to the Father. But that is exactly my point. The problem here in this testimony probably isn't her. It's us. It would be one thing if we took care to follow up with her and made sure she really had heard and believed the gospel, with so inadequate a testimony. It would be quite another to go telling her that if she didn't regurgitate everything right away, that her salvation wasn't real. Pastor Rokser confessed to me he has no qualms despite much agony on the part of those who listen, to tell Christians that they were deceived, who testify of their salvation without a gospel "content set" that matches what he thinks should be believed. God bless him I know he means well, and I have certainly spent a good deal of time in my days doing exactly that same thing.
What I am seeing when I hear that Diane's "light went on" when she believed Jesus' promise of eternal life? What am I hearing when this college girl believed in God as come in the flesh? Or the ex-Catholic who finally gets that Christ washed him from his sins 2000 years ago and his justification is forensic? We are seeing the point of conversion in the gospel. The one truth that ministered to each sort of man. Variety, eh?? Why not. Our God is a God who designs all things in variety! Why not woo each of us in a way that causes us to have various testimonies, the kinds of truths that we're passionate about that we go and tell others, but each of us are telling a portion of the Gospel. If there is a multifaceted quality to grace in the Body, why not a multifaceted quality in the testimony of our Lord?
In my thinking, what probably happens is that a lost man hears the COGP (content of gospel preached, Truth-rich). They (often) believe the whole COGP but they will testify of one single issue which caused them to be persuaded of all of it. Before that one selling-point COSF, the rest of the COGP was just data, and no trust.
And... for some newly born again Christians, it is only through that one selling-point COSF turnover-to-trust in Christ, that they can begin to lay a foundation of trusting the remainder of what feels like plain "data" at first, in the gospel message about Christ.
Michele
Thanks, Michele, for taking the time to think out loud with/for us. I can see how your thinking is in some ways "provisional," as I hope people also see in my own current discussion with Fred. Your way of framing the issue and the kinds of distinctions you are attempting to draw are to me very helpful for beginning to think through some of the implications of "hearing" and "holding" to various details (or not) of the "gospel" and how (or even whether) that relates to what you call "turnover-to-trust" in Christ.
I like that way of looking at it, which intuitively to me seems very Biblical. Your articulation also goes to the heart of what I have been trying to express in my own words about distinguishing between propositional and nonpropositional truth. I also intend to tackle the issue of drawing bright lines between justification and sanctification in a more "three-dimensional" conceptualization of the gospel, so that aspect of your presentation was also appealing.
Michele et al.,
I don't know Greg, but I will assume he is genuinely wanting to get to the truth, and so I appreciate LM's bringing someone else into the discussion here. I don't want to belabor the point, because Bobby has really framed the issue as well as I could on the "companion" thread to the "dialogue" on Fred's blog, but the problem with Greg's speculation here is that contains some false premises.
He says "If Jim cannot answer the question..." when I fully desire to answer the question, once we can come to some kind of level playing field on how truth is "packaged" in Scripture, as well as how excessively rationalistic approaches to Scripture can so easily end up distorting the truth.
Greg also claims I have argued that "the question itself is flawed because belief does not involve 'content' or the acceptance of propositions." A more accurate characterization of what I am claiming is that the question is indeed flawed but not because "belief does not involve content or acceptance of propositions." In fact I am claiming almost the opposite of this assertion. What I am saying is that the propositions that one "accepts" all point to the Person of whom they are predicated, and that the "belief" (I would emphasize the component of "trust" that involves an act of the will) therefore ends up being directed toward the Person.
This same faulty premise is then folded into his subsequent assertion that The claim he actually seems to be defending in his arguments is that belief is more than simply the acceptance of propositions, but nothing he stated argues you can belief in Christ WITHOUT the acceptance of propositions.
As should be evident from my reply above, I am clearly not claiming that belief in Christ does not involve the acceptance of propositions. This is also evident from a more careful reading of my four-part response to Fred, but patience will be required before we can begin to speak the same language to one another.
Further faulty premises arise in Greg's concluding assertions:
...why are we going from one evasion to another? And where will it end? And how do you reason with someone like that (I'm interested to see how Fred approaches it). And that's what Lou is getting at... you can't get anywhere with a person who is going to just keep evading basic spiritual questions.
Again, he claims that the "basic spiritual issue" is a question framed by Fred in what I perceive to be excessively rationalistic terms that reduce faith to trust or belief in propositions alone: Viz. "What must a person believe to be saved?" What about Who? My answer to Fred's question will depend on how propositions relate to the Person. So for me, the "basic spiritual issue" here is actually only an issue of how we communicate what we think is truth, and the real "spiritual" issue behind that is how we treat each other and whether we begin by thinking the best of the other or the worst. My contention is that if we begin with the latter, we have already shackled ourselves in the enterprise of acting as "agents of reconciliation" in the world (2 Cor 5:18-20).
Greg seems to have pigeonholed me and assumes that I don't want to answer the question because I am "evading," but all I see here is old-fashioned prejudice and lack of patience, as Bobby has already pointed out on Fred's. I hope I am proved wrong and willing to admit it, but that disposition will have to become mutual if we are going to have true dialogue in further developing a more robust theology of FG. We serve a three-dimensional gospel.
”Hey fellow, let’s discuss the content of saving faith.”
Okay, what are your thoughts on this?
”I believe the content of saving faith is a list of propositions called the Gospel and that a man must be able to affirm these propositions in order to be saved”
Well I consider the Gospel much more than a list of propositions and saving faith as much more than affirming propositions. I believe…
zzzzzzzzzzz…”huh?…what?….Well that makes no sense at all! Simply tell us, what is your list of propositions?”
Wait, I think you’ve misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. By saving faith I mean…
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz….”huh?…what?….Well I think you are being evasive. I think you are a person of low moral character and a scoundrel! I think you are trying to trick us all! Simply tell us your list of propositions!”
Michele,
I sat down and drew the circles...which was indeed helpful to understand where folks are coming from.
So, now let me be concise and clear. I, and most others in this conversation, don't mean all these different things by the word 'gospel'.
Here is all we are wrestling with:
What must one believe to be saved?
That's it.
All of our anecdotal stories are not proof of anything since we don't know what they really came to understand and believe (we don't know the info they had available from prior learnings, etc.).
The discussion I'm trying to focus on is what God's Word tells us.
So, again, the question is really simple (but I'll add something):
What does The Bible tell us one must be believed to be saved?
It is either knowable or it isn't. It isn't about the 'gospel preached' etc. In fact, the way I (and others) are using 'gospel' means specifically 'what must I believe to go to heaven'...we don't mean all the various configurations of 'gospel', etc.
The way I mean gospel in this debate (not denying other meanings as well) there are no three circles. The Content of the Gospel and the Content of Saving Faith are the same. The Content of the Gospel Preach would be called the Content of the Message Preach (because it contains more, probably helpful, than what is needed for being saved from hell to heaven). So, I'd just have two circles--- (1) The Content of Saving Faith / The Gospel by which we are saved; and (2) The Message Shared (which is at least The Gospel by which we are saved, but could be even more. #1 is the inner circle.
Again, here is the question:
What does The Bible tell us one must be believed to be saved?
.....
I may add a new question:
What must one do to get a simple answer?
:-)
FRL
Dr. Lybrand,
The simple answer the Bible clearly tells us is that in order to be saved one must believe in Lord Jesus Christ. If a man ask, “What must I believe in order to be saved?” you would have to redirect him. “Good Sir, it is not that there is a thing you must believe, it is that you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.” The question then may rightly follow, “Who is Jesus Christ?” to which you can reply, “He is revealed, by the grace of God, through the Gospel message by the power of the Holy Spirit”. “The Gospel message is this…”
So long as a man looks to himself, whether it his works or his knowledge and understanding for salvation he is hopeless. The soteriology of both the so-called “promise only” camp and the so called “checklist evangelist” both turn a man back on his own knowledge and understanding for salvation and both are equally “reductionist”. The only difference is in what each reduces to. To be blunt; What you know or believe should never be considered the power of God unto salvation.
Jim, Michele, Bobby and others have been patiently trying to redirect the question only to be unfairly accused of everything from being evasive and non-responsive to being evildoers. I humbly suggest that if we must refine something then let us refine our efforts at telling the world around us who Jesus Christ is in order that, through the Grace of God and by the power of His Spirit, they might believe in Him and be saved.
Hi Kc,
You said: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzz….”huh?…what?….Well I think you are being evasive. I think you are a person of low moral character and a scoundrel! I think you are trying to trick us all! Simply tell us your list of propositions!”
I don't see you post often on blogs, but you seem to hit the nail on the head more often than not whenever you do.
"The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd." Eccl. 12:11
"A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold
In settings of silver.
Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold
Is a wise rebuker to an obedient ear." Prov. 25:11,12
At this point, I'm not sure I'm in total agreement with Jim either, but I sure am LISTENING to him and trying to understand what he's saying. The irony of all this for me is that Jim and I have had sharp disagreements in the past pertaining to some specific aspects of this discussion which he has previously made reference to with Fred. At one point in our dispute, I wrongly insinuated that Jim could not be trusted and was an "agent for the FGA" so to speak. Now he has been unfairly accused of just the opposite--of being an agent for the GES. You know what? I'm really starting to have a lot of respect for Jim in spite of any differences of opinion we might have on some issues. I can't help but respect a man who is sincerely seeking mutual understanding, peace, and reconciliation-- yet seems to get bashed and pigeonholed from all sides.
I might end up still not agreeing with Jim on some of the specifics of this "dialogue", but I' convinced that he is truly striving to be an "agent for HIM"... and not any particular faction of the current controversy in the FG movement.
I for one would like to see this "dialogue" play out as it was originally intended-- a reasonable and fair discussion between Fred and Jim. So far, I get the impression that Fred is genuinely making an effort to give Jim a fair hearing. If we are all willing to at least LISTEN, who knows...we might all learn something from both Fred AND Jim.
But as Kc has so wisely pointed out, there are some clamoring for attention on the sidelines who are not even interested in reasonable discussion...one in particular who apparently cannot so much as comprehend such a thing. His only interest is prying a single statement out of Jim that he can then use out of context for cut and paste propaganda in the future... ad infinitum. We should not be surprised since this has always been his Modus operandi.
"If a wise man contends with a foolish man,
Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace." Prov. 29:9
Kc,
You said:
"Dr. Lybrand, The simple answer the Bible clearly tells us is that in order to be saved one must believe in Lord Jesus Christ. If a man ask, “What must I believe in order to be saved?” you would have to redirect him. “Good Sir, it is not that there is a thing you must believe, it is that you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.” The question then may rightly follow, “Who is Jesus Christ?” to which you can reply, “He is revealed, by the grace of God, through the Gospel message by the power of the Holy Spirit”. “The Gospel message is this…” So long as a man looks to himself, whether it his works or his knowledge and understanding for salvation he is hopeless. The soteriology of both the so-called “promise only” camp and the so called “checklist evangelist” both turn a man back on his own knowledge and understanding for salvation and both are equally “reductionist”. The only difference is in what each reduces to. To be blunt; What you know or believe should never be considered the power of God unto salvation. Jim, Michele, Bobby and others have been patiently trying to redirect the question only to be unfairly accused of everything from being evasive and non-responsive to being evildoers. I humbly suggest that if we must refine something then let us refine our efforts at telling the world around us who Jesus Christ is in order that, through the Grace of God and by the power of His Spirit, they might believe in Him and be saved."
AMEN! This a great statement you've made here and I could not agree with you more. In fact, it seems you are making essentially the same point that the GES has been trying to make for years, and that's why I'm puzzled by this one statement you made:
"The soteriology of both the so-called “promise only” camp and the so called “checklist evangelist” both turn a man back on his own knowledge and understanding for salvation and both are equally “reductionist”. The only difference is in what each reduces to."
There has to be SOME content to saving faith. Faith in Christ can't occur in a complete vacuum. The so-called "promise -only" gospel is simply "reducing that content down to it's most fundamental core and essence-- as the Gospel of John also does--as even you yourself seem to be doing. Is there any chance you are in agreement with them and just don't realize it? The bible simply tells us to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"--just as you have said. There is nowhere in scripture that tells us a "checklist" of things which must be known, understood and believed, it simply tells us over and over that whosover believes in Jesus Christ is saved and has everlasting, again, just as you seem to be saying yourself. To demand that the unbeliever understand and believe some "checklist" of orthodox doctrines is to go beyond what scripture actually tells us.
You said: "our efforts at telling the world around us who Jesus Christ is in order that, through the Grace of God and by the power of His Spirit, they might believe in Him and be saved."
Again, I say AMEN! We should preach everything we know about Jesus Christ to the world, and all who believe and are saved will only do so as a result of the teaching, conviction, and drawing of the Holy Spirit. How do we know if a person has enough knowledge and understanding to be believing in the "right Jesus" and not some "false Jesus" of their own imagination? If a person has believed in Jesus Christ as their Saviour as a result of and in response to the "drawing" of the Father they have believed in the "right Jesus." The scriptures do not give us a "checklist" to determine that. In fact we have plenty of examples of people who were saved who did NOT believe all the things on the so-called "checklist" (which doesn't exist in scripture.)
Anyway, I'm not trying to argue with you Kc (I'm sure I would lose!)--just the opposite-- I agree with all you are saying except for that one point. It just seems possible you are some how missing the point of the "promise -only " gospel, when in fact you seem to be saying essential the same thing.
I probably won't comment on this thread again. I just wanted to share this thought with you because you practically had me jumping up and down shouting "Hallelujah!" However, I'll sure be reading any more you have to say about this because I think you have a lot of wisdom from what I've already read from you today and in the past.
Bro. Gary,
Thanks so much for the kind words. I don’t really feel I deserve them. I have been very blessed by much of the dialog between you and others. I really do appreciate your willingness to listen and I share your desire to see this become a fruitful discussion. I think there are some truly wonderful children of God on both sides of the fence and I have come to consider many as very dear brethren, yes, even Jim. ;-)
Please know that I am also especially grateful when you share your disagreements with me. I know from experience that I may very well be wrong and I’ve found that it’s only those who care enough to struggle with me that have been able to save me from myself.
I will try to explain my thoughts on the soteriology proposed by both sides here and I welcome your critique. I understand that both sides claim that salvation is contingent on believing one of the various list of propositions or at least one proposition depending on how far you distill it. Within the promise-only soteriology the single proposition is that the man Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who believe in him for it. While it is certainly true that Jesus is the guarantor of eternal life it is not true that what I believe saves me. Only God can save me and no matter how much I examine my beliefs if I fail to perceive Christ then I cannot be saved (John 6:40). To be saved I must first perceive (see/behold) Christ and then believe in (receive) Him. Since Jesus Christ is only revealed in the Gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel is much more than a simple proposition or list of propositions then, has Jim has so clearly shown, my belief in Christ is much more than a simple affirmation of one or more propositions. In short, we cannot be saved by self-perception. We can only be saved by perceiving Jesus Christ.
I do hope you'll continue in the conversation. I think you have much to offer.
Kc,
Thanks for your kind response. I feel so shell-shocked from all that has transpired ( yes, I've been guilty myself) on the blogs in recent months that your graciousness surprised me...I was worried after I made my comment that I might have just lit another fuse, so I appreciate what you've said.
Actually, I think I agree with most everything you've said but there are a couple of statements that I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so I can't give an opinion about those.
I think what you say here might be the heart of where you and I might see things a little differently (if I'm not misunderstanding you).
You said: "I understand that both sides claim that salvation is contingent on believing one of the various list of propositions or at least one proposition depending on how far you distill it. Within the promise-only soteriology the single proposition is that the man Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who believe in him for it. While it is certainly true that Jesus is the guarantor of eternal life it is not true that what I believe saves me."
You have a good grasp of the essence of the controversy among FG'ers, but it's the last sentence that I'm not clear about what you're saying:
" While it is certainly true that Jesus is the guarantor of eternal life it is not true that what I believe saves me."
Are you saying that saving faith in Jesus has NO content that must be believed? Or are you saying that the content that must be believed can vary, i.e. there is no one proposition or set of propositions which must be believed about Jesus in order to "believe in Him"?
Thanks for inviting me to interact with you. I respect your opinion a lot, but more importantly, I feel "safe" with you because I know you are man of sincerity and good will towards all sides of this issue.
Gary
Bro. Gary,
Thanks again so much for your kindness but I need to confess (as most here know) that what I don’t know would fill volumes! ;-)
I think you’re right in locating the difference in our perception. With respect to that specific sentence I only intend to point out that it’s only in looking at Christ that we come to the knowledge of the truth and not by looking at ourselves.
Concerning the content of saving faith I don’t find where it can simply be reduced to one or more rationalistic propositions. To do so is to place the “power of God unto salvation” in the mind of men as opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the actual “mechanics” of forming a belief are far more complex than simply assenting to one or more propositions.
The good news is that we need not even concern ourselves with the mechanics in order to be saved! Our gracious heavenly Father created us in such a way that we take our first breath without ever having to understand how to do it. In a similar fashion when confronted with the truth we naturally respond by receiving it. The real mystery here then is why anyone at all would reject Him so if you actually are able to “nail down” the content of saving faith you should also be able to answer this age-old question! ;-)
Brother, please know I also respect you and your opinion as well and I really am elbow-to-elbow with you here in this.
Hi Kc,
Sorry I've popped in here for just a sec at this time.
You said,
"The simple answer the Bible clearly tells us is that in order to be saved one must believe in Lord Jesus Christ."
According to some acquaintances who used to attend Rokser's church, this is actually what Rokser believed and preached, more or less as you have depicted it in your comment to Dr. Lybrand. That was until (if I remember correctly), he learned about Free Grace or else entered in to the discussion on the COSF, and then he changed his mind.
Michele (Sanctification)
Hi Fred,
I'm very glad you replied, I know there are a lot of people who want to talk to you and I'm more than willing to give my turn over to more important people.
It sounds like you wholeheartedly believe that a simple question should have a simple (simplistic) answer. If I give my answer for what the Gospel is, I would say I fully agree, if we are talking the "COG." (the content of the gospel) I hope that helps to understand that I resonate with you for the same reasons as you.
As for any left over areas of disagreement, I would introduce those areas by asking a question. Where in God's commands and requirements do we find God acting like a legalist? I use the word "legalist." My definition is your definition.
Thanks for letting me inquire,
Michele
Hi Kc,
Thanks for that comment Kc. You've made a couple of statements here that I really love. I still keep thinking that you and I agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on...and that's about the best we can hope for in this world isn't it? If you ever meet any two people who agree on everything let me know ok? That would be a fascinating phenomenon...the eighth wonder of the world wouldn't it? Or would it be the ninth now?
You said: "With respect to that specific sentence I only intend to point out that it’s only in looking at Christ that we come to the knowledge of the truth and not by looking at ourselves." I'm totally with you on that!
You said: "Concerning the content of saving faith I don’t find where it can simply be reduced to one or more rationalistic propositions. To do so is to place the “power of God unto salvation” in the mind of men as opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" I'm with you here too. I don't believe anyone is saved by believing any "rationalistic" proposition(s).
You said: "Furthermore, the actual “mechanics” of forming a belief are far more complex than simply assenting to one or more propositions." I think I agree with you here as well. The dynamics of how a person comes to believe or disbelieve certain things is indeed "complex" as you say. For example, how can one juror see and hear the same evidence as another juror an yet come to a different verdict? I suppose you could write a book about that couldn't you? I'm sure many books HAVE been written already. However, when it comes to what it MEANS to believe or disbelieve something, I think it is not nearly as complex as we sometimes make it in our attempts to "explain it". Theologians can be exceptionally skilled at doing that very thing...brilliant theologians are notorious for "confusing things brilliantly." :-) And that leads me to your next statement, which I think gets to my point very well.
You said: "The good news is that we need not even concern ourselves with the mechanics in order to be saved! Our gracious heavenly Father created us in such a way that we take our first breath without ever having to understand how to do it." I love what you say here! In fact, many times over the years when I have been thinking about or discussing what it means to believe or not believe something, I have often compared it to breathing. There is not a day that goes by that we aren't living by faith, either believing or not believing a multitude of things; it's a part of our humanity...as natural as breathing. We've been living that way since we were little children, so of course we know what it means to believe something is true or not! We really don't even need a Webster's Dictionary or a Greek Lexicon to explain it, though there are some who tell us we do! And we are gullible enough to "believe" them when they tell us that! Is it any wonder that so many Christians are confused about what it means to "really believe"?! Does a child need a dictionary to know whether he "really believes" something his mother tells him is true or not? Do I need a dictionary to know whether I "really believe" the U.S. sent a man to moon or not; or whether Elvis is alive or not? NO, but when it comes to the Bible, theology, and God's word to us, all of a sudden we think that we are living in a different universe and the meaning of words have changed. All of a sudden we think we need a seminary degree to understand what it means to "believe." Did the blind man in Jn 9 need a seminary degree to understand what Jesus meant when He said: "do you believe in the Son of God?" Or did Martha need to go consult with a scribe to understand what Jesus meant when He said: "Do you believe this?" (Jn. 11:25) I have always loved this quote by Zane Hodges--who was clearly no slouch when it comes understanding Greek: "Let it be clearly stated here that English words like to "believe," or "faith" function as fully adequate equivalents to their Greek counterparts. There is not some hidden residue of meaning in the Greek words that is not conveyed by their NORMAL (emphasis mine) English renderings. Although some have affirmed that there is, this claim betrays an inadequate or misguided view of biblical linguistics....Surely it is one of the conceits of modern theology to suppose that we can define away simple terms like "belief" and "unbelief" and replace their obvious meanings with complicated elaborations. The confusion produced by this sort of process has a pervasive influence in the church today. The solution, however, is to return to the plain meaning of the biblical text."
You said: "In a similar fashion when confronted with the truth we naturally respond by receiving it. The real mystery here then is why anyone at all would reject Him so if you actually are able to “nail down” the content of saving faith you should also be able to answer this age-old question! ;-)" I certainly don't think I completely know the answer to the "age-old question", but I'll just just make a couple of comments about this. First of all, I don't believe it IS natural for us to respond to the message of the Gospel because of our sinfulness: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH in unrighteousness...became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise , they became fools..." (Rom. 1:18-22) That's why "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." Jn. 1:5 Without the conviction, teaching, and drawing of the the HS none of us would believe. That's where I think our "will" or volition" becomes a factor in whether or not a person ever "sees" the truth and believes it. Jesus told the Pharisees: "If any man is WILLING to do His will, he shall KNOW of the teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from Myself." (Jn 7:17) God the father "draws" us, but as Jody Dillow once said: we have a responsibility to "direct our attention towards Christ". A person must be open to the teaching, conviction, and drawing of the HS. If they are their minds will be illuminated and they will believe the truth and be saved. "but even it our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose MINDS the god of this age has blinded, who do not BELIEVE, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should SHINE on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord,...for it is God who commanded light to shine out in darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 4:3-6) When Paul use the word "believe" here, he is not giving it some special definition that it doesn't have in normal, everyday life. When Paul was on the road to Damascus, one moment he was not convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the next moment, in a flash of light, he was persuaded...he had suddenly and unexpectedly become a believer, it wasn't a "choice" He made, although I'm convinced that deep down he was open to God and seeking Him. That Paul understood the meaning of "believe" in it's normal sense is shown in Rom. 4:21: "and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was able to also perform. And therefore it was accounted to him for righteousness."
Is this not what Jesus was asking Martha when He said: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe THIS?"
There is not anything complicated about this. Either she believed that what He had just said to her was true or she didn't. She don't need a seminary degree to know whether she believed or whether she had believed in the "right way."
She simply answered Him: "Yes, Lord, I believe THAT You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
So Kc, whenever someone wants to know if they saved or not, all they need do is put themselves in Martha's shoes and answer either yes or no to Jesus' question. That's also why I believe that to be saved a person must believe a specific proposition. Why do I believe that? Because John later tells us this: " these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name."( 20:31) To believe that Jesus is the Christ simply means to believe that what Jesus said to Martha is true, as 11:25-27 makes clear. What this means in practical terms is this: If a person says that they believe that Jesus is the Christ, but doesn't also know that they have eternal life by simply believing that, then there is still a "glitch" in there thinking and they have not yet understood and believed what Jesus asked Martha if she believed, i.e. they have not believed the promise (or words) of Jesus about how a person is saved. They still think that more is necessary than just believing what Jesus says. And unfortunately, that's precisely what most people DO believe...even most evangelical Christians.
I don't see how we can deny that a person must believe a specific proposition ABOUT Jesus in order to "believe in Him." To believe what Jesus said to Martha is just another way of saying that one must believe the testimony of God concerning His Son in order to be saved: "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. AND THE TESTIMONY IS THIS, that God has given us ETERNAL LIFE, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things have been written to you who BELIEVE in the name of the Son of God, so that you might KNOW that you have ETERNAL LIFE." 1 Jn. 5: 9-13.
To say we must believe a proposition in order to be saved is not "rationalistic", but it IS rational, because it simply means that we must believe what God has said to us about what we must be do to be saved. To say that we can believe in Jesus without ANY propositional content is irrational. Faith in Jesus can not occur in a vacuum because "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." We don't have to believe ALL of God's word to be saved (or no one could be saved) but God has given us a simple and specific message to believe--it is given to us in the only evangelistic book in the bible--the Gospel of John. So the only question is the same one Jesus asked Martha: do we believe what Martha believed or not? If we do then we have His word that we have eternal life, just as he says.
Anyway, Kc, sorry for it being so long but I don't have the luxury of having an editor...I could sure use one though ! :)
If you have the time, let me know what you think. If you disagree with what I've said I'd love to hear your thinking about it. I've just tried to be honest about what my convictions about the issues are, but I'm open to any correction or clarifications you might have to offer. This is just basically where I am right now in my thinking, but I learn new things and make adjustments all the time... I think that's called "growth" isn't it? I had about decided to give up blogging, but people like you make it a pleasure, so I might not totally give it up. The internet does provide a great opportunity to connect with people you would otherwise never meet, and I consider it an honor to connect with you.
Jim,
Thanks for the affirming reply. I have noticed your questions and comments with Fred and I am so glad, as last I checked, that you both extend provisional grace to that exploration.
Since you said what you said and because I am ready to say exactly what I believe about the COSF, I'm going to elaborate humbly in the midst of people I greatly respect and admire.
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The letter is a ministry of condemnation. Such a man's praise comes from obedience in the heart, not by the letter but by the Spirit. Are these passages an open door for universalism?
I'm not excited about the occasional example where someone wants to reject part of the COG and yet testify of being saved. But I am aware that God can be pleased through the exceptional disobedience of his written law, when the heart is focused on God and the need is ripe. Matt 12:1-8
And this really gets to the heart of the problem with saying that a written code given from God (or rather taken out of scripture) is all that needs to be said on a topic.
We all know that the Jews had the Torah but could not interpret the heart essence of the scriptures, which were summarized by the Shema - and delusion and disobedience (missing the mark) resulted.
Why did Cornelius' crowd have the Spirit fall BEFORE our precious COG had finished being uttered? "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God?" This is a technicality is it not? Because it is faith that saves, not content. And faith usually does not come about without personal reflection, borne of need. Many people who seem lukewarm about the gospel, thought they'll confess that the whole thing is persuasive, are not persuaded to trust. (I know everyone is going to hate that sentence and I understand why, but it's the best I got right now.) They do not yet have the need to be saved through the blood of Christ. Therefore they will not trust.
When I was going through my training for the CEF wordless book, I used the analogy of the trees and their soon-to-appear leaves in spring. I said, "do you believe that there soon will be leaves?" And the children are supposed to liken the cross of Christ like they do the logic of leaves appearing where there are none. I presented that to the CEF director and she said, "It has to be a little bit more than just thinking, for the children. There has to be a reverence in the moment, and we want to preach the full gospel so that it sinks in all the way down to the inside, that this involves them, their very life. So Michele it can't be so simple, as just believing as you are trying to explain it." And I was humbled.
I am concerned for those who make lists and who do not at least practice theological grace in their practical evangelism. I am concerned as well that like any cult or sect, someone becomes satisfied with a list, and a list alone. Using scripture like a list or a formula always hampers the power and presence of the Holy Spirit and His work. Lists sever some of the Body's abiding intensity.
I have to thank Kev, he really said that scripture should not be treated like the obstacle that keeps the lost lost. I agree. For this reason I am concerned about the promise-gospel if their belief should go so far to say that "adding content" to the presentation of the gospel, or permitting variety of convictions beyond the promise, as a fatal error. Scripture should be richly preached, to me, when I read Acts. And yet at the same time I see that they are still correct to assert the simplistic answer as the FIRST answer - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." And they went on through the scriptures from there.
Jim, more to follow if you can handle length! :D
Michele
Hi Jim,
Continued. :)
Both codes (GES, FGA), longer or shorter, without grace or variety in our orthodox and agreed COG, are theological legalism. I've made an error in communication in an above comment. I said above, "Is the truth compartmentalized in its use? Outside issues of legalism, the examples are few." When I said legalism before, what I rather meant to say was "works." Yes, adding works to the gospel is clearly wrong (that sort of legalism). So scratch the word "legalism" from before because I mean to use it now- for theological legalism.
Lists without grace... and variety... is theological legalism. Even if your brand of the COGP (the content of gospel preached) is the shortest list or if it is the longest. People come to Christ in different ways.
We are saved how?
by grace through faith
We are not saved
through content (COG)
Content should not be disputed. This is where Fred and I (I think) agree. These truths should not be a point of argumentation or alteration (and never were in the GES gospel in my understanding, thus far). Who wants to remove the cross. Or the deity. Or the promise. Or the resurrection. Who wants to do that? I've asked myself that question many times in the last year. "Do I want to do that? Do I really want to take it out?"
No, I don't. But - people can be saved with less. They potentially can be saved with a lot less. Which is what Zane truly contributed to evangelical thought in his intents in theology IMO.
Would I support the GES? If they preach the same substance (COG) with their emphasis on the promise, yes - and, if they preach and teach in faith, relying on the Holy Spirit. It's effectually the same thing. Do I support the FGA in their preaching the gospel and really working with the lost to believe all of their biblical synthesis? And - if they preach in faith in Christ for the souls of the lost? Yes. Because it's all the same thing, effectually. God uses imperfect vessels. And by imperfect vessels I mean theologies and theologians. They make errors all the while (even less than I! Though they are more staunch than I) they still walk by faith just as I know how to do. We both preach the gospel with error and that's okay because it is the scriptures which cause faith through which people are saved, not our FG theologies.
The same is true in history. People get saved when they hear the gospel about Christ (Dillow's). Christians can have bad theologies and it's amazing, how God uses the right elbow for the right audience. I see how God so kindly uses my unique emphases of the Bible and my unique trials in a way where I am connected with the sort of lost people who need to hear exactly that same message, obtain that very ministry. The same is true for the GES. They have received countless letters of thanks because God is using them for the right audience. Their errors are not centerstage, because of God's grace; their truths are centerstage in their real-time ministries. And God will use the FGA in the same way. Because He uses the scriptures. And because He uses Christians who have faith. That's His materials.
Thanks for reading, I mean that.
Michele
Hi Michele and all my other friends,
I see the discussion is still going on. I've not been around for quite a while. But I felt compelled to say something again. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.
Salvation is of the Lord. *He* turns the light on so that we ***find ourselves believing*** in Him FOR eternal life. Whatever you want to call it (eternal life, everlasting life, life with Him forever), we believe in Him for IT. At that moment we are born again. God the Holy Spirit does that!!! I don't mean to convey that God sprinkles some kind of "believing potion" on certain people and only those people who have that magic potion believes. The Bible clearly teaches that He came to save everybody, and He offers everybody the free gift of eternal life. So He won't MAKE certain people believe and leave others out. It is our responsibility to believe. YET *He* turns the light on so that we FIND ourselves believing in Him. Who are these ones who He turns the light on so that they find themselves believing? They are the ones who are "willing" to come to Him. Why some and not others? I don't know, but I do know that God is drawing ALL to Himself. The Bible says so. I also know that God is not playing word games and teasing us with the free gift of salvation. If it were impossible for someone to believe, then He wouldn't tease them with the offer. But nobody is forced to respond positively to His drawing. Those in Romans chapter one did not. They rejected the light that God gave them and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator. That was their choice.
will continue my comment below.....
:-)
(Comment continued from above...)
:-)
I say this to try and make the point that the person who is saved is the person who has believed in Jesus Christ for eternal life, period~!!!
Whatever it takes to bring a person to that place where they find themselves believing in Him for their eternal well being, is what is necessary for them to hear and believe in order to be saved. But it's believing in Him for His gift of everlasting life that is the bulls-eye!!! That alone brings salvation (the new birth).
Zane Hodges (who is now with the Lord), Bob Wilkin, Bob Bryant, and many other friends have been thrown into a category of preaching a "crossless gospel." That is so offensive to me because it's just not true. I just finished watching a video series in my discipleship class that Bob Bryant brought. The whole excitement was the glory we will express to the Lord throughout all eternity for His great sacrifice on Calvary for our sins. We'll be with Him forever because of the resurrection. People who suggest that they are preaching a crossless gospel are so far from the truth that I can't find words to express myself. Although I'm not judging their motives. That is for God alone.
I love all of you..... my brothers and sisters in Christ. ***But I just wanted to make the point that believing in Jesus for everlasting life is what brings about the new birth.*** Most get there when they understand the ramifications of the crosswork of Christ, His deity, His substitutionary atonement, His virgin birth, His sinlessness, etc., etc. But when the Holy Spirit turns the light on that Jesus HAS saved them, they ARE SAVED no matter how much they understand about the crosswork of Christ, or His resurrection, or any other wonderful truth about Him. That's what Jesus says!!!!!
If a person has never believed in Jesus Christ alone for his eternal well-being, that's the person who is NOT saved even if he believes all the foundational truths about His death and resurrection.
I think a lot of my friends on the blogs think that we're saying you can just DECIDE to believe that Jesus HAS saved you. IMPOSSIBLE~! It's a work of the Spirit of God!!!!! But we can decide to hear Him in His Word. Those who hear Him and learn from Him are the Ones who will FIND themselves believing.
I started my own blog only because I wanted to have a testimony of this great truth. It's not a blog like this one. Not a lot of back and forth conversation. But I wanted my friends on facebook and other places to know that Jesus gives eternal life to the One who simply believes in Him.
www.believe-only.blogspot.com
I wish you all God's best, and pray that you will all be used by Him for His glory.
Your friend because of Jesus,
Diane
:-)
Hi Michele,
I'm buried in a stack of papers to grade (68 of them), so I've read your "dissertation" but will have to return several times for it to fully "digest."
Love your passion for the gospel.
*********
Hello, Diane.
Long time, no see.
Jim
Michele, your last comment was a very well structured conclusion to everything I have read from you in these years. I must admit sometimes I was not sure where you were going with it, but I think that last statement ties it all together. Digesting it all, but very grateful for the even-handed consideration and graceful delivery. :)
Michele,
I agree with Missy. That was a great summary of what is gong on. I have stepped back from the whole debate and now, coming back and looking once again, reading things from the critics of GES, I would have to say that your thoughts are echoing my own, only you have articulated them much better than I was able to in the past when I was trying to wade through it all. I like this the best:
...it is the scriptures which cause faith through which people are saved, not our FG theologies.
...because He uses the scriptures. And because He uses Christians who have faith. That's His materials.
Hi Michele,
Here is part of a comment I wrote to Kc a couple of days ago but was waiting to post later. I thought you had a good idea when you said this:
"Michele made a useful and meaningful distinction of categories in one her comments to Fred. She mentioned the COG (content of the Gospel), COGP (content of the Gospel preached), and COSF (content of saving faith). I think that these distinctions are both biblical and helpful for understanding the confusion that people are having over this controversy."
I wrote a few more things about this but wanted to give it some more thought before I posted it.
Michele,
Here is another part of that same comment I wrote to Kc that I intended to post later:
"The COGP should include everything we know about Christ, but this will vary from one dispensation to the next. Furthermore, the COGP will vary from one occasion to the next depending upon the specific need of the person or persons to whom we are preaching. This is evident just from reading through the book of Acts, as I think Michele also pointed out. Even though the death and resurrection should be emphasized in the COGP, there are many other important truths about Christ as well that should be preached. Again, just from reading Acts we see that the sky is the limit when it comes to the things which could be included in preaching about Christ. I've even heard of people who have been converted to Christ because of the genealogy in Matthew...that was the thing that persuaded them to believe in Jesus as their Saviour. The point is this: That even though there are some things which should generally be the focus of our preaching, especially the cross and resurrection, there are many other truths about Christ that might be crucial for a particular person or group of people to be persuaded of the truth of who Jesus is and what He wants to do for them, i.e. give them the gift of everlasting life. But that doesn't mean that all the same things must be included every time we preach the "gospel" or else it's not the "Gospel." So the COGP could be anything in the COG, depending on the situation and need of the hearer. Different people need to know different things about Christ. No two people are in the same place or have the same needs."
Just so there is no confusion about my previous comment, here is how I would define the term COG that Michele has used. This also an excerpt from a comment originally intended for my friend Kc.
" I believe that the "Gospel" (or COG) is actually Jesus Christ Himself. Hence, anything about Him or related to Him is the "Gospel". The COG never changes because Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." However, the COG has never been fully known or understood by anyone but God."
I think Michele is on to something when she says that COG is the largest circle, with COGP being a subset of COG and finally with COSF being a subset of COGP.
Good thinking Michele!
Hi Michele,
I can’t help but imagine that, if pressed, we’d all agree that is the clear and simple answer the Bible gives and, if so, I think this means that to move forward we would have to ask what it means to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. I think this is where Jim’s understanding on “3-D” salvation will be helpful and might mesh well with the framework Mr. Grow (I like saying that ;-) proposes.
BTW I also share your position as you related it in your previous comment to Jim. Well said sister.
Bro. Gary,
I really appreciate you sharing your understanding and I am looking forward to discussing all these things with you. I think we relate pretty well. ;-)
There’s quite a bit to cover here and I’ve saved all your comments for full consideration. Do you think we might take up our discussion at my place or yours? Maybe have an article or two on each point? Please say yes! ;-)
Hi Kc,
"Do you think we might take up our discussion at my place or yours? Maybe have an article or two on each point? Please say yes! ;-)"
I'd love to Kc. Sorry I put so much out there at one time. I wasn't sure when I would be able to get back so I just threw a lot out at one time. My fault. I prefer doing things a point at a time too.
I noticed an interesting comment at Fred's blog addressed to Tim Nichols. I posted this comment to Kev that is awaiting moderation:
Kev,
You said this to Tim: "What trouble must one go to in order to answer the question? The Apostle Paul surely didn’t need to spend three weeks preparing the Jailer for his answer… Maybe Jim is no Apostle, and that’s OK… but here’s a thought… if Jim agreed with the Apostle he could simply QUOTE the Apostle…"
OK Kev, I'll QUOTE the Apostle: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..."
There it is Kev, no problem... and I just read your comment to Tim 5 minutes ago.
Now here's a question for you: Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again.
I'll even give you three weeks to answer Kev. Should be simple enough right? Like you said to Tim, if you agree with scripture you should be able to simply QUOTE the scripture.
If you can't answer this question in three weeks maybe should stop asking them.
After I submitted my comment to Fred's blog saw this comment from LM:
Brethren:
Nichols wrote, “…over trivial questions the Bible never addresses.”
Sorry, but LOL, LOL, LOL!!!! That followed by more of his gladiatorial chest-thumping.
Anyway, one of the GES/Crossless gospel mantras rises again. Rose says, the GES gospel is a “mere nuance of doctrine…a difference of opinion that is acceptable” Reitman says the disagreement is over a , “soteriological nuance” Now Nichols says its over, “trivial questions….” See a pattern here?
Leave it to the GES reductionist mindset to conclude questions to get at defining the cosf are “trivial.”
Has any collective group of believers ever viewed answering a question over what the lost must believe to be born again as a “trivial question that the Bible never addresses?” No, not until the Hodges inspired Crossless assault on the Gospel came along and spawned men like Wilkin, da Rosa, Myers, Johnson and Nichols.
Kev, you did well to cite Paul’s encounter with the Philippian jailer. The question was asked and the Apostle’s answer came right out and rings throughout history. But the GES Crossless people will not answer because they are threatened by their own fear of being transparent with their reductionism, which Jan explained above.
Well, we’re sure to see more of Nichol’s beating his chest, but make no mistake… The GES is a shrinking cell of theological extremists. Their mounting heresies and poor behavior, as exemplified (once again) in these discussions, is inching GES closer to cardiac arrest and eventual dissolution.
LM
Since LM has already made his presence known here at this blog I want to address the same question to LM:
Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again.
I'll even give you three weeks to answer Lou. Should be simple enough right? Like Kev said to Tim, if you agree with scripture you should be able to simply QUOTE the scripture.
If you can't answer this question in three weeks maybe should stop asking them.
_____________________________
Kc,
I'll get back with you ok? I want to see if either LM or Kev will answer my question.
My guess is we'll just get more huff and puff...or else one of those "Casper disappearing acts" LM is always talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc
Hi Friends,
I'm so glad that I can read all of this debate that's going on and not become confused about what the saving content is. I KNOW what the saving content is. It's JESUS! *Believe in Jesus to eternally save you, and you are eternally saved.* That's it!!! That's the ONLY truth that results in salvation when believed!!! I know that because the Bible is so clear on it. I will never change on that. That's the truth that I share always with my grandkids. That's the truth that I always share with anyone who wants to know. So even though I read the blogs and sometimes get involved in commenting on the subject, I do that only with the desire to help someone out there who might be confused. I want them to know that the Bible says plainly and clearly.....
*Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!*
END OF STORY.
Now I recognize that people need reason to believe that, so I tell them all the many truths about Jesus that will open their eyes to see WHY they can believe in Him.
Gary, I loved what you quoted above. You said...
*I believe that the "Gospel" (or COG) is actually Jesus Christ Himself. Hence, anything about Him or related to Him is the "Gospel". The COG never changes because Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." However, the COG has never been fully known or understood by anyone but God."
I really like that.
My heart is to love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm not in this to argue or fight..... only proclaim the good news that Jesus eternally saves the one who simply believes in Him.
All because of His wonderful grace,
Diane
:-)
Dr Lybrand,
I see that you have apparently chosen not to post my question to Kev on his blog yet later posted a ridiculous comment from "Jan" mocking Tim. Same stuff we got from you back in April huh??
So now I address my question to you. It surely should not be too much for a man of your stature to answer such a simple question should it?
Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again.
I'll even give you three weeks to answer. Should be simple enough right? Like Kev and LM have said to Tim, if you agree with scripture you should be able to simply QUOTE the scripture.
If you can't answer this question in three weeks maybe you should stop asking them.
Dr Lybrand,
I'm sorry, my first sentence to you above should have read:
"I see that you have apparently chosen not to post my question to Kev on YOUR blog..." not "his blog".
Oh yeah Dr Lybrand, I forgot, I don't want to leave you out.
This is especially for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc
Lou Martuneac,
Well Lou, you and I finally agree on something.
You said: "Has any collective group of believers ever viewed answering a question over what the lost must believe to be born again as a “trivial question that the Bible never addresses?” No, not until the Hodges inspired Crossless assault on the Gospel came along and spawned men like Wilkin, da Rosa, Myers, Johnson and Nichols. Kev, you did well to cite Paul’s encounter with the Philippian jailer. The question was asked and the Apostle’s answer came right out and rings throughout history. But the GES Crossless people will not answer because they are threatened by their own fear of being transparent with their reductionism,..."
Yes Lou, Kev did VERY well indeed to cite Paul's encounter with the Phillippian jailor. And you're also right to say that "the Apostle's answer came right out and rings throughout history." The same answer that the GES "reductionists" have been giving for about the last 20 yrs--the exact same answer that you keep saying "has never been seen in the New Testament Church until it was developed and introduced by the late Zane Hodges. This Crossless/Promise ONLY gospel is exclusive to the Grace Evangelical Society (Bob Wilkin- Exec. Director) and its sympathizers." So who's "not answering."?
That answer is still ringing Lou, and will always ring, not only because it has the apostolic authority of Paul, but also the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself--not to mention God the Father, whose command is everlasting life.
" 44 Then Jesus cried out and said, w“He who believes in Me, xbelieves not in Me ybut in Him who sent Me. 45 And zhe who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 aI have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not 7believe, bI do not judge him; for cI did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 dHe who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— ethe word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For fI have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, gwhat I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I hspeak.”
Looking forward to hearing your answer to my question Lou. But why is it that Dr Lybrand always seems to prefer letting you answer FOR him? That's a question that intrigued me back in April...and still does.
Hi Gary,
You said that there is actually a lot of variety in the information preached in Acts. That was an amazing new thought! I plan to look more carefully at Acts sometime soon and see if I can compare and contrast them better. That was awesome....
:D
Yes Michele, it's a fascinating study. Look into it more and let me know what you see. See if you notice a recurring statement in Acts that tells you what the goal or purpose of their varied messages was. What were they trying to persuade the people to believe? Oh well, I'll just give you a clue...read about Paul's very first sermon after he was saved here: Acts 9:20-22. Then compare that with John's purpose statement in Jn. 20:31. Then compare with other sermons in Acts. It seems they preached everything under the sun, as long as it had something to do with who Jesus is and what He wanted to do for "whosoever believes in Him." Acts 16:31.
Gary, I have so much to learn. :( :) You've given some good ones to think about.
To backstop what Gary just said:
Acts is part II of Luke. It's written to a young man who has been catechized in the basics of the faith (see Lu.1:1-4) but needs a deeper grounding in the events that have happened before him. (There's a case, if someone wants to make it, for the study of church history.)
The key theme in Acts is the unimpeded spread of the gospel, and you see it in summary statements throughout the book: 2:41-47, 4:4, 4:31, 5:12-16, 42, 8:4, and so on right on up to 28:30-31.
Theophilus is clearly meant to take part in the spread of the gospel, and Acts gives him the history of how that has happened up to this point, principally following the ministries of Peter and Paul. These men, then, furnish models for Theophilus to emulate as he joins in the task -- which means that they also furnish models for us, and we ought to study them closely.
These accounts of evangelism in Acts are not, by any means, beside the point. They are central to the purpose of the book, and the major application, for Theophilus or anyone else, is "Go thou and do likewise."
-Tim
Gary,
I did post it...I was just out of commission for a couple of days. I just read this post now...
Thanks,
FRL
Dr Lybrand,
My apology. I seem to recall that you were also out of commission for a few days during your invitation to discuss your "Open Letter" back in April. I understand that things happen. It's just that when one has, for example, been invited for a visit to a friends house, you don't expect for them to just disappear for a few days without a word of notice. But that's ok, you're back now and that's what matters most.
So now that you're back in commission, would you be interested in offering an answer to the question I asked you, Kev, and LM?:
Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again.
This question only occurred to me as a result of witnessing a relentless barrage of attacks and ridicule heaped upon Jim and others on your blog while you were out of commission, much like what occurred back in April while you were out of commission.
It' not that I'm really interested in getting into a debate about the passage, I simply want to know if there IS such a passage, since I and many others have been unable to find it for several years now. As Kev and LM said to Jim: "What trouble must one go to in order to answer the question? The Apostle Paul surely didn’t need to spend three weeks preparing the Jailer for his answer… Maybe Jim is no Apostle, and that’s OK… but here’s a thought… if Jim agreed with the Apostle he could simply QUOTE the Apostle…"
Ok, I answered their question. But I haven't seen either of them answer mine as of yet. Will you?
One more thing--I noticed a great statement you made on your blog today:
"So, my request is to interact with the player’s in the blog…or offering quotes from the major players int he recent discussion.
I’ll give me for an example. I won’t say anything mean-spirited about Bob or Zane…not simply because of my love and admiration for them, but also because of my deep grief over there changed path in recent years.
God get’s to judge so I don’t have to. If it is possible, lets just stay with the facts (our opinions are fine too if they aren’t malicious) and see what we can learn."
Have you ever mentioned this to Lou Martuneac? Did you mention it to him back in April when you were fellowshipping with him on his blog? Or when you were allowing him to bombard your blogs for days (even weeks?) with cut and paste spam attacking Zane, Bob, GES and others? For example, have you ever talked with LM about statements such as this: "Well, we’re sure to see more of Nichol’s beating his chest, but make no mistake… The GES is a shrinking cell of theological extremists. Their mounting heresies and poor behavior, as exemplified (once again) in these discussions, is inching GES closer to cardiac arrest and eventual dissolution." LM
For me personally, Lou's reference to the "cardiac arrest" of the GES touched a somewhat sensitive nerve for me, as I'm sure it did for many other's who loved and were blessed by gracious and honorable servant of Jesus Christ--one Zane Hodges. Of course, Lm has become notorious in the blogosphere for such remarks and most have become de-sensitized to it over time. But as one who "won’t say anything mean-spirited about Bob or Zane…not simply because of my love and admiration for them, but also because of my deep grief over there changed path in recent years"...How do you feel about these kind of statements--the kind of statements Lou has been making for years, not only on his blog, but your blog and every other blog he can get his foot in--even the ones he's been repeatedly and politely asked to cease and desist from posting all his harassing and hateful spam and propaganda on?
What say you Dr Lybrand?
Oh...and I also love this comment by you:
"In fact, I am a fan of open discussion in the public forum…and I’ll defend everyone’s right to say whatever they want within the bound of decency (my decision) or slander (the court’s decision)."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc
Gary,
You said---
Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again.
......
I believe it is pretty easy to show a passage that does, but why the limit to a sentence or a paragraph?
Thanks,
FRL
Dr Lybrand,
Yes, my question was and is: "Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again."
Your answer: "I believe it is pretty easy to show a passage that does"
So where is it? Will you show me since it is easy?
Remember, this all began with me giving an answer to a question that Kevin Lane and Lou Martuneac were demanding that Jim Reitman and Tim Nichols answer on your blog. I will quote them for you again:
Kevin Lane said: "What trouble must one go to in order to answer the question? The Apostle Paul surely didn’t need to spend three weeks preparing the Jailer for his answer… Maybe Jim is no Apostle, and that’s OK… but here’s a thought… if Jim agreed with the Apostle he could simply QUOTE the Apostle…"
Then Lou Martuneac said: "Kev, you did well to cite Paul’s encounter with the Philippian jailer. The question was asked and the Apostle’s answer came right out and rings throughout history. But the GES Crossless people will not answer because they are threatened by their own fear of being transparent with their reductionism,..."
Even though I, like Jim, am no Apostle, I answered the question of Kev and Lou as follows: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved...(Acts 16:31).
Yes Lou, you're right, the answer "just came right out and rings throughout history." And yes, Kev, that was a great thought you had--more than great. I'm glad you and Lou finally agree that the answer of the Apostle Paul and the GES is not heresy after all, but the exact same answer that Jesus Christ Himself gave in the Gospel of John... and which still "rings throughout history."
So Dr Lybrand, if it's not any trouble answering my easy question, and you have the time, I would be more than grateful for your answer.
Thanks,
GOE
Kev said this at Fred's blog:
Lou you said,
Oh and isn’t it instructive that the GES Crossless gospel people, like Gary, are demanding answers from us to their question(s), but give Jim Reitman a pass when he has obviously dodged answering Fred’s question that a 9yo boy did not hesitate to answer? Double-standard, eh?
YES it is instructive.
What is ALSO instructive (and I truly don’t mean this to be prideful) is that we have numerous people on this side who are all able to answer these questions over and over again.
Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what we’re being asked.. but I think it is MOST INSTRUCTIVE that you, I, Jan, Fred, Stephen… (I’m forgetting someone…) are able to answer questions no matter who they are asked of?
For some very unique reason we don’t find ourselves contradicting each other.. or trying not to be precise and clear…
Of course I recognize that we are all at different points in our study and there are things we don’t understand and/or can not properly express.
But what is MOST INSTRUCTIVE is that we answer all the questions given to us… even the ones that we can tell are not asked in good faith.
Yes Lou, it is instructive that these people demand answers to all sorts of questions but don’t think a person has to answer the most important question in a person’s life – “What must I do to be saved?”
What a saddly instructive point you’ve made. Yes I’m hammering it in.
Why would one want details to the N’th degree on various related and unrelated questions but not care about the answer to the question that determines where a person’s SOUL will spend Eternity?
Diabolical,
Kev
Diabolical...Yes, Kev, that should be obvious to everyone by now.
Dr Lybrand,
I forgot to answer your question to me:
"...but why the limit to a sentence or a paragraph?"
My answer:
Why don't you ask Lou and Kev that question since that is exactly what they were demanding of Jim and Tim. They were specifically referring to Acts 16 and the Philippian jailers question to Paul. Is that not a one sentence answer Paul gave? Yet I even offered you a whole paragraph for an answer. Furthermore, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when your most avid supporters make absurd and disingenuous statements such as this one Lou Martuneac made:
"But the GES Crossless people will not answer because they are threatened by their own fear of being transparent with their reductionism..."
What!? "Threatened by their own fear" of quoting Acts 16:31? Everyone knows that the GES has been referencing this verse for years. Bob Wilkin has even referred to it as the "Jn 3:16 of the book of Acts", yet Lou is saying that "the GES Crossless people will not answer (the jailers question) because they are threatened by their own fear of being transparent with their reductionism..."???
So if someone answers the question Kev and Lou asked with Paul's answer then they are branded as "heretics and reductionists". If they don't answer then Lou and Kev then pretend they agree with Paul's answer and say the person is afraid to answer because they don't "agree with the Apostle."
"Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said...But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, 'Why are you testing me you hypocrites?" Matt. 22:15-18
Gary,
I'm asking the question of you because you brought it up. It actually feels a little tricky to me to reduce it to a sentence or a paragraph. Honestly, I'm not interested in your anger towards these men (though I do wonder if it is serving you well).
The Bible lays things out in full thoughts...taking a single text to elevate as 'the' proof text is a long-standing mistake we've all made through the years.
Proof texts are OK...except the context is everything.
Frankly, if we follow this line of thought, why don't we reduce it to a word (not just a sentence or a paragraph)? Jesus. Christ. Faith. The Good Shepherd (phrase). The Messiah(phrase). The Anointed One(phrase).
All of these could serve as clear enough with the content inherent within (necessary for) the term.
Your question was:
"Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again."
........................
Why not a book of the Bible? Why not a Chapter? I still am wrestling with why you are keeping it to a sentence or paragraph (paragraphs really isn't how it was structured).
Would you mind a whole passage? Would you mind a chapter?
Thanks much,
FRL
Dr Lybrand,
Thanks for the response and I appreciate the questions you've asked. Even though I'm aware you have a PhD in Theology and have no need for me to explain this to you, for the sake of other readers, I will elaborate a little further about why I asked the question the way I did. I can assure you that my question is both sincere and has absolutely nothing to do with "anger" toward any man, so your lack of interest in something which doesn't exist and which is entirely irrelevant to my question is of no interest to me either. But as I told you when I asked the question, I'll be more than grateful for your response.
You said: "Why not a book of the Bible? Why not a Chapter? I still am wrestling with why you are keeping it to a sentence or paragraph (paragraphs really isn't how it was structured). Would you mind a whole passage? Would you mind a chapter?"
I'm sure you already know this, but again, for the sake of any one who doesn't let me first say this: the New Testament as originally written was, in fact, structured in paragraphs. The verse and chapter divisions we have in our English bibles are artificial, and can actually be a hindrance in understanding the flow of thought as originally intended by the writers of the NT. In light of that, I'm puzzled about why you would say: "(paragraphs really isn't how it was structured)." Even though I don't know Greek nearly well enough to read the Greek text, I've nevertheless always found it helpful to keep the paragraph divisions of the Greek text in mind while doing my reading and studies of the English translations. I make a conscious effort to ignore the chapter divisions as we have them in our modern translations. That being said, let me get to the heart of your question...and my question.
My original question was this: ""Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again."
As we all know, the issue in dispute in the FG movement is about the Content of Saving Faith (COSF), i.e., what precisely must a person know, understand, and believe in order to be born again and pass from death into life. Since the eternal destiny of all of us depends upon the answer to this question, it only stands to reason that if Gods desires the salvation of every person as much as the scriptures say He does, and the salvation of each individual depends upon knowing the precise answer to what one must know, understand, and believe to be saved, we would expect Him to have clearly given us an answer to this question. If He did, it also seems reasonable to expect that we would find Him doing just that in at least one place in the NT scriptures, i.e. there would at least be one place where this was explicitly, clearly and precisely stated, e.g., in at least one paragraph of at least one book of the NT. Furthermore, since the early church did not have the complete canon of NT scripture available to them as we do today, it would seem even more likely that we would find at least one place in some book of the NT where the complete COSF is clearly and unambiguously stated and explained to it's originally intended recipients. I am personally convinced that we do, in fact, find such a place...and not just a sentence or paragraph, but an entire book--the Gospel of John, after all, that's why John wrote the book. It is that clearly stated purpose of John that makes his book uniquely significant in the entire canon of scripture. It seems equally evident that the rest of the NT was written and circulated among people who were already born again believers for the purpose of further teaching, instruction, and spiritual growth.
So that brings me to my main point in asking you the question as I did. On one side of this debate over the COSF, we have people who emphasize and give great weight to the Gospel of John. Their reason and justification for do so is obvious and compelling as I've already explained. The only alternative to doing this is what we find on the other side of this controversy--those who are essentially trying to piece together a list of things which must be believed drawn from various verses or passages of scripture scattered here and there and taken from books that were written to people who had already been born again. I'm not aware of any of these verses or passages which explicitly state that the UNBELIEVER must understand and believe ALL these things that have been patched together to be born again. That's why I'm asking you the question I asked. This approach to answering the COSF question has, in my opinion, been appropriately and accurately referred to by some as a "scavenger hunt" to find the saving message that God requires the unbeliever to know, understand, and believe. In other words, God, according to this view, has not told us how to be saved in any one place, but has essentially put the burden on us to find and put together all the right pieces of the puzzle in order to know, understand, and believe what will determine our eternal destiny. As we would expect, it's a well known fact that among those of who are advocating this approach to answering the COSF issue there is no agreement about what constitutes the correct or complete answer. There are many different "puzzles" that have been put together in piecemeal fashion and offered to people as the answer to the most important question ever asked by any human being: "What must I do to be saved?". We have been given what appears to be a multitude of different and often contradictory "lists" of things which must be known, understood, and believed in order to be saved. Some tell us there are 4 things on the list, some say 5, some 6, and so on. Indeed, there are even some who tell us that everything in scripture must be included on the list. Furthermore, even if there were agreement on the things to be included on the "list", there is no agreement on how much or in what sense each of these things must be understood and believed. In the first place, the fact that each of these "lists" are primarily pieced together from books of the NT written to born again believers should make these "lists" highly suspect from the beginning, because if these these things must be known, understood, and believed by the UNBELIEVER, why was there any need to instruct those who ALREADY knew, understood, and believed these things? At yet it is from these very books written to teach born again believers that the various pieces of the "puzzle" have been assimilated from. The fact that there are so many different opinions about what the true and correct puzzle IS should indicate, at least to me, just how arbitrary, unreliable... indeed treacherous, this type of approach really is in view of what's at stake. The consequences for believing the wrong message are eternal. The impact and implications of all this on the question of ASSURANCE is disastrous. How do we know we have understood and believed enough of the right things in order to be saved? And no matter which of the "gospels we choose to believe, aren't we forced to put our trust in the men who are telling us this is the "true gospel"?
Dr Lybrand, I ask you as a reasonable, educated, and I believe, sincere man...does this way of determining what it is God wants to us to know about the most important question in life make any sense to you? Are we to place our confidence in any of the puzzles that have been put together by fallible men in this fashion? Can we really have complete confidence that we can stake our eternal destiny, and ASSURANCE of our eternal destiny, on any of these "Gospels"? And can we have confidence that such "Gospels" have the authority of God in our preaching to other men? The reason I asked you the question I did is because, in my opinion, it would at least give SOME credibility to those take such an approach to the Gospel, those who apparently are not willing to acknowledge and give due weight to the authority of John's Gospel, if at least ONE clear and definitive passage of scripture, such a paragraph, could be shown anywhere in scripture that meets the conditions of the question I asked. I hear certain people cite a passage here and there from various books written to people who were already born again believers, and then making a huge and unwarranted leap of logic in then saying that this or that particular truth must also be understood and believed by the UNBELIEVER in order to be born again. But the truth is these passages do NOT say that! That is why the question I asked is worded the way it is: "Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again." If such a passage cannot be shown anywhere in scripture, we are only left with fallible men using a scavenger hunt methodology and then telling us to trust THEM that they are right. That does not cut it for me, and should not cut it for any sane person
You also said this:
"The Bible lays things out in full thoughts...taking a single text to elevate as 'the' proof text is a long-standing mistake we've all made through the years. Proof texts are OK...except the context is everything."
Yes, Dr. Lybrand, you have put your finger (inadvertently) on EXACTLY the point of my question! Is it not obvious that , in fact, it is those such as yourself, who advocate the piecemeal "scavenger hunt" approach to the COSF, who are doing this very thing? But the problem is even further compounded because it's not just "a single text" that is taken out of context and used as a "proof-text"... but MANY texts. Yes, context is, as you say, EVERYTHING. And the only book in the NT written for the purpose of evangelism provides us with just such a context. Has not God done precisely what we would reasonably expect Him to do in giving us a whole book which focuses primarily on this most important of all questions-- what we must do to be born again and saved from eternal destruction? And yet, I have only asked you for a single sentence or paragraph from any place in the entire Bible which explicitly and clearly states whatever "checklist" saving message you have chosen to believe in and proclaim to others. In other words, if you could produce just one passage of scripture which validates the patchwork list "gospel" made up from scattered "proof-texts", it might give you a leg to stand on as far as credibility goes. Without that all you have is a patchwork synthetic gospel made up of verses taken out of context from books written to people who were already born again, and none of which say that all these different things must be believed by the unbeliever to be born again. So when you suggest that I'm trying to "trick you", I can't help but wonder-- who is tricking who?
Accordingly, it would seem the burden of proof rightly belongs to those who are not giving the Gospel of John the weight and respect it deserves in view of the explicitly and clearly stated purpose of the Apostle John when he writes: "But these things have been written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing that you might have life in His Name." No other book in scripture makes this claim. For those who say that a "dispensational change" has occurred, the burden of proof also lies with them to produce at least one passage of scripture which clearly says this is so. But then they would also have to explain why John wrote his Gospel during the present dispensation in the first place, and yet never once even mentions this supposed dispensational change--nor is it recorded anywhere that Jesus Christ Himself ever mentions it. If you dispute this, then I ask you again: Show it to me from any where in scripture.
Dr Lybrand, I'm asking you once again: ""Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again." Without such a passage, all you are left with is a lot scattered "proof-texts", as you rightly pointed out, and none of which say what you and others claim they say.
If I have not convinced you of anything else, my hope is that you have no doubt that my question was not only legitimate and sincere, but that it's a question that any reasonable person should expect to be answered by anyone who is asking them to "repent" for basing their hope of eternal life on simple faith in Jesus the Christ...and the simple words of promise He makes to "whosoever believes in Him." Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 11:25-27; 20:31, etc. If you can answer my question and prove that your man-made patchwork list of additional requirements must be understood and believed then your position might have some credibility. Scripture clearly tells us that the object of saving faith is Jesus Christ Himself. It never once tells us more is required in the form of any "list" of orthodox truths about Jesus Christ that must be believed to be born again. To claim that it does is to go beyond what God's word actually tells us and replace it with a man-made "gospel" based solely on human tradition. The various "lists that you and others are saying the lost person must believe are largely taken from context of passages written only to born again believers. But if you can produce such a verse or passage that tells us that your patchwork gospel is true, then that's all I'm asking you to do. But then you're going to have a major problem with those who have a different list than you do, aren't you? I suppose you will just have to work that problem out for yourself if you decide to answer my question. Of course, if you would decide to listen to the Gospel of John, your problem would solved.
Please bear in mind that I am a lay-person who has no formal theological training, I'm just doing the best I can to understand these issues, as I know many others are. If you really think I'm trying to "trick you", perhaps you could humor yourself and me just a bit and answer my question? If there IS an answer, I really would like to know what it is and take it into serious consideration. This the now the at 3 times I've asked you this and I confused about why you seem to be so hesitant to just give simple answer. I didn't intend to pester you with the question, but since you keep responding by asking ME questions, I assume it's ok with you if I ask again after I've tried to answer YOUR question. I hope have have sufficiently answered your question to me and allayed any suspicions you have expressed about my motives for asking. Actually, it is not a question that is original with me, but one I have heard asked before but as yet have never heard answered in any credible way. The only answer I've ever heard offered thus far is 1 Cor 15:1-11, but I've never heard any remotely convincing explanation of how that passage meets the criteria of the question. But, of course, I suppose that would largely depend on which particular patchwork Gospel among many one is trying to extract from that passage.
Once more, the question is: "Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again."
I thank you for your time.
GOE
Gary,
I appreciate your admission to not being trained theologically. While I don't see that training as essential to understanding, I do see that training as helpful in dissecting and communicating about these issues. James warns that there should not be many teachers (James 3) because of His judgment about what is taught. I fear at times the blog-world is cultivating such an opportunity for many to become teachers who have not been called to it. Lest anyone miss my point; we all need to take James 3:1 to heart and be humble and cautious in our discussions about God’s Word.
Every view of the gospel by which we are saved from hell to heaven is a 'patchwork'...in other words, the nature of God's word is such that it fits together as He gives us information from a number of points...like looking at a statue from many angles to understand the whole.
My friends who hold to a single verse (John 3:16, for example), must also have other passages giving information about the words / content involved. No verse fully and completely ever stands alone in the analogy of scripture.
As to John 3:16:
Who is this God?
What is love?
What is the world? (most Calvinists think this is the elect only)
How did He give?
Who is His Only Son?
What does Believe in Him mean?
Not perish from what?
What is Everlasting Life?
All of this info, and much more from language is vital to understand and embrace the gospel.
Even if the gospel is about trusting a promise or a person as opposed to propositions...there is still vital information needed for definition and understanding.
I still really don't know why you think your question is helpful to you or why you think it makes a point.
It would be on the order of someone taking it as:
If you don't have the gospel in a particular part, then you don't have the gospel in the whole (sum of the parts, etc.).
Of course, that is mistaken.
The other path is to think that 'I have the gospel in this particular part (spot, sentence, paragraph), so I don't need to think about it as a whole.
With all of that said, I think the gospel is clearly in view and the info is shared in key paragraphs of John 3, John 6, John 10, Romans 5/5 (end of 4 and beginning of 5), along with 1 Corinthians 15 as you mention. These passages contain the basics of what you need to know to be born again.
All of the NT books (especially) were intended to be read as a whole, not as a division of verses and 'paragraphs' (I assume you think these match pericopes…which they don’t necessarily).
I believe John and Romans especially give us the gospel (but I'd include many others as well) in a complete and direct way. Again, these books were given as a whole, not to be a listing of verses to prove on particular thing.
Hope this helps.
God bless,
FRL
(Please forgive me, Gary, I know this is your conversation with Fred, but I just want to register my delight at the way Fred has brought up the gospel of John and 3:16 in particular, as well as the key role played by Romans and I Cor.)
Hi Fred,
The questions you ask about the referents in Jn 3:16 are right on, and when they are answered by appealing to both near and distant context in the canonical Scriptures, this verse can indeed bring eternal life through faith alone in Christ alone. That is precisely what I hope to do in the current dialogue you are hosting at your site. Thanks for that opportunity, even though both of us are taking some significant flak in this enterprise.
It seems to me that such further inquiry in context is what has been missing in the debate so far, and I was intrigued by the similar tack Bob Wilkin himself took in the lead article of the latest Grace in Focus newsletter. To say I was pleasantly surprised would be an understatement. I look forward to continuing the current discussion.
(Thanks for your indulgence, Gary.)
Dr Lybrand,
I have another admission to make. I already knew that you either would not or could not answer my question from the time I asked it--the question you said was "PRETTY EASY" to answer. I certainly understand why you don't LIKE the question, as I've already explained in my previous comment. I also knew that you would again misconstrue what I said as you've also always misconstrued the teaching of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and many others. Apparently you either don't understand what they really believe and teach and/or you simply don't want to understand. While I don't disagree with everything you've said, I certainly don't agree with everything either. But my interaction with you has shed some new light for me on Zane Hodges' reasons, which are well known, for refusing to get a doctorate in theology, even though it would have been better than a piece of cake for him to have done so. Since there have already been better and more capable men than myself who have already humbly and graciously attempted to reason with and help you untangle your confused soteriology and hermenuetic method, this has obviously gone as far as it needs to go between you and I.
When it comes to the question of what and how much a person must know, understand, and believe to be born again, the Gospel of John is indeed a "stand alone" book. If the Gospel of John is not sufficient BY ITSELF to evangelize any person, then both John and the Holy Spirit failed to accomplish the clearly stated purpose for which it was written (Jn. 20:31). Does that mean that the rest of scripture is not important or cannot also be used by the Holy Spirit to evangelize a person. Of course not, and neither I nor anyone else that I'm aware of who believes and preaches the so-called "Crossless Gospel", aka "GES Gospel", believes or has ever said such a preposterous thing. I have made it very clear in my comments above that I believe we are called to preach all of scripture, or as I said above-"everthing under the sun"-- just like the Apostles did. Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin et al, believed in doing the same, contrary to the thoroughly disingenuous impression you and others sometimes try to make with your "straw man" misrepresentations of their teaching. My pastor went to Dallas Theological Seminary and studied under Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and other great teachers of God's word. So did my my best friend, who also has a PhD in Theology from the University of Aberdeen. Neither one of them have a horse in this race, but their impression as bystanders looking in seems to be that this whole shameful controversy is so absurd and bizarre that they're wondering if certain people have completely lost their minds. I myself am close to the point of not even wondering.
Dr Lybrand cont'd:
Since you have been very blunt with me here in your opening "pericope", I will be equally blunt with you:
Are you trying to intimidate me Fred?
No doubt there are many things I'm not looking forward to giving an account of at the Judgement Seat of Christ, but my position on the Gospel of John, and more specifically, the promise of Jesus the Christ is not something I'm concerned about since I'm already basing my eternal destiny on that very thing. So you know what Dr Lybrand? A few days ago you posted this on your blog:
"In fact, I am a fan of open discussion in the public forum…and I’ll defend everyone’s right to say whatever they want within the bound of decency (my decision) or slander (the court’s decision)."
My answer to you then was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc
Today you say this to me:
"I appreciate your admission to not being trained theologically. While I don't see that training as essential to understanding, I do see that training as helpful in dissecting and communicating about these issues. James warns that there should not be many teachers (James 3) because of His judgment about what is taught. I fear at times the blog-world is cultivating such an opportunity for many to become teachers who have not been called to it. Lest anyone miss my point; we all need to take James 3:1 to heart and be humble and cautious in our discussions about God’s Word."
No, Dr Lybrand, you can be fully assured I have not missed your point. Want to know just how seriously I take your point? Come and visit me here:
http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/2009/10/holy-bible-king-james-version-ezekiel.html
GOE
Dr Lybrand,
Your first response to the question I asked was this:
Gary, You said—
" Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again. "…… I believe it is pretty easy to show a passage that does, but why the limit to a sentence or a paragraph?”
Thanks, FRL
Now, several responses later, with me trying to answer YOUR questions, it is plain to see from going back over your comments that you have still not answered my question...a question that you said in your first response is "PRETTY EASY" to answer. Either you can answer the question or you can't. So what gives...which is it?
Maybe this would be a good time to give us a practical demonstration of the "Transcendent Power of Honesty" you spoke about at the FGA conference. Would that be possible?
GOE
Oh, and if you want to call it a "passage" that would do just fine. Even a pericope will do... I just want to know where this passage or pericope is located so I can study it.
GOE
Gary,
From my earlier posts...here's where you can begin to study.
With all of that said, I think the gospel is clearly in view and the info is shared in key paragraphs of John 3, John 6, John 10, Romans 5/5 (end of 4 and beginning of 5), along with 1 Corinthians 15 as you mention.
Thanks,
FRL
Dr Lybrand,
I didn't ask you for your man-made 5-piece patchwork COSF, I asked for ONE passage and you said that it would be "PRETTY EASY TO SHOW." Now, after wasting my time wading through all of your smoke and mirrors, you admit that you have no single passage to show. Why couldn't you have just admitted that from the start? After all, you shouldn't feel threatened by a simple question like that should you? Well, at least we have that much settled and on the table now, even though extracting it from you was harder than pulling a tooth.
I think you desperately need to go back to school and get a refresher course in hermeneutics...your PhD is obviously not serving you well.
"Transcendent Power of Honesty" ? :D
Thank you very much.
GOE
Dr Lybrand,
p.s.---and not even your 5 pieces say what you claim they say, i.e.--that an unbeliever must know, understand, and believe all these things to be born again. In fact, the Gospel of John and the rest of scripture powerfully refutes it. But then, someone would need an elementary level of competence in hermeneutics to understand that.
It must be a really tough job patching together enough of the right pieces to make all the many different checklist advocates happy...so I feel for you Dr Lybrand...you've got your hands full for sure.
GOE
Fred,
I really don't mean to be unkind, but I hope you will forgive me if this attempt to ask you a simple question has left me feeling exasperated.
Gary,
You said,
I really don't mean to be unkind, but I hope you will forgive me if this attempt to ask you a simple question has left me feeling exasperated.
........
In all honesty you really do come across somewhat unkind, and exasperated, from the very beginning.
As I looked over my comments, all I can see is that you misunderstood me when I said,
With all of that said, I think the gospel is clearly in view and the info is shared in key paragraphs of John 3, John 6, John 10, Romans 5/5 (end of 4 and beginning of 5), along with 1 Corinthians 15 as you mention.
What I actually meant was that you can pick ANY ONE of these passages. I didn't mean that you had to put them all together. Each of these passage seems to have the basics necessary for salvation.
Hope this helps & sorry to exasperate you,
FRL
Dr Lybrand,
You said: "In all honesty you really do come across somewhat unkind, and exasperated, from the very beginning. Well Fred, if I've come across to you as unkind I apologize. But I can't honesty say that you've made the best impression on me either, so I guess we'll just have to let it go at that. But exasperated...yes, I would have to confess to being more than exasperated...and increasingly so the more I go in circles with you.
You said:"What I actually meant was that you can pick ANY ONE of these passages. I didn't mean that you had to put them all together. Each of these passage seems to have the basics necessary for salvation. Hope this helps & sorry to exasperate you,"
Oh..."seems to have the basics necessary for salvation." That's all you have to say? And I'm supposed to respond to that? Alright, I'll respond: NOT ONE of these passages, taken either separately OR together, meets the criteria of my question. There you go Fred. If you can make bare assertions without any attempt to explain or prove your point, then I'm going to answer back in kind. Why in the world would I ever attempt to explain to you why these passages actually refute your position when you haven't even made any attempt to demonstrate why they support your position? I have spent considerable time trying to respond to all your empty assertions and questions to me, and what do I go back? More empty assertions. So, am I supposed to apologize again for feeling exasperated Fred?
I have a suggestion for you. Go back to your blog and shut down those "companion" threads and then continue your "dialogue" with Jim Reitman. Those companion threads are worthless and only serve as a meaningless distraction to what could be a profitable discussion between you and Jim... if it were conducted with any integrity. Would you consider doing that? I think it would be a remarkable demonstration of good faith on your part if you would follow up with your promise to Jim and finish this dialogue with him. Make your case for these passages you claim prove your "checklist" to him, and then allow him show you why you are mistaken.
If you will clean up your blog for just long enough to finish this dialogue with Jim without all the riff-raff screaming from the bleachers, it would go a long way toward giving you some semblance of credibility. What occurred on your blog back in April was a pure debacle, and the same has been happening there again, as I knew it would.
I really don't have anymore time to waste here, but if you decide to follow through with Jim I'll be watching and reading. You can say whatever you want about me, but is there any doubt that Jim has been anything but humble and gracious towards you...AND ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES THAT HAVE BEEN RELENTLESSLY ATTACKING HIM? That speaks volumes Fred. And yet you come here and complain about me being unkind and exasperated for trying to get you to answer a question all by myself. Has anyone been ganging up on you here Fred?? Have even I been calling you a heretic and castigating you here the way you are allowing them to do Jim. If I were Jim I would separate myself as far as possible from you people and never set foot on your blog again. But I guess Jim is just a bigger man than me, because he's probably still willing to try and reason with men who conduct themselves like a bunch of common thugs.
The first "companion thread" at your blog began on Sept 24th. I deliberately stayed out of it for 6 days until Sept 30th while I watched all your friends and allies carry on as if it were an inquisition of Jim--demanding answers to their absurd questions. My FIRST post was this on Sept. 30th:
Kev,
You said this to Tim: “What trouble must one go to in order to answer the question? The Apostle Paul surely didn’t need to spend three weeks preparing the Jailer for his answer… Maybe Jim is no Apostle, and that’s OK… but here’s a thought… if Jim agreed with the Apostle he could simply QUOTE the Apostle…”
OK Kev, I’ll QUOTE the Apostle: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved…”
There it is Kev, no problem… and I just read your comment to Tim 5 minutes ago.
Now here’s a question for you: Show me a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the Bible that lists all of the things one must believe to be born again, and which says that one must believe all these things in order to be born again.
I’ll even give you three weeks to answer Kev. Should be simple enough right? Like you said to Tim, if you agree with scripture you should be able to simply QUOTE the scripture.
If you can’t answer this question in three weeks maybe should stop asking them."
Now, here we are, 8 days later and the inquisition of Jim has continued. Fred, the reason I was making the posts I made here during that time was so that hopefully you would get the message that you needed to put a stop to the carnival and mugging that was taking place on your blog and simply have a dialogue with Jim like you promised. I figured that if you were going to allow the same circus to take place that you allowed back in April, then we might as well have one here too. But as soon as I saw the slightest sign of good faith on your part I discontinued my posting here and even went back and deleted all my comments except for one. Not until recently have I had any involvement at your blog at all. I've mainly just wasted my time here trying to get a straight answer from you about a question I asked 8 days ago. I only asked that question in the first place because it seemed only fair and appropriate that if Jim was going to be bombarded and harassed with a question about the COSF, then maybe my question about the COSF equally legitimate.
Well, I've wasted all the time I'm going to waste trying to get a reasonable answer. Take it up with Jim, Fred...like you promised 2 weeks ago. And it would be a giant step in the right direction if you started speaking for yourself and stopped letting your circus lion(s) speak for you.
GOE
Dr Lybrand,
I saw this comment by you this morning on your blog and I just want you to know that I am very encouraged to hear you say this. I think you have taken a big step in the right direction and I admire your courage and the integrity you are demonstrating in trying to clean up your blog. If you can stop the witch-hunt and inquisition that has been taking place there it would be a huge encouragement to all of us... especially, I'm sure, to Jim Reitman, who has patiently and graciously endured much abuse on your blog.
Just wanted you to know how much I appreciate this demonstration of good faith and integrity on your part. And I loved the Monte Python clip which I thought was so apropros.
Thank you,
GOE
Here is your comment:
To All,
As I’ve taken some time to scroll through these comments and I’m oddly surprised that I’m surprised (despite turning 51 this Sunday).
Honestly there is a silliness in the ad hominem stuff I see here. Frankly, the various inferences (and attacks) have no place here or anywhere. You guys are simply wrong to get onto people instead of the arguments.
None of you are in one another’s churches (or towns for that matter). The stuff some of you purport is actually none of your business.
I don’t mean to make this stuff light because some of it is criminal (or at least Tort-worthy). The fact is that you could just simply deal with the arguments instead of attacking the person.
Honestly some of you come across incredibly mean-spirited (It’s pretty obvious who all it is). Why not just stop it? Why would the Spirit of God lead you to act this way?
Think about the following:
” Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.” (2 Corinthians 13:11, ESV)
Perhaps these issues are of great importance and are of great value…maybe they are worth the ire because you hurt for what you believe.
Yet, the way it feels…it looks like a witchhunt…and I’m a newt!
Here’s the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
Why not apologize and stop it?
Thanks,
FRL
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. From TheFreeDictionary
correction---I meant "apropos"...not "apropros"
Dr Lybrand,
I just want to add that I believe your former friend and mentor Zane Hodges would be proud of you too.
I'm starting to see God's hand in all this, because we know how much He values love and reconciliation between brothers and sisters and Christ.
Thanks again, and I'm sorry if I had the wrong impression about you.
GOE
Open Letter to Dr Fred Lybrand
http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-dr-fred-lybrand_2899.html
GOE
Open Letter to Dr Lybrand -- Part 2
http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/2009/10/monty-python-witch-scene_12.html
GOE
Post a Comment