GES Heresy
The Unashamed of Grace blog has me in their blogroll as an "enemy of free grace theology". Well I guess I am more so an enemy of the GES version of the Gospel. And, as such, I wish to share a link here to Jonathan Moorhead's blog where the GES is under the microscope. I am troubled that friends and many other Christians are getting caught up in this heresy.
Here is the link... http://jmoorhead.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-this-heresy.html
Mark
Labels: GES Heresy
posted by mark pierson at 11:54 AM
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 24, 2008 4:06 PM
Hi Mark:
I am glad you linked to Moorhead’s Is This Heresy? That thread was very helpful in exposing and affirming the heretical views of the GES, as expressed by its most vocal and vitriolic apologist, Antonio da Rosa.
May I, however, encourage you to add a note to and/or revise your article? I have been doing what I can to help everyone in the debate understand that the heretical view of the Gospel from GES (Hodges & Wilkin) is NOT representative of a great many men in the Free Grace community.
The GES and it advocates do NOT speak for or represent any one outside the shrinking cell of GES extremists.
You can read my article Is “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?
This will help everyone to understand that there is a fracture in the Free Grace community, which is the result of the egregious errors coming from GES.
It is a serious misnomer that GES is the voice of the FG community at large. Many FG pastors and teachers do NOT want their names or ministries identified with Hodges, Wilkin or GES.
Thanks for considering helping us make right this misunderstanding.
Finally, I wrote a summary article of the thread, Is it Heresy? It is titled, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Confirmed!
Lou Martuneac
May 24, 2008 4:10 PM
Mark,
I agree with your assessment and I hope that people will see the GES free grace gospel as an unbiblical powerless gospel that denies the power of God in regeneration and sanctification. It also insults the person (deity) and work (crosswork) of Jesus as mere nuances that may or may not be understood or believed. Then if that were not enough it renders sin and repentance as something not necessary for an unbeliever to understand in coming to faith and later sanctification.
I am glad to see widespread agreement over at the Moor that it is indeed a heresy...........
wayne
May 24, 2008 11:12 PM
Wayne:
You wrote, “It also insults the person (deity) and work (crosswork) of Jesus as mere nuances that may or may not be understood or believed.”
The “nuance of doctrine” is how Rose puts it. It is incredible that their egregious errors and dangerous implications can be dismissed as "nuance,” as if their view is an acceptable interpretation of the biblical plan of salvation. Rose is also on record saying that these teachings are just “theory”.
I want to encourage you to keep identifying the GES’s Crossless gospel as unique to them alone. Many men who identify themselves with the Free Grace movement reject and do NOT want to be identified with the GES and/or its egregious errors.
Thanks,
LM
May 25, 2008 8:20 AM
“nuance of doctrine”...“theory”.
That is not how her champion presents things.
There is a whole elaborate system behind both positions (Antonio's and mine). To go about refuting the other side one must do so systematically. When one system nails the other's position to the wall, and does so systematically, then there is no place for being able to squirm away from having been nailed to the wall by claiming “nuance of doctrine”or“theory”.
May 25, 2008 2:39 PM
The dictionary says the following:
nuance: a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
Some seem to be so obessed with justification by faith alone (which we also hold) that they label any other information about salvation as adding to this precept. It would be like giving someone a parachute and telling them it will save their life in an emergency and then not telling them to pull the handle for fear that would be adding too much information. This is quite a bit more serious than a nuance in parachute training.
May 25, 2008 6:04 PM
Probably against my better judgment, I am writing a post entitled, "Am I a Heretic" to continue the debate. We'll see if the FG and XFG crowd thinks I am saved or not. Hopefully it will be up tonight. Thanks for the link, Mark.
May 25, 2008 8:11 PM
Hi Mark:
I am very encouraged to see your post and the united response condemning the "GES Heresy". I have written a post on the issue called The Heretic In Antonio, mimicking former GES staff memeber Jeremy Myers earlier admission called The Heretic In Me. These men feel no shame in denying the essentials of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Wayne's comment about the parachute is a great illustration of the real dangers of the "crossless gospel". The souls of men hang in the balance. When "crossless gospel" advocates explain their egregious errors as mere "doctrinal nuances", they truly "trample under foot the Son of God, and regard as unclean the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and insult the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29).
JP
May 25, 2008 11:26 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 26, 2008 10:44 AM
JP:
You wrote, “When ‘crossless gospel’ advocates explain their egregious errors as mere ‘doctrinal nuances’, they truly ‘trample under foot the Son of God, and regard as unclean the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and insult the Spirit of grace’ (Heb. 10:29).”
I want to make sure that we all realize it is Rose (of Rose’s Reasonings) that is defending the Crossless gospel with the claim that it is a “mere doctrinal nuance.”
She most recently made this claim in Moorhead’s previous thread. She has made this and the additional claim that it is just “theory.”
To date: I have not read any of the Crossless advocates say that their view is a “doctrinal nuance” or a “theory.”
IMO, Rose is not neutral in the debate; she is highly sympathetic to, and has been a determined defender of (seeking to legitimize) this heresy and the men who aggressively teach it.
There is no way that this Crossless heresy can be a “mere doctrinal nuance” when as JP noted its reductionism assaults and tramples the finished work and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
LM
May 26, 2008 10:48 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home