Free Grace Theology News
Lou Martuneac and I have a history of disagreement, that is true. However he and I have something in common: misgivings about the GES gospel. I will invite you all to visit his blog, http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-ges-gospel-aka-crossless-or.html to see what is going on. I can only hope that the FGA is clear as to ALL of the points where they differ with the GES. Just how different are they in the area of rewards, millenial exclussion, the Book of James 2:14-26, and 1 John being about fellowship? What about the notion that the "sons of God" in Romans 8:14 is a merrited position as opposed to the "children of God" in John 1:12 being a position entered by faith? Time will only tell, I guess.
Mark
Labels: FGA Vs. GES
posted by mark pierson at 7:28 AM
6 Comments:
Mark:
Thanks for the transparency on our history.
I am happy the FGA came out with an official statement on GES last week.
Lybrand's OPEN LETTER devastates the GES Crossless heresy. Also exposes behind the scenes issue that GES members have purposely misconstrued.
Once I have the OPEN LETTER uploaded for download you'll see it all.
LM
PS: What has been disconcerting has been the way Rose of Rose's Reasonings has been running interference for the GES heresy, acting as though she is neutral, when in fact she has embraced this reductionist assault on the content of saving faith. Sad and tragic. Just two years ago she saw what was wrong and would once in a while say so. Not anymore.
April 15, 2009 8:55 AM
Mark,
One of the problems with serious doctrinal error, such as the GES asserts, is that it often leads to complete and total heresy. EXAMPLE: Our old pal “Matthew” currently has a post up at UOG suggesting that salvation can be found apart from the atonement of Christ. Matthew ends his post as follows: No doubt there are many among Islam and other false faiths who know there is a God and know that He must be feared, yet are ignorant of Him. Will God not grant to them the light of eternal life in Christ?
This is a very sad and shocking progression of Matthew’s free grace theology views.
When a person views God’s grace as something that unregenerate man controls rather than the divine gift given freely by God to whom he will have mercy on, then all kinds of theology of the imagination results. Let us pray that Matthew will come to accept New Covenant salvation as presented by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament.
April 15, 2009 9:21 AM
Lou:
What I have purposed of late is that I am not going to allow friendships to stand in the way of what I believe to be the truth. Friendships come and go. That is the nature of things sometimes, especially when you are on opposite sides of a matter this important. When I saw how one of their own handled 1 Cor. 15:1-11, noting that it is not "gift language", and saying that the salvation there is not the saving of the soul, but rather having to do with sanctification - well, that really clinched it. In my own estimation, the GES is turning into a theological freak show. I wish my friends would come out from amoung them, truely. If this stand of mine marks the end of a friendship then so be it!
April 15, 2009 10:49 AM
Wayne,
I gave Matthew's post a cursory read. Sad. You make great points here. Thank you!
April 15, 2009 10:51 AM
Mark:
The GES IS an extremist fringe element. A "theological freak show," so to speak.
They can't be taken seriously in any discussion of justfication.
Jazzy noted Matthew's article, it should surprise no one. He is showing the natural outworkings of GES (Hodges/Wilkin) reductionist heresy.
And one can never forget Antonio da Rosa's unretracted statement, "The Mormon Jesus & Evangelical Jesus are one and the same."
Anyway, the GES is driving itself deeper into its own reductioninst corner and many more are seeing it more clearly than ever before.
LM
April 15, 2009 12:01 PM
To All:
I am still reading and perusing the Open Letter by Fred Lybrand.
One especially compelling section is where you will read details of Lybrand’s personal interaction with Hodges in 2008. Although Hodges was highly reluctant to speak candidly to Lybrand was able to, “…establish the fact that Zane fully stood by his articles on ‘How to Lead People to Christ’ (JOTGES, Fall 2000, and Spring 2001).”
Lybrand continues, “I have had a number of individuals say to me that Zane really didn’t mean…(fill in the blank here)…but, in fact, he did. Zane meant exactly what he said in the articles, and he meant exactly what he implied as well, as my notes above (which he confirmed) insist.”
The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)By all means, download and read Lybrand’s letter. The GES has been rendered irrelevant whether they know it or not. We will, however, always stand ready to resist any GES attempts to spread Crossless heresy beyond its deeply isolated group of reductionist extremists.
LM
April 15, 2009 7:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home