1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Grace Evangelical Society Is Heretical

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin, May 26, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nodak

    nodak Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    16
    maestroh--you are aware, are you not, that Paul was accused of the same thing you accuse the free gracer's of?

    Guess not much has changed.
     
  2. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Lou

    Lou,

    I receive your installments on the email, and I do want to thank you for doing so. You and I have spoken on the phone before as well (Wilkin spoke at my church), and I find you to be kind in this thing - I'm also appreciative of your constructive criticism of the GES.

    That said - what you state here is what I find all too often in the entire argument. FG folks (and the ones I know - in fairness - are all Hodges-Wilkin disciples) use the allegation of 'front loading' the gospel (Dillow does this in his 'Reign of the Servant Kings').

    But much ink is spilled pounding straw men. This past semester I took J. Dwight Pentecost's class on the life of Christ. He went off onto a ten-minute rant w/o ever mentioning MacArthur and said that folks who taught 'lordship salvation' claim that if you didn't go to church and make a commitment blah blah blah, you would 'become lost.' That's interesting since John MacArthur does, in fact, believe in eternal security.

    Furthermore - his tapes have made VERY CLEAR that he is not asking for an 'up front' commitment but seeing it as the RESULT of the redeemed heart. Whether he's inconsistent, of course, is another issue.

    Yet Zane Hodges does this stuff as well. I read how he painstakingly argued (and I blew it out of the water in a Romans paper for DTS) that when LS folks see works as a CONSEQUENCE of salvation, what they 'really mean' is CONDITION.

    Quite interesting in light of the fact that the dictionary does not confound the two but this seemingly doesn't stop Zane Hodges.

    As I pointed out: Divorce is a CONSEQUENCE of adultery (can be). The only CONDITION necessary for divorce is marriage. How a guy with a Ph.D. can misunderstand such a simple concept is beyond my ability to comprehend.

    But you admit as much when you state MacArthur doesn't actually SAY that one must do works. In fact, he explicitly DENIES (in the intro to TGATJ) that works are necessary for salvation.

    Not referring to you - but it is my deep suspicion that folks like Hodges and Wilkin need to distort or isolate comments by MacArthur in order to sell books. I've heard so many false things said about MacArthur by a lot of FG folks (esp. GES) that it's difficult to take any criticism seriously when it comes from the GES.

    Finally - thank you for your work in presenting a FG perspective that doesn't resort to the minimalism of the Hodges-Wilkin-Dillow crowd.
     
  3. Maestroh

    Maestroh New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, Spare Me...


    Are you telling me that Paul thought the one could be saved without believing in the Resurrection as Wilkin has said?

    That must be news to Paul.

    The problem - as I see it - is very simple. Some human beings are in the assurance business to folks who live like the devil when such assurance is solely the responsbility of the Holy Spirit.

    Keep this in mind: the MOMENT a person admits that a person can have a FALSE assurance about salvation and works do NOT result inevitably - he has admitted LS is true.

    Ryrie has done this. Dillow did this. Even Hodges finally did it in 'Absolutely Free.'

    Only Wilkin is the lone holdout. He likes to ask folks how they know they're saved. You know what I'd ask him - how does he know his assurance isn't FALSE?
     
  4. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maestroh:

    Thanks for the comments and I do remember the good call we had.

    MacArthur wrote,
    Following is John MacArthur’s definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus:
    From the Revised & Expanded Edition, John MacArthur reworked the above statement as follows,
    Again from his original edition, MacArthur writes,
    Those statements are made in regard to what MacArthur believes is necessary for the reception of eternal life. he speaks of the content of saving faith, the faith that results in salvation. “Pay the ultimate price FOR salvation…,” that is a man-centered, works based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

    This is not isolating comments, these represent a theme that run like a thread through all of MacArthur’s major LS apologetics. BTW, much of what he writes in these books is sound and helpful. The egregious errors are not found on every page, but the errors are there.

    He does frontload faith with “commitment” in “exchange” for eternal life.

    I post JM’s own writing so that those who cry misrepresentation, and/or Straw Man are shown to be grasping at straws because they have no answer to negate the force and obvious meaning of what MacArthur has written.

    BTW, I am reviewing MacArthur's anniversary edition of TGATJ. I will post that review at my blog in a week or so. I will let you all know about it here.

    You might like to read Ominous Signs of Lordship's Coming Storm. It is written from a historical perspective by a man who had a view of JM's teaching just prior to the release of the original TGATJ.


    LM
     
    #44 Lou Martuneac, Jun 20, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2008
  5. nodak

    nodak Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    16
    I am saying Paul said he was accused of preaching licientiousness--that since one was saved sin did not matter. He did not preach that, and neither do free grace preachers.

    What they preach is that salvation is by grace through faith and that not of works. Assurance is based on God's honor and faithfulness rather than examining our works.

    If we examine our works for proof, how much works are enough?

    If I tell a homeless street addict Jesus will save him, he gets saved, and no longer does many of the bad things he did, but still does some being caught up in addiction at that point, are you saying he is not really saved?

    I had a dear friend caught up in alcohol and cocaine and beating his wife and step kids. LS bunch kept trying to lead him to the Lord. Fearing he could not leave off his addictions, he refused.

    FG guy came along, told him the simple truth that all are sinners, penalty of sin is death and hell, but that Jesus came to save all who would just trust Him for salvation. He did.

    Not much changed----at first. Then he decided he "disliked" cocaine.

    Soon it was alcohol that went. Then violence.

    That family was magnificently put back together and serves the Lord today.

    But it never would have happened telling that man Jesus won't save a sinner unwilling to be cleaned up. How in the world can an unregenerate man even WANT to be willing to be willing?

    And what damage would have been in done if in those first weeks saved he had been counselled to doubt his salvation since it sure did not show?

    As it was, KNOWING he was saved even if he remained an addicted jerk (his term) freed him to begin to relax in the Savior's love. And that made him WANT to change in response.

    Free grace salvation all the way seems to me the Biblical way. Now, discipleship IS a Lordship issue.
     
  6. Free Gracer

    Free Gracer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perseverance of the Saints is Works-Contingent salvation

    Here are a few quotes when some Calvinists let their guards down:

    "Heaven can only be reached by continuing along the sole path that leads thither, namely, the 'Narrow Way.' Those who persevere not in faith and holiness, love and obedience, will assuredly perish" (A.W. Pink, "Eternal Security", chapter 3, online edition).

    "There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul's reaching heaven." (A.W. Pink as quoted by Iain H. Murray in "The Life of Arthur W. Pink" pgs 248-249)

    "...we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." (John Piper "TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism...", pg 25)

    "I was asked the question about a year ago by a group of pastors in in Pennsylvania... 'What do you think is the one doctrine that is the most destructive in the life of the church...today? And I said, the doctrine of Eternal Security... God justifies, but man must have faith and he must obey.... Romans 2:13-14, when it says the one who obeys the law is justified, it means exactly that. That is not a hypothetical verse, ladies and gentlemen, the way many Protestants have read it. And when James 2:13-14 says, 'The doers of the law shall be justified,' it means the doers of the law shall be justified. That's why Paul and James are not in conflict...Let me suggest [also] Ephesians 2:8-10...We are saved unto good works. They're necessary consequential works. Without them there is no salvation. Right?" (John Armstrong "Reflections from Jonathan Edwards on the Current Debate over Justification by Faith Alone").

    "Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to hell" (A.W. Pink, "Studies on Saving Faith" Part 2, online edition)

    "Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness. And they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort." (Charles Hodge, "A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians", pg 181)

    When push comes to shove, Reformed theology conditions eternal life on works. That they say works are necessary as the inevitable result of saving faith conclusively shows that they consider works absolutely necessary for final salvation. Their insistence that it is a "required necessary result" is meant to mask what they truly believe, for, as the long quote from Joseph Dillow from His book "The Reign of the Servant Kings" will show (see below), a necessary result for which we are responsible is the same as a condition.

    Piper says, "We are not saved by faith plus works but by a faith that works." "The faith that alone justifies is never alone." Salvation is absolutely free "but will cost you everything" (MacArthur).

    (Begin Joseph Dillow "The Reign of the Servant Kings")
    ----------
    "When Reformed Theologians use such phrases as 'faith alone saves a man, but the faith that saves is not alone,' they are in fact unconsciously speaking nonsense. Terminology like "faith plus works does not save, but a faith that works does" is simply saying that faith plus works saves. The cleverness of the prose serves to conceal the fact. Proverbial sayings like this have been passed on in the theology textbooks for centuries. They seem to have explanatory power, and they certainly left opponents of the Reformed Theology system speechless, but in reality they are not only empty of meaning but contradictory. They are simply ways of saying that true faith necessarily results in works, but it is the faith, not the resulting works, which saves. This, however, is quite confusing. If the works are a necessary result of the faith and if a man cannot be saved without them, then the works, in fact, a condition for salvation. If they are not present, the man will perish. Necessary results for which we are responsible are the same as conditions.

    A simple illustration may suffice here. "Consider the marriage requirements in this country. If a man is to get married, he must have a blood test. Now it is clear that someone could break the law or, perhaps, some state does not require this. However, the author shall create a fictional world where this is always true. Then we can say the condition of getting married is a mutual commitment to do so. Furthermore, the necessary and inevitable result of that commitment is a trip to the hospital to get a blood test. In addition, getting a blood test is a condition of getting married. A necessary result is no different than a condition! I could then observe to a friend that, “A blood test is a condition of getting married.” He may then say, “No, securing a blood test is not a condition of getting married but a necessary result of a commitment to get married.” But here now you may be able to see that the blood test is both a result and a condition."
    ----------
    (End Dillow)

    So the same with works. If works are a necessary result of saving faith, and if those works aren’t present then the person doesn’t go to heaven (showing that he was never truly saved), then those works become a condition for that salvation.

    Here is the real rub:

    If there is no works, there is no heaven.

    It could be termed : "Bear or Burn Theology" (works-contingent salvation)

    Antonio
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I assume you were/are referring to Professor Zane C. Hodges, here, with the bolded statement. FTR, unless he has obtained it in the last few years, and I am not aware of it, Mr. Zane C. Hodges does not have a Ph.D., although he does possess a Th.M.. Dr. Robert Wilkin, does have an earned doctorate, which is a Th.D., I believe. And I have no idea about the academic attainments of Lou Martuneac, although we do know each other, and he and I basically agree with one another, as we found out when we were able to meet and converse in person, last year. Lou Martuneac could preach and teach in any church or school I might ever be associated with, at any time, as far as I'm concerned, and I would happily sit under his teaching. (A 'free' plug, Lou!)

    I do not know Jody Dillow, although I have conversed by phone, in the past, at some length with both Robert Wilkin (more than once) and Zane Hodges, and at my own expense, I would add.

    Ed
     
  8. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is simply stunning to me.

    To think that those of the Grace Evangelical Society are...on this thread...being CONDEMNED and labeled HERETICS is just unbelieveable. Stunning.

    Here is their "statement of beliefs" from their web-site...

    And in light of THIS, from that statement...

    ...how can ANYONE say that they are propagating a CROSSLESS GOSPEL?????

    I am not familiar with anyone on this thread, but I would assume that everyone here is probably worthy of respect, and very biblically minded, as we all should be.

    But...my GOODNESS, this comes across to me as "nit-picking" run amuck. They dont always witness with the same exact terminology that you do? SO WHAT? Its clear as a bell that their beliefs and convictions are scriptural as can be right up and down the line (the statement of beliefs).

    They are preaching the same gospel and proclaiming the same Jesus. Oh, how this must grieve Him.

    This seems to be hard core Fundamentalism taken to a very extreme level.

    Although I am only familliar with Zane Hodges..(and his books are EXCELLANT)..I am sure that everyone involved with GES are our brothers and sisters, and fellow works in the harvest.

    Why not treat them as such?

    Rather than condemning, and labeling as heretics, brothers and sisters of ours...why not just leave them alone, of you cant fellowship with them?

    Grace and peace to all.

    (((EDIT))))

    Well, I found something else on the Grace Evangelical Society website. They have a link to click if any visitors to the site are interested in being saved. (sort of a cyber salvation tract)

    Here is what it says...(bolding mine)...

    Crossless Gospel"???

    I dont think so.
     
    #48 Alive in Christ, Jun 22, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2008
  9. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    This thread was opened by Martin to discuss the heretical views of the Grace Evangelical Society, namely Bob Wilkins’s Scavenger Hunt Without a List article. These vies are part of what is known as the Crossless or GES gospel. It also know as the Promise-Only, Minimalist Gospel, ReDefined Free Grace Theology.

    Some of the most extreme and antithetical to Scripture views coming from GES members would be those of FreeGracer, Antonio.

    Here is a sample of the kind of heresy as expressed by Antonio that typifies the teaching of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and their shrinking cell of extremists in the GES.

    Another reviewer had these comments in regard to the heresy of Antonio and GES.

    To conclude I want BB readers to understand that they heresy expressed by GES is not representative of the doctrinal view of a great majority in the Free Grace community. Antonio attempts to present GES as if it is the voice of the FG movement at large, but this is a serious misnomer. That may have been true at one time, but with the on-going side into deepening heretical views by Hodges and Wilkin, many FG pastors/teachers have separated and continue to separate from GES.

    See- Is "REDEFINED" Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?


    LM

    * "Syncretism: the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion." (dictionary.com)

    Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate or contradictory beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought.” (wikipedia.com)
     
  10. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Ed:

    That was mighty nice of you to post those kind remarks. As for the "academic attainments... "

    B.A. from Michigan State University: Tele-Communcation
    M.A. from Pensacola Christian College (PCC): Bible Exposition. Also taught for five years at PCC, then three years at the Bible college in Johannesburg.

    When I am at conferences or special meetings (attending and/or speaking) and get around the men who have done the work to earn their advanced degrees I listen well to them. I am comfortable interacting, but really prefer to listen.

    By the way, I have sat under Sunday School teachers with no formal theological training who were obviously endowed with the gift of teaching from the Lord. I can think of one right now, who is a business man in the insurance field. To listen to his expository teaching verse-by-verse you would think he had an earned M.Div. or better.

    I will add, and I trust everyone understands: Academic/theological training does not guarantee orthodoxy. Although highly trained Hodges and Wilkin have fallen into and have become teachers of some of the most egregious errors the NT church has ever encountered from men in the body of Christ. The Apostle Paul warned that errors would creep in and be brought in from men within the church speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-31).

    Late last year I wrote an article on this theme. Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples

    The GES Crossless/Deityless teaching is as out of balance with the biblical plan of salvation from their extreme side of the theological pendulum swing as Lordship Salvation is from the opposite end of the swing.

    Thanks again,


    LM
     
  11. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Alive (& glad you are):

    You wrote,
    Here is the "So What?"

    The issue is NOT over what GES men personally believe about the death, resurrection and deity of Christ. It is NOT over what they believe made salvation possible. It is NOT over whether or NOT they might present His death on the cross in payment for our sins.

    The issue and crux of the doctrinal controversy IS over GES teaching that the lost do not have to be aware of, understand or believe in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again.​


    That is, therefore a Crossless & Deityless gospel as far as the lost are concerned.

    I am giving you benefit of the doubt, but I want you to understand that to suggest that the controversy is over what the GES men personally believe is a serious misunderstanding of the true nature of the controversy. Crossless advocates keep trumpeting this mantra to distract attention away from the true crux of their doctrinal error, which is the unsaved do not have to understand or believe anything about who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation.

    Later, I will post a series of quotes from GES leaders that affirm their beliefs and convictions are unscriptural. They are in fact Crossless and Deityless.


    LM
     
    #51 Lou Martuneac, Jun 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2008
  12. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am still trying to understand this issue, LM. So let me ask you this, in line with what you have written to "alive" and bolded. The Bible says in John 1:11-13 the following about those who received Jesus, and I understand this to mean his apostles and disciples during His time here on earth.

    Here is what Scripture says:

    Now, "his own", apparently are the Jewish people, since Jesus Christ was a Jew by birth. "Received him not" I understand to be in reference to the Jewish people rejecting Him as the promised Messiah, and in the end, along with the Gentiles, crucifying Him.

    "But as many as received him", of course, in the context of His being rejected by the majority, refer to those who eventually became His Apostles, disciples, and followers, and this would include the old man at the temple, who had waited for the promised salvation, as well as His "secret" friends among the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus, et al.

    the rest of verse 12 we all understand.

    However, verse 13, specifically says that these people were born again (fast forward past the other qualifiers or disqualifiers) by the will of God.
    Now, note that none of these people were aware of His deity, His coming death, and resurrection, up until those events happened.

    Are you saying that these people were never born again until they understood and accepted all these qualifiers ? That would make me wonder why, despite their unbelief and miscomprehensions, Jesus Christ would (1) seek them out after His resurrection, (2) call them brethren (3) single Peter out despite his denial of Him, and exclude all others ?

    As a matter of fact, from what I understand you are saying, it appears that redemption and the finished work of Christ do not really mean anything until man understand and believe all these things, and the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate His people is effectively hindered by the man's inability to understand and accept or believe these things.

    That being the case, then the salvation of sinners began after the gospel was preached, and His redemptive work was limited to where the gospel was preached and believed in.

    Are these what you are saying ?
     
    #52 pinoybaptist, Jun 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2008
  13. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Crossless: So Far as the Lost are Concerned

    Alive:

    Here are some of the quotes I referred to earlier.
    Wilkin (GES) say all you need to be convinced of is that Jesus guarantees eternal life, no matter who the unsaved thinks Jesus is. Wilkins’s identification of Jesus as the One who died and rose is for the benefit of the reader only, but is NOT part of the content of saving faith for the lost.
    Wilkin understands he is proclaiming a “different gospel,” but thinks he has the right one, which excludes belief in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross for our sins.
    The preceeding notes by Wilkin have previously appeared in the public forum
    There is no doubt that when it comes to what the lost must believe to be born again Hodges, Wilkin and GES strip the deity, death and resurection from the Gospel. They, therefore, are promoting a Crossless/Deityless gospel so far as the lost are concerned.

    One final comment from my blog on this subject by Rachel, one of my partners in defense of the Gospel.
    LM
     
  14. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lou,

    Here are your quotes from the Grace Evangelical Society folks, that you take issue with, and cause you to deem them heretics...

    I dont understand what the problem is that so distresses you with that. A person is born again when they encounter the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and they come to the end of there self sufficiency, or faith in other false paths to God, and are born again by embracing the person of Jesus Christ.

    We dont pull them aside and give them a quiz on doctrine, telling him only an "A" will get them into heaven.

    That would be a form of justification by works. Thats not the gospel. The gospel is justification through faith in Christ alone, apart from any works or merit on our part. We present Jesus Christ as their answer, and they either embrace Him or they dont.

    If they DO embrace Him....their eyes are now open, and they can recieve spiritual truth. And they WILL embrace the spiritual truth that accompanies faith in Christ...in due time.

    And you disagree with that???? That is 100% true, friend!

    We have examples in the scriptures where people are presented with the opportunity to place their faith in Christ, with no other doctrinal points given at all. And the scriptures proclaim them born again. We have many cases where the gospel is clearly articulated, with faith in Christ being the only requierment.

    All the other stuff will of course fall naturally in place in due time as it is presented.



    And here is a perfect example! Here is the passage of scripture used in that example...

    "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may die, he shall live. And he who believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

    Would you actually CORRECT Christ regarding His supposed incomplete presentation of the gospel there?

    I agree. A lost person CAN NOT comprehend the cross. He doesnt have the necesarry ingrediant...the Holy Spirit.

    You mean like this...

    "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may die, he shall live. And he who believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" ...Jesus Christ

    Again, we do not give lost people a doctrinal quiz in order for them to be born again. We present the gospel, the PERSON of Jesus Christ to them. I have absolutly NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER regarding these Grace Evangelical folks understanding accurately of the deity of Christ and His substitutional death on our behalf on the cross...based on my familiarity with Zane Hodges. They are just presenting the idea that a person CAN be born again by simply receiveing Christ...with the doctrine being added later.

    You said...

    Then why do they say THIS in their cyber salvation track on thier web site for lost people to read...

    And whey do they include THIS on their "what we believe" statement...

    In these statements that are SHOUTING TO THE WORLD that Jesus Christ is God, and He died on the cross as payment for our sins.

    This "dietyless" and "crossless" buisiness is just not true, imo. As I see it, they CLEARLY do not believe that way, and they do not evangelize that way.


    :godisgood:
     
  15. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The problem with the GES, given their statements that you quoted, is the same problem with most "evangelical" Christians.
    They attach requirements to eternal salvation.
    There are NO requirements to eternal salvation. Not faith in Christ, not knowledge of the Name of Christ, absolutely nothing.
    Salvation is OF the Lord means just that exactly.
    Not only is eternal life His alone to give and distribute to His people, it is absolutely unconditional and based solely on the Giver's grace, mercy, and choice.
    After He did what His Father predetermined He should do, redeem His people, He SAT DOWN (rested) at the right hand of power, that is, He received that which was rightfully His by reason of His covenant with Himself: glory, honor, power, and a Name above every name in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
    Nothing was required of those He redeemed. None are lost, and none will be lost come the day of judgment, save the son of perdition. All who are His people on this earth before His time, during His time, and after His time have been redeemed.
    The problem is that we forget the historical and theological context at the time AFTER Christ's act of redemption. The real reason why He founded a local, visible church and sent out His apostles with the good news of a finished salvation to those in the world for whom the good news is intended.
    The ENTIRE known world was under the pagan influence of both Rome and Greek, worshipping after other gods, and the world beyond Rome was equally in spiritual darkness, and the Jews, supposedly the ONLY country in that world who knew and worshipped the One True God, rejected Him and crucified Him. And this was no different from the situation before His advent.
    When He called out Abram to create for Himself, out of Abram, a national people to whom He was to reveal Himself, ALL the world worshipped idols, even Sarai, and Abram.
    That is why He founded the local, visible church. Israel out of Israel, and entrusted this church with good news: His birth, death, and resurrection. A finished salvation. Good news. You, the sinner has ALREADY been reconciled to God by His only begotten Son. Good news. The One True God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth has condescended to live among sinners, to pitch His tent among us, to, like Abram, rescue us, as he rescued Lot, and like Abram, to rescue us successfully.
    Now that you know, ye people of God, worship Him in spirit and in truth.
    And He Himself will quicken His people. Not the preacher. Not the gospel message. He, because He alone knows who His people are, where they are, and He alone can reach each and every one of them because He alone is Omnipresent.
    Now, a profession of conversion REQUIRES proof: repentance (turn to God from your idols, save yourself from this untoward generation, unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish), worship (unto Him be glory in the church), proclamation (ye shall be witnesses of me), confession (with the mouth confession is made unto salvation).
    This is where 'evangelicals', both Arminian and Calvinists, lose sight of the difference between the eternal, unconditional salvation of God's people, and the temporal, conditional salvation of the same people.
    The latter covers ALL, the former covers and is expected of those whom the gospel reaches.
     
    #55 pinoybaptist, Jun 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2008
  16. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pinoy:

    First of all I reject the entirety of your Calvinistic presuppositions.

    Second, which is a more immediate concern: Are you suggesting the elect are born again apart from hearing, understanding and personal faith in/believing the Gospel?


    LM
     
  17. Guido

    Guido Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2021
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which verse in the Bible says that?
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This zombie thread is closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...