When Unity is Treason

I certainly believe in free grace. (Indeed, how could grace be anything but free? If it had to be paid for in any way by the recipient, it would not be grace). Equally certainly, I do not believe in a crossless gospel. I hope no one will equate belief in God's free grace with belief in a crossless gospel!



Knowing nothing about the Grace Evangelical Society (perhaps because it is an American organisation that has not had much impact here yet), I went to their web site, http://www.faithalone.org/ There, I found a link marked "How Can I be Saved?" Clicking it brought up a page that includes these words (my emphasis):

Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God.

​

In the GES "Affirmation of Belief" at http://www.faithalone.org/about/4.html the very first words are:

Salvation: The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead.

​

That leaves me feeling very confused. Are there two organisations with the name, "Grace Evangelical Society", one teaching that Jesus Christ did die on the cross to save sinners, and the other teaching that He didn't?

 

==GES and Bob Wilkin do not deny that Jesus died on the cross to save sinners (etc). What they deny is that people must believe that in order to be saved. Notice in the statement above what is said and what is not said. What is said is that in order to be saved a person must believe in the Lord Jesus. What is not said is that a person must believe in His death and resurrection.

 

Thanks Martin. I was about to ask if we should read too much into the difference between, "The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross," and (say) "The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross," but Lou Martenac, in his quotes, has made clear that these people are actually teaching that a person does not have to know, understand or believe in the deity, death or resurrection of Christ, and yet have new life in Christ. (If they just said that a full understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ is not necessary in order to be saved, I would agree, for I don't imagine any of us would claim to have such a full understanding).

In view of all this, I say again that I hope no one will equate belief in God's free grace with belief in a crossless gospel!

 

A new life on earth is not possible for one who professes conversion to Christ and have been told and taught about the deity, death and resurrection of the Person to whom he professes conversion to, and yet continues to live under the darkness of the creed, religion, theology, or whatever it is that he was under when the gospel preacher reached him. I think that is one of the meanings of the phrase, "ye shall die in your sins", or "ye are yet in your sins".

When I came under the instruction of the gospel, and was converted to the Living Christ, I was under the yoke of atheism and armed struggle in my country.

I knew then and there that I had to make a choice between turning my back on what I was involved in and believed in, and following the Savior. I couldn't imagine merging the two.
Ye cannot serve God, and mammon.

Now, let me direct this question to Calvinists.
If I was elect unto eternal life, and this life is in Christ, and I made the wrong choice at the point of my conversion, would I have lost the divine life which Christ had given me ?

 

All,

GES answers an important question for Christians: "What about those who have never heard?" The "everlasting gospel" (fear/acknowledge God, glorify, and thank Him - Rev 14:6-7, Rom 1:21) and the OT "gospel of the kingdom" were both "crossless gospels."

But are they "operative" today? Not among those who hear about Christ, for sure! And NOT ever unto sanctification of the believer (meaning they will not be indwelt by the Spirit but only "justified" before God -- they won't be raptured, only resurrected into Christ's MK). God is NOT sending human "ambassadors" out with this message today so why should it even concern the people of God?

And I am 99% sure the GES people have no earthly idea of these vagaries of their doctrine.

I would also caution them --- belief requires repentance else it accomplishes NOTHING. Even under the former gospels, belief required a self-denial and total trust in God.

skypair

 

Pinoy, perhaps you can help. I am not sure of the connection between my message (the one you quoted) and your post above. I am sure the connection is staring me in the face, but I cannot see it yet. :laugh:

 

oh, sorry, david. my fault. I forgot to put the emphasis on new life in Christ, on earth. (as opposed to eternal life). In other words, a new way of life. A new mindset.

What I was trying to say was that it is impossible to have a new life in Christ (qualified by on earth in my post) if one were to try and merge his old ways with the new way.
Remember the Lord's parable on new wineskins and old wineskins ? It just won't work.
I can't, if God had truly regenerated me, insist on viewing Christ as a revolutionary just so I can justify my staying on in an atheistic and violent movement and merge it with my newfound belief in the living Christ.
One way or the other, one will pull this way, and the other that way.

But that is in as far as my earthly walk goes. A new life on earth in Christ.

What the GES is teaching, if I follow correctly, is antinomianism.
"Live exactly the way you have been living, after all, your salvation was one of grace and as long as you believe in Christ, that's all that matters".

I don't buy that, just like everybody else here.

Now, the question to the Calvinists is somewhat related to that thought.
In my case, and as in the case of the majority of God's people, I made the right decision. Leave the old life. Follow the new one.

At the point when I was converted, and began to manifest the life that was in me, then I have free will. In Joshua's words: choose ye this day whom ye will serve.....

But what if I make the wrong decision ?
What if instead of giving up the old life, I remained in it, albeit renouncing my atheism.
Am I not a true child of God then ?

I hope this does not derail the thread.
My mind tends to go off in different directions like a blown up rocket.
If this will derail the thread, please forgive me, all, and let's just forget it.

 

Thanks! No need to apologise, Pinoy. It seems we are agreed in being against antinomianism, and in noty wanting to derail the thread. Thanks again!

 

You're kindness personified, brother David. God bless.