Hi All,
This Post is for those who are wanting to read and comment on the discussion in the Post called The Content of Saving Faith (The Dialogue)
Please see if you can be nice without compromising your convictions!
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
Hi All,
This Post is for those who are wanting to read and comment on the discussion in the Post called The Content of Saving Faith (The Dialogue)
Please see if you can be nice without compromising your convictions!
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
Fred:
In the previous discussion you asked, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
To date Jim refuses to acknowledge or answer that question. If he will not begin by answering that simple question about the cornerstone of our faith which you repeated for him in the new thread, then there is nothing profitable for the cause of Christ by giving Jim’s evasion tactics and running interference for the Hodges/Wilkin Crossless gospel public exposure.
I want to be encouraged to find that Jim will answer that question with a clear, unvarnished answer. If the pattern holds (of GES people), however, you are in for more of the same evasion and misdirects.
With that I’ll watch to see if Jim will engage you on the doctrine in the closed thread.
Lou
I only had time to quickly read through the posts, but it seems Jim Reitman is saying there is both a propositional and non-propositional aspect to faith (correct me if I’m wrong).
Even so, if there is a propositional aspect, the fact remains that faith involves “content”. In order to argue that “content of faith” is a false concept, he would need to argue that there is no propositional aspect to faith.
— Greg
“Even so, if there is a propositional aspect, the fact remains that faith involves “content”. In order to argue that “content of faith” is a false concept, he would need to argue that there is no propositional aspect to faith.
Greg, here is what I think is coming. Jim, like so many in the GES, is going to claim that “’the gospel‘ does NOT have a technical usage for the message the lost must believe to be saved.”
We essentially have this by default from Jim because he still refuses to answer Fred’s very first question. The defining question that any believer would not hesitate to answer with clarity and without hesitation. That question by Fred was, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
Lou
Fred wrote, “I know some accuse me of having an agenda in the shadows…but it isn’t in the shadows at all. I just want the truth.”
What a terrible, dark and sinister agenda! Fred wants Jim to speak the truth of what he believes the saving message that must be believed is. The nerve of Fred to expect a man to be honest and transparent.
Lou
Another thought that comes to mind is many passages explicitly state that receiving eternal life is conditioned on believing a proposition or propositions. I could post several, but I will name just one for consideration:
“…but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)
There is no clearer way to describe believing a proposition than to say “believe that…”
Whether there is more involved than believing the proposition (such as whether John assumes the proposition is to be assented to with the intent of receiving eternal life) is another question. But the fact remains, belief is (at least) propositional.
— Greg
At the end of Jim Reitman’s latest comment, this appears:
“This latter point, to my way of thinking, is what has been completely ‘lost in the shuffle’ of these ongoing FG debates over soteriological nuances.”
“Nuance?!!” This is just plain shameful! The GES gospel could not be a more extreme reductionist departure from the Gospel of grace than LS is from the other end of the soteriological spectrum. Jim’s comment is what Rose used to write to derail discussions on the importance of the cosf, run interference for GES and Antonio da Rosa’s radicalism. Rose would say that the GES/CG teaching is, “a difference of opinion that is acceptable,” and the CG is, “a minor nuance of doctrine.”
Now, in addition to Jim’s dodging Fred’s opening question, which was, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved” we get the absurdity that the debate over the radical views of the Hodges, Wilkin and GES Crossless gospel are nothing more than “soteriological nuances.”
The GES has assaulted the Gospel through the most extreme form of reductionism ever introduced to the NT church. That being the Crossless & Deityless gospel that was originated by Zane Hodges, further perpetuated by Wilkin through the GES.
Lou
Reitman wrote,
1) It specifies the identity of the ransomed Seed; and 2) it warrants the reliability of the promise of life in that Seed by specifying the nature of the gift to be received, so that anyone who trusts in the promise of life can confidently release their “death grip” on whatever else they may be trusting for “life after death.”
aka, the Promise-ONLY gospel of the GES.
All any objective readers needs to do is wade through Jim’s long-winded evasions of the core issue and you find items like the above that put a window on what he is cloaking.
LM
To All:
We also find Jim introducing a dispensational view to the discussion, which reminded me of an important question that was also dodged by the GES camp.
In September 2007 Ron Shea agreed to debate Bob Wilkin. You may recall through the summer of 2007 Wilkin was clamoring for a debate on the Gospel.
When Ron Shea accepted the challenge, Bob Wilkin lost his nerve for the debate he had been calling for. Following is the question upon which Ron proposed to engage Wilkin over.
“In the present dispensation, what is the content of saving faith?” and/or “In the present dispensation, is a belief in Jesus’ divinity, His atoning death, and/or His resurrection necessary for faith in Jesus to constitute saving faith?”
See- Open Challenge for Public Debate
IMO, it was in part these questions that caused Wilkin to lose his fervor to debate what is the Gospel that must be believed to be born again. Maybe Jim would like to address those questions.
Be sure to read the thread comments by Bret Nazworth in particular.
Lou
I think this whole thing could be cleared up if we made the necessary, biblical, distinction of Jesus as both the Object (propositional, I guess) and Subject (non-propositional). If the vicarious life of Christ for us was taken seriously, then we would see salvation as a Person (God) (so even the “object” turns out to be a “subject”); and we would see our lives grounded in Christ’s humanity for us.
I think Jim’s point, which is completely lost on Lou, apparently, is that we cannot reduce “faith” to Websters definition — this is to assume that Webster is not speaking out of a semantic field that isn’t already “pre-loaded” i.e. with rationalist, Libertarian Free Agency understandings. I don’t see Jim quibbling over COSF at all, at least in the thread that I read of him and Fred, previous to this one.
More to say, but I don’t want to muddy the waters any further . . .
peace.
Bobby:
The only thing I and all readers see as lost in the discussion here is Jim’s answer to the most basic question. Jim Reitman refuses to answer Fred’s first question, which is:
“Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
And just like the GES Crossless gospel people before him (da Rosa, Myers, et. al.) in these blog discussions Jim will NOT answer a defining question like that in clear unvarnished terms.
LM
The value of Lou’s comments is he is pointing out a basic spiritual issue. If Jim cannot answer the question, maybe a more humble response would have been, “I don’t know. But I want to find out.”
Instead, Jim decided to distract from the question by arguing the question itself is flawed because belief does not involve “content” or the acceptance of propositions.
But the evasion does not end there. Since Jim’s claim that belief does not involve content is indefensible, he hasn’t even tried to defend that claim. Instead, he’s distracting scrutiny for his own claim by launching into pages of arguments for a completely different claim. 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.
That would be like claiming a book does not involve words because you need more than words to have a book.
But that brings us back to the basic question… 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.
Well, I think defining our terms is important, don’t you? That’s all I see Jim trying to do. Wasn’t it Socrate’s, ‘Euthyphro’ who illustrated that “he who frames the questions wins the argument?” Not that anyone is trying to “win” around here, per se; just that terms, concepts, etc. need to be defined up front — so that we don’t just end up with a Euthyphro agenda (to win the argument, for its sake). All I see Jim doing is being careful, and so far, the other side (Lou and now you Greg) wanting to “win” the argument by having Jim answer the “question” based upon your framing.
If I were Jim, I would do the same thing . . . in theology they call this prolegomena (literally, the ‘before words’). I think you all just need more patience . . . this is a Christian (virtue) fruit of the Spirit — isn’t it? 😉
“Hey fellow, let’s have a discussion on the content of saving faith”
Okay, so what are your thoughts?
”I believe the content of saving faith is a list of propositions called the Gospel and to be saved you must be able to affirm each of these propositions.”
Well I think the Gospel is much more than a set of propositions and that saving faith is much more than simply affirming a list of propositions. I believe that…”
”zzzzzzzzzz…huh?…what?…well that makes no sense at all, so what is your list of propositions that must be affirmed?”
Wait a minute, I don’t think you understood what I said. Maybe I’m not being clear
”Oh really? Well I think you are being evasive? It’s obvious you are one who is of low character. You’re trying to trick us all! I demand you simply tell us, what is your list of propositions?”
Bobby:
The evasion we are seeing here by Jim Reitman (aka, Agent 4 Him) is not the first time for him. Earlier this year at Fred Lybrand ‘s blog Antonio da Rosa finally answered a question (which he had dodged for about two years) that many had put to him on his personal belief on the cosf.
Antonio admitted he believed, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
For three days, in the same thread where Antonio posted that revelation, Jim Reitman was asked repeatedly both in the thread and via e-mail if he (Jim) agrees or disagrees with Antonio da Rosa’s admission, “that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Jim refused to answer or even acknowledge the question, but instead attempted numerous redirects to dodge it, just like he is doing here again.
There is simply no other way to evaluate what Jim, just like most every GES member and/or sympathizer, does when a question is asked about their personal views on the necessary content of saving faith. They dodge, evade, redirect, disappear and/or demonize any who dare ask them to be honest and transparent.
Fred’s question was, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
I will say again: Any new believer would not hesitate to answer that question. Jim, like the most of the GES people in the blogs before him, do not have the character or transparency to give a clear, unvarnished answer to that most basic of questions. It is irrefutable that the GES Crossless gospel is a reductionist heresy unlike any other ever introduced to the NT church by one of its own, namely Zane Hodges. Refusing to be transparent, however, goes to the additional level of not speaking well of their character or integrity, IMO.
No apology for the blunt terms. Nearly three years of personally witnessing this behavior and much worse from some of the Crossless gospel advocates has eliminated any need for softer decorum in terms of inquiry or reaction to the obvious.
LM
Lou,
You should know by now that you are not a good judge of character.
Jim/KC,
You’re making communication more difficult than it has to be. Earlier Jim used the argument that “content of faith” is a false concept in lieu of answering a question on what someone needs to believe in order to be saved. Jim then posted pages of material that argued that faith involves more than “content” but did not support support the original point that “content of faith” is a false concept.
My response was that it’s absurd to argue, as Jim did, that content of faith is a false concept. Jim then apparently claimed on another blog that I misrepresented him. He stated there, after all, that faith does involve the acceptance of propositions.
Okay, fine. Then here’s a basis on which we can communicate. If faith involves the acceptance of propositions, why not answer Lou’s question about which propositions are involved in saving faith? If faith involves the acceptance of propositions, then don’t claim “content of faith” is a false concept. Otherwise, you’re simply trying to have it both ways.
Yes, I am interested in the discussion of whether faith is more than the acceptance of propositions. Some of my comments have been sensitive to that. But I am not interested in wasting the time I can be enjoying with the Lord Jesus Christ to hear someone use that issue as a red herring to dodge a simple question. You cannot simultaneously claim that faith does involve content and “content of faith” is a false concept. Whether or not belief involves even more than the acceptance of propositions does not change that fact. You can’t have it both ways.
Have some integrity in communication.
Greg,
I’m sorry you failed to grasp Jim’s argument but I can’t argue it for him or you any better. As for my own communication I would say that, based on your response above, my perceptions were made perfectly clear.
With regard to your accusations and admonition for integrity in communication, I have none.
BTW could you post the link to the other blog you mentioned so that we can see Jim’s comment in context?
Greg (Fred):
Thanks for commenting again on the obvious we are seeing from Jim.
An embarrassing pattern that virtually every GES member and sympathizer in the blogs have taken when asked a clear, non-threatening question on their personal belief over what is the Gospel message the lost must believe to be born again. From Antonio da Rosa, to Jeremy Myers, Jim Johnson and to Rose they have all used these same obvious dodge, evade tactics, which are to their own shame. I can’t imagine anything less than a seared conscience that would allow for this kind of political gamesmanship, but we have seen time and again from these people.
At my blog Jan, a regular contributor, posted a comment under Tom Stegall’s book excerpt, Apologetic Aid or Spiritual Alp.
Her comment has a direct correlation and she meant it to be in part in regard to what we are witnessing from Jim Reitman. This is an excerpt from Jan’s extended comment.
Instead of being succinct and clear, they will flood the arena with smoky, distracting, pseudo orthodox ambiguity (and a little bit of condescending nastiness, and attempts to turn the tables doesn’t hurt either) in which they attempt to hide their subtle (or not so subtle in the case of GES) errors and even try to gain the upper hand at framing the issue and forcing their detractors to think as they do.
While there are other master manipulators out there who use this technique, the GES will never succeed at this form of leavening because the proponents of it are not sophisticated enough in their word smithing and their errors are not subtle enough to pull it off. That alps (see Stegall’s excerpt via link above) analogy was frankly pathetic.
Verbal Fred Astaires they are not.
It is these precise tactics that expose them. Teachers of truth do not need to resort to such depraved means as they have nothing to hide. For all that the specific doctrines these heretics (does anyone have any question that this [“Crossless” gospel] teaching is heresy?) are teaching need to be exposed, the reality is there will always be another new, exotic heresy behind it. But the tactics never change. Not having truth to support them, they must resort to other means.
I think this discussion with Jim is yet another example in a long series of discussions with people who have “differing views” on the Gospel than what the Apostle Paul preached that shows us we’re not handling these things properly.
Paul wrote in Gal 2:3-5
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
and also this in 2 Cor 10:1-6
1 Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you. 2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.
I think it’s good to give latitude to these people for a season in order to demonstrate the consequences of not heeding Paul’s Words.
However, frankly, I think we allow ourselves ME INCLUDED to be led around by a leash and to look like puppets when we entertain the silliness of some of these discussions.
The recent conversation about Lordship Salvation at my blog would be a perfect example of allowing people to play games.
The truth is, when we’re dealing with issues of the Gospel the Bible is truly perfectly clear. We ought to teach in a humble manner for sure, but allowing people to dance around these subjects for weeks, months and in one very high profile case YEARS is OUR failing.
I have failed at this.. and I failed in my advice to Fred for this subject.
If a person can not simply read the Gospel out of the Bible as received directly from Christ Our Lord, and declared in God breathed Scripture by the Apostle Paul then that person person is in error.
We wrangle on about this or that definition… but if we read the Gospel as declared the only “terminology” is the title Christ.
The Christ is the only one Who could have, and did, fulfill the terms of our Salvation in accordance with the Scriptures.
Beyond that, read the declaration as your own declaration or abmit you preach something different than the Bible declares..
I’ve been guilty of entertaining and even submitting to these for far longer than an hour.
John MacArthur has an entertaining series running on the radio right now about confronting heresy… I wonder how his followers will enjoy us confronting him and them in like manner?
I hate to say it, but John’s right on this one. We’re never once shown in Scripture that we are to play with heresy or heretics.
I hope there is some value in this somewhere.. Fred, if this is too preachy please feel free to delete it. I’ll end up posting something similar at my blog.
I don’t mean to belittle your efforts, I’m thankful for them. However, I’m eager to learn and impliment a better way of dealing with these subjects.
Kev
Lou & Kev, good posts. Both of you pointed out a pattern with schismatic people that I’ve also noticed.
In order to avoid confrontation with Scripture and basic logic, these people tend to flip-flop their positions constantly. I’m not talking about “flip-flopping” in the sense of repentance or in the sense of making a correction for clarification (which are areas where we should extend grace), but flip-flopping so that you can’t pin them down on an certain point and so that they can keep claiming we don’t understand.
I’ve decided once people start flip-flopping like this, my involvement in the conversation is done. These people are hardened against the Lord, and like Kev pointed out, it’s not honoring to the Lord to chase after them as they run around in circles.
Greg:
Thanks for your participation in this thread.
“…flip-flopping so that you can’t pin them down on any certain point and so that they can keep claiming we don’t understand.”
These tactics are commonplace with what remains in the GES membership and with those who sympathize with their egregious errors. I don’t view my tenacity as wasting time chasing them. I want clear public records and exposure of their poor character and gamesmanship so that the unsuspecting will be warned of them. It took, how long with Antonio; two years before Kev got his (da Rosa’s) admission of the obvious. Not to mention admissions to some of his gross lapses in ethical behavior.
In any event, the amusing part as we all have seen with LS and these Crossless people, you can quote them verbatim and still the shrill cry of “misrepresentation” comes from them. I think it was Ps. Stegall who told me that the GES people do not want to expose the “soft-underbelly” of their reductionism.
Jim Reitman’s (aka- Agent 4 Him) dodge and evasion tactics is simply a continuation of what we saw from Jeremy Myers, Antonio da Rosa, Jim Johnson, et. al.
Lou
Greg/Lou/Kev,
Man, you guys just don’t get it, do you? Bobby and KC handed you your collective tuchas yesterday — absolutely nailed the problem — and you just keep slapping your gums together like nothing happened. It’s like you weren’t even listening.
But then, that’s exactly what’s going on, isn’t it?
You don’t want to know what Jim Reitman has to say; you want to hear the clatter of your fingers on the keyboard. He didn’t answer your question on your terms, and it’s killing you that you can’t play your games with his answer. It’s bugging you so much that you’re speculating about what his answer would be and then responding to the conjecture as if it were fact. Now I ask you…
You’re right about one thing, gentlemen. There certainly is a character issue in play here: “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is a folly and a shame to him.” I’d say that’s a character issue…
Answering a ‘simple question’ is not always simple. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is a simple question. Just tell me, guys, have you? Yes or no answers only, please — let’s not have any shilly-shallying about, eh?
It is always in order, and sometimes downright essential, to challenge the question, and this is what Reitman is doing. He is actually going considerably out of his way to make sure that his position will be heard and understood before you rush off to answer it, and you would do well to accept the help. You need it. You’re not without resources, any of you, but let’s face it, you’re not epistemological sophisticates, either; if you’re going to sit at the adults’ table, you need to listen a little.
Me, I wouldn’t take the tack that Reitman has taken with Lybrand here — you know what I’d say; I’ve said it often enough elsewhere. I’m not sure I’ll agree with where he comes out, either, when he gets to that point. There are aspects of what he’s said so far that give me pause. But let’s wait and see, shall we? Like the wise man said, “Swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”
Who knows? You might even learn something.
An embarrassing pattern that virtually every GES member and sympathizer in the blogs have taken when asked a clear, non-threatening question on their personal belief over what is the Gospel message the lost must believe to be born again.
But Lou, that is the problem. It SHOULD be a non threatening question but for them it is not. (Hence all the hemming, hawing, and dodging.) The reason it is not a non threatening question is because they have moved away from (or maybe never embraced) biblical orthodoxy and do not want to be exposed. They are no longer under the safety of orthodoxy and they know it. They just do not want to be judged for it. They want to be accepted or even to persuade you to their view, if you will allow it.
If it was a non threatening question they would just answer it.
JanH
Good point Jan. It is for these GES/Crossless people threatening to be asked to be honest even on the most basic question on what the lost must believe to be born again.
This is broken record time, but a key point to reiterate. Jim Reitman refuses to answer a question that any new believer would not hesitate to answer. Why; because to him it is threatening to be honest for the very reasons you cited above.
“ They want to be accepted or even to persuade you to their view, if you will allow it.”
And that is exactly how people like Rose (Rose’s Reasonings) were corrupted in these discussions. She allowed them, Antonio in particular, to keep pressing her with GES reductionist errors and she succumbed to it, to the point of being persuaded that the Crossless gospel is, “a difference of opinion that is acceptable, a “nuance of doctrine.” That is at best because she may have bought into the GES reductionism, but we are not to know because like Jim she will not answer any direct questions in regard to this teaching.
Lou
I may not be an “epistemological sophisticate” but I have noticed those who accept the “foolishness of the message of the cross” (1Cor. 1:21) aren’t plagued with the inconsistencies and mental gymnastics of those promoting the GES gospel.
Yes, we have challenges to work through, and I am interested in growing in my understanding of Jesus Christ. But as someone who has come to appreciate the integrity of Scripture, I have to question how much truth is going to be gleaned from people who answers to the question, “what does someone need to believe to be saved?” were the following –
a) “Who cares?” – Tim Nichols
b) “Content of faith” is a false concept – Jim Reitman
— Greg
Correction:
I may not be an “epistemological sophisticate” but I have noticed those who accept the “foolishness of the message of the cross” (1Cor. 1:21) as the saving message aren’t plagued with the inconsistencies and mental gymnastics of those promoting the GES gospel.
Yes, we have challenges to work through, and I am interested in growing in my understanding of Jesus Christ. But as someone who has come to appreciate the integrity of Scripture, I have to question how much truth is going to be gleaned from people whose answers to the question, “what does someone need to believe to be saved?” were the following –
a) “Who cares?” – Tim Nichols
b) “Content of faith” is a false concept – Jim Reitman
– Greg
Greg,
You guys just never get tired of that soundbite, do you? Makes me glad I gave it to you. Of course, if I recall correctly, what I said was “I don’t care,” not “Who cares?” — obviously some did, and do.
In this crowd of biblical exegetes, I realize it’s bad form to sneer at proof-texting and insist on a little context, but old habits die hard. If anybody cares about the context of the soundbite, it can be found here (document) or here (audio). Greg, if you’ve actually heard or read the context and you disagree with me, I’d love to discuss it with you. But let’s not be rude. Fred Lybrand opened this thread for comment on his discussion with Reitman; let’s stay on-topic here. If there’s a venue you’d prefer — a blog or forum of your own, perhaps — name it; alternatively, I’ll be happy to host the discussion in the comment section of my Gospel Discussion page if you like.
And on topic:
Fred’s 2/25, 10:05p post said: “If faith isn’t about propositions, then the content of saving faith is irrelevant. On the other hand, if faith is in part about content, then the other (non-propositional part) is irrelevant to our discussion. We need only discuss the ‘necessary content’ of saving faith (which is needed in addition to the non-propositional part).” (emphasis mine)
I’m not at all sure why that would be the case. If we’re talking about content as though it’s the whole issue, when in fact it’s not, then even the “right” answer will be distorted out of shape, because ‘content’ is being made to cover territory it was never meant to cover — which is exactly what has happened.
This goes to the issue of biblical revelation being composed only of propositions. This is a serious mistake, and let me address it negatively and positively.
Negatively, one could argue that the Bible is composed only of words, because there’s nothing in it but words. This is true, as far as it goes, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no propositions in it. The words make propositions. Likewise, the propositions make stories, and so on — there are larger units that carry meaning here; propositions are not the whole ball of wax.
Positively, let’s not forget that truth is a Person: “I am the Truth,” Jesus says. Because the Truth is also the divine Word, one expects propositions, and there are propositions. But because the Truth is a Person, one expects more than propositions: one expects acts in history, questions, commands, stories, emotions, all the true things of which a person is capable. And there they are — and many of them are in the text. These lay claim to truth in the same way that the propositions do: they are the derivative truth that comes from being a reflection of Truth, the Person.
And they don’t all work like propositions. Propositions carry facts to be believed. Commands require acts of obedience; questions call forth desired responses; stories elicit loyalty and emotional attachment to the protagonist. All these things can be described in propositions, but the things themselves are not propositional in the sense of ‘facts to be believed.’ Persuasion is the right response when God gives a proposition; obedience when He gives a command; an answer when He asks a question; and emotional alignment with the protagonist when He tells a story.
All of these things are in the biblical text; all these responses are called for by the text. To say that the text is nothing but propositions is missing some important stuff; seems like some of it might be relevant to a discussion of the gospel.
Tim,
While appreciate what you are trying to get at, it still seems to be missing the priority on propositions. To get at the truth which is ‘non-propositional’ you must first understand and believe the propositions.
Yes, of course, Jesus is the truth…but how did you come to know and believe such a thing?
We are actually talking about faith here…which indeed must begin with assent to a / some propositions. Even a command will work this way…in order to act on the command there must be assent to the propositions which inform one about the commands. You can’t get to a command to obey except through a propositon(s) first believed.
Thanks,
FRL
So isn’t the distinction, then, between ontology and epistemology, Fred? The question is what comes first? I would suggest ontology — given our fallen status and the problems that come therin (Rom 3) — must precede any kind of discussion on epistemology (which is first grounded in ontological issues).
Are we going to frame this trinitarianly, or not? If so, then we are going to have discuss this through how Union with Christ affects our definition of faith, and a host of other sundry topics. We must take seriously the implications of what Christ’s humanity for us is all about. We must consider what role vicariousness has in this discussion; i.e. if ‘faith’ is what we see demonstrated at the cross (“Father into thy hands I commit my spirit”), then faith is reoriented to ‘realtional’ categories vs. propositional). The COSF is Jesus Christ, He speaks for us (Heb 7:25), and by the Spirit we speak out of His coinherent trust in the Father.
Fred, would you characterize your love for your wife in propositional terms?
Greg:
This morning I pulled from my notes of the recording of what you noted when Nichol’s said, “I Don’t Care!”
This was the 2007 The FGA panel discussion. The discussion as centered on the question: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for salvation?”
I have the CD recording from the panel discussion. When the moderator directed the question to Nichols, this was his opening response, “I DON’T CARE!”
So, why would anyone take seriously someone who is so cavalier, arrogant and flippant on the death and resurrection of Christ?
Therefore, no need to listen to his verbose $5 word-smithing or take his chest-thumping here seriously.
Lou
Greg/Kev/Fred/Jan:
But where does Nichols go; the same evasion path Reitman took. Redirect and run interference. Anything, but an answer. So predictable.
Jan had it right when she wrote:
But Lou, that is the problem. It SHOULD be a non-threatening question but for them it is not. (Hence all the hemming, hawing, and dodging.) The reason it is not a non-threatening question is because they have moved away from (or maybe never embraced) biblical orthodoxy and do not want to be exposed. They are no longer under the safety of orthodoxy and they know it. They just do not want to be judged for it. They want to be accepted or even to persuade you to their view, if you will allow it. If it was a non-threatening question they would just answer it.
Lou
Lou/all,
It looks like the newest twist to defending the crossless gospel heresy is the inherently illogical and self-contradictory idea that propositions just don’t matter very much. Since propositions don’t have a high priority, there’s no use fighting over which propositions are involved in the saving message/saving faith.
This is at odds with Scripture. Even though it may lack sophistication and seem “foolish” to some, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message of the cross to save those who believe:
1 Corinthians 1:17-23
(17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
(18) 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.
(19) For it is written: “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND BRING TO NOTHING THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRUDENT.”
(20) Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
(21) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
(22) For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
(23) but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
Notice the “message of the cross”, i.e., “Christ crucified” is preached to the lost (“Jews and Greeks”) who cannot be saved without believing this message (i.e., “the gospel”).
Yes, there is a message called “the gospel” that is to be obeyed, and the way to obey it is to believe it, apart from which a person is lost (2Thes. 1:8-10).
— Greg
— Greg
Greg:
I agree. False doctrine always must resort to these kinds of methods.
I would not expect the Crossless gospel that is arrived at by twisting and abusing the Scriptures to be defended any other way than you noted, “…inherently illogical and self-contradictory idea that propositions just don’t matter very much.”
Lou
Fred,
You said, “To get at the truth which is ‘non-propositional’ you must first understand and believe the propositions.”
There’s the rub, right there. I don’t think that’s true. I grant that if you don’t believe “Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding” (Jn.2:2) then you are unlikely to catch the larger point of the story. Sure. In that sense, propositions come first. But the big propositions, the ones that matter, depend on the story and derive their meaning from it.
Quick thought experiment, here, and I hope it doesn’t prove too inflammatory: Let’s modify Zane’s ‘message in a bottle’ scenario a bit. The lonely islander is a Buddhist monk who knows English, but knows nothing whatever of Christianity. Put whatever succinct “salvation verse” you prefer in the bottle: John 3:16, 1 Cor. 15:3-5, Acts 16:31, John 20:30-31, Rom. 10:9-10, etc. Pick one. Now here’s the question: no matter which of these you picked, is our Buddhist islander going to understand it? No. He doesn’t know who Jesus/the Christ/the Son is. He doesn’t understand “eternal life” the way the verse means it; he thinks eternal life is the problem, and he’s trying to escape it. He doesn’t understand “sin” the way the Scriptures do, and the transfer of sin from him to someone else (which is what makes Christ dying for him intelligible) is completely foreign to him. He doesn’t understand the import of the cross, and he’s probably confusing resurrection with reincarnation. I could go on, but I think you see the point.
You said, “…in order to act on the command there must be assent to the propositions which inform one about the commands. You can’t get to a command to obey except through a proposition(s) first believed.”
By the same logic, to hear and believe a proposition one must have the necessary definitions and context in place, which presupposes the overall story, and trust in the person who is relaying that story and the attendant proposition. Trust can be described in proposition, but the thing itself is non-propositional, and story is — what’s the term? — super-propositional? So I don’t think it’s as simple as “propositions are primary.”
-Tim
Lou,
Thank you for correcting Greg as to the question I was actually answering with the “I don’t care” bit. That’s important, and it slipped by me; I’m grateful that you caught it. Thanks.
*****
Greg,
The message of the cross must be preached, believed, and obeyed — no argument at all. Of course.
That message is a story. What I object to is the attempt to decontextualize it and ‘boil it down’ to a fortune-cookie-sized proposition. Story is to proposition as proposition is to word or word is to letter — different level, different category. That difference makes a difference in this discussion.
-Tim
Tim:
I was not so much correcting Greg as I was in exposing your cavalier attitude and flippancy with the Lord’s death and resurrection.
That is why, just like with Antonio da Rosa and Jim Johnson, you can’t be taken seriously.
Therefore, as I noted above, why listen to your verbose $5 word-smithing or take your chest-thumping here seriously.
Furthermore, to reiterate, you are playing very much the same dodge and evade gamesmanship with Fred as Jim Reitman did. Dodge and evade a question any new beiever, even a 12 year old, would answer without hesitation. So predictable!
Thank the Lord contnued exposure of the GES’s reductionist “Crossless” Gospel heresy and gamemanship (ala- da Rosa, Johnson, Wilkin, Reitman, et. al. and now you) is going to ensure its on-going slide into obscurity and Lord willing the eventual demise of GES.
LM
Lou,
I’d hate to think I was really chest-thumping. What’s the recipe for avoiding that? Saying the same thing over and over, in bold print?
But on to matters of substance:
What you heard from me was not flippancy about our Lord or His death and resurrection. It was flippancy about devoting enormous effort to the unbiblical question of a bare-minimum gospel message. It was disgust with a gnat-strangling sectarian battle that evaporates entirely under the strong light of mere obedience. If we preach Christ as the Scriptures teach us to do, the whole problem disappears. To me, that suggests a viable solution, but apparently obedience is too simple for some people.
It is precisely because of my devotion to our crucified and risen Lord that I cannot abide His people savaging each other over trivial questions the Bible never addresses. There’s a dying world out there, you long-tasseled Pharisee, and you can’t find anything better to do than bayonet your brothers for not having broad enough phylacteries. Shame on you.
Lou took his Martuneaxe
And gave his brother forty whacks
And when he felt his work was done
He gave his sister forty-one
and I would have thought that someone who claims the authority of the Scriptures would at least have had the forbearance to stop at thirty-nine strokes. Shame on you.
Tim,
You addressed a post to me on September 29, 2009 at 6:24 pm.
This is my response. Please forgive me for not responding immediately. I doubt I will be able or willing to respond to you in any more timely fashion (if at all) in the future. So you should be aware of that in case you should wish further discussion.
He didn’t answer your question on your terms, and it’s killing you that you can’t play your games with his answer. It’s bugging you so much that you’re speculating about what his answer would be and then responding to the conjecture as if it were fact.
If the man would respond to the question we would not need to speculate. I haven’t been offering any conjecture on what his answer would be at all.
What I’ve said is if the man can’t read the Gospel from the Text then he’s not preaching the same message that the Apostle Paul did. Shall I quote myself for you? Or are you able to read what I wrote instead of committing a Straw-Man fallacy yourself? (As your paragraphs accuse me of doing.)
1. Answering a ‘simple question’ is not always simple. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is a simple question. Just tell me, guys, have you? Yes or no answers only, please – let’s not have any shilly-shallying about, eh?
Oh yes.. we asked that type of question didn’t we? What must a person believe to in order to be saved.
Your post is an excellent example of the games people play. Thank you for making it clearer for everyone than I would be able to.
He is actually going considerably out of his way to make sure that his position will be heard and understood before you rush off to answer it, and you would do well to accept the help.
Out of his way? Considerably?? 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…
….if you’re going to sit at the adults’ table, you need to listen a little.
Thank you so much for the advice. I will consider the rest of your post as indication of the value I should place on it. Your post is rude and insignificant to the discussion.
1. But let’s wait and see, shall we? Like the wise man said, “Swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”
There is no wrath from me. Since you addressed me in your post I take your post as personal to me. I have no wrath for the man, I simply dismiss the idea that there is any profit in playing games with him while we wait to see if he agrees with Scripture or not.
Who knows? You might even learn something.
If he were in agreement with the Scriptures he would have simply quoted them. If he were in agreement with the Scriptures then I could hope to learn something from him. I trust the Lord will use even this experience to conform us to His likeness.. .but I have no expectation of learning some deeper understanding of the Gospel of Christ from one who will not submit to even quote it.
Hope this finds you well.
Fred, I’m trying to play nice here. I found Tim’s post offensive on several levels. I trust that I contained myself well enough to be acceptable. However, as always I’m open to correction.
Thanks,
Kev
Tim,
You asked me a question. I’m actually am truly sorry that I failed to answer it in my last. I will correct my behavior promptly then.
You asked,
1. Answering a ’simple question’ is not always simple. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is a simple question. Just tell me, guys, have you? Yes or no answers only, please – let’s not have any shilly-shallying about, eh?
No, I have not stopped beating my wife.
My answer is perfectly true, perfectly clear. Your own wild imagination might make up some additional information. However, much like how you have handled the discussions in this thread, that would be an issue between you and the Lord. It is not my failing.
You make that out to be a hard question to answer. However, it’s not hard to answer. It’s just easy to play with.
I trust that my character will survive your “playfulness” just fine.
Kev
Kev,
I don’t mind accommodating a slower pace of discussion; I often need the same accommodation from others myself. Certainly nothing to forgive, there.
I find your “Just let him quote the Bible and we’ll be happy” approach a little suspect, for two reasons. First, I really think that if you consider it a little, you’ll realize that you would have a series of follow-up questions before you’d be really satisfied. Second, it’s just a different genus of the species “pass my little litmus test or I’ll call you a heretic.” Again, Jim Reitman is challenging the validity of your test, and you aren’t willing to hear him out. That’s a problem. Then your post implied he is a heretic with whom you have been remiss to waste so much time — and this in the absence of listening to what he’s had to say. That’s just making the problem worse.
And have you considered the implications of statements like “If he were in agreement with the Scriptures he would have simply quoted them”?? Do you really think that Jim Reitman holds a view contradictory to Scripture, knows that he holds such a view, and is refusing to quote Scripture lest the mere quotation refute him? No other possible explanation, not even one alternative that you haven’t considered? Couldn’t you at least ask? And listen to his answer?
My counsel to you to listen more closely might not be worth much to you — who am I, after all? — but the fact that it also comes from Proverbs 18:13 might give you pause.
As to answering my question about beating your wife: even here, in an environment where everyone would have perfectly understood what you meant by an unqualified “no,” you couldn’t resist challenging the implications of the question.
Thank you for making my point.
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
I want to rephrase one portion of my commentary above.
Instead of, “ No, not until the Hodges inspired Crossless assault on the Gospel came along and spawned men like Wilkin, da Rosa, Myers, Johnson and Nichols.”
In the past I have written and want to reiterate here,
“No, not until the Hodges inspired Crossless assault on the Gospel came along and RUINED who might otherwise have been good men like Wilkin, da Rosa, Myers, Johnson and Nichols.”
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.
Kev: Excuse me, Tim. Could you please tell me how to get to the nearest hospital? See, I’ve not stopped beating my wife and she needs medical attention. Well, I mean, she needs medical attention because she’s been food poisoned, not because I’ve not stopped beating her, but that is beside the point. Do you know where the nearest hospital is?
Tim: Now Kev, is it really fair to ask me to tell you where the nearest hospital is? I find the question entrapping (especially since you say you have not stopped beating your wife. Are you really a safe fellow? How do I know you will not stop beating me?) You see, we haven’t defined any terms. Shouldn’t we define what a hospital is first? I think we need to discuss the propositional aspect of this before we can answer your question, don’t you? And anyway, do you really need to have so much information as all that in order to help your wife? I mean, think about it. What if you were on a dessert island and one day a sign floated ashore that said “Hospital” with an arrow pointing left? What if that was all the information you were going to get? That would just have to be enough, wouldn’t it?
Kev: But, my wife needs medical attention. I need to know where the nearest hospital is! She is very sick! She could die!
Tim: Tut, tut. You are just annoyed that I won’t answer the question on your terms. You should be ashamed. You are behaving like Lou the Pharisee. Do you know Lou the Pharisee? A very irritating fellow. A chap of one idea if ever there was one. Same thing over and over….
JanH
Jan that’s a riot!!! I didn’t think it was possible for someone to make me laugh on this subject.
Kev
Jan,
That’s so unfair. I’d never let the words “tut, tut” pass my lips in a situation like that.
But seriously. Getting directions to the nearest grocery store is simple; figuring out how language and nonverbal signals conspire to deliver all the information in the conversation is complicated.
Flipping a light switch is simple; figuring out the wiring, distribution, generation and manufacturing that make it all possible is complicated.
Preaching the gospel is simple; figuring out self-deception, faith, content, object, the person of Christ, propositions, stories, etc. — how it all works — is complicated.
As long as we talk about how to preach the gospel as Scripture teaches us to do, we have relatively few problems, especially when the discussion is confined to FG circles to start with. When we start talking about exactly what goes on underneath all that, it gets complicated.
It’s tempting to say “Preaching the gospel is simple enough; how complicated could the underlying stuff be?”
Kids who are learning about electricity for the first time suffer the same temptation.
They learn, over time, to resist it. So should we.
-Tim
Tim,
I mean this as the fairest of warnings. You are very worldly in your conversation. Your insights, and your instigations are based in worldly thoughts, practices and desires.
You dance in your conversation with convoluted contortions like the people who claim only to tell “white lies.”
You stated;
I find your “Just let him quote the Bible and we’ll be happy” approach a little suspect, for two reasons. First, I really think that if you consider it a little, you’ll realize that you would have a series of follow-up questions before you’d be really satisfied.
I can quote exactly what the Gospel is, and what one must trust in order to be saved from Scripture. So can anyone else, it’s freely available at http://www.biblegateway.com for example.
FOLLOW UP questions are part of normal discussion… failing to answer a question for a week and coming up with complicated reasons not to is not.
I surely would find the man much less suspect if he would start with the Gospel… and I’d find you less suspect if you would encourage him to do so.
Then you said Second, it’s just a different genus of the species “pass my little litmus test or I’ll call you a heretic.”
Yes it is. I’m not ashamed to follow Scripture. Gal 1:8 It doesn’t tell me to “hear him out because I just might learn something.” If one preaches another Gospel then let them be accursed.
Since the man is either unable or unwilling to preach the same Gospel that Paul received from the Christ, then what am I to do? Am I to put myself above Scripture and hold a man’s hand while he preaches (or fails to even mention….) another gospel?
Then you wrote something truly funny;
and this in the absence of listening to what he’s had to say.
It’s hard to listen to someone who won’t speak. I’ve been trying… repeatedly I’ve tried with people who are unwilling to tell me what the Gospel is… they’re all reportedly just like your friend Jim – VALUABLE resources for wisdom and Scriptural knowledge… if only they’d actually tell us something I suppose…
You asked an important question next;
And have you considered the implications of statements like “If he were in agreement with the Scriptures he would have simply quoted them”?? Do you really think that Jim Reitman holds a view contradictory to Scripture, knows that he holds such a view, and is refusing to quote Scripture lest the mere quotation refute him?
Read Romans 1. I agree with the Apostle.
No other possible explanation, not even one alternative that you haven’t considered? Couldn’t you at least ask? And listen to his answer?
Once again, what’s with the Straw-Man arguments? I’ve never once put a word in the man’s mouth. I’m simply waiting for him to open it up and say something. If he’s not willing to preach the Gospel then there’s something wrong. Is he ashamed of it? I don’t know… all I know is that people who know the Gospel and are not ashamed of it tend to preach it openly…
Fred has gone and given Jim an open thread to post his views in…. next to typing for him I don’t know what else we can really do to help the guy out..
As to answering my question about beating your wife: even here, in an environment where everyone would have perfectly understood what you meant by an unqualified “no,” you couldn’t resist challenging the implications of the question.
Thank you for making my point.
You’re welcome. However, I didn’t challenge the implications. Please read my post. I challenged your tendencies to inflict implications where none exist.
Even if it were true that I could not resist.. what exactly does that prove? Only that you’re more interested in worldly games than the simplicity of knowing Christ.
You do great disservice to Jim. I truly hope Jim has read this far into my post – though I would understand why his emotions may well have stopped him.
You do great disservice to him because your game playing dulls his attention and distracts him from Scripture.
I also agree with the Apostle in his warning to us that not many of us should be teachers. You should check that particular warning out more closely.
Kev
Kev,
Jim Reitman is trying to answer the question in such a way that his answer will be understood. I’m sorry that you don’t understand what he’s doing or where he’s going, but that’s all the more reason to listen to him carefully. You’re complaining that you’re listening, but he’s not talking. But check the other thread; I think you’ll see that he’s done a fair amount of talking. What’s lacking here is a genuine desire to hear him and interact with what he’s said.
That’s what I came for. Until I see it in you, I’m not sure what point there would be in continuing the conversation. And if you really believe what you’ve just said about me, I’m not sure why you’d want to talk with me — but of course that’s up to you.
I hope we can meet in person some day, and in that setting perhaps we can make some progress. But this venue doesn’t seem to be productive at this point.
-Tim
If anybody happens to be browsing and seeking some answers, what about Tim Nichol’s argument to the effect of, I don’t care what someone must believe to be saved because we all preach the cross anyway?
Lou Martuneac recently posted a very relevant article from Tom Stegall’s book The Gospel of the Christ titled, “Preach the Maximum, Require the Minimum”. You can read it here:
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2009/09/gospel-of-christ-excerpt-7.html
Lou may want to supply that in a hyperlink form.
Additionally, I would just say it obviously does matter what the lost need to believe to be saved. How can someone with an agnostic attitude about the content of saving faith even know if he’s saved? At the panel discussion already mentioned, Tim “I Don’t Care” Nichols himself stated that he is unsure whether someone who believed Christ’s promise but not His death and resurrection would go to heaven. Doesn’t that bother anybody!!??
— Greg
Here it is Greg:
Preach the Maximum, Require the Minimum
Greg:
In regard to your referencing Tim “I DON’T CARE” Nichols above I want to reiterate a point I made earlier so that readers coming late to this thread don’t miss it.
Nichols blurted his now infamous statement at the 2007 FGA Annual Conference during the panel discussion. The discussion was centered on the question: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for salvation?”
When the moderator directed the question to Nichols, this was his opening response, “I DON’T CARE!”
So, why would anyone take seriously someone (Nichols in this example) who is so cavalier, arrogant and flippant on the death and resurrection of Christ?
As you further noted, “Nichols himself stated that he is unsure whether someone who believed Christ’s promise but not His death and resurrection would go to heaven. Doesn’t that bother anybody!!??”
Sure does and it also IMO reiterates and affirms that his “I DON’T CARE” statement from two years was no mere wordplay. As for what the lost must hear and believe to be born again Nichols apparently does not care if the Lord’s death and resurrection is heard and/or believed.
Lou
Lou, just a brief comment on why I involved the “I don’t care” point in the discussion. As you mentioned, it’s not just a sound byte, but it’s actually Mr. Nichol’s unchanged position on the topic of whether the lost need to believe in Christ’s death and resurrection. That’s why I think the name Tim “I Don’t Care” Nichols” is actually an appropriate way to “mark” him until he repents. At the same time, I believe Mr. Nichols when he says that he personally wants people to hear about the cross and that he shares it with the lost. However, insisting on sharing the message of the cross is only makes sense if it is required in the content of saving faith as explained in the “Preach the Maximum, Require the Minimum” article at your blog.
However, there are several problems when your attitude is “I don’t know and I don’t care what the lost must believe to be saved.” One, as I pointed out, Mr. Nichols has no basis to claim whether any body including himself is saved. If he can’t answer whether a person who believes the “promise” but not the “cross” is saved, then he SHOULD care, and he SHOULD want to find out what someone must believe! If he is unsure with regard to the necessary content of saving faith for the “promise only believer”, then how is sure of the content for anybody else including himself? What basis does he have to consider anybody a believer? Is the answer, “I don’t care?” for that too? How can you not care about the one but care about the other?
Secondly, there is no way to deal with “faith” without dealing with content or propositions. Do we agree that someone must believe particular in someone identified as Jesus Christ? Well, then there are propositions involved. Is it just his name, “Jesus” along with the promise? Is it just a non-descriptive trust in someone named “Jesus”? Does it involve the cross? Whatever the answer is to any of these questions necessarily involves some propositions, even if you only believe someone must believe in someone named “Jesus” for “eternal life.” Without some necessary propositions, the conclusion is a person could believe anything or nothing and be saved. So, there is really no way to deny the legitimacy of the question on the necessary content of saving faith.
Thirdly, Mr. Nichol’s view involves a hardened rejection of many passages that clearly teach there is a message called “the gospel” the lost must believe to be saved. Mr. Nichol’s view has hinged on a perceived incongruity between the message preached, i.e., “the gospel” and the message believed. But Scripture does not know this incongruity. “The Gospel” is both the message that must be preached to the lost and believed by the lost, without which Scripture clearly teaches the person is heading for hell (1Cor. 1:18; 4:15; 2Cor. 4:4-5; 2Thes. 1:8-10; and I could go on). The only way you could conclude otherwise is through some agenda, even if it’s an inner perversion of the heart of which he isn’t aware.
I know Mr. Nichols could throw some “wrinkles” in that just like he or most intelligent people could throw “wrinkles” into any orthodox teaching of Scripture. However, a person has to consider whether he is submitting to the Word of God or throwing wrinkles in something for his own agenda. Tom Stegall’s book The Gospel of the Christ overviews every occurrence of “the gospel” and makes a legitimate defense for “the gospel” in the Church age being the specific message the lost must believe. Dennis Rokser has also written a series called The Issue of Incongruity at Lou’s blog in which he shows problems with Tim’s view that there is incongruity in the message preached and what the lost must believe to be saved. Both of these writings harmonize with the clear Biblical fact that Scripture teaches those who haven’t believed “the gospel” are lost.
Another problem with Mr. Nichol’s view is that he says, “It doesn’t matter because everyone shares the cross anyway.” As a matter of fact, that’s simply not true. That’s a transparently miopic statement. At least, isn’t it conceivable that there are people Mr. Nichols doesn’t know about or people in the future who may blatantly decide to put issues like Christ’s deity and the cross on the “backburner” in favor of only focusing on the message of life? The book The Gospel of the Christ documents a marked de-emphasis of the cross in the writings of GES. But even aside from that, what Mr. Nichols currently sees people within his small scope of sight doing is subject to change. So claiming “it doesn’t matter” due to his view of the status quo is not valid.
— Greg
Greg:
I’m glad you got into more depth on the disconcerting remark by Tim Nichols. I continue to reference Nichol’s, “I DON’T CARE” statement, because it is becoming increasingly clear that was no mere passing remark from him. In this thread he has made statements that reiterate and reinforce that radical comment from two years ago.
I don’t want to take all of your penetrating observations for additional commentary because they are powerful in their own right. I will address just a few in following submissions.
“So, there is really no way to deny the legitimacy of the question on the necessary content of saving faith.” Unless of course, as Jan noted, they are threatened by the prospect of being honest and transparent.
Lou
Greg:
You wrote, “Thirdly, Mr. Nichol’s view involves a hardened rejection of many passages that clearly teach there is a message called ‘the gospel’ the lost must believe to be saved. Mr. Nichol’s view has hinged on a perceived incongruity between the message preached, i.e., ‘the gospel’ and the message believed. But Scripture does not know this incongruity”
Later you referenced and here is the link to Part 1 of Dennis Rokser’s series, The Issue of Incongruity: Actual or Artificial?
You also wrote an article (series) on this very subject. The Technical Meaning of the Term, “the Gospel.”
Another point is the very fact Mr. Nichols is not sure of whether a person who believes the promise but not the cross is saved underscores the importance of propositions. Isn’t the implication that he would be more sure of the person’s salvation if the person’s content of faith involved Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection? “Propositions” and “content of faith” are more important to Mr. Nichols than he realizes.
Greg:
You wrote, “Another problem with Mr. Nichol’s view is that he says, ‘It doesn’t matter because everyone shares the cross anyway.’ As a matter of fact, that’s simply not true. That’s a transparently miopic statement. At least, isn’t it conceivable that there are people Mr. Nichols doesn’t know about or people in the future who may blatantly decide to put issues like Christ’s deity and the cross on the ‘backburner’ in favor of only focusing on the message of life?”
Ah yes, you referenced just one of the infamous statements by GES Crossless gospel apologist Antonio da Rosa. In context he wrote,
“If I were talking to a Jew, he may very well ask me about the deity and humanity of Jesus. I would certainly entertain his questions and answer them to the best of my ability. But if such a one continued to express doubts or objections to this, I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner. Can I show you from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Jesus Christ fulfills many prophecies?’ (How I Might Do Evangelism With a Jewish Man, Sept. 2007)
Antonio is a GES member and has twice been a featured speaker at GES conferences. He is speaking for and on behalf of the theology of the GES and its Crossless gospel.
Amidst Antonio’s long running contradictions, ambiguity and evasiveness there was an item he wrote that makes his view, which typifies the GES reductionist assault on the cosf, very clear. Antonio was asked, “Are you now prepared to say that belief in the deity of Christ is necessary for salvation, or His humanity, or His resurrection?”
Antonio replied, “I do not believe that one must understand, assent to, or be aware of the historical Jesus of Nazareth’s deity in order to simply be justified and receive eternal life. However, I do believe that one must understand the deity of Christ if he is to grow into Christian maturity and merit a future superlative glorification.”
And at this blog, in reply to Kev’s question, da Rosa wrote, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
BTW, I asked Jim Reitman in that same thread to respond to that comment by da Rosa. For three days Reitman dodged that as well.
You can read more of these GES gospel extremes from da Rosa at Heresy of the Crossless Gospel: Verified & Affirmed.
LM
Greg:
I’ll get to your penetrating note above, but first…
After church last night I had an opportunity to test my theory- that a 12yo would answer without hesitation what the GES men Reitman, Nichols, et. al. will not. I got with not a 12yo, but a 9yo boy and I asked him, “What does a lost person have to believe to be saved?”
His answer, “He has to believe in Jesus.”
I asked, “Is that all, just believe in Jesus?” He said “No…Jesus died for our sins, was buried in the tomb.”
I asked, “Anything else after He was buried?” The boy said, “Yes, He rose from the dead.” I asked, “Anything else? He said, “No.”
Ask that same question to virtually any GES Crossless gospel advocate or sympathizer and what do you get?
Jim Reitman- Dodge and evasion, …that the question itself is flawed because belief does not involve content or the acceptance of propositions.
Tim Nichols, “I DON’T CARE!”
These men can’t muster the honesty or integrity nor overcome their fear of what is an obvious threat to them to answer a question that a 9 year old did not hesitate to answer. The 9yo needed some prompting, but he was not diving for cover behind pseudo-scholarship to hide what he believes. The 9 yo did not run circles around a question that gets to the core of our faith.
But here we have mature men in the faith with some level of theological training. Ask these GES men what the lost must believe to be saved and you get evasion, double-speak, gamesmanship, anger against and demonization of anyone who dares ask them to be honest.
What a sad and pathetic spectacle the GES people have become before the NT church.
The GES is on its way out and these men exemplify the ethical and behavioral issues that follows their reductionist “Crossless” gospel heresy, all of which are leading to the demise of GES.
Lou
Lou,
Can you answer a couple of questions about your interaction with the potential young Evangelist?
1. Did you get a sense that he knew what he believed and why?
2. Did you have a sense of kinship or lack of kinship based on your answer to question 1?
3. Did you observe any sign that he felt threatened by your question? (note: I don’t mean intimidated by being asked something by an adult.)
4. Did he appear to want to tell you the answer?
5. Based on what he told you, did you feel that you could have a sane, sensible, and honest conversation with him about his and your faith? Was trust established?
Thanks,
Kev
A quick note to all:
I was in Toronto at the beginning of Sept for a local missions trip. You can read about it HERE.
I had a very good conversation with some Muslims. While we had vastly different opinions about what is actually true – I quickly established trust with the men.
These men made no mistake about what they believe. We acknowledged the differences and spoke about them frankly, and fairly calmly.
Neither I nor they spent any “prep-time” getting the person ready to hear what we had to say. We came out with what we believe to be true and then discussed it.
Trust was established by honesty and transparency, and then real discussion happened.
It is sad that those who are openly anti-Christ are more open to real discussion about theology than those who claim His Name.
Kev
1. Did you get a sense that he knew what he believed and why?
Yes, as best as you’ expect of a 9 year old.
2. Did you have a sense of kinship or lack of kinship based on your answer to question 1?
Kinship around our relationship to and with the Lord
3. Did you observe any sign that he felt threatened by your question? (note: I don’t mean intimidated by being asked something by an adult.)
NONE, whatsoever!!!
4. Did he appear to want to tell you the answer?
Definitely, no hesitation. He tried to think and give a “good” answer as is speaking to a lost person.
5. Based on what he told you, did you feel that you could have a sane, sensible, and honest conversation with him about his and your faith? Was trust established?
We did have a sane, sensible, honest, non-threatening conversation; trust was present start, middle and finish.
BTW, if he got it wrong I would have kindly helped him with that.
Lou
Read Tom Stegall’s excerpt,
The Dilemma of (GES) Muslim Evangelism
Lou
Lou,
Until this morning I thought I had a clear grasp of the problems facing the differing sides in this argument then I read the account of your interaction with the nine-year-old boy. Please tell me I’m wrong but if I understand what you are saying then your answer to the question, “what must I believe in order to be saved?” is simply “You must believe the content of saving faith!” Is this true?
If this is the case then you have not only taken the clear and unvarnished Gospel command to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and converted it to a proposition you include on your content list but you have also rendered it void of any meaning at all!
Greg and Lou,
I said it before: Fred opened this particular thread for the sole purpose of third-party discussion of his dialogue with Jim Reitman. I’ll be happy to answer for my views, but let’s not hijack Fred’s thread here for a discussion of something I said two years ago. I tried to answer your concerns briefly and evidently that has just fanned the flames, judging from your recent long dialogue. I’d love to address some of the things you just said — but not here. (Of course we’ll post a link here so those interested can find it.)
As to location, well, anywhere’s fine with me. If you’d prefer to host, or to meet on “neutral” territory, I’m perfectly willing to do that– just name the place. If you want, I’m more than willing to host the discussion on my Gospel Discussion page, or I can start a special-purpose comment thread just for us on my blog. Whatever venue works for you.
Just let me know.
-Tim
Tim wrote to Kev,”That’s what I came for. Until I see it in you, I’m not sure what point there would be in continuing the conversation.”
No Tim you came here to run interference for Reitman’s obvious dodge of Fred’s question, but look what happened. You over exposed your views, Greg nailed and exposed it. You thought you could thump your chest and bully your way around here and we aren’t having any of it. Your closing notes here are a facade of graciousness and suggestions of fair and transparent dialogue with you are not believable as you proved here.
Tim, “I DON’T CARE” Nichols is who you are by your own definition and admission. No “misrepresentation” mantra, please.
You revealed too much and you got caught in your own GES Crossless extremism. Now you are going to bail, which is the normal pattern for GES members and their sympathizers. Just like Wilkin bailed on the debate he was clamoring for when Ron Shea accepted the challenge. Just like the GES who dodged the opportunity in 2007 to meet in a private academic setting the FGA offered. No, not Hodges, Wilkin, Lewis, none of you GES men would meet.
I think I can speak for Kev and Greg in telling you that none of us are going to follow you to your blog. There is now way we would draw attention to your blog, which is a conduit for error. We won’t join you anywhere so that you can spread your aberrant theology and possibly cause some to stumble just as exposure to Hodges’s reductionist errors on the Gospel caused some to stumble in their theology. No Tim, we aren’t going to help you with that.
If you should venture outside your CG blog or any other CG friendly blog you will be met there, exposed so that others (especially the unsuspecting) are aware of your aberrant reductionist errors, your flippancy with the Lord’s death and resurrection, your gamesmanship and avoid you (Rom. 16:17-18).
Lord willing, like Wilkin and the rest of GES Crossless</I people you will be delivered from the reductionist heresy that Hodges introduced to the NT church and repent of it to the glory of God.
LM
K.C.,
If it was you, what would you have said to the 9 year old boy?
Thanks,
Rick
Hello KC,
I don’t believe we’ve discussed anything before. I didn’t know who Tim was referencing when he mentioned you and “Bobby” previously.
I hope you won’t mind if I reply briefly to what you wrote to Lou. My intention is not to argue with everyone on here.. or even to instigate argument. There is very little profit in such.. but I do want to comment on this.
Please tell me I’m wrong but if I understand what you are saying then your answer to the question, “what must I believe in order to be saved?” is simply “You must believe the content of saving faith!” Is this true?
Come on why are you intentionally twisting everything up?
What must I do to be saved is answered by “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” To which, the person asks “Who’s that?” (as we see demonstrated in John 9:35-38 and I see demonstrated every time I and my team witness to folks in real life). The Lord Jesus Christ is identified as the one who carried out the work of the Gospel, which makes the Gospel “good news.” We read the Gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-11 Where it is both declared, and sealed.
You believe in the One Who is the Lord Jesus Christ, as identified by the Gospel of the Christ. There is no other option. Believe the Gospel and so have Eternal Life, or do not believe it and have eternal condemnation. Mark 16:15-16
You can not properly identify Christ without the Gospel. You can not have faith that He will save us without the Gospel. You can not have assurance that your salvation is secure without the Gospel.
The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation.
Rewording what Lou says may make for great arguments… and long comment threads… but it also takes away your credibility.
The idea that it takes four posts of writing to prepare someone to hear the Gospel is absurd.. Paul didn’t do that in the most hostile of situations in his life, why would someone feel they need to do that on a Christian blog???
Kev
Lou,
You know I don’t like you, Lou, and I despise the way you treat God’s people. But still and all, I’m sorry you’re not willing to continue. If you change your mind and want to finish the conversation, you know where to find me. My door’s open, even for you.
-Tim
Tim “I DON’T CARE” Nichols:
I could not care less want you think of me. This is NOT a personality contest; it’s the doctrine that I am resisting and the efforts of any one who tries to legitimize the GES Crossless heresy or Lordship Salvation for that matter.
I have no intention of darkening the door of your blog. Watching and dealing with your chest thumping, emotions and gamesmanship at this neutral site is quite enough. I will close by reiterating from above…
I think I can speak for Kev and Greg in telling you that none of us are going to follow you to your blog. There is no way we would want draw attention to your blog, which is a conduit for error. We won’t join you anywhere so that you can spread your aberrant theology and possibly cause some to stumble just as exposure to Hodges’s reductionist errors on the Gospel caused some to stumble in their theology. No Tim, we aren’t going to help you with that.
If you should venture outside your CG blog or any other CG friendly blog you will be met there, exposed so that others (especially the unsuspecting) are aware of your aberrant reductionist errors, your flippancy with the Lord’s death and resurrection, your gamesmanship and avoid you (Rom. 16:17-18).
Lord willing, like Wilkin and the rest of GES Crossless people you will be delivered from the reductionist heresy that Hodges introduced to the NT church and repent of it to the glory of God.
LM
Kev,
I sincerely appreciate your reply and truly hope what you’ve written holds for Lou as well. Like Dr. Nichols, I despise Lou’s obvious hatred for any and all of the brethren who disagree with him and so I normally avoid him like the plague but what “seemed” apparent from his inquisition was impossible to ignore so I asked. I conveyed my perception of Lou’s belief exactly as it unfolded in my mind and so if it seemed that I twisted his words then rest assured it is only because they remain twisted in my perception. As for my credibility please toss anything that you find unscriptural in what I say and give any and all other credit to God. 😉
The lad clearly answered Lou with his first response but “it seems” that, for Lou, to believe in Jesus is only one “thing” among many that must be believed. It’s as though belief in Jesus is simply a proposition and all these other things he pressed the lad for are not part of what it means to believe in Jesus but are each in and of themselves separate and equal propositions as pertaining to “saving” faith. This then leaves belief in Jesus void of any real meaning and begs the question; what then does it mean to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
KC, I understand what you are saying. Lou’s question could be taken in that way, but it doesn’t need to be.
When he asked, “Is that all, just believe in Jesus?”, he could have meant “Is that (the only condition of salvation), just believe in Jesus?” If that were the question, I would say the answer is yes, and it would be wrong to imply otherwise.
However, he could have meant, “Is that all (i.e., is that your full answer/explanation), just ‘believe in Jesus?'” in which case he would have been penetrating for more of an explanation on what it means to believe in Jesus.
To be more clear, he could have said, “That’s right. And what does it mean to believe in Jesus?”
It seems the little boy didn’t see a conflict between “believe in Jesus” and believing in what Christ had done.
So, KC, even though you’re right the question could be taken in a way that begs the question, “what does it mean to believe in Jesus?” it could also be taken in the opposite way.
For a while I was scrolling down to the bottom of the discussion between Fred and Jim, waiting for Fred’s response. Not until today did I notice that Fred had actually made a couple replies already. They’re just attached to previous comments of Jim rather than located at the bottom.
Rick,
I would have told him the same thing I tell everyone else. “Son, stay away from that man. He’s dangerous.”
I made this comment to Fred above, but in case it’s not spotted here it is again:
So isn’t the distinction, then, between ontology and epistemology, Fred? The question is what comes first? I would suggest ontology — given our fallen status and the problems that come therin (Rom 3) — must precede any kind of discussion on epistemology (which is first grounded in ontological issues).
Are we going to frame this trinitarianly, or not? If so, then we are going to have discuss this through how Union with Christ affects our definition of faith, and a host of other sundry topics. We must take seriously the implications of what Christ’s humanity for us is all about. We must consider what role vicariousness has in this discussion; i.e. if ‘faith’ is what we see demonstrated at the cross (”Father into thy hands I commit my spirit”), then faith is reoriented to ‘realtional’ categories vs. propositional). The COSF is Jesus Christ, He speaks for us (Heb 7:25), and by the Spirit we speak out of His coinherent trust in the Father.
Fred, would you characterize your love for your wife in propositional terms?
Fred,
Why don’t you activate “Recent Comments” (available in your widgets section of your wordpress toolbar) in your sidebar . . . that way if people respond to a paricular thread in this longer thread people will be alerted to it.
KC,
You said, The lad clearly answered Lou with his first response but “it seems” that, for Lou, to believe in Jesus is only one “thing” among many that must be believed.
I understand that this is the tactic that the GES people take with Lou. It’s part of their (yours?) “laundry list” attack on him, and others who hold to the Gospel presented in Scripture.
Lou wasn’t looking for “what else” the boy believed, he was looking to find out WHICH Jesus the boy believed in.
Is this the Jesus of the boy’s own fashioning or the Jesus of the Gospel?
Lou wasn’t looking for “additional” belief, Lou was looking for correct belief.
Lou was actually doing the same thing that people do with me on the street, and what we see modeled in John 9:35-38 – “Jesus? Who is that?”
If I say that I believe in Jesus, you ought rightly say “Which Jesus?” For there are millions of Jesus’ who live, and who have lived.
There is only ONE Christ of the Gospel.
Of course.. I KNOW this is not the first time this has been explained in your witness.. so the fact that you require it to be explained to you again is evidence that I believe indicates unfaithful discussion.
Further proof of this is your reply to Rick’s asking you what you would say to the boy.
You said
Rick,
I would have told him the same thing I tell everyone else. “Son, stay away from that man. He’s dangerous.”
Very witty. However, I know, you know, and every single person reading this blog knows that Rick was asking what you would have told the boy about Jesus.
You seem to be capable of faithful conversation. It seems that your desire to take jabs at Lou has overcome your duty to the Gospel.
Kev
KC there’s one thing I forgot to reply to.
Like Dr. Nichols, I despise Lou’s obvious hatred for any and all of the brethren who disagree with him and so I normally avoid him like the plague but what “seemed” apparent from his inquisition was impossible to ignore so I asked.
I’ve known Lou for a couple of years now. He does not hate people who disagree with him.
Lou hates preaching that erodes the Gospel, as do I.
Such preaching is devil spawned evil that steals people away to eternal suffering in the Lake of Fire.
Anyone who doesn’t hate what puts people in danger of damnation must simply be heartless.
Anyone who doesn’t hate what causes Christians to stumble, suffer, be out of fellowship, fail to honor and glorify the Lord and be fruitful… well Scripture says that the world will know we’re His by our love for each other. If one claims to be a Christian but yet doesn’t care that the Brethren are made to stumble… well I don’t put much stock in the person’s claim.
Look KC, Tim, Jim, and all the GES supporters (you know who you are).
It’s great sport to poke at Lou. You guys seem to LOVE IT.
What are you doing to the Brethren? Have you considered this? Do you consider this at all?
You want to make fun of Lou.. go ahead. As far as I’ve discerned my friend and my Brother is a big boy. But for the sake of souls, and the glory of the Lord, leave the Gospel out of it!
You think Lou hates the games you play? Do you know that I want to vomit when I read your ridiculous rants? I wonder how these very minor things compare to how the Lord God Almighty feels when He’s “declared” what the Gospel is for you.
Kev
Easy there Kev. Brother I think you could stand a break. You’ve become paranoid and have taken to judging the heart of your brethren.
FYI I think the soteriology of both sides in this squabble is anthropocentric and in error.
As for the Gospel I say preach it all! Don’t hold back, there’s no need to take any risk based on my, yours or anyone else’s (mis)understanding.
With respect to Rick I considered I was being kind to him by honestly answering his question as he asked it rather than correcting his question so that it made sense.
Kev you guys are not helping Lou by defending his evil ways and if you’ll back up and look at what you’ve just done you’ll see you’re starting to do the same.
Hi Kev,
I like your passion for the truth and the LORD has really used you to share Truth, with me and I think many others. Kc and Tim and I too am being gentle and yet serious. There is something plainly unsynched with your associate. It is not a coincidence that most everyone of any and every theology has personally arrived at this point. Take it with a grain of salt, and spend some time meditating if you might in the difference between the purity of the COSF with the purity of conduct Christ longs for all of us to obtain, and I hope you will not feel too offended?
Thank you 🙂
I see a lot of passion for truth in this string. I agree that the truth is vitally important and is worth defending. These discussions sometimes remind of Bunyan’s Valiant-for-truth in Pilgrim’s Progress. Valiant probably represents many nowadays who have a passion for the gospel truth. It’s interesting, though, who his enemies were. We might have expected such enemies as Smooth-talker, Deceptive, and Heretic.
Rather, he was bloodied by Wild-head, Inconsiderate, and Pragmatic (in that day pragmatic apparently meant “opinionated,” “dogmatic,” or “dictatorial”). Like many of Bunyan’s antagonists, these enemies were not external but rather foes within the heart. Bunyan knew full well that these were the greatest enemies, the greatest temptations, of those who have the greatest passion for the truth.
That Bunyan would name his character Valiant-for-truth tells me that he thought being strong and courageous for the sake of truth is a noble thing. But when the fight for truth commences, there are actually two battles going on—the one without and the one within, and if the latter battle is lost, so is the nobility. May we all examines ourselves.
For whatever it’s worth. DBell
Michele,
You wrote,
Kc and Tim and I too am being gentle and yet serious.
KC and Tim are being gentle? KC’s tone is surely not as wild as Tim’s is.. but his having a softer tone (than Tim) while committing the same abuse is not an indication of “gentleness” it’s an indication of something all together different.
To call Tim’s behaivor “gentle” simply indicates you are personally unable to read or you haven’t read this thread. Even your own personal bias against the Brother you call my “associate” could not push your opinion that far.
These men are being serious? You can’t be serious.
Kev
Kev:
The duplicity of Michele (and Rose) in the discussions is well documented. Jim Johnson’s (never repented of) massive plagiarism was given a complete pass by both of them. None of Antonio’s da Rosa’s numerous gross lapses in ethical behavior got even a peep of public admonition or rebuke from either of them. Instead they assisted him in some cases and/or helped him cover-up his deeds and/or dodge the implications of his poor behavior. Same is true of very possibly every GES member and sympathizer.
When I read Rose or Michele I read the mindset of ecumenical compromise at the expense of betraying the Scriptures.
Lou
Here’s some questions Michele, (and anyone else that thinks Lou is the issue here)
If Lou stopped posting do you think the question of “What must I do to be saved?” would be easier for you to answer?
If Lou stopped posting do you think that I would agree with your position?
If Lou stopped posting do you think that your position would be any more biblical?
If your view is Biblical, then it doesn’t matter who posts, or who agrees. All truth stands no matter who comes against it.
Is Lou’s behaviour stopping you from putting forth your Biblical explanation of Saving Faith? That’s a laughable concept isn’t it?
If your view is Biblical then ignore Lou and post it.
For all reading – I’ll state what is plainly obvious – the GES position is not Biblical. Therefore the focus must always be on how bad someone is for challenging it.
I have NEVER ONCE seen anyone give a reasoned defence for the Crossless Gospel. Not in all my 2.5 years of reading how bad Lou is for picking on them for not loving them and sharing the unity of faith with them…
You know what people. You want to stick it to Lou? Present a BIBLICAL message of Salvation. If it’s true then there’s NOTHING that Lou could say against you…
So long as you fill thread after thread with foolish twists on questions… and how bad Lou is (often how bad I am…)… your message is recognized as NOT your priority.
Your priority is a personality clash… the Gospel is just the thing you abuse in order to have that clash.
shame.
Kev
Hi Kev,
You asked,
If Lou stopped posting do you think the question of “What must I do to be saved?” would be easier for you to answer?
Absolutely.
If Lou stopped posting do you think that I would agree with your position?
I don’t want you to. I want to learn more about your position.
If Lou stopped posting do you think that your position would be any more biblical?
No.
If your view is Biblical, then it doesn’t matter who posts, or who agrees. All truth stands no matter who comes against it.
That’s true. I’m saying the same thing you are, I’d like to detangle the quest to defend the purity of the Gospel from the concern of purity in conduct/speech. Detangle it long enough to at least meditate honestly. Can we not talk about conduct/speech? You didn’t like Tim’s or Kc’s. That’s fine with me so long as you are thinking for a moment per my request about your associate.
Correction – it’s now been 3 years. 🙂
I’ve been watching Bobby Grow present his theology for a number of years now. I would love to see both the GES and FGA address his October 1, 2009 at 5:21 pm comment please. I think he asks some great questions here.
KC,
You responded to Kev by saying, “With respect to Rick I considered I was being kind to him by honestly answering his question as he asked it rather than correcting his question so that it made sense.”
I am a novice blogger, so I’m not sure if I should “thank-you” for your kindness, or apologize.
I assumed you remembered Lou’s comments to Greg on Oct. 1 @ 7:47am, because you said, “…I read the account of your interaction with the nine-year-old boy.”
Here’s your comment from Oct. 1, at 9:21am:
“Lou, Until this morning I thought I had a clear grasp of the problems facing the differing sides in this argument then I read the account of your interaction with the nine-year-old boy. Please tell me I’m wrong but if I understand what you are saying then your answer to the question, “what must I believe in order to be saved?” is simply “You must believe the content of saving faith!” Is this true?
If this is the case then you have not only taken the clear and unvarnished Gospel command to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and converted it to a proposition you include on your content list but you have also rendered it void of any meaning at all!”
Let me try this again. You had just said, “I read the account of your interaction with the nine-year-old boy.”
So, my question is, “If it was you, what would you have said to the 9 year old boy?
The answer you gave, doesn’t fit the question.
I don’t know you from Adam, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that your answer is not, “Son, stay away from that man. He’s dangerous.”
How would you explain the “saving message” with a nine year old boy?
Rick
To All:
Since men like Jim Reitman and Tim “I DON’T CARE” Nichols will not be honest and transparent about what they believe the lost must believe to be saved let’s approach this for an answer from another direction. Let’s hear from Bob Wilkin. The following excerpt is from for Tom Stegall’s new book, The Gospel of the Christ.
Bob Wilkin taught publicly for the first time that the lost do not have to believe “the gospel” to go to heaven. He stated:
“What if the word “gospel” doesn’t ever mean the saving message? Now hang with me hear. I gave this same message, but I didn’t say quite this, a little over a month ago in Omaha at a Regional we had there. And what I suggested is that the term “gospel” rarely, if ever, means, “What must I believe to have eternal life? What must I believe to be saved? What must I do to have, to go to heaven, to be sure I’ll be in the kingdom?” But in the intervening time as I’ve been reflecting on it etcetera, I realized that we should go further than saying, “It’s rare that this term refers to the saving message.” I’m now of the opinion it never refers specifically to “What must I believe to have eternal life?” (Bob Wilkin, “Gospel Means Good News” Grace Evangelical Society Southern California Regional Conference, August 24, 2007.)
Wilkin now teaches that the gospel message of Christ’s substitutionary death for sin and bodily resurrection is not the message that the lost must believe for their regeneration, rather it is only the message that the saved must believe for their on-going sanctification and spiritual growth.
For the full excerpt see- The Gospel of the Christ: Is the Gospel Still the “Saving Message?”
Rick,
Welcome to the blogging world. I’m truly sorry it’s in this venue. I am happy to answer your question and I welcome your critique. To explain my comment on your question it seems you perceive Lou as offering the lad the saving message when indeed he had asked the boy to tell him the answer to a specific question, “What does a lost person have to believe to be saved?” I will answer this question first and then I will answer the question you just asked.
My answer to the first question is almost exactly as the boy first replied to Lou, “You must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ”. My answer to your most recent question follows:
I know there are many who consider that children need a special presentation of the Gospel in order for them to understand. I don’t fault them in any way but my only special consideration is in my vocabulary. Given this I would share the full Gospel message, which with me would mean Jesus Christ in creation and through the fall in Genesis to His glory in the recreation of the heaven and earth in Revelation. Now we both know it would be impossible for me to give a detailed account of all this and everything in between but I would more fully explain the nature of sin and the law of sin and death along with our need for and God’s promise of a savior. I would expound on Jesus’ birth, life, death, burial and resurrection and explain how that He is the Son of God and the Christ and the promised Savior of the world. I would then tell him of God’s promise that in receiving Him as such we have new life that is everlasting. Finally I would explain that we receive Him when we simply believe in His name.
Hey,
As I’ve read back over this and corresponded with her, I’ve noticed Rose doesn’t seem to be participating here. Maybe we could just leave her out of it. Of course, I’m cheering for everyone to share their views, but some of this can be unfruitfully painful.
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 with in the bound of decency (my decision) or slander (the court’s decision).
Slander basically is defined as:
1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
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.
Dr Lybrand:
I just posted this response to your comment to me at Michele’s blog:
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 asked
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 don’t know where you asked this of me like you claim but since you have posted it here I will answer.
Mark 16:15-16 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
One must believe the Gospel, or they will be condemned.
The Gospel is declared in 1 Cor 15:1-11, it was “received” directly from, and was sent out with it by Christ by the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor 1:17, 1 Cor 15:3, Gal 1:12
The Lord told us what to preach and what had to be believed in order for Salvation to occur.
Kev
Kev,
You don’t really consider this an answer to my question do you? I’ll keep this brief. Have not you, Lou and others accused the GES of preaching a “deityless” Gospel? So where in this passage is there any mention of Christ’s deity if this passage lists everything that must be believed to be born again? I asked for one sentence or passage that lists everything you claim must be believed to be born again and this is the best you can do? I could say a lot more, but is it really necessary?
You can try again if you want Kev, but I’ll be honest with you, at this point I’m really only interested in whether Dr Lybrand will answer the question.
And Kev, while I have the time, let me just add something to the discussion you had with Lou about the 9 yr old boy. Doesn’t Lou need to go back and make sure this child believes in Christ’s deity…and perhaps whether the boy has a modalist or trinitarian view of His deity? Lou forgot about that, and according to you guys, his eternal salvation could be at stake.
Mark,
You asked for a response to Bobby’s post.
I ignored it earlier because I thought it was obtrusively obtuse. (yes that is possible)
Faith is not love. Salvation is not BY relationship or THROUGH relationship. Salvation IS relationship.
One is unsaved and unrelated to Christ, they are then convinced of the Gospel and repent to trust Christ. It is at this time that one is BY Grace THROUGH faith that one is Baptized INTO Christ and therefore become related to Him.
Bobby’s post is so obtuse as to make it hard to respond, but it is merely Hyper-Calvinism. He seems to make an attempt to hide this with terminology well above the level being employed in this thread.
There is no relationship until the person is saved, and there is no salvation until there is faith. Therefore NO there is no need to discuss the subject the way that Bobby suggests might be required.
Kev
Kev,
I know I’m missing something. Your saving message really doesn’t mention Jesus at all?
KC,
1 Cor 15:1-11 is the Gospel. In verse 3 it declares the Christ died for our sins.
One of two people named Jesus in the New Testament is the Christ. Col 4:11 One of all the many Jesus’ who ever lived in all of History is the Christ.
Jesus the Christ saves. Jesus who is called Justus, and Jesus Mallory do not.
Kev
So we agree that the Gospel message is more than just I Cor 15:1-11?
KC
So we agree that the Gospel message is more than just I Cor 15:1-11?
Where would you get that idea? Have you read 1 Cor 15:1-11?
The Gospel is declared, and sealed. All the Apostles who preached the Gospel preached that exact message, and all the believers believed that message, and all those who believed are saved.
No, there is no “more” to the Gospel message. This is the Gospel “declared” in Scripture.
Kev
Hi Kev, I replied above….
Kev,
I got the idea from you when you has to ref Col 4. Now can you honestly say that if I read I Cor 15:1-11 that I’ve read the Gospel?
Kev,
It seems to me that Paul is recounting the “resurrection” story, which he states is of primary importance, as a prelude to admonishing those Corinthians who claimed there is no resurrection of the dead. He also points out that the resurrection story was part of the Gospel preached by all the Apostles and he reminds them that they had all believed the resurrection story when they first heard the Gospel preached.
Hi Kev, I replied above…
If you read 1Cor 1:1-11 you have read the Gospel.
Paul is perfectly clear that he is declaring the Gosple.
1 But I make known to you, brethren, the glad tidings which I announced to you, which also ye received, in which also ye stand,2 by which also ye are saved, (if ye hold fast the word which I
announced to you as the glad tidings,) unless indeed ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day, according to the scriptures;5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Paul is reminding them of the Gospel which includes the resurrection.
Not only does he write this expressly, but the argument you suggest would not make sense.
Kev
Gary,
don’t you all get tired of looking foolish?
Do you know that theChrist is atitle?
Are not all men sinners?
Only the Christ who is declared to be God in the scriptures could die FOR our sins.
Can a mere sinful man die “in accordance with the scriptures”?
Just because you want a single sentance doesn’t mean God has to giveyou every supporting detail of the Gospel in one for you.
The Gospel is complete in 1Cor 15:1-11 there is a Bible AND Creation full of supporting and explaining detail.
Of course this is not the first time you’ve had this explained nor is it above your comprehension level.
Kev
Hi Kev:
Appreciate the good work in defense of the Gospel against Crossless reductionism you are providing in this thread.
To Gary you wrote, “don’t you all get tired of looking foolish? Do you know that ‘the Christ’ is a title?”
Because of their Crossless AND Deityless gospel the GES (Hodges/Wilkin) stripped the Lord’s titles, “the Christ and “Son of God” of their references to His deity. Greg did a great series on this GES inspired attack on the Lord’s Person and deity in his two part series,
The “Christ” Under Siege
The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault From the GES
This series examines the claim of Grace Evangelical Society (GES) proponent Zane Hodges that “the Christ” is a title devoid of Deity.
Lou
Kev:
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?
Lou
KC,
Thanks for your welcome and reply. I understand what you’re saying about this venue. In principle this venue should be a great place to debate issues. It might help if we consertrate on our own behavior instead of on others.
Anyway… I didn’t asked you to use the same question that Lou asked the nine year old boy. I appreciate you sharing (what you refer to as) the “full Gospel” message, but the question in the second post focuses on the “saving” message.
The last part of your post seems to be summary statements.
I’m not sure which statements you consider to be part of the saving message.
What verses would you use?
“How would you explain the “saving message” with a nine year old boy?”
Thanks,
Rick
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
Kevin,
I don’t see where you’ve addressed Bobby’s position with this statement…”Faith is not love. Salvation is not BY relationship or THROUGH relationship. Salvation IS relationship.” In fact I don’t know whose possition you actually DID address – certainly not mine either.
Mark,
Your position has been well and fully discussed.
If Bobby feels I wasn’t clear enough I’m sure Bobby is able to ask follow up questions.
Frankly, your insistence that someone hasn’t responded properly, or hasn’t understood something holds exactly no weight with me.
If there is a specific question related to my response to Bobby I’d be pleased to discuss… however you should be aware of two important facts. First; Bobby’s discussion of Hyper-Calvinism does not relate to this thread. Second; I’m not interested in discussing things with you that you do not define.
If you have a question for me then you better be absolutely clear about what you’re asking or I’ll simply ignore you.
Kev
Rick,
You are correct in that my last paragraph was a summary of my approach to the Gospel message. I consider all those statements to be part of the Gospel which is the power of God to salvation and I’m not aware of any saving message other than the Gospel. I tend to quote a lot of scripture and I’m sure that it varies with each presentation.
Kevin,
BTW, Bobby is NO Calvinist…
I didn’t say that he was.
KC & Rick,
I’ve been looking for this post by KC that you are both referencing… I just can’t find it.
KC can you copy and paste the portion of it that is what you consider the Gospel?
BTW your statement “I’m not aware of any saving message other than the Gospel” is a point of secure agreement between us.
Kev
Kevin,
Since Dr. Lybrand’s blog is not the place for you and I to carry on our discussions I will encourage you to come over to my BlueCollar blog. I’ve set up a post especially for just you and me. Please consider that I took considerable time on your blog. Now I ask the same of you on my blog. The post is such that only you and I will be hashing things out.
I’ll see you there.
Thanks,
Mark
Hello Mark,
Thank you for being clear.
You are correct Dr. Lybrand’s blog is not the place for such a discussion.
Previously you were posting in several places that not one person who understands LS theology also rejects LS theology. You seemed very convinced of this. So I gave an OPEN invitation at my blog for ANYONE to explain LS theology to me. You volunteered, I did not ask you.
During that conversation you complained about the amount of time it was taking you three times. Two things struck me as odd about that. Your definition of saving faith included the giving up of one’s life for the sake of the Gospel, and the time being spent was actually due to getting you to define the words you were using.
I have no intention of repeating that process at your blog or elsewhere.
Since I will not encourage anyone to visit your blog I will reply to your post right here. Please consider this to be my first and final reply. If you should choose to honor your word by including this in your article that is your choice.
You asked me to witness to you. Here it is;
So you’ve got a minute? (this links to a 1 minute Gospel presentation at YouTube).
Now search the Scriptures to see if these things be true.
Kev
Let it be noted that I actually DID give several hours of my time to Kevin’s blog in these past weeks, as seen in his links to those discussions right here in this thread. It appears that Kevin refuses to return the favor. Thanks for being so courageous, Kevin. Now please go to my blog and return the favor.
And Kevin,
You DID invite me to participate, as seen here…
“I think we’ve explored insults enough here.
This thread was supposed to be about an exploration of presenting Truth…
All please check out the new post I made called Lordship Salvation Presentation With Q&A
I hope Mark or Bridget will choose to witness to me in this thread.
Remember that denying the Lord before men can lead to the Lord denying you before the Father.
Kev”
Mark I know that language can be a sore spot with you. However, please compare;
“I hope that Mark or Bridget….” with “Mark please…”
I’ve interacted with you ad nauseum. As far as you blog goes, I will obey 1 Thes 5:21-22
As I have said before in this thread, if you have some specific question with regard to the Gospel I will do my best to answer you, here.
If I happen to owe you a favor, which I’m far from convinced that I do, then I will have to re-pay you in some other fashion.
In all seriousness, I will not risk the stumbling of any Brother by entertaining you at your blog.
You had complete freedom to express your theology at my blog during that discussion. If you had something at all convincing that was your time to bring it forth, and you did not. The only risk I would incur by posting at your blog would be to my weaker Brothers.
So, stomp your feet… double dog dare me… all you like. You’ve heard the Gospel from me. I’ve demonstrated that your theology is anti-Biblical for you – even one so weak as I. To coin a phrase, your blood is not on my hands. I owe you nothing.
Kev
Kevin,
Those discussions were FAR from over when you shut down the comments on them. I had many more things both to say and ask of you. It is now MY TURN to examine YOUR theology. You owe me that much, Kevin. Just you and me alone on my blog, Kevin. I’ll see you there.
Mark
Mark this really isn’t the place for this.. so I will finish with you with this one post.
Even though I used the definitions that YOU SUPPLIED, in my many attempts to get your message defined.. and FINALLY ended up simply quoting you WORD FOR WORD (bottom of article)…. your last comment was this.
All your arguments against Bridget and myself come about only when you take what we say and refashion our statements. In the end you end up arguing against something that neither Bridget or myself have said.
I quoted you word for word and you still say this… and now you think I owe you something?
I’m done discussing that discussion with you here. If you have a question ask it.. I’ll answer it if I can here.
I don’t know why you want me to come to your blog… is this place not good enough to discuss the Gospel at?
I’m not going to discuss anything with you at your blog. When you mature and are able to have a good faith discussion then people may feel there is value in visiting your blog.
Kev
That’s right,Kevin, stay on the blogs that are friendly to your position. That way you have your friends to encourage you as you go on to delude yourself into thinking that you have shown me that my theology is anti-biblical. You have done no such thing. Yes, you quoted me extensively; but you never interacted with what I actually said. Instead you had to refashion my statements before you addressed my position. Let’s face it, you’re just scared to post comments on a blog that you have no control over. I am prepared to hold your feet to the fire on my blog, and you know that, and that scares you.
So go ahead in your delusional thinking. And when you finally have the courage to come to my blog, as I did yours, let me know by email. Then I’ll set up a post where just you and I will have at it.
Mark,
This is the type of behavior that Fred was warning people about.
As you can see I have no control here, otherwise you would be banned.
It’s also painfully clear that most people here are far from friendly to my point of view.
The only difference is that that the owner of this blog is a man of God who is seeking to know truth, obey truth, and help others do the same.
Kev
Fred,
I’m sorry my presence has caused some distraction. I’m not going to post in this thread again until KC quotes his Gospel presentation, if he wouldn’t mind.
Thanks for your patience.
Kev
Hi Kev, would you be comfortable answering my reply? It’s not on the issue of the Gospel, just conduct/speech. Thanks…
Kev:
To Mark you noted, “The only risk I would incur by posting at your blog would be to my weaker Brothers. So, stomp your feet… double dog dare me… all you like. You’ve heard the Gospel from me. I’ve demonstrated that your theology is anti-Biblical for you – even one so weak as I. To coin a phrase, your blood is not on my hands. I owe you nothing.”
DITTO, what you said!
Lou
Dr Lybrand,
You said this at Michele’s blog: http://sancsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/dillows-statement-on-gospel.html
“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
I replied as follows:
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:
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.
The last sentence above in Kev’s comment to Lou: “Diabolical…Yes, Kev, that should be obvious to everyone by now.”–This is MY post script to Kev’s comment to Lou.
GOE
Kev,
This was my reply to Rick:
On October 2, 2009 at 9:04 am kc Said:
Rick,
Welcome to the blogging world. I’m truly sorry it’s in this venue. I am happy to answer your question and I welcome your critique. To explain my comment on your question it seems you perceive Lou as offering the lad the saving message when indeed he had asked the boy to tell him the answer to a specific question, “What does a lost person have to believe to be saved?” I will answer this question first and then I will answer the question you just asked.
My answer to the first question is almost exactly as the boy first replied to Lou, “You must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ”. My answer to your most recent question follows:
I know there are many who consider that children need a special presentation of the Gospel in order for them to understand. I don’t fault them in any way but my only special consideration is in my vocabulary. Given this I would share the full Gospel message, which with me would mean Jesus Christ in creation and through the fall in Genesis to His glory in the recreation of the heaven and earth in Revelation. Now we both know it would be impossible for me to give a detailed account of all this and everything in between but I would more fully explain the nature of sin and the law of sin and death along with our need for and God’s promise of a savior. I would expound on Jesus’ birth, life, death, burial and resurrection and explain how that He is the Son of God and the Christ and the promised Savior of the world. I would then tell him of God’s promise that in receiving Him as such we have new life that is everlasting. Finally I would explain that we receive Him when we simply believe in His name.
Hi KC,
sry 4 typos I’m typing on my iPod
We train people to use all of what you said, and defend each part of it.
Much of these details are what make Christ’s cross work “in accordance with the Scriptures.”
what exactly do you mean by “believe on His name” though? And does this mean nothing of what you said to them except that must be believed?
Tks
Kev
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
Kev:
I can tell you what “believe in the name Jesus” means to the GES Crossless gospel advocates.
It means the lost can believe in this name Jesus for salvation apart from knowing who He is what He did to provide salvation.
The heresy of this GES teaching was never more stark than when Antonio da Rosa, on behalf of the GES gospel, stated that the Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus (in the evangelistic setting) are “one and the same.”
See- Can the Biblical Jesus & Mormon Jesus be, “One and the Same?”
And he meant that in context of the GES position that the lost can be saved apart from knowing understanding or believing in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Jesus Christ.
da Rosa also stated, “I do not believe that one must understand, assent to, or be aware of the historical Jesus of Nazareth’s deity in order to simply be justified and receive eternal life.”
These are examples of the extremes coming from the GES that GES members and/or sympathizers defend as, “soteriological nuance, trivial questions, a difference of opinion that is acceptable.”
And of course as Greg and Tom Stegall have documented the GES insistence that the Lord’s titles, “the Christ” & “Son of God” do not mean or infer His deity.
It is tragic and highly disturbing that the Lord’s Person in the form of His deity comes under attack by the GES to float their reductionist assault against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For more of these egregious GES reductionists errors see-
The Heresy of the Crossless Gospel: Verified & Affirmed
Lou
Lou Martuneac and Kevin Lane,
“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
GOE
Kev,
Let me first say that I am glad you present the full Gospel though I don’t think there is much I could do to defend it over what is accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit.
We/I believe in the name of Jesus when we/I first believe the word of God concerning His Son and trust in His power and authority as Christ, the Son of God our/my Savior.
Were the lad to ask this question I would use this vocabulary:
“Do you know how when you watch an old movie or something and somebody says ‘HALT! In the name of the king!’? Well we know what he means is that he has the power and authority of the king to make you stop and you better listen! Well Jesus has the power and authority of the chosen Son of God and Savior and when He tells us we have life in His name (by His power and authority) we never have to doubt or fear again. There’s even more. When we pray in Jesus name we know that God hears our prayers and if we follow Jesus commands then we do them by His power and authority as Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world!”
I don’t understand this question, “And does this mean nothing of what you said to them except that must be believed?”
GOE,
You referenced me in your post to Fred;
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?
Was the Jailer saved at that point? Did he simply believe in one he couldn’t identify? The Apostle’s answer was correct, you must believe on that One. However, you cannot believe on that One without having that One identified to you.
As we have discussed here over and over- Believe on Jesus! Who is this Jesus? The One Who died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, who was buried and rose again the third day in accordance with the Scriptures to be seen in the flesh! Who is this Jesus? He is the Christ! Trust on this One and you shall be saved!
This is confirmed even in the passage you attempt to proof-text.
Read the whole;
Acts 16:29-34
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household
This man wasn’t able to put his faith in One whom had not been identified to him.
exactly as we are instructed in Romans 10:14-17
GOE as your rant continues in an other post you say;
So if someone answers the question Kev and Lou asked with Paul’s answer then they are branded as “heretics and reductionists”.
The GES no longer says one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Jim has not said this.
The GES now says “Believe on Jesus for Eternal Life.”
The devious difference between the two has been explained to you BY ME previously.
The GES no longer seeks for the Lost to believe on the Person of Jesus Christ, but on the benefit that some unidentified character named Jesus supposedly will give you if you believe him for it.
The Apostle Paul identified this Lord Jesus Christ. To do less is to reduce what is required – therefore it is reductionist heresy.
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.”
Is there some other reason why people take weeks, even years to answer the question “What must I do to be saved?”
If there is another reason please DO tell me. I do not discern any other reason. Please feel free to correct me.
You finished with this entertaining tid-bit.
Lou Martuneac and Kevin Lane,
“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
GOE
I don’t see how this relates. Maybe you could explain it to me. It surely is emotional… but I don’t get how it relates.
Kev
KC,
In the Scriptures someone’s “Name” is “who they are” if who they are has authority then action “in their name” has authority.
The Name of God is “Who He is” or both His nature and His character. His authority comes from these, these do not come from His authority. (Satan seeks to be like God by trying to have a God-like authority)
You’re right that God has authority, He has the power to save.
However, God’s power to save is not the only part of the Gospel. His Nature is not enough, His character must also be seen in order to properly identify Him as He is.
Therefore we have in the Gospel the phrase “in accordance with the Scriptures” in two places. His character is that He cannot lie, He is Just, He is Holy…
He has the power to save. When He does save it is just.
His character is not fully seen in justice though.
He is also graceful, so He provides justice vicariously.
Faith in God, for salvation must not just rest in His Nature but also in His Character. Therefore, God doesn’t just give Salvation, He provides for Salvation.
Our faith must be in the One True God of the Universe, not one of our own fashioning.
So when we believe in His Name, we believe in the fullness of His Name, not just the parts we want.
My question of weather believing in His Name could mean disagreement with the rest of what you told them was about this.
In your view can you separate God’s Name from both or either His nature or His character? IE can one deny or not be aware of the provision of the Cross but still somehow believe on the Name of the Lord?
Kev
GOE,
I also left out one very important part in my showing you the fullness of Jailer’s Salvation.
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
They told him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then they went to his house where the spoke the “Word of the Lord” to him. Then he rejoiced because he had believed in GOD.
Your use of part of this passage to make it sound like it matches the GES reductionist message is fool-hardy proof-texting.
I got carried away in my last and left the last and really most important part out. I’m sorry for that.
Kev
Kev,
I really want to continue this discussion with you but before I do I need to know if you are aware that in doing so we are no longer speaking from scripture but we are doing theology and of how critical this distinction is?
Hi KC,
When I preach the Gospel I quote it. I then offer explanation of key concepts in it from Scripture.
I’m not convinced that we are “doing theology” here. I’m not studying with you at this point.
I am very aware that there are many people here who ARE doing theology. With this fact comes a grave responsibility for all those with any authority to speak with fidelity.
I do not claim to be perfect, but I do claim that I “do theology” so that my theology becomes as close to perfect as is currently possible.
However, I think you are coming to understand why Jim’s tactic is failing him. Jim is “doing theology” before he submits to the Text.
I know what the Gospel, or the “saving message” is because Scripture tells me. The implications of this message, even the demands FOR it in Scripture are the parts that I am currently studying, or “doing theology” on.
In the areas where it is clear to me, I submit. In the areas where I know it is being clear, but I don’t yet fully understand I submit.
What I’m saying is that I’m aware that many here are rightfully doing theology. I will not however, put the cart before the horse and do theology before I submit to the Text.
I hope this makes sense to you.
Kev
Kev,
To be blunt; I am asking if you know that when we discuss things like what elements of the Gospel are ‘critical’ and how much error, if any, a person can hold to and still be saved, etc… that we are no longer discussing “thus saith the Lord” but moving into “my understanding is” and the critical difference that this should make in our attitude in discussion and in Christian fellowship.
Let me also say that you’re just plain wrong in your assumptions about my perception of Jim’s effort here so far. IMO his patience is rivaled only by Michele’s and his training and expertise are clearly evident and far beyond my own. From my perspective this whole tragedy stems from theological, in particular soteriological, differences and if an agreement in understanding is required by some for reconciliation then it will only come about as a result of ‘doing’ theology.
I would personally prefer that we not make this requirement but rather simply obey the scripture and ‘trust not in’ our ‘own understanding’.
KC,
I can know what is critical. This is not a debatable subject in Scripture. The very Gospel of Christ is spelled out for us. It is NOT confusing.
If there is debate it is in the flesh.
The Gospel is as it is declared. Oh that men would realize that God does not need our help.
That He truly has indeed said.
1 Cor 15:1-11 plainly declares and seals the content of the Gospel.
People can have different understandings but to be blunt, they are wrong. Because God who cannot lie has declared what the Gospel is.
That is why I have little patience with those who want to debate what the Gospel is. I’m willing to discuss it because I’m very very very interested in helping.
It becomes clear most often however that people don’t want to know the truth.
See I care what you “think” because what you think will help me help you reach the Truth. But I don’t value what I think, let alone what you think. I only value the truth.
Lofty words I know, but they truly are my heart. May the Lord give me grace as I fail, and correct me so I can succeed.
Kev
Kev,
You wrote: “1 Cor 15:1-11 plainly declares and seals the content of the Gospel.”
I have to ask:
If I Cor 15:1-11 makes no reference to the love of God, eternal life or Christ deity or relationship to the Father and does not even so much as name the name of Jesus then are you saying that all of those things are not part of the content of the Gospel?
Hello KC,
I only have a moment so this may be insufficient. However I will do my best.
You asked;
If I Cor 15:1-11 makes no reference to the love of God, eternal life or Christ deity or relationship to the Father and does not even so much as name the name of Jesus then are you saying that all of those things are not part of the content of the Gospel?
You must have missed my post to GOE.
Verse 3 indicates that the Christ died for our sins IAW the Scriptures.
The Christ is God, sinless,a man, the son of God, and anointed for this purpose.
These things are explicitly declared by the OT Scriptures.
For the rest of your questions, I have to ask why do you think these things must be part of the Gospel?
God’s love is demonstrated by the Gospel Romans 5:8
No where in Scripture are we told that one must know the name “Jesus” to be saved. Jesus was His name, but it is He as “the Christ” Who saves.
1 Cor 15:1-11 declares the Gospel vs 1, and not only that but seals the content vs 11.
This message declares both the nature and the character of God.
Kev
KC,
I didn’t answer one of your questions. You also asked about Eternal Life.
Eternal Life is a benefit of reconcilation to God. We are separated by sin. Salvation is of this reconcilation. The focus of the Gospel is reconcilation, one of the benefits of it is Eternal Life.
Thus, we don’t “believe Jesus for Eternal Life” we believe on, or rather put our faith in Christ and so are reconciled, and thus given Eternal Life. We don’t seek the gift, we seek the reconciliation.
The gift is not a “reward” it’s not what we ask for. It is given to those who are reconciled.
Kev
We don’t seek the gift, we seek the reconciliation.
That’s a very good point Kev. That is true. That is my testimony in a nut shell, in fact.
JanH
KC is our conversation finished?
Kev
Kev,
We first need to converse over the issues raised and arising out of the comment Dr. Lybrand deleted.
KC,
I don’t know what there would be to discuss. Even if there was something to discuss I am absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the content of the Gospel. I’m equally sure it has nothing to do with answering the question “What must I do to be saved?”
Kev
You’re right Kc, Dr Lybrand does seem to either delete, side-step, or muddy the waters when whenever questions are raised that he doesn’t want to or can’t answer…even questions that he says are “PRETTY EASY” to answer. Go figure. :~)
For further reference see here where Dr Lybrand cannot delete comments:
http://sancsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/dillows-statement-on-gospel.html
And Kev, your question has already been answered many times, so why do you keep asking it?
Gary, you obviously don’t have a clue what KC was referencing. That’s actually a good thing in this case.
However, it’s truly sad that you assume you know what and why. For your information Fred didn’t delete a question.
Additionally, I’m having (or was?) a conversation with KC. I’m not badgering him with a question as you are badgering Fred with your incessant posts.
Kev
Actually, it is you who doesn’t have a clue Kev. I haven’t been “badgering” Dr Lybrand…I’ve been answering his questions to me but he refuses to answer a question that he told me was “PRETTY EASY” to answer.
Maybe you’re right that I’m confused about what Kc was referencing, but it’s probably because I have a hard time keeping up with comments being deleted and moved around. If so, I apologize.
When you say you’re not “badgering” Kc , do you mean as in when you and LM were incessantly badgering Jim and Tim for the answer to “What must I do to be saved?”–is that the kind of “badgering” you are accusing me of?
http://sancsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/dillows-statement-on-gospel.html
Kev…one more thing…I DO know now exactly what Kc was referencing and I just saw your comment over at TheoTalk about Michele…I have also seen and copied EVERYTHING that Dr Lybrand has deleted…not that I didn’t know anyway…so this just might be a great time for you and the circus lion LM to shut your big mouth…do you get my drift?
GOE
I think everyone has had all their going to take from the BIG BAD WOLF!
GOE
Fred,
This conversation has gotten to the point of using threats to intimidate one of the participants. Don’t you think this has gone beyond far enough?
This is no longer a discussion of the issue. I find GOE’s last comment to Kev threatening and dangerous and I also know what it is about, as do you.
There is nothing good that can come from allowing this to continue. Would you please shut this down now?
JanH
I agree with Jan that this thread should be shut down. I already have my copy. I hope everyone else has theirs. All these threads have been a charade from the beginning anyway.
GOE
And JanH…that was a nice try to turn the tables, but the only one I’ve seen making “threats” around the internet the past year have been LM. What I said is not a “threat”.
GOE
Fred,
I believe you have noble intentions. And I apologize for the timing. I am not pleased (1 cor 13:6) with the negativity in the ingesting and the responses to the topic, but I believe Christ cares about Purity. The question is, how do all of us work together in an agreeable manner to build a testimony of integrity distinguishable from that of this world’s.
Be encouraged 😀 Michele
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
Dr Lybrand,
Great comment Fred. I hope you can get your blog cleaned up as I explained here yesterday in my response to you:
http://sancsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/dillows-statement-on-gospel.html
If you would stop the witchhunt and inquisition that has been taking place here it would make a lot of us (especially Jim Reitman) feel much better.
Thanks,
GOE
Dr Lybrand,
I apologize for posting twice, but I’m just so encouraged and excited after seeing your above comment this morning that I just wanted reiterate what I just said and encourage you in the strong stand you are taking. I think you have taken a big step in the right direction and I admire your courage and the integrity you are demonstrating. If you can stop the witch-hunt and inquisition that has been taking place on your blog it will be a huge encouragement to all of us… especially, I’m sure, to Jim Reitman, who has patiently and graciously endured much abuse the past couple of weeks and also back in April.
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
correction—I meant “apropos”…not “apropros”
GOE
Dr. Fred-
I believe I understand what you are trying to accomplish by making a moderating post like this. I think you are attempting to calm the waters and bring everyone back to a point of civilized sanity. While your desire for such is commendable, with all due respect I believe it is the wrong kind of mediation at this point. It does not bring people onto the same page.
By not identifying those you are seeking to admonish everyone is able to see the admonishment as applying to the other guy. You are not dealing with people who are in a frame of mind to be honest about others. Why would you think they will be honest about themselves? “You know who you are” is not a useful statement when working with a group of people in such division as you have here. I understand you have addressed the most damaging issue in private with the individuals involved (though I do not know what you said to them) and it is probably because of that that you said “you know who you are.” Therefore I believe I know who you meant that comment for. However, what you have done by not making the direction of your comment clear is allow GOE to take full advantage of it in claiming the high ground for himself and his contingent. Personally, I do not believe you meant it to go to them.
Again, with all due respect-and it grieves me to say this- I have not found any of this arguing over the gospel to be frustrating to the point of tears until this comment of yours. Even if you meant that comment for me, I would still rather you had come out and said so. It is unworkable when a comment is made so vaguely that anyone can claim the nice parts for themselves and sling the rest onto the other guy. You have allowed political advantage where I and others do not believe it should have gone or that you meant it to go. I entreat you to please make further comment that is clear on who you meant what for so we can at least all be on the same page, or have no excuse for not being so. If for some reason you are unable or unwilling to do that, then please just close down the thread without comment. I would also ask that you delete this thread due to its harmful content.
Thank you.
JanH
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
Hi Fred,
Relationships are like math. We all should be coming up with the same answer to the same question (love; God is Love; love is the fulfillment, without love I am nothing, etc.) When none of us are able to get the correct answer, we have to go back and compare the longhand to find the problem. That being said, I like your idea for Veritas Month. Great!! You are calling us to live present-tense without dwelling on shortcomings, horrah! I do wonder though if it might be much more successful if there was some confession of sins or some tool of substance in the humility department that will prevent the putting of a fresh layer of skin over a deep infection, ripe for explosion “in November.” Have you ruled out the avenue of many willingly coming to do “the hard work?”
God bless you,
Michele
Jan and Gary and All,
Thank you both for your comments…I totally understand them. As a pastor for 23 years your divergent responses work just about like a sermon does. A sermon is preached to a large group…and every time (virtually) people hear different things. Not long ago I gave a sermon about how I felt there was a spirit of conceit in our church (focusing on Gal 6:3 as the cure). Well, I don’t think I’ve ever had such a divergent set of responses. People were writing the elders and me / wanting meetings, etc….and saying two things:
1. You should be banned from the pulpit because you’re wrong, we aren’t conceited, we are wonderful.
2. You are awesome…the first pastor I’ve ever seen willing to actually tell the truth. It is a disease in our church and you helped set a cure in motion.
The point is I both (a) know of specific examples; and (b) have all of us in mind.
You two are a perfect illustration. I have one hopeful and one in tears (finally). Wow. My hope is that you would both be hopeful and in tears! 😉
Jan, my post is not a ‘mediation’ or effort at mediating. If I wanted to do that I would get the parties together.
Gary, though you are encouraged by the message, I hope you weren’t excluding yourself from the point.
……………..
I’m somewhat new to this community chatting through blogs, but I can tell you all the cure for the frustration and vitriol. The cure is to get off of each other. Get on to the point. Think, debate, look at the text, use logic, use a helpful illustration, stay on the issue.
Maybe the ‘other guys ARE evil’ (I’m sure some of them are)…but why are we all busy putting ourselves in the place of God in judging (see Rom 14 and James 5)?
I say it this way sometimes— If a bum on the street comes up to you and tells you your tie doesn’t match (or your shoes), you can ignore him because he is a bum. However, just because he is a bum, why does that mean he’s wrong?
I sit in this strange spot of not only not knowing how evil the the “other side is”, but I’ve also been ground fine by the Lord. I still think people are in great error (and yes, my blood can boil). But God has said the issue is especially the doctrine, teaching, logic, opinions, theories, hypotheticals, and facts themselves.
So, what you have rather than a ‘mediation’ is an exhortation. PLEASE, how about giving OCTOBER over to be the NATIONAL AD VERITAS blogging month. We take one month and we blog about information and not about people. It’s a bit of an experiment—what might happen?
Frankly, maybe Jim is a heretic…frankly I don’t know yet :-0! But I know I’d really like to just understand where he is coming from…and then try to invited him to reconsider a few things if necessary.
I can always attack him as a heretic and smear him all over the known world later.
You know, I had the same thing happen with my Open Letter about Zane.
http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf
I had people say I was mean and others say I bent over backwards to be gracious. What I was really trying to do is understand and analyze the facts adn the text. I came to conclusions and I offered them; and yet, to this day, I have had no one even attempt to help me reconsider my key arguments…I just saw a lot of ’sound and fury’.
I think we Christians are kind of copying the news media— like we wake up every day and we are on Crossfire or Nancy Grace. Of course, we could have gotten it from Martin Luther and his attacks on the Pope as the Anti-Christ. We spout a lot of opinion, and pardon me, a lot of vitriol.
If we need to call out individuals for their error then I get it (Paul certainly did on occasion); however, I’d plead that we stay on the argument and make use of reason and insight about the text…that is where things are won or lost.
So, there’s my exhortation. It is for me mostly…and if it splashes and you pick up the cause and give it a try…then I guess it might have been for you too!
Grace and Peace,
Fred Lybrand
I just want to say I am very new to weblog and absolutely loved this blog site. Very likely I’m going to bookmark your site . You really come with remarkable articles and reviews. Appreciate it for sharing your website page.
The Swiss language Rolex online available in five different grades with the top grade being referred to as swiss, the 2nd to 4th being referred to as japanese and the 5th stage being known as Chinese. The dealers of Swiss language Rolex online have given this grading a whole to evaluate the nature of the watches being assembled at different parts of the cosmos. The top step swiss Rolex online are far-famed all over the nature for their weight, feels and looks which is just like the positive ones and in fact can well be mistaken for the substantive stuff.
I rewd this paragraph fully concerning the difference of hottest and earlier technologies, it’s awesome
article.
Feel free to surf to my weblog orquestas de honduras (Brandi)