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 (Dialogue) (REDUX).
Please see if you can be nice without compromising your convictions! The goal is to first understand (seeking clarifications), then to agree or challenge. But, why be a bit of a jerk (or jerkess) if you don’t have to be?
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
Hi Fred & Jim,
Jim, could you start with the content.. (for lack of a better word) of what a person must do/believe/receive… you can even identify what terminology you use for “do/believe/receive..” to make things clear.
It sure would raise my comfort level. I don’t know about Fred but filling my head with details before I get big picture is the best way to drive my attention elsewhere.
Also, if you state what you believe the COSF is at the beginning that may generate comments.. but not doing so is too… so just please be out with it.
That way I can find points of agreement and move on to other more important details.
It will be a show of trust, or maybe just a show of wanting to be trusted. If you want to be trusted I’m open to that, but I need you to take this first step.
Thanks,
Kev
Kev,
Fred has asked me not to comment on the companion thread, but I respect your request and was headed in that direction, anyway. I am going to post my first response as a content-oriented approach to the “saving message” in GJohn. I realize how divisive different approaches to John have been among various FG factions but I choose this text because it may well best reveal significant differences I have with some of the stated positions on the so-called COSF from both sides of this current debate. I take a different view of John than some of the more vocal proponents of both GES and FGA and other FB advocates who have not planted a stake in either camp (few though they may be), but I think the content and story in John is critical to a proper understanding of the saving message and I don’t hear that either side has really clearly identified that in such a crucial gospel.
Moreover, I disagree with some of the more outspoken proponents of both sides on some of the core epistemological issues, especially the basic agreement between some GES and FGA folks (!!!!) that propositions serve primarily as objects of belief rather than some other critical function in leading one to salvation. So I really am taking a risk here, because it will be very easy to get shot at from both sides. But you may be surprised at what I have to say.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Kev, for your generous spirit and willingness to be patient in such a heated environment. You have been deeply encouraging to me, even though I don’t know you other than what you’ve blogged.
Well you’ve piqued my interest.
As harsh as I know I can be when I feel I or the Gospel are being “played” I really do desperately love the Brethren and want everyone to be edified.
Kev
Kev,
Thanks for the right spirit here!
Jim,
Good, the propositions are the predicates of Jesus; this is w/o a doubt the right “order” to things.
All,
Btw, what Jim is saying is well attested to in scripture (Jn 5:39); the object and subject of eternal life is Jesus Christ. I think what really needs to be addressed is answering the question: What or Who is Eternal Life? I see that Jim is on that track . . . hopefully he’ll be persuasive to some here who continue to mistakenly think of ‘eternal life’ as someTHING instead of someONE. Eternal life isn’t a ticket to live forever, it’s a Person — thus union with this person is required (I Cor 6.17). I think this throws all of this discussion on proposition and eternal life into relief — eternal life ‘Proper’ is a Person . . . it’s that simple.
Bobby,
I like Jim am going to avoid comments over here, except on occasion. I really want to invite you all to re-think the one-sideness you all are giving to the term ‘eternal life’.
The Word expresses our salvation from Hell to Heaven in a variety of ways. It feel like a bit of a tactic to set up ‘eternal life’ as the only way to discuss the means to it.
You know the list…am I missing something, or are you willing to consider the other expressions (and
their description of means) as well?
Thanks much,
FRL
Jim:
For the third time in as many weeks Fred has asked you to tell him what you believe the lost must believe to be born again. This time he asked you,
Jim what do you really believe about the Content of Saving Faith? What does God require (if anything?) from an individual to be received into His Eternity? What do we need to know first to understand before we hear your conclusions on the matter?
Kev just asked you, “Also, if you state what you believe the COSF is at the beginning that may generate comments.. but not doing so is too… so just please be out with it.”
Your initial reply to Kev indicates you intend and may have already begun another redirect to evade answering the core question. Why is it you refuse to answer the same question that I had the joy of hearing a 9yo boy answer without hesitation?
You wrote, “But you may be surprised at what I have to say.” Its not a huge issue right now over what side you come down on or wind up in the middle of the GES reductionist Crossless gospel controversy , but please do surprise us with a clear, unvarnished answer. That would be a good start.
LM
I just wanted to kick this off, I’m not sure that Jim will totally agree with this — but it fits with what he has been saying so far — even so, this may be completely different than what Jim wants to say on faith and salvation. So just take this from me, this is a wonderful quote from theologian Thomas F. Torrance (20th century) commenting on another older Scottish theologian Jonathan Fraser of Brea (17th century):
I’m doing some research for a project, came across this quote, and thought how fitting it was to the discussion at hand. What this thinking is speaking ‘out of’ is the theologic of the Incarnation and the vicarious life of Christ ‘for us’. We are in Him, and He in us; humanity speaks *out of* Christ’s ‘human’ responses for them (i.e. He is the mediator between God and man I Tim 2:5). He first trusted the Father, when we would not (even to the point of the cross), and now we trust ‘out of His trust’. This reorientates this whole discussion on propositions and such; faith is either grounded in the ‘God-Man’ (both as the object [God] and subject [Man]) of salvation. In other words, this salvation is framed in the terms that the NT presents it to us in (viz. Trinitarian terms) — for my “prooftext” see all of Jn 17.
I hope this helps contribute to this ongoing discussion; I hate to see bros and sis’ at odds with eachother like this!
Peace.
Bobby,
I hate to see bros and sis’ at odds too…but honestly…what do you do when doctrinal error is in play?
We are having a discussion about the carpet in the fellowship hall, and we aren’t talking about semantics. These are issues that cover the essential nature of the gospel.
Moreover, I’ve worked hard at trying to have conversations with some of these brothers; but sadly, to no avail. There is no conversation to be had…
My hope is to have some clear discussions and writings that promote the truth in a firm but gracious way.
If we stand before God and find out that the GES Gospel was errant…we’d be in a whole heap of trouble at the Judgment Seat.
On the other hand, if guys like me who see the centrality of the cross as essential to the gospel are wrong…then, we just simple told ‘too much’…but we certainly still offered a clear faith-alone-in-Christ-alone gospel.
Kinda like Pascal’s wager…on the gospel.
Grace,
FRL
Bobby:
You wrote, “I hope this helps contribute to this ongoing discussion; I hate to see bros and sis’ at odds with each other like this!”
Two thoughts:
1) The only reason this is an on-going discussion is because, and now for the third time, Jim Reitman is dodging and evading Fred’s core question, which is what the lost must believe to be born again.
2) The “<at odds with each other,” is because certain persons have adopted and propagate the heretical GES Crossless gospel. It is that simple. When confronted with the recutionism that GES people believe and teach the Bible mandates our response. Our response may include one or all of these things, such as: admonish, rebuke, reject, contend, mark and avoid (2 Thess. 3:15; Titus 1:13, 3:10; Jude 3; Rom. 16: 17-18).
These things are not something any believer should desire, but where is our first loyalty? When confronted with a radical departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which the GES CG is) should we seek to maintain friendships and fellowships, acting like an ecumenical for the sake of unity at the expense of ignoring those gross doctrinal errors? Or do we OBEY the Lord’s mandates?
I will never rest in my defense of the Gospel against the twin errors of the Crossless gospel and Lordship Salvation as long as these twin assaults on the Gospel keep believers and the lost at risk of being swept up into these errors.
LM
I have some questions I would like to ask Jim Reitman or suggest for Fred.
Jim Reitman stated:
In being “saved,” a rational/sane person will have “some awareness” of the following “content” in all dispensations of salvation history. My present thinking is that this awareness can be propositional and/or intuitive and that it “resides” in our consciences. A non-rational/insane person may not require this awareness, because judgment is in accordance with “light received,” and they may not be capable of receiving that “light.”
Some questions popped in mind:
1) Does that mean that the required “content of awareness” may be different for everybody?
2) You mentioned different contents of awareness for “sane” vs. “insane”. Are these two distinct categories or people to whom two required “contents of awareness” apply? Or do the descriptions “sane” and “insane” describe two ends a relative scale for which many different “contents of awareness” could apply based on where the person fits on this scale?
3) Are there any absolute limits on what we can say is the maximum a person must be aware of or the minimum of which a person must be aware? In other words, your application of “judgment according to light” raises the question whether someone who has received a lot of light on various truths must believe all of it or whether a person who hasn’t heard of Jesus Christ even has to believe in Him.
4) Can you absolutely say that no person is regenerated in this lifetime if he has not believed in Jesus Christ?
5) Are there any propositions or elements of awareness that are minimally required to identify Jesus Christ? If so, what are they? If not, what identifies the true Christ?
6) You mentioned the available detail of content has increased with progressive revelation, which is obvious to everyone. But has this “available detail” changed the required content of faith or awareness? If so, how?
7) Can a person be saved without believing in Christ’s death, resurrection, deity, or humanity?
Thanks,
Greg
Hey Greg,
I want to get some answers too.. but I’m sure Fred is getting there.
I had thought Jim would have given us what he thinks the “saving message” is up front in this thread… instead we’re wading through circumstance.
I know it can be hard to express yourself in an environment that is perceived as hostile.
Frankly… as I warned I’m just not able or maybe not willing to read pages of information that will presumably support whatever position Jim finally gets too.
Context is everything. Reading all this detail without context is not healthy for discussion, or trust.
Even though I DO believe that Jim is trying to be clear..his choice of HOW he makes himself clear looks and feels like a snow-job.
Jim… I asked, and you seemed to respond well to my request. What happened?
Kev
“Yes, Kev, that should be obvious…”as in “Diabolical”
Fred, Jim, Everyone,
Please forgive me my stupid faux pas in posting on the wrong blog.
No big deal…do you want me to move that conversation over here?
Just to clarify, Lou said:
Mr. Reitman, is actually Dr. Reitman.
All,
We had 11 inches of rain in San Antonio…which killed my phone, cable, and internet. I’m now at the FGA Conference and have access.
I have removed Gary’s two posts because they belong on another blog where we were having a discussion and really didn’t seem to related well to this conversation. I hope you understand Gary.
I’m going to the blog next to answer you question.
Thanks,
FRL
Sorry Fred, I posted the same comment twice. I get the different threads here confused sometimes. My apologies. I know you removed my post from yesterday, but your question to me and my answer today at Michele’s are related to the topic of discussion here so it’s your decision if you think it appropriate.
Gary
Greg,
I am always amazed when two people can read the same thing and come away with a completely different understanding of what was written.
I understood Dr. Reitman to clearly explain how that the power of God to salvation is not in the mind of men (assent to one or more propositions) but in the revelation of Jesus Christ through the Word and power of the Holy Spirit (the light received). You and the GES claim that since saving faith can be reduced to a set of one or more propositions that you can not only know who is and is not saved, but you can also reduce the Gospel itself down to one or more “saving” propositions.
I understand Dr. Reitman went on to say his “present thinking” or his suspicion of the soteriologic implications are that since saving faith is not simply “propositional assent” that he perceives situations where, rationally, these propositions would not necessarily be part of “the light received”.
I think it will be tragic if you guys miss the opportunity to digest the things being discussed here. Our pointy-heady brethren rightly know that salvation is of God and I don’t think either you or the GES will ever make any in-road to them so long as you maintain that saving faith is all in your mind.
Hi Kc,
Whenever I read your comments I always seem to agree and resonate with everything you say. That’s why I’m still thinking that maybe you’ve gotten the wrong impression somewhere along the line about what the GES teaches from a few things I’ve read. Maybe you and I can pick up the discussion we had going a few days ago at Michele’s sometime in the future? You’ve really got me curious to know more about what your thinking is about that.
http://sancsblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/dillows-statement-on-gospel.html
Gary
My final comment is that Jim Reitman has provided enough information to be appalled. His view of the required content/awareness for salvation is not only “crossless” like Hodges/GES, but he’s given the crossless gospel a pluralistic, relativistic post-modern spin that essentially denies any specific knowledge or belief of Jesus Christ for salvation.
He stated:
In being “saved,” a rational/sane person will have “some awareness” of the following “content”…A non-rational/insane person may not require this awareness, because judgment is in accordance with “light received,” and they may not be capable of receiving that “light.”
He also spoke of this awareness coming through intuition.
Dr. Reitman suggested that a person can be saved through an intuitive awareness that God provides life through a “Seed” who provides ransom for sin, and that in some cases, not even this awareness is needed! According to Dr. Reitman, it all depends on the person’s level of rationality, sanity, and level of light received.
One definition of relativism is, “the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved”. Even though Dr. Reitman would agree there is an objective truth, there is nothing objective in terms of what he deems necessary for a person to believe for salvation. The requirement varies from person to person, “relative to the individuals and situations involved.” According to what he articulated, there is not a single “absolute” in terms of what a person must believe.
The “intuitive awareness” through which Dr. Reitman says a person can be saved need not involve any identifying information of Jesus Christ such as His Deity, death, or resurrection (and by implication, whether Christ was even a historical person).
In fact, Dr. Reitman accepts the possibility a person can be saved without hearing anything specific of Jesus Christ. The most he said in one of his posts is that if we were to present truths of Christ’s Deity, death, and resurrection to such a person, and that person were to reject those truths, we might have some reason to doubt that person had been saved some time in the past through intuitive awareness.
This whole idea of salvation through intuitive awareness without specific knowledge of Jesus Christ is completely contrary to the entire Church Age writings of the New Testament. It is contrary to this most basic statement:
Romans 10:14-17: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Notice, the lost cannot be saved through intuitive awareness. They need the Word of God, specifically “the gospel”!
“The gospel” must be “obeyed” by believing it. Notice the phrases, “obeyed the gospel…believed our report.” The same idea occurs in 2Thes 1:8-10:
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Notice again, “obey not the gospel” vs. “our testimony among you was believed”. Also notice the consequence of not believing the gospel is eternal damnation. The lost need to believe the message of the gospel in particular to be saved. That’s an essential reason we need to bring it to them!
That’s also why Cornelius was also instructed by an angel, “Send men to Joppa, and call for…Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” (Acts 11:14).
Notice Cornelius already possessed an awareness of his need for salvation. Even Luke described him as “a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house.” And as a Gentile, he obviously received a considerable amount of light from Judaism and even John the Baptist (Acts 10:37). He was obviously soft-hearted toward God and accepting of everything taught to him. Yet, he was not yet saved! If anyone was saved through intuitive awareness, why wasn’t it him? In order to be saved he needed to hear “the gospel” (Acts 15:7) so that they could believe in “the name” of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43; cf. 4:12).
Dr. Reitman’s view (though I’m sure he’d deny it) argues against the need for missions to spread the gospel. If the required content of salvation is actually less for people who are more irrational and who received less light, why put them in jeopardy by giving them the glorious light of the gospel which would then require them to believe more to get saved?
Dr. Reitman’s view is no gospel at all. Believers should apply the Galatians 1:9, “let him be accursed”.
— Greg
Greg:
You have summarized what we (eventually) time and again come to find out from every advocate of and/or sympathizer with the GES gospel.
We have endured three weeks of Jim’s dodge and evasions of Fred’s core question, which was, “Jim, what do you believe one must be believe to be saved?”
Jim Reitman’s latest commentary, however, shows us once again that the GES Crossless gospel is the most anti-biblical reductionist assault on the Person, work and saving message of Jesus Christ that has ever been introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own, namely Zane Hodges.
I thought we saw the worst of what the Crossless gospel could be coming from GES people before him in the blogs. Reitman’s commentary, however, is just as troubling or worse yet, at least in its expression.
Reitman’s version of the Crossless & Deityless gospel IS appalling. We must never rest from openly rejecting this error and exposing those GES people who advocate or sympathize with it so that the unsuspecting are not swept into these egregious errors. These GES men and women need to be the object of prayer for their recovery from a seared conscience toward this reductionist, false gospel and to repent of it.
LM
I just made a post, but for some reason, it was posted a few messages up.
The chronology of this thread commenting posting is messed up badly. I just had the same problem in my reply to Bobby’s question to Kev.
I’m seeing this…haven’t put my techno-solving hat on about it yet…???
Fred,
I have had the same problem on my blog, and was able to solve it by turning off the comment threading feature. Not a great solution, but at least everything shows up in chronological order. From your Dashboard: Settings/Discussion/Other Comment Settings and then uncheck ‘Enable Threaded…”
….Thanks Tim…
Fred
Diane wrote the following to me:
…In one of your comments you made a point of saying that “no verse fully and completely ever stands alone in the analogy of scripture.”
Then you listed some questions regarding John 3:16.
The one specific question that I wanted to comment on was this….
“What does Believe in Him mean?”
A few weeks ago I wrote a letter to my 7 grandchildren because I never wanted them to worry if they were REALLY saved. I never wanted them to struggle with….. “Did I believe the right thing? Did I believe enough? Can I really know for sure that I’ve been born again?”
So I wrote them the following letter to be put in their Bible forever. I wanted to share that with you if that’s OK. Thank you for that opportunity.
————-
*For my 7 beautiful grandchildren
(To be kept in your Bible FOREVER!!!)
What does it mean to believe in Jesus?*
To believe in Jesus means to believe His promise that He has given you everlasting life. One place where you can read this promise is in John 3:16. It says…
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
If you believe that promise, then you HAVE everlasting life because God does not lie.
Let me explain some things to you so that you understand how simple it is to have everlasting life. Everlasting life is sometimes called eternal life. To believe in Jesus means that you know that Jesus alone has given you everlasting life…, life with Him forever. Sometimes we call that going to heaven. Sometimes we call that being saved or being born again. People who think they have to do good works AND believe in Jesus in order to live with Him forever are NOT believing in Him. That’s believing in yourself, not Jesus alone. Jesus only gives the free gift of eternal life to people who believe in Him alone for it. He promised in John 3:16, and He does not lie.
Do you know WHY He can give you and me eternal life as a free gift with no cost to us at all? Because He paid for it. It cost Him His life. Yes, Jesus paid the price for us to have eternal life. He didn’t pay with money, but He paid with His blood. We’re all born sinners. That means we all do wrong things. We do things that God doesn’t like. But Jesus took our punishment that we deserved when He died on the cross for our sins. Everybody’s sins in the whole world have been paid for with Jesus’ blood whether they believe or not. Sin has been taken out of the way so that everybody can receive eternal life from Jesus as a gift. The only people who can go live with Him forever someday are those who have eternal life. When we believe in Jesus we are given eternal life at the very moment we believe, and we will never perish in hell. We can never give eternal life back because it is eternal. It is a forever gift. Jesus paid for our sins with His blood and rose from the grave. He’s alive. He lives forever, and we who believe in Him alone will live with Him forever in His wonderful home. That’s what it means to believe in Jesus. Isn’t that simple? You don’t ever have to worry if you’re going to heaven if you have believed Jesus’ promise. It doesn’t cost you anything to have eternal life. Jesus paid it all. It’s free to you and me. All you need to do is believe in Jesus and you will be saved forever.
So that’s what it means to believe in Jesus. I wanted to write this down so that you can keep it in your Bible forever. I’m going to live with Jesus forever and I want you to live with Him forever, too.
I love you all.
Grandma 🙂
…………………………….
Diane,
What a great gift to offer a permanent explanation of your heart concerning the eternity and your hope of seeing all your grandchildren there.
I realize that you were sending this post because of your agreement with the GES Gospel, which displays the very heart of the problem.
While I might not put all of what you’ve said in the same words, I do believe you’ve captured plenty for your grandchildren to understand and believe concerning the gospel by which we are saved. You’ve included the Person and the Work of our Lord…with an emphasis on faith alone in Christ alone.
This sort of underscores the problem however. Guys like me would say that you just shared the gospel, where the GES Gospel supporters would say you shared more than the gospel (I think they’d say you shared the message / or / the content preached). In other words, I’d say you said enough, while others would say you shared even more than you had to (just believing in the promise He made is enough).
For me this creates the curious problem of their need to admit that what I share is fine and someone can get saved with it…while I can’t admit their gospel would save if they ONLY shared it with someone.
You told of the death / resurrection of Christ, including an explanation of His ‘paying for our sins’. Why include it? It really doesn’t make things clearer. If your grandchildren would be saved by, “believe in Christ’s promise of eternal life”—then why add more material? It seems that the answer is you think it is important and explains the ‘why’ behind it all. For me, however, that ‘why’ is actually what gives faith it’s clear-and-saving object.
Here’s the only thing I’d really invite you to think about. You said,
To believe in Jesus means to believe His promise that He has given you everlasting life.
I have a bit a struggle understanding how believing in a promise someone made exactly equals believing in the person. Perhaps this is akin to believing in the propositions concerning Him…but why is it limited to one promise the Lord made? I’m pretty sure if you survey the New Testament you’ll find that believing ‘in Him’ involves far more in the way of ‘promises’ (and more) than a single one about eternal life.
…and, of course, John 5:24 says it is believing in the Father that is the key to eternal life…?
Thanks for your note and example of great love toward your grandbabies!
God bless,
Fred Lybrand
Greg you said
I just made a post, but for some reason, it was posted a few messages up.
There’s something up with the order of the posts in this thread.. I keep seeing the count go up but new posts are appearing above old ones. I’m less confused now that I’m able to find them.. but it’s been a few days since I’ve been able to figure out what’s going on in here.
Kev
Bobby:
You wrote to Kev, “…why won’t you just let Jim, answer?”
For three weeks Jim Reitman has taken the same dodge and evasion tactics that each of his GES predecessors have. He has and still refuses to answer in clear terms the one foundational question that was at the first put to him by Fred.
“Jim, what do you believe one must be believe for saved?”
Now that Jim has revealed his egregious anti-biblical GES reductionism you ask for more time for answers and evasions? Why? What good for the cause of Christ can there be in Jim’s long winded, pseudo-scholarly evasions and heresy of the GES inspired Crossless gospel attacks on the content of saving faith?
What need we of any more proof Jim Reitman has fallen into a reductionist doctrinal aberration the like of which has never been seen in NT church history?
LM
Hey Lou,
You’re probably confused by the order of comments in this thread just like the rest of us. Bobby, in the comment that you’re replying to was actually confused by GOE quoting my post from elsewhere and reposting it here…
So, while I share your sentament, I’ve got to note how funny it is to see so many little confusions build on each other. 🙂
Kev
Dr Lybrand,
I saw your comment this morning on the other companion thread and I just want you to know that I am very encouraged to hear you say this. 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”
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
Dear Fred:
I appreciate the effort in what you are trying to accomplish here.
Earlier this was posted by Gary, “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 (sic) Christ.”
What does the Bible say in 2 Thess. 3:15; Titus 3:10; Romans 16:17-18 respectively:
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.”
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
Gary’s idea of “reconciliation” certainly is not what God would have in this specific controversy over the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Gary and GES people want brothers in Christ (including those who recognize the heresy of the Crossless gospel) to ignore the GES reductionist assault on the cosf introduced to the New Testament church by the late Zane Hodges. GES sympathizers call on fellow believers to ignore the GES assaults on the Gospel as if they are a mere “nuance of doctrine.”
When confronted with gross errors (on a major doctrine) those who propagate them, refuse correction and will not repent God’s word has a better answer. Those Bible answers I have posted above. It is never “God’s hand in” anything when His Word is being compromised for the facade of unity.
Does God desire love among the brethren? Certainly, but not at the expense of disobeying His biblical mandates for how believers are to deal with brethren who are corrupting the Scriptures. I’ll take Paul’s Holy Spirit inspired instruction and obey those mandates.
We all can pray for the recovery and repentance of the GES Crossless/Promise-ONLY advocates! In the meantime, however, we MUST “admonish, reject, mark and avoid” them, which is God’s mandated course of action.
We must pray for the recovery and repentance of the GES sympathizers and ALL those deceived by the “contrary” doctrine of the GES gospel. We must do all we can to warn and protect the unsuspecting lest they fall into the trap of the GES Crossless & Deityless gospel.
In the words of Paul from the Inspired Commentary,
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (Acts 20:28-31).
See- Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples
In conclusion: Gary’s plea for “reconciliation,” under present circumstances, does not pass the test of Scripture. His appeal can not pass the test of Scripture no more than the Crossless gospel can, which is the source of and reason for division and offense.
Lou
Fred:
Good to see that you are steering Jim back toward answering the core question from three weeks ago that he has been evading.
That question was, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?
It is has been quiet an exercise to sift through these long, winding, incongruous theological tapestries Jim has been weaving. Of course, no one can really begin to understand what his posts mean because he never does give any concrete answer to what is the necessary content of saving faith that must be believed to be born again. It has, however, been somewhat of an entertaining if not mind-numbing experience trying to sort it out as he evades the core question.
Anyway, I like your new question to Jim, which is
It would look like this: “The Gospel Message is… _________________________, and it must be believed to be saved.”
If Jim’s pattern holds it is most unlikely he will ever give you a clear, unvarnished answer.
Nevertheless, may I suggest small revision to your question to Jim? How about this:
It would look like this: “In THIS dispensation, the Gospel Message is… _________________________, and it must be believed to be saved.”
What do you think?
Lou
Let’s pray for Jim Reitman, that the Lord would use His word and the recent message of Fred Lybrand and others, to grant him repentance (2Tim. 2:25).
Dr. Reitman, save yourself the shame and folly that comes from evading “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2Cor. 11:3). Certain propositions are needed to identify the true “Jesus” (2Cor. 11:4) and convey the one “gospel” that must be “received” by the lost for salvation (2Cor. 11:4). Your position is based on complicated mental gymnastics, not the simple word of God.
Although it may cost you some embarrassment in the short term, God’s grace is sufficient. There is a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory at stake for yourself and others you may corrupt.
— Greg
ymkkll at yahoo.com
Greg:
Well said. It is obvious from what can be gleaned from Jim’s long winded evasions of Fred’s direct question that he has adopted the Crossless, Promise-ONLY reductionist assault on the cosf.
It is our heart’s desire that those like Jim Reitman who have fallen into the trap of the Zane Hodges Crossless gospel can be recovered from and repent of it. Loyalty to the personality of Hodges is a very difficult thing for many of the GES people to get past.
Not only that he be recovered from a gross doctrinal error, but save himself any further shame and embarrassment by his obvious evasions and elitist “mental gymnastics.”
I’m grateful that Fred has called Jim out for an answer and to stop the façade.
Lou
Fred:
Your extended reaction to Jim’s latest evasion was an encouragement. I especially appreciated this:
“My goodness (Jim) …you won’t answer my simple question even though you admit that there are some propositions that must be believed. You will answer it if you re-frame it (of course, that ACTUALLY makes it a different question than the one I asked). Jim, nobody except you and a handful of folks can spend this kind of cognitive energy not talking in simple and plain ways.”
Jim replied to your latest attempt to get a clear and transparent answer to the basic question that I showed a 9 year old will answer without hesitation. And, true to form, Jim posted another long-winded evasion.
Bottomline is that Jim has answered, it is the classic GES Crossless, Promise-ONLY gospel. As one individual noted to me,
“The Person to be trusted is not the matter under contention. The matter under contention is whether the sinner must believe in said Person’s substitutionary atoning death on the cross for his or her sins.”
This is what you Fred just touched on in your reply to Jim’s latest, which you now have identified as an evasion, as it has been from the first.
Fred, I appreciate that you gave Jim benefit of the doubt, but it was obvious from the first he had no intention of giving you a clear, concise answer to your question.
Greg really put this to rest when he wrote,
“Jim Reitman has provided enough information to be appalled. His view of the required content/awareness for salvation is not only “crossless” like Hodges/GES, but he’s given the crossless gospel a pluralistic, relativistic post-modern spin that essentially denies any specific knowledge or belief of Jesus Christ for salvation.”
In the next comment I’ll submit and we’ll read how Jan really had this pegged when she wrote an extended commentary at my blog with Jim’s evasiveness in view.
LM
As a correction to my own quote, I would add the words “as necessary”…
“Jim Reitman has provided enough information to be appalled. His view of the required content/awareness for salvation is not only “crossless” like Hodges/GES, but he’s given the crossless gospel a pluralistic, relativistic post-modern spin that essentially denies any specific knowledge or belief of Jesus Christ AS NECESSARY for salvation.”
Jan wrote,
I think this is the issue when dealing with anyone who wants to present an unorthodox position and not be called out for it. Lou has noted that the simplest of questions will not be squarely answered by people of this type. They are unwilling or unable to acknowledge an orthodox statement of faith on the one hand, but on the other hand they do not want to be called heretical or unorthodox, etc. Therefore, they use many words to attempt to assuage those who call for a clear statement of orthodoxy. Clear statements of orthodoxy do not need many words to express, nor does wrangling over words (adjusting their definitions, changing the sense in which they are used, etc.) gain these positions the orthodoxy their proponents strive for.
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 analogy was frankly pathetic.
Verbal Fred Astaires they are not.
See- The Gospel of the Christ: Apologetic Aid or Spiritual Alp?
Jan via Lou,
While I’m happy for you to pitch in, I’d like to offer a suggestion to improve things a little if I may. A good bit of this note is accusatory with out specific examples. What I mean by this is that if you’ll pull a quote from a blog (preferably here in the discussion) which supports your claim, it gives me (and the reader) a clear idea of what you are talking about exactly…sometimes when we throw out a history of claims it sounds like we just have a bit of historical frustration. For example, calling someone a ‘master manipulator’ is pretty tough—and it may be true—but clear examples (especially from withing the blog) would be a huge help.
Personally, I don’t see Jim as manipulative at all, though I do see him as somewhat evasive in his answers. Evasiveness can be caused by being extremely carefull in what one says (like on the witness stand), rather than from a corruption in character.
Thanks,
FRL
Fred:
For clarification’s sake- I posted that comment, which she directed primarily to the GIF article that Tom Stegall addresses in his excerpt at my blog. The link is above.
That said, it is irrefuitble that Jim Reitman is manipulating your question, which you noted and in his evasive replies to it.
The only thing I’d further clarify is that Jim and all of the Crossless gospel advocates are NOT “Master Manipulators,” because just as Jan noted,
“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.
Lou
Yes Fred. That is true. When I wrote that I was speaking broadly on purpose because at the time I had many individuals from a number of doctrinal persuasions in mind. It wasn’t limited to this discussion or even to this doctrinal issue. That is why I said it is the issue when dealing with anyone who wants to present an unorthodox position and not be called out for it.
However, for the sake of specifics that do apply to this discussion, I do think that the part about using many words easily applies to Jim here. I don’t think Jim is being evasive for the purpose of being extremely careful. Actually, I don’t think Jim is being evasive at all in actually answering the question that was asked of him. I think he has answered the question. He answered it when he said this:
• I am dead in trespasses and sin.
• God has promised me life after death.
• This life is in a promised human “Seed,” whom God provides as a ransom for sin.
To cut to the chase in the present dispensation, I believe that the “content” required to believe is no greater than what I have stated above. (bold mine)
And this:
I would still frame the issue differently than you have. For now I will try to answer your last question by saying this:
“The Gospel Message is ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,’ and that Person must be trusted to be saved.”
It keeps being asserted that Jim has not answered the question when in fact he has. Where he is evasive is in neither admitting nor openly denying any need for the work of Christ to be included in a gospel presentation along with the Person of Christ. He neither admits nor openly denies that the sinner must trust Christ’s substitutionary atoning work on the cross for salvation.
His answer to the question is not evasive. His address of the actual concern is.
Lou was quoting me here (and this was in response to the portion of Jim’s comment I just quoted):
“The Person to be trusted is not the matter under contention. The matter under contention is whether the sinner must believe in said Person’s substitutionary atoning death on the cross for his or her sins.”
The Person to be trusted is not the matter of contention because we all agree on that. It is on the matter in my second sentence that Jim, et al are evasive. But that is not the question that was asked. The question that was asked was “what does a sinner have to believe to be saved?” Jim has answered that question.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if you ask, “Must a person believe in the work of Christ on the cross to be saved or can a sinner be saved without believing in that work?”
That really is what we want clarified, isn’t it?
JanH
Fred,
I think there is something wrong with the formatting. There are a lot more italics in my comment than I put in.
I think the same thing happened to Lou as there is a lot more italicized in his comment than what he quoted me on. I think he only meant to italicize his quote of me.
JanH
Fred, thank you for your kind reply to my post above….
For my 7 beautiful grandchildren
(To be kept in your Bible FOREVER!!!)
What does it mean to believe in Jesus?*
I do believe that anyone who simply believes the promise of John 3:16 is saved. That promise (found other places also) is exactly what must be believed to be born again. But a person needs REASON to believe that what God says in that promise is true. The content that I gave my grandchildren was for the purpose of explaining WHY Jesus could fulfill that promise. Unless one has REASON to believe He can fulfill the promise, he will not believe. You can’t MAKE yourself believe something you’re not convinced is true. You must be persuaded (convinced) that God will fulfill what He promised. The content I gave my grandchildren was for the purpose of giving them reason to believe in Jesus.
That’s what GES and Zane Hodges have been saying all along. They know that apart from the crosswork of Christ nobody can be saved. But they are making the very necessary point that the person who believes in Jesus TO SAVE THEM ETERNALLY is saved. That’s what believing the promise means. It’s not believing this and this and this ABOUT Jesus that saves. It’s believing IN HIM that saves.
*Once a person gets to the place where he is convinced that Jesus can and will fulfill His promise, at that moment he passes from death to life.*
People get to that place with more or less understanding about Jesus. In John some got to that place when they saw Jesus turn water into wine. That was a sign that showed them that He WAS the Christ, the promised One from God who alone gives eternal life to the one who believes in Him. Some needed a lot more than that to believe that He was the Christ, the giver of eternal life. The 8th sign (the death and resurrection of Jesus) was the GREATEST of all signs to show that Jesus WAS the Christ…. the giver of eternal life. Some believed all the signs showing that Jesus was from God, yet didn’t yet believe in Him alone for eternal life. A person will not believe in Jesus Christ for His gift of eternal life until they are convinced that He alone is the Christ, the only One who will save them when they believe in Him.
It does puzzle me that many of my friends think that GES or Zane would not see the necessity of preaching the crosswork of Christ. It’s the greatest, most miraculous, most loving act that has ever taken place in the universe. Believers will be God’s trophies of His grace throughout all eternity because of the cross. We preach it because we want every person to know what Jesus did to provide for their great salvation. And they will be saved when they believe in Jesus alone for everlasting life as He promised in John 3:16. All the other verses in the Bible that mention how to be saved say the same thing. No difference whatsoever.
I want my grandchildren to know that if they believe His promise, they will never have to worry that they believed enough to have everlasting life.
AWESOME!!!
Thank you for allowing me to post my thoughts. I do appreciate it.
In Jesus’ love,
Diane
Diane,
Let me throw out a couple of things in response to your post here.
You said—
It does puzzle me that many of my friends think that GES or Zane would not see the necessity of preaching the crosswork of Christ.
…………..
Let me see if I can answer this one. The reason some of us would ‘think that GES or Zane would not see the necessity of preaching the crosswork’ is that we believe that their is integrity or congruence at work in these folks. What I mean by this is that, in the course of time, why wouldn’t someone just go ahead and tell a needy soul WHAT they must believe to be saved? Currently, preaching the crosswork is MORE THAN WHAT is needed to be believed to be saved according to the GES Gospel.
It would make sense that telling ‘all the xtra’ stuff is only adding to something that should stay extremely ‘simple’ (according the the GES Gospel)…but ‘simple’ will eventually mean no cross, etc.
…………..
…………..
On your point about the gospel, it seems you are unfairly selective about the verse(s) you pick from John that offers ‘how’ to get eternal life.
Wouldn’t you agree that John 5:24 does it as well?
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24, ESV)
Yet, if this is the verse you use, then it seems pretty clear that their are 2 points to focus on in offering someone the way to eternal life:
1. Hear His Word
2. Believe him (the Father) who sent Christ
Honestly, that doesn’t seem to fit how you’ve explained the gospel above. Does it? How does it fit? Do we believe in Christ or the Father? Is it both (which is then putting texts together)?
Thanks,
FRL
*CLARIFICATION~!!!*
I said above….. (Oct. 13 – 10:28 PM)
*Once a person gets to the place where he is convinced that Jesus can and will fulfill His promise, at that moment he passes from death to life.*
It’s better said this way….
*Once a person gets to the place where he is CONVINCED that Jesus has given him eternal life just as He promised, at that moment he passes from death to life.*
Thank you.
Doesn’t make sense. First God wants the person to believe Jesus has already given him eternal life. Then God gives it to him?
*Once a person gets to the place where he is CONVINCED that Jesus has given him eternal life just as He promised, at that moment he passes from death to life.*
Sorry, but that is the same anti-biblical, reductionist error from GES that leaves the poor soul on his/her way to a Christless Hell.
LM
Stated a little differently—
I think these guys are wrestling with the idea of believing one has eternal life as opposed to believing that God will give it if one trusts Him for it.
It sounds like you are saying if you believe He ‘will’ give it, then it won’t save you.
I’m sure you are aiming at faith as ‘the assurance of things hoped for’…but it does pose an interesting problem.
Thanks,
FRL
Fred, Jim,
As of Jim’s post On October 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm Jim still has not answered Fred’s questions.
As far as I can tell the Cross is essential to have happened, but not essential to be believed. It may however be something that makes sense out of Jesus’ offer of Eternal Life.
I’ve written that in the language of Jim, not in my own.
Though Jim has refused to answer directly, I believe the English Language remains clear enough that we can piece what he believes together. It is unfortuante that one would take so much of all of our time to say so little.
The crux of the issue is Jim’s view as explained in this quote;
I would (provisionally) say: Most people who survive early childhood (irrational/insane people may be an exception) live long enough to know they are broken and eventually ask the important question, “What will happen to me when I die?” The only meaningful “difference” among them is the light they have received. We are all sinners and will all die; God will hold us accountable only for the light we have received in our conscience, starting with natural revelation.
This is a mix of various half truth interpretations of various verses in the NT.
God will expect MORE of those who are given more. He will not “only” hold us accountable for the light that has been given.
The Scriptures say that “all liars” will share in the Lake of Fire. Not just the liars who are absolutely shown they are liars… and that lying is not of God.
Of course we each have a conscience, and we each have General Revelation – Romans 1 which leaves us each without “excuse.” But excuse is something we might bring when God holds us accountable for something that we dont’ think we should be accountable for. “I didn’t know I was a liar!!” we might say.
God does not limit His judgment to things we’ve had “light” shed on. He judges all becaues He is not a God that shows partiality. He is righteous.
This discussion will of course lead to the false idea that sin doesn’t stand between the sinner and God any more since the Cross. That false idea attempts to make mockary of the rest of the NT.
Fred, I have been avoiding this blog because of the things I have discussed with you. I really ought to let you alone with this mess but it’s embarrassing to watch.
Jim you’ve disappointed me greatly. I had hoped, honestly, that you would prove your detractors wrong.
Do you not know that we have each and every one of us fallen short of the Glory of God?
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU BEING WRONG – IF you are correctable. We have all been wrong, and will (unless the Lord takes us first) be wrong again.
Stop with the guessing games as though the man you are speaking with is dull and incappable of understanding. He’s not nearly as silly as you are treating him.
I’ve found the best way to tell if someone is not correctable is if they will not clearly and immediately tell you what they hold as true.
I’d rather be clear and be corrected than go for even an additional moment being wrong. How about you?
Kev
Kev,
In defense of Jim, I did somewhat give him a pass on ‘my question’…as I wanted him to explain things as he desired (I would focus on understanding his view).
Not in defense of Jim, the question of ‘content of the gospel’ is still in play.
Either Jim can or cannot tell someone else what the content of ‘saving faith’ is (or at least the content part of saving faith)…to me the jury is still out. Frankly, I’m leaning toward the idea that Jim can’t articulate it because he doesn’t believe it is possible to know what the content of saving faith really is.
In that event, he is caught as to why he can insist he knows what it can’t be…if you get my drift.
Thanks,
FRL
Kev:
You wrote, “As far as I can tell the Cross is essential to have happened, but not essential to be believed. It may however be something that makes sense out of Jesus’ offer of Eternal Life.”
Just after, I wrote, starting with Jim’s comment, “‘Cross and Resurrection are essential to make…sense out of that offer?’ Translated: But the lost need not believe He died and rose again. That is because Jim is teaching the GES system of eternal salvation being received by believing in the ‘offer of life,’ the promise of eternal life ONLY.”
Since there was no collusion we’re reading him correctly.
Lou
To All:
I’d like to focus on two elements from one of Jim Reitman’s latest evasions of Fred’s core question.
Jim wrote, “I did go back through the entire dialogue and I do agree that I have not answered your question as you have framed it.”
Thanking Jim for the admission of what any objective reader has known from day one.
From the beginning Jim demonstrated he had NO intention whatsoever of answering Fred’s question as it was framed. If he would have given a clear, transparent answer at the start we would have learned then what we did come to learn by sifting through his *voluminous evasions over the past days. We learned that Jim is indeed advocating salvation apart from knowing, understanding or believing in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection, the things He did to provide salvation. I have already posted samples that verify this IS Jim’s position, but here is another. For example later in the same post to Fred, Jim wrote,
“I would say: The cross is absolutely necessary for salvation; if someone is willing to consider Jesus’s offer of life, the Cross and Resurrection are essential to make any real sense out of that offer today.”
“Offer of life?” Translated: Believe in the “offer of life” to be born again.
“Cross and Resurrection are essential to make…sense out of that offer?” Translated: But the lost need not believe He died and rose again. That is because Jim is teaching the GES system of eternal salvation being received by believing in the “offer of life,” the promise of eternal life ONLY.
Isn’t that right; Jim? Or would you care to correct my misunderstanding so that I can retract it by openly repudiating the GES gospel of eternal salvation apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the Lord’s (deity), death and/or resurrection? Would you honor Fred’s patiently waiting through your admitted evasion of his question by giving an honest, clear answer to his very first question, which was:
Jim, what do YOU believe one must believe to be saved?”
Folks, it is just that easy to sift through Jim’s evasions of Fred’s question, find the core of what he believes although submerged in murky, pseudo-scholarly half-terms, and irrefutably identify Jim Reitman as another advocate of the classic GES Crossless, Promise-ONLY gospel.
LM
*$5 word-smithing to impress any elitist academicians out there.
Lou,
As with my comment to Kev above…I did give Jim a pass on answering the earlier question.
Again, Jim could be ‘evasive’ because he doesn’t really know what content (at least part of saving faith according to him) is really required.
And, again, it puts him in the difficult spot of not being able to say those who believe the cross is essential for ‘saving faith’ are actually wrong.
It is confusing, but I don’t see this as a character issue with Jim (as you appear to think)…rather, I think it is a thinking problem. From the beginning he as said this is about epistemology (how do we know…).
I’m wondering how do we know that we can’t know what we know can’t be known…you know?
Thanks,
FRL
Fred, You don’t really believe that believing the promise of John 3:16 is enough to save someone do you? I’m sorry, but it’s as clear to me today as it was many, many years ago when the light of that verse first went on for me. I understood that just by believing In Jesus to save me, I was saved. I believed lots of things about Him before that truth dawned on me, but it wasn’t until my confidence was in Him to save me that I knew I was saved. And that was years and years before I ever heard of GES or Zane Hodges.
John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Jesus is speaking here. To believe His word is to believe what He is saying about eternal life. To “believe in Him who sent Me” is to believe the message that Jesus’ Father sent Him to proclaim.
There is a unity between the Father and the Son. How much a person understands about that is not the issue. The issue is believing Jesus’ message about giving eternal life to the one who believes in Him. He came from the Father with the message that is to be believed. John would not change the message and make it different than John 3:16, or
*John 6:47… “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”*
Jesus preached for 3 years before His crucifixion and resurrection. John records what must be believed to have everlasting life. The disciples believed in Him for everlasting life BEFORE they understood the crosswork of Christ and His resurrection. Surely the book of John was not JUST for those people who lived during those 3 years, and after that the book’s saving message wasn’t sufficient. It changed. More was now needed to be believed to be saved. The promise is not enough any more!!! John 3:16 is not sufficient!!! It was only good for those 3 years. But now it’s not enough!!! Surely God would have told us that if that were the case.
We preach Christ crucified because it was there that He bore our sins. We preach His resurrection because that is our hope. WE YELL IT FROM THE ROOF TOPS. But we will never change the message of Jesus Himself when He said…..
*Whoever believes in ME shall not perish but have everlasting life!*
The same message of salvation that He proclaimed to the disciples and multitudes during His life here on earth is the same message I will proclaim until the Lord takes me home. No where in scripture do I find that that message has changed. You and other friends are saying something different than Jesus said. I’m going to stick with Jesus.
I feel like I’m in good company by proclaiming the same saving message that Jesus proclaimed in John. I’ll trust His promise always and forever. Nothing will ever sway me away from that wonderful message of hope (assurance) of eternal life…. a gift received by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. PRAISE GOD.
Thank you, and may God help us all to see as He sees!
All because of His wonderful grace,
Diane
Diane,
I do believe that someone can be saved though John 3:16 (even better, all of John 3!)
What happened before the gospel of John? Where people saved back then (of course, we know they were). How were they saved? What is the verse?
For example, isn’t Habakkuk 2:4 enough?—
““Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4, NKJV)
If it is, then why not use it instead of John 3:16? You see, anyway you go you are caught admitting that there has been progress in revelation (God has added information over time). Does he ‘require’ this information or not? This will turn out to be the question, but it isn’t about John, it is about the old testament too. Do we believe people can read the old testament and get saved?
Additionally, this is still about information. I don’t think you are yet appreciating how much someone has to know (in the details) to read and understand John 3:16. Specifically, knowing what ‘gave’ and ‘believes’ mean are pretty strategic to understand and embrace the text.
I’m glad you use John 3:16, but I suspect you use a WHOLE LOT more when you explain the gospel to someone. Watch yourself share sometime and I think you’ll see just how much information God has given you to give others. I suspect we intuitively know (Jim!) that they need that information too!
God bless,
FRL
I would like to make one additional point if I could regarding John 5:24…..
I have a note in my Bible that says…..
“Zane says that the word *in*(NKJV) is not in the Greek here.” It should read this way…..
*“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”*
You can read about this in Zane Hodges’ commentary on 1 John, page 227 in mine – dealing with 1 John 5:13.
So here’s what Zane says in that commentary…..
*What is striking here is that the Lord Jesus speaks of those who hear His word and who believe the One who sent Him! That is to say, if they accept His word as true they will be believing God! Thus He says, “My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16). Similarly, “I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him” (John 8:26). And, “I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49). So the words of Jesus are the words of God.
*(continuing from commentary)…..*
But what kind of testimony does God give in John 5;24? Precisely the kind of testimony that John appeals to in 1 John 5:9-12. Namely, that the believer “has eternal life” and is in no danger of coming “into judgment” but has already “passed from death into life.” This testimony from God, spoken through the lips of His Son, is the kind of testimony John wishes his readers to rely on so that they will KNOW THAT they HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.*
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share this with your readers.
A friend in Christ,
Diane
Diane,
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I would say, however, that I think you are proving my point here. It is important for you to explain the text with other texts. This is the challenge we have since truth comes in constellations. Many related things give full meaning to the information found in a single text.
If John 5:24 (hopefully in the right translation) washed up on the shore in Zane’s man-on-an-island scenario, could the fellow get saved? Really? No, I mean really? The answer is clear he could not get saved even though the promise of eternal life is in the text. Now, he actually COULD get saved IF he has a good bit of prior knowledge. The man would not know what ‘Christ’s word’ was, nor who ‘Him who sent me’ was, etc.
I don’t think we notice how much information is necessary to exercise faith…which explains why men like Gordon Clark exhorted folks to preach the whole counsel of God.
At some point, we really need to own up to the fact that more information is necessary than pointing to a single text. There is certainly enough in various passages to get one saved, however, they simply have to know a bit about terms and meanings. It really is unavoidable. It would be nice if we could all own up to that fact…lots of unity and good work on being clear about the gospel could arise!
God bless,
Fred
Please forgive me if I’m replying a 2nd or 3rd time… the same post. I tried to post and I didn’t think it went through. So I’ll try posting here under reply. Sorry for the problem.
———-
Thank you Fred for posting my comments and kindly replying.
May I ask another question?
Why do you think that Zane Hodges believes it’s NOT necessary to give more information to someone than John 3:16? He definitely believes in giving as much information as possible. The cross and resurrection are always part of his presentation of the gospel.
You’re missing his point~!!!!!!*
As one blogger put it so well…… The POINT that Zane was making is that a person is not saved until he “hits the bulls-eye.” He can believe all kinds of truths about Jesus and yet not believe IN Him alone for eternal life. Until you believe IN Him alone for eternal life, you’ve not hit the bulls-eye. You’re NOT SAVED!!! But the moment he believes in Jesus to save him as He promised, at that moment HE IS SAVED!!! That’s the bulls-eye that everyone must get to in order to be saved. Zane was making THAT POINT! There is NOT a particular list of truths about Jesus that is required to be believed to hit the bulls-eye (to be saved). The ONLY requirement is to believe in Him for eternal life (eternal well being… with God forever…. not condemned to hell). That’s why Zane used the *illustration* of the bottle on the island. His POINT…… believe in Jesus and you will have eternal life!!!! That’s the bulls-eye!!! His “ISLAND ILLUSTRATION” is the bulls-eye! He wanted people to understand that!!! I think he has accomplished what he wanted to do because many people “got it!”
But there are still a lot who haven’t!!!
Zane also knows that you CAN’T believe unless you are convinced that it is so. The person who believes in Christ is the person who has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. If a person had NO information but somehow the Holy Spirit opened his eyes to believe in Jesus for eternal life as promised in that verse, he hit the bulls-eye. He’s saved. BUT……. that seems improbable that anyone would believe without reason to believe. Zane was just being a professor (as one blogger so accurately put it). He was getting people to THINK about the bulls-eye and what is required to be saved. He wasn’t endorsing not giving information. He was trying to get people to understand what they must believe to be saved. They must believe that Jesus HAS given them everlasting life as He promised. He was using an illustration to get people to look THERE at the bulls-eye!!!
John’s emphasis is upon the 8 signs for the PURPOSE of getting the person to the place where they believe in Him. There couldn’t be a better reason to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ than to have understanding of the cross and resurrection of Christ. Zane would be the first one to tell you that he always preaches that wonderful message. But in order to be saved the person must believe in Him for eternal life. Believing the truths about the cross and resurrection don’t save. Multitudes of lost people believe that. But understanding THAT truth is the greatest of all reasons to *believe in Him for eternal life*!
I must say, I completely understand Zane Hodges’ point. Believe His promise about giving eternal life to the one who believes, and you’ve hit the bulls-eye. That’s the ONLY requirement to be born again. But preach the cross! Preach the resurrection!!! Preach the blood!!! Preach virgin birth!!! Preach His deity!!! Preach it all~!!!
But I prefer to start out with the bulls-eye and THEN give people the REASONS that they can believe in Him. I want them to get to the bulls-eye. I think starting out with the promise is a great way to present the good news of Jesus Christ. It’s not the only way to do it, but that’s what I prefer. That’s what Jesus did.
Regarding O.T. Salvation, I recommend Bob Bryant’s wonderful message in the GES Journal…..
*“How Were People Saved Before Christ Came?”*
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003i/bryant.pdf
I checked that paper over very carefully looking up all the verses. It was very helpful to me. All my questions are not answered, but someday the Lord will fill in the pieces that I don’t understand yet. But one thing I know for sure……
*John 3:16….. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life!!!*
*Bulls-Eye!*
Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts.
In Jesus’ love,
Diane
http://www.believe-only.blogspot.com
Diane:
Reading what you believe to be the saving message is a tragic and stark example of how far from Scripture one can fall.
Your views are so antibiblical, and absurd as Greg noted, that they are the closest I’ve seen yet to Universalism from GES people. I truly pity what has been done to you through exposure to the gross reductionist heresy of the GES Crossless & Deityless gospel.
Reading what you have come to believe encourages me to keep obeying the biblical mandate in Rom. 16:17-18 to “mark” these teachers from GES of the Crossless gospel heresy to help others recognize and avoid this false, non-saving message that you have fallen prey to.
Lord willing, you will be recovered from this doctrinal aberration this side of Heaven. If not this side, before His throne you will receive His correction, be restored to His Truth, as Zane Hodges surely has.
In the meantime, you are a danger to any unsuspecting person who come in contact with your extreme reductionist attack on the Gospel, the contents of saving faith.
The Lord warned His disciples and warns every believer today that they do NOT hinder children from coming to Him. His most severe warning is to those who would dare offend any little one who believes in Him (Matt. 18).
God help you and any GES Crossless person who tells a child that he is saved because of a promise-ONLY. If that child never comes to grips with that gross error and is never born again the Bible way, he/she will spilt Hell wide open and that child’s blood (eternal damnation) will be on your hands.
As long as you teach children, any children, the Hodges, Wilkin, GES non-saving message, you are hindering children from coming to Him.
Lou
Hi Fred, (Jim)
I understand you gave him a “pass.” Thanks for reminding me.
You said;
In that event, he is caught as to why he can insist he knows what it can’t be…if you get my drift.
and
I’m wondering how do we know that we can’t know what we know can’t be known…you know?
May I suggest that you two change the topic then?
For reverence sake, and for lowering heated emotions. You two are not talking about the Gospel at all…. but by avoiding answering things and being loose with interpretation WE all who are viewing run the risk of being irreverent to the Gospel of the Christ.
If you want to discuss how something can be known – which is really the true focus of your discussion with Jim then discuss that directly.
That way you’ll avoid the dangers of blaspheme all together, and people like myself will not struggle with offense that doesn’t need to be incited.
If the two of you come to some resolution on how things can be known, or known to be unknowable then you can – if you are still willing – to apply that to the topic of the Gospel.
Hope this helps,
Kev
Kev,
I think that is fair…but keep in mind that I really didn’t understand this point (or Jim’s view) at the beginning, though I think he tried to point to it (he apparently knows his epistemology is shaping his theology). Frankly, I don’t have much interest in a discussion about epistemology as it is a pretty fruitless conversation in my opinion. If a human has to learn how to know, then the ability is not hard-wired in by God…which means there really is no basis for accountability or apprehension of truth on the part of anyone (children especially). Humans may not know how they know what they know…but it doesn’t change the fact that they know…you know? 🙂
Grace,
FRL
Hey Fred,
I think that if we’re going to be “witness” to something then we need to be able to express what we are witness too. Also, when one is being an (honest) witness they can only relate what they actually saw – not their impression of it.
In otherwords a witness doesn’t relate opinion, only observation.
The Witness may not understand why they make the connection between what they saw and what they understand, but they must be able to relate what they saw apart from their understanding in order to be a “witness.”
I hope this makes sense in the context of your last.
This understanding reinforces my view of the Gospel, that it is exactly as the Apostle declared. No matter if I understand all the implications or not, the Gospel is what the Gospel is.
Hope this is helpful,
Kev
Diane:
Reading what you believe to be the saving message is a tragic and stark example of how far from Scripture one can fall.
Your views are so antibiblical, and absurd as Greg noted, that they are the closest I’ve seen yet to Universalism from GES people. I truly pity what has been done to you through exposure to the gross reductionist heresy of the GES Crossless & Deityless gospel.
Reading what you have come to believe encourages me to keep obeying the biblical mandate in Rom. 16:17-18 to “mark” these teachers from GES of the Crossless gospel heresy to help others recognize and avoid this false, non-saving message that you have fallen prey to.
Lord willing, you will be recovered from this doctrinal aberration this side of Heaven. If not this side, before His throne you will receive His correction, be restored to His Truth, as Zane Hodges surely has.
In the meantime, you are a danger to any unsuspecting person who come in contact with your extreme reductionist attack on the Gospel, the contents of saving faith.
The Lord warned His disciples and warns every believer today that they do NOT hinder children from coming to Him. His most severe warning is to those who would dare offend any little one who believes in Him (Matt. 18).
God help you and any GES Crossless person who tells a child that he is saved because of a promise-ONLY. If that child never comes to grips with that gross error and is never born again the Bible way, he/she will spilt Hell wide open and that child’s blood (eternal damnation) will be on your hands.
As long as you teach children, any children, the Hodges, Wilkin, GES non-saving message, you are hindering children from coming to Him.
LM
Thank you Fred for posting my comments and kindly replying.
May I ask another question?
Why do you think that Zane Hodges believes it’s NOT necessary to give more information to someone than John 3:16? He definitely believes in giving as much information as possible. The cross and resurrection are always part of his presentation of the gospel.
You’re missing his point~!!!!!!*
As one blogger put it so well…… The POINT that Zane was making is that a person is not saved until he “hits the bulls-eye.” He can believe all kinds of truths about Jesus and yet not believe IN Him alone for eternal life. Until you believe IN Him alone for eternal life, you’ve not hit the bulls-eye. You’re NOT SAVED!!! But the moment he believes in Jesus to save him as He promised, at that moment HE IS SAVED!!! That’s the bulls-eye that everyone must get to in order to be saved. Zane was making THAT POINT! There is NOT a particular list of truths about Jesus that is required to be believed to hit the bulls-eye (to be saved). The ONLY requirement is to believe in Him for eternal life (eternal well being… with God forever…. not condemned to hell). That’s why Zane used the *illustration* of the bottle on the island. His POINT…… believe in Jesus and you will have eternal life!!!! That’s the bulls-eye!!! His “ISLAND ILLUSTRATION” is the bulls-eye! He wanted people to understand that!!! I think he has accomplished what he wanted to do because many people “got it!”
But there are still a lot who haven’t!!!
Zane also knows that you CAN’T believe unless you are convinced that it is so. The person who believes in Christ is the person who has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. If a person had NO information but somehow the Holy Spirit opened his eyes to believe in Jesus for eternal life as promised in that verse, he hit the bulls-eye. He’s saved. BUT……. that seems improbable that anyone would believe without reason to believe. Zane was just being a professor (as one blogger so accurately put it). He was getting people to THINK about the bulls-eye and what is required to be saved. He wasn’t endorsing not giving information. He was trying to get people to understand what they must believe to be saved. They must believe that Jesus HAS given them everlasting life as He promised. He was using an illustration to get people to look THERE at the bulls-eye!!!
John’s emphasis is upon the 8 signs for the PURPOSE of getting the person to the place where they believe in Him. There couldn’t be a better reason to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ than to have understanding of the cross and resurrection of Christ. Zane would be the first one to tell you that he always preaches that wonderful message. But in order to be saved the person must believe in Him for eternal life. Believing the truths about the cross and resurrection don’t save. Multitudes of lost people believe that. But understanding THAT truth is the greatest of all reasons to *believe in Him for eternal life*!
I must say, I completely understand Zane Hodges’ point. Believe His promise about giving eternal life to the one who believes, and you’ve hit the bulls-eye. That’s the ONLY requirement to be born again. But preach the cross! Preach the resurrection!!! Preach the blood!!! Preach virgin birth!!! Preach His deity!!! Preach it all~!!!
But I prefer to start out with the bulls-eye and THEN give people the REASONS that they can believe in Him. I want them to get to the bulls-eye. I think starting out with the promise is a great way to present the good news of Jesus Christ. It’s not the only way to do it, but that’s what I prefer. That’s what Jesus did.
Regarding O.T. Salvation, I recommend Bob Bryant’s wonderful message in the GES Journal…..
*“How Were People Saved Before Christ Came?”*
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003i/bryant.pdf
I checked that paper over very carefully looking up all the verses. It was very helpful to me. All my questions are not answered, but someday the Lord will fill in the pieces that I don’t understand yet. But one thing I know for sure……
*John 3:16….. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life!!!*
*Bulls-Eye!*
Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts.
In Jesus’ love,
Diane
http://www.believe-only.blogspot.com
Diane, I had a hard time reading all that because it was too erratic and all about Zane Hodges. However, you mentioned an article by Bob Bryant. I exposed several problems with the article Lou put on his site a few years ago at:
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/08/false-paradigm-of-crossless-gospel-1.html
In actuality, Bob Bryant’s article is very flawed, and I pointed out how it relies on the same extra-Biblical assumptions about “tradition” as Roman Catholicism. Tom Stegall also has an excellent chapter in his book The Gospel of the Christ (www.amazon.com) which deals with this subject of the content of faith during Old Testament times in depth.
— Greg
Diane,
I know it is difficult to believe because I disagree with him, but I actually do understand Zane. I was a student of his, spent plenty of time at lunches and other meetings with him, etc. When you are in love with a person it is very hard to see their flaws. I went through this for many years with my dad…’waking up’ to see that he was an alcoholic.
Am I saying Zane is an alcoholic…of course not (trying to be careful to not be misconstrued). I’m not missing the point at all. I get it that Zane says ‘preach the cross’…however, Zane is not saying ‘believe the cross’. I promise you Diane, you are missing out on what Zane really believed. I tried to demonstrate this in my Open Letter from April of 2009. For me, his own articles tell me the issue. Here is one of his many problematical quotes.
If we believe that Jesus is the One who guarantees our eternal destiny, we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved.
If you consider his article carefully, he asserts that the man on the island, NOT KNOWING ABOUT THE CROSS, would be saved by his believing that Jesus is the One who guarantees his eternal destiny.
Here is another quote from Zane’s article,
I suspect that there are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn’t know enough. For example, he doesn’t know that Jesus died for his sins on the cross and rose again the third day. But why is he not saved if he believes the promise of Jesus’ words?
Zane believed people could be saved apart from having any knowledge of the cross, etc.
Everyone knows (or should know) that Zane believed in the cross and thought we should preach it far and wide and often. But, we are not talking about that in the conversation about the gospel.
Diane, as I stated in my article, the question we are all discussing is,
Can one be saved by believing something Less than the Gospel?
The answer is, “of course not.” Zane believed that you could be saved apart from the knowledge of His death for you, the cross, and the resurrection. That is all their is to it.
You asked me,
“Why do you think that Zane Hodges believes it’s NOT necessary to give more information to someone than John 3:16?”
My answer is that because of what he saw as ‘necessary’ to get saved, he clearly believed that it was not ‘necessary’ to give the information.
I am grieved that Zane drifted away from what he believed earlier in his life (and I feel the same about Bob’s drift as well). I clearly believe that they say ‘preach the cross’…but I clearly know they do no think it is necessary information for salvation. Owning up to the fact that friends and mentors (and sometimes parents) have abandoned the things they modeled and believed just puts us in the difficult but important position of deciding about our path ourselves. I have weighed the scriptures and I have weighed eternity; I’ve concluded that the cross is clear a part of what must be believed to be saved (1 Cor 1:18ff)
Diane, again, I clearly believe that they say to all ‘preach the cross’…but I clearly know they do not think it is necessary information for getting saved, in time it will drop from the presentation.
God bless,
FRL