In light of my previous post on Luther, and my opening post for this blog about being called a heretic, I thought I might comment on some recent articles and books which condemn me (and other speakers and writers) as someone who teaches a crossless gospel.
These books and articles, by pastors, bloggers, and writers who will go unnamed in this post, basically accuse me (and several others) of removing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the biblical gospel. They accuses us of teaching a “crossless gospel.”
Here is my brief response:
I Don’t Hold to the Crossless Gospel
Frankly, when I read these books and articles, I was shocked to read what I (supposedly) believed. It was reported that I believed the cross was not central to the gospel.
Yet I have always believed and taught that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no biblical gospel. There is no such thing as a crossless gospel. I believe the cross is central to the gospel.
Without the cross of Jesus, there is no gospel!
The Authors Quote me Out of Context
The authors quote a few writings of mine as proof that I have ripped the cross out of the gospel, and all I can say is that they should have read the entire article from which they quote, and some of my other writings as well. Anybody can be quoted out of context to get them to say the exact opposite of what they are actually saying. This tactic began in the garden when Satan misquoted God to Eve, and continued when he misquoted Scripture to Jesus. (Not that I am God or Scripture and my opponent is Satan, but the point is that people must be quoted in context.)
If these authors had read the entirety of the article they quote, they would see that I do not believe in a crossless gospel, but believe in the centrality of the cross for the gospel!
The Authors Quote Others Out of Context
And I did some researching into the other writers and scholars these authors quote, and discovered that the same tactic was used against them. In each instance I looked up, the quote was ripped from a context which says the exact opposite of what was quote appeared to be saying. Each of these men the author attacks believes the cross is central to the gospel.
The Crossless Gospel Doesn’t Exist!
And so now, sadly, the unnamed authors of the accusatory books and articles make themselves look foolish because, for everybody who knows better, the view they are trying to refute doesn’t exist!
Initially, when I read some of these books and articles, I laughed at the way I had been so misrepresented. But now, I just feel bad for those who need to defend their own views and consolidate their own power by misrepresenting the views of others.
I wish that these unnamed authors would have checked with me and a few others that were quoted out of context to see if our views were properly presented. As the books and articles now stand, the only thing they do is reveal a lack of scholarship based on misquotes and straw-man fallacies. They have set up a false gospel of their own making, called it a “crossless gospel,” assigned this so-called “false-gospel” to some innocent bystanders (such as me), and then accused us of holding this gospel of their own making, which of course, we do not.
The worst part about this is that those who read the books and articles of these various teachers might not do their own homework by checking out the baseless claims that they read and hear, and as a result, may be led astray into confusion and the false maligning of godly men.
The bottom line is that whatever these books and articles claim I believe, I think I know better. I’ve said it in my writings and sermons: The cross of Jesus Christ is central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there would be no biblical gospel, no offer of eternal life, no hope of heaven, and no forgiveness of sins.
So away with this “Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel” travesty. I don’t believe in a crossless gospel, and don’t know anybody who does.
There is no such thing as a crossless gospel, and those who purportedly teach such a gospel do not actually believe there is any such thing. The term “crossless gospel” is a pejorative misnomer.
Jeremy
I too was astounded by Tom Stegall’s accusation that GES now teaches a false “crossless Gospel!”
You have to admit. . . that paper Zane Hodges read was meant for shock value (sort of like what John Piper does) meant for generating discussion, and was not intended to remove the cross of Christ from a doctrinal statement. I guess John Piper can get away his “shock value” Christian Hedonism, because he is Reformed. . . oh well. I still cannot find anywhere where Zane said we should NOT preach the cross of Christ. . . ever. He said it was not the core minimum in first 20 chapters or so in the Gospel of John because the word “Gospel” was not even there. . .which is CORRECT! Christ had not died yet!
I have the mp3’s for those messages, and I placed them temporarily online for Lou Martuneac to listen to. He has gotten sucked into Tom’s so-called “crossless gospel” anti-GES camp. I have seen Lou argue against Lordship Salvation on sfpulpit and he does an excellent job. I think Zane did an excellent job of clarification during the question and answer time, but that never made it in print. I think it would be helpful for all the sessions to be transcribed. . . along with the questions and answers.
I would love to go point by point through Tom’s papers and show how his accusation of a “crossless gospel” is unfounded. I hate wasting time on such a nonsensical accusation, and the other issues such as repentance are WIDELY debated among all evangelicals. It seems that these days, people hear what they want to hear, and then ignore everything else.
Of course there are points Tom makes in those papers that actually are true (such as the point that Zane Hodges changed his view on repentance). I am not sure why some people think you commit an unpardonable sin to change your view of repentance based upon study of the Bible. I think Tom is trying to prove too much in those papers. He should stick to the most important issue.
Tom claims to have been part of the Free Grace camp, but it does not seem he really understands what Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the scores of others are teaching. He is picking and choosing quotes, and not including the qualifications that Zane and Bob make in one of the following paragraphs or sections. For instance, Tom never quoted the lines where Zane says that the preaching of the cross is essential in witnessing today. That does not seem fair.
FYI here are the links for zane’s mp3s from GES2000 conference.
http://www.palcs.org/~dreiher/GES00_zhodges_Part1.mp3
http://www.palcs.org/~dreiher/GES00_zhodges_Part2.mp3
Let me know when you get them, as I don’t want to leave them online for more than a week or so.
– Don
Hey Jeremy,
Did you get my emails I sent to you? I never got any response so I am wondering if they got through.
Anyway, I have spent alot of time lately discussing this “crossless” gospel claim. It is inherently disingenuous, and hopes to terminally mischaracterize Free Grace theology, perpetuating a straw man by using the shameful pejorative “crossless”.
I have about 6 articles written concerning them, taking Lou Martuneac on head to head. His criticisms are weak and chooses to not discuss my arguments, merely dismissing them, while he continues to assert unfounded critical charges against GES types.
Here is a list of my latest ones. (I actually have more in my archives accessed through my table of contents)
Lou Martuneac’s misrepresentations of Zane and FG theology:
http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/lou-martuneacs-misrepresentations-of.html
Has the Gospel of John failed to specifically and precisely express the terms of receiving eternal life? If so, John failed in his purpose (John 20:31)!
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/07/has-gospel-of-john-failed-to.html
Challenge to Lordshippers and Soft FGers to Find a single passage that conjoins a command to repent with a resultant of eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation:
http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/challenge-to-all-lordship-salvationists.html
Must one understand Christ’s death for sins to be born again:
http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/must-one-understand-christs-death-for.html
The difference between the Gospel message and the Offer (promise) of eternal life:
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/06/difference-between-gospel-message-and.html
The use and abuse of the Gospel message:
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/06/use-and-abuse-of-gospel-message.html
Does Romans 10:9, 10 teach that one must understand the resurrection as a condition in addition to simple faith into Christ for eternal life?
http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-romans-109-10-teach-that-one-must.html
Another look at 1 Cor 15:3ff: Is this the content of saving faith?
http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/another-look-at-1-corinthians-153ff.html
You can’t believe Jesus and at the same time doubt that you are eternally secure:
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/07/you-cant-believe-jesus-and-at-same-time.html
Submitted for your consideration.
grace to you,
Antonio da Rosa
Don,
Thanks for the post, and for the links to the mp3 audio. You make some good points. Also, don’t be too concerned about removing the mp3s any time soon. People who think that the “Crossless Gospel” article accurately represents Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges have not carefully done their homework. So for those who want to know more, the mp3 messages will help some people get a better understanding for what Zane actually believes.
Thanks again!
Antonio,
I did receive an e-mail or two from you…will try to respond tonight…
Anyway, I have been reading your posts on your blog, and they are excellent. It is clear that Lou really doesn’t understand our position, since he continually misrepresents it and refuses to deal with it head on.
For anyone reading this blog, I highly recommend you read the links Antonio has posted above.
Don/Men:
I did not get “sucked into” anything. I was alerted to Stegall’s article after I had already been addressing the teaching of Zane Hodges at my site, and coming to the same conclusions.
I did not coin the term “crossless,” but it is a term that I believe is appropriate.
What you men are missing is this: It is not the presentation of Hodges’ gospel that is “crossless,” it is how the cross and what Jesus did to secure salvation (death & resurrection) is removed from what a lost man must believe to be born again. That is what makes it a “crossless” gospel. That is right out of Hodge’s own works which I have cited myself.
Hodges wrote, “The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.” (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 13).
The gospel Hodges teaches is indeed “crossless” where the lost man’s decision for Christ and salvation is concerned. This is a reductionist gospel, and ignores the clear teaching of Romans 10:9-10.
LM
Lou,
Thanks for posting! I’ve read through some of your blog, and you have a lot of great information there…even if we don’t yet see eye to eye on this current issue…
But since we both love the Lord and want to know the truth, there’s hope for both of us, right? If I’m wrong, I hope you can prove it to me from Scripture.
Anyway, I see a big difference between the gospel “invitation” and the gospel “information.” Nobody, not even yourself, thinks that in order to be born again, a person has to believe the entire gospel. For example, when you evangelize, do you tell people that along with the death and resurrection of Jesus, that they also have to know and believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:10), that He anointed and healed many (Acts 10:36), and about His post-resurrection appearances to Peter and the twelve, and later to more than 500 (1 Cor 15:1ff)? Do you make sure the person believes in the virgin birth and the sinless life of Christ? Yet the New Testament includes all of these things in the gospel (and at least 40 other things as well). So if most of the time, you don’t include these things in your evangelism, does that mean they aren’t part of your gospel? Hardly. So it would be unfair to label your practice of evangelism as a “virginless, sinful, non-miraculous, invisible resurrection gospel.”
Similarly, whatever Zane, Bob, Don, Antonio, myself, and others believe about how to evangelize, it is a complete misrepresentation to say that we have a “crossless gospel.” We all believe that the cross is central to the gospel. Without the cross, there is no biblical gospel.
And so the question is not, “What is the gospel?” On that, I think we all agree. If we disagree, it is becuase I include more things in the gospel than you do, not less. So rather than “What is the gospel?” the real question is “How much of the gospel does a person need to believe in order to be born again?” The answer is clearly not “all of it” unless you (contrary to Scripture) limit the “gospel” to a five or six key doctrines.
So the only way to proceed is to agree that the gospel includes way more information than what a person has to believe in order to receive eternal life, and then try to determine from Scripture how much of the gospel must be beleived in order to receive eternal life. Antonio’s posts have done a good job discussing a few of the pertinent passages (like 1 Cor 15 and Romans 10:9-10). Other passages need to be carefully considered as well (like Galatians 2 and a few texts in Romans, etc.).
The key in all of this will be to let Scripture alone determine what must be believed to receive eternal life, not tradition.
Jeremy:
It really does boil down to what you wrote here, “So rather than ‘What is the gospel?’ the real question is ‘How much of the gospel does a person need to believe in order to be born again?’ The answer is clearly not ‘all of it’ unless you (contrary to Scripture) limit the ‘gospel’ to a five or six key doctrines.”
Thoughts:
1) You mention Bethlehem, post-resurrection appearances, etc. That is not something anyone on either side of the debate is calling on a lost man to believe or even present to him in a soul winning situation. So, I don’t believe it is right to infer that any one is inferring/calling for a lost man to believe those, “40 other things as well.” It goes for any number of the doctrinal truths about God, Jesus, and the Hoy Spirit, such as God’s natural attributes, that He is the Creator, etc. There are, however, some points that must be acknowledged and believed.
2) The reason I have used the term “reductionist” is based on two primary concerns.
a) Hodges has reduced what must be believed for salvation to one element: Believing Jesus is the Giver of eternal life (paraphrased). Nothing more and that lost man is born again.
b) Hodges has removed what I consider a key element from what a lost man must believe in order to be born again. 1 Cor. 15:3-4, which defines the Gospel, and Romans 10:9-10, which is very clear, demands a lost man, “…and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead.” I don’t see how this can be divorced from what a lost man must believe and not be a “Crossless” gospel.
Again, I’m not talking about presentation; rather what the Bible says must be believed for the reception of eternal life.
I don’t know if you have ever read my book, but I have one chapter devoted to a discussion of Romans 10:9. Thirteen pages on that single verse, not that length makes it right. I expose and unravel Lordship’s misuse of the verse, and lay out its importance to the Gospel. IMO, based on what the verse says, it is indispensable that the death of Christ for the sins of man and His resurrection must be not only presented, but also acknowledged and believed by a lost man for the reception of eternal life.
3) It appears to me Hodges has invested himself so deeply into John’s Gospel that he has come to the opinion it trumps the rest of the NT on soteriology. That is what it seems like anyway. Especially true when I read Antonio who, I am sorry to say, is a difficult read.
4) I commend you men for your rejection of LS and defense of the Gospel against that work based, man-centered false gospel. The problem is that, IMO; Hodges has bounced too far off LS into a position at the other end of the theological pendulum swing.
5) You mention, “Shock value” in some of Hodges’ statements. If that was his intention he did a good job of it, because I find some of those statements “shocking.” I do not believe it is wise to do that, because how is one to know he is going for shock value?
6) A friendly observation. Some of you men are, at times, getting a little too emotionally charged. I appreciate your love and respect for Hodges, but I think it is allowing for some emotion and loss of objectivity to enter the discussion. Some MacArthur fans get extremely wound up and think my book is a personal attack on MacArthur himself, which is not the case there, nor in this debate over what Hodges is teaching. Like I wrote in my book,
“None of my work should be taken as a personal attack on any advocate of the Lordship position. I have treated the Lordship advocates with dignity and respect. The debate is focused on the doctrine of the gospel. Personality is not the issue!”
Let’s talk some more, as I have time.
Lou
Hello Everyone,
I have been following the discussions of the “Crossless Gospel” on the several blogs it has has been spanning. My comments here are not meant to address all of the points of contention listed in this post and comments, nor am I trying to start a fight over these issues.
That being said, I have read Lou Martuneac’s posts, Tom Stegall’s articles, and Antonio’s posts on the issue. I feel I understand Antonio’s position on what the Gospel is and have confidence that he has thoroughly studied the GES position and honestly reflects it in his own posts. Antonio has stated that what a person must believe in order to be saved is belief on the Lord Jesus Christ will result in eternal life, I have heard this called the “bare minimum.” In these discussions Antonio has made statements (Antonio may feel this is mischaracterizing him, if so I ask him to correct me) stating that to include other soteriological truths in the Gospel presentation is a “faith plus” position. For example, to include Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross in a Gospel presentation is adding to the Gospel (the Gospel always being defined as belief on the Lord Jesus Christ results in eternal life). I see in the comments where many of you (including Antonio) do indeed include Christ’s work on the cross in your Gospel presentations. How do you all avoid crossing the “faith plus” line in your presentation of the Gospel where so many others fail? What do you avoid in your presentation to keep from crossing that line?
There is a booklet that I repeatedly use to polish my Gospel presentation named A Matter of Life and Death. If you read through it you will see that most, if not all, of the points in the “checklist Gospel” (Antonio’s term not mine) are covered. Does this booklet cross the “faith plus” line?
Just so you know where I am coming from on this, I do not believe that we should focus on a “bare minimum” Gospel. God the Holy Spirit uses us to provide information regarding Christ and His work on the cross and then the Holy Spirit uses that information to convict the unbeliever. We must be prepared to answer all the unbelievers questions regarding salvation and let the Holy Spirit do His work.
Also, I thought I understood one of you to say that it is important that we have the eternal-life only Gospel firmly in mind in case there is a time where we have to give a dying unbeliever the Gospel quickly (correct me if I misunderstood). This is one of those times where I, as a dispensationalist, will invoke the sovereignty of God. If He knows that someone will believe once presented with the Gospel (He does know all thoughts and intents of the heart) there is no power in heaven or earth that will keep that person from receiving all the information they need before death.
Thank you.
Glenn
Hi Glenn:
Thanks for the comments, which I read with interest.
LM
Glenn,
Please provide for us any quotations I have made which uses any terminology close to associating your position or that of Stegall or Martuneac as “faith plus”.
What I bring out in your position, is that you are pointing men to faith in the wrong things. You are pointing them to hamartiology, Christology, and soteriology as the objects of saving faith. The information that you deem is the contents of saving faith are not untrue doctrine, neither are they non-beneficial to the persuasion of a lost man to entrust their eternal destiny to Jesus Christ. Nor is the information unessential to the growing Christian into sanctification. The point of the matter is believing the gospel as articulated by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3ff falls short of receiving eternal life.
Of course you would come back and say, well then, we would invite one to trust in Christ’s work as the only means of salvation, apart from works.
This is a two-step approach to evangelism that is imprecise. Only one step is needed: faith into Jesus Christ in His promise.
The point of the matter is that the men and women who are the objects of our evangelism can initial at each step of your doctrinal checklist and still remain unsaved. Why?
The assent to the deity of Christ, the death on the cross, and the resurrection does not necessarily lead faith in Christ alone through His promise, whereby He is the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him for it.
The basis of the Free Grace position is clarification, specificity, clarity, and precision in what actually the terms of eternal life are.
They obviously cannot be the beliefs that Jesus is God, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that Jesus rose again from the dead, becuase all Christians (except liberals) believe these things yet we would not consider them all saved.
Rather than a two step (initial at each doctrine, and THEN tell someone to trust in Jesus’ work for salvation) we advocate evangelism as Jesus and Paul did.
They couched the promise of eternal life (in other words the terms to receive eternal life, which is faith into Jesus Christ in His promise) in the message of the gospel, which has as one of its purposes, to persuade and convince its hearers that Jesus Christ is worthy, sufficient, authoratative, qualified, and trustworthy to receive our faith in for eternal life.
There is no saving faith two step: believe doctrine, then trust it.
There is but only one object of faith which is the irreducible minimum to be believed: Jesus Christ in His promise of eternal life to the believer.
Glenn, you write:
Just so you know where I am coming from on this, I do not believe that we should focus on a “bare minimum” Gospel. God the Holy Spirit uses us to provide information regarding Christ and His work on the cross and then the Holy Spirit uses that information to convict the unbeliever. We must be prepared to answer all the unbelievers questions regarding salvation and let the Holy Spirit do His work.
This is where the misconceptions of the Free Grace position come into play. Where have you read that we do not focus in on the “information regarding Christ and His work on the cross”? It is sad after spilling so much internet ink and so many hours at the keyboard that this misconception continues to be perpetuated.
Those in Free Grace theology FOCUS VERY CLOSELY on Christ’s death and resurrection, His work and His Person when doing evangelism. We answer all the unbelievers questions regarding salvatoin and we let the Holy Spirit do His work.
But, even though we focus very hard on Christ, His work and Person, we do not point to the doctrinal checklist as the content of saving faith.
We FOCUS on the gospel message, but we TARGET our evangelistic hearers on Christ’s promise. We POINT men SPECIFICALLY to FAITH in Christ in His PROMISE, which is a guarantee of eternal security to all who merely take Him at His word for it.
It frankly surpises me how much the Free Grace position is continually misaligned, mischaracterized, and misconceived.
We have had several good interactions, Glenn. I hope now, at the very least, there can be some clarity in your mind.
Free Gracers FOCUS IN ON THE GOSPEL MESSAGE, the DEITY of CHRIST, the DEATH and RESURRECTION, but TARGET Christ in His promise as the single, simple object of saving faith.
Now you may not agree with my position.
But it should be apparent to all that I do not disparage Christ’s deity, His crosswork, or His resurrection. I highly herald it, as does each advocate of Free Grace theology, focusing very hard on it in evangelism, as each advocate of Free Grace theology does.
But we don’t point men to doctrine to believe as the TARGET of our evangelism. The TARGET is faith into Jesus Christ in His promise.
Grace and peace to you,
Antonio da Rosa
Antonio:
To Glenn you asked, “Please provide for us any quotations I have made which uses any terminology close to associating your position or that of Stegall or Martuneac as ‘faith plus‘”.
You have done so repeatedly, for examples such as below, see the thread under my article titled The Teaching of Zane Hodges.
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/06/teachings-of-zane-hodges.html
Can you point to me once verse in the whole of the gospel that plainly declares one must have as the conscious content of saving faith the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in addition to believing Christ’s promise to impart eternal life to the believer in Him for it?
In reference to the cross and resurrection of Christ you stated that these, “ADD FURTHER CONDITIONS…ADDING content to saving faith, and in the process, pointing men and women to doctrine rather than to Christ… (caps yours)”
Is the gospel of John insufficient then in its explanation on how one is to receive eternal life? The text over and over again states that believing Jesus in His promise to guarantee to the believer eternal life is what saving faith is. Never in the gospel of John is the cross or the resurrection given as the content or object of saving faith.
If it was an object or content to saving faith by then, it would have behooved John to include that in ANY of the soteriological affirmations of Christ, OR added this information at the end of the gospel as a new requirement IN ADDITION to faith alone in Christ alone for eternal life. (caps yours)
“IN ADDITION to faith,” IS “faith plus.”
LM
Jeremy, from what I read in Tom Stegall’s article “The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel” Part 1 and 2 at http://www.duluthbible.org/246451.ihtml (I assume this is the article you are referencing), you DO indeed believe in the death, resurrection, and Deity of Jesus Christ as true facts that were required in God’s plan of salvation. You also believe the death and ressurection of Christ should be preached. The article specifically says all this. However, you do NOT believe a lost sinner must believe these truths in order to be saved. In other words, though we should tell the lost about Christ’s death and resurrection and Deity, they do not need to believe these truths of the guarantees eternal life to believers. If they believe “Jesus” guarantees eternal life via faith alone, they are saved — even if they personally do NOT believe this Jesus is God who died for our sins and rose again. Is this an accurate statement? If so, I do not see how the article misrepresented your position.
The only specific beef you’ve raised with the article is that you’ve stated the cross of Christ is an essential element of the “gospel” but it is not necessary for the lost to believe this to receive eternal life. So rather than using the term “gospel”, let’s say this. You do not believe Christ’s deity, death for sins, or resurrection, are essential elements of the “content of faith that must be believed for salvation”. But this is exactly the point of the article.
As Lou M. also asked, could you explain how the articles misrepresented you?
Sorry about the typo in my post. I did not see a way to edit it. The line should have read: “In other words, though we should tell the lost about Christ’s death and resurrection and Deity, they do not need to believe these truths of the gospel in order to receive eternal life”. — Greg
Greg:
You wrote, “However, you do NOT believe a lost sinner must believe these truths in order to be saved. In other words, though we should tell the lost about Christ’s death and resurrection and Deity, they do not need to believe these truths of the guarantees eternal life to believers. If they believe “Jesus” guarantees eternal life via faith alone, they are saved — even if they personally do NOT believe this Jesus is God who died for our sins and rose again.”
This is how I have divided the issue. FG men preach the cross, but divorce the cross and what Jesus did on it from what a lost man must acknowledge/believe in order to be saved.
The cross is in the FG presentation, but not necessary to be known, understood or believed by a lost man. That is the dividing line and where the controversy lies.
What some men in the FG movement are now teaching is a lost man need only believe that Jesus is the Giver of eternal life and he is born again.
From Romans 10:9-10 I can say with certainty that removing the cross and what Jesus did on it to secure salavtion from a sinner’s decison for Christ is to gut the Gospel of a vital element. It is, therefore, IMO a “crossless” gospel.
LM
Antonio,
On your blogs you have written multiple posts regarding your doctrinal disagreements with those of us who won’t agree to the eternal-life only Gospel presentation. Perhaps, instead of using the term “faith plus”, I should have used your term “addition to faith/additional faith.” The following quotes from your blog are good examples of how you have used the term:
If it was an object or content to saving faith by then, according to those who believe it is so based upon a misguided appeal to “progressive revelation,” it would have behooved John to include that in ANY of the soteriological affirmations of Christ, OR added this information at the end of the gospel as a new requirement IN ADDITION to faith alone in Christ alone for eternal life.
Has the Gospel of John Failed to Specifically and Precisely Express the Terms of Receiving Eternal Life? If so, John Failed in His Purpose (Jn 20:31)!
Free Grace Blog
You did not follow all the steps and biblical mandates that I gave in order for you to go to heaven. Yes, you believed in Me for eternal life. But you lacked ADDITIONAL faith and understanding in my Person and Work. You must now go to hell.
Checklist Evangelists
Free Grace Blog
While you did not use the exact term “faith plus” I still believe my point was valid.
I never said or thought that you, or any of the posters on any of the free grace blogs, “disparage Christ’s deity, His crosswork, or His resurrection.” Since you have expressed concern that those of us who disagree with you are emphasizing Hamartiology, Christology, and Soteriology in a way that adds to faith. My question was looking to elicit your opinion as to how Christ’s deity, His work on the cross, and His resurrection can be included in a Gospel presentation with it adding to faith.
This will be my last post on this subject but please respond if you like.
Glenn
Lou,
Glenn specifically said “faith plus”
That implies faith plus works.
I would never deny that Glenn preaches faith only.
But where we disagree, Lou, is where is the target of that faith.
“Checklist Evanglelism” gives as the content of faith a series of ascending beliefs starting in Hamartiology, progressing through Christology, and ending in Soteriology. All of which can be assented to without receiveing eternal life. It just doesn’t necessarily follow, as we see Christendom at large believe orthodox doctrines about Jesus and remain unsaved.
Lou, it is my observation that you just don’t have a good grasp on the issues here and you are premature and misguided and rash in your judgments.
Antonio
Epistlemologically, your argument just does not hold up, Antonio. It goes something like this: since some people do believe Jesus is God, that He died for sins, and that He rose again, and yet remain unsaved, it must follow that belief in these truths is not essential for salvation. And you say this in spite of many Scriptural proofs to the contrary. But epistlemologically speaking, that is flawed logic. Rather, assuming that we agree with your premise–that people who believe these things remain unsaved–there is another entirely viable option: that it is not sufficient to believe these things apart from the promise of eternal life by faith alone in Christ, but that these these are indeed essential elements of the gospel that must be believed for salvation.
Scripturally speaking though, I do not entirely accept your premise. I think most people who would confess “Christ died for sins” still do not understand what that means. If they truly believed that Christ’s death is the payment for sins, why would they try to solve their sin problem via works? Thus, even though Catholics, for example, confess by creed that “Christ died for our sins”, they do not believe what that actually means. If they do believe what it actually means, and they believe He was raised from the dead, they would trust in Him alone for everlasting life.
Back to the epistlemological point, your own reasoning contradicts your position on another point. When you suggest that people believe X and remain unsaved, and that therefore, X is not an essential element required for salvation, you are overlooking how this applies to your own position. We could apply that just as well to say “people believe the Savior’s name is ‘Jesus'” yet remained unsaved. Therefore, it is not essential to believe the one who promises eternal life is named “Jesus”. And so, a person just has to believe “someone” promises eternal life via faith alone. That might sound rediculous, but so does your reasoning to me.
Epistemologically, then, in your view, saving faith is not simple, but complex, and lies in ascending degrees of assent. Starting at some points hamartiological, through Christology, and ending up in soteriology. We would no longer have one condition for eternal life, “faith alone in Christ alone”, but a series of asending steps that must be assented to before they get to “promise of eternal life by faith alone in Christ”. You now have multiple conditions for eternal life.
It is so much easier, simpler and more viable to see that there is only one “trigger” that receives eternal life, rather than a string of them. That trigger is taking Jesus Christ at His word in His promise.
My argument started with the premise that there is only one simple condition of eternal life. But since you concede that there are several, and they are ascending in order, you come to the antithesis of your position: that saving faith is believing the Pauline gospel. It is more than that for you, now. It is believing the Pauline gospel, and believing Christ’s promise. But I thought that saving faith was believing the Pauline gospel message only? Can you even point to one verse in the bible (or passage) that gives all the requirements for eternal life, and all the understandings necessary of those requirements, or must you necessarily cut and paste your checklist together?
Do you include Christ’s burial and appearances as doctrinal information necessary for eternal life? Have you read 1 Cor 15:3ff in the Greek? Paul’s gospel consists of 4 co-ordinate cluases separated by “kai hoti” (English: “and that”). The gospel I declared to you that Christ died…and that He was buried… and that He rose again… and that He appeared.” This was his gospel. If you omit these other 2 things, you subtract half of the Apostolic pronouncement you deem is the content to saving faith.
Now even the content of your saving faith has to be further qualified and understood. Catholics do indeed believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins. Now you must further qualify Paul’s statements and include your soteriology there, including what you feel is lacking. This is an endless regress and slippery slope.
By your own admission, one must have a particular understanding of details of doctrine. It is not enough to say that one believes that Jesus died for our sins. That must further be clarified. Must one know about the theory of substitutionary atonement to be saved? Must one understand propitiation to be saved? Can a child be saved?
Let me pose to you the reductio ad absurdem of your position Greg:
Imagine the final judgment. If you are right, here is a possible scenario before Jesus Christ.
A man is standing before Jesus Christ who did not understand Christ’s death on the cross for sins or His resurrection. But having read the gospel of John and hearing Jesus’ promise, he entrusted his eternal destiny to Christ by believing into Jesus through His promise to guarantee eternal life to all who believe in Him for it.
When he stands before Christ, He will say to this man:
You entrusted your eternal destiny to Me. You regarded me as the authoratative, sufficient, and unique Personage who dispenses eternal life to all who believed in Me for it. You believed into me as the Resurrection and the Life.
But because you did not understand the payment I made for sins, or how my Resurrection substantiated my substitutionary sacrifice, I must now send you to hell.
You did not follow all the steps and biblical mandates that I gave in order for you to go to heaven. Yes, you believed in Me for eternal life. But you lacked ADDITIONAL faith and understanding in my Person and Work. You must now go to hell.
With your position, you relegate one to hell who sincerely believes Jesus in His promise whereby He guarantees eternal life to the one who takes Him at His word in His promise: “Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (John 6:47). You relegate one to hell who does not pass your doctrinal test yet nevertheless has entrusted his eternal destiny to Christ alone. This is shameful and heterodox.
Antonio
Hi all,
Hey, I tried to install a way for you to edit your own comments.
I now see links that enable me to edit everybody’s comments… which isn’t quite what I wanted… but maybe this is just because I am the administrator.
Anyway, are the rest of you able to edit anybody else’s comments? If so, I will deactivate that plug in. Clearly, we shouldn’t be able to edit the comments of other people…
Antonio,
My second response was held up waiting for administrator approval. Upon re-reading it I made an error in the next to last sentence, it should have read:
My question was looking to elicit your opinion as to how Christ’s deity, His work on the cross, and His resurrection can be included in a Gospel presentation without it adding to faith.
Glenn
Antonio, judging by your reply, it sounds that you believe I am teaching a “false gospel” (if you even use the word “gospel” for the message of salvation anymore) because I believe that to receive eternal life, a person must believe in a “Jesus” who is God (John 8:24, 58) and man (1John 4:2; 2John 7) who died for his sins and rose again (1Cor. 15:1-4) who offers eternal life by faith in Him.
Would you admit that you believe I am teaching a false gospel? Also, if I tell a person “you CANNOT be saved by believing in the Mormon ‘Jesus’ but you must believe in a Jesus who is God and Man, and that His death was the only payment for your sins, and that He was raised from the death so that He is a living Savior who offers you eternal life by Him in Him alone”–and if they receive/believe exactly what I tell them–assuming, as it sounds, you believe I am teaching a false gospel–do you believe the person would be saved?
I would just like to know the answer to these questions.
Question for you. If Abraham did not believe God’s word of promise would he have left his father’s household not knowing where he was going? Would he have asked for the heir he was promised which he was credited with righteousness for doing? He asked for the promised heir because he believed God’s word of promise and by His faith (asking) he did receive Isaac, the one promised. Further, had Abraham not obeyed God when he was instructed without a promise to offer his only son, would his faith have been made complete in works? No! God’s command said “Abraham, I can raise the dead.” Abraham’s obedience said to God, “Yes Lord, I believe.” – since God had previously whispered to him while he slept saying, “know for sure that my promise is true through the heir I am giving you.” And His obedience was credited to him as righteousness and He was called God’s friend. You see, Jesus is raised for our justification. You will not find this process at the foot of the cross. The cross opened the way. Consider that according to Paul Abraham was credited with righteousness when he asked for the promised heir. According to James he was credited with righteousness when he offered him up, and His faith was made complete in this work.
Antonio, I was wondering about this–you didn’t reply to my second epistlemological point. Considering…
-people believe the Savior is named “Jesus” and remain unsaved…
-that Jesus’ name really isn’t “Jesus” He was never called “Jesus” in His life…
-most people don’t know the meaning of the name “Jesus”…
-you say a person does not need to know ANYTHING about “Jesus” (e.g., that He is a man, that He is God, that He died for sins and rose again, that He isn’t a Mexican somewhere in Tiajuana)–other than that this guy is the guarantor of eternal life by faith alone…
-you discount passages that say the lost are saved by the “preaching of the cross” (1Cor. 1:17-21) by indicating the message of the cross is one way to lead to Christ’s promise but not essential to be believed for salvation…
…could a person be saved if he believes “someone” guarantees eternal life by faith alone and he believes the promise?
Greg,
When you believe the promise of Christ as found in the context of the gospel of John, you are believing in the God-Man, who died and rose again, whether you are aware of these things or not.
My daughter believes in me for her terrestrial well-being, and when she does, I am certain that she is not aware of all the things I do to provide that well-being: a check writer, a forklift driver, bill payer, etc. She may have an idea of some of it, and have plenty of misconceptions as well, but, her simple childlike faith in me as the one who cares for her terrestrial well-being does not necessitate that she understand or even know all that I am, do, and have done in order to provide for her that well-being. When she believes in me for her well-being, she is believing in a person who is all the things she does not know and understand, and also has misconceptions about.
I want to address your questions and comments. I will be happy to. But please tell me one thing first. Do you concede the hypothetical scenario above, whereby men are relegated to hell for lack of knowledge, understanding, or belief in doctrines pertaining to Christ, yet nevertheless sincerely trust in Jesus Christ through His promise, whereby they completely rely upon Him, entrusting their very eternal well-being to Him?
If you are frank and answer as to what I believe is the reductio ad absurdem of this checklist evangelism, I would be happy to truly spill my thoughts, and be frank about what I believe is true about the Duluth position.
Thanks for your consideration and expected reply. As soon as you briefly comment on the above illustration I will, to your satisfaction, answer all your questions you have posed.
Antonio da Rosa
Greg, furthermore, you write:
-you discount passages that say the lost are saved by the “preaching of the cross” (1Cor. 1:17-21)
If this is the only passage you have that you can turn to in order to substantiate your position that belief in Christ’s death for sins is the conscious and necessary content and/or object of saving faith, there is a dearth of support for it. You say “passages”. Are there more?
Don’t you find it odd that there is not one passage that you can turn to in order to find all that YOU require one to do/believe in order to be saved? You have to believe that you are a sinner: turn here, you have to believe that your sins send you to hell, turn here to this passage, you must believe that Jesus is man, turn to this passage, you must believe that Jesus is God, flip over here, you must believe that Jesus died on the cross, turn here, you must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, finally turn here, and now pray this prayer…
I cannot personally find anywhere in this text which states that “the cross” is the (or part of) the object and/or content of saving faith.
And what do you mean, “saved by the preaching of the cross”? Does the mere preaching of the cross to a person save him? I wish that were the case.
I dare say, Greg, that passages ought to be interpreted using before they are applied. There is alot going on in this passage, and in Paul’s argument. You are assuming much, and rather using this passage as a prooftext.
Nowhere are we met in this passage that Christ’s death for sins is the conscious and/or necessary content to saving faith.
But we are found with a multitude of verses that condition eternal life on simple faith in Christ for it.
So much for the perspecuity of the Scriptures!
If salvation is so important, I find it disturbing that God didn’t make the condition(s) for receiving eternal life clear, being found all in one place. I would find it disturbing if my position was your position.
But I do believe that personal salvation is important to God, and that God was clear in the condition for receiving it. It is found in the only document within the whole of the canon of Scripture that was written for the express purpose of evangelism: the gospel of John.
Antonio
Antonio, I have much to say in response to all your arguments. But it would help if you would be so kind as to answer my two questions above.
Notice that I was not trying to make a case for my position, but ask a question about yours.
Thanks,
Greg
Greg, in this whole exchange, I have been the one, between the two of us, who has taken the most time, and spilled the most ink. If you go to the last comment of mine, I have questions you did not answer.
You say you were not trying to make a case. Saying that I discount passages that you say claim that your position is correct, is de facto making a case for your position.
Furthermore, argumentation against my position would be universally considered one way to make a case for your position.
I have told you that I will answer each of your questions sufficiently, if you will but respond to my illustration.
By not responding, you seem to imply what you think about the illustration. That it is indeed possible.
Antonio
Antonio, did you have any posts on this thread? You must be talking about a different thread. I am indeed arguing against your position. My point in the prior post is that I was trying to ask you a question, not substantiate my case simply by citing a verse. I’ll try to find the thread you’re talking about. I’m new to the blogosphere and probably lost track of all the boards I visited. — Greg
Oh, I see it now! Sorry, I got confused between the “How I Evangelize” and “Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel” comments sections. Like I said, I’m new at this.
Antonio, I would be happy to reply to your questions. On 13 Jul 2007 at 2:19 pm I replied with three paragraphs to your comment on 13 Jul 2007 at 1:25 pm. I mentioned two factual observations that refuted your line of reasoning. You obviously have some other lines of reasoning, but the particular line of reasoning you used has been refuted and should no longer be used.
You replied with a longer post with new lines of man-made reasoning, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t answer my questions:
Antonio, I was wondering about this–you didn’t reply to my second epistlemological point. Considering…
-people believe the Savior is named “Jesus” and remain unsaved…
-that Jesus’ name really isn’t “Jesus” He was never called “Jesus” in His life…
-most people don’t know the meaning of the name “Jesus”…
-you say a person does not need to know ANYTHING about “Jesus” (e.g., that He is a man, that He is God, that He died for sins and rose again, that He isn’t a Mexican somewhere in Tiajuana)–other than that this guy is the guarantor of eternal life by faith alone…
-you discount passages that say the lost are saved by the “preaching of the cross” (1Cor. 1:17-21) by indicating the message of the cross is one way to lead to Christ’s promise but not essential to be believed for salvation…
…could a person be saved if he believes “someone” guarantees eternal life by faith alone and he believes the promise?
Also:
Antonio, judging by your reply, it sounds that you believe I am teaching a “false gospel” (if you even use the word “gospel” for the message of salvation anymore) because I believe that to receive eternal life, a person must believe in a “Jesus” who is God (John 8:24, 58) and man (1John 4:2; 2John 7) who died for his sins and rose again (1Cor. 15:1-4) who offers eternal life by faith in Him.
Would you admit that you believe I am teaching a false gospel? Also, if I tell a person “you CANNOT be saved by believing in the Mormon ‘Jesus’ but you must believe in a Jesus who is God and Man, and that His death was the only payment for your sins, and that He was raised from the death so that He is a living Savior who offers you eternal life by Him in Him alone”–and if they receive/believe exactly what I tell them–assuming, as it sounds, you believe I am teaching a false gospel–do you believe the person would be saved?
Antonio, I posted a reply to your question on your forum. Please reply to my questions now.
Hi Friends,
I’ve been thinking a lot about this subject. I posted my comments about this on David Wyatt’s blog at…..
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22532989&postID=6439608775546554423
I think I’m #15 to comment?
Here’s just a excerpt of what I said on his blog…
“Mere minimum” sounds like you get saved by believing lots more info, but you have to AT LEAST believe the mere minimum. But actually that’s incorrect. The mere minimum is the ONLY truth that must be believed that brings eternal salvation. Nobody passes from death to life until they believe THAT PARTICULAR TRUTH.
I enjoy reading your comments. Thank you for allowing me that privilege.
🙂
Bro. Jeremy, you said: “The cross of Jesus Christ is central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there would be no biblical gospel, no offer of eternal life, no hope of heaven, and no forgiveness of sins.” Amen to that, brother! Praise His Name. God Bless.
I believe that th eperson who stated we believ a crossless gospel does not understand the Gospel of John. If he would have read it carefully he would have seen that the Apostles did not have any information about Christ’s death on a cross when He was alive and with them. Nevertheless they had believed He was the Messiah and, according to John chapter 1, they had eternal life.
It is shameful to see how people let their presupositions rule over their reading of the Bible
Rev. Ricky,
You are absolutely correct. Unless they argue that the content of what a person must believe has changed (a dangerous proposition!), they cannot state that anyone prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus truly understood or believed that Jesus was going to die on the cross and rise from the dead.
Thanks for the comment!.
I’m wondering why Paul wrote:
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
1 Corinthians 1:17-18 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. 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.
He apparently spoke too much, and his knowledge of the Law and OT sacrifices were extra baggage that made him confused. He had a message of the cross, not just a belief in a name. The “name” was associated with who He was and what He did.
He foolishly linked his gospel preaching with the cross and how that God justifies freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:24)
Note how Paul evangelized in Acts 13 – he talked about the death and resurrection of Christ BEFORE he told them that everyone who believes is justified and has forgiveness of sins.
The writer of Hebrews should have talked about the shedding of blood being needed for remission of sins (Heb 9:24) He wasted valuable scroll space and ink writing about how one offering/sacrifice for sins did the job forever and made the provision for salvation available for all who would believe.
How do you know someone is believing in the “right” Jesus by simply telling the He’s the guarantor of eternal life if you believe on him? Jesus the baseball player? Paul warned about preaching “another Jesus”
2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted — you may well put up with it!
Oversimplifying is not responsible. It is not preaching the gospel. And Paul said that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those who believe it.
Mike,
Thank you for your questions related to Scripture. They are my favorite kind. You have, of course, asked multiple questions about multiple passages. I have studied all these passages in the past, and have answers to all of them, but to adequatley respond to all of them would require a very long comment.
For the sake of proper dialogue, would you be able to narrow your questions and passages down to just one at a time? Thanks.
Wouldn’t it have been great if God had simply accomplished our salvation Himself and then there would be no need for all this talk of just how much man must contribute?
Now that would be a good news message!
Yes, this is intended to point out that perhaps we have gone terribly astray.
ask Lou why Duluth Bible Church was thrown off KDNW in duluth…
Uh-oh. What did they do now?
KDNW is the local radio station…
They were thrown off got doctrinally off the mark …. I am friends with the owner. They were paying them for airtime and the radio station had enough with them and tore up their contract…
Do you know what the doctrinal issue was?
They were attacking another churches doctrine and the station said they did not want there business or money anymore…. you know how many people have rolled their eyes at this place it is unbelievable. Most duluthians do not like or go near this place… A friend of mine is one of the most talented piano players in the world, he was tossed because he wanted to play in other churches..alot of cult like behavior there.. the damage they have caused some people is not good…
KJKJ87,
I stumbled across your comments on this site and couldn’t believe the false things reported about Duluth Bible Church and its radio program. I was personally involved with the church’s radio broadcast ministry at the time in the 1990s, the “Grace Gospel Broadcast,” and I can tell you firsthand what actually happened, if you really want to know the facts.
The broadcast NEVER aired on KDNW (the most popular FM Christian station in town). It was on WWJC (850 AM). Why is this relevant? Because WWJC was owned and operated at that time by a family that was pentecostal. The “Grace Gospel Broadcast” aired for several years without complaint or issue before it was suddenly canceled one day without notice. During that time a range of topics were covered on the program that might be deemed controversial, such as salvation by grace apart from works (even popular “evangelical” type works such as repenting from sin, dedicating your life, praying the sinner’s prayer, etc.), eternal security, baptism, etc. But the last series covered on the broadcast was called, “Clearing Up the Charismatic Confusion.” It covered such topics as tongues, healing, so-called apostles and prophets and new revelations today. After several messages in this series aired, it was around Pt. 8 I think, the manager of the station just canceled the program mid-broadcast one day without any discussion with or warning to DBC. He was upset over the content of the program that stated that the miraculous sign gifts of tongues, healing, apostles, and prophecy had all ceased by the end of the first century and what was occurring today in the charismatic, pentecostal movement today was not truly from God.
This greatly offended the manager, who was pentecostal himself, and who also aired a program that came on an hour or two later each afternoon called “Prepare for War” which was hosted by a self-proclaimed apostle and prophet who gave new revelations from God each day over the air and claimed to have power to heal people over the air.
I think it’s important to realize that other individual churches were never mentioned on the Grace Gospel Broadcast since the focus of the program was intentionally to stick to what the Bible teaches and not target individual churches, though the teachings of whole movements, such as the charismatic movement were sometimes addressed. So, to claim that other churches were mentioned on the program and that was the reason for the program being canceled is simply not true!
A lot of professing Christians in Duluth are upset with DBC, that is true, but it’s because DBC is willing to tell the truth about the gospel, eternal security, the errors of Lordship Salvation, the charismatic movement, etc, and that rubs a lot of people wrong. But for those interested in the truth, who want to really know what the Bible, God’s Word, teaches, they are thankful to God for the church’s willingness to stick to Scripture.
Regarding the piano player you mentioned, he was never kicked out of the church. That too is a really unfortunate misrepresentation of the facts. I know who you’re referring to and the circumstances were that he wanted to have a traveling ministry playing in a variety of different churches, many of which were preaching a false works gospel, and DBC said in essence that if you’re going to be playing in churches that preach a false gospel and accompanying their worship, then we can no longer have you playing in our services anymore accompanying worship at DBC. So, he chose to leave the church of his own accord to pursue his music ministry. That’s a far cry from getting kicked out of the church.
Disagreements among Christians are bound to happen, but if we do disagree with one another, we still need to have the integrity before the Lord to do so based on the facts and not gossip.
John,
So if I read your narrative, you completely disagreed and called the story “false” then you basically said what the previous poster said in more detail. The only fact you seemed to disagree on was the station call letters. Maybe you’ve got a big thing for station call letters? I don’t, so I’m confused.
Likewise, the assertion was that the piano player was affiliating with other churches and therefore DBC removed his affiliation with them. By your own accord this IS true. Using a colloquialism like “kicked out” is maybe slightly exaggerating, but it’s not a misrepresentation.
I’m with you, I want to get the facts right. But you have to admit the defense was a little overeager and overzealous, a lot like DBC in general. Just about everyone I’ve ever met from there shoots first, asks questions later, blames eisegesis and runs while the everyone in the room looks it up. Now…don’t get me wrong, shame on everyone else for having to look it up. 😉
Peace brother.
Ex DBC Atheist
Crafted in the Crucible
I had forgotten about this thread! Good ‘ol DBC again. You are right about the way they live though. Shoot first, ask questions later.
This just confirms how ignorant DBC is. Got kicked off of a local radio station they actually paid for and the list of people that DBC has bludgeoned continues… Nobody think DBC preaches a concise gospel except for its fellow cult members… For being Grace based I would pass, just like the catholic church the dark side of DBC will be exposed for what it is
Maybe so. They do have cultish behaviors at times.
I think DBC is going to be like the catholic church, there is a dark side that is going to come out eventually. Thanks John your post just confirms what I said. This again proves that DBC is a cult in that they have the only gospel and everyone else is wrong. I wonder if anyone had a journalism degree they could look into what DBC is doing to people and research it. I have found other posts by ex DBC people on the net…. It seems like a repeating pattern of wounding other people…
So true…it hurts a great deal…were not welcome there due to a total misunderstanding…but they sent us an email of judgement without inviting us to tell our side of the story…its unbelievable….so hurtful. Also…they dont like if u have a different view on a topic…dont want you talking with fellow believers about it. Im thinking they used the misunderstanding to push us along because of the difference of opinion on a topic. But…who knows. But it hurts and causes so much damage….
But…im taking this hurtful situation and allowing it to transform me and move me along in my sp. growth…and not be dependent on a system….or one man…
Its just so sad….because it doesnt have to be that way.
I pray for them …
Don’t back down and stand up for yourself. DBC are big and bad until you start pushing back. Push back and don’t be a floor mat. They will push like a bully until you start standing up for yourself.
I appreciate that…
I defended my hubby with them…but they did not accept it. Mind boggling.
I did fight hard, i believe…i was back and forth for quite a few years…always wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt…even though there were hurts along the way.
This last issue though….the misunderstanding with my hubby and not being welcone to attend services…was the final nail. Gotta know when to fold ’em…..and run!! 😉
I love them dearly….and miss the fellowship…thats what makes it hard.
But…im not going to be treated like that…it will kill my spirit to do so. I’ll pray…and if asked will explain to people….otherwise…carrying on. 🙂
It was hard for me also in that while you go there you are part of the “family”. Let me ask you this is a that how you treat people in the bible? Here is an excellent resource http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-characteristics.html. This church has a history of doing this. And if you are female you have to remember you are beneath them. There are alot of great churches in the Duluth area and many have DBC survivors in them. Moving on hurt at first and then after finding a much better church turned out to be the best thing ever. Don’t ever let yourself be minimized for being a female…
You said, “I wish that these unnamed authors would have checked with me and a few others that were quoted out of context to see if our views were properly presented.” But before I even finished I thought you might say “I wish they would castrate themselves” like Paul said in Galatians. Seriously do they know what people go through that listen to their teachings and try to follow them and end up getting no results except to make Christianity look weird? Because I was one of them and I definitely wasn’t a good witness (although I believe at least most of them had good intentions but I know there are others that can go too far). Anyway like the song says “I will cling to the old rugged cross” as I know you do.
Peace
Hi Jeremy,
I hope this finds you and yours well. This label of Crossless Gospel is levelled at people such as Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.
I know you used to belong to their theological ‘camp.’
What changed for you?
Thanks,
Thaddeus