A forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| John Malone of BibleStudy.Net | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 11 2009, 09:29 PM (732 Views) | |
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:29 PM Post #1 |
|
Grace Evangelistic Conference 1 Author: John Malone Date: 16th March, 2005 @ 10:33:19 AM This week I am attending the Grace Evangelical Society Conference (GES) for the first time. It’s an interesting conference in one way just for its existence. It is something of a commentary on the state of the Word of God as it is held today that a society and a conference is specially formed for people to reinforce that salvation comes “by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” After all, that is the only good news and hope there is in the world, and I wonder what other basic teachings that believers would gather unto? Of course, we believers are not called to gather unto a doctrine, but the Lord Jesus Himself, but something as basic as salvation-by-grace-through-faith really determines whether we have life at all or not, so it seems an issue to proceed ANY gathering. There are really two principles contested today, and for which it appears this organization and conference are about. The first is around the simple gospel message . This is a life and death issue. Holding fast to it is one reason the epistle to the Galatians is written. But there is a second issue, the MAIN reason the epistle to the Galatians is written, and that has to do with whether or not the grace-through-faith principle changes for those who already have life. Of course, it does NOT . Failure to follow the grace-through-faith principle in the Christian life is what renders Christians immature, and thus ineffective. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
 |
 
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:31 PM Post #2 |
|
Grace Evangelistic Conference 2 Author: John Malone Date: 17th March, 2005 @ 11:57:06 AM Yesterday, the GES had an evening breakout session featuring a robust discussion on the essential content of the gospel. Most of the discussion was “proposition” oriented. By that I mean that it focused on the reception of the offer of the gospel and its attendant promise of eternal life, such as are found in John 3:16, John 6:47 , and John 4:14 in conjunction with John 4:26 . Bob Wilkin, who led the breakout, held that there is no faith in the gospel that can be held apart from the faith that one has also received eternal life by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ: that the knowing receipt of eternal life is implicit in receiving Jesus Christ, i.e. believing in His Name . The discussion was energetic, and there were a variety of viewpoints. Especially cogent, in my view, was the distinction made by one concerning the secure possession of eternal life by the believer, and the assurance of such possession. I think focusing on propositional and transactional aspects of the gospel can be important, but certainly confusing as to discovery of the faith of another. I had suggested the breakout so that there did not arise some kind of extra-Biblical ”shibboleth” among brethren that might inhibit true fellowship: the bond of peace we are obliged to keep in order to have the peaceable waters and quiet pasture whereby we come, by ministry of the Word of God, into the unity of the faith . Well, this discussion ended up troubling me throughout the night, robbing me of sleep. And I finally came to the conclusion the reason for my trouble is because our discussion left off two of the great “old saws” of our Christian fellowship: the PERSON of Christ, and the WORK of Jesus Christ. These intertwining aspects of the gospel message have ever been at the basis of our peace together, and the seven-fold unity listed in Eph 4:1-3 is neither more nor less than that which comprises our peaceful bond. At the top of that list is “one body.” Christians have an innate sanctified new-nature magnetism to assemble together in the liberty whereby they have been set free by the spirit of the Lord. Graciousness in this mattter leads us to become minimalist in our “requirements” for fellowship, limiting them to the bare necessities. But CERTAINLY the necessities of function as one body, in one spirit, with one hope, turns on having “one Lord,” and this speaks of the PERSON of our Lord Jesus Christ. Today, there are “other” Jesus’s, who are not the One Who is Lord and Christ. Whether he plays shortstop for the LA Dodgers, or drives a cab in Tijuana, this “other” Jesus certainly isn’t the one listed “Lord” in Eph 4. And that means we fairly inquire into the facts behind the faith of the one professing eternal life in Jesus Christ. As the Lord asked Peter, “who do you say that I am,” we fairly ask our fellow believers who they say Jesus Christ is. Is He the incarnate Word of God, the I AM revealed to Moses? Is He the One risen bodily from the grave? Is He the One now at the right hand of the Father, exalted above angels? Is He the One coming again to earth in that very same body in which He arose? Without satisfactory (e.g. affirmative) answers to these questions about the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is impossible to include the respondent as having “one Lord” and of “one body” and of “one spirit” with those who have believed in Him. But the WORK of the Lord Jesus Christ is equally necessary to believe in order to be graciously benefited by the gospel message. Christ’s work on the cross, briefly comprehended, is the giving of eternal life. In point of fact, knowing Jesus Christ is actually the precise equivalent of having eternal life . Eternal life is the product of Christ’s work. To deny it as a present possession is exactly the same as denying His death for one’s sins, His Providential sacrifice. At the end of the day, we need to hang our thoughts on what the Bible says a child of God knows innately - that he has eternal life - and one may legitimately ask a believer about such a reality. In fact, it is the testimony of every child of God. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:38 PM Post #3 |
|
Grace Evangelistic Conference 2 Comments: 1 Comment by bruce abercrombie » 16th July, 2007 @ 08:56:37 PM I noticed the date on this article: 17th March, 2005 @ 11:57:06 AM Well, here are two years + and saga continues. Below is an interesting article circulated recently on this same issue. ________________________________________ The long war for the purity of the Word of God has been waging for centuries. Paul’s charge to Timothy is as applicable and appropriate today as when it was first issued in approximately 62-63AD: O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babbling and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. (1Timothy 6:20-21) If there is any scriptural truth we as believers have been entrusted with by God, which must be tenaciously guarded, it is the Gospel of the true grace of God. Yet even in fundamental and evangelical circles today there appears to be much confusion and contention regarding the most important of questions, namely: What must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:30) On the one hand there are those who GOOF-UP THE GOSPEL via religion by requiring such works as water baptism, living a holy life, not sinning big sins, etc. in order to be saved. This is obviously contrary to the clear teaching of scriptures like Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5, Titus 3:5,6. On the other hand there are those who GARBLE THE GOSPEL via Arminian decisionism by requiring such non-biblical conditions as to raise a hand, sign a card, walk an aisle, pray a prayer, ask Jesus into your heart, etc. in order to be saved, this is often done with a non-eternal security twist to boot. These can be done without any true grasping or understanding of the true Gospel, and actually confuse instead of clarify the only right answer to our question, which is simply, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). Then there are those who GAINSAY THE GOSPEL via Calvinistic Lordship Discipleship-salvation teaching, by requiring for salvation the turning from all sin and a commitment of complete surrender and submission to Christ’s mastery over one’s life, evidenced by on-going fruitfulness and faithfulness to the end. This seriously confuses the justification of a sinner before God vs. sanctification of a saint over time. In doing so, this false teaching annihilates the absolute assurance of salvation. Furthermore, the Gospel no longer is about the good news of what Christ has done for us but now focuses on what we must do for God (surrender, submission, sacrifice, etc.) to insure our eternal salvation. Furthermore, to the sad dismay of many holding to the clear free grace message, it must also be mentioned that there are those in the Free Grace camp who are GUTTING THE GOSPEL of the unique person and finished work of Jesus Christ as integral essential elements of the Gospel which must be believed in order to be saved, all in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. This new and novel cross-less gospel in a bottle strips the Gospel of the needed WHO and WHAT that make it so believable. Thus, we as believers and recipients of the true grace of God must especially focus on these core issues of biblical Christianity as we must earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The Good News of Eternal Life as a gift from God is available only by grace alone, through faith alone, in Who Christ is, the Great I Am and What He has accomplished through His death, burial, and resurrection on our behalf. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:8; John 8:24; 10:25; John 14:6) ________________________________________ Adapted from an article by Pastor Dennis Rosker, http://www.duluthbible.org 2 Comment by John Malone » 17th July, 2007 @ 06:38:21 PM Our brother Bruce Ambercrombie has nicely summarized, in the key of “G,” the “alternative” gospels that are out there to buy today. It is with great sadness that we see Wilins & Hodges go down this “Gutless” gospel path, as our brother has called it, for both have been stalwarts against “Lordship Salvation” for many years. Nevertheless, my opponent’s opponent is not necessarily my friend, and we are friends IF we do what Jesus Christ commands us to do. And He commands us to hold fast the faith and a good conscience. I will attempt to discover if Bob Wilkin has a good conscience about this matter on July 27th and 28th here in Omaha when Wilkin visits a church where I formerly taught the Scriptures here in Omaha. 3 Comment by Keith Melton » 15th December, 2007 @ 11:10:23 AM Salvation is caused by faith properly focused on Jesus, as to the following. Who He is, What He has done. What He Provides. All three aspects are needed for salvation. For anyone to improperly focus on one aspect to the neglect of others causes a dangerous imbalance and possible heresy in regards to the particular Gospel about/of Jesus the Christ. Paul’s description of the “Gospel” contains all 3. John’s “gospel” contains all 3. Any “Gospel” presentation lacking these 3 will be lopsided, and conducive to errors. In addition I would say that anyone who denies any one of these aspects is either an unbeliever or an apostate. Who Jesus is, God What has He done, died for the sins of the world, and rose again. What He provides, eternal life to all who believe in Him. Salvation must stand on all three of these things or it falls. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:40 PM Post #4 |
|
GES Controversy in John’s Gospel Author: John Malone Date: 24th March, 2005 @ 07:19:53 PM There shouldn’t be any controversy at all! Why and from where do such issues arise? The Grace Evangelical Society (GES) has attracted the support of good churches and the men that lead them because it underscores and amplifies the good news of eternal life as “Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” The phrase is a wonderful one - and accurate - but not inspired. It turns out that there are those in important positions of leadership in the GES that are, in my view, toying with turning beefsteak faith in the Lord Jesus Christ into twinkie faith in a non-Divine, unrisen, non-incarnate “Christ” who guarantees eternal life to all who trust in Him. Not that ANY in that organization, to my present knowledge, believe erroneously concerning the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. However, there are those who want to count as brethren those who do not assert - or for that matter, who flatly deny - the Lord’s Divinity, material existence, and/or bodily resurrection from the dead, providing they believe that Jesus is the “guarantor of eternal life” to them on the basis of faith alone. In brief, this phrase is regarded as a sufficient definition of “Christ” by some. It’s a tragic thing that these who are truly born-again, who hold the truth of the Lord Jesus’ Deity, His virgin-birth-incarnation, His bodily resurrection, His present priesthood, and His literal return would somehow call them “brethren” who believe none of these things. The most disturbing aspect of this unhappy turn is that it is those who have given themselves for years to the defense of the simple gospel of eternal life against the siege waged against it on all sides have now taken to mounting such formidable ramparts against it! I hope I just don’t get it but what worries me is that I do. It occurs to me that it is incipient ecumenism, a part of a three-pronged attack organized by the adversary of the faith, and of the saints. Strategically, of course, it’s a master-stroke. Reformed theology with its Calvinism has already so Romanized the faith that one can scarcely tell the difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has built many tentacles since Vatican II toward Bible-believing churches by way of political alliance over issues common to “people of faith.” Reformed theology has made such a comeback as to nearly destroy almost all Bible-oriented seminaries, including especially in the present instance Dallas Theological Seminary. Pentecostalism and other forms of Arminian teaching, while conducting an age-old argument with the Calvinists arrive at the very same practical conclusion - I’ll never know in this life if I HAVE the gift of God, everlasting life - and therefore their argumentation becomes just so much noise on the path to Roman church conduct. These last holdouts in the so-called “free grace” movement have been sedulous in their defense of salvation from the second death unto everlasting life, standing upon the bulwark of the person of Christ and His finished work as the source of the grace coming to any sinner by faith alone. So, to see some of this doctrinal bulwark crumbling is disappointing indeed! I can make no sense of a non-Deified, unrisen “Christ” except in purely gnostic terms. I’m sure I am not done with this issue. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:42 PM Post #5 |
|
GES Controversy in John’s Gospel Comments: 1 Comment by Chester Davis » 18th July, 2006 @ 10:48:20 AM It seems as though Mr Malone has it wrong, in all due respect, regarding GES doctrinal points. First, they (and I) would say, that eternal salvation is God’s free gift found in Christ alone through faith alone, and discipleship is correlated, but distinct. Secondly, that No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one's sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life. Thirdly, assurance of everlasting life is certainty that one is eternally secure simply by faith in Jesus. This assurance of everlasting life is based only on God’s promise that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ alone possesses everlasting life. Good works are not necessary for a person to have assurance of everlasting life, though they can and should follow regeneration. Thus, in regards to the issue of calling a person a brother in Christ, it is impossible to determine a persons eternal salvation by simply looking at the performance of the persons faith, or by the emotional state, or present tense doctrinal ideas. Thus is it critical that we call brothers those who believe that Jesus Christ is sufficient to come through on His promise of eternal life to those who believe. When we other doctrines to the simplicity of this message we are erring towards forcing additional non-Biblical requirements for eternal salvation, and how many requirements can we add before we have distorted the gospel of Christ. The issue here is that the proposition that those who believe Jesus Christ is sufficient to make good on the promise of giving eternal life to those who believe Him for it is a simple and non complex gospel. When we add requirements to this gospel, we are in danger of distorting it. For example, when we say that a specific knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ is required before the proposition can be believed, we must with absolute certitude define the specific line which must be crossed, and subsequently we must also define what happens to those who defect in some portion of the 'essential' presuppositions. God never desires a person to 'sit, soak, and sour' in terms of knowledge or discipleship but if we say that we must fullfill some portion of the wholeness of God’s plan other than simple faith in the sufficiency of Christ, it is an additional requirement to the gospel. 2 Comment by John Malone » 18th July, 2006 @ 11:10:59 AM I’d like to answer brother Davis’ remarks above, especially because I don’t disagree with him at all, but think he has misunderstood my concerns. I call you my brother, because you have named the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in such a way that I understand your faith in Him. As to your first point, we are in complete agreement. In fact, for many years I have taught God’s gift and prize are distinct, as can be heard on my series “God’s Gift and God’s Prize” in the archives of his site. Discipleship is about the life of the believer, not his inaugural calling. Secondly, I agree with you, again, completely and verbatim. “Repentance,” (metanoia) is not found in John’s gospel in any of its forms. Thirdly, I agree that assurance of eternal life is only found by grace through faith, and not in performance of any kind. However, I would disagree with GES people, such as Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, and Bob Bryant, who now claim that if a person does not have assurance of eternal life, he has never believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Assurance comes by faith in God’s Word, and that faith may not necessarily come with the revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I am not in favor of adding extra-Biblical requirements to call a brother a brother. But when I read the Scriptures, I discover that in the new birth God DOES identify Jesus Christ to the believer as more than some indistinct “guarantor of eternal life,” as named by Hodges, Wilkin, and Bryant (H,W&B), who might not event be a human being! Peter found Him to be ”the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Thomas found Him to be ”My Lord and my God.” The centurion at the cross found Him to be ”the Son of God.” The thief on the cross found Him to be ”Lord.” The problem I have with the indistinct “confession of faith” allowed by H,W&B is that is actually necessitates a new doctrine of persistence, but instead of the Calvinistic “persistence in good works,” it supplants it with “persistence in sound doctrine.” Why do I say that? Because ostensibly, HW&B allow that faith in “Jesus the frog” is sufficient so long as the believer regards THAT Jesus (or, in my argumentum ad hominem, “Je”) as “the guarantor of eternal life.” And yet, would I call such a professor, that “Je the frog” is his savior, my brother? Of course, I would not. The argument that he is MUST be that, while he inaugurally believed in “Je the Frog,” he followed up by learning the Lord Jesus Christ was Who that passage was about, and now has come to a persuasive testimony concerning His person and work. We must have some basic requirement of faith in order to have fellowship together, and God DOES intend for us to have fellowship together! Therefore, there MUST BE a standard by which we can tell our faith, and it is not a works standard. I would hope brother Davis agrees with this. Davis then says this: “when we say that a specific knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ is required before the proposition can be believed, we must with absolute certitude define the specific line which must be crossed, and subsequently we must also define what happens to those who defect in some portion of the 'essential' presuppositions.” I will point out that, already, brother Davis has drawn a line short of H,W,&B, by drawing a line at all! When he says “specific knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ,” he implies acceptation of Jesus Christ as a person regardless of the requested specification. That is beyond the doctrine of H,W&B, and even already goes to considering the Lord Jesus Himself. Its apparent from Scripture that one who acknowledges Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is thereby Lord of that believer. These are the confessions of faith we find either direct or implicit in the mouths of all those who are quoted in their confessions, as given above. “Guarantor of eternal life” is not found. In my view, whoever brings this faith to me, and does NOT bring denials of His incarnation, is my brother. In fact, the Bible teaches that knowing HIM is what brings eternal life, not knowing-Him-as-bringing-eternal-life. It may seem like a small distinction, but it is NOT. In fact, Hodges hypothetical that a lost man inhabits an island all alone and yet is somehow evangelized without another human being is, on its face, completely farcical: a red herring. No one has ever been evangelized except personally by another human being, and the only case where we see someone trying to adduce from the Bible alone Who the Savior is, the Ethiopian Eunuch, was given Divine help by the sending of Philip. This occurs despite the corollary fact we know, that no one can reveal the Lord Jesus Christ to someone except His (and my) Father in heaven. I leave the simultaneous occurence of these two matters to the Author of time and coincidence. I hope I have made myself clear in this matter, and am willing to be assessed in it. 3 Comment by Keith Melton » 7th December, 2007 @ 02:35:36 PM John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. This seems rather precise and not abstract, like some impersonal guarantee-er. John 4:10 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. Here Jesus states it’s knowing both the giver and the gift. If I’m understanding this correctly. 4 Comment by Keith Melton » 11th December, 2007 @ 06:03:27 PM Salvation is caused by faith properly focused on Jesus, as to the following. Who He is, What He has done. What He Provides. All three aspects are needed for salvation. For anyone to improperly focus on one aspect to the neglect of others causes a dangerous imbalance and possible heresy in regards to the particular Gospel about/of Jesus the Christ. Paul’s description of the “Gospel” contains all 3. John’s “gospel” contains all 3. Any “Gospel” presentation lacking these 3 will be lopsided, and conducive to errors. In addition I would say that anyone who denies any one of these aspects is either an unbeliever or an apostate. Who Jesus is, God What has He done, died for the sins of the world, and rose again. What He provides, eternal life to all who believe in Him. Salvation must stand on all three of these things or it falls. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:44 PM Post #6 |
|
Zane Hodges goes too far. Author: John Malone Date: 24th March, 2005 @ 09:06:25 PM In order to demonstrate that certain essential doctrines concerning the person of the Lord Jesus Christ are not necessary to bring one into saving faith, Zane Hodges proposes a theoretical circumstance that is preposterous on its face, and invalid in its details. Hodges’ scenario is this: Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable. On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: 'Jesus therefore answered and said to them' (v 43) and 'Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life' (v 47). Notice what Hodges leaves out in his proposition : reference to God the Father, and His drawing work; the power of the Lord Jesus to raise others (which implies His own, of course); and a reference implying His Deity. In effect here is what Hodges says: “Suppose a man believes in the Lord Jesus Christ apart from knowing His Deity, His resurrection, and even His incarnation. Doesn’t that mean he doesn’t need to believe those things?” Of course, that is what it means by tautology! BUT IT DOESN’T HAPPEN. By proposing the absurd scenario, Hodges causes us to consider that a man knows nothing of Jesus Christ or the gospel, has no conception of God, his alienation from God, and so forth. It also causes us to forget that God saves by revelation. None of this is Biblically true. In accepting Hodges’ premise, most of the argument is gone. It is inconceivable that a man comes to Christ without the conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment that comes with the operations of the Holy Spirit. It is equally inconceivable that a man comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ without the disclosure of the Father that Jesus is the Son of God. Let’s not forget that THIS MAN DOESN’T EXIST, and is hardly reason to abandon the clear dictates of Scripture in 1st John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” I find it interesting that people seem to think a childlike mind is like this imaginary man. I have 23 grandchildren, and they are each one by one believing in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I can tell you that a child’s mind is very reachable with the thought that Jesus Christ is God, as well as that God is Father in heaven. If people would quit filling those young minds with disappointments like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the like, they are even easier to reach. (Our daughter, for instance, tells her children that the guy dressed in red with a beard is “old man piggy.”) The practical outworking of accepting Hodges’ premise is that we must receive into our churches as “brethren” those who deny the literal resurrection, the Deity, and the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. How ridiculous is that? |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:53 PM Post #7 |
|
Zane Hodges goes too far. Comments: 1 Comment by pykesplace1 » 30th April, 2006 @ 02:41:18 PM John, I found your entry by accident while cruising the internet. I can’t remember what I was trying to find, but in my search I found the name Zane in reference to someone else other than Mr. Hodges. For what ever reason, I decided to include Zane Hodges in my search. One of the first entries in the search was your discussion above. By way of back ground, I live in the Omaha area and I have listened to your radio show and visited your web site many times. I also have read a few of Zane Hodges books. A few years ago, I attended a confernce where Bob Wilkin brought Mr. Hodges marooned man scenario. I asked him, what if this man thinks Jesus is a frog? Is he saved? The answer was “yes”. I guess Kermit Saves. Croak! 2 Comment by robert jimenez » 5th June, 2007 @ 08:59:34 PM I think the best view on lordship salvation is this zane hodges doesn,t add enough works to the christian life and john macarthur adds to much works 3 Comment by Tom Baldock » 5th July, 2007 @ 07:17:51 PM I read with disbelief, and I mean disbelief, the comments made re: Bob Wilkin by pykesplace1 where he allegedly asked Wilkin \”if a man thinks Jesus is a frog..is he saved?\” According to pykesplace1 Wilkin replied \”yes\”. I have checked this out with Bob Wilkin, he would like a tape or publication to substantiate this absurd claim. Wilkin denies ever having believed this and is a total misrepresentation of his theological position. It seems to me that this quote should have been checked out before placing it on the internet, unless if course truth is not of significance when you are dealing with those who do not hold to the same view as yourself. From my perspective this comment not only reflects on pykesplace1, whoever he may be, but worse still \”you\” are stained with the unsubstantiated slander of a brother. I would suggest you think carefully before publicizing such remarks. Your behavior has caused me and perhaps many others to question your integrity. We may disagree theologically but surely civility should be shown. Thank you I await your reply. 4 Comment by John Malone » 5th July, 2007 @ 07:18:45 PM Dear Tom Baldock (or whoever you may be), I will publish your remarks on the web site also without callling Bob Wilkin to see if he talked to you about a tape or publication. I will also attempt later this month to get Wilkin to put his own position on a tape when he is in Omaha, but I am pretty confident he will elude clear questions, just as he and Zane Hodges have done heretofore. Bob is also welcome at any time to make his position on this serious matter known. So far, he has been unwilling to do so, but actually ducks the questions, saying he “agrees with Bob Bryant.” If you think pykesplace1 is misreprepresenting Wilkin, then can you represent his position correctly? Because as far as I know, the Wilkin-Bryant-Hodges position is that as long as a person believes that Jesus is the “guarantor of eternal life” it does not matter if they think He’s a frog or not. That is consistent with, though not exactly what they told me. I did not ask the Kermit questions. Certainly Bryant told me privately it did not matter what someone thought about critical elements of His Person or work. Bryant refused to address the matter publicly. What’s your own position on the matter? Do you agree to receive as a brother someone who denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Do you receive as a brother someone who denies His second coming? His resurrection from the dead? His incarnation? You are, by your own standard, gulity of slandering me as a slanderer. I am not going to be intimidated by you or anyone else from exposing this heretical direction taken by Hodges, et. al. John 5 Comment by Tom Baldock » 6th July, 2007 @ 12:18:17 AM John I am sending you an excerpt from Bob Wilkin’s tract “Saving Faith in Focus”. I ask that you carefully read it, for in your reply to my letter you implied that Wilkin’s and Hodges deny the necessity of believing the deity of Christ, His incarnation, His resurrection from the dead and His second coming. I can see no evidence of this in this writing nor have I ever found it in any of Hodges writings. I realize there will be many who disagree with Hodges and Wilkin but to label someone as promoting heretical teaching is “strong stuff”. I see from your writings that you are a dispensationalist. No doubt you are aware that some such as John Gerstner consider you view heresy. I disagree for I too hold to dispensational theology. John, lets leave the name calling to others. I am not suggesting that we can’t voice our disgreements but to imply a brother is a heretic is “strong stuff.” Again I ask you to examine Wilkin’s writings and perhaps modify or adjust the language of your disagreement. “Martha believed Jesus’ promise. In answer to the question, ‘Do you believe this?’ she said, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe.’ She then went on to acknowledge Him as ‘the Christ, the Son of God, who is come into the world.’ She knew that Jesus was the Messiah and as such, He certainly fulfills His promise to give eternal life, life that is forever secure, to every believer (compare John 20:31). Martha understood that there were no strings attached. She knew that she had eternal life and that she would never lose it because Jesus, as the Son of God, was trustworthy. The apostle Paul sums up what Martha, and every Christian, believes when they come to faith in Christ: ‘However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life’ (1 Timothy 1:16). In order to be saved, we must believe on Jesus for everlasting life. On the basis of His death and resurrection, He always fulfills His guarantee to give everlasting life to all who believe in Him for it.” I understand from your postings that your wife has recently gone through some serious surgery. I will be remembering her and you and the family as you deal with this crisis. Thank you for your time and consideration. In His Service 6 Comment by John Malone » 6th July, 2007 @ 01:42:14 AM Tom, I appreciate that your posts here are heart-felt, and that you are really hoping that I just have it wrong about Hodges, Bryant, and Wilkin. Unhappily, I DON’T have it wrong, and you are simply coming to find out today what I have now known for over a year. When I first heard Bob Bryant spinning this new twist on the new birth, I thought he needed a boost to make sure he was clear enough. So I spoke up, and said something to the effect that “understanding the Deity of Christ is necessary, but not sufficient, that’s what you are saying, right?” He actually did not agree, and asked me to hold off any more questioning until he was done. Then, when he was done, he did not entertain the question. So I button-holed him afterward, and asked him what was the deal. That is when he told me he did not think faith in Christ’s Deity, resurrection, ascension, or second coming were not necessary components for “saving faith.” I assumed Wilkin would sort Bryant out, but he demurred, talked around the question, and invited me to a session where these matters would be discussed. However, they weren’t. There were plenty of other pastors at the GES conference that were stroubled with Bryant’s position. Then I assumed Hodges would sort them both out, and Hodges told me he agreed with Bryant. Frankly, I now know he is the source of this error, and that Bryant was merely agreeing with him. Even in the quotations of Wilkin’s writing above, I see him tip-toeing around matters. His (and Hodges) position is exactly (and ONLY) what he writes there: “In order to be saved, we must believe on Jesus for everlasting life.” That is subtley but dangerously different from Acts 16:31: ”Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” What Wilkin et. al. mean is that if you believe Jesus guarantees you eternal life, you have it. This is ALL one must believe. This is why pykesplace1 asked Wilkin about the frog. And this is why Wilkin answered what he did. If you have access to Wilkin, simply ask him persistently about this matter. You will see he is in the Hodges-Bryant error. Sure it’s shocking. Sure it’s not plainly laid out that way in the writings of Wilkin or Hodges. It’s not plainly said that way by Bryant either. But I assure you, that is EXACTLY what they hold. They do not hold that there must be a revelation to the believe of Who Christ is as the Son of God. Now, Wilkin will be here in Omaha on July 27th, 2007 at a church where I once taught the youth, and I intend to pin him down exactly on this matter. I suspect he will duck the issue and escape because well-meaning fellows like you take a long time to believe stuff that guys like me say. I have been plagued, my brother, with an ability to see quickly the implications of what some are teaching well before others. It doesn’t make me popular, I can tell you that. As for Hodges, Wilkin & Bryant, they are simply paving the way for a new persistence qualification: persistence in doctrine. Thank you for you considerate remarks about Karen. Her ordeal has been a real trial for me. 7 Comment by Vlad » 16th October, 2007 @ 08:30:40 AM While I disagree that one may believe ANYTHING about Jesus to be saved, I agree that ALL one needs to do to be saved is to trust alone in Christ alone. From my understanding of the cults, NO ONE trusts Jesus alone, since in their theology Jesus cannot be trusted but should only serve as an example of obedience that must be copied in order for one to be acceptable before God the Father. So, to trust Jesus Christ alone, one must hold that He is GOD and human. However, I’d disagree that one must have an accurate understanding of the Trinity in order to truly accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Perhaps that is what Wilkins and Hodges meant. 8 Comment by Metachoi » 26th January, 2008 @ 08:20:07 PM What is the bottom-line to saving faith? How much, what exactly, does one have to believe to be saved? This is a difficult question, it seems to me. What do you think Nicodemus or the woman at the well knew and believed? Honest questions. 9 Comment by Keith Melton » 31st January, 2008 @ 09:59:08 AM “What’s the bottom line of saving faith?” Since you brought up the woman at the well, re-read about her again in John chapt. 4, especially verse 10. Jesus sets it out very straight forward. Know the gift, know the giver, ask for the gift, and the giver gives it. All this of course depends on your faith/belief/trust that the Lord Jesus is who He says He is, and has the power and authority to do what He says He will do. 10 Comment by John Malone » 31st January, 2008 @ 10:16:47 AM Zane Hodges’ oft-referenced verse, John 20:31 , says that one purpose of the account of the woman at the well is that we would come to believe that Jesus is “the Christ, the son of God,” and so doing, we would have “life in his name.” Therefore, it is reasonable and consistent to understand that she (and Nicodemus) concluded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. I know that Hodges, Wilkin, et. al. do not believe she believed this. Their gainsaying can be prosecuted on their home field. Wilkin’s most recent writings are shrill and very poorly done. They are marked by the most pervasive elements of his heretical behavior. I will be writing about him again, soon, even though he has become nearly irrelevant. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:54 PM Post #8 |
|
Zane Hodges goes too far. Comments: 11 Comment by Bob McDonald » 22nd May, 2008 @ 01:18:46 AM I invited Bob Wilkins to conduct a bible conference at the church I pastored in 2004. I was shocked when in his first message he taught that faith in Jesus apart from His death and resurrection was all that was necessary for eternal life. In fact, in his message he taught that to include the teaching of His the death and resurrection in sharing the gospel only brought confusion. I was so shocked that I assumed that I had misunderstood or that he had miscommunicated. But after several hours of private discussion, he made it clear that he, following his mentor, Zane Hodges, held that belief in the person of Jesus, apart from belief in His death for payment of our sins and resurrection to declare the believer righteous, is the gospel that saves. Hodges and Wilkins are correct in not confusing the nature of “faith” when they remove any idea of man’s works and obedience. But they are eternally wrong when they remove the works and obedience of Christ from the object of that faith. John MacArthur and the ‘lordship’ salvationists preach a false gospel by adding man’s works and obedience to the nature of faith. But Wilkins and Hodges proclaim no less of an error when they remove the essential core, the death and resurrection of Christ, from the gospel. They also, pervert the gospel of the grace of Christ. 12 Comment by Keith Melton » 25th May, 2008 @ 01:51:30 PM Question to anyone. When were the disciples, minus Judas, saved? Before or after the Lord’s death burial and resurrection? 13 Comment by John Malone » 30th May, 2008 @ 05:11:46 AM The disciple Abraham was certainly saved before the Lord’s death. I am curious: why do you ask this question? 14 Comment by Keith Melton » 30th May, 2008 @ 07:28:45 AM I ask because some proclaim faith in the death burial, and resurrection are necessary for salvation. But I don’t see that played out in scripture. The disciples, even after our Lord’s spelling it out for them disbelieved the death and resurrection, even outright rejection of it, and then after our Lord’s death doubted His resurrection, but they would still be counted among the saved. I realize one can shave off too much info like Zane and company have done, but I also believe that what often is presented as the gospel, is bloated. What I myself have struggled with is to “produce” a simple (un-bloated)gospel message, but also one that has adequate information for a lost soul to have a change of mind, and be converted. I now have come to realize that I can not “produce” a solitary one size fits all presentation, because the hearers all would have different levels of knowledge ranging from total ignorance of Christ, to even very detailed in what they know. I also presented the question to get people to consider what they believe the gospel is as compared to scripture and maybe find that it is not what they may necessarily have been taught. Thank you brother(s)for your website |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 09:58 PM Post #9 |
|
GES’ Bob Wilkin: A Heretic’s Vagaries and Intrigue. Author: John Malone Date: 2nd August, 2007 @ 12:27:34 AM Friday night, as promised, I attended the “Regional Conference” of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) hosted by Community Bible Church (CBC) in Omaha, a church my family and I formerly attended in Omaha. I was among the 100 or less in attendance, and so were a half dozen of my friends. Perhaps 20% of the attendees were from the host church. I went to this conference to expose Bob Wilkin. It’s one thing to teach what he does. It’s a whole different thing to disguise it, slip it in, and be guileful about it. And it’s even another thing to do it here where I live, among people I know. As George, the former temporary head coach in Hoosiers told Head Coach Norman Dale, “Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb. A guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, a guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter. The second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.” The speakers I heard were Bob Wilkin and John Niemela. I listened to two messages, one by Bob Wilkin, another by John Niemela. Wilkin gave a message entitled, “Gospel means good news.” In that message, he painstakingly pointed out the word “gospel” is not in the Gospel of John. The GES position these days - Zane Hodge’s position, that is - is that the Gospel of John is the only book in the Bible written specifically to introduce the lost to Christ. They actually don’t put it that way. Once you get into the swing of things, you will realize that “putting it that way” is a slippery slope with these GES guys as they continue their downhill slide. So, before I deal further with the particular doctrinal error in which they are now trapped, let me detail here the behavioral errors which attend to this particular schism. The Scriptures are not silent concerning problems like the one presented by Hodges, Wilkin, Niemela, Bob Bryant, and perhaps others. What we are seeing is classic heresy, and that is not merely a matter of doctrine, albeit usually doctrinal errors are found in these schisms. This is why Titus 3 gives us knowledge we would not otherwise have concerning the character of the heretic. Schisms are fomented by schismatic men. You might think that is so obvious, it doesn’t need to be said, but once one is in the maelstrom of the schism, it actually needs to be said very often. A heretic - a schismatic, or factious man - is “self condemned,” according to the Scriptures. This means he judges himself to be wrong in his own mind. That doesn’t mean he admits it to you, but it especially means he will not confess it to God, so that his conscience will be renewed. “Heresy” is based on a word meaning “to choose,” and therefore some have rightly called “heresy” a division or gathering of a faction based on a self-willed opinion. self-willed opionions now abound in the teaching of the GES. It’s so bad, in fact, that these GES fellows teach that ”they which are approved” in 1st Corinthians 11:19 are, in fact, they which are disapporved by God. That is a self-willed opinion! The result of such internal knowledge is a bad conscience before God and men. This is quite the opposite of God’s man, who is to look to himself first, and then to doctrine , and who is to hold truth with a good conscience. Therefore, the only way to deal with a heretic is to take leave of him; have nothing to do with him. This is what needs to be done with Wilkin. He’s a guy to be avoided. He’s been admonished more than once. I have admonished him twice myself: once in 2005, and once last Friday. I know he has wandered from the path of faith, and I know that he is sinning, and I know he is self-condemned. I know this from the Scriptures, and therefore so should others. Men of weight in the Christian circles in which Wilkin moves need to make their opinions known. I fear that too much teaching without shepherding has made many men fearful. A shepherd under the Great Shepherd needs to face his fears, includng the fear of losing face, or popularity, and allow the spirit of glory and of God do what it is intended to do. As for Wilkin’s factious behavior, it went as follows. Wilkin’s topic was “‘Gospel’ Means Good News.” In his message he set forth, generally, that the word “gospel” has a context, and may not mean the good news concerning the reception of eternal life, but may refer to - my words here - even more good news than that. This is true, by the way. The word “gospel” may be referring to the good news that Christ’s kingdom is at hand or coming. The word “gospel” may refer to the good news that Jesus Christ will be glorified among all men one day as he already has been among all angels. The word “gospel” may also refer to the additional good news revealed to the apostle Paul that was a bundle of secrets up to that time. But the first, and most well-known and understood meaning of “gospel” is the good news concerning Jesus Christ is that God became a man, died on the cross as our Substitute, and was later declared to be the Son of God with power by His resurrection out from the dead. Wilkins and the GES are actually effacing the first, most basic, and widespread meaning of the word “gospel,” that the apostle uses in 1st Corinthians 15 to describe the basic message bringing eternal life. There are certainly other contexts in the Bible whereby the unmodified word “gospel” represents this truth. It’s interesting to me that Wilkins will easily use other vernaculars, and verbal algebrae, that are common among believers, and yet somehow he takes some umbrage at the use of the word “gospel.” For instance, Wilkin will talk about “going to heaven” when that is not a Bible phrase at all. Wilkins “new, improved” definition of “the gospel” stems from his self-willed opinion. The point of departure I took up with Wilkin was something I had heard him say in 2005, and he repeated Friday night. When Wilkin finished speaking, he opened the floor for questions. First, I corrected Wilkins declaration that 1 Cor 15:3-4 did not contain the gospel of eternal life, and that the subject matter contained in those verses was solely for the progressive sanctification of the believer. The passage does reference present tense “salvation” - but not soley - which we can understand as “sanctification” providing we have sufficient background to understand what that means. Even that is a use of a vernacular (actually, present tense salvation it is about the salvation of the life of the Christian). But it is most certainly - yea, PRIMARILY - about the content of the gospel message which Paul preached to them, which they received, and wherein they stood. Receiving that message is receiving Christ , as did Abraham in Genesis 15, and the saving work of Jesus Christ was imputed to him for righteousness on the condition of his faith. It has lately - perhaps no more than 2 years - become the studied intent of the GES fellows to defeat each passage of Scripture from which Christians have historically evangelized, if it’s not in John’s gospel. It started with Wilkin attempting to defeat 1st Cor 15: 3-4. His argument was actually far weaker than I imagined, and he simply asked: “Why stop at verse 4? What about the next verses down to verse 11? Why aren’t these essential to the gospel for eternal life.” So, before I phrased my question, I referenced the first three verses of 1 cor 15 , pointing out the obvious, that the “gospel” referenced by Paul comprehended the past, present, and future tense salvation of the Corinthians, especially as it pertains to what the “gospel” is, in the context of bringing people initially to Jesus Christ - or, as the new GES term for the marvelous new birth is now called - “the saving proposition.” You see, to Wilkin and others in his company, the preaching of the gospel need not - indeed, should not - include the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ found in verse 3. Neither need it and should it include the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ found in verse 4. Wilkins claims if these truths are key elements of what Paul preached to the Corinthians, so are the next several verses which describes the eyewitnesses to the Lord’s resurrection. And so - but this now is all inference, mind you, and not plain declaration - if someone need not believe the details of who and when were those eyewitnesses , they also need not believe the 3rd and 4th verses to have eternal life. Wilkins “new, improved” view of 1 Cor 15:3-4 stems from his self-willed opinion. Second, I asked him if he thought that someone could have eternal life, and yet not believe in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, if he were approaching honestly, his answer to that question is, “Yes, I believe that some one can have eternal life, and not believe in either Christ’s death or resurrection.” Because that IS what he believes. The fact that he won’t come right out and admit it or say it directly, but slips it in on some of his hearers in churches while those looking on, or in oversight, need to pry it out of him with remonstrations and prosecutorial inquiry, is what makes him a heretic, and what demonstrates his bad conscience: the evidence that he is “perverted (twisted)” as Titus 3:11 declares. Of course, as I was questioning, the allotted time was up. Having a time-scheduled agenda, and sticking religiously to it, is often what allows manipulators like Wilkin to get away with what they do. Personally, as a boxing fan, I agree with the three-knockdown rule, and I also approve the rule that no one can be saved by the bell, includingin the last round. Wilkins is not a man on the ropes in this matter, he’s on the canvas. The GES travelling circus is all set up for slipping this heresy in on the unsuspecting believers who attend. They surround this attempt with side teaching that destroys the opportunities that experienced brethren must fulfill in order to properly address the heresy. So, for instance, one of the conference topics is “Dealing Graciously With An Erring Brother,” wherein two key passages of Scripture are entirely defeated. One is the example Paul showed in Galatia where he confronts Peter to his face and publicly, because “he is to be blamed.” The other is the direct instructions to Timothy that, even though he is a young man, he is to rebuke sinning elders publicly. When an error in doctine is public, it does not fulfill any useful purpose to deal with it privately. As a heretic, Wilkin will not be reached in private, either. Such a man needs to be pointed out, then avoided. Wilkins view that public ministry should be discussed privately is based on a self-willed opinion, formed to disallow public confrontation fo his heretical behavior. Wilkin carried on some more. After the “time had ended,” Wilkin came down from the platform, and began to argue with me. He asked me what passage from the Bible did I think contained the “saving message.” I refused to answer that question, except to say Gen 1 through Revelation 22. I informed him that he is ommitting the fact that God the Father discloses to the believer, as He did to Peter, Who Jesus Christ is. I had previously told this to Zane Hodges, who failed to comment on it. Wilkin then said he did not think the Father did regenerating, but that was the work of the Holy Spirit. He wasn’t listening, and one reason he wasn’t listening is that he is a heretic. (Later in the conference, according to one report, Wilkins said he spoke to a “pastor” that believed that God the Father regenerated.) We continued a little while, but as one brother who has listened to Wilkin more than I have told me, “You were putting him on the spot like he does to others in his debates with them. I’ll bet he really didn’t like it.” Well, no matter, and that figures. But he didn’t like it at all. After Wilkin spoke, and the break was taken up largely with my attempts to admonish Wilkin about his errors in a small company, John Niemela followed on the platform. Niemela is not an accomplished platform speaker, by any means. Wilkin introduced him as distinguished for his doctrinal dissertation at Dallas Theolgical Seminay, which, said Wilkin, focused on John’s gospel, and was printed in several colors. I guess I wasn’t impressed much. Niemela passed out his message in print. In due time, I’ll publish that document here, and critique it more completely. But for the purposes of this discussion I will summarize that Niemela’s talk, entitled “God’s Word Does Not Return Void When Used Properly,” could have been titled “Why evangelism should be conducted using only John’s Gospel.” He suggested that the name of the that book would be better said to be “John’s Testimony.” That actually made my ears perk up a bit, because the word “gospel,” in my opinion, had already suffered enough damage for one night. Niemela used as his main text John 20:31. Niemela also said that the Acts 16:31 had to do with the Philippian jailor wanting to know what to do to save his physical life. Because, as Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin frequently state, Jesus never disappoints those who come to Him, apparently anyone who is in danger of physical death can ask Jesus for salvation from it, and they will receive it! This isogesis, of course, was used by Niemela to sustain his (Hodges) argument that one must not simply believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, but must believe that “Jesus is the guarantor of eternal llife” whether they believe Him to be Lord or Christ or not! Niemela’s view that Acts 16:31 pertains to salvation from impending physical death is based upon his self-willed opinion - only - in order to sustain a faulty argument against its use in bringing someone to Christ. After Niemela was done speaking, he asked for questions. One young man asked one. Then there was only one hand in the air: mine. Niemela looked and looked for someone else to call upon, but, as the Lord arranged, there was no one else. Finally, after calling for “any one else” and looking past me three times, he called on me. Because his theme verse was John 20:31, , I asked him if he believed that, if someone did not believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” could they still have “life in his name.” Now, that calls for a simple “yes” or “no” answer. But Niemela would not answer “yes” or “no.” Instead, he went on a very long dissertation about conducting a class, and having students that scored well or poorly, apprently meaning in many words that John 20:31 didn’t actually mean that people who had eternal life would necessarily come to the conclusion that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” It was almost laughable. Niemela should never occupy a speaking platform. His evasion was made obvious to all. He and Wilkin portrayed themselves more like Sancho Panza and Don Quixote than Paul and Silas. I could not be surprised by what Wilkin and Niemela believed concerning Zane Hodges’ stubborn error. They are, after all and above all, disciples of Zane Hodges. I do not write this happily. I have regarded Zane Hodges as an enormous help to me in the Scriptures, especially in the Book of James. His treatment of Abraham’s second justification is itself second to none. But Wilkin’s behavior DID surprise me a little. We are exhorted in the Scripture to ”Hold faith and a good conscience.” I came away assured that, as pertaining to conscience, neither of these two have good ones. No preacher should ever consider himself beyond answering questions as honestly and clearly as they can, especially in the assembly of believers. Wilkin and Niemela certainly did. Let me say that I speak from a platform at least twice a week. I used to speak on the radio every single weekday for an hour, with a different message each time. I am answerable and accountable to any sincere inquiry about my life and ministry. In fact, my wife and I lose a lot of privacy due to this accountability. I confronted Wilkin after the meetings of the evening were over. I simply told him in unequivocal fashion that he was a man who no one could reach. I found a man who lives a life of no accountability, who considers he does not have to answer even the most direct questions. Whenever the questions began to flow, Wilkin sought a private area so he could not be heard. Bob Wilkin is not a man whom the Lord has put into the ministry. He does not shepherd the sheep. He has allowed Zane Hodges worst moment to become the center of the GES program, and now, having been admonished by many, many credible men, has hunkered down with a small group - Hodges, Bryant, and Niemela - to sustain this heresy in churches they visit. Wilkin surprised me a little when he asked me how I knew that he was saved. “Good question,” I said. The I asked him, “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?” Incredibly, he refused to answer! Instead, he said, “I don’t believe what you believe.” That’s for sure. We will yet see if CBC remains a church hosting a GES “regional conference.” I left their building pretty discouraged about them. No one from CBC stood with me in opposition to the nefarious, sneaky hacking away at the gospel message. I pray this will not be held to their charge. The “senior pastor” of CBC is Chuck Tschetter. I met him for the first time Friday night, as far as I can recall. CBC is still an elder led church. Three of the elders present were men I have known for 20 years or more. They served as elders at the time I left that church, with their blessing, to answer a call from the church I now attend, Millard Community Church (MCC) in Omaha. Tschetter told me I was disruptive. He asked me to not come back the next day if I was going to ask pointed questions of the speakers as I did. I warned him to not say such a thing, because God will not hold him guiltless in the matter. I probably should have told him he was a coward. Maybe I’ll do that at another time. It’s peculiar that a guy in his position would say such a thing when I went out of my way, exposing myself to scorn, in order to make evident that which he said he knew nothing about. Sunday morning Bob Wilkin occupied the pulpit at Community Bible Church (CBC). It was a shame he was invited to speak. Heretics need to be avoided. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jul 11 2009, 10:03 PM Post #10 |
|
GES’ Bob Wilkin: A Heretic’s Vagaries and Intrigue. Comments: 1 Comment by Kevin Reid » 6th August, 2007 @ 12:44:56 PM John’s response in green. From what I’ve been reading here Bob Wilkins, Bryant, and Zane Hodges are presenting a ‘minimum’ on what a person may believe to receive eternal life. That is true. And their minimum does NOT include that Jesus “is the Christ, the Son of God,” NOR does it include that Jesus died and was buried, or that He arose. In fact, God’s declaration that Jesus is the Son of God, which He made by Jesus Christ’s resurrection out from the dead is, in the view of HWB (Hodges-Wilkin & Bryan), irrelevant to “the saving proposition.” What I keep reading from you is whether or not you should accept a brother who has believed this minimum. Is it really enough? Is that the main issue? Of COURSE that is the main issue. We are not discussing how I know I am saved. This seems to be the same issue GES has been addressing for years: the difference between coming to faith and being a disciple. When it comes to the history of this “difference,” as you call it, the GES are late-comers to that game. For example, I have been teaching this difference as a main thrust of my ministry well before the GES existed, or Zane Hodges wrote any of his books. So have others. I do not claim this was new with me by any means. In fact, a great many of brothers who understood this truth were very concerned at the founding of the GES that it was not going to take this matter up much, but was going to focus on debating the Calvinists. You can discover in reading my correspondence with Hodges that he does not correctly see Philippians 3:11, for instance, which is central in my view, to understanding the consequences of the “higher calling.” Realistically, how often will a newborn Christian already know various scriptural points that mature believers come to take for granted? So, you are claiming that knowing that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, which has been in every single credal formulation of every group of even nominal Christians for millenia is somehow now reserved for mature believers? HOGWASH. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is what Peter answered the Lord in Matthew 16:7. I realize HWB don’t care to answer anything about that. Are you in the same boat Kevin? I don’t see/hear Bob or Zane touting: “Withhold scripture (meat) from newborns so they may remain ignorant and keep feeding them milk. This is the only acceptable evangelism technique.” Here’s what the GES web site has for their description of how to have eternal life: http://www.faithalone.org/gospel.html NOTICE WELL that Jesus is not referenced either as “Lord,” “Christ,” or “Son of God” in that “gospel.” For all we know, they are talking about Jesus Alou, who, although hittting .306 in 1970, didn’t have enough power to consistently hit the long ball, let alone power to save from sin. At Community Bible Church on the following Sunday morning, Wilken was confronted further, and agreed that the object of faith needed to be the “Jesus of the Bible.” Well, now, someone needs to believe there is a Bible to be saved, and that there is a single “Jesus” in there. Of course, that opened a whole of worms for Bob, because he was so inconsistent. Heretics are always inconsistent. Do I believe a newborn could receive eternal life without knowing Jesus died on a cross? Yes. I’m going to assume when you say “newborn,” you are talking about one recently coming to faith. I do not care for your term whatsover, because that one is as much of a brother in Christ at that moment as he ever will be, and probably will not care for your patronizing term. Just like disciples and many others in the NT received eternal life before knowing/understanding how the Son of Man would be crucified. While limit yourself to the NT? After all, Abel received eternal life before there ever was anyone named “Jesus.” In Whom did he believe? Do you think Abel went on to tell Cain that “Jesus is the guarantor of eternal life?” Nonsense. This is one of the side effects - and an egregious one, by the way - of Wilkin’s heresy. He willfully refuses to take into accoun the progress of doctrine in he Scriptures which is a cornerstone of Dispensational treatment: the right division of the Scriptures. And I will go you one further. What makes you and HWB think you can deliver less conent in your message than the apostle Paul did in his? And what makes you think that people today are in the same position doctrinally - saved or lost - as “many others in the NT?” God Almighty Himself saw to it that you and I were born after He declared the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection out from the dead and that is what we have to deal with. God winked at times of ignorance among the Gentiles once, but He now has both eyes upon all. Do I want to keep that truth from a new believer? No. No, you don’t want to keep it from a new believer. You want to keep it from the lost guy so that he will not become a new believer! And you and HWB want to keep the believers from declaring Who the Lord Jesus Christ is to people. I’ll tell you one thing, no Christian in his right senses would baptize anyone on the basis of the confession “I believe Jesus is the guarantor of eternal life,” and that statement wouldn’t get a Moslem convert to Christ beheaded in South Sudan either. Would I want to educate/edify a new believer of these truths? Absolutely. I’ll rephrase that to be clear: My new brother has not been exposed to other valid truths in scripture - I now have the opportunity/obligation to help him grow. Will he accept all truth presented to him? Maybe, maybe not - and if not, does that mean he never had eternal life to begin with? If I say he did not have life - then, potentially, I’ve embraced a degree of Calvinism. Exactly, “if not,” then you have to accept as a brother someone who demises that Jesus is the Christ, denies that He is the Son of God, denies that He died for sins, denies that He rose again. Otherwise, you have what i have already called the “doctrine of doctrinal persistence.” Of course, the whiole proposition is preposterous! This is the challenge of any theology: What is the natural extreme of your views? For what Bob and Zane present (and as a whole GES), the natural extreme (minimum) is: trust Jesus for eternal life. As a whole GES? Hardly! The GES is falling apart faster than anything you have lately seen. where’s Charlie Bing? Where’s Elliot Johnson? Where, by the way, is John Malone? Not in the GES. Gonzo, baby. Faster than you can say “guarantor.” The extreme (or maybe the minimum) of your view, you have already stated: Believe Gen 1:1 to Rev 22. So, until someone believes/understands every piece of scripture they do not have eternal life? C’mon John - you know you don’t believe that! You and I both know there are multitudes of people who know/understand little of rewards or have even contemplated “What is dead faith?” But does that mean they don’t have eternal life? These are all discipleship issues. You are misrepresenting my view, and that is for sure. I suggest you simply listen to my series on this web site, “The Gift & The Prize,” and you will discover what my position is on eternal life. The Lord Jesus Christ IS eternal life my friend, and no one believes on Him Who doesn’t realize that He is the Son of God, because God the Father REVEALS that truth. Knowing Jesus Christ IS eternal life! If someone comes to me and tells me: I believe Jesus has given me eternal life! Sure, I’m going to engage them in a conversation - Tell me about this Jesus. The impression your written words here have given me is that Bob and Zane are trying to tell everyone: Stop presenting Christ’s deity and His death on the cross. I have not seen that or read that from them - from you yes, but not from them. Have they made statements that do not refer to His deity or crucifixion in receiving eternal life? Yes, I’ve already addressed the crucifixion issue. Absolutely they made such statements, and you have presented a link above to EXACTLY that statement! Here are Zane’s own words regarding the former: (from Grace In Eclipse page 16 3rd edition) “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world. (John 11:27) This tells us much about John’s thought. For John, the “Christ” was the One who could make the claim of John 11:25-26 in which He guarantees the eternal destiny of the individual who believes in Him. To ‘believe that’ He was the “Christ” was, in fact, to believe Him to be such a Person as that. It was to believe in Him as the Guarantor of one’s eternal felicity and well-being. It was the “Christ” who guaranteed resurrection and unending life to the believer. There is no room here for the subtle reshapings which some theologians have commonly given to the simple word “believe.” I either believe that Jesus is the Christ in the Johannine sense of the term, or I do not. But by John’s own statements, when such belief occurs, eternal life is thereby possessed. What could be simpler than, Whoever believes that Jesus is that Christ is born of God (1 John 5:1)?” (end quote) Kevin, there is no doubt that Zane once believed what is quoted in Grace in Eclipse. But no more. I used to pass out Zane’s books. Zane recommended I marry my wife. Ihave a lot of heart-break about where Zane has gotten himself. Just read his remarks in his correspondence with me. He has held a different view “for some time.” I have accurately presented his “different view.” Now it’s Zane in Eclipse. From what I’ve been exposed to at their regional and national confereneces over the past 10 years, GES has provided a focus for evangelism - not a rigid technique that keeps new believers on milk. I am interested what is your answer to the question: What must I believe to have eternal life? The GES is not who it once was. MANY have abandoned ship. There will be many more to follow. Happily, there will be no loss of life, but of the ship. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Hodges-Wilkin errors. Still and all, seeing the tip, the rest of the berg is surely there, and the ship is just as surely going to sink. I just hope Hodges and Wilkin have the good sense to jump ship (repent) before taking on too much more water. What must you believe? Not the question. In Whom you must believe: that’s the question. And He is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in Whom IS life. He is eternal life. Get that down. The gift of God is eternal life. The gift of God is His Son. That’s not too hard for you to believe, is it Kevin? As for your comments on Bob’s and John’s messages on Friday night, I walked away with a very different impression than you. If you are somehow claiming I have misrepresented what was being taught by Wilkin and Niemela, I think you are obliged to make that clear. You remind me of what Wilkin said when I asked him if he believed “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” He said, “I don’t believe what you believe.” That’s what a “different impression” is. 2 Comment by Dan Backens » 6th August, 2007 @ 05:46:29 PM I was at this conference and witnessed all that John has written about here, except I wasn’t present during his last conversation with Wilkin where he asked Bob if he believed Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. John’s account is both fair and accurate. I was especially shocked at the attempt by John Niemela to keep John Malone from asking a question at the end of his speach. How can a man be sincere about what he is preaching and, at the same time, refuse to allow a question to be asked. And then, to not answer that direct question, but to go on and on as if he was - what a disgrace. 3 Comment by Dan Backens » 6th August, 2007 @ 06:57:12 PM Kevin, To answer your question: “The impression your written words here have given me is that Bob and Zane are trying to tell everyone: Stop presenting Christ’s deity and His death on the cross. I have not seen that or read that from them - from you yes, but not from them.” I have your answer. On Saturday morning, Bob Wilkins gave a message on tweaking your testimony. Basically, he proposed that you get your message across quickly, like less than a minute. But after the message, he again asked for questions (probably since John Malone was not there). A woman asked something like, “A lot of people try to put emphasis on the redemptive work of the cross. What do you say about that.” (I have to paraphrase the question, but that was certainly the meaning) Bob’s answer (again paraphrasing) was, “No, don’t even mention the cross. It is not necessary for salvation so don’t bring it up.” Then he ended the meeting, and I left. 4 Comment by James Gomez » 27th September, 2007 @ 10:37:50 AM I really think these guys are lost. 5 Comment by Stephen » 12th January, 2009 @ 02:14:54 PM Greetings John, you nailed it! I know your article isn’t new but I want to thank you for what you’ve written. Wilkin was at our church over a year ago and attempted to slip in his teaching during a single session on how to evangelize. I wasn’t familiar with him until then but my wife and I (and several others) could sense equivocation in his presentation, peculiar phraseology, and a sense that he was avoiding direct answers during the Q&A at the end. We, our teacher, and several other concerned members, began to research Wilkin/Hodges/GES after that session and 3 months later made a formal presentation to our pastors and deacons to insist that we, as a church, publicly acknowledge our disagreement with Wilkin’s view of the content of saving faith, to distance ourself from him, and to never have him back lest he repent. It took some persuading, they couldn’t believe that Wilkin indeed taught a gutted content of saving faith. Finally, after presenting quote after quote from Wilkin’s own mouth and hand, our leadership realized the truth and issued a public statement distancing ourselves from BW/ZH/GES. I’m thankful for those like yourself who are not afraid to speak the truth to protect the church from this error. As you pointed out, their deliberate dodges and skirting of the issues is what makes this so bad. They borrow “normal” Christianese but pour different meaning into, or strip the meaning out of, the terms so as to sound more orthodox than they are. The Christ, Son of God, The Gospel, have all come to mean different things to GES than would be normally taken. I’m not bitter toward BW, but I am alert should he be in our neck of the woods again. Anyway, thank you. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · G.E.S. Open Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:18 AM May 19