- Consistent:: agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent. (bold added)
So, I was thinking about their special claim to consistency yesterday and remembered an exchange I had with Bob Wilkin about a year ago in which I had asked Bob,"What is the simplest gospel?" He replied:
- My view is that the Lord Jesus told us what the saving message is and we can't err by proclaiming the message He proclaimed.
- Jesus said in John 3:16:
- For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
- note: CFG is fond of pointing out that J3:16 (Jesus' message) does not explicitly mention sin, or Jesus' death, burial, or resurrection and so the lost man cannot be required to believe those things)
- John 4 and the woman at the well is another favorite CFG passage that supposedly demonstrates their minimal content of saving faith.
- Bob Wilkin's summary of this passage as it regards the saving message is that "[Jesus] didn’t tell her anything about His person or work other than that He gives living water which once received springs up in a person into everlasting life."
- Bob Wilkin goes on to explain that this was not unique to Jesus' message to the woman at the well, that "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism"
- Not surprisingly John 6:47, a (in)famous CFG "mini-gospel", does not mention anything about Jesus' person or work either save, of course, the promise of Everlasting Life for those who believe.
- When Bob Wilkin caught our church unaware, his message was "Evangelism: Do what Jesus Did".
- We can't err by proclaiming the message Jesus proclaimed.
- Do What Jesus Did
- Jesus didn’t tell the woman at the well anything about His person or work.
- Jesus rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism.
CFG advocates and defenders are adamant that other evangelicals should cut'em some slack -- making statements like "We preach the same message you do: Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection for the atonement of sin". In light of the statements from CFG's own top advocate however, one begins to wonder indeed why they would say such a thing and routinely include those details since that clearly exceeds the message they claim Jesus' himself usually presented. Sure, CFG can provide some (psycho)logical reasons for including add'l info, at least sometimes, but (psycho)logical arguments fall flat in light of their own ultimate litmus test -- namely that "we can't err by proclaiming the message [Jesus] proclaimed."
CFG folks, it's simple -- if it's your view that we should "do what Jesus did", and "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism" (and that IS your view) how on earth do you justify that it's somehow consistent to claim it's "important/critical/essential" for anyone else to routinely do so?
Refer back to the bolded portion of the definition at the beginning of this article and consider this:
- CFG View
- We can't go wrong by proclaiming the message Jesus proclaimed.
- Jesus' message rarely alluded to add'l info such as his deity, death, or resurrection.
- CFG Action
- Insist that it's important to routinely present info that Jesus himself only rarely presented.
Stephen
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteThanks for documenting this decidedly inconsistency among the advocates of ReDefined Free Grace theology. You have shown, from Wilkin himself, that they are consistently inconsistent.
I can't decide is this,
"Don't do as I do, just do as I say."
Or is it,
"Don't say as I say, just say as I do."
I can't decide.
Thanks,
Lou
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteWow! This expose is very powerful. I had not really noticed these inconsistenies until you pointed them out. Thanks! Bob Wilkin and company are consistently inconsistent!
JP
Consistency does indeed testify whether things are true. I think these are very good points you are making here.
ReplyDeleteHi Stephen
ReplyDeleteThere is no contradiction! Eternal life is still a free gift anyone can take freely, the cross did not change that fact. (Isa 55:1; John 4:10; I Tim 1:15,16; Rev 21:6; 22:17)
The eight signs in the Gospel of John are for the purpose that people might believe Jesus is the Christ and have life. Jesus didn’t use any of those signs with the women at the well, but yet she believed that He was the Christ. This proves that someone could simply believe in Jesus for eternal life apart from any sign. Jesus would have already given the living water to her if she would have asked. But before she could ask she needed to know what she was asking for and that Jesus was the Christ the One who guaranteed she would never thirst.
The death and resurrection is the eighth sign and proves Jesus is the Christ, and is the means by which Jesus took away the sin of the world (John 1:29). That’s why sin is not the main issue death is! Sin is just a fruit of the main problem. Jesus gives the solution freely, eternal life which brings regeneration, justification, sanctification, imputed righteousness, forgiveness of sin!
But Jesus said because they do not believe in Me, the Spirit will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-11). We preach the cross to show Christ has paid for ALL sin and that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy proving He is the Christ. It pleased God through the foolishness of the message to save those who believe. That message is the cross, Christ crucified! But does that mean that someone can’t simply take Jesus at His promise of eternal life? No!!! The invitation is open to everyone to take of the water of life freely! So can we offer the living water freely just as Jesus did? Yes!!! But the majority of the time just as Jesus said “because they do not believe in Me” they need to be showed their sin problem and the solution “the cross.”
I do not represent GES or anyone else, but am speaking for myself.
alvin
Thanks for the encouragment guys, it means a lot.
ReplyDeletejp: "...consistently inconsistent!"
It's apparent to me that you plagiarized from Lou's first comment, I think you owe him an apology. ;-)
Art, so good to see you! I'm not the researcher that Rachel is -- but she has been busy debating atheists for the last couple of months -- so I took on contributing to her blog, made it "our" blog, and I'm hopeful I can provide some useful insight to the debate in my own way.
All: It occurred to me after writing the article to include that one reason I think they manifest this glaring inconsistency, and will have a hard time remedying it, is because claiming they always preach those details is a vital part of their smoke screen to appear more orthodox than they are. This pseudo-orthodoxy has, in my opinion, enabled them to sneak their message into churches (like mine). i.e. If they aligned their practice with their view, their unorthodoxy would be laid bare and many people and churches would withdraw support and shut them out.
It is my opinion that lead CFG proponents know this and tarry the moment of truth (publicly reconciling view with practice) until the obscurity no longer works to their advantage.
Stephen
Hello Alvin, thanks for your thoughts. I started writing my last comment before yours had posted so I didn't see it until afterward. I'm headed to bed now but will read your comments and carefully consider them in the morning.
ReplyDeleteStephen
Good morning. I am thankful for coffee... especially after blogging past midnight. Can anybody out there "amen" that? My caffeine injected engine is fully fueled and ready to race!
ReplyDeletealvin: "It pleased God through the foolishness of the message to save those who believe."
To those who believe what, the message? What was that message? Your very next sentence, "That message is the cross, Christ crucified!" indicates that you agree with me that the cross essentially IS the message in this passage. (My previous article was on exactly this passage, you may wish to read it -- here.
I found myself about ready to "amen" you but then you followed up your sound observation with "But does that mean that someone can’t simply take Jesus at His promise of eternal life? No!". Unless you believe there is more than one "message to save those who believe" then answering "no" is simply inconsistent.
alvin: "But the majority of the time just as Jesus said “because they do not believe in Me” they need to be showed their sin problem and the solution “the cross.”"
majority = "the greater part or number;"
rarely = "infrequently; seldom:"
The promise-only view is that Jesus rarely alluded to those things, so it is inconsistent to present them even a "majority" of the time when your view is that Jesus himself "rarely" did. That IS a contradiction of view vs. practice.
alvin: "We preach the cross to show Christ has paid for ALL sin and that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy proving He is the Christ."
That's very nice, those are fine (psycho)logical reasons to include that information and I'm glad you do. However, that practice contradicts your view -- "do what Jesus did" and "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism"
Tank's empty, in search of more coffee.
Stephen
Good Morning Stephen
ReplyDeleteSorry in my delay, just switched yesterday from my 10 weeks of night shift to 10 weeks of day shift and trying to adjust. But I copied and pasted your last comment and sent it to work last night to meditate upon. But will get back to you.
have a great day
alvin
No problem, Alvin. Thanks for the FYI.
ReplyDeleteI'm staring down the barrel of a long but boring project that's likely to keep me off the blogs most of the day anyway.
Stephen
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteNote of thanks to you for your input at Sharper Iron last week, and especially this week at Head of the Moor.
At Head of the Moor the egregious errors of the Crossless gospel, articulated by Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me) were fully exposed by his own comments.
I trust our efforts will further isolate and contain this teaching and protect unsuspecting believers from falling into the trap of the Crossless/Deityless gospel of the GES.
Please excuse the shameless plug, but I posted an article that somewhat summarizes what took place in the thread of Is This Heresy?
Your guests can read, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified and Affirmed!
Kind regards,
LM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAlvin, thanks for commenting. I moved the substance of your last comment to the comment section of the article it pertains to and will interact with you there about it.
ReplyDeleteStephen
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteAt his blog, Free Grace Free Speech, Jon Perreault, just published a thoroughly documented proof that the only thing “consistent” about the Grace Evangelical Society’s “ReDefined” Free Grace theology of the Crossless gospel is that it is “consistently” wrong and a radical departure from the biblical plan of salvation.
The title, Consistent Free Grace Evangelism?
In his article he links back to this excellent artilce.
Attempts are being made to legitimize the Crossless interpretation of the Gospel as an acceptable “nuance of doctrine.” The egregious errors of the new interpretation of the Gospel by Zane Hodges are so numerous it is preposterous to suggest that the Crossless gospel is anything other than a radical departure from the biblical plan of salvation.
The teaching of Hodges, which insists the lost man does not need to know, understand or believe in the Person and /or finished work of Jesus Christ is heresy of the first order. Sadly, some have been deceived and have gone on to perpetuate these heretical views.
The deity and finished work of Jesus Christ, according to some GES men must be “put on the back burner” in an evangelistic setting if the lost man objects to any of these truths. This is a practical denial of the truths Crossless advocates claim to hold dear and insist they preach consistently.
Another friend wrote, “What do you have left with all of this removed from the ‘kerugma’ of the Gospel? Practically nothing!”
The refining process of the GES has been “consistent,” in that it has consistently “ReDefined” the Gospel down to a Crossless & Deityless, non-saving proposition.
Calls for unity around the heresy of the Crossless gospel can only be accepted at the expense of treason against the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word, which forbids such unholy alliances.
LM
Hi Stephen:
ReplyDeleteIt has been my privilege to have known Dr. Lance Ketchum since 2002. He is well known in IFB circles through his ministry of Evangelism, Revival, Church Planting. He is a prolific writer on many important theological discussions.
He has just written an article that looks at the historical context of the current debates over the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You and your guests may like to read The Evolution of Soteriological Reductionism for a thorough and scholarly review of the history of how men have come to arrive at a Crossless gospel.
LM
CFG folks, it's simple -- if it's your view that we should "do what Jesus did", and "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism" (and that IS your view) how on earth do you justify that it's somehow consistent to claim it's "important/critical/essential" for anyone else to routinely do so?
ReplyDeleteIs this a serious argument? Many posting comments seem to think so.
For example, if Jesus was to be crucified as part of some master plan, would you expect him to make mention of it outside his disciples with much frequency until it actually occurred? Does the duration of Jesus' stay on earth and subsequent documentation of his words take up a large part of the Bible?
To say that the frequency in which RFG teaches the resurrection should be consistent with the time-line or frequency in which Jesus supposedly spoke of it in the Bible doesn't appear to be a rational argument.
If the CFG only told every 5th person about Jesus' resurrection, It's possible that only one in 5 people would think they believed the resurrection occurred. This simply appears to be an pedantic attempt to discredit the CFG.
However, this seems to be part of a bigger problem in which the Bible is not "really consistent" with the universe we find ourselves living in or the supposed properties and nature of God.
If God is perfect, why coudn't he simply forgive us instead of requiring a human sacrifice? If God is infinite, then why isn't he infinitely tolerant?
I reject the notion that a perfect being would require such a barbaric act to forgive us. Instead, it appears to be the evolution of ancient mythical themes by a culture that lacked understanding of physics, cosmology, etc.
And, if God has the will and ability to save us from our current situation, then why do we find ourselves needing salvation in the first place? Why did God wait millions of years to send his son, only to leave the issue unresolved for nearly 2,000 years?
These are significant problems which theism has yet to present "constant" answers.
[reposted to correct typos and add some add'l thoughts]
ReplyDeleteHello Scott. Thanks for dropping in. I don't know you but it seems you probably arrived here by following Rachel's profile from DC. I'm not Rachel but she's on the couch next to me and is responding to you as well.
You are apparently on the outside looking in and don't really understand the issue this article is discussing. Since you 1) don't have a dog in the fight, and 2) don't understand the issue in the first place, it seems to me that discussing the finer points of the "CFG/RFG" issue with you would be wasted time for both of us. Rachel may choose to engage you on this, I don't know, but I don't see the point of discussing something with you that you have no vested interest in actually seeing resolved.
We will discuss theism with you though, and I'm sure Rachel will engage on that. On that front your post doesn't bode well as you argue from outrage, assertion, and poisoning-the-well. In my experience that indicates that you're more interested in stirring the pot than actually seeking answers. I'm happy to be wrong on that and indeed hope you are willing to engage with intellectual honesty on the matter.
Regards,
Stephen
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. It appears you found my blog here from DC? Anyway, thanks for visiting.
Regarding the current debate that this article speaks to, you may not be fully aware of the details, which may be causing you some confusion. Essentially, the RFG/CFG people hold to the position that people do NOT need to know about or believe in the death or resurrection of Jesus in order to be saved and go to heaven. They think that all a person needs to believe is that Jesus can give them eternal life. This is an unorthodox position, to say the least.
One of the reasons the RFG folks give for this position is that since Jesus didn't talk about his death and resurrection (for the most part) when he was witnessing to people, that we don't have to either. However, they also maintain that telling folks about Jesus' death and resurrection is of highest priority and importance, and that they "always" do this. This article pointed out the inconsistency of such a view. If Jesus didn't bother telling people about his death and resurrection, then why would the RFGers find it so important that they feel compelled to tell everyone?
To say that the frequency in which RFG teaches the resurrection should be consistent with the time-line or frequency in which Jesus supposedly spoke of it in the Bible doesn't appear to be a rational argument.
Correct, that is what we are saying. It is the RFGers who think that we should "evangelize like Jesus" and do and say whatever he did and said. THEY are the ones who think we should be consistent with whatever Jesus said about his death and resurrection.
To your skeptical comments...
If God is perfect, why coudn't he simply forgive us instead of requiring a human sacrifice?
Because God is perfect. Being perfect includes perfect justice, and letting sin go without it being paid for would NOT be just at all, let alone perfectly just. Sin requires a "human" sacrifice because it was a "human" who sinned. A human sinned, so a human must pay.
If God is infinite, then why isn't he infinitely tolerant?
God himself is infinite, but that doesn't necessitate that all of his qualities be expressed at all times to an infinite degree. God cannot contradict his own nature, and his nature must include justice. Since infinite tolerance would preclude justice ever being appropriated, God simply cannot be inifinitely tolerant without contradicting his own nature, in which case he would cease to be God.
I reject the notion that a perfect being would require such a barbaric act to forgive us.
Do you consider it "barbaric" for someone to throw themselves on a grenade to save their fellow soldiers? Is it "barbaric" for a parent to jump in front of a speeding car to save their child? Why is Jesus' self-sacrifice considered "barbaric"? In any case, God simply requires that justice be done. Either we pay for our sin ourselves, or someone else pays for it in our place. This isn't a strange or unusual notion in any way.
Instead, it appears to be the evolution of ancient mythical themes...
Come now, you're not endorsing the Christ-myth, are you?
And, if God has the will and ability to save us from our current situation, then why do we find ourselves needing salvation in the first place?
Because he doesn't force it upon us, he wants it to be our choice. If we're just robots, what's the point?
Why did God wait millions of years to send his son, only to leave the issue unresolved for nearly 2,000 years?
First I don't agree with "millions of years", more like thousands. And second, it wasn't "unresolved". God had this planned from the beginning, it was merely a matter of it actually occurring in real time.
I see you haven't commented on this blog in a few days, but still I'm going to post here in hopes that you see it. I've been posting on Debunking Christianity as well, saw you there, and came over here.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of points. The essential ("simplest") gospel can be very powerful in the debate, not only because of what says, but for what it is and does. For starters it gets us off the red herring of Biblical errancy. Maybe you've seen my comment on D.C. before that Paul was converting Christians before the New Testament was written and he was converting gentiles that knew nothing of the Tanakh or if they did, thought little of it. What was going on?
That leads us to what the gospel is and it's not crossless. The gospel that came to me what that Jesus, a man who was God, was crucified for my sins and is risen. The gospel is something preached, not merely written down. The gospel is quick (alive) and powerful. The gospel is a person. Paul said I preach Christ and Him crucified, not I preach ABOUT Christ. The Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, knocked on the door of my heart to deliver the gospel to me (even though he might have used a man to preach it). Salvation is an experience, an encounter with Jesus Christ, not merely the acceptance of an historical fact, as if His death and resurrection were similar to Columbus discovering America in 1492.
There's a lot to say about this, but I'll try to make my 2nd point quickly, and that is we cannot allow atheists to push us into claiming primacy of the Bible over the Spirit. For starters, the Spirit is part of the Godhead, not the Bible. I worship the Spirit, I do not worship the Bible. The Spirit "inspired" the Bible, not vice versa. The point of Pentecost was to deliver to us the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who now dwells with us, not to shower us with copies of pocket sized Gideons. The letter kills, the Spirit giveth life. They are constantly harping about the Bible says this, the Bible says that, isn't that a contradiction? But I have the Spirit within me and need no one to teach me.
I read the Bible every day and it speaks to me but it was meant for Christians, those who can spiritually discern it, not atheists who can hardly consider it anything but foolishness.
OK, I've soap-boxed long enough. I am interested in your thoughts. May the Lord bless your efforts.
Hey Jeff, been meaning to get back to you for quite awhile.
ReplyDeleteI am thankful you realize the content of saving faith is not crossless. I agree that identifying the "simplest" gospel is very important, it has very practical ramifications on our evangelism to those with whom have limited communication. i.e. Children, the mentally handicapped, translation of the Gospel to new languages... and on and on.
The problem, and a point of this article, is that If I take the Redefined Free Grace position to it's logical conclusion, there's no reason to mention sin unless the other guy brings it up. There's no reason to mention Christ's death unless the other guy brings it up. There's no reason to mention Christ's resurrection unless the other guy brings it up. Redefined FG people will object at this point with "Misconception! We ALWAYS tell'em that stuff!". The very point of this article is to ask the obvious question... why would they do that and risk confusing someone with doctrinal items that can get very complex if they truly believe such items are optional? It makes sense that Redefined FG would bring these things up as needed, but to bring'em up defacto flies in the face of their own reasoning.
To your second point: You make a good point that the Spirit, not the Bible, is a person of the Godhead. Nevertheless the Bible is the primary method God chose to reveal specifics about himself throughout the generations.
You said: "I read the Bible every day and it speaks to me but it was meant for Christians, those who can spiritually discern it, not atheists who can hardly consider it anything but foolishness."
I think the Bible is for both; it is where God revealed and preserved the Gospel and the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for the lost. In this way the Bible is undoubtedly for the lost. The bible is also for Christians as you have pointed out.
The spirit on the other hand is a complete enigma to the unsaved. They can't see it, taste it, touch it, measure it, or compare it. We tell skeptics that the Spirit changed our lives and that doesn't mean anything to them... except to confirm (in their mind) that we're suffering from "God Delusion" ala Richard Dawkins.
The Spirit is enigmatic among Christians as well. Consider that if someone says "the Spirit told me such and such" that my only objective standard to measure that claim is the Bible. If we allow ourselves to think the Spirit takes precedence "over" the Bible then we open a Pandora's box where personal experience can be elevated over objective truth.
I'm not diminishing the Spirit but neither will I diminish the Bible that the very Spirit we are discussing was instrumental in inspiring. The two are somewhat married as the Bible is arguably the most tangible evidence of the Spirit working through men to reveal God.
Stop in any time.
What I find interesting is that it sounds like advocates of the "Crossless Gospel" are using the same faulty argument as Lordship Salvationists use (i.e. just tell them what Jesus told them). It seems to be the all-too-common fallacy of thinking that the "red letters" trump the progressive revelation that the Holy Spirit gave to the apostles after Jesus' ascension that further clarified what we are to believe and how we are to live in this post-Crucifixion and Resurrection time.
ReplyDelete