Rose's Reasonings

Monday, July 23, 2007

I say how I feel about things on Unashamed of Grace.

44 Comments:

That's what I like about you Rose - you are genuinely seeking the truth. That is has clout with me. ;-)

By Daniel, at 7/23/2007 2:58 PM
Good Rose, I appreciate your thoughts over at UOG . . .

By Anonymous, at 7/23/2007 4:42 PM
Thanks Rose,

As most of UOG readers know, I am not a contributor, but a reader and an occasional commenter on this Blog.

I appreciate Antonio's discerning postings against the lie of Calvinism and the expose' of lordship or commitment salvation. I have battled these teachings for many years and was thrilled to see someone else posting with such discernment. I told him so.

However, I agree with your assessment of his recent posts on some of the teachings of Hodges.

In fact, I had "Unashamed of Grace" on my Blogroll with the link to it. Recently, however, I felt it only appropriate to leave the UOG name but remove the link.

I continue to appreciate Antonio for his zeal for souls and his stand against Calvin and lordship salvation.. but I could not in good conscience recommend the blog to my readers, because of his recent teaching.

I am just too narrow-minded. Rose, (and David for stirring the pot) thanks for the honesty, intestinal fortitude and courage you exhibit with this post.

Methinks that straining at a gnat has just about choked the brilliance of Unashamed of Grace.

It won't change the world for Christ but after reading your post, I will consider re-linking to the UOG Blog.

In Christ eternally by God's Grace and my choice to trust Jesus, my Savior alone for it,

ExP(Jack)

By Anonymous, at 7/23/2007 4:57 PM
Hi Rose,

I've not read your post on UOG yet, but I can almost imagine how you feel. I seem to be having my own problems with some reformed brethern and their ecclesiological and eschatological views (I am more of a dispensationalist) I pray that the Lord will give you wisdom and grace in the coming days and weeks.May Christ bless thee, my sister.

By Scribe, at 7/23/2007 6:43 PM
Rose, you ROCK!

your sister in Christ,

angela

By Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 1:13 AM
Daniel,
How nice to know you like us here at RR. So you are seeker sensitive? (heehee)

Thanks, Bobby and Angela!

Thanks, expreacherman!

Scribe,
Where is this going on? I would like to read the controversy. ;~)
God bless you, too.

By Rose~, at 7/24/2007 11:35 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Antonio, at 7/24/2007 6:07 PM
Rose,

I am afraid that "feel" is the operative word.

Last night in class we were discussing the "at-will" interpretation found in many home bible studies today. The group facilitator asks around the room:

"What does this verse say to you? What do you think it means? How does this make you feel?"

The context was the "complimentary hermeneutic" of Progressive Dispensationalism, but it can be equally applicable in this case. My teacher quoted the late Henry Morris saying that such a practice is "a pooling of ignorance".

This is something that you really must think about:

You said you read Tom Stegal and Lou Martuneac's comments and responses. In both of Tom's articles, he does not provide a single biblical argument or exposition of scripture that proves his point. Yet you were on an ecstatic high, testifying, "Amen! Amen!"

He rather quotes from the teachings of men. This is no different than the Calvinists and Reformed people referencing the Westminster Confession instead of the Bible when they make their arguments.

Furthermore, Lou Martuneac does the same thing. He was all assertion without a shred of support. He balked, he charged, he condemned, but if you read him carefully, in ALL of his words, he does not express a single biblical argument for his charge of heresy. Yet you found yourself in much agreement with what he said.

This should be quite telling. A red flag should go immediately up! But let me tell you why the red flag does not go up: it is the result of being set in one's ways, being reactionary based upon one's feelings on the matter and one's tradition. Questioning someone's feelings and tradition offends deeply, and many times our reactions stem, not from sense and logic, but from the recesses of our affections. To question our feelings that stem from our set ways and tradition is to question those stalwarts who handed them down to us!

When my brother first got saved, he used to come around family gatherings and talk about Jesus in a way we were not accustomed to. We come from a very traditional Portuguese Roman Catholic background. Our traditional set-ways made us all immediately reactionary to him. We didn't have a substantive response to him. We said that his teaching was against what we felt was the One True Church.

He was ready to show scripture and support what he said, but becuase of our handed down traditions, which we will fight for on an emotional playing field, we were not willing to truly consider any case that he would have made.

And that is the rub: when we are set in our ways and traditions having them handed down to us by those who we trust and love, we are immediately disposed and inclined to be reactionary when one questions our feelings, and as a result, we are close minded, stiff-necked, and hard-hearted, not willing to even consider the evidence. Instead we will respond with our emotions rather than substance.

I believe that the scenario with my brother has many parallels to this current situation.

People must remove themselves from their "feelings" and emotions, and look at the issues dispassionately. They must allow the arguments and expositions of scripture to be truly considered.

I have been guilty of reactionism based upon my feelings, emotion, and traditions. I have been guilty of close-mindedness and a unwillingness to consider someone else's appeals.

But we must guard against this at all price. What we reject and dismiss without truly considering, blinded by our emotions and tradition, may very well be the truth. It is true for the Calvinist, and true to the FGer.

Why do we believe as we do? If we cannot withstand question of our beliefs, or if they cannot hold up under scrutiny, the basis for those beliefs are weak. If we cannot give a well-reasoned argument in favor of what we believe (in disagreement with Bobby Grow) these beliefs are not justified.

Beliefs and positions ought not to be based upon "how we feel" but upon a considerate appeal to the Scriptures.

Your forever brother,

Antonio

By Antonio, at 7/24/2007 6:11 PM
Dear ExPreacherman:

You wrote, "I continue to appreciate Antonio for his zeal for souls and his stand against Calvin and lordship salvation.. but I could not in good conscience recommend the blog to my readers, because of his recent teaching."

I, like you, have battled Lordship Salvation for many years.

I am saddened that Antonio, Hodges and a few others in the FG camp have adopted this polarizing teaching, commonly known as the "crossless" gospel.

Although I did not always appreciate the way in which Antonio addressed the Lordship and Calvinism issues, he did bring pressure to bear on those extra and unbibical teachings.

This new position that has come to light has pretty much negated much of the effectiveness he had, and any he might have had in the future.

One must always strive to keep a balance in their theolgy. The "crossless" gospel demonstrates a loss of balance.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 7/24/2007 6:37 PM
Antonio:

This is the third site/thread you have posted the same lengthy comments.

I have asked/encouraged you before, and again I ask you to please try and focus in on one site, you are a bouncing blogerball.

And for the third time I have to repost this to your attention.

You wrote, "Furthermore, Lou Martuneac does the same thing. He was all assertion without a shred of support. He balked, he charged, he condemned, but if you read him carefully, in ALL of his words, he does not express a single biblical argument for his charge of heresy. Yet you found yourself in much agreement with what he said."

What you wrote (I put in bold) is the kind of recklessness that gets you banned at other sites.  If I did use the word "heresy," I will acknowledge it. At this time I don't recall having used the word.  If you can't produce that quotation from me, then publicly withdraw it.   LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 7/24/2007 6:44 PM
Lou,

I can't speak for Rose, but on my other blogs, if you are going to post on them again, you will refrain from the disingenuous, pejorative, and totally inaccurate label of my theology.

I will not hold my breath waiting for you to give up one of your favorite "theological cuss words." If my position were as weak as yours, I wouldn’t give it up either.

It is reprehensible that you come over here and deal out that grotesquely erroneous and deliberately misleading verbiage.

Your label has been a very convenient cudgel with which to bludgeon your theological opponents whose attributes and theology offend you. But make no mistake about it, such activity will be given account for at Christ's Bema.

And furthermore, to address your question. You do not have to use the word to imply it. My comment (that you have charged me with heresy) is a summation of your charges against me.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you consider my position that the cross and resurrection are not the conscious and necessary objects/content to saving faith, and my position that a man may be born again apart from an understanding of Christ's death for sin, is heresy:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
her·e·sy /ˈhɛrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[her-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

By Antonio, at 7/24/2007 7:09 PM
Antonio:

LIke it or not, the label, "crossless" gospel came into being partially because of how Hodges has defined his position.

In the early days of the Lordship controversy (1988-ff.), probably too far back for you to have been aware of or involved in the debate, John MacArthur and men I dealt with personally, detested the term "Lordship Salvation." In recent years they have come to accept and embrace the label.

The term, "LS" was coined because of how the position was in part being defined. The same is true with how the "crossless" gospel label came about.

In your post above, you wrote, "...my position that the cross and resurrection are not the conscious and necessary objects/content to saving faith, and my position that a man may be born again apart from an understanding of Christ's death for sin."

Here is Hodges, "I have heard people say this: 'In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.' . . . . usually implied is the idea that Christ's work on the cross is sufficient to provide for our salvation... Let me be honest, I don't like this way of presenting a gospel invitation.” (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 11)

That kind of reasoning lead to the label, "crossless" gospel, which I did not coin, but will use as I believe it is fitting.

LM

PS: Am I going to have to follow you and post this at three sites?

By Lou Martuneac, at 7/25/2007 12:45 AM
Antonio:

It appears you will be deleting posts in their entirety, where you have that authority to do so, over a single menton of the term "crossless" gospel.

IMO, cencorship by omission is a "dangerous" thing.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 7/25/2007 1:06 AM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you consider my position that the cross and resurrection are not the conscious and necessary objects/content to saving faith, and my position that a man may be born again apart from an understanding of Christ's death for sin, is heresy

I can't speak for Lou, but I for one do think the crossles gospel advocated by you and the extremists of the Grace Evangelical Society is a most dangerous heresy.
****************************

Hi Rose,

I thought your post was very good. I also do not think it was the post of one on "an ecstatic high" as you have been accused of.

By Gojira, at 7/25/2007 5:58 AM
Antonio is wrong . . . Rose is right.

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 2:28 PM
"Antonio is wrong . . . Rose is right."

Bobby done tole it like it is! Amen, brother. Amen.

By Gojira, at 7/25/2007 2:37 PM
Doug,

I knew you were not really going to quit blogging.

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 2:44 PM
"I knew you were not really going to quit blogging."

What can I say, excellent posts like Rose's, excellent comments like your on various threads concerning this topic -- ya'll keeping the amen corner on their toes.

By Gojira, at 7/25/2007 3:06 PM
It's important for everyone to see that Zane Hodges believes most people will not come to Christ until they first understand the Cross. Here's Zane in his own words:

(Begin quote) But more often than not, we have difficulty leading them to Christ, unless we lead them through the full gospel message. The gospel message is normally the avenue through which men and women come to understand why they can trust completely in the Savior. To be sure, trust in Christ can occur without a knowledge of the cross, but more often than not it doesn’t. The message of the cross clarifies God’s way of salvation.

On a very practical level, when I am dealing with an unsaved person, I find that if I simply tell him he only needs to believe in Christ, this usually doesn’t make sense to him. Why should it be so easy? Why are not works required? To the unregenerate American mind, it doesn’t sound reasonable.

So I find it not only useful, but indeed essential, to explain that the Lord Jesus Christ bought our way to heaven by paying for all our sins. In recent years I have liked to emphasize that He paid for all the sins we would ever commit from the day of our birth to the day of our death. This serves to stress the completeness of the payment He made. It is usually only in the light of so perfect a payment that people can come to see the reasonableness of a salvation that is absolutely free.

I say to people, “Jesus paid it all” and there is nothing left for you to do or to pay. All you have to do is believe in Him for the free gift of everlasting life.

One of my favorite illustrations goes like this: If a friend bought you a Rolls Royce and paid for it in full and offered it to you as a free gift, wouldn’t he be hurt, or even insulted, if you insisted on paying for it yourself? In the same way, if we try to do or pay something to go to heaven, even though Jesus paid it all, aren’t we insulting His great sacrifice and treating it as if it were not enough?

Most unsaved people can understand that point, even if they don’t believe its true. The Savior’s work on the cross thus becomes a powerful argument that He should be trusted for eternal life.

And apart from the cross, for most modern Americans, the offer of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, just doesn’t compute. Even after hearing it, it still may not compute. But by offering the truth of the gospel to people, we give the Holy Spirit something to work with in their hearts. And in the final analysis, it is only the Spirit of God who can sweep away the blindness of the human heart so that the glorious light of the gospel of Christ may shine into unsaved hearts.

Nevertheless, let it never be forgotten: If anyone has faith in Jesus as the One who secures his or her eternal destiny, that person is born of God. Jesus has never yet failed anyone who trusted in His name for eternal salvation. And He never will. (end quote)

Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ Part 1, JOTGES, Vol. 13:25, 2000).

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 3:40 PM
Rose,
I'd be interested in your answer to Gayla's question over at Unashamed of Grace.

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 3:47 PM
Oh my Rose! Unseemly and ecstastic all in one thread! I'm gonna have to keep an eye on you for sure!

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 4:15 PM
"It's important for everyone to see that Zane Hodges believes most people will not come to Christ until they first understand the Cross."

Then Zane Hodges should not be promoting the crossles gospel that he does. I read through both parts 1 & 2 of his articles today. But I am not going to get into it about it here.

By Gojira, at 7/25/2007 4:31 PM
It is exactly the unsubstantive wall-flowers around here to congregate on a single expression of my posts "ecstatic" to the dismissal of the rest.

By Antonio, at 7/25/2007 5:40 PM
I didn't see anything substantial to comment on, Antonio, other than your ignorant use of "ecstatic high." Rose is your friend, Antonio, yet I would wager that many people would have seen what you wrote as arrogent. You make it evident how you treat everybody else who doesn't agree with you, but Rose is your friend. And it is a total shame to see you treat your friend in that manner. You should be ashamed of yourself Antonio, but I saddly do not think you have that ability.

By Gojira, at 7/25/2007 6:09 PM
Doug,

Your comment is shameful. It reveals your pride and arrogance. Why do you dare to speak such ill? Why do you insist to drive a wedge between Rose and I that is not there? Does it make you feel better to bring me low?

Convince me of sin. What I said was reasoned and needed to be said in the same way that what Rose felt needed to be expressed by her.

ecstatic:
adjective
feeling great rapture or delight

I pointed out that the operative word in her assessment of my position was "feel". As she read gentlemen who:

1)Did not give a biblical argument
2)Used proof-texting
3)Quoted fallible men
4)Merely balked, charged, and gnashed their teeth about something they continue to mischaracterize

her feelings were appealed to. She said within herself "Amen, Amen!". She obviously felt great delight as she read these men as they pummelled my position without so much as a substantive argument, let alone one that was biblically considered.

I point out that beliefs and positions ought not to be based upon "how we feel" but upon a considerate appeal to the Scriptures. But you charge me with arrogance. I explain that I have done the same thing, but I am arrogant.

Deny that Rose based her whole post on how she "felt". This is the title of her post.

You wish to drive a wedge between me and Rose. If you asked me why I felt you do this, I would tell you the reason I feel you are doing so is because your own position is weak, and you wish to make the "enemy" of your enemy your friend so as to hurt me more. But I am not going to rely on feelings. I would rather appeal to the evidence of human nature, and/or carnal Christianity.

Physician. Heal thyself!

Antonio

By Antonio, at 7/25/2007 6:55 PM
Rose, I think I'll just stick to emailing ya! Let's see now I'm an unsubstantive wallflower and an outsider trying to cause trouble!

But as far as feelings go - I remember way back, a long time ago, when I was in youth group a minister tried to tell me that God chose everyone who was ever going to be saved. That really didn't feel right to me, but I didn't know enough about the Bible to prove why it was wrong. I was dismissed by this minister as not wanting to believe the Bible and instead only wanting to trust my feelings. Well, I went on never really accepting that view of "election" until a few years ago my husband and I were thrown into a youth camp where 5 point Calvinism was being taught. Fortunately, my husband did know why Calvinism is wrong and I've since learned a lot. I love my Bible and I love my God. I know my redeemer liveth and no matter what I may or may not do when I die I will be with Him in heaven. It's not about who I am or what I do, but who HE is and what HE's done.

So here I am the unsubstantive wallflower lurking around these blogs and I've come across something new. Doesn't feel right. Does that mean it's wrong? Not necessarily. Does it mean I'm wrong for thinking it sounds wrong? Nope. Just means I don't know everything and I still have a lot to learn. I think God intended for the Bible to not be so simple that people won't get all prideful and arrogant and make ridiculous statements like "when I get to heaven I'm going to teach a theology course." The only theology course I want is the one Jesus is gonna be teaching. And this is just a feeling, but I kinda think God is going to be passing out the assignments in heaven, not us picking and choosing. I certainly don't want to spend eternity at the foot of someone who showed such little humilty in life. Now unfortunatley, I too have a little problem with pride so am I likely to pay attention to what a person who has been shown to have treated a friend poorly and instead of apologizing still feels the need to defend himself and call complete strangers names? Nope not really.

But saying Antonio teaches a crossless gospel when you know it unhinges him so much and doing it on more than one blog....not nice.

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 7:33 PM
Yes, Antonio are I are fiends, I mean friends.

Everyone just needs to use a little less words for now.

Thanks for the post, Danny. I think this issue has gotten lost in too many words.

Antonio is my friend even though I disagree with him. I did not take offense at anything he has said. His word "ecstatic high" is fine. It is how he imagined I was perceiving the article when I said it made me say "amen and amen."

Ohmmmmmm.....

By Rose~, at 7/25/2007 7:56 PM
Okay Rose. :-)

By Gojira, at 7/25/2007 8:08 PM
Thank you, Gojira. :~)

By Rose~, at 7/25/2007 8:36 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 8:44 PM
Antonio,

I see you've got the dovecote stirred up. Run while you can, my friend. (Hehehe)

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 8:46 PM
Sorry Rose if my defense was over zealous. I'll stick to beating up on the dead guys!

By Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 9:02 PM
dove·cote /ˈdʌvˌkoʊt/ Pronunciation[duhv-koht]
–noun
1. a structure, usually at a height above the ground, for housing domestic pigeons.

—Idiom
2. flutter the dovecotes, to cause a stir in a quiet or conservative institution or group: The flamboyant manner of the tourists fluttered the dovecotes of the sleepy New England town.

I just love dictionary.com!

Antonio

By Antonio, at 7/25/2007 10:35 PM
Thank you bro. Danny for including that quote from bro. Hodges. I listened to that mp3 that bro. Don Reiher posted over at Jeremy Myers' blog of bro. Hodges where you extracted that quote. I really appreciate bro. Hodges' words there. I do not see him promoting a crossless gospel, & it certainly is not heresy. I would rather he placed even more emphasis on the cross rather than less, but I see that he is majoring on a person believing in the Christ who DID die & was raised for our justification. I must say that I am still somewhat uncomfortable with all this what I call the bare minimum, but I want to check myself out and see why it makes me so. Maybe it is ME that is wrong, and I want to be sure. I want to thank Rose for being so transparent and I also want to belatedly say hey to her! Bro. Antonio is a blessing to me too, & I appreciate the way that you have responded to his passionate defense of his beliefs, Rose. I am just so thankful to be a part of such a fine grace community. May the Lord bless you all.

By David Wyatt, at 7/25/2007 10:44 PM
Thanks Rose. Thanks David.

Rose, as you saw, Hodges always presents the Cross. When he said that he has a problem with the presentation of Jesus dying for sins, he is referring to people who end their message at that point, don't mention the freeness of eternal life, and who are otherwise unclear. Here's the quote in its greater context.

(Begin Quote) Most of the time people who say you are saved by believing that Jesus died on the cross mean that He died for our sins. Indeed the phrase "for your sins" is often added. But even with that addition, there is still unspoken material that the person usually has in mind.

They usually mean to say, for example, that this belief in Christ’s death is all that is necessary for salvation. Thus they are normally proclaiming salvation by faith alone. Also unspoken, but usually implied, is the idea that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to provide for our salvation. Thus they mean to say that we are trusting in the sufficiency of His work of atonement.

Let me be honest. I don’t like this way of presenting a gospel invitation.

But before I go further, I also want to say that I believe that this kind of presentation has been used by God to the actual salvation of souls. But that doesn’t make it the best way of reaching people or making the truth plain to them (end quote)

(How to Lead People to Christ Part 2, JOTGES, Vol 14:26, 2001).

See Rose, Zane has a problem with the message ending at Jesus' Death without a clear presentation of the freeness of eternal life. Zame admits that FG people who evangelize in this way are in fact trying to get people to see that Jesus is enough, but the problem is they are not being clear enough. Yet, as this quote shows, Zane agrees that many have been saved by that presentation, because they understood that Jesus is sufficient, despite the lack of clarity. Hodges' concern is for those listeners who many not get it as easily. Therefore, Hodges takes the Biblical approach - Proclaim Jesus' Death and Resurrection, and make it clear that as a result He freely gives eternal life to those who believe in Him for eternal life.

By Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 12:27 AM
Bro. Danny,

Thanks. If that is all that is being said, I am fine with it. But I can surely see why someone would react whan they think the cross is being minimized in importance. The thing for me is this. From the very beginning, & I mean THE beginning, a blood sacrifice has been absolutely necessary to forgive our sins & believe me, I know that I am sinful enough that this is what I desperately need. Jesus rebuked Peter sharply for trying to get Him around the cross & Jesus made it absolutely clear that this is why He came the 1st time, to die for our wicked sins, of whom I know I am among the neediest of all. So, I am so thankful that He came & fulfilled all the Scriptures concerning that sacrifical death that is completely sufficient because HE is! Praise His name I have trusted in Him for eternal life & therefore I know I have it. So, for me, the cross must be emphasized, but the Christ of that cross must be exalted above all, because He IS the Name above all names. As I said, I am thankful to be a part of a grace commumity that does just this.

By David Wyatt, at 7/26/2007 8:25 AM
About Hodges not preaching a crossless "gospel".
There is a tract he wrote with Bob Bryant called "You Can Be Eternally Secure".
Unless the content has changed,and if I remeber correctly, there is nothing about the cross in this tract that "is to be used in evangelism".

Have any of you read this? If so, why no cross? I thought it was presented anyway?

By Nate, at 7/26/2007 9:01 AM
tjp,
dovecote is a great word!

Danny,
Thanks for the quote. It is helpful.

Nate,
I am interested in how the others will answer your question.

By Rose~, at 7/26/2007 4:48 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Antonio, at 7/26/2007 4:50 PM
Nate,

There surely is a difference between doing evangelism, IOW preaching the gospel, and writing a tract.

Whenever Zane does evangelism, he presents the cross, and many other things. I am taking him at his word for it. He discusses in those mp3's ,that Danny and David are talking about, how he does evangelism, and he clearly goes into great detail and illustration of the cross of Christ for sin.

The tract follows the basis of its title, "You can be eternally secure!" Within the tract itself there are over a half dozen quotes of Jesus, relating His promises, all concerning eternal security. There are alot of people in the churches today who are not eternally secure, yet know that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose again from the dead. People need to be eternally secure! Certain assurance is the bedrock foundation that the Christian sets out on his walk. He does it out of gratitude.

Not as the calvinist, to make his calling and election sure, to persevere so that he can, in the end, obtain final salvation.

Not as the arminian, to maintain his salvation, otherwise he could lose it.

But walk with Christ out of appreciation of the incredible gift He has bestowed upon us.

I hope that answers your question.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 7/26/2007 4:52 PM
Antonio,

It just seems very odd to me that someone would claim that they DO present the cross of Christ when they do evangelism, but they don't present the cross in the tracts they write for "evangelistic" purposes?

By Nate, at 7/26/2007 8:43 PM
Nate,

It seems to me that you want to be attributing some disingenuousness to Zane. I have no reason to doubt him.

I wouldn't say that those tracts can't be used for evangelism, they do share with men the core message concerning the terms of receiving everlasting life.

But I would give Zane the benefit of the doubt. The tract follows the purpose of its title. It is a treatise on eternal security.

It seems rather clear to me that it is a mini-booklet, tract, that has for its purpose relating the incontrovertible promises of Christ by which we may be assurred of eternal security. I have bought these tracts on several occasions and have handed them out to Christians, and also to those whom I have preached the gospel to.

I don't know if you have noticed, but there are alot of churched people out there who are not sure of their eternal destiny. This tract is a good peice, not only giving the promises of Christ, but offering a simple explanation and commentary to each of those passages.

Men and women need to know that they can be eternally secure, certain that they have irrevocable eternal life.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 7/26/2007 9:07 PM
Rose:

I'm not trying to bust or invade your site, but I do not have your private e-mail address. I believe you will agree that what I am sharing below is important for ever Bible-believing Christian to be informed of.

I am referring to a doctrinal position on the far extreme end of the Easy-Believism side of the Lordship Salvation / Easy-Believism theological pendulum swing. The position I refer to has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel.

This morning an article has been posted at my blog that addresses an important matter in the “Crossless” gospel controversy.

Pastor Tom Stegall has become an important participant in the debate over this new and disconcerting interpretation of the Gospel. Pastor Stegall authored this important article that is now the lead item at my blog.

If you have read anything about what has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel you will have learned that this position is being taught primarily by Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. Bob Wilkin is the Executive Director of the Grace Evangelical Society.

Later this week there will be a new series that addresses not only the Zane Hodges “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel, but will speak to some of the false paradigms “Crossless” advocates utilize in the debate. A man who has been very involved in the discussions is developing this series.

Visit my blog In Defense of the Gospelif you have an interest in this important discussion.

I am confident these articles will help define the “Crossless” gospel debate, but also provided the biblical answers to this departure from a balanced position on the Gospel of Grace.

Yours faithfully,

Lou Martuneac

By Lou Martuneac, at 8/06/2007 7:10 PM
The debate continues

By Anonymous, at 6/03/2008 11:49 PM

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele

Monday, July 23, 2007

How I Feel About Things

44 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask Hungry/6 - Jodie The Stumbling Block - Bobby Sanc's Blog - Michele

Monday, July 23, 2007

How I Feel About Things

44 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele