Hi All,
Within this site there are discussions that have erupted about the character and actions of individuals. Personally I have often been embarrassed and saddened for some of the folks who have said some of the things they’ve said. Often it turns out to be a discussion of Ad Hominem assaults rather than staying on the point. I posted an exhortation and got some divergent responses. So, I though I’d try to be clearer and see what happens. Tell me what you think!
Thanks,
Fred Lybrand
…………………………………………..
Thank you both for your comments…I totally understand them. As a pastor for 23 years your divergent responses work just about like a sermon does. A sermon is preached to a large group…and every time (virtually) people hear different things. Not long ago I gave a sermon about how I felt there was a spirit of conceit in our church (focusing on Gal 6:3 as the cure). Well, I don’t think I’ve ever had such a divergent set of responses. People were writing the elders and me / wanting meetings, etc….and saying two things:
1. You should be banned from the pulpit because you’re wrong, we aren’t conceited, we are wonderful.
2. You are awesome…the first pastor I’ve ever seen willing to actually tell the truth. It is a disease in our church and you helped set a cure in motion.
The point is I both (a) know of specific examples; and (b) have all of us in mind.
You two are a perfect illustration. I have one hopeful and one in tears (finally). Wow. My hope is that you would both be hopeful and in tears! 
J, my post is not a ‘mediation’ or effort at mediating. If I wanted to do that I would get the parties together.
G, though you are encouraged by the message, I hope you weren’t excluding yourself from the point.
……………..
I’m somewhat new to this community chatting through blogs, but I can tell you all the cure for the frustration and vitriol. The cure is to get off of each other. Get on to the point. Think, debate, look at the text, use logic, use a helpful illustration, stay on the issue.
Maybe the ‘other guys ARE evil’ (I’m sure some of them are)…but why are we all busy putting ourselves in the place of God in judging (see Rom 14 and James 5)?
I say it this way sometimes— If a bum on the street comes up to you and tells you your tie doesn’t match (or your shoes), you can ignore him because he is a bum. However, just because he is a bum, why does that mean he’s wrong?
I sit in this strange spot of not only not knowing how evil the the “other side is”, but I’ve also been ground fine by the Lord. I still think people are in great error (and yes, my blood can boil). But God has said the issue is especially the doctrine, teaching, logic, opinions, theories, hypotheticals, and facts themselves.
So, what you have rather than a ‘mediation’ is an exhortation. PLEASE, how about giving OCTOBER over to be the NATIONAL AD VERITAS blogging month. We take one month and we blog about information and not about people. It’s a bit of an experiment—what might happen?
Frankly, maybe Jim is a heretic…frankly I don’t know yet :-0! But I know I’d really like to just understand where he is coming from…and then try to invited him to reconsider a few things if necessary.
I can always attack him as a heretic and smear him all over the known world later.
You know, I had the same thing happen with my Open Letter about Zane.
http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf
I had people say I was mean and others say I bent over backwards to be gracious. What I was really trying to do is understand and analyze the facts adn the text. I came to conclusions and I offered them; and yet, to this day, I have had no one even attempt to help me reconsider my key arguments…I just saw a lot of ’sound and fury’.
I think we Christians are kind of copying the news media— like we wake up every day and we are on Crossfire or Nancy Grace. Of course, we could have gotten it from Martin Luther and his attacks on the Pope as the Anti-Christ. We spout a lot of opinion, and pardon me, a lot of vitriol.
If we need to call out individuals for their error then I get it (Paul certainly did on occasion); however, I’d plead that we stay on the argument and make use of reason and insight about the text…that is where things are won or lost.
So, there’s my exhortation. It is for me mostly…and if it splashes and you pick up the cause and give it a try…then I guess it might have been for you too!
Grace and Peace,
Fred Lybrand
Open Letter to Dr Fred Lybrand
http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-dr-fred-lybrand_2899.html
GOE
Hi Fred,
This is a good idea! “Biblically speaking,” I have an “evangelical atheist” who reads my blog, and so “Veritas Month” does protect innocent bystanders (as in the letter of the law, an outward circumcision). I am seriously hopeful that there could also be a “circumcision of the heart” so there is religion with the Father in this month. How much different is it to God if we conceive ill thoughts for one another in our heart but just don’t say it aloud for awhile? But there is still much, much good just with this. Thanks for burning the midnight oil for the sake of your brothers and sisters!!
God bless you!
Michele
Dear Fred:
I appreciate the effort in what you are trying to accomplish here.
The following was originally posted and still appears in your ReDux companion discussion thread. As you are aware that thread has a major technical issue with submissions going just about anywhere, but the end of the thread. I any event, after reading this article from you I think it belongs just as nicely here.
Here you wrote:
“If we need to call out individuals for their error then I get it (Paul certainly did on occasion); however, I’d plead that we stay on the argument and make use of reason and insight about the text…that is where things are won or lost.”
That is good and I will follow Paul’s example here by arguing from the text, i.e. Scriptures against error. I trust you will appreciate this Bible based polemic.
In the ReDux companion discussion thread this was posted by Gary, “I’m starting to see God’s hand in all this, because we know how much He values love and reconciliation between brothers and sisters and (sic) Christ.”
What does the Bible say in 2 Thess. 3:15; Titus 3:10; Romans 16:17-18 respectively:
“Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.”
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
Gary’s idea of “reconciliation” certainly is not what God would have in this specific controversy over the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Gary and GES people want brothers in Christ (including those who recognize the heresy of the Crossless gospel) to ignore the GES reductionist assault on the cosf introduced to the New Testament church by the late Zane Hodges. GES sympathizers call on fellow believers to ignore the GES assaults on the Gospel as if they are a mere “nuance of doctrine.”
When confronted with gross errors (on a major doctrine) those who propagate the errors, refuse correction and will not repent of their errors God’s word has a better answer than Gary. Those Bible answers I have posted above. It is never “God’s hand in” anything when His Word is being compromised for the facade of unity.
Does God desire love and unity among the brethren? Certainly, but not at the expense of disobeying His biblical mandates for how believers are to deal with brethren who are corrupting the Scriptures. I’ll take Paul’s Holy Spirit inspired instruction and obey those mandates.
We all can pray for the recovery and repentance of the GES Crossless/Promise-ONLY advocates! In the meantime, however, we MUST “admonish, reject, mark and avoid” them, which is God’s mandated course of action.
We must pray for the recovery and repentance of the GES sympathizers and ALL those deceived by the “contrary” doctrine of the GES gospel. We must do all we can to warn and protect the unsuspecting lest they fall into the trap of the GES Crossless & Deityless gospel. We must expose and resist the promotion of ecumenical compromise coming from the friend of the Crossless gospel advocates.
In the words of Paul from the Inspired Commentary,
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (Acts 20:28-31).
See- Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples
In conclusion: Gary’s plea for “reconciliation,” under present circumstances, does not pass the test of Scripture. His appeal can not pass the test of Scripture no more than the Crossless gospel can, which is the source of and reason for division and offense.
LM
Lou,
While i appreciate your burden and concern over the magnitude of an issue like the nature of the gospel…I don’t yet have the same experience with these folks as you describe. I certainly feel like I’ve been attacked (at times) and feel like they are mistaken on the issue of the gospel; but, I don’t yet see them explaining the gospel in the same way they believe. That would certainly make a difference in my own understanding.
Additionally, I do know that the passage in Acts 20 is referring to the Elders of the church in Ephesus. Much of the issue concerning error and accountability is a local church issue. I really don’t know about all of the folks promoting the various views (e.g. the GES Gospel), and I certainly think we can engage in calling into question their misunderstandings (errors?). But it is still the duty of the local church to be the pillar and mainstay of truth.
Yet, we aren’t really in an authoritative relationship to hold them accountable. Nor, would I want them trying to hold me doctrinally accountable from afar. Of course, this is just my view, but I have high hopes that these folks are in churches…and yet, I’d be very surprised if the leaders in ANY church understood what some of these folks believe about the cross / resurrection and supported them in it.
The internet certainly complicates these issues.
Hope this helps with understanding my viewpoint and personal struggles with all of this (as well as the people involved),
FRL
Addendum to my extended comment above: By way of clarification- It is no secret that Gary is himself another who has adopted and propagates the GES Crossless gospel. It is little wonder then that he calls for other believers to unify with GES people. Of course to do what Gary pleads for can only be done at the expense of abandoning fidelity to the Scriptures that plainly forbid this kind of fellowship.
LM
Lou,
I have always held that unity at the expense of truth is not unity. I’m still there.
I do see a range of folks in the GES Gospel group. I guess I’m like a recovering addict who is trying to help a few others.
I am convinced that what GES has become is not what it was when so many of us where involved in the years before 2005.
My hope is to reasonable understand where folks are coming from (which I don’t exactly yet) in the various angles of this discussion.
I feel like the folks I disagree with are not bad folks— just folks with some bad thinking. I do know we are not wrestling against flesh and blood, etc.
I suspect this will all continue to clear us. In fact, I’m already on record as saying that the GES Gospel will disappear in time. The biggest reason it will disappear is that it does not follow the obvious nature of the text. I know some will be bummed out to hear me say that…but, frankly, after 2000 years, we aren’t suddenly going to ‘recover’ a view of the gospel that has never existed.
Personally, I think all that has happened is some folks over the years have innocently, but mistakenly, tried to promote ‘grace’…but ran afoul in the pursuit.
My hope is that we can discuss the points without the edge. Frankly, my real hidden agenda is that I think the truth converts the sincere.
I’ve seen dozens of folks with affinity to the GES Gospel come to a fresh clarity about the Person AND Work of Christ int he saving content / message.
This ‘fresh clarity’ came as we hung in their together and talked about the text.
I’m hoping that here too.
God bless you,
FRL
Fred:
Thanks for the reply.
You wrote, “Personally, I think all that has happened is some folks over the years have innocently, but mistakenly, tried to promote ‘grace’…but ran afoul in the pursuit.”
In trying to answer the works based “Lordship Salvation,” the GES faction of the FG camp bounced all the way over to an equally heretical system at the other end of the soteriological pendulum swing. The new GES Gospel has come to be appropriately known as the “Crossless” gospel.
In that they have obviously “run afoul,” but the problem gets worse in that they do NOT “promote grace.” They have become passionate advocates for the new GES reductionist assault on the content of saving faith. That, according to the Inspired text, demands that we respond as God mandates.
Recover those you can help, those who are open to correction, who can be recovered or kept from falling into the trap of the Crossless gospel. As for those, who have rejected attempts to be recovered and repent of the Crossless gospel we have the Lord’s mandates and are remiss in our duty to Him if we do not obey Him in this area.
2 Thess. 3:15; Titus 3:10; Romans 16:17-18 are the biblical mandates.
“Admonish, Reject, Mark & Avoid” are the Lord’s mandates and they are not open to selective interpretation.
I trust you and your readers find this helpful.
LM
Gary,
Without getting into a great deal of minutiae concerning the issues here, I do AND do not agree with Lou.
I do not (yet) think you guys are heretics, and I have never said such a thing. The reason I don’t believe GES Gospel folks are heretics is that, so far, you all seem to be committed and active in sharing a gospel message (as far as I can tell) that includes everything I believe the Word emphasizes.
I do agree with Lou that the GES Gospel’s understanding of what is necessary to believe in order to be saved from hell to heaven is clearly incomplete and inadequate to believe in order to be saved from hell to heaven.
If it turns to a point where you all consistently share a gospel message that only matches your understanding of ‘promise only’…then I certainly would say (as I have said before) that the message you are preaching is inadequate for someone to believe AND be saved.
You would really be in a category I put my Roman Catholic friends. When asked, “Can a Catholic get saved?” My answer is, “Sure. They just need to misunderstand a few things.”
If one believes a Roman Catholic ‘faith plus works’ gospel from the git-go, then they are not exercising faith in a saving message.
I don’t believe the GES Gospel is a complete saving message; but since you all do not evangelize by ONLY sharing what you believe is necessary for salvation from hell to heaven, then I would say you are still sharing the right message because of your (thankfully) incongruent presentation.
I think this makes me different than the conclusion Lou has reached, yet it certainly puts me in a different spot than thinking you guys are right.
One of the things you all are really missing is how much time so many of us have logged with Zane, Bob, etc.
We actually REALLY, REALLY, understand the issues. I love all you guys, but you are not persuasive. No one, especially Zane, has explained the view with any convincing exegesis or logic (my opinion). History attests against the GES Gospel view as well.
It all sounds sweet and simple to say ‘just believe in the Person and His promise, but it really doesn’t match the whole story in God’s Word.
Of course, I’m in a similar spot with folks who insist on ‘Lordship’ or ‘asking Jesus into one’s heart’. I don’t like the term heretic (I used it playfully, not really, with Jim)…and yet, it is a clearly incomplete gospel. It saddens me…especially because it is so obvious that folks can get saved with my (Charlie Bing, Dave Anderson, Larry Moyer, etc.’s) presentation of the gospel.
I do appreciate that Jim is attempting to explain another angle on the gospel, but he (I think) certainly doesn’t agree with Zane / Bob on some key points in this conversation.
I hope this is helpful, even if we disagree.
Lou is his own man and I want to respect his view…much as I would say is my desire to show the same respect for you, Bob, etc. The problem is that the method and conclusions you guys use are not persuasive to me (and many others). It would be great if we saw some real dealing with the text instead of the incomplete assertions that seem to be arguments.
Perhaps all of this sounds strident, I surely hope not. I would love for us to find a way to agree on the gospel. And, as long as you all share the same gospel we do when you evangelize…I feel I can appropriately stay away from painful evaluations.
I wish you’d come back to the view of Chafer and Ryrie; but in the meantime, keep sharing the ‘whole’ (Person and Work) message.
God bless,
FRL
Copied from my response at: http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/2009/10/monty-python-witch-scene_12.html
Hello Fred:
Thanks for sharing the above with me.
I respect your perspective and your coming up to speed on just how egregious the Crossless Gospel is by any definition. By any definition, whether it be from Hodges, Wilkin or Jim Reitman it is the most extreme, anti-biblical reductionist assault on the saving message of Jesus Christ ever seen in the NT church. As you noted history attests against the GES Crossless gospel’s rank error. More than that all of Scripture attests to its radical departure from truth.
Length of experience with aside it takes very little investigation into the teaching of Hodges’s Crossless gospel to know with absolute certainty that it is a false, non-saving message. It is rank heresy of the worst sort from the reductionist side of the theological pendulum swing as much as Lordship Salvation is from the opposite extreme.
Based on the unscriptural underpinnings of the Crossless gospel it should and must be resisted with the same fervency and fidelity to the biblical mandates I have shared here as we do resist Lordship Salvation.
LM
PS: Gratified to know Gary is faithful reader of my blog. He will of course appreciate that many of the articles, from a Scriptural platform, expose and devastate the errors of the Crossless gospel.
Here is a link to some fine Scripture laden examples of the 79 articles to date at my blog that expose and refute the GES Crossless gospel.
Out on a Limb to Protest too Much by Phillip Evans.
The Issue of Incongruity by Dennis Rokser.
(Zane Hodges): Drifting Far Off the Marker by Ron Shea.
The “Christ” Under Siege by Greg Schliesmann
Biblical Terminology for False Teaching by Tom Stegall from his book The Gospel of the Christ.
Fred:
I’d like to touch on something from above. You wrote, “The internet certainly complicates these issues.”
Not as far as I am concerned, in this regard.
As long as there are people using the Internet to perpetuate their doctrinal errors, the anti-biblical Crossless gospel in this case, then I believe we have a responsibility to do what we can, according the Scriptures to admonish, reject, mark and avoid them.
And btw, “mark and avoid” are on-going, NOT mutually exclusive. We mark them out so that others are warned of and will, Lord willing, avoid them and their “contrary” doctrine.
As long as the GES people, including Tim Nichols, Gary, kc, Rose, Michele, Jim Reitman, et. al. try to propagate and/or support in any way the Crossless gospel and its primes instigators through the Internet I am going to do what I can to make sure they never gain any traction outside their own CG blogs. I gave them that promise and I intend to keep it.
The GES Crossless is the most extreme reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the cosf ever introduced to the NT church by one of its own, namely Zane Hodges. The Crossless gospel is as corrupt and dangerous as Lordship Salvation, just from opposite ends of the soteriological pendulum swing. I’ll do what I can to make sure the CG never causes even one more believer to be swept into and ruined by that gross doctrinal error.
Lou
Mr. Martuneac,
You wrote:
“As long as the GES people, including Tim Nichols, Gary, kc, Rose, Michele, Jim Reitman, et. al. try to propagate and/or support in any way the Crossless gospel and its primes[sic] instigators through the Internet I am going to do what I can to make sure they never gain any traction outside their own CG blogs. I gave them that promise and I intend to keep it.”
When I first read this accusation and threat I felt I had no choice but to judge as to whether you are an idiot or a criminal. Upon reflection I realized that I could only draw a conclusion based on the evidence at hand and that only a judge and a jury could lawfully do that. The only ones who can truly know are you and God. This was a great relief as it removed any obligation for me to judge either your heart or your mind leaving that responsibility where it rightly belongs.
Lou,
As I ponder it, I think there is one ‘reductionist’ view that exceeds anything those who promote the GES Gospel hold; universalism.
In essence, as you know, universalism basically reduces the gospel (and so exaggerates grace, unchecked by other attributes of God) to nothing more than ‘if you are alive, you arrive’.
Frankly, I think the correct continuum is to place Lordship at one extreme and Universalism at the other…then it is easier to see where everyone lies (part the pun).
FRL
There is an interesting connection between universalism and the way some “GES Gospel” promoters present the content of saving faith. I often hear GES promoters indicate that anyone who is convinced Jesus has given them eternal life has it.
Most universalists (i.e., as far as universalism overlaps with Christendom) believe Jesus has given them eternal life.
Fred:
You wrote, “As I ponder it, I think there is one ‘reductionist’ view that exceeds anything those who promote the GES Gospel hold; universalism.”
Good point, well taken, but I would tweak it even further. There is one additionist view that exceeds anything those who promote Lordship Salvation hold; Roman Catholicism.
That said- on numerous occasions I have stated that IMO the GES Crossless gospel is a half-step away from full blown Universalism. Reading Jim Reitman and now Diane’s notes does nothing, but further substantiate this opinion.
My fine point is that the two polar extremes in the evangelical community are LS and the CG.
Lou
Hi Fred,
(I’m not sure if my comment submitted.)
These comments of various sorts that you’ve said are so comforting. I realize that my or anyone’s (including your own) comfort is not the reason that you believe as you do (regarding “hanging in there” to read the text) but I’m comforted nonetheless. That you’ve logged so much time with Zane and Bob, motivates me to go back and re-read your open letter to see what I overlooked the first time around. I look forward to reading some future discussions with Gary or others to see how they also understand Zane’s pov. I realize it would be complex but there would be a good deal of profit to that imo.
Your pastoral heart shines through. I have been praying for your final year to be a blessing both to you and your church.
Michele
Fred:
Your blog may be having tech problems again. Tried to post the following to Diane three times in the ReDux companion thread with no success. Trying it here.
Diane:
Reading what you believe to be the saving message is a tragic and stark example of how far from Scripture one can fall.
Your views are so antibiblical, and absurd as Greg noted, that they are the closest I’ve seen yet to Universalism from GES people. I truly pity what has been done to you through exposure to the gross reductionist heresy of the GES Crossless & Deityless gospel.
Reading what you have come to believe encourages me to keep obeying the biblical mandate in Rom. 16:17-18 to “mark” these teachers from GES of the Crossless gospel heresy to help others recognize and avoid this false, non-saving message that you have fallen prey to.
Lord willing, you will be recovered from this doctrinal aberration this side of Heaven. If not this side, before His throne you will receive His correction, be restored to His Truth, as Zane Hodges surely has.
In the meantime, you are a danger to any unsuspecting person who come in contact with your extreme reductionist attack on the Gospel, the contents of saving faith.
The Lord warned His disciples and warns every believer today that they do NOT hinder children from coming to Him. His most severe warning is to those who would dare offend any little one who believes in Him (Matt. 18).
God help you and any GES Crossless person who tells a child that he is saved because of a promise-ONLY. If that child never comes to grips with that gross error and is never born again the Bible way, he/she will spilt Hell wide open and that child’s blood (eternal damnation) will be on your hands.
As long as you teach children, any children, the Hodges, Wilkin, GES non-saving message, you are hindering children from coming to Him.
Lou
Hey,
I am incredible sorry…I figured out my mistake…
The bad news is I make mistakes
The good news is I rarely make the same one twice!
FRL
By the way…
I really want to applaud everyone so far…what I reasonable set of comments (by and large). Thank you for giving this a go!
God bless,
FRL
Fred:
I did a companion article on your Open Letter, with excerpts. See-
An OPEN LETTER: The GES Gospel (aka – the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)