I’ve been pondering faith a bit more of late. It seems universally accepted that we can choose to believe whatever we want to. I’m not sure this is really that clear in the Bible or in the world of common sense. For example, take a moment just now and ‘choose to believe’ that you are the opposite sex. If you are a man, just believe you are a woman for a few minutes…a woman, then believe you’re a man.
So, how did that go? You see, it isn’t just a matter of ‘choosing’ something else is in operation. The word in Greek has the idea of ‘fully persuaded’ or ‘fully convinced’ as mentioned of Abraham in Romans 4:21. I’m not arguing that God has to give us faith as a gift, since clearly we have the capacity to believe as part of our design as humans. We’re not always that willing or interested in believing, however.
Of course, we are ‘saved by grace through faith’ —which means that believing in Christ, which includes who He is and what He did—make the question paramount. Yet, again, what is faith and how do we come to ‘believe’?
As I’ve thought about it a little more, I’m thinking the word ‘conclude’ could be very helpful here. When we believe something to be true we have come to a conclusion. Faith also does not have the absolute ‘proof’ of certainty as we describe it of facts in the real world…but it still has a kind of certainty and knowing that comes with the conclusion of what we believe.
So, when we conclude that “Jesus Paid It All” …when we conclude that He delivers us eternally…we we conclude that our works make no contribution—it is in that conclusion, that faith, that we are delivered and assured (according to His promise).
Now, with daily or living faith; isn’t it the same? Isn’t it about reading God’s Word and coming to a conclusion about something it says about the Lord, others, or our own lives? Which leads to a simple application. If you are wrestling with believing something that God says (like in Matt 6 when He says the Father will take care of you), why not just start asking a very simple question:
What would it take for me to conclude ________ ?
As you fill in the blank, you at least know what the issue is about your faith; or, you may just discover you really do believe!
Fred Lybrand
Fred,
Not too long ago, this topic was raised on Antonio Da Rosa’s blog and it generated 640 responses in a single thread over a period of 2 months! An incredible proportion of these responses were generated by heated debate over the issues of (1) whether there is any meaningful distinction between the Biblical concepts of “believe” and “trust”; (2)whether “volition” is involved in saving faith; and (3) whether there is any meaningful distinction between “believing a proposition to be true” and “trusting the Person for the offer contained in the proposition.” I was accused of being a false teacher because of my positions on these three issues; hence, the whole thing is very fresh in my mind.
In your post you mention “choosing,” “persuaded,” and “willing.” You imply that someone must be “willing” to believe yet this does not entail “choosing” to believe. I think the testimony in the Gospel of John supports Biblical faith as entailing a willingness to receive life from God and being persuaded that Jesus’ offer of life is valid. As in the dialogue of John 5:35-40, the Pharisees did not have life because they “were not willing” to receive it or “come.” Nicodemus was willing to come but was—at least initially—not persuaded. The woman at the well was both willing (“Sir, give me this water”) and persuaded (she left her water pot at the well because she was convinced that Jesus was Messiah).
If you have the time to drag yourself through a key portion of the debate in the above-mentioned thread that addresses these points, I would begin here with my post toward the bottom of that column time-stamped May 28, 2009 5:47 AM and continue until the post time-stamped June 06, 2009 8:29 AM (you’ll have to click “newest” at the bottom to keep scrolling through when that column ends).
It’s hard to believe how deep people can get into the weeds on this question. Anyway, you may not have the time to slog through it, but what an eye-opener!
Jim,
Interesting…I’ll look into it!
FRL
Fred,
It’s always a blessing when I manage to drag myself over here. I know you like WordPress better but it was so much easier when I could just “follow” you on blogger. 🙂
I’ve been discussing “What is faith?” over at my blog these last few days.
I have not really considered the “convinced” part like you have brought up here. I do not believe that faith is a gift either, though I do agree that Salvation by grace through faith absolutely IS a gift.
I’m thinking of the woman who’s heart God opened up. I wonder, if we investigated that would it be that God “convinced” her?
Kev
I do agree with you that faith is a persuasion or mental conclusion that something is so.
The example of asking someone to believe he is the opposite sex would not be a good comparison to asking someone to choose to believe the gospel. In the first case, you are asking him to believe something he empirically knows to be false. In the second case, you are asking him to believe something for which God has provided sufficient evidence and to which God is drawing the person. The ultimate obstacles to believing in Christ are obstacles of the will.
There are many verses which, in various ways, show that volition is involved. The earlier poster mentioned one – John 5:40. Some others for consideration that come to mind include Matthew 21:32; 23:37; John 3:19; 5:40; 12:32; 35; Acts 7:51; 16:31; Rom. 1:18-31; 2Cor. 5:20.
Greg,
You said that the comparison to trying to believe you are the opposite sex wasn’t a good one because there is empiracle evidence to show that this is false.
In my limited experience I’ve found that evidence doesn’t actually have to be compelling for people to be compelled by it. What I mean is that I speak with people all the time who believe there is empiracle evidence against Christianity. In their mind, Christianity (as an absolute truth) is just as visibly false as the idea that they are the opposite sex.
That’s why we need to have answers for our hope. We are our selves never going to be able to convince someone to be saved but we are able to give witness to the truth that will lead someone to call out to the God that they are starting to think “might be” there. He Himself will then seal the deal as it were. 🙂
Kev
Kev, my point deals more with the ultimate spiritual issues behind what we may see on the surface. If you were to “dig deeper” with the hypothetical person who claims there is empirical proof against Christianity, you may find the matter really comes down to an issue of the heart/volition. Moreover, God’s Word tells us that the ultimate reason unbelievers don’t know Christ is not due to lack of persuasive evidence but indeed due to their unwillingness. Again I would refer to the verses I mentioned for consideration (Matthew 21:32; 23:37; John 3:19; 5:40; 12:32; 35; Acts 7:51; 16:31; Rom. 1:18-31; 2Cor. 5:20).
If this were not true, the conclusion would be that people are unsaved because God has failed to persuade them. I’m saying that’s not so. God has given light to all men (John 1:9). People have a choice in how they respond. And so, the point is, ultimately, unbelievers cover up and suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18ff). So it would not be fair to compare the idea of asking a man to believe he’s a woman (in which case he would have to suppress the truth) to asking a man to believe the gospel (which would be the opposite of suppressing the truth).
Finally, you mentioned having an “answer for our hope”. That seems to elude to 1Pet. 3:15. It’s interesting how this verse occurs in a context about maintaining your testimony under the pressure of persecution. As you’re suffering for Christ, be ready to tell them what it is that’s worth suffering for! Ironically, this has little to do with what we often call “apologetics” today. This has nothing to do, for example, with trying to give scientific evidences for creation to someone who claims that he rejects God based on compelling evidence for evolution. Even the arguments of evolutionists, like all claims to proof against Christianity, amount to “willful ignorance” in God’s eyes (2Pet. 3:5).
– Greg
Hey…thanks Kev…I have a pretty important announcement coming up on a Free Grace issue later this week. Can people sign up on this word press option…is there a way to link at both?
Thanks,
Fred
I can create a link at my blog, that just takes me being less lazy. 🙂
There are ways to subscribe to your blog so one would get emails when you make a new post.. I’m not sure how though. I’m a point and click guy for sure.. 🙂
Email me and I’ll make a note at my blog about your announcement when it comes. Though I’m sure it will find it’s way around the net pretty quickly anyway.
Kev
Yes. Fully persuaded. That’s it. I think there is an element of choice involved, certainly a willingness to accept that something may be true, but the lion’s share of the work is in the message itself. Don’t we all like the products that sell themselves the best? 🙂
JanH
Fred:
I would and do discourage anyone from visiting da Rosa’s blog. You are well aware Antonio’s blog is filled with the most egregious reductionists errors you will find anywhere on the Internet. Errors that were originated by the late Zane Hodges, propagated by Wilkin and GES, also supported by Jim Reitman.
Antonio da Rosa has gone silent over the last several months. That his behavior and shrill voice for the errors of the GES gospel has gone missing, we can all be thankful for. I believe Jim is taking advantage of the subject of your thread to steer folks to Antonio’s “ReDefined” FG theology Crossless gospel blog. What a tragedy it would be if some unsuspecting believer were to fall into the trap of the GES Crossless gospel through Jim’s linking him/her to it from your blog.
Kev and I do not allow anyone to link our guests to blogs that stand for views that are anti-biblical and Antonio’s blog is among the worst of them in any Christian circles.
Sorry to be blunt, but there is danger in allowing men to link others to blogs that could cause them to stumble into the same reductionist errors Antonio and Jim have.
FWIW,
Lou
Fred and other contributors,
Sadly, Mr. Martuneac yet again uses your blog to vilify someone he doesn’t know, all under the guise of defending truth. My comments here are only to address the issue of the nature of truly engaging (and hopefully productive) dialogue that your blog was intended to promote within the so-called FG movement. I have appreciated the spirit in which you have endeavored to moderate such discussion, and I sincerely hope my comments remain true to that spirit.
The main purpose of Mr. Martuneac’s post is reflected in his comment: I believe Jim is taking advantage of the subject of your thread to steer folks to Antonio’s “ReDefined” FG theology Crossless gospel blog. Just as in the case of Mr. Martuneac’s impulsive response the last time I commented on this blog when it involved Antonio da Rosa, Martuneac’s “belief” about me is totally uninformed and foments misdirected malevolence toward others. The best I can say about Mr. Martuneac is that he is sincerely trying to defend the truth. The problem is that this sincerity—if taken seriously—gets us no further than the best of the prosecutors in the Salem witch trials or the Spanish inquisition.
My citation of a portion of a string on da Rosa’s blog was to surface a component of the debate on “What is Faith” that has often produced more heat than light: The role of volition in saving faith. Greg, one of the respondents on this thread (see above), transparently picked this up. The relevant portion of the exchange on da Rosa’s thread is cited to illustrate how hopeless (in my own view) that particular dialogue ended up being, because people were not engaging the texts that were brought to bear on the discussion. Since Mr. Martuneac obviously didn’t go to the thread to see the point I was trying to make, he assumed I was promoting the blog to others, when in fact I was warning those on this thread of the dangers of getting into the discussion that Fred started here without< learning from a failure in dialogue among others no less sincere in their convictions about the truth. I would love to see how people respond to Greg’s comment above, and whether the discussion can remain focused on Scripture interpreted in its native context.
The “danger” touted by Mr. Martuneac above frankly pales in comparison with the potential damage done to the Body of Christ if he were to be taken seriously. As to whether I “support” GES, I simply speak my convictions about the issues on these blogs as “supported” by a contextually sound approach to Scripture. If something I write happens to “support” some tenet that has been promoted by GES, that is hardly my intent. Anyone who is half awake and notes the substance of my repeated Scriptural challenges to some of the more strident advocates of GES on da Rosa’s blog will be able to see how this gives the lie to Martuneac’s disingenuous characterization above.
I think is is also unfortunate that he drags Kev into his above comments, as I have noted a substantial and refreshing change in the tone with which Kev has been engaging others with whom he has previously disagreed, even vehemently. I commend Kev and would advise Mr. Martuneac to take a page out of Kev’s “style” notebook.
One final point in response to Mr. Martuneac’s comments about da Rosa’s “silence” (and I know da Rosa far better than I know Mr. Martuneac): I am convinced that this “silence” proves the wisdom of the well-known adage, It is far better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
No Jim:
You, GES, and every advocate of the Crossless gospel vilifies the Gospel, and the Savior who made our salvation possible.
Antonio da Rosa is a reductionist heretic of the first order and then there is his public reprehensible behavior, which he has never publicly repented of. Most disturbing of which was his posting (under a false ID) rumors that another brother in Christ was a child molester. And you link to his bog with no warning whatsoever. His ReDefined FG blog is a testament to reductionist heresy and you are linking people to it, which IMO is a danger that cannot go unaddressed.
I made promise long ago that anywhere you advocates of the GES Crossless, Promise-ONLY gospel go on the Internet I will be there to identify you and the reductionist assault on the contents of saving faith you represent. I am going to do all I can to make sure not one more unsuspecting believer falls into the trap of the GES Crossless gospel. And that means making sure they warned to avoid Crossless blogs like Antonio’s, Michele’s or Roses’s blogs.
Stay on your Crossless blogs and you will not hear from me unless necessity dictates. Venture anywhere outside those blogs, like you did coming here and linking to Antonio’s blog, and I will be there to biblically “mark” so that the unsuspecting will “avoid” (Rom 16:17-18).
You are in league with the propagators of the most egregious reductionist heresy ever introduced to the NT church. I am going to do anything and everything I can to make sure you men are known throughout Christendom and warn believers to avoid you and your reductionist assaults against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I don’t care what you think or any Crossless advocate and/or sympathizer thinks of my efforts in defense of the Gospel. I will never tire of exposing the GES Crossless heresy to protects believers from these errors originated by Hodges and propagated solely by the shrinking cell of theological extremists in the GES.
Finally, why don’t you take moment to publicly reject the teaching of Hodges, Wilkin and GES for their reductionist teaching on the contents saving faith. Follow that with your personal admonishment of them to repent of their errors.
LM
PS: You wrote, “…Salem witch trials or the Spanish inquisition.” LOL! I think you could might a bright future writing talking points for Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
Lou M
I don’t know if you will still get this as their blog thread seems very old…but I thought I’d try.
How can anyone ever know they’re saved when there’s so much debate on what even faith is??? I feel very lost on the whole matter. I was raised in very strict lordship salvation teaching… Came to understand repentance did not mean turn from sin or be sorry. This was huge as I had previously thought I had no hope and should just end my life since I couldn’t live up to what I thought was necessary for salvation. I came to understand that God loved me as I was (Romans 5:8). But I feel very overwhelmed with this debate on faith…don’t even know if I have faith as I don’t know what it is. I don’t even know where to start. I’m a bit OCD so maybe that makes it worse….but these questions seem never-ending in my mind and just go in circles.
Fred:
To support the defense of the Gospel, and exposure of the GES Crossless gospel’s assault on the contents of saving faith I began posting an extended series prompting Ps. Tom Stegall’s new book.
See- The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith.
Lou
Guys,
I guess I’m confused more than I am annoyed.
Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?
Thanks,
Fred
I can understand your confusion, Fred.
In reply, would you have my accuser openly state the basis for his accusation? So far, the only substance I can see to his accusation is “guilt by association”; since I do not share his brand of separationism, it would be erroneous to jump to that conclusion. Regarding doctrine, my statements on the blogs to which he is (indirectly) alluding are a matter of public record and readily accessible. If he is willing to comply with your request, I will answer your question, because you have been gracious to me on this blog.
Otherwise, I would be happy to discuss your question privately.
Greg,
You said that the comparison to trying to believe you are the opposite sex wasn’t a good one because there is empiracle evidence to show that this is false.
In my limited experience I’ve found that evidence doesn’t actually have to be compelling for people to be compelled by it. What I mean is that I speak with people all the time who believe there is empiracle evidence against Christianity. In their mind, Christianity (as an absolute truth) is just as visibly false as the idea that they are the opposite sex.
That’s why we need to have answers for our hope. We are our selves never going to be able to convince someone to be saved but we are able to give witness to the truth that will lead someone to call out to the God that they are starting to think “might be” there. He Himself will then seal the deal as it were. 🙂
Kev
Kev, my point deals more with the ultimate spiritual issues behind what we may see on the surface. If you were to “dig deeper” with the hypothetical person who claims there is empirical proof against Christianity, you may find the matter really comes down to an issue of the heart/volition. Moreover, God’s Word tells us that the ultimate reason unbelievers don’t know Christ is not due to lack of persuasive evidence but indeed due to their unwillingness. Again I would refer to the verses I mentioned for consideration (Matthew 21:32; 23:37; John 3:19; 5:40; 12:32; 35; Acts 7:51; 16:31; Rom. 1:18-31; 2Cor. 5:20).
If this were not true, the conclusion would be that people are unsaved because God has failed to persuade them. I’m saying that’s not so. God has given light to all men (John 1:9). People have a choice in how they respond. And so, the point is, ultimately, unbelievers cover up and suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18ff). So it would not be fair to compare the idea of asking a man to believe he’s a woman (in which case he would have to suppress the truth) to asking a man to believe the gospel (which would be the opposite of suppressing the truth).
Finally, you mentioned having an “answer for our hope”. That seems to elude to 1Pet. 3:15. It’s interesting how this verse occurs in a context about maintaining your testimony under the pressure of persecution. As you’re suffering for Christ, be ready to tell them what it is that’s worth suffering for! Ironically, this has little to do with what we often call “apologetics” today. This has nothing to do, for example, with trying to give scientific evidences for creation to someone who claims that he rejects God based on compelling evidence for evolution. Even the arguments of evolutionists, like all claims to proof against Christianity, amount to “willful ignorance” in God’s eyes (2Pet. 3:5).
— Greg
Blunt Force Alert
Fred Lybrand asks Jim Reitman, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
Here with Jim Reitman we have yet again we have an example of the lack of honesty and integrity that is so commonplace among those who identify with the GES reductionist assault on the contents of saving faith.
Jim is asked a simple, non-threatening question. His reply: Dodge and evade. So predictable. Reminiscent of Bob Wilkin losing his nerve for the open debate he had been clamoring for on the Gospel in 2007 when Ron Shea accepted the challenge.
No one, who holds themselves and others to the least bit of ethical standards, can take Jim and his GES counterparts seriously when they play these political dodge and evade games on the Gospel. They simply do NOT want to be candid about their views because that is the soft underbelly of their Crossless Promise ONLY error on the Gospel.
Several years ago, I was stunned at the level of dishonesty, political gamesmanship and lack of candor coming from these Crossless men. Now, it is expected and about as a funny as a bag of hammers.
Well if pattern holds, we’ve likely seen that last of Jim in this thread. Just like Antonio, when he was asked a question, do a Casper (the friendly ghost) disappearing act, only to resurface later with a convenient memory loss and/or new personal attack.
Bye Jim,
LM
PS: Maybe Jim might read Jody Dillow’s statement on the Gospel here at Fred’s blog. Clearly he states the necessity of belief in the cross and deity of Christ for salvation. I have a very strong suspicion that is not going to be well received by Bob Wilkin and GES; is it Jim?
Hey Jim:
How about posting the link in this thread to where it is you claim the “public record and readily accessible” can be found? There is a readily accessible public record from you; isn’t there? You can link Fred and all of us to it; can’t you?
LM
Hey Jim:
How about posting the link in this thread to where it is you claim the “public record and readily accessible” can be found? There is a readily accessible public record from you; isn’t there? You can link Fred and all of us to it; can’t you?
LM
OK,
So, Lou, do you know where Jim advocates the GES Gospel? Jim seems to be saying his friendships and associations are the basis of being condemned.
So, Jim, it seems it would be easy enough regardless of Lou to say what you believe so there isn’t a question.
………
The challenge we all have is in how definition separates (because it differentiates). This is why Eastern thinking is so ‘unifying’. At any rate, I am sad that friends of mine have different views than I have, but I am willing to mention them.
I think it all started in seminary when Bill Heath called me (all of us on the other side) and Erasmian—referring to my view of divorce & remarriage.
So, I’d say I’m comfortable with Jody’s statement and the FGA Covenant. I’m not comfortable with with Paul Rainbow at all (see BACK TO FAITH, Lybrand, (c) 2009).
Grace,
FRL
Fred,
I saw your open invitation to FG leaders to share their view(s) of the gospel on your latest thread:
Please discuss things with with me and among yourselves. Jody will weigh in when he’d like. This is strictly an effort to clarify where different Free Grace Leaders stand on the simple nature of the gospel. I’d be happy to interact … talk to me!
Do you honestly believe that these people will feel free to accept your invitation in such a hostile environment where one of the participants has openly entitled himself to use “blunt force trauma” to try to silence his opponents? You say, “it would be easy enough regardless of Lou to say what you believe so there isn’t a question.” I disagree. The fragmentation that we now have in the FG movement did not happen in a vacuum, and it is clear to me that people have been using similar terms in different ways and with different agendas. The arduous process of defining terms was recently attempted by Kev on his blog with a familiar proponent of LS, and I daresay anyone who witnessed that lengthy exchange would testify to you that it was anything but “easy enough.”
You seem to have doubts about me, Fred. I would be happy to discuss your concerns in a venue uncontaminated by the kind of vicious invective that Mr. Martuneac is so obviously committed to pursuing. When we can assure one another that we are using the same definitions and “speaking the same language,” then I would consider making a public statement on your blog with appropriate ROE. Until you and I have a chance to do this, I will only respond on the blog to substantive accusations that go beyond guilt by association.
Hi Fred,
I’m only going to dip into this for one post. I just want to offer some encouragement and maybe a note of shared experience.
You said,
So, Jim, it seems it would be easy enough regardless of Lou to say what you believe so there isn’t a question.
It is terribly sad that every time this subject comes up we have to beg people to just say what they believe. They will spend hours and hours blasting on about how bad Lou is for accusing them of promoting a false gospel… they go on and on and on…
When you finally do manage to corner them into saying what they believe openly… you find out that they DO promote a false gospel… Of course you know this, but I just wanted to let you know that I’m feeling your pain.
Lou has taken a fairly aggressive approach in this thread, but I haven’t interacted with Jim before (unless he’s the Jim who used to have a signature in his blog posts that was at least twice as long as any post he made…) so Lou’s approach may well be perfectly valid.
I’ve learned the hard way that the people Lou responds to in this manner generally need to be spoken to in such ways.
Kev
OK 2 posts…
Jim,
Yes that was a very painful exchange… and there is absolutely no need to go that way here on this subject. The reason it had to go that way at my blog with the LS proponent is because he was being deceitful.
There’s no requirement for you to be deceitful. I will personally stand by your right to properly detail your beliefs in accordance with the invitation by the blog owner.
I’ve known Lou for a while, and while he’s agressive he will allow you to say your bit.
A right minded individual only believes things that they are convinced are true. If you believe your view of the Gospel is true then you ought not be afraid to share it.
If you are infact a proponent of the GES/Crossless Gospel, you should say so. You need not be fearful of having to defend this position. The position has been well and truly discounted so there would be no profit in someone like myself testing you on it…
However, if you believe it is true, if that is the view you hold then say so. I will not make you defend it.
I would like to know where you stand. Offering private conversation with Fred will be no safer than posting here. Fred’s ability to challenge that position is not inferior to anyone posting here. I very much doubt that he’ll agree to disagree for the sake of anything…
If you have a position to stand on, then stand on it. Playing the “Lou Card” (which is what I call this behaviour) doesn’t help your credibility.
To be completely open with you, right now I don’t know where you stand. You have a clean slate with me, but from this thread I think I see why Lou is posting the way he is.
Finally, if you’re not sure where you stand now then say so! Welcome to the club on so many issues. It is better to admit that then to have people like myself have to guess what your agenda is.
Bring whatever it is out into the light.
I’m really tired, I’m sorry if this rambled. Hopefully you can discern my intent.
Kev
Jim,
I don’t know why you think I don’t trust you…we had a great long conversation by phone…I remember sitting out back and enjoying the weather and a conversation about grace and truth.
I just genuinely don’t know exactly where you are at this stage.
Frankly, I don’t know much about blog management…and I can tolerate more conflictual conversation than many can…so I need guidance on such things.
Personal attacks against me don’t weigh on me (but don’t don’t mess with my family!).
So, I’m sorry for any misstep here. How about you and I have a discussion on the blog were no one is allowed to weigh in until we are through? Is that legal?
I genuinely just want to understand and learn.
Grace,
FRL
Kev/Fred:
Today’s dodge and evasion by Jim is the latest example of his refusal to state what his views are on the content of saving faith. and/or state a personal position on the Crossless gospel of the GES.
Back in April in Fred’s lengthy thread when he came out against the GES gospel we had Antonio finally, after two years of dodging the issue, admit he believes, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still,” be saved.
So, with that admission I posted the question below to Jim Reitman, which he danced around and evaded for 2+ days right up until the thread was closed. This is the consistent pattern of virtually every GES Crossless advocates who has engaged the on line discussions.
In this thread Jim is no different. Dodge and evade legitimate questions. Demonize critics and question their motives. Jim is little better than Antonio, which he just proved in this thread when he wrote, “…Salem witch trials or the Spanish inquisition.” Jim, with that kind of rhetoric you’d find a happy employer in the person of Nancy Pelosi.
So, here is what I posted (twice) to Jim and sent him via e-mail, which he willfully dodged and evaded even to this day.
April 23, 2009
Jim, You just saw Antonio confirm that he saw the word, “deny” in Kev’s question. Antonio affirmed his belief that, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny.” Would you please answer a question for everyone in this thread-
Do you agree or disagree with Antonio da Rosa, “that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Thanks in anticipation of your answer.
LM
Jim- Second Request:
You claimed (1:55am above) “Regarding doctrine, my statements on the blogs to which he is (indirectly) alluding are a matter of public record and readily accessible.”
How about posting the link in this thread to where it is you claim the “public record and readily accessible” can be found? There is a readily accessible public record from you; isn’t there? You can link Fred and all of us to it; can’t you?
You have been back to this thread and failed to provide a link to that easily accessible public record; why not?
LM
jim, you claimed at 11:55am above…
Kev,
I appreciate your humble attempt to mediate, here. I just don’t agree that it’s a simple matter of differing gospel views. Would you be willing to let Fred and I hash this out first? It’s not that I think Fred is in any way “inferior”—far be it. It’s just that we have some history together that I don’t have with you or LM. I think the issue of trust plays a very important role in these debates.
Fred,
I think you took my phrase “doubts about me” in a way I did not intend. I don’t doubt your trust—I was simply acknowledging your doubts about my position in this debate. I certainly also appreciated our prior phone conversation. I made it clear at that time that I do not see myself as a GES advocate, nor am I a member of FGA. Like you, I am deeply indebted to Zane Hodges’ influence at a fairly important point in my own journey, but also like you, I have significant differences with him in his later journey.
We talked about efforts underway between GES advocates, representatives of FGA, and “neutral parties” (of whom I supposedly was one) to try to engage in dialogue. Considering the recent history of FG, it makes sense to me that these discussions continue in a protected fashion because of all the heat that has been generated and the raw nerves that still exist. I don’t see your blog as “protected” at this point, but I do appreciate your offer.
Having read your open letter, I know that we will have to spend some time agreeing on terminology and language. For one thing, I can’t see how the term “Content of Saving Faith” is a Biblical category. From what I have seen so far, that terminology issue alone seriously risks generating more divisiveness without first laying some groundwork. That is one among several reasons that I cannot simply answer LM’s demands on his terms—we don’t even speak the same language. If you are willing to duke it out and try to come to terms at that level, then I would consider reopening the discussion publicly.
Fred:
Here is what I will propose: If Jim will answer your question in unvarnished terms, not the political double-speak that Antonio was infamous for, or answer with questions and redirects.
Let Jim answer Fred’s question, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
Let Jim go on public record in this thread recognizing that Hodges, Wilkin and GES have stripped the Gospel of the necessary contents of saving faith.
Let us read Jim prayerfully call on the GES Crossless gospel men to repent of their slide into doctrinal error.
Tell us Jim- that Antonio is wrong and in serious error when he wrote, “that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
If Jim will do that I will apologize here for aligning and linking him to the Crossless gospel advocates. There is no middle ground in this debate Wrong is wrong and GES is very WRONG! Let Jim say-so!
Lou
Jim:
You write to Kev, “I think the issue of trust plays a very important role in these debates.”
How can you expect to be trusted when you refuse to answer a question from Fred. He asked you, “ “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?”
What could be more simple and you WON’T answer. And you expect trust? C’mon Jim.
LM
Hi Fred,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I know you’re carrying many conversations at once (a little more than you asked maybe). Catch up with my questions as you like. Just thought I’d say something really simplistic I know, really quick which is that in order to have a dialogue with someone who believes there is a tenable answer besides “this one,” assumes they probably define and emphasize ideas differently. When the declaring begins the conversation ends. Forgive me for popping in but I just appreciated the atmosphere of invitation you gave.
Blessings, Michele
Fred:
Let me tell what I believe Jim is up to posting here and some other blogs. He is trying to find non-GES people who may have a sympathetic ear to the GES Crossless gospel and Wilkin in particular. He is acting like a lobbyist of sorts on behalf of GES. Of course this necessitates trying to demonize anyone who calls for rejection of dialoguing with men who have adopted and propagate a false (reductionist) gospel, refused correction for years and are unrepentant. Furthermore, you will hear the mantra cries of “misunderstanding.” and/or “misrepresentation” of the GES gospel.
I can just hear Wilkin’s appeal. “Let’s get together to get a better understanding.” Fact is there could not be a better understanding of exactly what the GES Crossless, Promise ONLY gospel is after the last several years of articles in GES’s Grace in Focus. Then we have Hodges’s final article, The Hydra’s Other Head and his deserted island scenario. It is irrefutable and easily proven that GES has stripped the Gospel of Jesus Christ of the necessary content of saving faith. Furthermore, we also read examples where they insist that belief in eternal security is mandated for the reception of eternal life.
Ps. Stegall’s new book, The Gospel of the Christ documents extensively the errors of the GES Crossless gospel.
GES, its members and sympathizers have been “marked” for their contrary doctrine so that they may be avoided (Rom. 16:17-18). They have been admonished (2 Thess. 3:15), which they do not respond to. GES has been isolated as it should be for its radical departure from the one true saving message of Jesus Christ.
So, men like Jim seem to want to encourage dialogue with GES; why? IMO the end game being tolerance for GES and its reductionist assault on the content of saving faith.
If men outside the GES were to meet with Wilkin they should make their goal known to Bob in advance, which should be to recover Wilkin and GES members from the reductionism Hodges introduced them to. Outside of that goal the discussions should not take place.
And how does Jim show good will and faith in asking you to dialogue with him? He refuses to answer the most simple question imaginable; isn’t that right Jim? You can’t even agree to share what you believe must be believed for the lost to be bon again?
Furthermore, Jim claimed in this thread yesterday that his position is in the public venue and easily accessible, but he refuses to direct you or any of us to where this is. Is it possible he lied as he dodged and evaded your question about his belief? Is it possible that he has never put his view out there in the public venue? Or maybe the paper he wrote and submitted to GES is what he refers to, but won’t share it because it may reveal that his affinity lies with GES and its Crossless heresy?
The only way to have fellowship with GES people will be when they are recovered from, repudiate and repent of their reductionist assault on the content of saving faith.
Fred, the irony in all of this is that after the 2007 FGA national conference you men offered to organize a private academic meeting to discuss these issues on the Gospel. I know for a fact Wilkin, Hodges and Lewis were invited and all of them refused to meet for that discussion. Now, we have Wilkin trying to have meetings, and for what? Is he ready to listen to reason, is he willing to listen to correction? I don’t think so? No, GES has been devastated by loss of membership and venues that will host their conferences.
This call by Jim for discussion is IMO purely political.
LM
Hi Fred,
You were musing about how to manage the conversation. The core of what this thread started as is really valuable. I think it’s a real shame that it’s become about people at this point.
I’m VERY interested in hashing out the mechanics of Faith. I’m very hopeful that some wiser brethren will add voice on that topic. Feelings-shmeelings but I’m eager to dig deeper into this topic.
So… I’d suggest opening another thread for the topic about what Jim believes. If you have a way to move the comments then that might be a good idea too.
Kev
Jim,
You said,
I think the issue of trust plays a very important role in these debates.
How about this. Drop the debate out of it. Just state what you believe. It seems to me, based on very little information, that you seem to be fearful of the debate. So don’t debate.
I think yours/Fred’s idea of discussing things openly with no outside interference is a good idea. Depending on how the two of you behave in such a discussion that could be very valuable to you Jim.
I have very little to gain in this, I would gather that Lou is in the same boat. TRULY the only reason why I want you to “spill the beans” is for your benefit.
Right now I’m only interested in interacting with you at a distance. Much in the same manner I interact with the LS proponents. Why? Because I discern you have something to hide. I truly hope that is not the case. I hope that my pre-conceived ideas have mislead me.
It truly is safer and more God honoring for you to just say what you believe.
Kev
Fred/Kev/All:
Since Jim refuses to detail where his alleged “public record” that is “easily accessible” exists I did some research.
I searched the GES site and found that at the 2009 National Conference Jim did a workshop, “Let Righteousness Reign in Your Life (Rom 5:12-21).” I could not find a transcript.
I reviewed Jim Reitman’s on line biography page. There you will find an extensive list of published articles on various issues related to the medical field. You will find a few items on matters of theology. Reading Jim’s personal biography you find an impressive academic and theological pedigree. Yet, he will not answer Fred’s question that any new believer would answer confidently and without hesitation.
What does that speak of for Jim? It does not speak well for him or his character, but he wants to be trusted. Why should we trust a man who hides what he believes just like Antonio da Rosa did for 2+ years?
Jim, you are hiding what you believe the lost must believe to be born again! Why? Why you do that I can’t image, but you have some hidden motive or agenda for hiding what you believe.
Kev and I were just discussing a disurbing pattern Jim exemplifies. Both the LS and Crossless men consistently try to hide their views and we have to drag out of them what they believe. Why do you suppose LS men and here we have Jim Reitman for the GES view hiding what they truly believe?
Lou
Fred:
Kev wrote, “I’d suggest opening another thread for the topic about what Jim believes.”
I agree with Kev. Open a new thread for you and Jim alone. Let Jim open by defining what he believes the lost must believe to be born again.
I won’t post anything in the thread. Kev and I and others will look in from the bleachers.
If I were a betting man, and I am NOT, dollars to donuts, Jim has no intention of offering that definition in clear, unvarnished terms.
LM
Sounds like everyone is basically on the same page.
Kev
Hi Fred,
I hope it is not too much to leave another comment, but if I may put an ear to what I’m reading, it sounds as if you are being persuaded to decide on the doctrine of secondary-separationism. Those doctrinal beliefs are used to assess discussion and participants according to those dictates. The question may be whether you agree with those doctrines. If they are appealing it may help both you and Jim investigate the profit there is in even beginning talk on some issues, and explore with Jim the “ROE”.
Secondary Separationism
Compassionately, Michele
Michele:
First let’s be clear. You are the friend of and sympathizer with the GES and its Crossless gospel reductionism. Furthermore, you like Rose, want to promote unity with the teachers of the GES assault on the content of saving faith at the expense of fidelity to the Scriptures that forbid such alliances
Now, you wrote, “…it may help both you and Jim investigate the profit there is in even beginning talk on some issues.”
Maybe you are ignoring that Jim Reitman has dodged and evaded the one simple question put to him by Fred in this thread. Jim is showing the same dodge, evade and redirect tactics that Antonio, Jeremy Myers, Jim Johnson and so many other GES people have right along.
Not much “profit” in that kind of behavior; is there?
LM
Hmm,
I’m a little worried about myself because I don’t feel the emotions about all of this like several of you do…please don’t miss my point…I actually wonder a bit about my own burden for these things.
I do know part of my problem; I’m not as enamored with theology as I used to be. When you read BACK TO FAITH you’ll see my argument about why I think the works-must-follow-faith argument is ‘pragmatically invalid’. Not to put you into a coma, but some of these theoretical debates are boring to me because there is no way to ever really decide about the truth. There’s nothing much to do with the theories in the light of a real eternity before God.
…I do want to add here that the debate about the content of the gospel is not pragmatically invalid because it can be proved AND it has value in how we share our faith, ground believers, do missions, etc.
Second, I think the GES Gospel debate is basically over. Let’s face it…GES isn’t going to persuade anyone that it is possible to wind up in heaven and be surprised to discover that Jesus died on a cross. That may be an overstatement, but I don’t think so. Frankly, I love Bob Wilkin (and loved Zane Hodges), but that doesn’t change the fact that I believe they are teaching something aberrant-and-never-before-taught-in-recorded-history [if you are new to my concerns please read my Open Letter at
http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf ]
Where will the disciples for the GES Gospel arise from? No one is going to belong to that view over time since it is not scripturally sound…it takes a remarkable sophistication in thought construction just to even begin to grasp the theory. It is also built on a series of assumptions that dictate the view (if assumptions drive your understanding…well, it ain’t the way to go). John”s gospel is simply not the only book in the bible that can way in on the meaning of the gospel or evangelism. The Old Testament saints did not have the content of Jesus as the Messiah, the cross, the resurrections, etc. If they did have it, then it is an unprovable theory for which we will not be accountable (God will hold us accountable for what He has clearly revealed to us).
The Free Grace community is not going to come alongside and endorse a view of the gospel that contradicts the essential understanding of our ‘fathers’ in the movement…besides the fact that the Free Grace community doesn’t believe the GES Gospel.
It’s over…it just hasn’t been realized in the immediate moment yet…but it will in time. My greatest hope is that GES will just wake up and listen to all of us who love them and are encouraging them to return to the essentials of the gospel.
I am grateful that many of them seem to insist on sharing the cross, etc., when they share the gospel; but, in time, unless they think what they share is important to believe unto salvation, then it too will pass from their presentations (my prophecy).
Additionally, Tom Stegall’s book [The Gospel of The Christ] is going to turn out to be devastating. People won’t like that it isn’t ‘unifying’…but that is irrelevant since the argument itself is overwhelming. I was especially appreciative of the quotes in the appendix of the great names who support the Traditional understanding of the cross. Even dear Dr. Radmacher makes it clear that he believes in the cross as necessary when saving faith is exercised (though it is rumored by people that he has changed his view…I don’t believe it for a minute). Bob Wilkin and others, however, have changed their view of the gospel. They changed with Zane (as did I to some degree for a while…yet, now after reflection, discussion, and study, I have repented). They should at least be sympathetic with all of us who hold to the Traditional Free Grace understanding because of all those they admire historically who held to it (actually, everyone as far as we know…Chafer, Ryrie, etc.). The fact is, however, that these GES Gospel folks will not persuade anyone much over time (another prophecy) because not history, not scripture, and not the leaders of Free Grace will support this misstep.
Well…I was talking about my emotions…I don’t feel anger or frustration about the GES Gospel…just sadness as I watch some very useful friends distract themselves in a fruitless pursuit.
Of course, telling folks they need to work their way to heaven gets me a little excited!
God bless,
FRL
Hi Fred,
I trust and pray that with the passing of time, as the dust from the present controversy settles, that the FG movement will be more “unified” than ever around the gospel of God’s grace and consequently more productive for Him.
Tom S.
Thanks Tom…as do I…as do I.
FRL
Why is Jim silent now?
Fred are you in private discussion with him?
Kev
Jim,
I would like to know where you stand on the GES gospel, and what a person must believe to have eternal life.
No need for boxing gloves, but a good discussion between you and Fred might be helpful.
Rick W
Jim,
Thanks for these thoughts…just wanted to get into this record a question about what you’ve shared here. Specifically, the thought that ‘content of saving faith’ isn’t a biblical category.
I’m not sure what makes something a biblical category (seems we are the one’s discerning categories). Even if it isn’t a biblical category, it surely must be a language category.
The content of saving faith is something we believe is knowable or not. It is also something we can believe we know or not. Finally, the content of saving faith is something we can express in language or not.
So, we can’t know it & can’t express it…we can know it but not be able to express it…and, we can know it and express it.
Yet, somewhere in there is the middle possibility that it is knowable, but we just can’t say that we really know it.
These are language issues, not biblical categories.
Any biblical issue can come around to these basics as well…and, of course, the text can just be largely silent (it doesn’t really fully say).
I think Gordon Clark landed here in Saving Faith…clear on faith, but punted on content (just preach the whole counsel of God).
What am I missing here?
Thanks,
FRL
Fred,
Thanks for the question. It gets to the root of my concerns about using the label “Content of Saving Faith.” That phrase suggests that faith is directed at certain kinds of “propositions.” Revelation is comprised of propositions, to be sure, but it is much more than propositions; it typically invites responses, and that is what Greg and I were alluding to by mentioning volition. You can’t boil faith down to “knowability” or “persuasion” alone. There has to be a component of voluntary “acceptance” of God’s grace that involves the will (Rom 5:17, and others, such as Greg has provided).
Secondly, the “transaction” involves an object of faith, which is the Person of Messiah; a basis for salvation, which is the death and Resurrection of that Person; and a result, which is “eternal life.” So when I think of “saving faith” I think of trusting in an object (the promised Messiah) for a result (life after death, forever). The basis by which that promise can be guaranteed is the atoning death and resurrection of the Son of God.
So, when one talks about the so-called COSF, it fails to distinguish these elements, and I believe this has direct bearing on the way the gospel is presented. If we can hash the COSF thing out, then maybe we can go on to discuss the gospel.
So, when one talks about the so-called COSF, it fails to distinguish these elements, and I believe this has direct bearing on the way the gospel is presented. If we can hash the COSF thing out, then maybe we can go on to discuss the gospel.
Can I interject a question here?
I thought the COSF was the gospel, or rather that what comprised the content of the gospel was the same information that would comprise the COSF. Do we not preach to them what it is they must know and therefore believe for salvation and call this information the gospel? (I hope my question is clear.)
This question is for everyone, not just Jim.
JanH
This is great. I hope this discussion can continue–in the spirit of brotherly love, of course! I’ve been pondering some of these very issues and I’m all ears.
D Bell
Hey,
I’ve got an idea about all of this…
Tune in tomorrow…I’m pooped !
FRL
Although I agree with Jim Reitman that volition is involved in believing/accepting the gift of salvation, I disagree with him on the content of faith.
He distinguished between the object of faith (Christ), the basis of salvation (death and resurrection), and the result (eternal life). While it is possible to conceptualize these in separate categories in one sense, that fact does not even suggest the death/resurrection or the provision of salvation lie outside the required content of faith for salvation.
Christ Himself is known by propositions, and His death and resurrection are essential propositions in defining who he is (cf. 1Cor. 1:23), apart from which the true “Jesus” is not identified (cf. 2Cor. 11:4).
While advocates of the crossless gospel try to distinguish between the “grounds” of salvation and the content of faith, the NT is like a funnel that keeps pointing to the fact that the ground of salvation–the Son of God incarnate dying for our sins and rising again–is the very thing God is holding out to the lost and requiring them to believe as the only provision of salvation (e.g. Acts 13:41; Rom. 4:24; 10:9; 1Cor. 1:17, 23; 15:1-6).
Also, when someone believes in Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection, they aren’t believing in something apart from and separate from Jesus Christ Himself. These are things wrapped up in His identity and the meaning of “Jesus”, “the Christ”, and “the Son of God” today. Unless His work has something inherently to do with His identity, why even require the lost to believe in someone named “Jesus”?
For anybody who promotes the “GES Gospel”, I recommend they first read the book mentioned earlier, The Gospel of the Christ by Tom Stegall, available on amazon.com. They should read it before continuing to promote the false gospel of GES.
Fred, I agree with your comment about Gordon Clark’s book. One thing he argues correctly is that faith is propositional. Even though Jim may not realize it, I am fairly certain that his view of faith is also propositional (i.e., faith has content). In regards to his claim that “content of faith” is a misnomer, I’m wondering if he can give a description of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation involving absolutely no content. If not, how can he say “content of faith” is a misnomer?
Greg:
You wrote, “In regards to his claim that ‘content of faith’ is a misnomer, I’m wondering if he can give a description of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation involving absolutely no content. If not, how can he say ‘content of faith’ is a misnomer?”
Several days ago Fred asked Jim arguably the most basic and foundational question one could address in regard to the Gospel. Fred’s question was, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?” To date, Jim refuses to answer that question, which any new believer would answer confidently and without hesitation. This indicates to me there is little chance he will answer your request to describe the “faith in Jesus Christ for salvation” question.
He did come back with this, content of saving faith is a “misnomer” thought. Both his refusal to answer a simple question on the heart of the biblical plan of salvation and this “misnomer” comment IMO lines up with the GES “Crossless” gospel’s reductionist assault on the Gospel message that must be believed to be born again.
I agree with your suggesting that all concerned with the controversy over the GES non-saving Crossless gospel read Tom Stegall’s new book. I’m sure most are ware that I am posting a protracted series of extended excerpts from his book.
Fred, your guests can begin reading those excerpts at The Gospel of the Christ, which is Tom’s Stegall’s introduction to the series.
Lou
Fred:
Greg wrote, “He (Jim) distinguished between the object of faith (Christ), the basis of salvation (death and resurrection), and the result (eternal life). While it is possible to conceptualize these in separate categories in one sense, that fact does not even suggest the death/resurrection or the provision of salvation lie outside the required content of faith for salvation.”
Here is what I am thinking: Jim is among the GES gospel people who believe that to be born again the lost must acknowledge/believe that Jesus is “the Christ” that He is deity, or at least can not openly reject His deity. Jim, however, is (in my mind) in lock step with the majority of GES gospel people in that he believes the lost do not have to know, understand or believe in the cross and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again. (Of course Jim will not state what his true convictions are. Therefore, I speculate based on past experience with him and others in GES who resort to these evasion tactics when questioned directly.)
This is IMO why Jim is placing these in separate categories. Part of my coming to believe this is his position is drawn from Jim’s refusal to state one way or another his position on Antonio da Rosa (two years in coming) admission, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Here at Fred’s blog (different thread) I asked Jim repeatedly over a three day period to state where he agrees or disagrees with Antonio’s statement above. Jim, then as he does today, refused to answer that question.
That is the danger of these GES advocates and sympathizers. They will not be honest or transparent about their core beliefs on the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith. Ask a direct question and you get evasion, double-speak and/or misdirects. One would think if you believed a personal theological position to be true and biblical you would not cloak it in secrecy. Tragically, this is the pattern among many who hold to Lordship Salvation and the Crossless gospel.
Lou