Sorry I am late to the discussion, but…

I want to dispel the misnomer being spread by some Grace Evangelical Society (GES) members, especially Antonio da Rosa. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that GES is the voice of the Free Grace movement in general.

The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “division and offences” in the FG camp and churches. (Rom. 16:17-18).

The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES.

Oce the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed it became the new home of many men who departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin.

Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, Neimela, Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put GES in cardiac arrest. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel. May I share this article with your guests, Is “ReDefined” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

The article will help them understand that Hodges, Wilkin and especially Antonio da Rosa do not speak for and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the so-called Free Grace community.

The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over the Hodges/Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.

Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.

LM

God invites us into His Kingdom (salvation) and also an intimate relationship with Him (friendship, being the narrow path, is one that few travel, such as the apostles).

Intimacy with God is determined by our relationship/degree of faith (which varies from person to person). It is the practice of faith and deliverance that enables us to trust in Him. Our relationship in God is outwardly expressed in fruitfulness.

Just as some people have intimacy/trust issues with other people, so too do some have intimacy/trust issues with God. I do not allow someone to be in charge of the things I value until I gain full trust in them – with God, I trust some matters to Him, but find myself still attempting to take lordship over other things (old habits die hard).

Many people are in various degrees of deliverance until the day they die, and the only fruit they will exhibit may be just being able to recognize the difference between Jesus and the rest of the world while others who trust and put God in charge of everything are willing to be put to death for the gospel.

Some people avoid intimacy by scrutizing and debating instead of moving forward into closeness. I believe God’s heavenly Kingdom is designed to house many more numbers of people in the outer courts than in the inner court.

I’ll try to say more on this with your other question about my past.

. . . I wouldn’t say that believers being disciplined in the ultimate way [death] argues against the doctrine of perseverance.

yes, but Jerry how would you know that if someone died the sin unto death, i.e. as discipline, given your pardigm for determining a person’s election, that in fact they were an elect individual; since their discipline unto death presupposes that in fact they were living in sin in the first place (don’t you see the circularity of this [?]). And if they were living in such a state, as a professing believer, how would you know that when they died they just weren’t a professor but not a possesor? Your position seems to “beg the question” a bit .

In Christ

P.S. You too, Donsands!

Hebrews 12 teaches that all God’s children share in discipline in order that we may share His holiness.

I Cor. 11 and the believers who died show that if a true believer rejects that discipline or fails to heed it – God ups the level of discipline – even to the point of death.

On the other hand – if a professing believer lives wickedly and they see no discipline in their lives – nor are their lives taken prematurely – it is evidence that they are not sons. It is evidence that God is leaving them to their own sin because they are not His children.

I appreciate that.

Have a blessed day in His rest.

Yes that’s my point, I Cor 11 illustrates God’s discipline on people while still in their sins–in other words they were’nt in a repentant state. This does not fit the Calvinist scheme of Perseverance of the Saints–because in fact they did not persevere in a life of good works–in fact just the opposite–they totally blew it even unto their deaths.

Donsands,

I think the Eph. passage you cite falls under the same discussion as I Cor presents us. Paul is challenging the false unregenerate wisdom of the world, and comparing it to the false teaching some of the people in Ephesus might have been open to. So indeed anyone who actually is in the world, and of it, will not inherit the kingdom. This doesn’t mean that just because a Christian in Ephesus might have been duped by such teaching that they are no longer inheritors of the kingdom. It just means that they are following rhetoric that leads to destruction (destruction much like the Corinthians experienced in I Corinthians 11 ).

BTW, Donsands, I was just trying to have a little fun . . . I think you’re a very honorable person–at least in our interactions thus far . . . I was just trying to lighten up the discussion a bit with my comment on “not being that smart” .

In Christ