IMO, the most egregious heretical statements coming from advocates of the GES’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of Gospel can be found and are compiled in this article.

Also see the companion article, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed!

Thanks for your patience; nothing further to add.

LM

IMO, the most egregious heretical statements coming from advocates of the GES’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of Gospel can be found and are complied in this article.

Also see the companion article, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed!

Thanks for your patience; nothing further to add.

LM

Earl Radmacher, Founding President of the Free Grace Alliance told me in a conversation I just had with him last night, that Lou Martuneac’s statement that the FGA was formed to become the new home of the people who have departed the GES is completely untrue. Earl Radmacher called such a notion “a lie”.

Earl Radmacher, Founding President of the Free Grace Alliance told me in a conversation I just had with him last night, that Lou Martuneac’s statement that the FGA was formed to become the new home of the people who have departed the GES. Earl Radmacher called such a notion “a lie”.

Furthermore, when it comes to repentance, Dr. Bing, in his dissertation recognized Zane’s point of view on repentance as a bona-fide position in Free Grace theology. Furthermore, Earl Radmacher, in his book, “Salvation” takes the view of Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges on repentance, even including a large appendix to house a chapter discussing repentance taken from a book by Bob Wilkin.

The funny thing is, Nathan, that I have agreed with your assessment of Lou Martuneac’s book, that his doctrine of repentance is indeed Lordship Salvation. He has joined the Free Grace Alliance even though he is in violation of their covenant because of his doctrine of repentance. He does not even speak for a single faction in the whole of the Free Grace movement.

Here are a couple of articles which show that Lou Martuneac is not Free Grace at all, building upon your already well known assessment of his book.

Nathan Busenitz’s assessment of Lou Martuneac’s book where Nathan proclaims Lou Martuneac to hold a Lordship Salvation position on repentance:
Lou and Lordship

Articles I have written building on Nathan’s assessment:
A Lordship Proponent and a Free Grace Advocate both say that Lou Martuneac is Lordship Salvation
Lou Martuneac’s position is against ALL Free Grace Leaders!

The facts of the matter are that the GES has been (since around 1988) and will continue to be the center for study in Free Grace Theology. The FGA was instituted for a different purpose than the GES: to be an evangelistic resourse; while the GES has been all these years engaging in instruction. Earl Radmacher told me last night, who was one of 3 founders of the FGA, and the FGA’s founding president, that Lou’s assessment of this situation is in error.

Thanks for allowing me to share a clarification which stems from Lou Martuneac’s soft-Lordship position.

Antonio da Rosa

This is late in coming, but an important note for clarification of a misunderstanding about the make-up of the so-called Free Grace movement.

I want to dispel a misnomer. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is the voice of the Free Grace (FG) movement in general.

The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of FG extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “ new 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.

On the issue of repentance: the Hodges view is widely rejected by most men in the Free Grace community. Dr. Charlie Bing, in his dissertation on LS, noted a concern with Hodges view of repentance. In my revised edition of In Defense of the Gospel I have added a section to alert my readers to the absurdity of the GES view of repentance.

The Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed in part to become and is the new home of many men who have 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? See- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-re-defined-free-grace-theology-free.html

The article will help readers understand that Hodges & Wilkin 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

Believing is the softening of the heart toward God and the softening of the heart toward God is repentance.

May every repentance follow my initial repentance, and may my childish faith of easy justificaiton, be the adult faith of total surrender.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (FREE FROM SIN)

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

“And He (Jesus) said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God”. (Luke 16v15)

If J.I. Packer is such a great theologian, once again I am left confused as to why he would endorse this convenant with the Catholic Church….may I ask where was the Holy Spirit’s discernment?

The ECT document not only calls Catholics our “brothers and sisters”, but they also agree to witness together for the cause of Christ. I guess the Catholic Church was tired of the evangelical churches prosyletizing or “sheep stealing”. Do you think God was delighted with this? Do you think this made Jesus Lord?

God made it very clear through Paul in Galatians that we are to have nothing to do with those who teach “another gospel”. In fact doing so is eternally damned because that is tampering with God’s holy gospel and when it has been watered down in any way, it has eternal consequences and I would not want to be responsible for that in any way. All the men who signed that document never repented and/or publicly removed their names from the document.

I would rather be guilty before God of sin than tampering with His gospel.
Like I said before no wonder we have so much confusion. This is why I don’t lean on an imperfect man from the pulpit to teach me truth. Jesus is the truth and He supplies my need through the Holy Spirit.

I truly think the men who signed this document need to sincerely rethink their commitment to the gospel. These are just my thoughts and if someone doesn’t like it I can’t help that because it is the truth and these evangelicals leaders need to be accountable to that. It is not my place to judge a man but I have the right to speak what I feel is right because certainly I have had more people tell me what they think of me and again I am doing this in the most respectful way that I can articulate it.

Protestants and Catholics….Do they now agree? A remarkable achievement or a tragic compromise???? The consequences have been so destructive to the gospel…..the all-sufficient work of Christ at Calvary.

Some Protestants and Catholics obviously agree on social, moral and political issues but they can not agree on the gospel (how a man or woman gets to heaven through God’s narrow way….no flesh needed to add to it) and they have sacrificed the purity of the gospel for a culture movement. What a shame.

I still think however, that we should always encourage one another to live godly lives with the motivation to please God in everyway that we can, being led by His Spirit so that we may glorify Him. But let us all remember that the battle between the flesh and spirit is a real one and is constantly waging war against our souls because ultimately it is a spiritual battle in heavenly places between God and Satan and one day Satan will finally be destroyed but he will do as much damaged as he can before his time is over and I pray that Jesus will come quickly so that He can set up His righteous kingdom to the glory of the Father.

If I have offended anyone, forgive me for my intentions are not to offend
but rather speak the truth in love and any problems anyone has please take them up with the Lord.

Thankyou for allowing me to speak from my heart and again this is not written in a spirit of judgement for I stand guilty before God myself from my own sin (we all have it)….. but the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all our sin and He is our righteous advocate.

(sorry this is so long. . . I cut out as much as I could).

(begin quote)
Does it matter to you if a person finds assurance in the FG system and winds up in hell because of shallow gospel preaching?
(end quote)

Wow. Even though this is not specifically about “repentance in John’s Gospel,” I will respond to you because you are demonstrating a typical lack of understanding of what the FG camp is. Nobody finds assurance, it is based upon them being saved. FG is not a “system” like Calvinism is a system. FG preachers are anything BUT shallow.

We in the FG camp are human. . . we don’t claim to be perfect, we often miscommunicate, but we are trying all the time to be clearer. We try to use Biblical terminology, and Biblical phrases, with Biblical meanings and definitions, as much as possible when we witness to unsaved folks. We in the FG camp believe God is Sovereign, and can save folks even when we botch up our message, but we are constantly trying to be Biblically accurate, and to be more effective instruments in God’s hands.

Thank you for your testimony. Here is mine.

I grew up in a church that was very unclear on the Gospel, until a new pastor came in and converted the church to 5 point Calvinism and Reformed Lordship. That church went from bad to worse. They stopped all evangelistic programs in the church mostly because they were busy converting everyone to 5 point Calvinism. I find this more and more common these days, but, well back to my story. I rarely went back to that church, and went to a weeknight FG ministry (Florida Bible College style Youth Ranch), which, ironically, used to be supported by the church. A clear Gospel was taught, and I eventually unlearned all the false teaching from that church and got the message that was NOT going to heaven when I died. That is what the FG Gospel really does. I finally stopped looking at my works, trying to gain victory over sin, or looking for fruit in my life for assurance of salvation, and all the things the church was teaching. I gave up all the activity, and self examination, and simply believed in Christ alone, apart from any of the other introspection which I had been taught. I can remember the very moment when that happened, and for the first time in my life I was sure I was going to heaven when I died, because it no longer mattered what I did, good or bad. No turning from sin and changing the direction I am going (which is what I believe repentance basically is). No fruit needed for assurance. No prayer. No commitments or broken promises. Just simple faith alone in Christ alone, nothing more, nothing less, nothing more. I was 19 years old, and finally finished my long, confused journey through one confused Gospel message after another.

We in the FG camp do not hold that a person actually gets eternal life by making Christ Lord, or by praying a prayer or raising their hand to accept Christ, or doing any of the dozens of other things we see in Gospel tracts and presentations (i.e. 3 things you need to do to get to heaven). You can go up and down the street and ask people if they believe that Jesus died for them, and most people will say, “Yes.” Those of us in the FG camp do not say, “Great, now let me give you assurance of salvation.” This is a caricature of the FG person.

We in the FG camp try as best as we can to find out if a person is really going to heaven, by using one of a variety of methods such as the Evangelism Explosion questions, to examine the object of their faith. Faith does not save. We are saved if the object of our faith is able to save. For example, I ask, “If you were to die today, would you be sure that you are going to heaven.” Most folks say “I hope so,” or “I don’t know,” or “No,” but lets use your example of someone who raised their hand at a “Gospel” presentation at camp as a kid. Let us assume they say “Yes” to the first EE question. I then ask the second question, “If you were to die and stand before God and He were to ask, ‘Why should I let you into heaven?’ What would you say?” They say, “Because I raised my hand and prayed to accept Christ as my Savior at youth camp,” or, “Because I believe Jesus died on the cross to pay for my sins.” No FG person would ever stop there and say, “Oh you are going to heaven.”. We would ask something like, “What do you mean by that, could you elaborate?” We would ask some other probing questions to see if they really are relying upon Christ’s promise of eternal life on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. We try to probe as deep as we can to see the object of that faith, and if it was not saving, to point to passages like John 3:16 or John 6:47 which point them to faith alone in Christ alone. We don’t look at their lifestyle and say. . . “Oh great, you professed faith and are showing progress in good works, you must be Saved.” Unsaved folks can profess faith, be very generous and caring, and have lots of good works. I know many unsaved churches which have a lot of really good preachers and people in them. You simply cannot judge by a person’s works. We in the FG movement think it is absolutely essential to examine the OBJECT of their faith at that point they professed it point in time, and not base their assurance on the subjective method of looking for good works.

I would say that most people that actually say “yes” to the first EE question, flunk the second question, even people in Church who have been “Christians” for years. Most people are relying upon their works in some form . . . faith plus works, or faith that works (really the same as faith plus works to unsaved ears). Or continued faith (i.e. Arminians). If performance or works are in there at all . . . sorry, we don’t stop assuming they are hell bound until they can say what they are trusting in.

In almost EVERY evangelistic conversation I have been in, where I have tried to communicate the Biblical fact that a person can only get to heaven by faith alone, in Christ alone, they say, “You mean I can simply believe in Christ and then live any way I please and still go to heaven?” or something to that effect. I respond with an emphatic YES YES YES. . . you get it! If they do not ask that question, then they do not understand the terms of the Gospel. If they were asking a Roman Catholic priest that question, the priest would say NO and promptly point to James 2:24. If I were to say yes, BUT ___________, (fill in the blank) then no matter what I put in that blank, at that point I would be communicating that eternal life is NOT by faith alone in Christ alone. Unsaved people don’t see the difference between eternal life truths and Sanctification truths. Maybe after they are saved, and you start having Bible study with them, and firm up their understanding of the Gospel, and they share how they are not sure they are going to heaven, THEN I would start dealing with whatever you would fill in that blank with. For example, I would say something to the effect that now that it has been 2 months since you indicated you received eternal life. You have been coming to church too. Out of gratefulness for what God has done in your life, by his Grace, we have an obligation to serve Christ, and I would start explaining to them about the principles of Spiritual growth, obedience, commitment and Christ’s demands for Discipleship. Some folks need a little more time or less time, but we in the FG camp always push believers (not unbelievers) toward the goal of being sold out for Christ. Our standards for Discipleship are much higher than Lordship Theology’s. No unbeliever could even consider meeting the Biblical standards of it costing everything. If you talk about the obligations of the Christian life while you are witnessing to someone, don’t you agree that you might POSSIBLY be communicating a false message? That is what confused me, and I am sure it is confusing millions of folks around the world. We must not jumble the requirement for Justification with the requirements for Sanctification in front of unsaved hearers. Wait until they are saved, and sure of it, and then they will have the foundation for a life of commitment and obedience.

An important key concept in the FG Movement is that assurance is of the essence of “saving” faith, that is, the initial act of belief which is the sole condition for obtaining eternal life. This is core to the doctrine of Justification by Faith as taught by the reformers. The focus should be upon Christ as the object of our faith, and not on subsequent works.

Side Note: We in the FG camp do not believe there is anything special about the “faith” itself. We do not believe you have to be a theologian or philosopher to understand what faith REALLY is. In John 3:16 it simply means being convinced that something is true. We believe saving faith is passive, not something you do. It is a light going on because you have just gotten enough content or evidence to be convinced. Faith that saves is propositional, that is, there is content to believed, and you either believe it is true or you do not. Faith is the opposite of work, and it is not a decision. Making a decision to believe that Christ grants eternal life on the basis of faith alone is simply not possible. You are either convinced or you are not. The moment a person is convinced that Christ can save them from hell, by faith alone in Christ alone, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else, then they HAVE believed. There is no second step needed. We can pray with them, but the prayer does not save them, they either already are saved, or they are not. We can have them raise their hand, but raising their hand does not save them, they are already saved or they are not..

If a person is not sure they have eternal life, or they indicate that the object of their faith is not saving, or they are not convinced of the saving power of Christ alone to save them, then no FG’er would ever let them think they are going to heaven. On the other hand, if a person answers the first EE question “NO” then we would probe by seeing if they EVER were sure, and then probe why. I think that many proponents of the Lordship Gospel used to be sure they were saved, but then got confused by the false teaching . Nevertheless, thanks to the Grace of God, if they have eternal life they are still going to heaven, no matter what they do or don’t do, even if they are teaching false doctrine. Nevertheless, if anyone flunks on both EE questions, and they never were sure they were going to heaven, then we play it safe and say they do not have eternal life and we assume they are bound for hell. I see more and more folks who were just like me. . . totally confused by unclear Gospel presentations. We in the FG camp believe it does matter what you tell unsaved people. If a person either intentionally or unintentionally is led to trust even 1% in their works for eternal life, then they don’t have it. We are not on neutral ground while we are witnessing to someone. Satan is actively blinding their minds while we are talking to them (2 Cor 4:1-6). We have to have people praying for us (See L.S. Chafer’s book, True Evangelism). We have to be crystal clear, to allow God’s truth, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to shine through the Satanic fog and draw them to Christ. We must not ADD to the fog.

BTW: I would love to comment on J.I. Packer’s quote, but that will have to be another day. I will say, he is one of my favorite theologians, and I have learned a lot from him, even though he is wrong on Lordship Salvation.

John 6:47 “Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”

Don Reiher,
GES Webboard Host.
Host of GES Webboard.

John, again, I want to say that I am glad that you are interested in what the Bible says about Repentance. I agree that the Scriptures are the final authority.

Most of us in the FG camp are from the Dallas, Dispensational/Literal Hermeneutic camp. As a result of this methodology, we see important distinctions those from the less literal camps (ie. Covenant/Reformed) do not see. Lordship issues can not be resolved on whose list of proof texts is best. The question should be, “What methodology, assumptions, presuppositions and preunderstandings are you going to carry into a text? How are they coloring my interpretation?

I think this issue is a good example of how inductive study of words of faith or repentance or regeneration in Scripture should trump any system of theology, no matter what it is, or how long it has been around, or no matter how many agree with it. You do not determine whether a view is right by proof texts or taking a show of hands.

For instance, 5 Point Calvinists such as you say things like, “Faith and Repentance is a Gift,” and “Regeneration precedes faith.” There are intelligent Godly men from Dallas, and other solid Biblically based schools who disagree with Reformed 5 Point Calvinism. Can’t we set aside our Theology and actually look at the texts aside Theological preunderstandings? Obviously we cannot do this perfectly, but can we at least try? Can’t we just let the texts (like John 3:16) speak for themselves, and pretend we are reading them for the first time?

Those in the Dallas Dispensational/Literal hermeneutic camp see a distinction between the Church and Israel, Law and Grace, and also differences in the requirement for eternal life, and the requirement for fellowship or reward. This distinction in hermeneutics is very clearly laid out in L.S. Chafer’s works. Failure to recognize the distinction between the requirements for Discipleship/Fellowship and rewards, and the single requirement (faith) to gain eternal life is a major problem. Shouldn’t we be crystal clear in our evangelistic conversations with unbelievers we talk to every day on how to tell the difference between a requirement for eternal life, and a requirement for the Christian walk? How can we witness to unsaved people if we are not clear on the difference? How can we have eternal life and be sure of it if we don’t know the difference? I could not witness to people if I was not certain.

If your hermeneutics starts carrying “implications” from references to Christian Life issues, and imports that into the simple word “believe” in John 3:16, then the terms of getting eternal life have been transformed. It is very dangerous to say “believe” really implies something else.

You make it sound like we in the FG see no need for Repentance. We in the FG camp have written and spoken volumes about Repentance. We had a whole conference on it (1998). Unbelievers and Believers should repent.
However, words such as repent and repentance do not all have ONE meaning in Scripture – they have a range of meanings based upon context. It can mean repentance for eternal life (which can be seen in some other texts) or repentance for fellowship or forgiveness. It can mean to stop sinning. It can mean to change your mind about something. If you start talking about what implications we need to import into “believe”, which implication to you carry in with you? Where do you draw the line? (Please see Dr. Hodges book, “Harmony with God, A Fresh Look at Repentance” for a good treatment of the various uses of the words.)

Are we saying we should never use other cross references? NO! There are instances where we should carry implications into the text. A good example would be the Attributes of God. However, this has to do with the character or nature of God, which is pretty consistent (!!!!) throughout Scripture. For example, Omniscience is Omniscience wherever you see it in the text. However, the “meaning” of the word repent, faith, salvation, obedience, commitment, is NOT consistent, and there are various ranges of meanings of words, and various contexts which need to be examined. Salvation from what? Repentance from what? Belief in what? To what end? For what purpose? You have to actually study each use in context to see these things. . . you don’t glob everything in one ball and say, “this is what REAL faith includes” or “this is saving faith.” That is a very subjective and dangerous practice.

For instance, at the beginning of this article John MacArthur stated:

(beginning of quote)
Isn’t repentance included by implication in the following Johannine descriptions of saving faith?

John 3:19–21: And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

John 10:26–28: But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them (emphasis added).

John 12:24–26: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall My servant also be; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.

(end of quote)

This is not “proof” of your point. You associate short texts of scripture which people who agree with you or who believe in 5 point Reformed Calvinism already agree on and use as proof texts. It is bad hermeneutics to simply string together 3 passages, with no exegesis provided. (just a few words of comment interspersed in the texts would suffice)

This is not good example of the use of Scripture by person who has such a high view of Bible exposition!

More importantly! The word “Saved” or “Salvation” does not have a single meaning. A person can be “Saved” by faith alone. A person can be “Saved” by works. A person can be “Saved” by faith plus works. A person can be “Saved” by a faith that works. “Saved” has a range of meanings. When terms for Salvation are used in the OT and NT, the meaning has to be derived from the context. The words can refer to deliverance from anything. It can be salvation from premature death, earthly woes, salvation of those who have eternal life from the death dealing consequences of sin (i.e. Hebrews or James 2), or salvation from hell (i.e. the theme of John’s Gospel). If you blur the distinction between the verses dealing with requirements for temporal salvation (i.e. the Gospel According to Jesus), with the requirement (notice. . . singular) for going to heaven (i.e. John 3:16), you wind up with a lot of problems in your interpretation, and application. If you say a text is talking about deliverance from hell, when it is really talking about fellowship, then you will err in your interpretation and application of that text. In fact, it will probably mean that your hearers will miss the whole point of the text.

In summary. . . there is nothing in your 3 “proof texts” about repentance from John’s Gospel (or anywhere else that the single requirement for eternal life is faith alone in Christ alone), because we don’t know what part of the range of meaning of “repentance” you are carrying into these texts. You can make it mean whatever you want.

On the other hand, we in the FG camp try with all our might to set our preconceived notions aside. We try with all our might, to look at each passage as if we were the Bereans. The question should not be, “What list of texts will I volley upon the enemy to really get ‘em. The question should be, “What system of hermeneutics, and Theological preunderstandings am I carrying into the text?” We in the FG camp search high and low for true exegetical work on Lordship issues, and all we see are studies by 5 Point Reformed Calvinists defending their views by quoting other proof texts and other 5 Point Reformed Calvinists. That does not prove the view is correct. Can’t the majority of Theologians be wrong about Soteriology? Didn’t the Reformation demonstrate that?

Any view that brings “implication” “or implications” into a clear verse such as John 3:16 seems suspect from the start. Catholics and Mormons and many others would agree other things are implied in “believe” in John 3:16. It is not always wrong to bring meaning from other texts, but that you should be bringing meaning from clear texts into the unclear ones, and not the other way around. However, in the case of John’s Gospel, the burden of proof is on the Lordship – Reformed Calvinist camp to prove that repentance is truly implied in John 3:16, and all the other statements that eternal life is by faith alone, and not upon our camp to prove that it is NOT implied.

- Don Reiher
Host of GES Webboard (and a fan of John’s other teaching)