It is with a burdened heart that I write this post. I am concerned about something that is occurring among Christian blogs even as I sit at my keyboard.
Over the past month or so I have observed and even participated in an ongoing discussion among evangelical bloggers. This conversation has primarily been among those who would identify themselves in alignment with Free Grace theology or a more centrist soteriological position. These are people that I believe are sincere in what they believe and I look at them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Debates among bloggers are certainly not unusual occurrences. Having often engaged in them myself, I find that they can be stimulating, challenging and generally enriching when conducted in a gracious spirit.
What concerns me in this particular situation, however, is the devolvement of the dialogue into a playground brawl. I have observed name-calling, childish attempts at deceit, intimidation tactics, taunting, false accusations and even people questioning one another’s salvation. Instead of getting better, the problems are escalating, even spilling over onto blogs that are not even a part of the discussion. Not everyone involved in the debate has stooped to such tactics, but many have.
I have watched as pastors, teachers, theologians, students, authors and lay-persons alike have sullied themselves in this fray and are doing so head-long with little regard to possible consequences.
Brothers and sisters, I implore you in the name of our Lord, let us put an end to this maliciousness. I am not asking anyone to compromise their beliefs, or even end the discussion. The truth of the gospel is always worth proclaiming, but let us do so in a Christ-like spirit.
Let us keep in mind that while we may consider this to be an intramural debate, this forum is visible before the whole world. We must remember that this is being observed by those who do not know our Lord. Do we honestly think that this will have the effect of drawing them to Him?
I am sure that each person involved is convinced of the rightness of their particular theological position. That is between them and the Lord. But nowhere does God ever give us license to treat each other with such acidic behavior, even if the other person is a “heretic”.
I do not write this to sound arrogant or judgemental. This is merely a plea from my heart to those who will hear it. Let us treat one another with the same grace that God has extended to us.
just stopping by to say hi!
so hi 😉
Hey, brother. I just tried to call you, but did not get an answer.
I would like to ask with sincere humility if you feel that my response on my blog (in the comments) was one of the ones to which you refer here.
If so, please drop me a private email and share more specifically with me why you feel that way. I’m open to your thoughts on this.
I still have no clue how/why my blog got drawn into this. I was never involved in this dispute in the first place, and I’m baffled by it. Two people who have never ever even talked to me online, let alone visit or comment on my blog suddenly show up with comments about something that has nothing to do with me or my blog. That blew my mind.
Anyway, I sincerely hope I have not offended you, my dear brother. But if I have, I would definitely like to make that right with you and with the blogosphere.
Steve, be assured, Brother, that I was not talking about you. Unfortunately, this mess did find its way onto your blog but I thought you did an outstanding job of handling it.
You and I have had some “spirited discussion” over doctrinal issues and what I have appreciated the most was the ability to have those discussions in the Spirit. I am not aware of these particular “discussions”, but I wholeheartedly echo your thoughts. I believe it was Tim Challies who wrote recently about the destructive nature of conversations over the internet and phone. We say and do things in those environs that we would never say or do in person. As Christians, that is to our great shame.
Don, thanks for your comment. I have also appreciated the spirit in which our discussions have taken place.
Challies is right. Unfortunately the marvels of modern technology, while providing us many conveniences, also provide an outlet for the “dark side” of our nature to express itself.
Morning Bro. Gordon,
I too will join in and agree with you . When someone usually tries to interrupt a blog with unwanted conservation it usually means in my opinion that they need to access their heart to see where it is because they cannot tell who’s reading it.
I have been practically begging for people to be nice to eachother – on both sides of the fence -while discussing this controversy. I am truly sorry that my husband posted that comment on Steve’s blog and others. We share an inbox and he has seen months of the obnoxious emails that came from the person who has been heading up the attack on those with wholm I am on a group blog. (I really don’t feel like it is even my debate, but I am on a group blog with those who are the targets of this ‘heretic’ hunting). My husband handled it in a way that seemed a good option at the time – pasting the comment to the blogs in my blogroll. That is why Steve got the comment. My husband regrets having done that.
I agree – we need to be civil! This hasn’t been Christ-like at all.
Hi, Bro. Ron, good to hear from you.
Rose, I appreciate your comment. Honestly, I can understand yours and John’s frustration. I really feel as if you have responded with grace on your blog to these tactics that have been mentioned. So often, when someone is more concerned about being proven “right” than they are about being right with God’s people they forget that people are the recipients of their verbal blows.
Your blog has been a real blessing to me and I know it will continue to be so.
It was great to come and find you had written again. The article is great, and I pray that none of my heretic hunting has been personal toward anyone, but only the doctrines taught.
It is just a shame that far too many Christians are falling for teachings that are destroying Christian life.
Gordon, I appreciate your thoughts and they have been mine as well. That is one thing that got me started in blogging. I could not stand seeing what was going on in Christian blogging, toward other Christians.
I sencerely pray that if I am hateful, or rude in anything that I write in my blogs that you will let me know.
Bro. Tim, I appreciate the spirit of your comment. Please know that I have always found your words to be seasoned with God’s grace and uplifting. You have consistently proclaimed the truth with an humble and compassionate attitude. Writers like you are an asset to Christian blogging.
I won’t expound, because you already know my thoughts on the topic. Simply put, “good word.”
Having a different opinion does not give one the right to critize or demean another person. To stoop to name calling and accusations is a sense of insecurity otherwise one wouldn’t try to intimadate someone into accepting their position.
Palms of Victory
I do appreciate this article. Those of us who have stood in defense of the Gospel against the reductionist assault on it by Hodges, Wilkin and GES have handled the matter scripturally and without losing our testimonies.
We are going to do all we can to resist this false doctrine so that it, Lord willing, will not sweep away even one more unsuspecting believer.
Your comment above is made up of half-truths and censorship by omission. I was going to deal with this, but decided not to, with one exception.
If you are “truly sorry” for, and your “husband regrets having done that” at approximately 20 blogs- why does his comment still appear at nearly every blog he posted it at?
Lou, thanks for stopping by. I must say that I am somewhat confused by your comments. In one you say that you appreciate the article that I have written, describing your own efforts as being scriptural, and then in the next, you perpetuate the very tactics that this article is rebuking.
I don’t know you. My only interaction with you has been limited in discussions on Rose’s blog. I know a lot of what you stand against soteriologically (and I share your concerns) but I must confess, in all of our discussions and in all of my reading on your blog, I have been unable to learn exactly what it is that you stand for. I have a feeling that you and I would probably be in agreement on the matter of the Gospel, but quite honestly, Brother, I fear that your message is being hidden behind your belicosity.
I appreciate your love for the Gospel. May I humbly suggest that if you were to expend the same amount of time and effort promoting the Gospel as you do in attacking those who disagree with you, the results would probably be much more positive.
I wrote this article as a plea to those who were willing to hear it. As you can see from the previous comments, the general response has been that of humility and an expression of a desire to avoid what this article rebukes. Since this is the first time you have commented here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but please know that in the future, this is not a blog on which to wage attacks on the saints. Civil, gracious discussion (even debate) is welcomed but I will not allow my blog to become a place where the aforementioned tactics are used.
God gives grace to the humble.
Since I am one of the blogs that had a comment on it, and since I have removed the content of that comment at the request of John, I think I can speak to this issue to say this:
Regardless of John’s regret or apology, he cannot force another blog owner to delete a comment. That is completely up to the blog owner.
It took me a few days to get to deleting the content of John’s comment because of personal schedules, but that was no reflection on John.
Other blog owners may have different takes on what they should do with a particular comment, and it is completely unfair to John and Rose to hold them responsible for what another blog owner decides to do.
Gordon is absolutely right, Lou. By continuing to beat this horse, you are participating in the very tactics that Gordon rightly decried in this post.
My only remaining question is why your comment remains on my blog, Lou? You allegedly apologized for your comments, but they still remain.
“Hi, is this Kettle?”
“Why, yes it is. May I ask who is calling?”
“This is Pot. You’re black.”
Because you have never taken the time to learn that there are two sides to every story, including this story, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, you are confused about the comment at your blog.
You wrote, “My only remaining question is why your comment remains on my blog, Lou? You allegedly apologized for your comments, but they still remain.”
The comment you refer to that still remains is NOT the comment I apologized for. That is an apology for a comment that I posted at my blog right after I found John’s in one of my threads. It is that comment I apologized for, which I removed no more than 20 minutes after I posted it.
Unless I am mistaken, it was at my blog for so short a time that I don’t think anyone saw it in the first place. However, I posted it, the Holy Spirit saw and rebuked me, so I did what was right.
In all sincerity, I ask that you please cite, link to, and document any “personal attack” that I have made against any brother or sister in Christ. Please document the claim you just made where I have allegedly waged personal attacks on a saint? Show me anywhere that I have questioned another believer’s salvation; may have called a believer a “coward,” or a “Gestapo agent.”
Only Antonio’s Sock Puppet: fg me stunt, and the massive plagiarism of Jim Johnson brought numerous personal rebukes from my group, and that is because both remain in denial, are combative and unrepentant.
My group and I have steadfastly attacked the false teaching of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel. There are advocates and sympathizers of those false doctrines who have been and will continue to be publicly named. That, in the opinion of some, appears to constitute a personal attack.
The primary purpose of my blog to identify LS, the CG and the men/women who promote those errors. My desire is for unsuspecting believers to be better equipped to recognize these twin heresies and not be caught up in them.
If biblical separation from unbelievers and disobedient brethren, the marking teachers of gross “contrary doctrine,” admonishing other believers to follow the biblical mandates to stand against Lordship’s addition to and the Crossless subtraction from the Gospel is a personal attack, then I happily plead guilty.
Lou, where did I say that you had called anyone “coward” or “Gestapo agent”? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Neither did I say you had questioned someone’s salvation. There are others involved in this besides yourself.
I do not say that you are guilty of all of the tactics that I mentioned in my article. You asked me for specific instances, however, of personal attacks. Here are a few: in a recent discussion on Rose’s blog, she told you politely, several times, that she did not want to continue the discussion at that time. You repeatedly persisted in badgering her, telling her she needed to get a “thicker skin”. If you were following biblical principles of speech seasoned with grace, why would she need a thicker skin?
Rose issued an apology to Steve and myself in this thread. This apology was not addressed to you, yet you felt it incumbent upon you to question the truthfulness of it. Do you have the ability to see what is in her heart?
The continued gag of referring to Antonio as “Sock Puppet” is nothing more than name-calling, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. It is beneath someone of your abilities.
Brother, in all sincerity, it is not your act of exposing error or proclaiming truth that I view as personal attacks, but the methods you employ to do so.
I have seen your name on several forums and blogs in this discussion. On nearly every one of them, there is a trail of carnage to be found. You have been requested not to comment on a number of blogs that I know to be open for Christian debate. Over and over I have seen people tell you that your presentation is abrasive and offensive. Does this not say something to you?
Lou, you are an intelligent man with a great zeal for the Gospel. I respect and appreciate that. I am trying to get you to see that you can perhaps be more effective in getting your message out (which needs to be heard) if you can modify the way in which you approach people.
I do not say this to be judgemental of you. I don’t know what is in your heart. It just concerns me when I see the light of the Gospel being hidden under a bushel of combativeness.
I will ask you to consider this question, has God called you to ride the hobbyhorses of Antonio’s masquerade and Jim Johnson’s plagiarism or has He called you to be a minister of the Gospel?
You have made your points considering these gentlemen, why belabor them? Would it not be better to proclaim the good news? If men are shown the light, will they not be able to identify the darkness for what it is?
The thing you cite with Rose is a far cry from “personal attack.” If telling her she needs a “thicker skin” is your idea of a personal attack and that is all you have to offer then your idea of personal attack is quite unique.
I have been banned only by Antonio at the two blogs he controls.
The “coward” and “Gestapo” remarks are in quotes, but I did not attribute to you. “Coward” and many more comes from Antonio and was directed to me and several pastors. “Gestapo” was by another CG man, whose name I forgot because it was in the GES blog that was deleted by Wilkin.
The only ones who you claim feel I have been offensive are the advocates, sympathizers and defenders of the Crossless gospel. In all my debates with LS men and they were sharp debates; no one said I was offensive. IMO, the reason the CG camp feels I have been offensive is because their theology has been fully exposed and thoroughly devastated by my group. Why do you suppose none of them are writing and new pro-Crossless articles; not even at their own blogs? Their doctrine has been scripturally unmasked and totally refuted. Therefore, they have nothing left but to try to demonize their opponents.
I am going to end my addressing any more of those peripheral issues. We are not going to agree on them. Shifting gears…
You have said here that you, “…have a feeling that you and I would probably be in agreement on the matter of the Gospel.” OK, let’s try that out. Are you willing to go on record right here categorcially rejecting John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation and Zane Hodges’s Crossless Gospel?
Lou, you asked me for examples and I responded. If you wish to disregard my input, that is certainly your prerogative.
Are you willing to go on record right here categorcially rejecting John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation and Zane Hodges’s Crossless Gospel?
This is what I mean by defining your belief by what you are against rather than by what you are for.
You still have not stated exactly what it is that you DO believe about the Gospel.
I will respond to your question in this way. I do not know enough about either of the two positions that you name to categorically reject anything.
Here is what I believe a person must believe in order to be saved.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10
I believe that is from God’s book. 😉
What say you?
So predictable! You don’t know enough about either LS or CG to make any sort of conclusion? OK, let’s makes this simple.
Let’s look at Romans 10:9-10 the way LS and CG do. I’ll boil it down to a very simple example from both, this way you can state whether or not you find either acceptable.
In commenting on Romans 10:9, John MacArthur says “that it include(s) indisputably the lordship of Christ as part of the gospel to be believed for salvation, and that personal salvation requires a willingness to surrender to [Christ] as Lord…It is clear that people who come to Christ for salvation must do so in obedience to Him, that is, with a willingness to surrender to Him as Lord.”
Zane Hodges insists that it is not necessary for a sinner to understand or believe in Christ’s death for our sins or in His resurrection in order to be saved, nor does he even believe it is necessary for the unsaved to understand or believe that Jesus is Lord in the sense that He is the Son of God- Deity.
1) You have LS that adds upfront commitment to a life of obedience in exchange for salvation. Do you believe that is a biblical view of the Gospel that you could support?
2) You have the Crossless gospel that eliminates confession of the Lord and belief in the heart that He died and rose from the Gospel message that must be believed. Do you believe that is a biblical view of the Gospel that you could support?
A lost man can’t be saved apart from belief in the Person of the Lord Jesus and His finished work on the cross (the Crossless gospel). The lost can’t be saved by adding promises of good works expected of a disciple of Christ (Lordship Salvation).
Now, I have made these two systems very clear to you in light of how they view Romans 10:9-10. I am very clear that IMO both are false interpretations of the Gospel, I reject both.
What say you?
So predictable! You don’t know enough about either LS or CG to make any sort of conclusion? OK, let’s makes this simple.
Brother, I am not your enemy. You seem to be determined to make me out be so.
What is predictable and why? This sort of tone is exactly to what I have been referring.
I am familiar with certain aspects of Lordship Salvation. My comment should have said that I am not familiar enough with Macarthur’s and Hodge’s personal views on the matter to categorically reject either one.
I take issue with any presentation of the Gospel that adds works to faith in order for a person to be saved.
I would also state that without the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, there is no Gospel. If one is to believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead, it seems logical that they must understand why He was dead.
If you will look on the Missions page of my blog, there is a link entitled “Do You Know?” to a presentation of the Gospel that I can unequivocally endorse.
I would still like to know just what you believe a biblical Gospel presentation looks like. Let me put it this way: if a lost person came to you and asked you, “What must I do to be saved?” What would you tell them?
I need to be more plain- “Enemy” has nothing to do with this, you are, thus far, dodging the question on LS & the CG.
When I encounter people who dodge this kind of simple, unambiguous question, I can’t figure if it is fear, pride, arrogance, desire to deceive or some other reason for why they duck and dodge questions.
I gave you a snapshot of my view of the Gospel based on the passage you cited (Rom. 10:9-10). I did this purposely because you wanted something along those lines. Of course, as is the custom with those who want to dodge a simple, unambiguous question, they ignore the question by seeking additional information on a side issue, i.e., more diversion. I am hopeful you are not playing that kind of political gamesmanship that is commonplace among Crossless advocates and their sympathizers.
Based on how MacArthur and Hodges address Rom. 10:9-10, which I provided for you, can you accept or reject their interpretations of the Gospel?
Does LS add to the Gospel?
Does the Crossless gospel negate understanding and belief in the deity and finished work of Christ?
Please reassure your readers that you are not trying to dodge this. Pease reassure me and your reads that you are willing to be honest and transparent by answering the question on LS & CG above.
Lou, did you read my last comment? I told you what I believed. I told you that I take issue with any presentation of the Gospel that adds works as a means of salvation. I also stated that I believed that the cross is essential to salvation.
You are continuing the tactics that this article addresses. You throw one statement from each camp at me and then expect me to jump through your hoop by “categorically rejecting” the entire position.
I would disagree with the statements that you have quoted. How is that?
On the other hand, I have asked you three times to state what it is that you believe about how a person is saved. In that you seem to not believe in dodging questions, I can only assume that you are either uncertain or ashamed of what you believe.
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. I Peter 3:15
Your blog is called “Defense of the Gospel”, yet nowhere on there do I find the Gospel. I find repeated attacks against what you consider to be false Gospels, yet I find nothing that tells someone how to be saved.
Brother, if your message is hidden, it is hidden to them that are lost.
You wrote , “Quack, quack, quack”
Clever, appears very pious, but a duck none-the-less.
All done here.
Lou, you said, I gave you a snapshot of my view of the Gospel based on the passage you cited (Rom. 10:9-10).
I still haven’t seen where you did this. I saw where you rejected the excesses of LS and CG, but I still haven’t found where you clearly stated exactly what it is that you believe.
Lou, you are out of line. Extremely out of line.
I know Gordon Cloud personally, and while you choose to believe that he is less than forthright with what he believes, you are absolutely incorrect.
What you continue to do in your comments here and elsewhere is inject biting sarcasm, patronizing remarks, arrogance, and assumptions about people you don’t even know.
This is not only inconsistent with the spirit of Christ, but is also counter to what the scripture indicates as maturity in Christ (i.e., behavior of an elder).
Gordon is a humble, gracious gentleman who is very passionate about the Bible, the cross, and the gospel as outlined in Scripture. I have known him online for a couple of years now, and have also spent time with him in person and on the phone.
Your accusations have no basis in reality. And you, sir, are slandering a genuinely dear brother in Christ.
As another brother in Christ, I am formally asking you to cease your insulting comments and cease slandering a brother in Christ. By continuing your immature tactics, you are continuing to behave in a manner that is contrary to the Spirit of Christ.
I’ll close out with a brief reply to you.
Any objective reader can see that Gordon is ducking a clear, unvarnished question about his interpretation of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless interpretations of the Gospel as they are clearly defined by MacArthur and Hodges respectively.
He just can’t bring himself to clearly identify whether or not he accepts or rejects these specific, clearly defined interpretations (LS & CG) of the Gospel and Romans 10:9-10.
He may be “very passionate” about the things you mention, but he is very passionate about evading going on record about these two widely known, highly destructive interpretations of the Gospel. Why do you suppose that is?
If you reply I’ll read it, but I’m done interacting since Gordon is unwilling to engage the specific question I posed to him.
You linked to a SBC plan of salvation…I’ll link you to a plan of salvation I can agree with. See
Just so you know, I am going to construct a simple plan of salvation to post at my blog. I may link to this as you do from yours as an intermediary step.
That said, I am still of the opinion that you do not want to take any clear stand on the twin errors of LS or the CG. To suggest you don’t know enough about either to make any sort of determination as to whether they are genuine to the Gospel or departures from Scriptures is barely believable coming from a trained pastor.
BTW, Antonio/Hodges/Wilkin would strongly object to many elements of the statement you link to.
All done here.
and then later wrote:
I’m done interacting
and yet continues to post accusations and belittling comments.
Please, Lou, keep your word and be done here as you said twice that you would be.
Since you seem to think that you are the only “objective reader” here, Lou, it might be worth pointing out that Gordon earlier wrote to you, in response to the two statements you presented regarded “LS” and “CG”:
I would disagree with the statements that you have quoted.
He answered your question without any dodging or double-speak.
What has happened here is that you have continued in your contempt for people you don’t even know, continuing to use the most condescending, schoolyard bully-type language in the process.
Your refusal to even examine yourself in light of what I and Gordon have said here is incredibly disturbing, Lou.
And for the record, my name is not “Stephen”, which shows how little you bother to even get to know the people you are intent on belittling.
Lou, I have not ducked your question. I have stated what I believe about the Gospel. I have told you that I disagree with the statements from MacArthur and Hodges that you quoted.
You are merely trying to force me to jump through your hoops by “categorically rejecting” the positions of these two men.
As strange as it may sound to you, as a “trained pastor” I have more to do with my time than hunting down heretics. I am somewhat familiar with what MacArthur teaches and on many things I disagree with him. It is only in the last month or so that I have even become aware that there is such a belief as the “crossless gospel”.
I saw that you quoted Prov. 18:13 to Matthew on Rose’s blog. Would you have me play the part of a fool by responding to writings that I have not read?
You choose to define what you believe by what you are against. I choose to state what I believe. I stand by what I have said. Anything that adds or detracts from the Gospel is in error.
My father always told me, “If you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one you hit will holler.”
You, Sir, are the hit dog in the pack that this post addresses. Everyone else who has commented has done so with humility and grace. You have demonstrated a spirit of arrogance and hard-heartedness.
You have completely hijacked this post, ignoring the topic and trying to force a debate instead of engaging the point at hand.
You “sincerely” asked me for examples of your wrong-doing in light of this post. I gave you three. You responded to one, ignored the other two and dismissed the topic as “peripheral issues”.
You have spoken to my friends in a manner that is unbecoming Christian grace. You have acted in a way that is rude and devoid of manners.
Now you are questioning my integrity.
If you were a guest in my home, I would be showing you to the door at this point.
So let me say this clearly. This kind of behavior is not welcome on this blog. Please do not comment here any more.
To those who read this blog.
Let me offer my most sincere apology for what this particular thread has become. This is a complete departure from what my purpose for this blog is.
I should not have allowed this discussion to progress (digress?) this far. I wanted to give Lou the benefit of the doubt that he was wanting to engage in a civil conversation. Hindsight would reveal that that hope was misplaced.
When I posted this article, I was aware of the possibility that it might draw this kind of fire. I regret that those who might have come here looking for more wholesome content were forced to endure this.
I hope and pray that this will be the last time that this occurs.
Steve, you are a good friend and true brother in Christ. That holds an incredible value to me.
I trust you’ll allow this one more incursion.
I am not proud of some of my comment here. Passion can turn to flesh, which it did in some examples above. I offer my unqualified apology.
Not my intent to misuse your name, “Stephen” is the name of a friend, and it was just stuck in my head.
Lou, in the words of Jesus: Go and sin no more.
Lou, I appreciate and accept your apology.
I sent you an e-mail from the link at your site here, please check it.
To all who are concerned,
I have just finished a telephone conversation with Bro. Lou.
In it he expressed what I feel to be a heartfelt and sincere apology. I have accepted his apology and he is welcome to continue visiting and commenting here.
Bro. Lou, let me say publicly that I appreciate your willingness to be reconciled. Let me reaffirm my appreciation for your zeal for the Gospel. I pray that God will continue to use you as a witness for His glory.
Your prayers and expression of Christian love for me are greatly appreciated.
May we all be filled with zeal for the proclamation and defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we major on one to the near exclusion of the other we have lost our balance and probably power with God.
I just want you to know that I appreciate your ” Quacking ” [new word for Pastor ] every Sunday and at every oppurtunity you speak Gods Word at God’s House every week ? And Steve just continue to spread God’s message [ in music ] to the troubled sinners that need to hear it !
Bro. Lou I even extend God’s Love to you and pray you will continue to live and preach God’s Message ! As Jesus said ” go and sin no more ” !
Thanks, Bro. Ron. I appreciate your friendship.
For all who read this, please keep Bro. Ron’s grandson, Cole, in your prayers. He is potentially facing a liver transplant.
My, my, my…this is quite a discussion Gordon. LOL…I never know what I will find when i come over here 🙂
I must confess that I have never heard of Lordship Salvation or Crossless Gospel but I would definitely be wary about making a catagorical acceptance, or disapproval for that matter on one statement or concept.
All to often people create a philosophy based on one verse, or part of a verse from the Bible, when in reality the whole chapter or section must be examined to determine the frame of reference that the writer was expounding.
But after all is said and done, I know your heart Gordan, and your position in the Gospel, so I will aquiesce to your position on these “new age” things…but I’m gonna’ have to go check this stuff out!
The Bible says in the end times there will be false purveyors of the truth, so I guess this is to be expected, but we also must pray for the hearts and minds of those being affected by these teachings.
Bonnie, it’s always good to hear from you. You are absolutely right that there will always be those who attempt to deceive others. Those who know the truth must be faithful to proclaim it.