Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Chafer was a proponent of the Crossless Gospel?

UPDATE: Brother Lou is also discussing this at his blog - In Defense Of The Gospel.

OK so they would like it to be called the "refined" or "consistent" Gospel, but they take the Cross out of the Gospel that the Apostle Paul declared in 1 Cor 15:1-10 So I will continue to call it what it is, a false, Crossless gospel. The current claim of the Grace Evangelical Society is that a sinner can be saved without knowing they are a sinner (and so with no repentance), without knowing what Jesus Christ has done or Who He Is, and even while denying that Jesus is God. The Unashamed of Grace Blog has a new article quoting Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer as though he would have supported such a gospel.

Here is the quote they use to show his support.

Thus salvation can be accomplished, even by the infinite God, only through Jesus Christ. Hence it is that a simple trust in the Savior opens the way into the infinite power and grace of God. It is "unto every one that believeth," "For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." This one word "believe" represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner must do to be saved... [Jesus] is a living Savior to all who put their trust in Him. It is quite possible for any intelligent person to know whether he has placed such confidence in the Savior. Saving faith is a matter of personal consciousness. "I know whom I have believed." To have deposited one's eternal welfare in the hands of another is a decision so definite that it can hardly be confused with anything else. On this deposit of oneself into His saving grace depends one's eternal destiny. To add, or subtract, anything from this sole condition of salvation is most perilous.

Here is my reply, including any errors. A simple cut and paste.
Who is this Savior? Who is this Jesus? Who is this Christ?

Dr Chafer says "I know Whom I've believed" Who is He?

Early God identifies Himself with the attributes of Himself, His promises, or the things He has done. He never simply claims a name. In Ex 6 we see that God had never before shared His Name, and we see that He reveals His attributes in His Name there.

In Ex 20 we see that God commands that they honor Him alone, the God who had taken them out of Egypt.

And we see the same thing in Acts, quoted by Dr. Chafer that the Name Jesus is associated with what He had done. His name is qualified by what He had done. They don't believe in Jesus. They believe in The Christ, named Jesus who died and rose again.

In 1 Cor 15:1-10 Paul declares the Gospel to the Corinthians again, because they had been led astray on the Resurrection. He claims this is the Gospel that saves. He doesn't use the name "Jesus" instead He uses the Title Messiah or Christ. And Names Him by saying what He did.

No where in Scripture is someone told to believe in some guy named Jesus. Jesus is always associated with the Gospel.

You have taken Dr. Chafer's words out of context. He is not saying that one should not identify Who Christ is, or that one does not need to know Who He is. Dr. Chafer is saying to add to simple faith in this God Man who Died for our Sins and rose again for our life is to add to the Gospel.

For example. Imagine a furniture salesman explaining a chair to some deep jungle native who had never seen one. He tells the native that the chair will hold him up, and that it's very important for the native to believe this. The native assures the salesman that yes he does in fact that the chair is guaranteed to hold him up. That he'd love to have the chair.

The salesman is greatly encouraged! He's won yet another customer. He can't wait to tell his wife.

The salesman says, "right then you go pick the one you like and we'll send you on your way!" The native rushes over picks up what he fancies and brings it back to the salesman. Turns out the native walked past the chair and picked up a bucket. He turns it up side down and stands on it and gleefully says "You were right!! You were right!!"

The native, having never been introduced to the Chair didn't even know he had the wrong item. Such is the problem with any so called "gospel" that doesn't identify the Christ with what He has done.

There are many Jesus' There are many gods. There are many religions. There is only one Christ Jesus who died on a cross for my sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later. Just one. No problem of confusion. It's not all that hard to understand, but it sure separates the difference between professing faith and having it.
I will be watching to see how this is responded to, hopefully some of the Brethren who read my blog but who may be unfamiliar with the Crossless Gospel movement will join in the defense of the Gospel of Christ.


Lou Martuneac said...

Hi Kevin:

Just read your note about Antonio da Rosa’s article at Unashamed. You did well to point some of the disconcerting issues and the way in which it appears da Rosa is twisting Chafer’s quote to gain an advantage.

Hodges/da Rosa believes a lost man can be saved apart from understanding and believing in the deity of Christ. da Rosa has written that a lost man can be saved no matter what "misconceptions" he may hold. That includes his not understanding or believing who Jesus is (His deity) and what Jesus did to provide salvation. That is Hodges’ position, which Antonio believes 100% and has written entire articles about.

I would ask da Rosa how he can claim Chafer, when they believe lost men can be saved without understanding or believing in Whom they have (allegedly) believed.

Again, you did well in your comment.


Kevl said...

All - of course when I say there are many gods I mean there are many things we call gods, and many gods we pretend exist. There is only one God.

Lou - I'll ask him in a follow-up. Thanks for the encouragement!


Lou Martuneac said...


I just wrote a companion piece at my blog.

Consistently Refined


Glenn W said...


I saw that post as well and I certainly had my doubts as to whether Dr. Chafer really was really in agreement with the current GES position. I did some checking and the Blue Letter Bible web site has an online copy of Dr. Chafer's book Salvation. I have only skimmed it so far but the following quote clarifies Dr. Chafer's position as to what it means to believe:

This one word "believe" represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner must do to be saved. It is believing the record God has given of His Son. In this record it is stated that He has entered into all the needs of our lost condition and is alive from the dead to be a living Saviour to all who put their trust in Him.

Chapter Five: The One Condition of Salvation

I think this quote speaks for itself.

Lou Martuneac said...


You have provided a very valuable, clarifying quote with the link to the larger volume.

Antonio has been grasping at straws to shore up their “Crossless” view of the Gospel. IMO, he pulled and twisted Chafer’s statement out of context and used it for personal advantage.

Chafer wrote, “...alive from the dead.” Sounds like belief in the resurrection is what Chafer meant the sinner must be believe.”

I strongly encourage you to copy the identical comment (with links) from here and paste it in the thread at Unashamed, and then ask Antonio specifically to explain the inconsistency.


Kevl said...


Wow, nice find! It really does speak for itself.

God Bless!


Only Look said...

May God continue to bless both you and Lou's defense of the truth and in holding these wavering free gracers to the fire. I see some settling in on this position of labeling the cross as just another list of doctrines in men like Matthew and Antonio and the rest of the unashamed blog seem to be skirting the fence...Rose appears to be trying to hold the fort by pleasing both groups but this seems to only further breed this false postion and give it a further larger voice and enablement by saying people have a point here or a point there. It is troubling to witness, but I do believe Dave Wyatt is consistant with the Cross of our Saviour though and remains the only one not willing to offer any compromise to this truth. I have been praying for him. A while back there was a man named Nate who left and cut off from the Unashamed blog because he was growing uncomfortable with this compromise and I think it proved to be a healthy choice for Him. Anytime we make alliances with people who do not hold to the truth of the finished work of the cross, then we know that there will be much sorrow to come later as a result. I hope folks wake up.

Please note that this is an observation of what is occuring and not any character assasination. I am hoping and praying that some will rethink their positions over there.

Keep your lamps lit brethren and encouraging all of us to stay awake.

Love in Christ,

Brian Hedrick

Kevl said...

Thanks for the support Brian. We need to keep praying for those who are being led astray by this new doctrine.

I know for me it's easy to get uptight, and self-righteous. I don't read that in your post at all, even still your note at the end is appreciated.

This struggle for fidelity in the Gospel is not over. Nor do I believe that those at Unashamed are so far down the path of error that they can't be turned back.

I DO appreciate Rose, as you do. I think she's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Ya know? It is never easy to be where she is right now. When I found the "Free Grace" movement I was so joyful to find a group of Grace minded people who did not want to add to the Gospel. Who were confident in the promise of God to keep His Word.

But then I became aware of this new teaching. Though it has broken my heart to do so, I removed the link to Unashamed from my blog and now only minister there instead of fellowshipping. Not that I spent much time there before - I don't want to give a false impression. I must limit my time there now too because I tend towards pride.

If we continue to prayerfully and gracefully address this issue it will be exposed for what it is. Just the latest subversive attack on the Gospel from the inside of professing Christendom.

And it will diminish in time, if it is God's good pleasure to answer the prayers of many who know about the problem.



Lou Martuneac said...


I am out of time for much, but I want you to know that I appreciate your comments, both in tone and spirit.


Lou Martuneac said...

Dear On My Walk Guests:

I just posted a companion article, Can the Biblical Jesus & Mormon Jesus be One and the Same?

In this article I review one of the most extreme statements on the Deity of Chrst by Antonio da Rosa.


Only Look said...

Hi Kev...No, I am not in agreement with Roses position. I appreciate your sentiments but at this time I do not agree with them, however I am glad you are standing fast. I don't like to get caught up much in these debates anymore, but I did want to offer you some encouragement brother to hang in there:-)

I think David is in between a Rock and a hard place right now and I am praying for him.

Love in Christ and grace upon grace,


Only Look said...

Hang in there brother Lou:-)

It's a tough tiger to ride out here, but you stand on the firm position of the cross where I stand and I am thankful for your voice.

Keep yourself in the love of God as you contend for the faith,


Only Look said...


Amen on his beloved promise and our simple childlike faith in Him.


Lou Martuneac said...


You made an outstanding reply to Antonio as he tried to dismiss away his obvious misuse of Chafer's quote.

Glenn's revealing what was deleted demonstrates that Antonio had an agenda and the deleted portion would have undermined it, therefore, he blocked it out.

The balance of your reply was well written.

More to follow...


Lou Martuneac said...


You have acquitted yourself well as you engage Antonio over what has been irrefutably documented and revealed to be his misuse of Chafer’s quote.

His ellipsis on line #5 was used to delete a portion of Chafer’s statement.

The portion Antonio deleted was, “This one word ‘believe’ represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner must do to be saved. It is believing the record God has given of His Son. In this record it is stated that He has entered into all the needs of our lost condition and is alive from the dead to be a living Saviour to all who put their trust in Him.”

I used to work in the media. What Antonio did to the selection from Chafer is called “censorship by omission.” The deleted portion, which references the Lord’s resurrection, was an important note in understanding Chafer’s position. Antonio deleted it because it undermines what he wanted to accomplish in his article.

Then to dismiss the revelation of the omitted item and its impact on his article Antonio says, Chafer, “waffled a bit...

IMO, it took alot of nerve for Antonio to post a censored portion from Chafer, be confronted with the deleted portion, and then charge Chafer with waffling?

Antonio basically decided to drop Chafer in the deep-fryer, rather than acknowledge his misuse of Chafer’s quote.


Kevl said...

"censorship by omission" That's what it's called. Thank you!

A good friend of mine and I have been trying to figure out what it's called when someone does this. (apparently my googling technique needs some work *smile*)

It sure did take Antonio some nerve.. to do that. Any time we quote people we have to be VERY careful because the internet is full of people who will have the REAL quote. And who will know much more about the person and topic than we do.


Glenn W said...

Kevin & Lou,

I had thought about posting the Chafer quote as a comment after Antonio's article but I spent too much time looking up the reference as it was. By the time I circled back around Kevin had copied the quote over to the Unashamed of Grace blog and probably did a better job than I would have.

It bothers me that so many people believe that a name really doesn't mean much. Maybe in the 20th century it is a group of letters, or sounds, which identifies us as individuals but is not terribly specific. I do not believe that to be the case at the time of the first advent. The name "Jesus the Christ" was full of meaning to the Jews which Jesus Christ ministered to. In fact, in some ways the name may have even had more meaning to them than it does to us. That is why the Pharicees wanted to kill him, he was claiming to be God and they knew it.

When Chafer says "It is believing the record God has given of His Son" I doubt he means just the witness recorded in the gospels. I believe he would include all of the prophesies of the Messiah revealed in the old testament (particularly Isaiah) which our savior fulfilled.

No, His name is specific and carries a true depth of meaning.

Kevl said...

Glenn you said a lot in a short post (again).

Especially in this part-

The name "Jesus the Christ" was full of meaning to the Jews which Jesus Christ ministered to. In fact, in some ways the name may have even had more meaning to them than it does to us. That is why the Pharicees wanted to kill him, he was claiming to be God and they knew it.

The Jews who knew the Scriptures and really did reverence God, enough that they really were willing to kill someone for taking His Name in vain, these same Jews knew what the Name, "The Christ" meant. There was no need for debate. Neither did the Apostles debate what was needed to be believed to be saved.

I'm sure Paul could have quoted Peter about how much he loved the Lord and called that the gospel.. but instead he gave us 1 Cor 15 didn't he.

Thanks for the strong comments.


Kevl said...

Brian, I'm not really familiar with Rose's stance on the Gospel. I assume she at least loosely supports the GES version of it.

She seems to have some sense, and it could be that she's caught up in it all.


Lou Martuneac said...


You did excellent work on this issue and with Antonio's misuse of Chafer's beliefs.

Your most recent post is very helpful.

I like this, “In fact, in some ways the name may have even had more meaning to them than it does to us. That is why the Pharicees wanted to kill him, he was claiming to be God and they knew it.”

Exactly! For claiming to be the “Son of God,” which clearly meant that He was Deity, they would kill Him.

See John 10:30-36, “I am My Father are One...because I said, I am the Son of God

His title, “Son of God” and claiming to be the Son of God is why they sought to kill Him. His title, “Son of God,” identified Him as Deity and one with His Father.

I don’t understand how the pro-Crossless or neutral crowd can stand idly by when Hodges, Myers and da Rosa trample all over the Lord’s title, and now da Rosa relegates His name and Person to no more than Mormonism’s “another Jesus” (2. Cor. 11:4) half-brother of Satan.


Glenn W said...


I feel that I rushed my last comment and it wasn't as coherent as it should have been (I am glad you liked it anyway). To restate my point, I feel that one of the reasons that those who hold the to the GES version of the gospel have gone astray is that by emphasizing the gospel of John they have unlinked Jesus Christ, the Messiah, not only from the rest of the new testament but the old testament as well. When the name "Jesus" was used in the gospels every Jew (Christ's ministry was to Israel) new what was being claimed for Him. It was not a name which was empty of content. Rather, it was brimming with content and I think that is also what L.S. Chafer was referring to when he wrote "It is believing the record God has given of His Son" in the quote I found. The Old Testament prophecies were certainly part of that record.

I did a web search and found some material on Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. The booklet I am quoting from here is, I believe, written by a Greek Orthodox priest but he seems to have done a good job of pulling together prophecies that the Jews would have been familiar with regarding the Messiah:

The Old Testament books, as we shall see, are filled with prophecies about the Messiah and His blessed Kingdom. The goal of the Old Testament prophecies was to prepare the Jews, and through them all of mankind, for the coming of the Savior of the world, so that when He came, He could be recognized and they would believe in Him. Yet, the task of the prophets was difficult for several reasons. First of all, the Messiah was to be not only a great person, but at the same time God, or — the God-person. For this reason, the prophets were faced with the task of revealing the Godly nature of the Messiah, but in such a way, that it did not give rise to polytheism, to which ancient people were so prone, Jews included.

The Old Testament Regarding the Messiah
Bishop Alexander (Mileant)
Translated by Nicholas Semyanko/ Donald Shufran

Only Look said...

While Rose may not agree with some of their points she has lended strong support to the headliners in both Matthew and Antonio. She seems to be committed to both of them since the day Antonio invited them to team blog with them. Nate felt some pressure to conform and has since left. I honestly do not know whether Rose is sincere about the gospel or is intent on further exalting Antonios aggenda. It is not my place to judge. My only encouragement to you is to be careful. Time may prove that she is sincere, but to do that she does need to distance herself from this team as Nate did. This is something we cannot be nuetral about. This is not long hair or other important peripherial things concerning tongues or something else. This is the cross for goodness sake. I used to think everybody on the drop of a dime would immediately distance themselves from people who waver here, but I guess I was living in outer space somewhere when I had that thought. Still, what should be and what is are two differant things. They meantion hashing these things out in their mind. This is a no brainer for any Christian as this what everyone was wrestling with the day Jesus was crucified for goodness sakes. How in the world can anyone make a point to bypass this. Its sad, but some will make excuses and then claim heresy on lesser issues. This is what is diseasing the Christian colony today. We are not of one mind and perhaps some have never met Christ at the cross as it seems some see no importance or any indignation here. There should be indignation. It is not pride to be indignant here. Peter was not wavering when he commanded everyone to come to terms with the fact that they were responsible for crucifying Jesus. he left no room for discussion. How can we have any power in the gospel message without the cross? And how can the power remain if we begin to waver between two worlds of opinons on the matter and not suffer tragic consequences. Pilot had to come to terms with this. We all must either trust God here or stay in orbit elsewhere. There is no middle ground as ground zero starts at the cross.

Kevl said...

Hey Brian,

You're right... I would have never imagined Christians "debating" anything about the importance of belief in Christ's work on the Cross.

When Paul was with weak believers, he was determined to know nothing but Christ, and Him crucified. The Cross is our source of strength.

I noticed a post at Unashamed which admonished people like myself for our focus on sin in the sinner's life. It's a bit of a catch phrase.. but it's so very true. Everyone wants resurrection power, but no one wants to die first.

The Promise of God is not that He CAN and WILL save people. That's not the promise. The promise of God is that He is just and holy, and saves people. He promised Messiah. He gave Messiah. And based on the truth of His promise, the full payment made, He can be Just in justifying the guilty sinner.

We don't look ahead to salvation, we look back to it. Salvation was and is on the Cross. There is no believe that God is able to do what He promises to do. That is what Abraham was expected to believe. But we have more! Blessed truth we have SO much more!

We now believe that God HAS DONE what He promised to do, and that it is sufficient even for a sinner such as I.

It is vile work to disassemble and dissect the Gospel pulling out of it any offense for comfort's sake.

Before God winked but now He commands men everywhere to repent.


Lou Martuneac said...


You wrote, “I noticed a post at Unashamed which admonished people like myself for our focus on sin in the sinner's life.”

That is by Alvin, who has one of the most unusual views on sin that can be found anywhere. Antonio and Bob Wilkin also share these strange views.

Alvin has maintained that while all sins have been removed, people still need forgiveness. Rachel at Pursuit of Truth repeatedly questioned him on that, but never got an answer.

Here is sample from Antonio, “Sin has been taken completely out of the way as an issue between God and man with regards to God's acceptance of the sinner.”

Here is Bob Wilkin from his GES site, “Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God. However, we still lack spiritual life, eternal life. To get that life, we must simply believe in Jesus for it.”


Kevl said...

Hi Lou,

If Alvin is correct then the Apostle Paul must have been mistaken in Acts 17:30-31

30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

It would seem to me that sin is still an issue.. seeing as judgment for it is still pending. Paul might not have heard that the Cross already happened?

OK maybe I shouldn't jest about this... like I posted at your blog earlier. I really think the root of the issue is the picking and choosing of what verses men will read and believe. Prooftexting, or "censoring by omission" as you put it is a dangerous thing.


Kevl said...

Alvin strongly suggest that I have not realized the purpose for Antonio's quote of Chafer.

He said kevl -

Antonio said:
"The quotation used from Rev. Chafer was not produced to prove that Chafer was an all out advocate of Consistent Free Grace Theology. On this point, he would waffle. I will show how in a moment.

The quotation was produced to show that the phraseology of Consistent Free Grace theology is not something that does not have precedent."

Are you reading the comments in this thread? Your remarks appear disingenuous.

To which I replied -


Antonio used an incomplete quote of Chafer speaking about one topic and applied it to a topic Chafer was not discussing.

Chafer does not "waffle" on the subject at all.. .the methodology of Antonio's quotation is abusive to Chafer's intent. Antonio does not go on to discuss the use of language. He goes on to discuss his theology.

You said The quotation was produced to show that the phraseology of Consistent Free Grace theology is not something that does not have precedent."

Of course this "phraseology" has precedent. People have been abusing God's Word since the Garden. This tactic that Antonio uses, and that you are currently using as well has it's first ever use in this planet recorded in the infallible Word of God.

Gen 3:1 NASB
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"


Glenn W said...

Kevin & Lou,

I noticed the comment about Alvin, Antonio, Bob Wilkin, et al having unusual views on sin. I followed the link to the Pursuit of the Truth blog and scanned (as opposed to thoroughly digested) Rachel's post. From what I can tell I probably also share their unusual views on sin. It is not the case that every doctrinal disagreement that you have with the GES proponents are due to their views on the content of saving faith. In this case I believe that their views on sin are more a distinctive of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS).

As I have mentioned to Lou in the past, my pastor growing up was a man by the name of R.B. Thieme, Jr who was a graduate of DTS (actually he was a student of L.S. Chafer). He most definitely taught, and I still believe, that a Christian falls out of fellowship with God when he sins (this is not to be confused with salvation). A believer must confess his sins per 1 John 1:9 to regain fellowship. When a believer is out of fellowship he quenches and grieves the Holy Spirit. This link will take you to one of the illustrations he always used to use called the top and bottom circles which should help explain the dynamic.

I noticed that Rachel appeared to deny that we have a personal relationship with Christ. She is allowed to believe what she will but I very strongly disagree with her. I tracked down one of R.B. Thieme, Jr's students online by the name of Rick Hughes and will quote two short sections from one of his publications:

---- Begin Quotes ----

11. When we believe in Christ, He enters us into a new, personal relationship with God as members of His Royal Family.

Our new birth by faith in Christ makes us acceptable for adoption by God since Christ has already paid the adoption price for us.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His name. (John 1:12)

Practicing Your Christianity
Rick Hughes
p 12 (p 20 in the PDF)

6. When you sin, your fellowship with God is broken.

Notice I said fellowship, not relationship. When you sin, you do not and cannot lose your relationship with God. Once you believe in Christ as your Saviour, you are a member of God’s Royal Family forever. When you sin, however, you lose the filling of the Holy Spirit and, therefore, get out of fellowship with God.

Practicing Your Christianity
Rick Hughes
p 34 (p 42 in the PDF)

---- End Quotes ----

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit.

Only Look said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Only Look said...

you said>We now believe that God HAS DONE what He promised to do, and that it is sufficient even for a sinner such as I.

It is vile work to disassemble and dissect the Gospel pulling out of it any offense for comfort's sake.<

Amen brother. I take heart and am refreshed and encouraged by your steadfast spirit here. Keep fighting the good fight. I am seeing more and more how everone seems to be drifting in different ends and directions of the truth, but I am encouraged by men like you that are staying true to the faith. I never want to waver on this truth, it is most blessed to me. It is my only hope and I am anchored by it, though wind and troubling waters meet, this house shall stand on this blessed promise of life.

Kevl said...

Hi Glenn I haven't followed the links you provided yet.

But I doubt you and I disagree on sin - based on what you've posted in this post. I do believe that 1 John is about fellowship not salvation (though it does reveal some "birthmarks of salvation"). I believe that we can be out of fellowship with God (and the therefore the Church) but still be saved.

This is a point of view I spend a great deal of time defending and expounding on at one place where I fellowship.

I am actually planning an article on 1 John for this purpose.

I'm not well versed in many of the men's (and women) theology at Unashamed but can respond to Alvin's posts. I believe that Sin is still the separating issue between God and Man. I believe as the Apostle John says that Christ was the Propitiation for all men. Not that all men's sins have been forgiven, but that God has received appeasement for all sins. Christ is also the Kinsman Redeemer to redeem all of Creation back to Himself but that's another topic isn't it. :)

I'll be very interested in checking the links you gave when I am awake. :)

God Bless!


Kevl said...

Brian, what you express is an expansion of "I know Whom I have believed"

I mess up enough stuff.. I'm too soft on enough stuff.. I'm just plain disobedient on enough stuff... I can't dare add messing with the Gospel.

I agree 100% with your sentiment "There is no middle ground as ground zero starts at the cross."

In the Gospel of Christ we have unity. Anything less than that breaks unity so it is the line in the sand.


Rachel said...

Hi Kev,

I haven't posted on your site before, so greetings! I was browsing around because of the issue with one of your posts over at the Unashamed blog, where Jim seems rather upset at you for what I think is a misreading of your post. So I thought I'd make sure you know of it so you could reply.

However, I was skimming the comments on this thread and saw that Glenn noted that I "appeared to deny that we have a personal relationship with Christ". Just wanted to clarify that I absolutely did NOT deny that, in fact I stated just the opposite: "Now, I am NOT saying that we cannot know God personally." Glenn did indicate that he had not "thoroughly digested" my entire post there, so perhaps my position was unclear in a less-detailed review of my post. But I certainly do believe that we can have a personal relationship with Christ. In fact, I have one myself. :-)

Also, in that post I linked to my first post about that issue, in which Glenn posted several times, along with some others. As noted, I have never heard from Alvin on the major points on that post, so Glenn, feel free to take a stab. :-)

Kevl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevl said...

Greetings Rachel!

Thanks for letting me know. I had forgotten about my last post at Unashamed. It set a fire I wasn't even aware of. Jim really did misunderstand. It actually was pretty rude of me to drop a bomb and not go back to check on it....

However my wife and I really needed a day off from the world together and taking it was fantastic!