Final Comments on Recent Controversies in the "Grace Movement"
While things are always subject to change, I have no intention at this time of commenting any further on this subject beyond this final article. I believe it is important to have closure going forward concerning the theological hostility expressed to the saints at the conference in question. My initial article was not intended to be open ended, but was a call for clarification as a prelude to final judgment. I, along with many other brethren, had hoped that there would be clarification regarding GSB’s intentions regarding the conference so that any judgments that were made in light of it would be incontrovertible with no potential for misunderstanding. To my knowledge, this has not been forthcoming thus far. What little response there has been has demonstrated to me a clear refusal to acknowledge what took place at the conference and the nature of the arguments that were made there. Since this clarification has not occurred, I can only conclude that they wish the conference to stand on its own without comment and let each man/ministry make their own judgments about its implications. Therefore, I speak only for myself when I declare the following:
In light of the arguments that were made at the conference, and despite differences I may or may not have with other brethren who teach similar things, it is clear to me that certain aspects of my teaching regarding the joint-heir passage and completeness passages have been “marked” as being dangerous, incompatible with the “grace life” and therefore are not "GSB approved".
Given my associations, I therefore feel it is my duty and responsibility to formally put the saints on notice of this fact so that they may be aware and “avoid” my ministry if they so desire.
The only alternative to my publicly commenting on recent events would be to remain silent and “fly under the radar” which would only serve to undermine both my own ministry and those of the GSB brethren. If there are going to be ministry conflicts and tensions, I believe it is preferable in this case to have it out in the open before all men, not kept under the surface as a potential point of uneasiness and mistrust resulting from unequal yoking.
Be it understood, I do not issue any such warning concerning GSB and the brethren who minister in association with it, as I do not feel these expositional differences warrant such a division. I love the brethren, value and esteem their ministry contributions to the body, and harbor no ill-will concerning this matter. I pray for continued unity and peace among the brethren going forward. I do feel it would be dishonest, however, to continue under the banner of being GSB approved. If clarifications are made by GSB in the future, I will be happy to reexamine the matter and amend my judgments if appropriate.
As a side note, I made it clear in the initial article that I was only addressing what was said by the speakers at the conference. I was taking for granted that what was being said concerning the brethren under fire was an accurate representation of what they teach. In light of subsequent rebuttals from certain of the brethren in question, I am even more perplexed by what took place at the conference and GSB's doctrinal hostility to these brethren. For those interested in hearing from the "other side", see the rebuttal paper by Matt Stutzman titled Wrongly Deriding Joint-heirs with Christ here.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
David Winston Busch
