GES’ Bob Wilkin: A Heretic’s Vagaries and Intrigue. - Comments (11)

Category: Articles,Doctrine,GES: Hodges, Wilkin, et.al.
Author: John Malone
Date: 2nd August, 2007 @ 12:27:34 AM

Friday night, as promised, I attended the “Regional Conference” of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) hosted by Community Bible Church (CBC) in Omaha, a church my family and I formerly attended in Omaha. I was among the 100 or less in attendance, and so were a half dozen of my friends. Perhaps 20% of the attendees were from the host church.

I went to this conference to expose Bob Wilkin. It’s one thing to teach what he does. It’s a whole different thing to disguise it, slip it in, and be guileful about it. And it’s even another thing to do it here where I live, among people I know.

As George, the former temporary head coach in Hoosiers told Head Coach Norman Dale, “Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb. A guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, a guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter. The second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.”

The speakers I heard were Bob Wilkin and John Niemela.

I listened to two messages, one by Bob Wilkin, another by John Niemela. Wilkin gave a message entitled, “Gospel means good news.” In that message, he painstakingly pointed out the word “gospel” is not in the Gospel of John. The GES position these days – Zane Hodge’s position, that is – is that the Gospel of John is the only book in the Bible written specifically to introduce the lost to Christ.

They actually don’t put it that way. Once you get into the swing of things, you will realize that “putting it that way” is a slippery slope with these GES guys as they continue their downhill slide. So, before I deal further with the particular doctrinal error in which they are now trapped, let me detail here the behavioral errors which attend to this particular schism.

The {Scriptures are not silent|Tit 3:10-11} concerning problems like the one presented by Hodges, Wilkin, Niemela, Bob Bryant, and perhaps others. What we are seeing is classic heresy, and that is not merely a matter of doctrine, albeit usually doctrinal errors are found in these schisms. This is why Titus 3 gives us knowledge we would not otherwise have concerning the character of the heretic.

Schisms are fomented by schismatic men. You might think that is so obvious, it doesn’t need to be said, but once one is in the maelstrom of the schism, it actually needs to be said very often.

A heretic – a schismatic, or factious man – is “self condemned,” according to the Scriptures. This means he judges himself to be wrong in his own mind. That doesn’t mean he admits it to you, but it especially means he will not confess it to God, so that his conscience will be renewed. “Heresy” is based on a word meaning “to choose,” and therefore some have rightly called “heresy” a division or gathering of a faction based on a self-willed opinion. self-willed opionions now abound in the teaching of the GES.

It’s so bad, in fact, that these GES fellows teach that {“they which are approved” in 1st Corinthians 11:19|1cor 11:19} are, in fact, they which are disapporved by God. That is a self-willed opinion!

The result of such internal knowledge is a bad conscience before God and men. This is quite the opposite of God’s man, {who is to look to himself first, and then to doctrine|1Ti 4:16}, and who is to hold {truth with a good conscience.|1Ti 1:19}

Therefore, the only way to deal with a heretic is to take leave of him; have nothing to do with him. This is what needs to be done with Wilkin. He’s a guy to be avoided. He’s been admonished more than once. I have admonished him twice myself: once in 2005, and once last Friday. I know he has wandered from the path of faith, and I know that he is sinning, and I know he is self-condemned. I know this from the Scriptures, and therefore so should others.

Men of weight in the Christian circles in which Wilkin moves need to make their opinions known. I fear that too much teaching without shepherding has made many men fearful. A shepherd under the Great Shepherd needs to face his fears, includng the fear of losing face, or popularity, and allow {the spirit of glory and of God|1Pe 4:14} do what it is intended to do.

As for Wilkin’s factious behavior, it went as follows.

Wilkin’s topic was “‘Gospel’ Means Good News.” In his message he set forth, generally, that the word “gospel” has a context, and may not mean the good news concerning the reception of eternal life, but may refer to – my words here – even more good news than that. This is true, by the way. The word “gospel” may be referring to the good news that Christ’s kingdom is at hand or coming. The word “gospel” may refer to the good news that Jesus Christ will be glorified among all men one day as he already has been among all angels. The word “gospel” may also refer to the additional good news revealed to the apostle Paul that was a bundle of secrets up to that time.

But the first, and most well-known and understood meaning of “gospel” is the good news concerning Jesus Christ is that God became a man, died on the cross as our Substitute, and was later declared to be the Son of God with power by His resurrection out from the dead.

Wilkins and the GES are actually effacing the first, most basic, and widespread meaning of the word “gospel,” that the apostle uses in 1st Corinthians 15 to describe the basic message bringing eternal life. There are certainly other {contexts in the Bible|Acts 14:7;Acts 15:7;Rom 1:16} whereby the unmodified word “gospel” represents this truth. It’s interesting to me that Wilkins will easily use other vernaculars, and verbal algebrae, that are common among believers, and yet somehow he takes some umbrage at the use of the word “gospel.” For instance, Wilkin will talk about “going to heaven” when that is not a Bible phrase at all.

Wilkins “new, improved” definition of “the gospel” stems from his self-willed opinion.

The point of departure I took up with Wilkin was something I had heard him say in 2005, and he repeated Friday night. When Wilkin finished speaking, he opened the floor for questions. First, I corrected Wilkins declaration that {1 Cor 15:3-4|1cor 15:3-4} did not contain the gospel of eternal life, and that the subject matter contained in those verses was solely for the progressive sanctification of the believer.

The passage does reference present tense “salvation” – but not soley – which we can understand as “sanctification” providing we have sufficient background to understand what that means. Even that is a use of a vernacular (actually, present tense salvation it is about the salvation of the life of the Christian).

But it is most certainly – yea, PRIMARILY – about the content of the gospel message which {Paul preached to them, which they received, and wherein they stood.|1cor 15:1} Receiving that message is {receiving Christ|jo 1:12}, as did Abraham in Genesis 15, and the saving work of Jesus Christ was imputed to him for righteousness on the condition of his faith.

It has lately – perhaps no more than 2 years – become the studied intent of the GES fellows to defeat each passage of Scripture from which Christians have historically evangelized, if it’s not in John’s gospel. It started with Wilkin attempting to defeat 1st Cor 15: 3-4. His argument was actually far weaker than I imagined, and he simply asked: “Why stop at verse 4? What about the next verses down to {verse 11?|1cor 15:5-11} Why aren’t these essential to the gospel for eternal life.”

So, before I phrased my question, I referenced the {first three verses of 1 cor 15|1cor 15:1-3}, pointing out the obvious, that the “gospel” referenced by Paul comprehended the past, present, and future tense salvation of the Corinthians, especially as it pertains to what the “gospel” is, in the context of bringing people initially to Jesus Christ – or, as the new GES term for the marvelous new birth is now called – “the saving proposition.”

You see, to Wilkin and others in his company, the preaching of the gospel need not – indeed, should not – include the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ found in verse 3. Neither need it and should it include the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ found in verse 4. Wilkins claims if these truths are key elements of what Paul preached to the Corinthians, so are the next several verses which describes the eyewitnesses to the Lord’s resurrection. And so – but this now is all inference, mind you, and not plain declaration – if someone need not believe the details of who and when were those eyewitnesses , they also need not believe the 3rd and 4th verses to have eternal life.

Wilkins “new, improved” view of 1 Cor 15:3-4 stems from his self-willed opinion.

Second, I asked him if he thought that someone could have eternal life, and yet not believe in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, if he were approaching honestly, his answer to that question is, “Yes, I believe that some one can have eternal life, and not believe in either Christ’s death or resurrection.” Because that IS what he believes.

The fact that he won’t come right out and admit it or say it directly, but slips it in on some of his hearers in churches while those looking on, or in oversight, need to pry it out of him with remonstrations and prosecutorial inquiry, is what makes him a heretic, and what demonstrates his bad conscience: the evidence that he is “perverted (twisted)” as Titus 3:11 declares.

Of course, as I was questioning, the allotted time was up. Having a time-scheduled agenda, and sticking religiously to it, is often what allows manipulators like Wilkin to get away with what they do. Personally, as a boxing fan, I agree with the three-knockdown rule, and I also approve the rule that no one can be saved by the bell, includingin the last round. Wilkins is not a man on the ropes in this matter, he’s on the canvas.

The GES travelling circus is all set up for slipping this heresy in on the unsuspecting believers who attend. They surround this attempt with side teaching that destroys the opportunities that experienced brethren must fulfill in order to properly address the heresy.

So, for instance, one of the conference topics is “Dealing Graciously With An Erring Brother,” wherein two key passages of Scripture are entirely defeated. One is the example Paul showed in Galatia where he confronts Peter to his face and publicly, because “he is to be blamed.” The other is the direct instructions to Timothy that, even though he is a young man, he is to {rebuke sinning elders publicly.|1Ti 5:19-20}

When an error in doctine is public, it does not fulfill any useful purpose to deal with it privately. As a heretic, Wilkin will not be reached in private, either. Such a man needs to be pointed out, then avoided.

Wilkins view that public ministry should be discussed privately is based on a self-willed opinion, formed to disallow public confrontation fo his heretical behavior.

Wilkin carried on some more. After the “time had ended,” Wilkin came down from the platform, and began to argue with me. He asked me what passage from the Bible did I think contained the “saving message.” I refused to answer that question, except to say Gen 1 through Revelation 22.

I informed him that he is ommitting the fact that God the Father discloses to the believer, as He did to Peter, Who Jesus Christ is. I had previously told this to Zane Hodges, who failed to comment on it. Wilkin then said he did not think the Father did regenerating, but that was the work of the Holy Spirit. He wasn’t listening, and one reason he wasn’t listening is that he is a heretic.

(Later in the conference, according to one report, Wilkins said he spoke to a “pastor” that believed that God the Father regenerated.)

We continued a little while, but as one brother who has listened to Wilkin more than I have told me, “You were putting him on the spot like he does to others in his debates with them. I’ll bet he really didn’t like it.” Well, no matter, and that figures. But he didn’t like it at all.

After Wilkin spoke, and the break was taken up largely with my attempts to admonish Wilkin about his errors in a small company, John Niemela followed on the platform. Niemela is not an accomplished platform speaker, by any means. Wilkin introduced him as distinguished for his doctrinal dissertation at Dallas Theolgical Seminay, which, said Wilkin, focused on John’s gospel, and was printed in several colors. I guess I wasn’t impressed much.

Niemela passed out his message in print. In due time, I’ll publish that document here, and critique it more completely. But for the purposes of this discussion I will summarize that Niemela’s talk, entitled “God’s Word Does Not Return Void When Used Properly,” could have been titled “Why evangelism should be conducted using only John’s Gospel.” He suggested that the name of the that book would be better said to be “John’s Testimony.”

That actually made my ears perk up a bit, because the word “gospel,” in my opinion, had already suffered enough damage for one night. Niemela used as {his main text John 20:31.|jo 20:31}

Niemela also said that the {Acts 16:31|Acts 16:31} had to do with the Philippian jailor wanting to know what to do to save his physical life. Because, as Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin frequently state, Jesus never disappoints those who come to Him, apparently anyone who is in danger of physical death can ask Jesus for salvation from it, and they will receive it! This isogesis, of course, was used by Niemela to sustain his (Hodges) argument that one must not simply believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, but must believe that “Jesus is the guarantor of eternal llife” whether they believe Him to be Lord or Christ or not!

Niemela’s view that Acts 16:31 pertains to salvation from impending physical death is based upon his self-willed opinion – only – in order to sustain a faulty argument against its use in bringing someone to Christ.

After Niemela was done speaking, he asked for questions. One young man asked one. Then there was only one hand in the air: mine. Niemela looked and looked for someone else to call upon, but, as the Lord arranged, there was no one else. Finally, after calling for “any one else” and looking past me three times, he called on me. Because his theme verse was {John 20:31,|Jo 20:31}, I asked him if he believed that, if someone did not believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” could they still have “life in his name.” Now, that calls for a simple “yes” or “no” answer.

But Niemela would not answer “yes” or “no.” Instead, he went on a very long dissertation about conducting a class, and having students that scored well or poorly, apprently meaning in many words that John 20:31 didn’t actually mean that people who had eternal life would necessarily come to the conclusion that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” It was almost laughable. Niemela should never occupy a speaking platform. His evasion was made obvious to all.

He and Wilkin portrayed themselves more like Sancho Panza and Don Quixote than Paul and Silas.

I could not be surprised by what Wilkin and Niemela believed concerning Zane Hodges’ stubborn error. They are, after all and above all, disciples of Zane Hodges. I do not write this happily. I have regarded Zane Hodges as an enormous help to me in the Scriptures, especially in the Book of James. His treatment of Abraham’s second justification is itself second to none.

But Wilkin’s behavior DID surprise me a little. We are exhorted in the Scripture to {“Hold faith and a good conscience.”|1Ti 1:18-20} I came away assured that, as pertaining to conscience, neither of these two have good ones. No preacher should ever consider himself beyond answering questions as honestly and clearly as they can, especially in the assembly of believers. Wilkin and Niemela certainly did.

Let me say that I speak from a platform at least twice a week. I used to speak on the radio every single weekday for an hour, with a different message each time. I am answerable and accountable to any sincere inquiry about my life and ministry. In fact, my wife and I lose a lot of privacy due to this accountability.

I confronted Wilkin after the meetings of the evening were over. I simply told him in unequivocal fashion that he was a man who no one could reach. I found a man who lives a life of no accountability, who considers he does not have to answer even the most direct questions. Whenever the questions began to flow, Wilkin sought a private area so he could not be heard.

Bob Wilkin is not a man whom the Lord has put into the ministry. He does not shepherd the sheep. He has allowed Zane Hodges worst moment to become the center of the GES program, and now, having been admonished by many, many credible men, has hunkered down with a small group – Hodges, Bryant, and Niemela – to sustain this heresy in churches they visit.

Wilkin surprised me a little when he asked me how I knew that he was saved. “Good question,” I said.

The I asked him, “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?”

Incredibly, he refused to answer! Instead, he said, “I don’t believe what you believe.”

That’s for sure.

We will yet see if CBC remains a church hosting a GES “regional conference.” I left their building pretty discouraged about them. No one from CBC stood with me in opposition to the nefarious, sneaky hacking away at the gospel message. I pray this will not be held to their charge.

The “senior pastor” of CBC is Chuck Tschetter. I met him for the first time Friday night, as far as I can recall. CBC is still an elder led church. Three of the elders present were men I have known for 20 years or more. They served as elders at the time I left that church, with their blessing, to answer a call from the church I now attend, Millard Community Church (MCC) in Omaha.

Tschetter told me I was disruptive. He asked me to not come back the next day if I was going to ask pointed questions of the speakers as I did. I warned him to not say such a thing, because God will not hold him guiltless in the matter. I probably should have told him he was a coward. Maybe I’ll do that at another time. It’s peculiar that a guy in his position would say such a thing when I went out of my way, exposing myself to scorn, in order to make evident that which he said he knew nothing about.

Sunday morning Bob Wilkin occupied the pulpit at Community Bible Church (CBC). It was a shame he was invited to speak.

Heretics need to be avoided.

11 Comments » Leave a comment