Saturday, August 8, 2009

The GES Newsletter Misrepresents My Position

Several months ago Ken Neff published an article in the GES newsletter Grace In Focus. The article was titled "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel?"1 It is not my intention to give a full critique of Mr. Neff's article. Rather, I would simply like to clarify my position in the Free Grace gospel debate in response to Mr. Neff.

As I read Neff's article I was surprised to see that he listed me as one who held to "A Patchwork Content Approach" in the Free Grace gospel debate! Under the heading "A Patchwork Content Approach Is Not Convincing", Neff lumped me together with patchwork gospel advocates and said: "Jonathan Perreault has six essentials."

I have several problems with how Neff has portrayed my position:

1) Neff makes it appear as if I disagree with his first two observations. But in reality I agree with Neff's first two observations. I agree with the basic premise that "It Seems Arbitrary To Say That Some, But Not All Of The Good News Must Be Believed." I also agree that "A Patchwork Content Approach Is Not Convincing."

2) Neff makes it appear as if I am a "patchwork" gospel advocate. However, I have made it clear that I don't agree with the patchwork/partial gospel approach of Greg Schliesmann, Tom Stegall, and J. B. Hixson (see my summary chart: "Three Views On The Gospel of Grace").

3) Neff makes it appear as if I have proposed "six essentials". It should concern Neff that I don't even know what "six essentials" he is attributing to me!

4) Neff doesn't say where my supposed "six essentials" are found. If indeed I had proposed "six essentials", why doesn't Neff bother to cite them as he did for the others?

I believe that Ken Neff and the GES have seen my position in the Free Grace gospel debate quite out of focus. I would like to ask them to correct their distortion of my position, and to portray it more accurately in the future.


1 Ken Neff, Grace In Focus (March-April 2009).

1 comment:

Liam Moran said...

Hi JP,

I have really enjoyed reading this post. It was very good. I agree that Neff was was not clear. His comments about your view could be easily misunderstood.

Thank you for shedding some light on this and responding in an appropriate manner.