"It seems to me that George was 'orthodox' in his view of salvation. He does say after all that we are saved by faith, not works. What's up with that?"
Dear Wounded Pilgrim,
One of the most difficult things for us in trying to understand GG's teaching is in comprehending the subtleties and contradictions in his confused ramblings.
One must understand how GG understands faith regarding salvation first to see how his theology is off base. As the article by Lee Irons shows (Torch and Testimony Published Writings) GG taught one kind of faith for "initial" salvation but used another definition for the word faith for entering fully into a complete salvation.
This second kind of faith that GG describes transforms the Biblical meaning of faith from simple reception of a free gift to one of an act of will that takes possession of a reward. Though GG says our full sanctification is all of Christ's work in fact he teaches we must actualize this holiness in our lives through our own devout effort or we will lose out on "so great salvation".
Such phrases as "reckon", "lay hold", "put to death", etc. are said to be acts of faith that achieve our perfection. The Bible teaches that these actions are a result of a full and complete salvation and not the means to achieve salvation.
GG attempted to diffuse the criticism of his teaching by making statements like, "not that we can lose our salvation", but by his making the freely given part of salvation almost worthless in fact he establishes his objective of encouraging Christians to live their lives before God on the basis of their performance. That this is the error found in Galatians there can be no doubt, and that such teaching is toxic to the lives of believers can be attested to over and over again by former members.
God bless,
Mark C.