July 5, 2007

Tragedy of the "Crossless" Gospel, Pt. 2

Greetings:

The latest in the series The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel has just been posted at the Duluth Bible Church web site.

This is the second in the series in which the major change and shift in teaching on the Gospel by Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin is being examined. In this edition Brother Tom Stegall makes this observation,

I am convinced the magnitude of deviation from God’s Word is much greater than most Free Grace people have realized. As a result of the Crossless gospel, entirely new unscriptural doctrines are being spawned, either as a consequence of the shifting gospel or simply in conjunction with it.
Brother Stegall goes on to detail The Domino Effect(s) of the new Crossless gospel.

Doctrines such as: Faith, Repentance and God’s Wrath have been redefined by Hodges in the domino effect fallout of his new Crossless gospel doctrine. Here at my site I have already touched on how Hodges has erred on the doctrine of repentance. See my article, The Teaching of Zane Hodges.

Go to: Duluth Bible Church. Click on the article titled, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Pt. 2 You will find this article under the SUMMER heading.

Finally, I believe it is time I provide a caution in regard to one of the more outspoken, but little known, advocates of the "Crossless" gospel in the blogosphere. His name is Antonio da Rosa. He has his own blog site Free Grace Theology and is a contributor at Unashamed of Grace both of which I have visited and commented at.

Antonio’s articles are often difficult to wade through, and many of them of late are an almost exact parrot of the Crossless gospel teaching by Zane Hodges. A quick perusal will demonstrate that Antonio’s position is on the extreme edge of the doctrine of salvation just as Hodges is.

I have begun to learn that the position of Hodges is no longer representative of what most men in the Free Grace movement would consider their personal position on the Gospel.


LM

33 comments:

  1. I just read the article today from Tom Stegall. I also listened to his MP3 a while back.
    I just want everyone here to know that the "Crossless Gospel" accusations are totally false.
    If anyone went to the GES 2000 conference, they know better. Here are the presentations of both papers. Listen for yourself.

    http://www.palcs.org/~dreiher/GES00_zhodges_Part1.mp3

    http://www.palcs.org/~dreiher/GES00_zhodges_Part2.mp3

    Dr. Hodges usually presents short papers to allow generous time for questions. He is a great teacher. All good teachers throw things out to provoke discussion. Please listen carefully to the questions and answers. It demonstrates that as Dr. Hodges witnesses every day to folks, he gives them information about who Christ is and what He did on the Cross. He never gives a "Crossless Gospel."

    The purpose of GES is very similar to ETS. Folks at GES present papers with the pupose of provoking 2 way discussions and interaction so we can all learn from each other. If you did not go to the conferences where these presentations are made, then you should not say anything until you find out what the person really believes.

    Any Free Grace person who disagrees with GES should be coming to the conferences and asking hard questions in public. It is totally wrong to do what you are doing.

    The only "fractures" are being caused by folks who should know better. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Those of us who are part of GES don't feel that if you disagree about Repentance, or the "bare minimum" of the "core" of the Gospel, or anything else, and you don't come to the conferences and talk to whoever you disagree with, does not justify bad mouthing the folks at GES online.

    I LOVE Lou's book. I disagree with some things, but I think I can safely say we agree that Lordship Salvation is wrong. That is what GES is all about. Everything else is peripheral and open for GRACIOUS discussion and you can disagree agreeably.

    Everyone in GES disagrees with each other, but we all agree that Salvation is by Faith Alone, in Christ Alone nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

    Please listen to the messages, the questions, and address your concerns directly with Bob Wilkin or Zane Hodges directly before you assume what they believe.

    Dr. Hodges in these lectures is talking about a "BARE MINIMUM" which he says he never presents in witnessing, nor should anybody else. You don't get this clarification unless you listen to the mp3 or come to the conferences and participate in the discussions.

    GES is more of a "Think Tank" kind of organization for the Free Grace Movement. It is not a cult where everyone blindly follows everything that is taught. That idea is complety unwarranted and unfair. It is like saying that everyone in ETS agrees with each other, and then getting upset, and writing blogs about fracture within ETS when 2 people disagree with each other.

    Come on. . . Chill! Let's show a little Grace toward those in the Grace Evangelical Society!

    Don Reiher
    Host of GES Webboard

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don, There are millions of hispanics named "Jesus". You believe, if you agree with GES, that if someone believes "Jesus guarantees eternal life"--even if he doesn't know Jesus is God and man, Jesus died for sins, and Jesus rose from the dead--as long as he believes this non-God, non-crucified, non-resurrected "Jesus" guarantees eternal life, then he is saved. Don, you and I totally disagree on how someone is saved and disagree on what "faith" as in "faith alone" has as its OBJECT. This is worth separating over.

    You want to let everyone know "the 'crossless gospel' accusations are totally false" but Pastor Stegall thoroughly documented and quoted everything from GES Leaders like Bob Wilkins and Zane Hodges. The article also acknowledged that these men do not deny the death, resurrection, Deity, and humanity of Jesus--but they deny these are essential elements of the saving message.

    You claimed: "Any Free Grace person who disagrees with GES should be coming to the conferences and asking hard questions in public. It is totally wrong to do what you are doing." Don, this is absurd. Who made this rule? That would be like if a Lordship salvationist insisted that you come to his conference and "ask questions" rather than speak out! You claim GES is not like a cult, but the very idea that any nobody can speak against GES's false doctrine but that they must submit questions at a conference is a cult-mentality! This cult-mentality continues as you say "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" as if the existence of churches true to the gospel hinges upon GES, which actually, God did without for almost 2,000 years.

    What is even more tragic is that your "sine qua non" of church fellowship is simply disagreement with Lordship salvation. Don't you think someone can disagree with Lordship salvation and still teach a false gospel? This is exactly what the article points out. GES has redefined what the "bare essentials" of the gospel are to exclude Christ's death, resurrection, humanity, and Deity. Because you say these elements are not essential, we disagree on what the gospel is! Don, claiming that everyone "disagrees" at GES does not excuse this significant doctrinal departure. Part 2 of the series carefully explained the difference between disagreement on an interpretation and doctrinal departure.

    Don, you are not even true to your own camp. Zane Hodges accuses those who preach "the message of the cross" of changing the gospel! See the quote on page 3 of Part 1. Obviously, to GES, this issue is worth fighting over. I hope you'll re-read these articles with a Scriptural mindset (James 1:21) and abandon your cult-like mentality toward GES.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Don:

    Thanks for stopping by.

    I can barely keep my eyes open, so please forgive this quick note back to you. More later, but probably not until late Sunday, or even Monday. For now, I’ll share just a few random thoughts.

    1) Thanks for noting my book/refutation of Lordship Salvation (LS). There is no doubt that LS is wrong. It is a man-centered message, which frustrates grace. Later this month I am speaking at the Grace Conference at Quentin Road Baptist Church. I am conducting two sessions on Lordship Salvation.

    I applaud the GES for its role in answering the LS interpretation of the Gospel. Many good men are members of the GES and have held the doctrinal high-ground in the debate for and defense of the Gospel against Lordship theology. By the way, Pastor Dennis Rukser just began a new series on the Lordship gospel.

    2) It appears to me that there has been a shift in the doctrinal position of Zane Hodges in two vital areas: Repentance and what has come to be known as the “crossless” gospel.

    **Repentance
    First I want to make clear that I reject the LS interpretation of repentance. I wrote an article here titled, How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance. Go to-
    http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/06/to-all-nathan-busenitz-is-personal.html

    That article is the result of my on line LS debates with Dr. MacArthur’s personal assistant Nathan Busenitz.

    Second, Hodges acknowledges his shift on the doctrine of repentance. He writes, “We ought, therefore, to reexamine our ingrained assumptions about New Testament repentance. I know how hard this is for preachers, teachers and lay people who have long believed and/or taught otherwise. I myself once held the ‘change of mind’ view of repentance and taught it. But the Scriptures have persuaded me otherwise.” (Harmony With God, p. 11.)

    I am not in agreement with his new view of repentance.

    **The “Crossless” gospel. This subject has and will continue to be discussed.

    3) I trust you have noted that twice I commended Hodges for the valuable contributions he has made to the LS debate.

    4) Is it “Dr.” Hodges? Does he have a doctorate? I used the title “Dr.” a while back and one man was swift to correct me.

    5) A way to sort out the issue is to hold an open meeting. A meeting in which Hodges could present his position and field questions from a panel. The IFCA had MacArthur in for a Q & A, which largely dealt with what was then his new book The Gospel According to Jesus. See my two articles on the insights from the IFCA Interview With John MacArthur. What came of that meeting is compelling. Go to- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/IFCA

    It might be beneficial to see if Hodges would be willing to meet with a panel to field questions. He could present a position paper, and allow men time to review it and formulate questions. It would not be intended as an interrogation. Just an opportunity for the air to be cleared and the doctrinal issue defined, which ever way it falls.

    6) If Hodges has erred on the Gospel this is not an area where believers can agree to disagree. The Gospel is a major doctrine and if it has been compromised and the offending party cannot be recovered there is but one answer: Separation from a disobedient brother (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).

    As painful as that decision can be, it is the only way to live in fidelity to God’s Word if the situation warrants following the biblical mandate. If it becomes plain and irrefutable that Hodges’ “Crossless” gospel is a departure from orthodoxy, we can still show grace, but he’ll also need to be shown the door.

    7) IMO, Brother Stegall has been careful, precise and charitable in his first two articles in his series.

    At this juncture, based on what I have read, it is my opinion that Hodges has gone off into an extreme in his interpretation of the Gospel commonly known as the “Crossless” gospel. In all honesty I would like for Hodges to either edit, explain or eliminate the various polarizing statements that have raised the current controversy.

    King regards,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Greg:

    Thanks for posting some thoughts.

    You raise some very important points for consideration, and many of them are valid concerns.

    May I ask one favor that I ask of all my guests? As you prepare to post comments, keep Colossians 4:6 in mind. Your post above did not cross a line, but I felt I should share my heart with you. OK?

    Thanks again for interjecting your concerns with Don’s notes. I take them very seriously.

    God bless you,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lou

    I am in error. Zane Hodges does not have a Doctorate. He has a ThM degree from Dallas, and taught Greek there for 25 years. . I thought that he did. It just never came up in my conversations with him.

    However, these days, I would say that people with Doctorates are no more reliable than those without them.

    Thankyou for the correction.

    - Don

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lou

    I am not sure there is anything that Bob Wilkin or Zane Hodges need to respond to but I will ask them. Both Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges tell unsaved folks that Jesus died on the cross for their sins.

    Are they sometimes unclear when discussing the "bare minimum" in terms of content or response? Maybe. . . they are not perfect. Sometimes (as in Zane's 2 papers on faith) he is using a strong statement to get people thinking. If you listen to both mp3s, he already clarified it very well. The role of a good teacher is not to spoon feed everything to the student with their brains disengaged. We have learn how to think, AND how to think Biblically.

    If your witness to a person has been bathed in prayer, and the Holy Spirit is working in a person's heart, then a start with the bare minimum is all a person will need. As Zane Hodges responded (on the mp3) to the question about people that don't know who Jesus is, if a person needs more information about who Jesus is, then we need to give them more information until they have a big enough concept of who Jesus is. We must be careful not to add to faith alone as the response. We must bring their concept of Christ (the object of their faith) up to the point where it is believable that He can save them based upon the bare minimum (respose of faith) condition of Faith Alone in Christ Alone. You don't add provisos to the response. . . you leave that at the bare minimum of faith alone. I think Zane was clear on that point in the question and answer time.

    I think he is being TOTALLY misrepresented.

    - Don Reiher
    Host of GES Webboard

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Don:

    Thanks for the clarification on the credentials of Brother Hodges. I was not trying to correct you, I just did not know for sure myself, and I want to use whatever title is appropriate.

    I too thought he had a Doctorate.

    BTW, a Doctorate is no guarantee of orthodoxy and fidelity to Scripture. I won't name any, but we can all think of some who have the credentials, but have some odd ideas.

    I do, however, have a great deal of respect for the men who have paid the price in time, energy and study to obtain their Doctorate.

    I have had the priviege to interact with dozens of men who have Doctorates, and some of them probaby have forgotten more than I know.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  8. Don:

    What is the site address for the GES Web Board? Is it the OnLine Chat Page at the GES site?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don:

    This from your opening post in this thread.

    “It demonstrates that as Dr. Hodges witnesses every day to folks, he gives them information about who Christ is and what He did on the Cross. He never gives a ‘Crossless Gospel.’”

    Elsewhere I have agreed to (without verifying from Hodges himself) and acknowledged that Hodges will present the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in a witnessing opportunity. I believe he does give “them information about who Christ is…”

    “The gospel message about the death, burial, and resurrection is the normal context for our presentation of this core objective. But at the end of the day, anyone who trusts Christ for eternal life is born again.” (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 10)

    The term and concern over a “Crossless gospel”: is not over presentation. I’ll give benefit of the doubt that Hodges insists whom Christ is and what He did to secure salvation for mankind is thoroughly presented to a sinner. The controversy is over what Hodges is suggesting must be known, acknowledged and believed by a lost man for him to be born again.

    “The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it” (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 13).

    From what I can tell, all Hodges believes a lost man must do is believe Jesus gives eternal life, and he is born again. The statements are very clear. Some men in the Free Grace camp, who are supportive of what Hodges is teaching, are saying that to require anything more in knowledge or belief beyond the eternal life issue, is an addition to the Gospel that results in salvation. That position runs counter to the Scriptures, particularly 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-10.

    Furthermore, by referring to “additions” to the Gospel, Hodges and/or those aligned with him on this doctrine are inferring that to seek a decision from a lost man for belief in the death of Christ for his sins, and belief Jesus rose from the dead is creating “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8-9). That is a very serious charge, and is probably part of what is fueling the debate.

    MacArthur would view anything less than full, upfront surrender/commitment to the works of a disciple of Christ is “another gospel.”

    Now, from the opposite end of the theological pendulum swing we have Hodges who appears to view requiring anything more than believing Jesus gives eternal life is an addition to, or “another gospel.”


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lou, thanks for the reminder about Col. 4:6. I agree that grace is needed when someone is confused about this or anything else. But I also think some gumption is appropriate when you or Brother Stegall are accused of doing "wrong" for speaking out about this rather than submitting to the magistrate of GES. I also think this gumption is needed when it is suggested we should all just get along with GES, since they are against Lordship salvation, even if we disagree on what the gospel is. I don't think the solution is for Zane Hodges to remove polarizing statements. It would simply be more deceptive for him to speak in less polarizing language while holding to the same false doctrine. Instead of toning down his language, he should completely change his view. And while it would certainly be in one's liberty to hold a meeting with Hodges and Wilkins about this, they have been teaching this message for years and have become more and more insistent upon it. They aren't just "toying" with this idea or asking for help on it--they are currently settled on it and teaching it.

    Finally, the claim that this false doctrine has had no practical effect on how GES members present the gospel is simply false. This is an important point highlighted in the two articles. Pastor Stegall's articles point out that presenting the sufficiency of Christ's death for our sins in the gospel "...is something that some Free Grace advocates now consider to be 'adding to the gospel' and something which makes them 'shutter' and feel 'extremely uncomfortable.'" The footnotes on pg. 1, Part 1 reference each of these quotes and I've read them. On page 2, Hodges is quoted "I don't like this way of presenting the gospel invitation" and "I would like to see people abandon this approach to the gospel presentation". It would simply be naive to think such an attitude won't have a practical effect. Page 3 goes on to describe examples of GES books and gospel presentations that completely leave out the death and resurrection and Deity of Christ, e.g. Wilkin's Road to Reward and Secure and Sure. The intro article in the latest Grace Family Journal points out that Hodges new booklet "Did Paul Preach Eternal Life?" which sets out to show the evangelistic message of Paul never--not once--mentions the death of Christ for our sins or the death of Christ in any sense as the ground for our salvation. Imagine the effect this is having on others who follow GES. As gracious as we must be, we also need Paul's gumption toward false doctrine (2Tim. 2:16) when it comes to maintain "unity" in spite of disagreement on what constitutes the gospel message.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lou, thanks for the reminder about Col. 4:6. I agree that grace is needed when someone is confused about this or anything else. But I also think some gumption is appropriate when you or Brother Stegall are accused of doing "wrong" for speaking out about this rather than submitting to the magistrate of GES.

    I try to keep a thick skin in these debates. One must be careful not to let the flesh get into these discussions. What Don had to say was pretty minor compared to what some others will say.

    I don't think the solution is for Zane Hodges to remove polarizing statements. It would simply be more deceptive for him to speak in less polarizing language while holding to the same false doctrine. Instead of toning down his language, he should completely change his view.

    Maybe I was not clear. I do not mean for him to remove them, I mean for him to retract them. Much of what some men write is deceptive enough, although I believe Hodges has been pretty straightforward.

    Anyway, I think I have put forth a fair amount of “gumption.”

    Thanks for coming back, comment any time.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lou, I wasn't questioning your "gumption" :-) I just meant to explain my response to Don.

    I also agree that Hodges is straightforward about what he believes. I do not think he is purposely deceptive. But outside the articles he wrote on this with the polarizing comments, many people read his writings that reflect his view of the gospel without realizing what he is actually saying. The polarizing comments help to understand exactly what he means when he says, for example, "believe in Jesus for everlasting life". I think we agree that not only should he retract the "polarizing" statements he made, he should agree that it is essential for salvation to believe in the Deity, humanity, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Christ, along with the message of justification by faith alone.

    -- Greg

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lou

    You stated:
    >>>>
    From what I can tell, all Hodges believes a lost man must do is believe Jesus gives eternal life, and he is born again. The statements are very clear. Some men in the Free Grace camp, who are supportive of what Hodges is teaching, are saying that to require anything more in knowledge or belief beyond the eternal life issue, is an addition to the Gospel that results in salvation. That position runs counter to the Scriptures, particularly 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-10.
    <<<<

    At the time John 6:47 was written, Christ had died and risen from the dead. Lets say that Zane Hodges overstated his case. What is his case? Is it not that John 6:47 is the Word of God, and that it is powerful enough to accomplish what God wants? Isn't his case also that many (most?) Americans believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again, but they are going to hell anyway? Isn't his case that the reason most Americans are going to hell is because they do not believe alone in Christ alone for their eternal life. Many believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, but they are also trusting in their good works to get them to heaven. In fact, that is the case in about 90% of the folks I witness to. It is not that the death and resurrection is not essential. It is just that belief in it those essential facts of the Gospel does mean a person has eternal life.

    Keep in mind that in his paper Zane Hodges is presenting a hypothetical situation of the person on the desert island. Maybe it was not the best hypothetical situation. I think that may be the problem. Many joke with him about it.

    Isn't his case valid that Christ is God and CAN save anyone through belief alone in Him alone for their eternal life through John 6:47? Wouldn't all the "eternal life" verses in John be MISLEADING if this were not true? I think part of Zane's case is the perspecuity of Scripture in John.

    My Two Cents: I find that most folks in church do not even bring a Bible, let alone read it. I think that this is part of the problem. In my experience, people's view of Scripture is at an all time low.

    - Don

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oops. At the end of the first paragraph, I meant to say

    "It is just that belief in it those essential facts of the Gospel does NOT mean a person has eternal life."

    - Don

    ReplyDelete
  16. Don:

    I was at work 14 hours yesterday, sorry I could not get back to you sooner. I’ll reply in separate posts to keep this organized.

    You wrote, “At the time John 6:47 was written, Christ had died and risen from the dead. Lets say that Zane Hodges overstated his case. What is his case? Is it not that John 6:47 is the Word of God, and that it is powerful enough to accomplish what God wants?”

    “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life,” (John 6:47).

    No, John 6:47, in and of itself, is not enough to “accomplish” and show a lost man what he must “believe” to be born again.

    There is nothing misleading about John 6:47, but you do not have enough information in that verse to lead a man to Christ.

    The gospel according to Hodges appears to be that all a lost man must believe is- Jesus gives eternal life and he is born again. That is an incomplete message!


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  17. Don:

    You wrote, "Isn't his case also that many (most?) Americans believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again, but they are going to hell anyway? Isn't his case that the reason most Americans are going to hell is because they do not believe alone in Christ alone for their eternal life. Many believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, but they are also trusting in their good works to get them to heaven.”

    First, I don’t think very many Americans today believe much of anything about Jesus, the cross or His resurrection. Most certainly don’t “believe” in the biblical sense of the word anything about Jesus. The public school system and secularization of America in general has seen to that.

    Second, there are just as many that believe Jesus is the Creator and Deity, but are on the way to Hell. The last portion of your note above is the key, they are adding “good works” to the gospel, or as with LS, they add an upfront promise to do the “good works” as a requirement for salvation.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don:

    You men keep repeating the phrase, “eternal life.” Nothing inherently wrong with that; it is a Bible term and doctrine.

    From what I can tell, however, “eternal life” is used by you men almost to the exclusion of the terms “saved, born again, salvation.”

    I see “eternal life” as a benefit and result of being born again through believing Jesus died on the cross for my sins, rose again (1 Cor. 15:3-4) and depending on Him to forgive and save me from my sins.

    LM

    ReplyDelete
  19. Don,

    Did you happen to read Dennis Rokser's TWO CLARIFICATIONS in the latest Grace Family Journal as his article interacts with criticisms and concerns like you addressed in your first email comments about Tom Stegall's article? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lou

    The reason everyone should use the term "have eternal life" is because it is more clear than "saved." The original words translated "save" "saved" and "salvation" have a broad semantic range. Most people think that every time they see the word save, saved or salvation, in the Bible, that it is referring to eternal life. That is where a lot of Arminian Theology comes from. 1 Cor 15:2 (holding fast to be saved), Matt 10:22 (enduring to the end to be saved). Many folks mistakenly think that "saved" means "get to heaven." It is almost always linked to perseverance, human will or effort. Therefore, it cannot be referring to the "free gift" which is apart from works.

    Dr. Radmacher's book, Salvation, goes into great detail on the various aspects of this. He preaches that the "saved" (those who have eternal life) need to be "saved" (i.e. grow in sanctification here and now).

    In each use of the word for "save", you have to look at the context to see what the nature of the salvation is, and what the person or persons are being saved from. It almost ALWAYS is referring to deliverance from the consequences of sin here even in those passages where it is talking to those who are really "saved" (i.e. have eternal life). It is much easier to refer to "eternal life" than have to explain what kind of salvation you are referring to each time.

    The word "eternal life" is a technical term that always refers to the spiritual life which is given to a person who is born again, who is going to heaven when they die. It is never gained by perseverance, human will or effort.

    - Don

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lou

    Is it heresy to believe that a person could get eternal life by believing in Christ alone apart from the Death and Resurrection of Christ, BEFORE Christ's death and resurrection? I hope you say no, because the disciples did not seem to understand.

    Is it heresy to believe a person could get eternal life without believing in His death and resurrection 1 minute after Christ died? They did not have CNN back then you know. How about one day? How about 1 minute after the Resurrection? How about a few days after the Resurrection? If one person in history ever got eternal life by belief in Jesus apart from a good understanding of His death and resurrection, then you would have to admit it is possible. We are talking "bare minimum" or "exception" and NOT the rule. It is like trying to say that miracles are impossible today, because they were for a transitional time. You can still be a good dispensationalist, who believes in progress of revelation, and allow for exceptions, you know.

    I don't think God is going to have a checklist, and say, Hmm. you believed in me 1 week after I rose from the dead, and you are not trusting in your works. . . but lets go through the checklist. Did you know about my death, hmm. Did you know about my resurrection, hmm. . . I'mmmm sorry, you can't enter heaven. It is silly to talk in such terms. That is part of Zane's case.

    John 3:16 used to be the most well known verse for a long time, and a lot of folks have gotten saved by such a simple proposition. It seems more radical, to say that a person CANNOT possibly be saved by the message of John 3:16 by itself, than by saying that person COULD possibly be saved by the message John 3:16 by itself. I think we should not limit what God can do through his Word. That is also Zane's case.

    However. . . since everyone does not know all the facts about Christ, (I still don't) I think the focus in Scripture is that we are trusting in a Savior. . . Jesus. . . and whatever facts we have. The facts may be sketchy, and may actually be inaccurate, but I think God is mainly interested in us trusting in Him alone, and not relying on our works.

    As I always say. . . when we get to heaven, we are in for a surprise when we see who is and who isn't there!

    How are these "Heresy" articles helping anybody? The Lordship folks will probably laugh and say, "See those No Lordship idiots. . . they cannot agree with themselves because they are all heretics." I do not want our family to have to leave ANOTHER church over the Lordship issue. There are no Free Grace Churches here. Now that the waters have been muddied, I doubt that anything good will come of this.

    Goodbye. . . I have said too much already.
    Don Reiher

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Don,

    Paul is clear what the Gospel is. John 3:16 says that Jesus was "given" and was God's "only begotten Son". This is an explanation of The Christ.

    The proof-text used to say that the Gospel of John is sufficient for preaching the Gospel (which I believe it can be with the education given by Paul's writings) is John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

    You'll notice that John's intention is that you believe that He is the Christ... oops so much for no Death and Resurrection. It's found right in the proof-text used to try to say we can ignore it.

    With the understanding of the rest of Scripture yes John 3:16 can save. But even I Cor 15:1-8 can not save with out the Spirit Convicting and Revealing.

    Eternal Life is a byproduct of Salvation which is a Product of Justification. We are baptized into Jesus' Death and therefore Justified, then because we are in His death we are also in His ressurrection and thereby Saved, now since we have been saved from death we have Eternal Life.

    Eternal Life is a byproduct - an amazing one but it is not the Gospel.

    The Gospel is the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and rose from among the dead. This is the same Gospel that Paul preaches throughout all his writings to all the Churches. It is also the same Gospel that Peter preaches, and John as well - no matter how much some may wish to ignore the fact.

    You can not be saved while you are still proud. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. This is seen front cover to back cover in the Scriptures. You can not be saved until you know He died for your own sins, and rose from the dead.

    I didn't say this. Paul has. And Paul is the one who was given the Gospel face to face with Jesus.. so I don't think I'm about to argue with him or Him.

    If an algebra teacher doesn't outright say that 1+1=2 does that mean you don't need an understanding of basic addition to pass your Algebra class? Come on Agnostics have better arguments than this.

    This is just the surface of an indepth response to the Crossless Gospel I'm working on.

    I hope you're not offended.. that's not my intent.. but I do hope your heart is pricked and that you are smarting from the sting of it. The Gospel is precious. We can not play loosely with it.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  23. Men:

    I may not get back today. If I do it will be brief.

    I have read with interest your comments.

    God bless you,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  24. Don:

    It appears you have departed, so just a few comments, that I may expand on later.

    No one said use of the term "eternal life" is wrong, but Hodges uses it to the exclusion of the terms saved, born again, salvation etc. IMO, this is believe he has focused to finely on John's gospel, and ass I have noted before, it seems to the point of viewing John's Gospel as though it trumps the rest of the New Testament on the doctrine of soteriology.

    2) I don't recall using the word, "heresy," which you put in quotations as though I or some else did use that term. I don’t recall using that term, but what I am reading by Hodges is heresy's first cousin. It seems to me that Hodges has, over the years, gone deeper and deeper into what some would call a "reductionist" gospel.

    3) I have documented how Hodges has shifted his doctrine on repentance, from a weak interpretation to a no repentance position (Harmony With God). For Hodges repentance is no longer part of the answer to the question; What must I do to be saved? That is another change/reduction from him in recent years. For Hodges repentance is no longer a “change of mind,” which is by any balanced biblical perspective the most accepted definition of repentance.

    4) Your checklist, and “knowing all the facts” illustration is creating a false dilemma. I know of no responsible Bible teacher who takes anything near that kind of approach. It seems to me this is a creation, made to demonize what is not commonly found, to build a case for the “crossless” gospel. It is no different that the Lordship camp saying everyone is preaching an Easy-Believism message, which paves the way for their answer. Both are false dilemma arguments.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kev

    I still have a hard time believing that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for God to bring about the spiritual rebirth of a person with the the message of John 3:16, ESPECIALLY during the time between the death of Christ, and the time when the news of this 8th sign spread to a country or a town the first time.

    I hear testimony after testimony of how God uses all kinds of obscure Biblical texts and events to get through to people. God's Word is powerful!

    If I am wrong about John 3:16 it does not matter, as I tend to give unsaved folks too much information anyway. The John 3:16 only example is just a hypothetical case. If people want to give a lesson on Christology to unsaved people, fine. If a person is dying in front of you, I would keep it very short! As long as you communicate that a person is bound for hell without believing in Christ, and gets eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone, and don't give a Lordship Salvation Gospel. . . I say AMEN!

    I have heard testimonies from missionaries who tell stories of how they get to an unreached people, and that some of the folk got born again through some miraculous revelation. Again. . . the exception and not the rule. In my world, there are loose ends, and God never fits into my little theological boxes. I have learned the hard way how little I am and how big God is.

    Again. . . Salvation through John 3:16 alone. . . .EXCEPTION, not the rule.
    Neither Zane Hodges, or Bob Wilkins, or anybody else in GES believes in or gives a so-called Crossless Gospel in their teaching and preaching. If they do, then they are disagreeing with the GES doctrinal statement.

    - Don
    Host of GES Webboard

    ReplyDelete
  26. How are these "Heresy" articles helping anybody? The Lordship folks will probably laugh and say, "See those No Lordship idiots. . . they cannot agree with themselves because they are all heretics." I do not want our family to have to leave ANOTHER church over the Lordship issue. There are no Free Grace Churches here. Now that the waters have been muddied, I doubt that anything good will come of this.

    Don:

    I don’t think that paragraph serves you or the discussion very well.

    Why do you care what a Lordship advocate thinks? Their doctrine is wrong, end of story. So what if they gloat? I appears you are wrapped up in personalities and movements.

    We are talking about a man, Hodges, with a limited following of his particular interpretation of the gospel. This discussion has nothing to do with the Lordship interpretation of the gospel. Hodges has made numerous statements on the Gospel and repentance that are of great concern to a great many men in the non-Lordship arena.

    When you speak of "the waters have been muddied,” it has been the teaching of Zane Hodges that has muddied the waters.

    “Good” can come of this. I am hopeful Hodges will reevaluate what he has been teaching. He is off center in his doctrine on the Gospel, and some are following him in this error. The motive of correction must always be recovery; that is what the Bible teaches. If recovery is not possible, the departure is the eventual solution.

    Kind regards,


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  27. Don:

    I am "borrowing" this question from Kevl. He used it at anoter site, but it remains unanswered by the person to whom it was directed.

    "Does a sinner need to be aware and or agree with the fact they are a sinner in order to be saved?"

    What is yur opinion?


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi all,

    I just read through the ongoing debate, and wanted to weigh in. I have read all the articles listed above (by Zane, Bob, Tom, and Dennis), and believe that Tom and Dennis have severely misrepresented Bob and Zane.

    Even the two "clarifications" by Dennis only further muddle the issue. For example, it would be nice to know which of these men he is attacking has stonewalled him, since both Bob and Zane have said say that they have had no contact with either of these men within the last two years. Maybe Dennis has a different definition of "stonewall" than I do...

    Anyway, there are rumors of a response from Bob and Zane, which I will let people know about in my own blog at www.tillhecomes.org when I learn more.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hello Jeremy:

    Thanks for the notes.

    IMO, Stegall has documented the theology of the so-called "crossless" gospel by Hodges and reviews it fairly.

    If you have some hard-evidence that there is a misrepresentation would you please post an example here. I'm sure no one wants to intentionally misrepresent a brother in Christ. If it were done inadvertently I'm sure the men would rush to make the correction and offer a sincere apology.

    If Hodges or Wilkin come out with a reply I would appreciate you sending me an e-mail notification. Their response may define and/or clarify the controversy. I would be happy to link it from here.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jeremy:

    You wrote, "...it would be nice to know which of these men he is attacking...."

    I try to be careful about using terms such as, "attacking" men. I believe we all agree that doctrine is the subject under review not necessarily the men. This way there is no suggestion that there is a personality clash underway or motives being called into question (Matt. 7:1-2).

    Granted, if a man's doctrine comes into question, then the man also comes under some scrutiny. Doctrine, however, must remain the focus of discussion and criticism.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jeremy:

    You wrote, "...no contact with either of these men within the last two years."

    IMO it is not entirely necessary to review a man's doctrine only after a personal interaction. Both Hodges and Wilkin are on record in various/numerous publications. Their personal doctrinal positions are in print in the public arena.

    Two thoughts from my personal experience:

    1) When my book In Defense of the Gospel came out it was being commented on (positive and negative). Many of the negative criticisms came from men who had not only never met me, but did not even read the book.

    2) During my research on Lordship Salvation, and once after my book was released, I tried to contact Dr. MacArthur directly. The first time I received a reply from an associate pastor, but was not able to get beyond him. With the second attempt to reach Dr. MacArthur via e-mail and/or on line I was told that Dr. MacArthur will not discuss his position on LS outside of his written works.

    If Stegall or Rokser were to ask for a personal meeting with Hodges or Wilkin to discuss the “Crossless” gospel, would they agree to meet?

    You seem to be in a position to ask Hodges/Wilkin about this. Would you please consider doing so? You could act as an intermediary.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lou.

    I have been totally swamped at home and at work. .

    You said:

    >>>>>>>
    Don:

    I am "borrowing" this question from Kevl. He used it at anoter site, but it remains unanswered by the person to whom it was directed.

    "Does a sinner need to be aware and or agree with the fact they are a sinner in order to be saved?"

    What is yur opinion?
    <<<<<

    Why would a person want eternal life, if they were not bound for eternal death?. Yeah. . . I think they have to know that they are going to hell (i.e. "perish" in John 3:16), because they are condemned (John 3:17) Otherwise I don't think they are ready to believe in Him.

    L.S. Chafer said, "Anybody can come up with a plan where good people go to heaven. Only God could come up with a plan whereby bad people can go to heaven."

    - Don Reiher
    (I will try to get back. . . I am really busy)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Don:

    I understand "busy." I respect that we all have commitments to family and employer, I am no different.

    I love Chafer's quote!

    You wrote, "Why would a person want eternal life, if they were not bound for eternal death?. Yeah. . . I think they have to know that they are going to hell (i.e. "perish" in John 3:16), because they are condemned (John 3:17) Otherwise I don't think they are ready to believe in Him."

    That is well articulated, and I'm with you 100% on that. This, however, is where I have a problem with statements by men like Antonio, who wrote, in answer to the same question "'No.' A lost man does not need to be aware or agree that he is a sinner in order to be saved."

    And I disagree with Antonio for the very reason you cited above.

    Let’s talk more when you have time. I would not mind a phone call. If you e-mail me I’ll send you my cell number. See my e-mail link under the cover of my book.

    God bless you,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete