Boiling Down the “Crossless” Gospel
Dear Guests:
As you may recall Bob Wilkin deleted the articles and discussion threads that relate to this subject from his GES blog. See Wilkin Deletes All Trace…
Immediately following the GES blog fiasco one of my guests directed this comment to me,
“Perhaps it's just me, but it seems ironic that the ‘simple’ GES gospel is very complex to actually explain.”
I replied as follows,
“The ‘simple GES gospel’ is especially difficult to explain when its advocates at the GES will not discuss and/or field questions on it.”
What are some of the main components of the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, GES “Crossless” gospel? Following is how the “Crossless” gospel boils down.
1) A lost man does not need to know, understand or believe anything about who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation.
In spite of this, he can be born again by believing in a promise of eternal life.
2) A lost man can be ignorant of or consciously reject the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ Jesus, but according to GES teaching he can still be born again.
The GES considers an open rejection of Christ's Deity an issue to be resolved after he believes in the promise of eternal life. Here is a sample of what “Crossless” advocates believe evangelism ought to be,
“In evangelism, we have a targeted goal. We are seeking to bring someone to believe that they have eternal life simply by believing in Jesus for it… even if misconceptions about Him are present.”
The “Crossless” advocate goes on to say that if a lost man does not understand or even rejects the Deity of Christ and/or His sacrificial death on the cross,
“…the teaching of godly men…can clear up any misconceptions that the newly born again person may have.”
The “Crossless” advocates, therefore, try to steer a lost person toward saying he believes a man named Jesus will give him eternal life. The unsaved man can be steered clear of or right over the death, resurrection and Deity of Christ, and still be assured that by stating belief in that promise he is, according to GES teaching, born again. Only afterward will the GES teacher mention that he, “the newly born again person,” has some “misconceptions” about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Some men have begun to label the GES method of personal evangelism as the “Amway” or “Abracadabra” gospel.
3) A lost man, according to GES teaching, does not even need to know or believe he is a sinner.
4) The GES teaches that the Lord's titles, “Christ” and “Son of God,” do not mean or imply the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The “Crossless/Deityless” advocates claim to believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ. These men, however, are willing to tell the lost that Christ’s Deity is irrelevant, allow it to be rejected and still push for a decision to believe in a promise. That kind of evangelism raises serious questions over just how committed they are to the doctrine of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The “Crossless” gospel reduces the Deity of Jesus and His sacrificial death on the cross down to optional information for the sinner to remain unaware of or consciously reject. Yet these men will assure the same lost man that he can still be born again by believing in a promise for eternal life. The “Crossless & Deityless” gospel of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES amounts to a practical denial of His Deity and His sacrificial death on the cross.
5) The GES's distortion of the term “the gospel.” There have been two ways GES has dealt with “the gospel.”
a. To claim the lost do need to believe “the gospel,” but that there is a fuller version of the gospel (including Christ's death and resurrection) for sanctification and a mini version of “the gospel” that only includes the promise of eternal life which is all that the lost need to believe.
b. To claim that “the gospel” is just a word for “good news,” and this word does not have a technical application in Scripture to the specific message the lost need to believe to be saved.
According to some observers it appears like they are officially leaning toward this second argument.
The “Crossless/Deityless” gospel is an extreme departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3). The abuse and dumbing down of our Lord’s titles is a trampling of the Lord’s name and His person.
If these men have not already had their conscience seared I am praying that they can be recovered from these unbiblical, heretical, blasphemous teachings; repent of them and then:
*Set out to undo the damage of false teaching they introduced to unsuspecting lost people and Christians alike, and…
*Correct the reproach they have heaped upon the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
LM
The error is the same I think.. with the Lordship Camp and the Crossless Camp.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible says we must believe on one specific Lord.
They each believe they can believe on a lord of their making. Either God, and themselves together for one perfect work on the Lordship side. Or a promise without the Promise Keeper on the other side.
In the end it's just coming to God on our own terms. What satisfies us... not what satisfies Him.
Oh that I were worthy.. but I dare not try to make myself... oh that I were able.. but I dare not try... oh that I could have it without having to see myself the way I am... but on that I dare not rely.
Kev
maybe not as poetic written out as it was in my head...
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThese teachings of "crossless" gospel advocates appear to be totally contrary to the context of John chapters 20-21! In these chapters we read of three specific resurrection signs Jesus did in the presence of His disciples beginning the very day of His resurrection. (Notice the signs referred to in John 20:30-31 do not refer to all the signs in the book of John, but simply to Jesus' three resurrection signs in the presence of His disciples after His crucifixiton and resurrection.) John 20:30-31 must be understood in the context of these three signs. In context, the "Jesus" of John 20:31 is emphatically described to be the CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTED JESUS Christ, the Son of God.
JP:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "These teachings of 'crossless' gospel advocates appear to be totally contrary to the context of John chapters 20-21!"
Totally and thoroughly!
IMO, once their position on the titles of Jesus came to light that is when they had to delete the info at the GES site and back out of this discussion entirely.
LM
JP, I agree the conclusions of crossless gospel advocates in John 20:31 contradict the context. Some people misread John 20:31 to say "that you may believe the Christ, the Son of God is named 'Jesus'". That's not what it says. It says, "that you may believe Jesus (i.e., the one I just presented to you who died and rose again) is the Christ, the Son of God."
ReplyDeleteIn the immediate context, we read:
John 20:25-29
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not BELIEVE. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless (i.e., not BELIEVING), but BELIEVING. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast BELIEVED: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have BELIEVED.
BTW, the sign of turning water into wine in John 2, for example, was sufficient in the historical context to prove His Deity, but if you were to go preach "Jesus turned water into wine" by itself, you certainly would not be giving enough information to lead a person to eternal life.
-- Greg
Kevl:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “The error is the same I think with the Lordship Camp and the Crossless Camp.”
Both Lordship Salvation and the “Crossless” gospel are at the extreme right and left ends of the theological pendulum swing as they can be from one another.
Both views corrupt the Gospel: LS by addition; Crossless by subtraction.
What Hodges, Wilkin, Myers do to the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ, IMO, puts them even further down the road of heresy than the Lordship advocates.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThe statement that the GES gospel amounts to a "practical denial" of the Deity of Christ could be interpreted in different ways. On one hand, they affirm the Deity of Christ, but I would like to summarize two examples that show the GES gospel definitely has a practical effect on their presentation of Christ's Deity in evangelism:
1) On these public blog forums, I've interacted with two prominent GES apologists (one on staff for GES) regarding the Lord Jesus Christ's title, "the Son of God". Both argued that the words "Son of" prove that this title does not refer to Christ's Deity. They both gave examples.
One said "If one is a son of a president, does that mean he is equal in presidency?" I asked, "Are you saying the Lord Jesus is not equal in Deity to the Father?" To my knowledge he has not responded.
Nor have either of them responded to my question if a person even needs to believe Jesus is "the son of God" (their definition with a lower case "s") to be saved. What impression does this leave?
2) In a thread at the blog site of GES that was removed by GES without explanation, I stated: "Three days ago I witnessed to an Orthodox Jew in the parking lot of a grocery store. He told me that in Jewish theology, it is impossible for someone to be God and a man. The first verse I showed him was Micah 5:2. He looked at for a minute quietly before responding..."
Due solely to this statement, one of these same GES apologists replied, "It is a fact that you may have turned such a one away from eternal life."
He then proceeded to explain if someone has a problem with the Deity of Christ, "I would say politely, 'Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner.'" He implied that this would remain on the "back burner" until after the person was supposedly saved without believing in Christ's Deity.
-- Greg
The way I prefer to look at the contrast between the true gospel and the gospels of Lordship and GES is that the true gospel is an entirely different realm than either LS or GES.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone comes up with a "saving message" that requires works/dedication (LS) or subtracts essential truth regarding Christ's Person and work (GES), or their message contradicts the Biblical gospel in ANY way, their message is simply not "the gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9).
I wouldn't look at myself in the middle of LS and GES because both of these gospels exist in the realm of cursed messages. The true gospel is not even in that realm.
-- Greg
Greg:
ReplyDeleteOne said “If one is a son of a president, does that mean he is equal in presidency?" I asked, "Are you saying the Lord Jesus is not equal in Deity to the Father?" To my knowledge he has not responded.”
To use that analogy as a parallel to the relationship between the Father & Son is reckless and absurd.
He then proceeded to explain if someone has a problem with the Deity of Christ, “I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner.’” He implied that this would remain on the “back burner” until after the person was supposedly saved without believing in Christ's Deity.
This illustrates what I am getting at. A “problem with the Deity of Christ” can include a conscience rejection of His deity, and still the “Crossless” advocates will put it on the “back burner” as if it is not a hindrance to receiving Jesus as Savior.
Lou
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to read where Jeremy Myers last posted a comment on the Deity of Christ issue, refused to answer Greg's questions, and finally announced he would no longer discuss it, please see:
Open Question to Bob Wilkin...
LM
Lou, thanks for the boil down. These points echo our observations and concern of GES. As if Wilkin's current views aren't bad enough I am deeply concerned that Jeremy and Antonio represent the next generation of GES leadership, that GES will adopt an official position that it's me who is delivering a "different gospel" because I think things like the deity of Christ and awareness that one is a sinner are crucial elements to be established as part of the gospel presentation. Does GES already place people like Greg in the "different gospel" camp because he "confused the gospel" when he showed Micah 5:2 to demonstrate Christ's deity? If it's not their official position yet I think it's a natural evolution of their current statements and I can see where GES acolytes could take that position in the future, if they don't already.
ReplyDeleteHi Knet:
ReplyDeleteHappy to boil it down for you and my guests.
I want to make one opening point-
The strange twists on the Gospel we see coming from Wilkin, Myers and the GES originate with Zane Hodges. He is being insulated from this, but he is the man who first introduced what have become the current GES positions.
Hodges is probably highly involved in the current debates, but is keeping himself behind the scenes. There is no doubt Wilkin and Myers have retreated, and will not discuss their interpretation of the Gospel or the Lord’s deity.
Hodges is also the man who has declared that repentance is not necessary for salvation/conversion and does not include “change of mind” in its definition.
”As if Wilkin's current views aren't bad enough I am deeply concerned that Jeremy and Antonio represent the next generation of GES leadership…”
One thing is certain; the GES position on the Gospel has their advocates well down the road of heresy. What the mature men do in moderation, the younger will take to the extremes. We first had Hodges, and then Wilkin both of whom had already gone extremes. Hidges, drew Wilkin to the place where he (Wilkin) is now.
We will see the younger men like Myers take this even further.
As for da Rosa, he is a non-entity in the debate, and is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.
“… I think things like the deity of Christ and awareness that one is a sinner are crucial elements to be established as part of the gospel presentation.”
I want to be fair and let you know that the GES men may include a discussion of the cross and Christ’s deity in a soul-winning presentation. They will not hesitate to put those on the back burner if they think the lost man may balk at saying he believes Jesus (even what in his mind is a non-deity Jesus) will give him eternal life.
”Does GES already place people like Greg in the "different gospel" camp because he "confused the gospel" when he showed Micah 5:2 to demonstrate Christ's deity? If it's not their official position yet I think it's a natural evolution of their current statements and I can see where GES acolytes could take that position in the future, if they don't already.”
I believe it was Myers who already stated something along the lines that asking a sinner believe anything more than a promise of eternal life is adding to the Gospel.
Hodges says this is “excessive baggage.” So, in all likelyhood, they believe those of us who view the cross and deity of Christ as important elements in the Gospel as having adopted, “another Gospel.”
LM
"As for da Rosa, he is a non-entity in the debate, and is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification, I mistakenly thought da Rosa was an official GES representative rather merely a vocal proponent.
"GES men may include a discussion of the cross and Christ’s deity in a soul-winning presentation. They will not hesitate to put those on the back burner if they think the lost man may balk at saying he believes Jesus"
EXACTLY! I have a very hard time showing Christians around me that although GES frequently includes this information in their presentations it is considered "optional information only" so far as the lost man goes. People think I'm making stuff up when I first tell them what GES really believes, thinking I must be misquoting them or leaving something out, until I show them quote after revealing quote from GES' own material and the slowly begin to get the picture. Keep up the good work, I'll be reading and hope to meaningfully participate.
Hi:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “EXACTLY! I have a very hard time showing Christians around me that although GES frequently includes this information in their presentations it is considered 'optional information only' so far as the lost man goes. People think I'm making stuff up when I first tell them what GES really believes, thinking I must be misquoting them or leaving something out, until I show them quote after revealing quote from GES' own material and the slowly begin to get the picture. Keep up the good work, I'll be reading and hope to meaningfully participate.”
Your experience is not unusual. Many people would rather not believe that the GES, Wilkin and Hodges could have drifted so far from orthodoxy. As you have found, however, once you show the irrefutable evidence, from the GES sources themselves, the depth of their departure from the faith becomes clear.
With the full exposure of their twist on the Gospel and Deity of Christ they have retreated from any public discussion or interaction. We will see some articles from time to time, but they will keep themselves insulated from scrutiny and questions as best they can.
Thanks for the note and encouragement.
I would be very interested in your providing some of the GES quotes with sources you have shown others to reveal what they truly believe and teach.
Feel free to share more of your personal experience with this issue.
Lou
How does GES explain Romans 10:9-10? "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord you will be saved. For it is with the heart you believe and are justified and with the mouth you confess and are saved."
ReplyDeleteWhat can be clearer than that?
How do they interpret the word "believe"
Hi Warren:
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking in.
I have only a minute to acknowledge your comment/question. For now let me tell you that the GES “Crossless” camp (Hodges/Wilkin) view the Gospel of John as the only evangelistic book in the NT. They essentially dismiss and/or negate any other Gospel/salvation message in the NT that is found outside John’s Gospel.
When they come to passages like Rom. 10:9-10 they believe it is from a book (Romans) that is not designed to evangelize people to Christ. Wilkin says Romans is, “telling the believer how the believer can be saved from God’s wrath here and now.”
Therefore they explain away and dismiss the obvious meaning of passages such as you have asked about.
More to follow...
LM