A Snap-Shot of the "Crossless" Debate

To All:

While we wait for Bob Wilkin to respond to my offer to help him have the debate he is calling for I thought this would be a good article to serve in the meantime. This is a synopsis of the issues in the “Crossless” gospel debates and I feel this would be a good transitional piece for over the holiday weekend.

The following is a slightly edited version of a note I just posted at the pro-“Crossless” gospel blog, UnAshamed of Grace. Antonio da Rosa administers that blog. Antonio is one of the most vocal, emotionally charged and spiritually immature {see below} advocates of the “Crossless” gospel you will find anywhere in the blogosphere.

{Antonio da Rosa deleted my post and one from another man, which is da Rosa's standard practice when he has to bury some of the most disturbing aspects of their theology and/or practices. He is often banned and/or reprimanded at blogs for this and other poor choices in behavior.}


On the doctrine of the Gospel, popularized by Zane Hodges, there is no doubt that Antonio and Jeremy Myers (GES staff member) have checked out on Scripture. They not only have reduced the Gospel to a message that has little resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they have undermined His deity with the twisting of His titles.

When my book on Lordship Salvation came out I warned Antonio that he might not want to get too cozy with me. I purposely did NOT quote Hodges and even in my book gave a warning to my LS readers about Hodges. I saw the signs of this radical departure from orthodoxy as far back as 11 years ago. That is why I kept my distance.

Once I finally went ahead with public thoughts and posts at my blog on Zane Hodges (June 2007) and his interpretation of the Gospel, which is the official position of the GES, it set off what is now over two months of open and sharp debate. The one disappointment is that in a very short time it became obvious, to any objective observer, that the men who advocate the “Crossless” gospel were never going to be thoroughly clear, genuine or transparent about their belief system. Their doctrine has come under intense scrutiny. They are unaccustomed to this level of scrutiny and are having a hard time dealing with it. They consistently fall back to what they feel are the safe mantras and will not deviate from them.

The acceptance of the teaching of Hodges on the Gospel has thoroughly corrupted their view of the Scriptures. They view the Gospel of John such single-mindedness that for them it trumps and negates the balance of the Bible whenever it touches on the Gospel and/or salvation. To make matters worse they have badly misinterpreted and skewed John’s Gospel.

Now, their egregious errors have come to light. Their view is now under intense scrutiny and I am finding that many who had little idea of just far they have gone doctrinally astray are seeing it in full view for the first time.

Readers (at my blog) have also been able to witness the evasion and dodging of the deity of Christ questions. Matthew (Dyspraxic Fundamentalist) is one of the few who has been open and transparent. He is a regular contributor at one of Antonio's blogs, and he admits that under their system a man who consciously denies the deity of Christ can be born again only by believing in the name of Jesus for eternal life. At the GES blog I have gained more admissions to this disturbing fact that is inherent with their interpretation of the Gospel.

For these men a Jehovah's Witness (JW), who clings to his heretical beliefs about the deity of Jesus, can be born again under their system of believing in the name of Jesus, who for the JW, is anything but deity. William Fiess and Alvin at the GES blog have affirmed this position. This is no hypothetical situation; it is real and reveals one of the most egregious extremes coming from the GES on the Gospel.

There is no doubt Antonio da Rosa and Myers take the same position, their message demands it, but they will NOT acknowledge the deity question let alone answer it. Jeremy is especially unwilling to do so because from his GES position, that admission would be catastrophic for the GES.

Furthermore, I have been in contact with Bob Wilkin, who has written me several times, but has not yet replied to a proposal I have made to him to have the public debate he has been calling for. I am somewhat disappointed that once I offered to help organize that debate Bob stopped replying. I trust and asked him if I might expect to hear from him by Tuesday. I have been updating this exchange at my blog (see below).

By the way, there is new set of articles coming to my blog shortly after the holiday weekend. These articles will raise the level of debate on their interpretation of the Gospel. The men (Jeremy, Antonio, Wilkin, et al.) who hold to the position coming from Zane Hodges and the GES will have much to be called to account for.

{Please view an important comment I have posted in the thread below. It addresses the spiritual immaturity of Antonio da Rosa.}


LM

I have added a new site to my Helpful Links. It is a penetrating article by Brother George Zeller. Please visit The Teachings of Zane Hodges, Jospeh Dillow, Robert Wilkin, & the GES