Recently, I have visited a blog that I find helpful and a friend in the efforts to refute the teaching of Bob Wilkins’s “Crossless” gospel. That blog is Pursuit of Truth.
Two Pursuit of Truth administrators regularly visit and comment here at my blog. Last week I noticed that two of the “Crossless” theology advocates visited Pursuit of Truth. This motivated me to make a few comments in the thread under the article titled, Free Grace Alliance Sponsors a Panel…
Following is an edited except from two of my posts at Pursuit of Truth. Please excuse some redundancy. I put two separate comments together and want leave them prey much as they appeared at Pursuit of Truth.
The “Crossless” theology that originated with Zane Hodges, and is antithetical to Scripture, is being propagated primarily by Bob Wilkin and Jeremy Myers. Jim Johnson, an “Instructor” at the Rocky Mt. Bible College, however, just entered the “Crossless” debate at Pursuit of Truth.
What Does the Bible Say?
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” (Rom. 16:17).
What has been irrefutably shown from the numerous articles (primarily by Greg Schliesmann) at my blog, and especially in the continuing series by Tom Stegall at the Grace Family Journal is that “Crossless” gospel theology is “contrary doctrine” and the “cause (of) divisions and offenses” in the Free Grace community.
In referring to the terms beseech, mark, and avoid in verse 17, Dr. Mark Minnick, which I cited in my book on Lordship Salvation, said what is very appropriate for the “Crossless gospel controversy. He wrote:
“If you take those terms and you ponder them for just a moment, what becomes apparent is this: That our response in the first place is mandated. We have no subjective decision to make. The decision has already been made and the mandate is objective; it is in print! It has been in print for centuries! I exhort you, ‘mark’ them and ‘avoid’ them. The response that we are given is a mandated response. We are obligated to obey what is here.”
The following note from Dr. Charles Ryrie also appears in my book on Lordship Salvation:
“The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170.)
With a slight adjustment, Ryrie’s statement can be applied to the “Crossless” gospel controversy today.
“The message of faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ and the message of faith apart from any knowledge or belief in the finished work of Jesus Christ cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.”
There is no middle ground, no ground to give when the Gospel, the Cross, the Resurrection of Christ and His Deity are under assault, as it plainly is by “Crossless” theology and its advocates.
It is crucial to remember this: It is not the presentation of these truths that are the crux of debate as the “Crossless” men would have people believe. The debate is over what a lost man must know, understand or believe for salvation. It is there that these men have departed from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).
The “Crossless” theology advocates have repeatedly reminded us that they are personally persuaded of the truths of the Gospel. The crux of the debate, however, which they are determined to avoid discussing in unvarnished terms, is what the lost man must believe for salvation.
In my debates with the LS men they did not want to discuss what they believe are the requirements for salvation. They constantly drifted to the results of salvation. The advocates of “Crossless” theology are doing the exact same thing.
They want to keep repeating with unwavering regularity, “we believe the same things you do.” That has been recognized. However, they do not want to state in unvarnished terms that they reject the position that a lost man must believe these to truths to be born again, saved, receive the gift of eternal life and justified.
To reiterate: The question for these men is not whether they personally believe in Christ’s work as the grounds for salvation. The question is whether the “Crossless” gopsel advocates like Hodges, Wilkin, Myers and Johnson believe the lost man must believe in Christ’s finished work for salvation.
It is that question they do not want to answer without first twisting and redefining the Scriptures, like we saw Jeremy demonstrate at Pursuit of Truth. The answer, has however, been made clear from their previous writing.
Their position, which originated with Zane Hodges, is that it is not necessary for the lost person to know, understand or believe in the Deity, or the finished work of Christ as a condition for salvation.
LM
Greg Schliesman recently posted this statement to Antonio da Rosa and asked for an answer,
ReplyDelete“You noted that you are personally persuaded that Christ's work has indeed paid your sin and His blood made provision for the guarantee of everlasting life.
However, the question is not whether you personally see Christ's work as the ground of salvation. It is whether you believe the lost must believe in ‘Christ's finished work’ for salvation.”
da Rosa refuses to answer this simple, unambiguous, non-threatening question. da Rosa regards that question as a form of “badgering, harassing, unfruitful, hounding, and an interrogation.”
What could possibly be “unfruitful” about discussing the answer to whether or not the lost man must believe in the finished work of Christ for salvation?
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment above. My comment here regards your current blog post and Romans 16:17.
How does 2 Timothy 2:24-26 fit into your doctrine of separation? For example, while in California should Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson "mark and avoid" (Rom. 16:17) Antonio instead of ministering to him and even "correcting" him as necessary (2 Tim. 2:24-26). I'm sure you know they are planning to meet with Antonio while on the west coast.
Please explain your understanding of the relationship between 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and Romans 16:17 in relation to the doctrine of separation.
Jon:
ReplyDeleteMy desire and I trust that of Stegall, Rokser and Schliesmann is to declare truth, and expose errors for the protection of the saints. With God’s help we desire to see men like Antonio and Myers recovered from the numerous errors on the Gospel they have adopted.
Since this debate has begun, however, Antonio has shown a combative spirit and has been anything but receptive to teaching and civil discourse. This is his pattern, and has been his pattern when he deals with any one or any blog that rejects the teachings of Zane Hodges.
As for the proposed meeting in California, if it comes off: Lord willing. Dr. Bing and Brother Hixson will be used of the Lord to help Antonio see the "contrary doctrine."
However, none of us can be certain about what the true purpose, motive and/or outcome of this meeting is and will be. I am not going to speculate as to what da Rosa's or Bing's purpose for meeting is.
Have to go, more later…
LM
Jon:
ReplyDelete"...Please explain your understanding of the relationship between 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and Romans 16:17."
Both are truths, both are mandated courses of action. There is a need for both in their place and time.
I'm not sure what I could add to my previous comment above. It is no secret that da Rosa is anything but open to instruction that is counter to position he has adopted from Zane Hodges.
When the man won't even answer yours or Greg's questions, deletes other questions, what can you do?
When a man is bent on teaching and drawing others into the errors of "Crossless" gospel theology; what must we do?
A question to you Jon:
Do you see any sign from da Rosa of, "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth?"
LM
Jon/All:
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this again and want to expand.
Imagine you have a man who is learning, searching and trying to arrive at a position on the Gospel. Then you have another man who is cemented in his position on the Gospel, it is a position that is antithetical to the Scriptures, and he is aggressively promoting it.
Would you agree the latter should be dealt with differently than the former? Would you agree 2 Tim 2:24-26 is appropriate for the former, and Rom. 16:17 is appropriate for the latter?
What we have with Hodges, Wilkin, Myers & da Rosa is the latter.
You asked about da Rosa. He is not open to instruction because he is committed to “Crossless” gospel of Zane Hodges. Furthermore, he is not just a casual by stander. He is putting 100% effort into teaching and promoting “Crossless” theology.
What must we do? Act as if there is no danger in his theology? Do not warn others of the danger and from where it is coming? Just put up a façade of unity at the expense of compromising the biblically mandated course of action?
The “Crossless” gospel is the “contrary doctrine,” that is the reason for and cause of “division and offense” in the Free Grace community. Romans 16:17 is the mandated course of action. To disregard it is to disregard the Scripture.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. In answer to your question:
"Do you see any sign from da Rosa of, 'repentance to the acknowledging of the truth?'"
I would answer "yes" for at least three reasons:
1) I don't know if you know this but he has repented of the attitude and spirit which seemed to characterize his previous dialogue with you.
2) He is open to meeting with Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson to diaglog about matters relating to Free Grace Theology
3) He is open to posting comments I send him which refute and oppose the teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin
Jon:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concern.
1) I don't know if you know this but he has repented of the attitude and spirit which seemed to characterize his previous dialogue with you.
If that is true, why have I not heard this from him? Nevertheless, his behavior is not the issue. The theology of the “Crossless” gospel is the issue.
2) He is open to meeting with Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson to diaglog about matters relating to Free Grace Theology.
As I said, we do not know the motive or intent for this meeting. Since it will be a private meeting we are not likely to know. In any event, it is only an assumption that da Rosa will be teachable and responsive. And that is if Bing and Hixson are going there to try and recover him to an orthodox position, which would be highly speculative.
For all we know, da Rosa may have it in his mind to teach and/or correct Bing and Hixson.
We probably should not discuss this meeting. It is none of our business at this time.
BTW, I do not believe it was right or appropriate for Antonio to post details of what seem to have been private phone calls he had with Dr. Bing. If he did that without prior consent and an OK from Dr. Bing his integrity is in question.
3) He is open to posting comments I send him which refute and oppose the teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.
Yes, he will post some, but his pattern is to delete many. We have seen him brush many of your questions aside. He has also refused to answer questions from Greg. This is my earlier example of how he is handling direct questions from Greg.
Greg wrote, “However, the question is not whether you personally see Christ’s work as the ground of salvation. It is whether you believe the lost must believe in ‘Christ’s finished work’ for salvation.”
Antonio refuses to answer this simple, unambiguous, non-threatening question. da Rosa, however, regards Greg’s question as a form of “badgering, harassing, unfruitful, hounding, and an interrogation.”
IMO, because da Rosa is concrete in “Crossless” theology and determined to teach and promote it, Romans 16:17 is the right response. That is, of course, until such time, that he will demonstrate, “…repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,” (2 Tim. 2:25).
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Antonio is "in oppostion" (2 Tim. 2:25). But according to the passage in 2 Timothy 2, this does not preclude a ministry to him. You seemed to indicate that it does by stating: "Romans 16:17 is the right response. . . . until such time, that he will demonstrate, '...repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,' (2 Tim. 2:25)." But in context, this passage in 2 Timothy actually indicates that we are to minister to those "in oppostion" BEFORE they repent. The very reason we are ministering to them is because 1) they are in opposition (yet still somewhat open to Biblical teaching and correction), and 2)because we have as our desire their repentance! This is how I read the passage in 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Is this not consistent with Ephesians 5:16: "make the most of every opportunity"? If someone "in opposition" (2 Tim. 2:25) is giving me an "opportunity" (Eph. 5:16) to teach and correct them with Biblical truth - I'm going to take it! And according to these passages, I think the apostle Paul would too (cf. Acts 17:16-34).
I am sure that your "crossless" gospel advocates are just as certain of their orthodoxy as you seem to be of yours. It also seems that Charlie Bing, according to what da Rosa and Perreault has said on da Rosa's blog, does not take either side, but finds himself somewhere in the middle.
ReplyDeleteJon:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the dialogue.
What we are discussing are two truths, both are correct and in this case, applicable.
I encourage and pray for men to be successful in their attempts to minister to those who are in doctrinal error. I encourage you to minister to him with a view and purpose of helping him to repent and return to a balanced position on the Gospel.
I have prayed for da Rosa and Myers that their minds would be opened and conscience pricked by the Holy Spirit. IMO, what Myers heard at the FGA Panel Discussion from the Scriptures as Pastor Stegall opened them may very well be wearing on him, and I hope toward, “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”
I am hopeful that Antonio will be recovered from the errors that originated in the teachings of Zane Hodges. Antonio will not allow me to minister to him. Jon, minister to Antonio and try to recover him; that is biblical. I will continue to pray for his repentance and return to orthodoxy.
At the same time, however, I am going to warn as wide a spectrum of evangelical Christianity as I can of the inherent dangers of the “Crossless” gospel, and identify the men who teach it. This also is biblical.
LM
Hello Fritz: (Name I Attach to My Anonymous Guests)
ReplyDeleteI imagine they are “just as certain.” I do know, however, that if their conscience is not yet seared, the Holy Spirit is pricking the conscience and they will sense that.
IMO, it was highly unethical for da Rosa to publish private phone conversations. Unless, of course he had first been given permission from Dr. Bing, which is not indicated.
IMO, it was a political move by da Rosa, and unfair to Dr. Bing. It is unwise and inappropriate to speculate what Dr. Bing’s attitude or position may be. When and if he decides to relate his personal position on this, he will let the broader FG community know about it.
To reiterate: I think it is unfair and unwise to suggest or speculate where he may be on the issue. Dr. Bing is President of the FGA, his words will carry great weight. So, let’s wait for his word, from his own mouth or pen.
I think that is fair and wise.
LM
PS: Please do not take the above as though I was chastising you. Just expressing my opinion.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThank you brother for your thoughts! I do sincerely appreciate them. I agree with what you said. I think it is balanced and Biblical.
Jon:
ReplyDeleteOne other item.
You said, “I don't know if you know this but he (Antonio) has repented of the attitude and spirit which seemed to characterize his previous dialogue with you.”
If Antonio “repented of the attitude and spirit (of) previous dialogue” toward me, Stegall and Rokser; why do those “Cowardice, Cultishness & Childishness” articles still appear at his blog?
LM
Jon:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the good spirit you have shown today.
Lou