November 10, 2007

What Is The “Crossless” Advocates “Stance” on the Cross, Resurrection & Deity of Christ?

Dear Guests:

*Jim Johnson, a former apologist for the “Crossless” gospel and its advocates, posted the following at the Grace Evangelical Society’s blog. He wrote,

...the minute you identify yourself as being sympathetic to a faith alone position of Zane or Bob - no matter what your stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ, you are attacked ”1
Did the late Zane Hodges and today does Bob Wilkin teach a “faith alone position” on the Gospel? The initial reply would be, Yes, they do. What we have been primarily concerned with, however, is what these men insist is unnecessary for the lost man to believe for the reception of eternal life. What the lost man must be convinced of and believe that will result in his being born again is the crux of the debate and concern among many in evangelical circles.

We begin by noting there is a missing element in Johnson’s quote above. The missing element is that Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin do have a specificstance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ.” Their position is that a lost man can be saved apart from knowledge, understanding or belief in the death, resurrection or deity of Christ.

In recent weeks we have been learning a great deal about what the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel consider false, unnecessary additions to what a lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life. We have learned exactly what the stance is of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers and Antonio da Rosa.

For example, consider these statements by Zane Hodges:
You see, as we noted previously, the facts surrounding the gospel message—such as the death and resurrection of Christ—are important facts for what they tell us about the reasons for trusting Christ. But believing these facts doesn’t save anyone. People are only saved when they believe that Jesus gives them eternal life the moment they believe in Him for that.” 2

Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved. It just does not teach this.” 3

In recent years I have become aware of a way of presenting the gospel invitation that troubles me. I believe I have heard it from my earliest years, and I admit it didn’t really bother me for a long time. Now it does. I have heard people say this: ‘In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.’ In the context of our present discussion, I mean that this is their summary of the requirement of faith. It is not just one item, among others, to be believed. Whenever I hear that nowadays, I get extremely uncomfortable.” 4

The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.” 5
How does Bob Wilkin define his “stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ?”
What they fail to understand is that biblical faith in Jesus is not faith that He existed, nor faith in His deity, nor even faith that He died for our sins and rose again. In the Bible, to believe in Jesus is to be convinced that He who died and rose again guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him.” 6
At first glance Wilkins's statement seems reasonable. Then, however, we have the following statement, which negates what might have been considered orthodox in the previous.
Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.” 7
Wilkin views telling the lost man that for salvation he must believe Jesus died for his sin and rose from the dead, (the finished work of Christ) as additions to the Gospel. Wilkin considers the finished work of Christ and His resurrection a “different gospel.” His meaning and intent is clear. In his opinion, to preach the necessity of belief in the death and resurrection of Christ is to preach a false Gospel through unnecessary additions.

How does Jeremy Myers (former GES staff member) define his “stance on cross and resurrection and deity of Christ?” Jeremy Myers recently articulated that stance. Jeremy verified his personal position on the cross and resurrection when, at the Pursuit of Truth blog he wrote,
I have a view that one does not have to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus to be born again.” 8
How does Antonio da Rosa define his “stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ?” At the Pursuit of Truth blog he wrote,
Theologically speaking, ‘explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection’ is not soteriologically necessary for the reception of eternal life.” (emphasis his) 9
Antonio has made one of the clearest statements on belief in the “deity of Christ” as being unnecessary for the reception of eternal life. At his Crossless gospel blog Antonio wrote,
If a JW hears me speak of Christ’s deity and asks me about it, I will say, ‘Let us agree to disagree about this subject…’ I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions (sic) and beliefs about Jesus.” 10 (caps his)
da Rosa continued,
If someone asks me point blank, do I believe (sic) that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say “NO!” 11 (caps his)
The position being articulated by da Rosa and the “Crossless” gospel advocates includes the belief that a lost man can openly reject and deny the deity of Christ and yet be saved by believing in nothing more than a promise of eternal life.  Some have come to define this view from GES as the “Promise-Only Gospel.”

Johnson’s analogy of persons being “attacked” for agreeing with another man’s doctrine is a facade. Johnson seeks to portray an important doctrinal controversy as though it is a personality clash. The questions and concerns are raised because, in the opinion of pastors and teachers, the “stance” the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel take is antithetical to Scripture.

Jim Johnson has written that Zane and Bob hold to a “faith alone,” position. It must be noted, however, that if it is faith alone that Zane and Bob teach, it is “faith alone,” but apart from faith believing in the “cross, resurrection and deity of Christ.” This is a reductionist assault on the content of saving faith and a serious departure from a balanced, biblical view of God’s redemptive plan for mankind.

The teachers and advocates of the “Crossless” gospel have departed from, “the faith which was once delivered,” (Jude 3). I intend to do what I can to, “earnestly contend for the faith.”


*In early 2008 Jim Johnson was caught in numerous acts of massive plagiarism. Furthermore, Johnson manipulated some of the plagiarirzed material to make it appear to support his views, when some in fact did not. See- Jim Johnson’s Plagiarism... To this day Johnson is not just unrepentant, but has brazenly attacked any who have called him to repentance. In any event, since his plagiarism was identified he deleted the plagiarized articles he once posted and has refrained from posting any new comments on the debate.

1] Not unexpectedly the GES is blocking and deleting comments at its blog. Many of you likely remember the sudden and unexplained disappearance of two articles and threads at the original GES blog. I felt I had a reasonable, brief response to Jim's post. It was, however, blocked. This article is my reply to Johnson's note.

2] Zane Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2, JOTGES 14 (Spring 2001)‏.

3] Zane Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.1. JOTGES 13 (Autumn 2000)‏

Reading quotes such as the previous by Zane Hodges sufficiently demonstrates why the interpretation of the Gospel coming from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES has come to be known as the “Crossless Gospel.”

4] Zane Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2, JOTGES 14 (Spring 2001)‏.

5] Ibid.
For more examples of the teaching of Zane Hodges see, The Unusual and Troubling Teachings of Zane Hodges by Pastor George Zeller.

6] Bob Wilkin: Secure and Sure

7] Bob Wilkin: JOTGES Autumn 1998)‏

8] Jeremy Myers: Pursuit of Truth See post on 06 Nov 2007 at 2:13 am.

9] Antonio da Rosa: Pursuit of Truth See post on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:39 pm.

10] Antonio da Rosa: Believe Christ’s Promise and You are Saved, No Matter What Misconceptions You Hold

11] Ibid.

Next week I will return to my Heart to Heart series.


  1. Amen brother! Many good, balanced, and Biblical thoughts. Thanks for the direct quotes and scholarly post addressing these issues.

  2. Lou,

    Thanks for addressing these issues. These are very serious issues which need to be exposed.

  3. Jon:

    Thanks for the note.

    I quoted Hodges, Wilkin, Myers and da Rosa so that my guests will see that what we have been addressing is in fact their position.

    Furthermore, there is no way these men or Jim can claim misrepresentation, misunderstanding or Straw Man. To do so they will have to contradict or disavow their own words.

    Take care,


  4. Hi Liam:

    Your first comment at my blog, I believe.

    Now that I have exposed their "Crossless" theology once again, they have to deal with the reality and reaction.

    Thanks for dropping in.


  5. Hi Friends:

    This evening I received an e-mail from a pastor in Florida. I asked for and received permission to publish his note to me. Here it is.

    Hello Lou:

    I've been reading your blog and appreciating what you've been posting. To me it is terrible that the great price our Savior paid is being reduced by some to optional knowledge. To believe in Christ for salvation today, without knowing about his death and resurrection, is in my judgment, impossible. Thank you for your good labor in this important matter. Blessings to you in your ministry.

    This pastor understands what Hodges has done to the Gospel through his reductionist presuppositions.


  6. To All:

    I did not include the following in my main article. It falls just outside of the main theme of the article, but this is no less important and should be underscored.

    The following statement from Antonio da Rosa, however, is cause for new concerns over his personal understanding of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

    In his India Mission Journal he entered this comment, “Please pray that the Holy Spirit prepare the hearts of those whom He is directing our ministry to, through dreams, visions, and other circumstances.”

    At the time I did raise a question about that statement in the thread that followed, but as is his pattern da Rosa deleted it.

    The Bible is very clear. In John 16:7-ff the Lord Jesus Christ says the Holy Spirit will come to convict and convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Spirit is doing that work today.

    In light of John 16:7-ff, when according to his “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel, those things the Spirit is convincing the lost world of do not need to be known, understood, or believed for salvation? Why, therefore, does Antonio ask people to “pray that the Holy Spirit prepare the hearts…through dreams, visions…”?

    Since the advent of the Church age and the close of the canon of Scripture when has the Holy Spirit been speaking through “dreams and visions?”

    Giving benefit of the doubt: Because of the excitement over going to India, I trust Antonio misspoke and would be happy to retract and rephrase his understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit.

    At worst he is now revealing some Pentecostal/Charismatic tendencies in his understanding of the Holy Spirit.

    I may develop this more fully at a later date in a stand alone article.


  7. Hello Lou,
    I am reading and thinking about this crossless issue and appreciating your boldness in confronting it. I'm seeing that teachers in Free Grace circles who advocate salvation apart from understanding the cross and resurrection of Christ are objecting to the "crossless" label. It occurs to me that this is very odd. I am one who thinks it strange that such teachers exist at all, and even more strange that they would object to this label. It is a fact that these teachers do claim no understanding of the cross is required by God for people to be saved. They even go so far as to suggest we who do believe this are adding to the gospel, that we are preaching "another gospel," inferring that the curse of Galatians 1:6-9 may apply to us and our message.
    It is astounding then, that they object to their message being called "the crossless gospel." How can they do this? Well, I am seeing that, technically, they affirm the cross and resurrection of Christ are important - to God. It's unsaved humans who don't have to know anything about it. So don't call us "crossless." ? ? ? Well, I'm sorry. To me, that is indeed a crossless message. Believing that the cross is technically important to God while holding it is not important enough to be required in our preaching to unsaved people doesn't remove the problem, not that I can see.
    It appears, however, there is something putting the cross into their message after all, not a belief on their part that unsaved people must hear about the cross, but an awareness of how important the cross is to Bible believing Christians. I see that their teachings are bringing the anathema of Bible believing people upon them. They appear to be painfully aware of this, probably have anticipated it, and so are saying they do preach this unnecessary message. Their reason, it helps people to believe in Christ if they are told about the cross. I find this pathetic and absurd. I recall from Paul that unsaved people view the preaching of the cross as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18). How then, does unnecessary, foolish preaching help people? I also recall that Paul refers to the "offense" of the cross (Gal. 5:11). Surely, if people don't have to know about the cross we shouldn't be preaching it. Why should we put this stumbling block in the way of unsaved people and unnecessarily offend them? Bloodless, crossless preaching would be far more palatable to the unsaved world about us than the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ commited to Paul and to us.
    For me personally, I can't help wondering, are these teachers telling us they preach the cross because they think this will, or should, pacify people who disagree with them? Should this pacify us? I think something very wrong is going on.

  8. Hello Art:

    Thanks for checking in.

    You have articulated many of the truths and concerns that several others and I have had in this doctrinal controversy. I do not know where to begin with what you wrote. Frankly, nothing more needs to be added.

    The “Crossless Gospel” is the appropriate label for the Zane Hodges (Wilkin, Myers, da Rosa, GES) interpretation of the Gospel.

    I may take your notes and feature them as an article to follow my Heart to Heart series.

    Thanks for this powerful comment.


  9. Wow Art, well said! That's an awesome comment!

  10. Art,

    Your comment is right on.

    Crossless gospel proponents claim that even though the lost do not need to believe in Christ's finished work to be saved, it is very helpful to help someone believe the promise of eternal life. In "How to Lead a Person to Christ", Zane Hodges claims it is especially helpful in America. You said:

    I find this pathetic and absurd. I recall from Paul that unsaved people view the preaching of the cross as foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18).

    Paul also says "Christ crucified" is a stumblingblock in 1Cor. 1:23, and yet it was necessary for him to preach the message of the cross to Jews who were stumbled by it. In fact, it is the only message he brought to the lost (1Cor. 1:21-23).

    The necessity of the message of the cross is not limited to its effectiveness as an apologetic. It is absolutely essential, even if it is a stumblingblock and offense to those we are imploring on Christ's behalf.

    I have never seen crossless gospel proponents answer this point.

    I am left wondering with you:

    can't help wondering, are these teachers telling us they preach the cross because they think this will, or should, pacify people who disagree with them?

    -- Greg

    P.S. It is also ironic that as soon as crossless gospel proponents claim that believing the message of the cross is helpful and "almost necessary" to understand the promise of life, in the very next breath they give examples of people who were saved prior to the Cross without believing the message of the Cross as a pattern for today.

  11. Art, good to see on this side of the fence. You fought a good fight on Antonio's blog and you were an encouragement to me, and I'm sure many others. I've been involved with this since June, after Wilkin visited our church and left a wake of confusion. Your observations are right on, and seeing new names is encouraging as it affirms that awareness is spreading, that this is not at all a trivial issue. I hope to see you post more, even if you don't seem to be changing anyone's mind, because there are undecided masses reading these blogs that are swayed even if the more vocal proponents aren't. Be encouraged, your contribution helps.

  12. Gentlemen:

    Good to see you all here interacting with one another.

    Each of you has made important comments and observations in this thread. For me this brief thread has been an iron sharpening one. I trust our corporate interaction is going to edify and encourage each of us.

    The awareness is spreading and there are quite a few lurkers that read only.

    Art you wrote and Greg noted this, “…can't help wondering, are these teachers telling us they preach the cross because they think this will, or should, pacify people who disagree with them?”

    The advocates of the “Crossless” gospel have had their teaching scrutinized, addressed and refuted in the last few months like never before. Until this year their teaching has been pretty much under the radar and limited to mainly private discussions among pastors. They don’t like the full exposure and disclosure of the tecahing and implications of the “Crossless” gospel. They are doing all they can to make it appear as though we are making a big deal out of nothing.

    In the thread under the Introduction to my Heart to Heart series I made this comment to KnetKnight who raised a similar concern,

    As you noted this is no small matter, it is not an issue that we can agree to disagree over. The “Crossless” advocates would like for it to be reduced to a doubtable issue, not worth getting in serious debate over. That is not possible if we want to be true to the biblical commands to contend for faith, especially when vital truth such as the Gospel and Deity of Christ are under assault.”


  13. Lou, Greg, John, Knetknight,
    Thank you all for your encouragement. I'm seeing some really good things you all have written.
    I understand nothing to be more important for people in this world to be told than that their sins were paid for through the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ. But causing God's messengers to think this is merely optional information can only result in messengers that don't tell it. To me, that is very bad.
    May God grant that more and more of His people will recognize and appreciate how important these matters are.

  14. 1 Cor 1-23,24 "23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

    Paul knew the message of Christ crucified was a stumbling block for people, yet he wrote under inspiration that he was compelled to preach it anyway. Why would Paul do that if it was optional content? Wouldn't he be guilty of turning people away from Christ on a technicality? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire this if it was such a horrible example?

    Greg relates in this article an account of witnessing to an Orthodox Jew. The man denied the deity of Christ and Greg showed him scripture. Antonio said of Greg "It is a fact that you may have turned such a one away from eternal life." Well, I guess Antonio would have to level a finger at Paul too. Greg, how you feel about being in the same boat as Paul? I'm thinkin' you're probably okay with that. :-)

  15. I'm gonna go out on a limb here because I don't know where all of you line up... guess we're about to find out.

    Art, at least one reason the crossless side of the aisle thinks add'l content is optional is because of what I believe is a distorted view of unlimited atonement (UA). They believe that UA means that Christ has effectively removed everyone's sins already and that the only reason anyone is hellbound is because they lack everlasting life. I think of UA as "sufficient for all, effecient for those who believe." The crossless side would mostly say "sufficient for all, efficient for all", that all we lack is everlasting life through belief in Jesus for it. i.e. Sin no longer separates even unbelievers from God. Because of this, the crossless side generally argues that the lost man need not acknowledge his sinfulness or believe Jesus' finished work to take it away because, in their view, it's simply a done deal now.

  16. Knet:

    You wrote, “Greg relates in this article an account of witnessing to an Orthodox Jew. The man denied the deity of Christ and Greg showed him scripture. Antonio said of Greg, ‘It is a fact that you may have turned such a one away from eternal life.’ Well, I guess Antonio would have to level a finger at Paul too. Greg, how you feel about being in the same boat as Paul? I'm thinkin’ you're probably okay with that.”

    Elsewhere Antonio views any rejection of Christ’s Deity, His death and/or resurrection as matters to be put “on the back burner.”

    It has become clear to me that in the mind of Antonio, and the “Crossless” gospel advocates he speaks for, there is probably no heretical view that a lost man can consciously cling to, in regard to the Person and work of Christ, outside of believing in a promise, that would hinder him from being born again.


  17. This is the exact quote from Antonio:

    First, Antonio is speaking for the GES. He wrote, “The evangelism that GES proposes frees men and women up to discuss relevent (sic) things with people.”

    Later Antonio wrote, “If I were talking to a Jew, he may very well ask me about the deity and humanity of Jesus. I would certainly entertain his questions and answer them to the best of my ability. But if such a one continued to express doubts or objections to this, I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner’.”

    Putting the two statements together, “...discuss relevant things with people...the deity and humanity of Jesus...put this issue on the back-burner.”

    Using da Rosa's own logic we find that the Deity of Christ is NOT “relevant” in his/GES method of evangelism. This is why vital truths about the Deity and finished work of Christ are merely brushed aside by “Crossless” gospel advocates if the lost man raises any concern or even open hostility toward them.

    Antonio’s GES proposed method of evangelism would be the same with the JW, Hindu or any lost man who rejects the Deity and/or finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.


    See How I Might Do Evangelism With A Jewish Man

  18. GES took down the forum on which Antonio da Rosa made the comment Knet referenced. But I still have over 100 posts from that thread including my post and Antonio's response that Knet mentioned. If anyone wants a copy of it, I can send it to you. -- Greg

  19. Hi Greg:

    I copied most of both GES articles and threads before they were deleted by Wilkin.

    For time sake please send me the exchange you had with Antonio mentioned above.



  20. Hi Knetknight,
    Appreciate your remarks. My understanding, from 2nd Corinthians 5, is that Christ's death fully satisfied God as the necessary payment for sin, and being satisfied Himself, He now requires humans to accept this too. In this sense He is not imputing sin (v.19) but allowing time for as many as will to believe in Christ and his reconciling work. Regarding any who won't, in the words of John 8:24, "ye shall die in your sins." For these reasons, Paul says at (v.20), we beseech people, saying, "Be ye reconciled to God." That is, the reconciling work of Christ must be received through intelligent faith to ratify this work for people individually. Otherwise, we wind up with the error of universalism.

  21. Jonathan Perreault
    Sorry for not getting your name right earlier. I put "John." Will be more careful. I think I've seen references to a 20 page paper you wrote on John's Gospel. Is that available somewhere that I could read what you've written?

  22. Hi Art,

    Jonathan has posted the link to his article on our blog as well, we also have it on our list of documents at our blog. I'm sure he wouldn't mind me posting the link. :-)

    Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior

  23. Rachel:

    Thanks for posting the link to Jon's article.


    Has Antonio responded to you/your article as he promised?


  24. To All:

    This morning I was surfing some old articles at my blog.

    Many of us recall how Wilkin lost his nerve for the public debate he had been calling for over the Spring and Summer months once Ron Shea accepted the challenge to meet in open debate. That came as little surprise.

    In the thread under An Open Challenge for Public Debate between Ron Shea and Bob Wilkin I found the notes by a regular poster- BNaz. These thoughts from BNaz are pertinent to the on-going discussion, which I is why post them here.

    Following is BNaz's post...

    A MrGiggs on the GES site posed this question which has to do with the deity of Christ.

    You asked: Can a person be born again if they don't believe in Jesus' conception by holy spirit / virgin birth?

    He may or may not find this. We cannot even redirect the readers of that site here but this was to be my reply.

    Are you saying this person does not believe in Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit or are you saying they deny it? If they deny it and by that denial they are saying Christ is not God who died for their sins then they are not saved. 1 John 4:1-3 would confirm this fact. 1 John 5:1 confirms that those who are born of God believe that Jesus is the Christ. “Christ” means deity!

    For the doubters: The woman at the well in John 4:25 knew that the Messiah or the Christ would be “all-knowing”. Verse 29 confirms her belief that in the word Christ, Omniscience was implicit. No one is omniscient except God!

    Matthew 26:63-68 also shows that the word Christ and Son of God both meant that He was equating Himself with God. If not, why would they have so vehemently accused our Lord Jesus Christ of blasphemy?
    Don’t even try to disparage the word Christ to mean something less than deity.

    Those of you, who are crossless and deityless proponents, believe that the word “Christ” does not imply deity. Therefore you say it’s preferred to present a dumbed-down Jesus concept to people.

    You all actually believe that we are adding to the gospel to say that Jesus Christ is God, when we preach. Or, you may concede and say well, (talking about Diane, Jo and Alvin, Bill Fiess, and the other Mike etc. at GES) it’s okay but why muddy the waters with frivolous facts about who Jesus is.

    Am I wrong?


    9/05/2007 5:05 PM

  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. [I deleted and reposted this to fix some typos and add emphasis]
    Good post Lou.

    Regarding the woman at the well and John 4, I thought of this just this morning. In 4:25 the woman said "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." The crossless crowd would have us believe that her concept of "Messiah" was different, a non-deity Samaritan prophet called Taheb. But wait, look at the very next words out of Jesus' mouth. "Jesus *said to her, "I who speak to you am He." Whoa, would Jesus have said "I am He" if she had a non-deity Samaritan prophet in mind? I don't think so. Insert what the crossless crowd believes she meant into Jesus' statement and it's obviously ludicrous -- "I who to speak to you am that non-deity Samaritan prophet you have in mind". Jesus would have been blaspheming himself, Eek! Theologians can debate the Samaritan concept of Messiah until the cows come home but Jesus confirms that this woman, in this place and this time, had the right Messiah in mind. Either that or Jesus knowingly mislead her and affirmed something that was patently not true.

  27. Good Point Knet:

    The “Crossless” GES men have a way around this.

    They believe His title, “the Christ” does not mean or infer His deity. Same goes for His title, the “Son of God.”

    Thus far, from what I have observed, there is no doctrine or passage of Scripture that they will not reinterpret, twist or dismiss if it in any way chips away at their “Crossless” theology.

    This is beginning to appear as though their “Crossless” theological presuppositions are the final authority, and the Scriptures are being forced into conformity to those presuppositions.


  28. "beginning" to appear??? :-)

    Do they have a way around her caling him "Messias"? Even ZH admits in his JOTGES How to Lead People to Christ series that "In Jewish prophecy and theology the promised Christ was also the Son of God—that is, He was to be a divine person. Recall the words of Isaiah: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given…and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6-7)" He explains this definition away however with regards to the Sam's in the next sentence. "But in Samaritan theology, the Messiah was thought of as a prophet..."". Even IF true, and Greg has shown elsewhere that this is a big if, this is irrelevant. The issue is who does Jesus think he is because, whatever the Sam. woman thought, Jesus confirmed that she was correct. If she was thinking as ZH writes, that he was a non-divine prophet, Jesus couldn't have agreed with her so affirmatively without blaspheming himself. He would have affirmed her clearly false belief and ruined his credibility.

  29. Beginning to appear???

    I am trying to be somewhat diplomatic.

    There is no doubt that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and His Deity are under assault from the teachings, and followers of the teaching of Zane Hodges.


  30. Bro. Art,

    I like your reasoning. I believe you hit it on the head when you spoke about God being satisfied with His Son's work, & now requires us to also. You also are on the mark with your comments about the cross being a stumblingblock, but even though Paul would have given up his own salvation if that were possible (thank the good Lord it is not!) to see them saved, he still preached the cross to them. It is the only way. I love & appreciate my friends in Christ who believe differently, & agree with them on quite a lot of other doctrines, but as I have said before, I respectfully disagree on this matter. Blood has been required by God since sin came into the world. This IS the free grace of God to us if we will only believe in Him! God Bless.

  31. David:

    Thanks for stopping by with a comment for Art. Would you mind if I ask for some clarification from your note above?

    You wrote, “It is the only way. I love & appreciate my friends in Christ who believe differently, & agree with them on quite a lot of other doctrines, but as I have said before, I respectfully disagree on this matter.”

    Which part do you “respectfully disagree on?”

    I’m not sure I am touching on what you were referring to, but I have always given credit to them for at least being willing to preach the cross. The divide is over their insistence that a lost man does not need to know, understand or believe in the finished work of Christ for salvation.

    Thanks again,


  32. Lou,

    The part we would disagree on is that it is necessary to believe in these truths to be born again. Or, to put it another way, that one cannot actively reject these truths once they become aware of them & be born again.
    I absolutely know that my brothers & sisters that would disagree with me on this very much believe in & preach the cross & resurrection. I trust this is clear now.

  33. Hi Dave:

    If I understand correctly you believe a lost man cannot be saved while being unaware of and/or rejecting the death and resurrection of Christ. Do I have that right?

    As for the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel goes: In regard to the cross and resurrection I have always conceded that they personally believe in the Deity, death and resurrection of Jesus, and may refer to these in an evangelistic setting.

    The controversy, and where they have departed from the faith, is over the fact that they believe a lost man can be saved apart from knowing, understanding, believing and/or “actively reject” these truths.

    This is Antonio’s published position on the necessity of belief in the “finished work of Jesus Christ” for eternal life, “Theologically speaking, ‘explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection’ is not soteriologically necessary for the reception of eternal life.”

    Antonio also regards any outright rejection of the Lord’s Deity a mere “misconception” that can be put on the “back burner” so that it does not interfere with getting that lost man to believe in a promise of eternal life.

    That kind of radical, unscriptural thinking is what has brought division and offence (Rom. 16:17) into the FG community. And it all is rooted in the teachings of Zane Hodges.

    Thanks again for checking in.


  34. I believe a lost man may be saved without understanding these things fully, but to outright reject them, no. The way I see it, a lost person must know who the Biblical Jesus is before he can be born again. The Holy Spirit's job is to point this out, & He does His job perfectly. We may not fully grasp it all, & will not until we reach Heaven, but to outright reject it, is another story. I have stated before that bro. Antonio knows that we do not agree on this, yet we appreciate & love each other as brothers in Christ as I do you, bro. Lou. Take care.

  35. Oh dear, maybe I should never had tried to figure this out! You may have adressed this in the comment here, but it's a lot to absorb. May I simply ask?

    If I may, does their postion claim that one can DENY the deity, death or resurrection of Christ and be saved or that one does not NEED knowledge of the deity, death or resurrection of Christ to be saved? And does that differentiation matter?

  36. Hi Missy:

    Thanks for visiting.

    The “Crossless” advocates view anything other than believing Jesus guarantees eternal life as a false addition to the Gospel. Their interpretation of the Gospel is that the lost man does not need to know or believe that he is a sinner, that Jesus died and rose from the dead for him, do not need to know or believe Jesus is deity.

    Back up this thread read what Art wrote and read BNaz. Most important, however, read what Wilkin and da Rosa wrote. I quote them in the article here.

    da Rosa views a lost man’s rejection of the deity of Christ as a mere “misconception” that should be put on the “back burner.” He would continue to encourage the man, who openly rejects the deity of Christ, to trust the name Jesus for eternal life. da Rosa feels that rejection of major doctrines can get handled in a discipleship class following salvation.

    Here is one of da Rosa’s more absurd, but revealing statements, “When you believe in the name of Jesus, you believe on One who is God, who has died and rose again, who was born of a virgin, who did walk on water, who ascended into heaven bodily, etc. EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE, UNDERSTAND, OR BELIEVE THESE THINGS.” (How Much Information…)

    Watch that! Antonio says that if a lost man believes in the name Jesus he is saved even if that lost man is totally unaware of and/or would not even believe in who Jesus is, His Deity and what he did to provide salvation.

    That lost man can be a Mormon a JW, or a Hindu who is an anti-Christ by virtue of his rejection of Christ’s deity. The “Crossless” advocate, however, is undeterred. He thinks that Mormon can be born again while clinging to his anti-deity position of our blessed Lord.


  37. Missy:

    If you don't mind taking the time I suggest you read the two part series titled, The Christ Under Siege? It was written by Greg Schliesmann.

    It is technical in places, but you will see more of the disturbing ways in which Zane Hodges has assaulted the Deity of Christ. Antonio da Rosa, and Jeremy Myers share these views.

    Go to The Christ Under Siege

    Yours faithfully,


  38. Thanks, Lou. I think you are saying that they all agree one can deny the diety, death or resurrection of Christ and still be saved.

  39. Hi MIssy:

    We can't say "all" unless all say it. But da Rosa, for example, does say it and none of the men in the "Crossless" camp, with one exception, to my recollection, questions or challenges him on it.

    See also Jeremy Myers in the articles. He also takes the same view as da Rosa.


  40. So, if they don't say it and especially if they challenge those who do, would they cease to be in the "Crossless" camp? (hehe - sorry, I need levity today)

  41. Lou, I find it interesting that you do not give an answer for this question. I must assume that you include anyone who fellowships with one of these "Crossless Gospel" proponents in that label as well.