*Wilkin (Hodges) No Longer Relevant: The Biblical Mandate
Dear Guests:
At the new Grace Evangelical Society blog Bob Wilkin has posted an article titled, Can we separate Jesus’ gift from His Lordship? No!
The following three paragraphs would have appeared in the thread under the article, but my comment has been blocked. I take no offense to that. It is a GES blog and Wilkin is within his rights to administer his blog any way he chooses.
Once your (Hodges’) “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel became understood both of your voices retroactively lost any meaningful impact in the Lordship Salvation debates.Now, please read those three paragraphs again, and we’ll pick it up from there and shift the discussion.
MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation corrupts the Gospel by addition; the “Crossless” theology of Zane Hodges corrupts by subtraction.
Furthermore, you men have not only lost any relevance in the Lordship debates, you have introduced “division” and “offences” (Rom. 16:17) into the body of Free Grace believers through your “contrary” teaching on the Gospel.
In his classic Biblical Separation, Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote,
What specific circumstances prevent our cooperative fellowship with other truly saved believers?Now, be sure to get this final statement from the paragraph above by Dr. Pickering. It makes all of his remarks above relevant to these blog discussions.
If the believer teaches false doctrine and refuses to be corrected. While some hold the position that one believer should never separate from another believer on doctrinal grounds, we believe this position is incorrect. If a professing believer is teaching error and he cannot be persuaded to the truth, he must be excluded from fellowship. An example of this principle is found in 1 Timothy 1:18-20. Hymenaeus and Alexander had departed from sound doctrine. Paul said they were “delivered unto Satan” (v. 20); that is, they were excommunicated from fellowship (cf. 1 Cor.5:5, 13). Paul evidently entertained the hope that the two were genuine believers, and trusted that, if they were, the action would result in repentance. (Biblical Separation, p. 219. [emphasis his.])
The principle applies whether the professing believer is in our own local church or in some other kind of connectional relationship to us, such as a denominational affiliation. (Ibid, p. 219. [bold added.])Blogs are not church, but there are affiliations/fellowships that have developed in the blogosphere. Attempts to dismiss the Bible doctrine of separation from disobedient brethren are becoming common place. I have read GES sympathizers use the, “This is not church,” argument. It is, however, undeniable that blogs have become vehicles that are serving to form alliances, some of which are dangerous. Loose fellowships and alliances are being formed with the teachers of the heretical Hodges interpretation of the Gospel. This is a violation of the biblical mandates to separate from disobedient brethren who teach false doctrine and refuse to be corrected.
IMO, the two hallmarks of New Evangelicalism are: 1) Questioning the inerrancy of Scripture and 2) Eliminating the biblical doctrine of separation from a) unbelievers and/or b) disobedient brethren.
Those who reject the “Crossless” gospel, but show an affinity for and defense of the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel, are showing tendencies toward the latter portion of New Evangelicalism. I have been saying this as a point of fact, and as a caution to those of you who are blurring the biblical lines for separation from disobedient brethren.
I have posted at a few of the GES blogs, but my goal has been to be a voice for the fence sitters and lurkers. It would be tragic for even one more believer to be deceived by the teachers of a “Crossless” gospel. Many FG believers reject the “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. Cooperative efforts with these teachers of a false gospel only serve to legitimize them and their aberrant teaching. This is wrong and a danger to unsuspecting believers.
Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers, Jim Johnson, Antonio da Rosa and others (such as Alvin, Trent, and Matthew) who are writing in support of the “Crossless” gospel have “departed from sound doctrine.” They refuse correction.
The Bible mandates what the response of believers must be to believers who not only refuse correction, but also aggressively seek to promote their false interpretation the Gospel. To do less than “mark,” “avoid” (Rom. 16:17-18) and separate (2 Thess. 3: 6, 14-15) from them is a betrayal of the Word of God, and treason to the Lord Jesus whose Gospel they have corrupted.
LM
For a related and expanded discussion see my article Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples
Spurgeon's Stand for Doctrinal Purity is another related article.
This is a very serious issue and not something to be teasing or joking about and the other party is admitting as much in their comments. I had already read the church excuse and that is why I commented in the other thread. This is what I meant by bait and switch. They admit to teasing and trying to be funny and then they switch from the teasing mode and try to be serious in using the excuse that does not hold water all the while guilting you for taking this seriously and not understanding their sense of humor. They expect you to abide by differant terms. It is bait and switch and some others are getting burned out here. Please be careful in your dialoguing even by email. Let us pray that these brothers and sisters in Christ awaken to the seriousness of this "crossless" gospel and drift into heresy and stop using it as an opportunity to tease or bait and switch. At this point I encourage you to stop dialoguing unless the other party is repentant. There are others who have come to me heartbroken because of getting involved in these email disputes and my heart began to break as well as grieve because I did not do something about this in the past but rather gave place to this behaviour that is dividing the body with envy and strife and calling it humor. Jesus did not encourage this type of thing, nor is this the fruit of the Spirit.
ReplyDeleteThis is all I am going to do for I do not wish to get any more involved. The reason I warn is because I get concerned that I don't then someone else a few months from now will be burned in a similar way. Even over non doctrinal issues did Paul and Barnabas seperate and it was for the good and God used it. I think we are discovering that we are having irreconcialable differances and it is probably long overdue that folks part ways or more and more people will become beguiled by this "crossless" gospel that begins to explore all the possibilities that exist outside of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Brian:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this note and explanation of your "bait and switch" analogy from Myers' Heretic in Me thread.
I would agree with your assessment.
I am going to copy and paste this comment of yours in that thread because it is needed there for continuity.
I understand your desire to leave off this issue, and that is fine with me. Thanks for the helpful contributions you have made. I'll have more to say about your comment above later. You do not need to respond if do not wish to do so.
If it is helpful for you to know: I don't engage in e-mail wars. My e-mail referenced in the Heretic in Me thread was an attempt to awaken the senses of the recipient. It was informative and ministerial in nature.
More to follow...
Lou
Thanks brother and for your charity in handling this issue. Much misunderstanding will always follow and there is nothing we can do about that, but your gracious spirit here is a testimony to all of us. Be encouraged brother..and that you are not returning in kind, but merely carefully dealing with this tragic issue of departure from the faith/cross and the precious truth of our Lord and Saviour.This transcends relational issues. As Paul told Timothy and I encourage you in: correct, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and teaching for if the time was then that men and women were not enduring sound doctrine, then how much more are they today. I am thankful there are other free gracers who have not fallen pray to the deceptions of the serpent. This is truly tragic also that one would consider humor in the midst of this. This all should make us want to weep...not laugh and play.
ReplyDeleteLove in Christ,
Brian
Lou,
ReplyDeleteOk....I've read your post, but find myself a little confused. What is the message you are talking about? A crossless gospel? Bob is a personal friend of mine, and attends our church at times (we live in the same community) but I have never heard this taught by him or anyone at GES, so please help me out here....I don't stay up on all the latest discussions, so this is a new one to me. thanks,
Mike:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the questions. I am at work right now, but will have some details for you shortly.
Lou
Dear Mike:
ReplyDeleteWhat I appreciate is that you are willing to look into this issue for yourself.
I have several suggestions:
1) Go to the Grace Family Journal. Once there look at each section and find the series titled, The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel. You can download the PDF’s. Those articles document and detail exactly what Wilkin, Hodges and other GES men are teaching that has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel. They are quoted liberally so that there is no chance of misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they are teaching. This is a must read for anyone who wants a clearly documented review and answer to what Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin are claming is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
2) For a snap shot of what is coming from Wilkin and the GES faction of the Free Grace movement, please read the following articles at my blog:
What is the “Crossless” Advocates Stance…?
Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?
3) The crux of the debate is NOT over what Bob (or Zane Hodges) personal beliefs are about the death, resurrection of deity of Christ. We concede Bob does believe in those major doctrines.
The crux of the debate is that Bob and Zane will insist a lost man can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing any one (or all) of the following: Jesus died, rose from the dead and that He was/is deity. Furthermore, they will insist that a lost man can consciously reject these truths and still be born again by believing nothing more than the promise of eternal life.
One GES sympathizer, Antonio da Rosa, wrote an article that stated a lost man can be saved no matter what “misconceptions” he has about Jesus Christ. He insisted a Mormon, JW or Hindu who clings tenaciously to his heretical misconceptions of Jesus can be saved. Those “misconceptions” include a conscious rejection of Christ’s deity. Antonio says any kind of “misconceptions,” including a rejection of Christ’s deity, should be put on the “back burner,” and is not in any way a hindrance to being born again. Wilkins’s position is in complete agreement with what da Rosa contends.
4) When I hear that a friend may have adopted or is teaching some out-of-the-ordinary doctrine I call him personally to find out what might be going on. Since you know Bob personally call him or go to his home and ask him some questions. However, you need to know where the controversy is and what questions to ask.
5) The Questions You Might Ask Bob:
a. Bob, Can a lost man be saved apart from understanding or believing in who Jesus was and “what He did to provide salvation?” (That is drawn from a direct quote by Hodges.)
b. Bob, If a lost man is told that he must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead do you believe that constitutes a “different Gospel?” (That question is drawn from a direct statement by Wilkin.)
Remember to focus on what Bob believes a lost man can know and/or reject about Jesus and what He did for salvation and still be born again.
Well, that is all for now.
I’d appreciate knowing if Bob responds to you, and what conclusions you come to.
Kind regards,
Lou
Brother Messerli:
ReplyDeleteHave you had an opportunity to read some of the documentation that I linked you to above?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeletethanks, and yes I did read the articles and several others from other sources. thanks for answering my questions on this issue.
Mike
Hello Mike:
ReplyDeleteAny reaction or concern after the reading?
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI have always been concerned about the site you gave me. They are critical of EVERY view but their own. I was surprised that this was the source of critique. I will talk to Bob, but until then I am withholding further assumptions. thanks, I'll let you know.
Hello Mike:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your reply. I would not necessarily agree with your thoughts on the Grace Family Journal.
You wrote, “I will talk to Bob...” That is great, I encourage you to do so and ask pointed question expecting direct answers.
I want to reiterate what I suggested above about your approach to Bob.
*) The crux of the debate is NOT over what Bob (or Zane Hodges) personal beliefs are about the death, resurrection of deity of Christ. We concede Bob does believe in those major doctrines.
The crux of the debate is that Bob and Zane will insist a lost man can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing any one (or all) of the following: Jesus died, rose from the dead and that He was/is deity. Furthermore, they will insist that a lost man can consciously reject these truths and still be born again by believing nothing more than the promise of eternal life.
Antonio da Rosa, wrote an article that stated a lost man can be saved no matter what “misconceptions” he has about Jesus Christ. He insisted a Mormon, JW or Hindu who clings tenaciously to his heretical misconceptions of Jesus can be saved. Those “misconceptions” include a conscious rejection of Christ’s deity. Antonio says any kind of “misconceptions,” including a rejection of Christ’s deity, should be put on the “back burner,” and is not in any way a hindrance to being born again. Wilkins’s position is in complete agreement with what da Rosa contends.
da Rosa also wrote, “The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same.”
**) The Questions You Might Ask Bob:
a. Bob, Can a lost man be saved apart from understanding or believing in who Jesus was and “what He did to provide salvation?” (That is drawn from a direct quote by Hodges.)
b. Bob, If a lost man is told that he must believe Jesus died and rose from the dead do you believe that constitutes a “different Gospel?” (That question is drawn from a direct statement by Wilkin.)
Remember to focus on what Bob believes a lost man can know and/or reject about Jesus and what He did for salvation and still be born again.
Kind regards,
LM