April 3, 2008

Jim Johnson & the GES Dismiss “THE GOSPEL

Dear Guests:

The following is a comment by Greg Schliesmann. It appears in the thread under the previous article titled, The Fatal Flaws of Crossless Gospel Advocate Jim Johnson’s Criticism (See- 3/25/2008 11:26 PM)

Following Greg’s comment I will have some concluding remarks.

I would like to give a summary of the issue that was at hand in my post that Mr. Johnson attempted to dismiss:

One of the clear teachings of the New Testament is that during this period of time after Christ’s resurrection, the lost must believe a message called “the gospel” to be saved. According to Scripture, there is no true distinction between believing in Jesus Christ and believing “the gospel.”

Unfortunately, advocates of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) have sought to define what the lost must believe to be saved apart from this consideration. They argue that in order to be saved, the lost must only believe that someone named “Jesus guarantees my everlasting life.” According to them, a person may be saved upon believing this proposition apart from any truth that identifies the true Jesus or His death and resurrection, which are inherent to the gospel.

In the past, GES, like all evangelicals, taught the message which must be believed for salvation is called “the gospel.” That was the idea behind the title of Zane Hodge’s book, The Gospel Under Siege. However, as criticism arose in the past two years over this issue, it became clear to GES that they must alter their stance of the entire concept of “the gospel.”

They saw it is impossible to defend their position if they admit that the lost must believe “the gospel” to be saved. There is not one passage in Scripture where one could identify “the gospel” merely as the GES minimum message of “Jesus guarantees everlasting life for believers.” Instead, Scripture clearly teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection is inseparable from “the gospel.” In fact, in 1 Cor. 1:17-23, Paul interchanges the terms “the gospel” and “the message of the cross.” This corresponds with his description of “the gospel” later in the same book (15:1-4).

So GES came to see that they could no longer defend their long held position that the lost must believe “the gospel” to be saved, but that “the gospel” did not necessarily include the death and resurrection of Christ.

Mr. Johnson’s position and criticism represents the new shift taken by GES. Now they argue that the lost need not believe “the gospel” in order to be saved because “the gospel” is just a general term for good news and may even include everything in the New Testament. Therefore, they deny that there is ever a usage of the term “the gospel” in the New Testament that describes what the lost must believe to be saved.

My previous posts listed many passages where Scripture clearly teaches salvation comes through faith in “the gospel” (e.g. Eph 1:13), belief of the gospel is an absolute requirement for salvation (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:17-23), and those who die without having believed the gospel will go to hell (e.g. 2 Cor 4:3-4; 2 Thes. 1:8).

When these passages are viewed for themselves, no advocate of the Crossless gospel will ever be able to explain them away. Mr. Johnson attempted to dismiss my posts but would not interact with the verses. When he saw that I was willing to defend the posts, he could not even defend his own criticism.

If Mr. Johnson’s criticism represents the best the Crossless gospel crowd has to offer to refute all these passages that teach the lost must believe the gospel in order to be saved, we do not have much to worry about.

Scripture is clear on this issue. Crossless advocates can only hope to follow the example of Mr. Johnson and throw up diversions to avoid this issue.

Scripture devastates their position!


The nature of the debate, and with the eternal destiny of the souls of men at stake, it is necessary to identify how Zane Hodges/GES and the advocates of the Crossless gospel are undermining and corrupting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Greg’s note above draws out just one of the disturbing aspects of the reductionist view of the Gospel that Zane Hodges introduced to the Free Grace community. Regrettably, some men were not just deceived by these egregious errors, but have become prime instigators of it.

These teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, accurately defined as a “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel, has been the cause of “division and offences” (Rom. 16:17-18) in the body of Christ at large, local churches and the Free Grace movement.

It is my hope and prayer that through the efforts of men like Greg Schliesmann, Tom Stegall, Ron Shea, Stephen, Rachel and others who have engaged the advocates of the Hodges/GES interpretation of the Gospel, not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.


For more on Jim Johnson’s view of the Gospel see The Fatal Flaws of “Crossless” Gospel Advocate Jim Johnson’s Criticism


  1. To All:

    Greg Schliesmann has prepared a new article that will post on Monday.

    I have previewed this article and it promises to be another devastating blow to the GES Crossless interpretation of the Gospel.


  2. To All:

    I have viewed most of the photo gallery from the GES National Conference.

    Based on the photos, the 140 estimate from my friend who was there for two days appear to be accurate.

    It is a blessing to see that the GES is shrinking and its corruptive influence waning.


  3. I think Greg offered a pretty "devastating" rebuke of the "Crossless & Repentanceless" gospel himself. Good show!

    I've interacted with Mr. Johnson on a few occasions. I have found him very hard to converse with. In the few times I have engaged him, his first posts laud his accomplishments including a signature block that is longer than many people's posts, and then he disappears when he is cornered by Scripture.

    Mr. Johnson is very good at building a "reasoned" case. The problem with the case he builds is that while it might seem reasonable to some, Scripture disagrees with it explicitly.

    In the future I intend to, on occasion, attempt to engage him further in the hope that pricking his heart with Scripture will draw him to a repentance that he'll be thankful for. However I will be more wary than I have been in the past and not give him as much latitude as I have been prone to give before.


  4. Hi Kev:

    I once tried to engage “Mr. Johnson,” but I had a hard time just trying to encourage him to dispense with the self-aggrandizements. Once I began posting Prov. 27:2 to him, he initially responded well to it and began to tone it down a bit.

    Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips,” (Prov. 27:2).

    His initial good response to the passage was, however, short-lived.

    You and others have noted the same disappearing act once Scripture is brought to bear on his arguments. His comments crumble under weight of Scripture. This latest exchange between Greg and Jim is another stark example of how he (Johnson) keeps his distance and then melts away.

    Their Crossless theology has been devastated from the Bible. So they have resorted to GES mantra and/or demonization of those who have exposed, unraveled and refuted their egregious errors.

    I hope you will have success with him and lead him to repent and be recovered to a balanced biblical theology. He has IMO become seared in his conscience, but the Holy Spirit, through the Sword of the Spirit, is surely able to break through the chains of Crossless theology.


  5. To All:

    In an e-mail from Stephen he used a new label for the theology coming from the GES camp.

    Antonio da Rosa conjured up "Refined Free Grace" theology. We all know that to "refine" is to remove impurities. The Crossless has truly refined the Gospel and removed what they have concluded are impurities.

    Their list of "impurities", which they have removed from the Gospel include, the finished work and deity of Jesus Christ.

    They claim to preach these truths, but they are viewed as "impurities" by Hodges, Wilkin, Johnson and da Rosa when it comes to what the lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life.

    So, in the e-mail from Stephen, he coined a label that I believe is quite appropriate for the GES reductionist view of the Gospel. That label is: ReDefined Free Grace theology.

    That should not and won't replace the most fitting label "Crossless Gospel," but it sure does fit what men in the GES camp have been doing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


  6. We must also rememeber that these Crossless advocates have decided that there is no message called "the Gospel" that the lost must believe to be born again.

    Therefore, we might need to consider the possibility that men like Antonio no longer believe there is a Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Is it possible the advocates of the Zane Hodges "ReDefined" interpretation of God's redemptive plan for mankind have eliminated the Gospel of Jesus Christ from their theology?

    The Gospel, we read in Scripture, does conflict with the Hodges view and they steadfastly maintain Hodges' view is superior. "God is using Zane Hodges to bring a right understanding of the nature of saving faith." (Matthew's: I am Proud to be One of Zane Hodges' godchildren).

    I find it curious that one views Hodges, who is removing the Gospel of Jesus Christ from God's redemptive plan for mankind, as though God is using Hodges to undermine and negate what His Son has done when it comes to what the lost must understand and believe.


  7. Good morning Lou and others, glad you like it. I've been using it for awhile now because I was searching for something more encompassing than "crossless". "Crossless" is true, but they are also Godless, sinless, and several other doctrines short of a complete understanding. e.g. They've redefined what it means to "believe in Jesus" and they've redefined "the Christ" and "the Messiah" by gutting them of content. They've redefined "the gospel" and have redefined the promise of Jesus to be more important than the person of Jesus -- they are more concerned that one would have a misconception of the promise than they are of the promise giver. They have elevated the creation (the promise) over it's creator... last I checked God called that kinda thing idolatry.

    They have apparently redefined "ungracious" to mean anyone who disagrees with them. Check it out: Antonio calls you a coward, cultish, and childish, and his flock in response says things like this:

    "Antonio you hit the nail right on the head"
    "you called it like it is"
    "[Lou] is not an honerable man"
    "I love reading what you have to say"
    "I'm glad you're out there"
    "I'm thankful for you"

    When others say the same kind of strong things to and about Antonio the same Redefined crowd rebukes them as disrespectful, immature, ungracious, need to be spanked, and a list of other things. Even if true, ad hominem does nothing to justify Antonio's repeated and documented ethical lapses.

    I can only speak to my own experience with you, but you have demonstrated publicly that you will course correct when confronted with the truth.

    What does Antonio say when confronted with his vitriolic speech? I'll let the man speak for himself.

    antonio: "What I said was said. I can't take it back even if I were so inclined to do so"

    Why not? What stands in his way?

    What does he say when confronted with wrong doing like using a sock puppet to artificially bolster support for his position??

    Antonio: "I have admitted to no such practice, nor will I."

    Antonio has been careful to not deny it either, he just won't "admit" it even though he knows we know the truth. He's saving face among his peers knowing full well that we've got him pegged. He can deceive his pals who cling to and defend him with cultist devotion but he will always know that he can't deceive us about this issue.

    This relates to the topic at hand in that Jim Johnson enjoys similar support from the same cultist group. He doesn't even answer Greg's question yet his buddies rally around him and tell him what a great guy he is and how smart he is. They call you a coward for supposedly avoiding debate but when Jim does it it's a virtue.

    Kev, your observation about the length of the signature block he used, at least for while, is dead on. Rachel and I have previously made the same observation so you noting and actually stating the same thing yucked us up pretty good. If we pounded our chests as Jim has, the Redefined crowd would rightly call us arrogant and proud. But when Jim does it they lavish praise on him all the more.

    Relatedly, at the same time they're tootin' their own horn about how free they are from the influence of men, they lift up Zane Hodges' teaching as being so influential on their views. In paraphrase "We never saw the scriptures that way until influenced by Zane Hodges. Praise God we're free of the influence of man!!" Huh????

    If I was a cop I'd hafta give'em a DUI... Driveling Under the Influence.

    Typed out,

  8. Stephen:

    You wrote, “They’ve redefined ‘the gospel’ and have redefined the promise of Jesus to be more important than the person of Jesus -- they are more concerned that one would have a misconception of the promise than they are of the promise giver.”

    This is right on target! I have been noting this for many months.

    The GES/Crossless assaults on the Lord’s titles and His Gospel message have been carried out for the sole purpose of making these truths bow in preference for how Hodges has redefined and twisted the biblical plan of salvation.


  9. Stephen:

    He doesn't even answer Greg’s question yet his buddies rally around him and tell him what a great guy he is and how smart he is. They call you a coward for supposedly avoiding debate, but when Jim does it, it's a virtue.”

    I’ll fill you in on this one.

    Last summer Bob Wilkin was agitating for either pastor Stegall or Rokser to debate him in public at either of their churches, and then second debate at another location. Both men declined for reasons they gave Bob.

    Antonio kept pounding away at those men (maybe me too) trying to badger them into debating Bob.

    So, I contacted Ron Shea and let him know that Bob Wilkin was itching for a debate. As we all know, Ron happily accepted the opportunity and issued an Open Challenge (at my blog) to Bob Wilkin for an open, public debate.

    Also see- Update: Open Challenge

    And again, many of us recall that once Bob was faced with having to debate a man of Ron Shea’s caliber, Wilkin quickly lost his nerve and taste for the debate he had been calling for. And it was not enough that Bob backed down, he posted an article that was very unseemly toward Ron. That episode ended when Wilkin pulled down the two articles at his original blog and closed it off to further discussion.

    Bob Wilkin Refuses to Debate Ron Shea

    In this same period, before Wilkin closed the original GES blog, the so-called Mr. Truth Detector (Mr. TD), posted two comments at my blog and sent me and Ron Shea e-mails that are among the most libelous and defamatory one could imagine coming from within Christian circles. Mr. TD was trying to torpedo and derail Ron’s resolve to face Wilkin with threats of publicly charging him with having committed gross criminal conduct. I have the thread comments and e-mails from Mr. TD on file, as does Brother Shea.

    Anyway, unless my memory is failing me, Wilkin never challenged me to an open debate. Maybe da Rosa threw something my way, but I have no interest in any kind of open debate with the advocates of a false gospel.

    There is no way I’d involve myself to create an opportunity that would allow them to spread their heresy in an open setting. God forbid that some unsuspecting person may be deceived by them, and become another casualty of the Crossless gospel. I wrote about that somewhere, but don’t recall where.


  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Lou, for your reference, Antonio claims/claimed in
    this article at UoG
    that he says he "suggested" that you debate Bob Wilkin -- "Since Tom and Dennis refused to debate, I asked Lou himself if he would. He didn't even answer." but then a mere few sentences later he quotes an "answer" from you about exactly what he said you didn't answer him about -- Antonio is a confused and confusing guy. It floors me that even his own side takes him seriously but, read the comments, he's got some fans who can't seem to think for themselves... all the while continuing to chant "we are free from the influence of man, we are free from the influence of man, ...". The wisdom of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride comes to mind -- "That word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it means".

    It is in the comments of that article that Antonio's supporters speak well of him for his choice of words. This is also where he says "What I said was said. I can't take it back even if I were so inclined to do so" -- I think that is a revealing statement of his character.


  12. Stephen:

    Thanks for fleshing this out.

    Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet- fg me, and at least one other Sock Puppet he has used at my blog) is a true tragedy of the Crossless gospel. His conscience has been seared and he is consumed with demonizing any one who rejects the Crossless gospel of Zane Hodges. He has lost any sense of character and integrity he once may have enjoyed.

    It is hard to imagine that any one, outside his small cell of supporters, takes him seriously.


  13. Kev & Stephen, thanks for the comments.

    Eph 6:10

  14. JP, thanks for your comments earlier.

    I also noticed your comments on the forum of Jim Johnson. His mode of operation is to attempt to intimidate and condescend people with seminary jargon.

    I agree that knowledge of Greek is valuable to exegesis, but a person should be able to communicate and make a point in normal, every-day language. After all, the Bible is God's message for normal, every-day people--even folks living 2,000 years later in a different culture with a different language.

    However a teacher digests the message, he should be able to convey it to normal people in normal language. Likewise, he should be able to interact with normal people in normal language. Otherwise, he's operating completely outside the intended purpose of the Biblical text.

    Mr. Johnson claims that I should have done a synchronic word study rather than a diachronic word study. But if the Bible says something along the lines of"those who don't believe the gospel are going to hell", I don't think it matters what sort of "word study" you do--you should be able to conclude there is a message called "the gospel" the lost must believe to be saved. And that was the only point of my article. In fact, I actually stated in my article that I did not intend to specifically identify what that message entails (a purpose falsely attributed to it by Mr. Johnson).

    When one's "Greek techniques" lead you to a conclusion other than the obvious, common-sense meaning of the text, his priorities are wrong. Although the two do not need to be mutually exclusive, it is a mistake to seek sentence diagrams rather than truth.

    I once fed a baby applesauce with a spoon. Even though I kept giving him what he wanted, he insisted on doing it himself. So he grabbed the spoon and started sucking it. I would take it back and actually feed him, and he'd grab it and start sucking it again. He thought he was getting food from the spoon itself. But, the spoon is only a tool to get the food. And really, when it comes down to it, if he wanted to do away with one of the two, he would have been better off grabbing the applesauce and dropping the spoon.

    Well maybe I did not offer the sauce on the type of spoon Mr. Johnson wanted. I was communicating to normal people on an informal blog (and Lou reposted it on his site). But the sauce was there, and, unfortunately, all Mr. Johnson can do is suck on the spoon.

    The "sauce" is simply that all these passages indicate there is something called "the gospel" the lost must believe to be saved. GES argues all that could be called "the good news" in relationship to Christ is helpful apologetically but not necessary theologically. That simply does not fit with these passages:

    Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

    Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

    1 Corinthians 1:17-21 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

    1 Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

    2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

    1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

    1Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

    I think these passages very much speak for themselves in regards to the question "does the NT ever use the term 'the gospel' for the message the lost must believe to be saved?". The answer "yes" is my simple proposition.

    The purpose of my comments was not so much to comment on the word "gospel" but to show that these passages are appropriate for our discussion--so that people would interact with the passages themselves. I am aware that GES tries to relegate some of these passages to sanctification, rather than to salvation from hell, on theological grounds. So I made observations as to the appropriateness of these passages for our discussion. Therefore, I present these passages--the actual Word of God--as proof for the proposition I detailed. If the appropriateness of any of these passages is questioned, please see my comments on them in the post.

    It's funny that a person who would demand synchronic word studies and sentence diagrams to even respond to this plainly apparent point from Scripture would call us "Pharisees". How ironic! I do not see any prescription or precedent in Scripture for demanding a sentence diagram when you're confronted with a point that can be communicated in plain, every-day, common-sense language.

    The message of the cross has always been valued and conveyed by the simple:

    1 Corinthians 1:17-29 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

  15. Greg:

    Jim Johnson has for months demonstrated an elitist attitude. He often self-proclaims what he considers his academic/theological excellence.

    And as you noted he expresses disdain for any who do not meet his idea of the minimum qualifications for interacting with him.

    He is dodging you, but in reality he is dodging the force of Scripture, which devastates his theology of the Crossless gospel.


  16. Hi Kev:

    You wrote, “I’ve interacted with Mr. Johnson on a few occasions. I have found him very hard to converse with. In the few times I have engaged him, his first posts laud his accomplishments including a signature block that is longer than many people's posts, and then he disappears when he is cornered by Scripture.”

    Jim frequently informs readers of his original language, hermeneutical and exegetical tools. Once you get past his many proclamations, however, there is precious little of any substance or edification to be found that he has built with those tools.

    It makes me think of a mechanic who has an outstanding collection of tools in his possession. He has them neatly organized and outwardly displayed for the world to see, but he is hard pressed to show one something worthwhile he has built.

    I have perused a number of Jim Johnson’s comments in the blogs.

    When one makes the attempt to read through Johnson’s maze of many words he may be reminded of the Indian saying, “Strong wind, much thunder, no rain.”


  17. check out http://www.faithalone.org/about/DoctStmt.html

    Specifically the "assurance of salvation" section where GES connects believing "the gospel" with salvation.

    They use "the gospel" three times in the full statement without offering any qualification as to which gospel they are referring to, or even that there is another "the gospel". Indeed, them calling it "THE gospel" seems pretty defining and, in the context of their own statement, is used consistently as the message the lost must believe to receive Everlasting Life.


  18. Hi Lou,

    Jim Johnson has evidenced at least six warning signs that IMO cause him to lose credibility:

    1. HIS INCONSISTENCY: In my own discussions with Mr. Johnson late last year at the GES blog, Johnson was contradicting himself and at the same time supporting my own contentions (this should still be documented on the GES blog, but if not I have the files).

    2. HIS INDEFENSIBLE & ESOTERIC THEOLOGY: His esoteric theology fails to address, much less answer, the simple, child-like question of Greg Schiesmann on the gospel (not to mention my own recent question concerning the three resurrection signs of the Savior mentioned in John 21:14).

    3. HIS SILENCE: Johnson seems to lack a general willingness to openly communicate and discuss theological differences (from ducking out of my discussion with him late last year at the GES blog, his unwillingness to respond to Greg, to his most recent unwillingness to continue dialoging about my article, etc.). IMO, Johnson has evidenced the same kinds of "stonewall" and ivory tower tactics he condemns in others.

    4. HIS ISOLATION/MARGINALIZATION: He has stated that he doesn't want to publish his response to Stegall's articles in a reputable theological journal, but instead will simply post his thoughts on his own blog.

    4. HIS RESIGNATION: He has recently resigned from the FGA.

    5. HIS APPEALS TO UNNAMED AUTHORITIES: In reading through his blog posts and comments to me, he has repeatedly made appeals to unnamed "scholars". In some respects I believe this is not a problem, but in all reality, this is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority/appeal to an unnamed authority that makes an argument appear to be stronger than it may be.

    6. HIS SEMINARY: The Doctrinal Statement of Rocky Mountain Bible College refutes Johnson's claims - even more clearly than the FGA's affirmation:

    FGA Covenant Affirmation #3:

    "Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life."

    RMBC Doctrinal Statement (under "salvation", in distinction to "sanctification"):

    "Faith (believe) is a personal response, apart from works, whereby one is persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered him/her from condemnation and guaranteed their everlasting life."

    Under point 6 then, there are at least three sub-points:

    a. The doctrinal statement for the institution of Johnson's own employment refutes his claims.

    b. The RMBC Doctrinal statement is clearer than the FGA affirmation.

    c. Why doesn't Johnson resign from Rocky Mountain Bible College as he did the FGA?


  19. Hi Jon:

    Thanks for taking the time to develop the previous notes. You have detailed what everyone who has tried to interact with Jim Johnson has encountered in whole or part.

    Probably the most common denominator we have experienced with Johnson, da Rosa, Myers and Wilkin is dodging legitimate questions and scrutiny of their teaching.

    In the same vain of his credibility being more than suspect, his frequent touting of what he believes to be his academic and theological prowess makes it is impossible to take him seriously.

    In two e-mails he sent to me he actually said that he believes I am “jealous” of him.

    Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips,” (Prov. 27:2).

    But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble,” (James 4:2).

    Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble,” (1 Peter 5:5).


  20. After reading Mr. Johnson's first two articles, this passage came to mind:

    2 Timothy 3:2-9
    For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

    If any of you haven't checked it out, it is truly a spectacle of self-destruction and manifestation of folly.

    If I understood correctly, these articles also compose a master's thesis. You would never expect a master's thesis with this amount of whining, rambling, unnecessary self-blabbering, Hodges exaltation, and incoherent arguments. He switches from one subject to the next on issues that require far more treatment and supposes his little mantras on each subject proved his point.

    The so-called thesis is full of little comments that reveal the way he looks upon himself. For example, this is actually part of the thesis:

    As an exegete of the bible, I am very aware about my predilections toward free grace theology. But since I have also been trained as a scientist in one of the hard disciplines[9] at least I am aware of that bias and have peers to help me avoid as much of it as possible. This I did not see in the publishing of the crossless articles sponsored by Duluth Bible church.

    Ironically, in article 2 of Johnson's 5 part series, he repeatedly deplores the lack of "scholarship" in Tom Stegall's articles and claims if Stegall's first article (which was written as an introduction to inform a general Christian audience of the issues) contained any real scholarship, he would not have needed subsequent articles:

    At this point I would like to complain a bit: to make a scholarly accusation against biblical scholars needs scholarly proof. In fact if this were done in the first article, on these 5 points alone there would not be a need to any further articles.

    Meanwhile, we are awaiting scholarly proof in Johnson's further articles.

    -- Greg

  21. Greg:

    You wrote, “If any of you haven't checked it out, it is truly a spectacle of self-destruction and manifestation of folly.”

    For the reasons you cite above, and more of my own, I can hardly bring myself to suffer anything more than a quick scan of what he has written.

    I have not directly acknowledged the new series by Jim Johnson and will NOT link to it.

    If it weren’t for his numerous self-aggrandizing statements I could almost be embarrassed for him.


  22. Hi Lou,

    I was just reading the second installment of Mr. Johnson's refutation of Stegall's articles, and I noticed that Johnson responded to my article "Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior". He basically said that my conclusion was a logical fallacy (hasty generalization and inductive generalization) and thus flawed - but he didn't address any of the Biblical reasons I set forth for arriving at such a conclusion!

    I am currently expanding my article "Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior" and will send you the manuscript when it's ready. To date, it's about 35 pages. I am seriously considering publishing with Xulon.

    In "Jesus . . . risen from the dead" (Jn. 21:14, KJV),


  23. Hi Jon:

    Yes, I saw Johnson’s mention of your article. Frankly, for all the reasons Greg noted, your mentioning his ducking your series, and more of my own, I do not take anything he has written seriously.

    Just look at the reaction his articles are generating, virtually nothing. (That will probably start some sympathy posting)

    You tried to interact twice, but he had nothing but disdain for you because in his mind you do not measure up to the “bare minimum” standards of academic excellence he has set for who he will agree to condescend to.

    Furthermore, no one other than you, not even from the Crossless camp, has posted a comment in his threads under the now four part series.

    Based on my experience I highly recommend Xulon Press.

    Have a great weekend and good to see you posting in the blogs of late.


    PS: Nice avatar, good likeness. I’m afraid my personal picture is not a very edifying spectacle.