April 13, 2008

Open Note to Advocates of and Sympathizers with the “Crossless” Gospel

To Advocates of the Crossless Gospel:

Many of you are aware that Jim Johnson began a series at his blog titled, Destroying Free Grace Theology. In recent days those of us who have taken a biblical, militant stand against the teachings of the Crossless gospel began reviewing and commenting on Johnson’s multi-part series. For example Greg Schliesmann wrote,

Mr. Johnson has become a spectacle of a mind running in circles trying to get around the simple fact that the lost must believe the simple message of the gospel to be saved.”
In regard to Johnson quoting Robert P. Lightner as if Lightner supports the Crossless gospel, Greg made this observation,
Nothing that Robert Lightner said in that quote demonstrates disagreement with the writing of Pastor Stegall under scrutiny. On the other hand, just about everything Robert Lightner said in that paragraph (Johnson cited) contradicts Jim Johnson (himself).”
In regard to one point in the Part 5 article one man (whom I no longer cal allow to ppst here) wrote,
This statement by Johnson is one of the most egregious examples of Bible misinterpretation I have ever seen! It’s painfully obvious that Mr. Johnson’s Bible interpretation skills are sorely lacking.”
Stephen (KnetKnight) noted,
Redefined Free Grace advocates must do mental, grammatical, logical, and exegetical gymnastics to support their system. Such contortions are only required once the Redefined Free Grace view of theology is already in place, an example of which Rachel already documented in regards to Zane Hodges’ odd take on Rom 3:25. Mr. Johnson appears to be another casualty of the intellectual dishonesty req’d by Redefined Free Grace to keep their system afloat.”
Another wrote,
Yes, isn’t that interesting that other ‘Crossless’ advocates aren’t getting on the 'Destroying Free Grace' bandwagon with Mr. Johnson? Apparently they want to steer clear as he hangs himself with his own words.”
There have been several articles and many more comments written in reaction to the series by Jim Johnson.

The Absurdity of Jim Johnson’s Destroying Free Grace Theology by Greg Schliesmann

Jim Johnson & GES Dismiss: THE GOSPEL by Greg Schliesmann

Ironically, virtually no Crossless gospel advocate has posted a comment at Johnson’s blog in support of any of his articles. Why is that? (I do, however, expect some sympathy comments to show up any time now.)

Earlier this year Rose of *Rose’s Reasonings promised Jim Johnson that once his series was published she would support his series with a link to it from her blog. (See thread for details and link) To date she has not provided the link from her blog. Why is that?

For weeks prior to posting his series Mr. Johnson said he had this series under a “peer review.” (See thread for details and link) It is astonishing to me that any balanced Bible believing pastor/teacher would have approved of this series either on theological or style merits.

This week I will be posting two new articles that address additional issues in the series by Mr. Johnson.


*Rose’s Reasonings is administered by Rose. Over time and tragically Rose has grown to be very support of the Crossless gospel and its advocates, chief among them, Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me).


  1. Lou,

    Once again, these are questions that "crossless" gospel advocates and sympathizes refuse to answer lest their teetering house of cards collapses (yes it even has jokers!). I just posted a new article on my blog regarding these unanswered questions. I should add the ones you pose to the list! Absurdium ad nauseum!


  2. Jon:

    Thanks for the note, and mentioning your new article.


  3. There is an article at Rose’s blog where she said he would read, and then offered to link to Jim’s article.

    This is the text of her comment to Jim. Today, it appears at the end of the thread under this article.

 Thanks for your visit.
 I will look forward to reading your paper. Please return to this blog and post a link to your site when you make the paper available.
    By Rose~, at 3/06/2008 2:49 PM

    Has Jim forgotten to give Rose the link? Has Rose forgotten to read and provide the link? There is a strange silence between Jim Johnson and the rest of he Crossless gospel advocates.


  4. Dear Guests:

    The following also appears at Rose’s blog. See the same article, only find Jim’s comment from 03/05/2008 @ 7:33AM. It is very near the end of the thread.

    I have already disassembled Tom Stegall’s argument and am waiting for the manuscript to return from several “theologians and peers” who have already said that the work is good and on target. Why? Because there is no rhetoric, just biblical facts and hermeneutic and logical pointers to what has been written

    Notice Johnson refers to, as he did in other places and in e-mails, to several theologians and peers who would review his paper. Johnson says these (un-named) theologians said his work is “good.”

    It is astonishing any biblically balanced theologian would have carefully read his series and declared it “good.” With the numerous flaws (including his copyright infringement and plagiarism), pugilistic/whining tones, disjointed/rambling and self-contradictory statements, the credibility of the alleged reviewers is as highly suspect as Johnson’s.

    Why the secrecy about who reviewed his paper? Is it possible that the paper was never actually reviewed as he claims? Is it possible that after the alleged review, the reviewers did not want to be associated with endorsing this now discredited series? Did Mr. Johnson disregard any negative criticism from the alleged reviewers? Why won’t these reviewers identify themselves and publicly endorse Johnson’s series?

    All questions that IMO we’ll never get an answer to.


  5. Dear Guests:

    I just posted the following in the same thread where Rose offered to link to Johnson's series.

    Good morning Rose:

    Many of us who reject Hodges' Crossless and ReDefined gospel have been asking why you have not yet provided a link to Jim Johnson's series at his blog.

    Is there something about the series that makes you uncomfortable about linking to it?

    Plus, we find it very curious why virtually no advocate of the Crossless gospel is posting supportive comments under Jim's articles. Can you shed some light on that?



  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. Dear Guests:

    Earlier I posted a reply to a comment by a guest to my blog.

    I did not appreciate his comments, but I should not have replied, and I apologize for having done so.


  8. Dear Guests:

    I have also asked Jon P. to also delete my reply. It was wrong and I should not have responded the way I did. I let the flesh get in the way of my better judgment.

    I have posted the retraction at Jon's site.

    I also e-mailed John and Rose to ask their forgiveness for my poor reaction.


  9. Lou, this one of the things that convinces me you are a man of passion but also of character. I do not see this kind of humility from Antonio even when he's caught red-handed. That doesn't make what you did right and I'm not trying to detract accountability from you but it does highlight a glaring difference, as I see it, between at least the two of you. If Antonio repented for his flesh actions as you have he would find forgiveness waiting for him from many of us.

    You have done the right thing by apologizing to John and Rose both publicly and privately and I respect you for that.


  10. Stephen:

    Listen , I flop and fail just like the next guy, but the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I am always persuaded to respond to Him.

    "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, " (1 John 1:9).


  11. Updating from earlier...

    There is an article at Rose’s blog where she said she would read, and then offered to link to Jim’s Johnson's series of articles.

    This is the text of her comment to Jim as it appears at her blog.

    "Jim, Thanks for your visit. I will look forward to reading your paper. Please return to this blog and post a link to your site when you make the paper available." By Rose~, at 3/06/2008 2:49 PM

    At her blog I asked if she planned to provide that link, and why virtally no one in the Crossless camp was posting comments at and in support of Johnson’s articles.

    This afternoon Rose replied. She did not answer and basically told me to mind my own business. I told her that I’ll take and report that as affirming her refusal to comment on or link to Johnson’s series.

    It is as if there is some kind of gag-order in the Crossless camp about the series by Mr. Johnson.


  12. Hi Lou,

    Yes, I agree with Stephen in that I respect you for taking responsibility (and not whining, blaming, or making excuses) and offering a public apology as you felt the Holy Spirit convicting you to do.

    As you know, I have a no delete policy at my blog, but you and others are more than welcome to self-delete comments at your own convenience.


  13. Hi Jon:

    Thanks for the note.

    I posted my apology here, at your blog and sent it in an e-mail to both Rose and John.

    Although both have been active in the blogs today, neither one has acknowlwdged or replied to my apology and asking for their forgiveness.

    I am hopeful they will do so shortly.


  14. Dear Guests:

    Stephen (KnetKnight) just posted an excellent article at The Land of Reason. The title is, Paul and the Holy Spirit at Odds with ReDefined Free Grace.

    Click on the link to read this new and powerful refutation of the Zane Hodges interpretation of the Gospel.


  15. To All:

    This morning I sent an apology via e-mail to Rose and John. The apology was NOT for having included Rose in a bulk e-mail. My apology was in regard to how I reacted to John’s two paragraph comment that I find disingenuous on several levels.

    Never-the-less, my reaction was not right, the Holy Spirit convicted me of it, and I responded to Him. I immediately deleted my reply, posted both a public apology and the e-mail to Rose and John I mentioned above.

    Furthermore, in the e-mail apology I also asked for their forgiveness.

    Even though both Rose and John have been active in the blogs today, neither of them have acknowledged nor accepted my apology. Neither one has indicated or written to forgive me as I requested.

    And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in Heaven forgive your trespasses,” (Mark 11:25-26).

    I did my best following my conscience and the leading of the Holy Spirit to make this right and bring closure. Unless I hear otherwise, it appears Rose and John are not willing to bring closure.

    If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1 John 1:9).

    As far as I am concerned this is a closed issue and under the blood, whether or not Rose and John will respond appropriately.


  16. Lou,

    I think your comment above is well worded and well supported by Scripture.

    It will be interesting to see how John and Rose respond; I hope they forgive you.

    You mentioned how you felt John W.'s two paragraph comment on my blog was disengenuous on several levels. I read his comment as well, and IMO and as I understand it, something just doesn't add up.


  17. Jon:

    This morning even less adds up, but I am done with this. I am hopeful John and Rose can move on.

    Thanks for the notes.