The Issue of Incongruity – Actual or Artificial? Pt.1
Greetings in the name of the Lord:
This is the first of the series of articles (originally published May 5, 2008) that I am planning on writing on the latest issue that seems to have surfaced regarding the “Crossless” gospel controversy, namely the issue of incongruity.
I think that we can all agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest message a voice could ever proclaim and a heart could ever believe. Yet there are those in the Free Grace camp that are:
1) Denying that the Gospel has a technical meaning anywhere in the New Testament, and claiming that it never is used in reference to the message of eternal salvation.
“What if the word ‘gospel’ doesn’t ever mean the saving message? Now hang with me here. I gave this same message, but I didn’t say quite this, a little over a month ago in Omaha at a Regional we had there. And what I suggested is that the term ‘gospel’ rarely, if ever, means, ‘What must I believe to have eternal life? What must I believe to be saved? What must I do to have, to go to heaven, to be sure I’ll be in the kingdom?’ But in the intervening time as I’ve been reflecting on it etcetera, I realized that we should go further than saying, ‘It’s rare that this term refers to the saving message.’ I’m now of the opinion it never refers specifically to ‘What must I believe to have eternal life’?”[1]2) Gutting the Gospel of the necessary components of Jesus Christ’s deity, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, etc.
“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). But in Samaritan theology, the Messiah was thought of as a prophet and the woman at the well is led to faith through our Lord’s prophetic ability to know her life. Her words, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’ (4:19) are a first step in the direction of recognizing Him as the Christ. There is no evidence that she or the other Samaritans understood the deity of our Lord. But they did believe that he was the Christ. And John tells us in his first epistle that “whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (5:1)! A full theology of His person is not necessary to salvation. If we believe that Jesus is the One who guarantees our eternal destiny, we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved.” [2]3) Claiming to preach the person and finished work of Jesus Christ as part of the Gospel, but are not convinced that this is necessary to be believed in order to possess eternal life/salvation.
“John keeps the signs distinct from the message of life, so evangelicals must not confuse them either. John does not set forth the sign of the cross-and-resurrection as the message that one must believe in order to receive eternal life.” [3]
So the real question then is not "How much of the gospel do you have to believe?" but rather "What do you have to believe to receive everlasting life?" If we want to know what a person must believe to receive everlasting life, we should not ask the question, "What is the gospel?" but rather, "What is the message of life?" When asked that way, the answer becomes crystal clear. The Gospel of John, which does not contain the word gospel, tells us over and over what people must do to receive everlasting life: believe in Jesus for everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.) You do not have to believe the gospel to receive everlasting life, you only have to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. [4]Thus, it has been Tom Stegall’s and my contention from the outset of our public exposure of this aberrant teaching of the Crossless gospel (2007 Spring edition of the Grace Family Journal) that the issue is not merely what must be PREACHED to the unsaved, but what must be BELIEVED to receive eternal life. This is critical and crucial to remember as believers grapple with this new Crossless gospel (*also referred to now as “the promise-only gospel” and/or “a crossless faith that saves”).
I mention this as there are those within the Free Grace camp that have heralded, “Let’s preach the MAXIMUM but remember that God accepts the MINIMUM.” This dichotomy and tension was reflected in the recent Free Grace Alliance (FGA) **Executive Council’s statement from early March, 2008.
I appreciate the first half of their statement,
“The FGA’s mission is always and everywhere to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ when we preach the gospel. We encourage every member of the FGA to be fervent and faithful to preach that message.”This is a step in the right direction to which I can say a hearty AMEN. But unfortunately right on its heels they go on to state,
“Within the membership of the FGA there has been discussion about the minimum one must understand to be saved. Regardless of a person’s convictions, believers are called to preach the gospel, not the minimum.”This statement alludes to an apparent difference between “the Gospel” and “the minimum” one must understand (and believe)to be saved. This is confusing at best, and falls right into the hands of the Crossless crowd at worst. What I find amazing is how cross-less advocates remain in the FGA requiring either semantical gymnastics or a lack of personal integrity in light of the organization’s short doctrinal covenant which clearly reads,
We affirm the following:Since point 3 clarifies point 2, and is addressing justification before God and not progressive sanctification in time (which isn’t addressed till point 6), I am mystified how some in good conscience before God can remain in the FGA (which I also am a member of).
1. The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.
2. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.
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.
4. Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.
5. Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.
6. Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.
7. The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
But all this serves to highlight the bottom-line issue of what not only needs to be PREACHED regarding the Gospel of salvation but what also needs to be BELIEVED in order for a hopeless, helpless, Hell-bound sinner to be eternally saved. Does the Bible allow for an INCONGRUITY between the Gospel preached and the content of saving faith? I will begin addressing 12 scriptural nails in the coffin of incongruity in my next article.
For those who can’t wait and would like to hear 2 audio recent messages that address the subject, “WHAT MUST I BELIEVE TO BE SAVED,?” you may hear them at the Duluth Bible Church web site.
All by God’s grace and to His glory for the furtherance of the Gospel,
Dennis Rokser
Pastor/Teacher at Duluth Bible Church
Please continue to Part 2 of Pastor Rokser’s The Issues of Incongruity.
[1] Bob Wilkin, Gospel Means Good News, Grace Evangelical Society Southern California Regional Conference, August 24, 2007.
[2] Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Autumn 2000): 5 (bold replaces original italics).
[3] John Niemelä, “The Message of Life in the Gospel of John,” CTSJ 7 (July-Sept. 2001): 18.
[4] Jeremy D. Myers, The Gospel is More Than “Faith Alone in Christ Alone,” JOTGES 19 [Autumn 2006]: 44.
*Some advocates of the Crossless gospel have been referring to their new and inconsistent interpretation of the Gospel as “Refined Free Grace Theology.” Stephen (KnetKnight) was the first to coin what would be the more appropriate label, which is: “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology.
**For discussion of the FGA’s statement, including several comments by FGA VP Fred Lybrand, please read, FGA Executive Counsel’s Official Statement.
Pastor Rokser:
ReplyDeleteI sincerely appreciate your presenting this first installment of your series. You are defining the crux of the doctrinal controversy within the Free Grace community.
I trust this will make the lines very clear and delineate where the advocates of the Crossless gospel have departed from fidelity to the scriptural definition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that must be believed for the reception of eternal life.
Again, thanks for your willingness to hammer the “nails” of this issue down.
LM
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteI chose the patch work material as a photo to illustrate the incongruous Crossless view of the Gospel that Ps. Rokser is addressing.
The illustration works well because Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa claim to preach what the lost do not need to believe.
Theirs is a hodge-podge, mish-mash, disjointed theological view that has no sense of direction, and is antithetical to the straight and clear teaching of Scripture.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for hosting this important concentration on to the issue of disparity or incongruity by cross-less teachers.
I have recently been grieved by some in the leadership of the FGA who contend that there is a difference between the message to be preached and the message to be believed. That is nothing more than cross-less “smoke and mirrors.” That allows cross-less teachers to continue to enter in unawares into churches that teach the historical gospel (and supposedly minister). If you challenge they say things like “but I preach the Gospel and that’s all I’ll ever do till the day I die.” Yes, but these men do not demand faith in the same message they preach. That is totally incongruent!
Incongruity is an attempt to open the door for two very different free grace camps that preach two very different saving messages, to cohabit under one umbrella called “Free Grace Theology”. Are we so post-modern to believe that such an experiment could possibly work? Never has…never will! Study Church History!
These messages are very different!
1. “If we believe that Jesus is the One who guarantees our eternal destiny, we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved.” (Zane Hodges)
-or-
2. If we believe in “Christ and in his death for our sins and resurrection” we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved. (Paul, 1 Cor 15:1-4)
And think about it… one of these is a false gospel message. You cannot have both. (Galatians 1)
If #2 is false then when I get to heaven God will scold me (as one cross-less proponent scolded me 3 years ago… My first rude awakening!) for requiring the sinner to specifically believed that Jesus died for their sins and rose again. God will tell me that I was preaching a false gospel message if faith in Christ AND His work was not necessary to be believed on by the sinner for salvation. Not only that but if Hodges, Wilkin, Niemelä and crew are right, then the message that says one must believe on Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection to be saved is a “false” saving message!
To be biblically consistent, the sinner is to first hear the gospel (a definite message) and then to believe that very same “definite” message in order to be saved.
The Bible clearly declares the gospel that is to be believed (1 Cor 15:11) as “Christ died for our sins and rose again.” We must not allow less (cross-less, resurrection-less, deity-less gospel)! Nor should we allow more (lordship, baptismal-regeneration, works, and etc. gospel)! Nor should we be incongruent and preach one message and expect the sinner to believe another!
Lou, thanks for the moxy to post this series.
Bret W. Nazworth
Bret:
ReplyDeleteExcellent notes once again. You wrote, “To be biblically consistent, the sinner is to first hear the gospel (a definite message) and then to believe that very same ‘definite’ message in order to be saved.”
Touché!
Hodges, Wilkin, Niemela, da Rosa and the rest are anything, but consistent with Scripture and their own position which continues to be ReDefined by them.
I also sincerely hope the FGA leadership get this sorted out. If they are going to allow for compromise with the advocates of this Crossless heresy, it (FGA) is finished before it ever got off the ground. It will become nothing more than a GES satellite for the extremism of Hodges and Wilkin. That would be another tragedy and casualty of the Crossless gospel.
Thanks,
Lou
Paul declares the Gospel that saves and by which we stand in 1 Cor 15:1-2
ReplyDeleteHe closes this same Gospel with a statement that OUGHT to set any Bible believing Christian straight on the issue.
1 Cor 15:11 NKJV
[b]Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.[/b]
The Gospel 1 Cor 15:1-11 is what we preach, and is what we believe. There is no less, and no more. This is the Gospel.
Does Jesus save? YES!! Is it ok to tell someone that Jesus saves? YES!! Is that the Gospel? No! Will a person be saved the instant they believe Jesus saves (based on the information that He does)? No. But I do believe that the Spirit will reveal more and the person will be saved as they hear the Gospel and respond in faith to it.
It is shocking to me that these people continue to look for some more minimum than Paul declares is THE message of Salvation.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteThere is indeed a message called "the Gospel" that must be faithfully preached, and in faith received, if the lost are to be saved.
The reductionist views of ReDefined FG theology has brought universalism one step closer to reality in the GES camp.
LM
Dennis: Good Job! Good Contextual Exegesis.
ReplyDeleteI (as many) originally expressed annoyance with FGA's statement
“Within the membership of the FGA there has been discussion about the minimum one must understand to be saved. Regardless of a person’s convictions, believers are called to preach the gospel, not the minimum.”
As you accurately pointed out, however, Article 3 of the FGA Doctrinal statement says:
"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."
My words of annoyance had failed to note that. Their doctrinal statement, though brief, is not leaking from every pore with ambiguity. It is clear. And you are right. Anyone who advocates the crossless gospel and remains in the FGA is dishonest in their affirmation of the doctrinal statement. Good Exegesis. Though I wish they could have been firmer, I stand corrected in the annoyance I expressed.
Elijah
Elijah:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “Anyone who advocates the Crossless gospel and remains in the FGA is dishonest in their affirmation of the doctrinal statement.”
I not only agree with this, but I am going to expand on that thought. IMO there is more than dishonesty going on here. In various conversations I have suggested that there may be a political motive behind men like Antonio da Rosa and Stephen Lewis staying in the FGA when they hold to the Crossless gospel, which is antithetical to the FGA covenant’s “obvious” meaning.
Again, this is my opinion, but I think it has a reasonable amount of validity. These men view the FGA as a threat to the life and vitality of the GES. They perceive the FGA as a threat to the GES’s existence. Therefore, IMO, their intent is to either dismantle or take over the FGA through political maneuvering. I think they would like nothing more than to see the FGA go away or become a satellite of the GES.
I can hear the scoffers now, but mark my words, their Crossless theology has been devastated, the GES has lost significant numbers, and the FGA is poised to grow and become the new home of a biblical Free Grace theology. The Hodges, Wilkin, GES loyalists cannot stomach this, and therefore, want to impede or derail what is just around the corner.
The only questions that remain are these:
1) Does the FGA leadership understand that the Crossless is a radical departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
2) Will the FGA leadership show the courage and resolve to hold men accountable when their personal theology is at odds with the FGA’s covenant?
3) Will they defend the Gospel from the Hodges/Wilkin/GES reductionist assault or cave in to them for the sake of an appearance of unity?
We’ll find out come October.
LM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKev:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "It is shocking to me that these people continue to look for some more minimum than Paul declares is THE message of Salvation."
IMO, they have not only been looking for, they have gone to Bible passages that clearly define "the Gospel (message of salvation)," which they then redefine and/or negate to keep the Crossless interpretation in tact.
When we read the reductionist views of the Crossless gospel we can see why some have begun to warn of the Universalism that this Crossless/Deityless heresy is about a half-step away from becoming. IMO, one maybe two more refinements in the ReDefined Free Grace theology of Hodges, Wilkin and GES will put them into full-blown Universalism.
The lost only need state he believes a man named Jesus (no matter who he thinks Jesus is) will give him eternal life, and the CG men say he is born again. Antonio da Rosa's infamous, "The Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are one and the same," is a stark exmaple of how even the Lord's deity has been banished from what must be understood or belived by the lost, even if, as claimed, Crossless advocates present His deity.
All of this is antithetical to the Bible.
At present the Crossless gospel is near, not quite all the way, but essentially the first cousin of Universalism.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYou state, "The only questions that remain are these:
1) Does the FGA leadership understand that the Crossless is a radical departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
2) Will the FGA leadership show the courage and resolve to hold men accountable when their personal theology is at odds with the FGA’s covenant?
3) Will they defend the Gospel from the Hodges/Wilkin/GES reductionist assault or cave in to them for the sake of an appearance of unity?
We’ll find out come October."
These are EXACTLY the questions that needed to be asked. Nice job. You mention October; What will be taking place during that time period?
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteThe article here was first here published in May 2008 and the FGA conference took place this past October.
The issue has been pretty well settled. The FGA has clarified the meaning of the FGA Covenant. No advocate of the Crossless gospel can remain a member in good conscience.
Some still remain in the FGA membership because of (IMO) willful stubbornness. One particularly vitriolic and unethical Crossless advocate who has been encouraged to resign and refuses is totally ignored by FGA.
LM
Does the Bible allow for an INCONGRUITY between the Gospel preached and the content of saving faith?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this. Doesn't Romans 10:14 answer that question? How can anyone believe something they haven't heard?
And then there is plain common sense. Is there any kind of discussion where there is an incongruity between what is "preached" and what is intended for the hearer to believe? If you tell your wife you would like pot roast for dinner this Sunday, should she then assume what you really want is chicken? If you instruct your child to put away his toys do you really mean he can just plunk them on the stairs? How much incongruity is there between a STOP sign and what you are supposed to do at the intersection?
Aside from some kind of coding to keep a message secret, like in war time correspondence or something, I can't think of anywhere in life where such a communication practice would even seem to occur.
JanH