Dr. *J. B. Hixson’s new book, Getting the Gospel Wrong: The Evangelical Crisis No One Is Talking About contains an important section that address the Crossless gospel.
I trust the following notes from Dr. Hixson will make very clear to readers that the Grace Evangelical Society’s “ReDefined” Free Grace reductionist theology is a radical departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Furthermore, this effectively erases any lingering notion that Hodges, Wilkin or GES speak for or represent the Free Grace community at large.
LM
In recent years, some theologians have departed from the biblical view of the gospel by suggesting that one can believe in Jesus for eternal life without explicit knowledge that He died and rose again for one’s sins. For these theologians, knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection as a payment for one’s sins is optional as part of the content of saving faith.
The view that one can believe in Jesus for eternal life without knowing that He died and rose again has been variously termed the “crossless gospel,” the “promise-only gospel,” the “contentless gospel,” the “minimalist gospel,” and the “refined gospel.” This view is being propagated primarily by the Grace Evangelical Society and such notable theological scholars as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and John Niemela, to name a few. Their self-labeled view of the gospel is termed the “refined view,” indicating that the accepted view of the gospel throughout two thousand years of church history has been incorrect and that they have now provided a long-overdue corrective. Hodges refers to the traditional view of the gospel, as including the death and resurrection of Christ, as “flawed.” Cf. Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (Spring 2001): 9–18. Hodges elsewhere states, “The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.” Ibid., p. 12. See also Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.1,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Autumn 2000): 3–12, emphasis added.
For Hodges and others who hold this view, the gospel is limited to: “Belief in Jesus Christ as the guarantee of eternal life.” Hodges writes, “People are not saved by believing that Jesus died on the cross; they are saved by believing in Jesus for eternal life, or eternal salvation.” Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2,” 10. According to Hodges, details such as who Jesus is (i.e. the Son of God) and His work on the cross are not relevant to the precise content of saving faith. To be clear, proponents of this view believe Christ died and rose again; they just do not believe one has to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ to be saved.
The present writer applauds the quest for precision in the content of saving faith by those who hold this view; yet, in a tragic example of a theological method gone awry, they have gone too far. Their theological method manifests several errors such as [1] an unbalanced appeal to the priority of the Johannine Gospel (Consider Hodges’ statement, “All forms of the gospel that require greater content to faith in Christ than the Gospel of John requires are flawed.” Hodges, How To Lead a Person To Christ, Part 1, p. 8. And, “Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved.” Ibid., p. 7.); [2] A failure to acknowledge and correctly handle the progress of revelation in Scripture (**See the present writer’s discussion of this issue in note twenty-eight below.); [3] A failure to acknowledge the changing content of saving faith within each dispensation (In support of their position that saving faith today does not require knowledge of Christ’s work on the cross, adherents of this view often will appeal to the fact that Abraham and other OT saints did not believe in the death/resurrection of Christ. Such an argument evidences a departure from the foundational dispensational understanding regarding the changing content of saving faith. It is self-evident that OT saints did not believe explicitly in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, since the events of Calvary had not occurred yet. But it does not follow from this observation that someone today could be saved without knowledge of Christ’s work on the cross. See note twenty-eight below.); [4] An improper theological synthesis when comparing Scripture with Scripture; and [5] The tendency to read a presupposed theological conclusion into a given passage, thus obscuring the plain, normal sense of the passage.
Sadly, in their commendable effort to eliminate any elements of works or human effort from the gospel, they have stripped it of key salvific components. One proponent of this view stated that it is possible for a person to get saved in the present age by believing in Jesus, and then die and go to heaven, whereupon he is surprised to learn that the Jesus who saved him also died and rose again for his sins. (Bob Wilkin, Question & Answer time during Wilkin’s presentation at the 2007 Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in San Diego, CA, entitled, “Our Evangelism Should Be Exegetically Sound,” November 15, 2007.) According to Wilkin, as long as one believes that Jesus guarantees him eternal life, he can be saved, even if he does not know that Jesus is the Son of God and even if he knows nothing about Jesus’ work on the cross.
Yet, several New Testament passages indicate that explicit knowledge of Jesus’ death and resurrection is necessary for eternal salvation. A detailed critique of the so-called “crossless gospel” is beyond the scope of this present work, but a couple of passages are worth noting here. In 1 Corinthians 1:17–18 Paul references the gospel he preached and refers to the “cross of Christ” and the “message of the cross.” Three verses later in 1:21, he states that one is saved by believing the message he preached. Two verses after that, he affirms once again the content of his message, which, when believed, results in salvation. He states, “we preach Christ crucified…” (1:23). This passage inseparably links the work of Christ on the cross to the content of saving faith. Later in 1 Corinthians 15, in a passage previously discussed in this present work, Paul states that one is saved by believing the gospel, which he then defines as including the death and resurrection of Christ. Galatians 1:8–9 also is instructive here. In Galatians 1:8–9, Paul states plainly that any gospel other than the one he had preached to the Galatians during his visit to them is a false gospel. Scripture provides a record of the precise gospel that Paul preached to the Galatians during his first missionary journey. That record is contained in Acts 13. There, one finds that the gospel Paul preached included quite naturally the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Acts 13:28–30; 38–39). When synthesizing Galatians 1 with Acts 13, the conclusion can only be that any gospel that omits the death and resurrection of Christ is a false gospel. Many additional passages could be cited that affirm the centrality of the cross in the gospel message, but these should suffice to render the view discussed above as warrantless and unbiblical.
For a detailed treatment of this erroneous view of the content of saving faith, see Tom Stegall’s 5-part series in The Grace Family Journal. Tom Stegall, “The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Parts 1–5,” The Grace Family Journal (2007).
See also Gregory P. Sapaugh, “A Response to Hodges: How to Lead People to Christ, Parts 1 and 2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (August 2001): 21–29.
Reprinted by Permission (with minor formatting changes for presentation at this blog)
Please continue at Preface to Getting the Gospel Wrong.
*J. B. Hixson serves as Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance. He also teaches Theology at Grace School of Theology in The Woodlands, TX and Free Grace Seminary in Atlanta, GA. He earned his B.A. from Houston Baptist University, Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from Baptist Bible Seminary. He has pastored churches in Texas and Illinois.
**See Hixson’s note #28 in the thread below.
Getting the Gospel Wrong will be available beginning June 30th. You can pre-order through Dr. Hixson’s website: Not-by-Works. I am going to provide a link once the book is available for on-line ordering.
Although a detailed defense of dispensational theology, vis-à-vis the distinction between God’s program for the Church and God’s program for Israel, is beyond the scope of this present work, it should be pointed out that the precise content of saving faith changes with each new dispensation
ReplyDeletein human history. That is, although sinners in all ages have been saved by grace through faith alone, the object of saving faith is not the same in each age. Abraham, for example, was saved by faith but his saving faith did not have as its specific object a Redeemer named “Jesus” as required in the present age (cf. Gen 15:6). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, saving faith required the affirmation that Jesus was Messiah. Today, during the present church age, characterized among other distinctions by a “blindness” for Israel (Rom 11:25), saving faith does not have Christ’s Messiahship as part of its core essence.
Recognition of the distinction in the unique content of saving faith within each dispensation is a hallmark of dispensational theology. Consider the following quote from the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, widely acknowledged as the dispensational standard-bearer since its foundation in the 1920s. “We believe that according to the ‘eternal purpose’ of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always ‘by grace through faith,’ and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv). We believe that it has always been true that ‘without faith it is impossible to please’ God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ.” (From Point 5 of the Dallas Theological Seminary Doctrinal Statement, emphasis added.) n.b. The statement explicitly acknowledges the fact that the precise content of saving faith in the present age (viz. the “person and work of Christ”) differs from the precise content of saving faith for Old Testament saints, for whom it was impossible for the crucified Son of God to be the “conscious object of their faith.”
For further study on dispensational soteriology see Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation (New York: C. C. Cook, 1917), 42-53, Robert Paul Lightner, Sin, the Savior, and Salvation: The Theology of Everlasting Life (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1991), 158-77, Earl D. Radmacher, Salvation, Swindoll Leadership Library (Nashville: Word, 2000), 113-28, Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 105-22.
I want to express my thanks to Dr. Hixson for publishing his new book, and especially for the section that addresses the Crossless Gospel. He has demonstrated that the Crossless gospel is not consistent with the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteLM
I am really looking forward to reading this book as well. I enjoyed reading the above chapter. When Free Grace theology is taken to its extreme, one ends up with "Crossless" Gospel theology. It is one thing to believe Scripture teaches a distinction between discipleship and salvation. It is a radical leap to then assert and teach that believing in the cross is optional for a person to get saved. This demonstrates an egregious flawed hermeneutic. It is hard for some outside of the Free Grace movement to even take Free Grace theology seriously because of the extremes found within it. This book is going to bring a balance to the discussion while exposing the error related to this debate.
ReplyDeleteI pray that the Lord will use this book mightily.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this extended quote from J. B. Hixson. It is interesting to note that Paul's preaching in Acts 13 is entirely consistent with "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1) he routinely delivered "as of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3). In Acts 13:28-31 the apostle Paul explicitly declares the Good News events of Christ's substitutionary "death" (Acts 13:28), burial (Acts 13:29), resurrection (Acts 13:30), and appearances (Acts 13:31). Of course, this is "the gospel", even as scholars affirm (1 Cor. 15:1,3b-5).
JP
Bravo Dr Hixson. Thank you for your clear and unmistakable stance on the gospel. To my knowledge you are the only person on the FGA board that has made a public confession of the gospel being Christ crucified for sins and resurrected. Thank you. I can breath. There are those on the FGA board that believe in an incongruent gospel. I know this for a fact. They say that you must preach the gospel but you do not need to require that the gospel you preach match the content that the sinner must believe. You leave no doubt. I can follow this kind of lead. I can rally to this. Too bad the whole FGA board cannot make the same statement.
ReplyDeleteBret Nazworth
There are just plain too many books for me to read right now... seriously.. I'm flooded out over here.
ReplyDeleteBrother Hixson, thank you for the valuable new tool in the woodshed of the Brethren. I'm sure will add much fruit through this work.
The idea that “Belief in Jesus Christ as the guarantee of eternal life.” got to bothering me today. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit that is our guarantee. 2 Cor 1:21-22 says that it is the Father who gives the Spirit as this guarantee. I believe 2 Cor 5:5 says the exact same thing.
So, while God surely is one (or more accurately a unity of one), it is the Father who guarantees, and gives the Holy Spirit as the seal of that guarantee. As the Lord said in John 14:26, and 15:26.
So, technically I don't think they even have Who guarantees Eternal Life correct.
Kev
"The idea that “Belief in Jesus Christ as the guarantee of eternal life.” got to bothering me today."
ReplyDeleteLooker: I am not sure, but I suspect the idea here ought to be guarantor, rather than guarantee.
The idea as I have seen it expressed, is that Jesus is the Guarantor of eternal life to all who believe in Him for it.
Jesus is the Guarantor, not the Guarantee. Could this be what was meant? Or is Jesus commonly referred to as the "guarantee of eternal life" as well?
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting these valuable excerpts from Dr. Hixson's book. He makes the good point that 1 Cor. 1 is pretty clear that Paul considers the message of the cross as indispensable to "the gospel", or, what the lost must believe to be born again. Going even further, as has been noted several times at this blog and many others, Paul states in that passage that even though the message of "Christ crucified" is a stumblingblock to some, he still preaches it. This is in direct opposition to the "crossless" advocates, who love to tout the idea that their theology allows them the "freedom" to take whatever avenue they think is best (including avoiding discussion of Jesus' deity, death, or resurrection) to get people to their goal of belief that Jesus alone gives them eternal life.
It is encouraging to read this from Dr. Hixson. I'm glad that he has taken the time to appropriately and publicly critique the "crossless gospel" in his book. I hope that this will make evident what is meant by the statements in the FGA covenant, and that those in the FGA who disagree with this will return to intellectual honesty and either change their view or resign from the FGA. Even Jim Johnson admitted that he resigned from the FGA so that he could have "freedom" to proclaim whatever he wanted (i.e. "crossless" theology). I also hope that this will finally put to rest the idea that Hodges, Wilkin, et al. have somehow been "misunderstood" or misrepresented, or that we are quoting them out of context, etc. Not to say that they have never been quoted out of context or misunderstood, but their fundamental view of the gospel has been made clear.
These are good comments and much appreciated. Thank you Dr. Hixson.
Greetings:
ReplyDeleteI was away for much of the day yesterday. I will reply to each of you in turn.
LM
Liam:
ReplyDeleteMany of us are looking forward to receiving a copy of JB’s book.
You wrote, “When Free Grace theology is taken to its extreme, one ends up with 'Crossless' Gospel theology.”
Just my opinion, but I don’t think the Crossless gospel could even be considered an extreme view of Free Grace theology. It is so extreme and out of touch with the Scriptures it is an entirely new heretical view. It was originated by Zane Hodges, who is in the FG camp, and sadly some men in the FG movement were deceived into accepting this view.
It is an unfortunate misnomer that GES soteriology is thought to be held by the FG community at large. This misnomer has and continues to be effectively dispelled.
One of our objectives is to alert a broad cross-section of evangelical Christianity that the Hodges, Wilkin; GES “Crossless” gospel is not representative of biblically balanced Free Grace theology.
The GES Gospel is a “REDEFINED” FG theology and is inconsistent with the Bible.
LM
JP:
ReplyDeleteAnd none of it needs to be known, understood or believed according to the GES Gospel.
LM
Bret:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “Bravo Dr Hixson. Thank you for your clear and unmistakable stance on the gospel. To my knowledge you are the only person on the FGA board that has made a public confession of the gospel being Christ crucified for sins and resurrected. Thank you. I can breath. There are those on the FGA board that believe in an incongruent gospel. I know this for a fact. They say that you must preach the gospel but you do not need to require that the gospel you preach match the content that the sinner must believe. You leave no doubt. I can follow this kind of lead. I can rally to this. Too bad the whole FGA board cannot make the same statement.”
It is encouraging that certain FGA leaders are taking an open clear stand against the egregious errors of the Crossless gospel of the GES. There is no way there can be unity with the instigators of this reductionist heresy. IMO, you will find many more in upcoming days rallying around the uncompromising ministry of J. B. Hixson.
Lou
Kev:
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking in. I know you are heavily involved in various ministry matters. Your support and encouragement is very much appreciated. Keep up the good work on the Lordship Salvation message.
I am looking forward to a cooperative effort with you on that issue. Getting any connection to GES, Hodges and Wilkin eliminated is an important step in the process of effectively dealing with LS.
By the way, I have looked closer at JM’s newest version of TGATJ. Many of same over-the-top statements from the first are in the latest. LS is a works based, man-centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
Lou
Looker:
ReplyDeleteThanks for dropping by.
You wrote, “The idea as I have seen it expressed, is that Jesus is the Guarantor of eternal life to all who believe in Him for it.”
GES “Crossless” Gospel advocates sometimes use the term “Guarantor,” but even in that they are inconsistent.
The one thing they are consistent with is that the unsaved do NOT need to be aware of, know, understand or believe in the deity and/or finished work of Christ, but can still be born again.
LM
Rachel:
ReplyDeleteYou made an excellent comment and review of what is transpiring in the debate.
Dr. Hixson did not need many words to clearly identify the way in which the Crossless gospel is INCONSISTENT with the Scriptures.
You wrote, “I hope that this will make evident what is meant by the statements in the FGA covenant, and that those in the FGA who disagree with this will return to intellectual honesty and either change their view or resign from the FGA.”
Dr. Hixson’s notes are a BIG step in that direction. IMO, all that is needed now is a statement that clarifies the “obvious meaning” of the FGA Covenant (#2 & #3 in particular) and the issue will be settled.
It is my hope and prayer that every element and the advocates of the Crossless gospel will be rooted out of the FGA. Until such time we must contend for purity and fidelity to the Bible over fellowship with the advocates of this known and vital error.
Thanks for your brief, but very insightful comments above.
Lou
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteDr. Hixson is reading your comments here and he appreciates the encouragement.
LM
This is great to see. I appreciate very much the paragraph describing the errors behind crossless evangelism. To say the least, Hodges' appeal to John's Gospel is indeed "unbalanced." My own view is that John's Gospel was written, not to unsaved people but to believers (1:16); that's its purpose is to confirm believers in faith and assurance, encouraging them to believe all the more fervently and firmly (same as 1 John 5:13) so as to have and enjoy life abundantly and to advance them toward fruifulness. It most definitely is "unbalanced" (and worse from my perspective) to place John's Gospel above Paul's writings in determining what knowledge is necessary to saving faith. Deeply appreciated here is the clear recognition of saving faith having greater content today than in earlier dispensations. I'm looking forward to reading the whole book.
ReplyDeleteArt:
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to read that you appreciate how Dr. Hixson has addressed the Hodges/GES interpretation of the Gospel. Clearly it is an out-of-balance interpretation of the Scriptures.
Dr. Hixson's book will, IMO, go a long way toward ending the debate in the FG community. I am looking forward to the day when the Crossless gospel is broadly indentified with, isolated and contained in the GES.
Thanks for the note.
Lou
Kev,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Looker on the "guarantee" v. "guarantor" issue. It's something to keep an eye on, considering the "crossless" advocates' propensity to give different meanings to words than most people w/o identifying those meanings. But I wouldn't make too much of it right now.
Lou,
I found it interesting that the foreword is by Dr. Radmacher, who, according to some, has no problem with the "crossless" gospel and does not consider such teaching a "false gospel". Perhaps Dr. Radmacher will issue a statement on the issue at some point. In the meantime, though, on p. 5 of Dr. Radmacher's book Salvation, he identifies justification (i.e. saving faith) as requiring belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
At the beginning of the book, Radmacher discusses the different types of "salvation" in the Bible, such as physical and spiritual. Under the heading "The Spiritual Meaning", Radmacher says, "At the moment a person places his or her faith in the finished work of Christ, that individual is saved from the death-dealing penalty for sin and is declared righteous."
My guess is that Dr. Radmacher is simply unaware of what is actually being taught by the "crossless" advocates. He has probably been given the GES mantra and the same old lines about how they all preach the cross and personally believe it.
I noticed this same thing with Dr. Darrell Bock last year. I exchanged a few emails with him about his debate with Wilkin several years ago. At first Dr. Bock indicated that while he did not agree with Wilkin, that he did not think Wilkin taught a false gospel. But when I clarified for him exactly what Wilkin teaches, he said that that was different and he could not say either way (whether what Wilkin taught was a false gospel) w/o looking into it further for himself.
I've noticed this is extremely common among "crossless" advocates and their supporters. Their redirects and constant subject-changing make it difficult to explain to others what exactly they believe. I have a feeling that this is similar to what has happened with Dr. Radmacher.
Rachel:
ReplyDeleteYou just made an important contribution to what is transpiring right now. The quotes from Dr. Radmacher’s book shows that there is no way he could be in agreement with the Crossless/Deityless teachings of Hodges, Wilkin and GES.
Radmacher says, “At the moment a person places his or her faith in the finished work of Christ, that individual is saved from the death-dealing penalty for sin and is declared righteous.”
That statement by Radmacher would never be accepted by GES Gospel advocates. That would furthermore, be the “obvious meaning” of the FGA’s Covenant #’s 2 & 3, which the Crossless men would reject.
Doubtless the GES mantra was fed to Dr. Radmacher. It is very likely he does not know that GES insists the lost can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing in “the finished work of Christ.”
The thing that is especially troubling to me is that GES advocates seem to be playing Dr. Radmacher for political advantage. That is a shameful way to use a man who has served the Lord longer than most of us have been alive. But this is what has been happening since the GES Gospel has been doctrinally devastated. As one friend told me, “It is an age-old tactic, when you can’t refute the message, destroy the messengers by any means.”
He also said, “Let’s not let Satan fulfill his desired end by dividing us and distracting and deterring us from our true purpose of striving TOGETHER for the furtherance of the gospel (Phil. 1:27).” I would add, “…apart from the heretical views of the GES.”
Thanks again for this important contribution.
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYou said in reply to Rachel "The quotes from Dr. Radmacher’s book shows that there is no way he could be in agreement with the Crossless/Deityless teachings of Hodges, Wilkin and GES."
Sometimes people can hold their own opinion of scripture and understand that others come up with different conclusions. You and Rachel are probably not very well acquainted with him.... I see him advocating others in free grace who believe in a variety of different arragements of the gospel message. I see it all the time.
But I would not presume, by any means, to know his mind.
That was my observation listening to him speak about free grace for months before he even knew who was listening (me).
I shared my testimony with Dr. R. as a way to introduce myself, on May 18th. In my story I shared how was one of those rare examples where Christ did save someone without either acknowledging His death for my sins, or His deity.... I specifically asked him to decide if I was worthy of fellowship with him. He has not yet given me a verbal answer, though he has invited me to his house for dinner. I think he was very interested in my testimony and he shared it with other free grace people to hear their replies too. I continue to spend time around him and he is pleased that I want to learn more. He has taken me under his wing, I would say, by the way he *treats* me. Within his accepting treatment he has shared his own answer to my questions over the gospel by asking me to consider the examples of Cornelius and doubting Thomas. Dr. Radmacher is a man full of the LORD's grace, with intelligent and bright eyes. He has been undermined by the Lordship proponents so many times, and it is so sad.
When he talks about a war going on, I haven't ever heard him talk about the issues within free grace. He only talks about those who are outside of free grace. He extensively cites the history and work of the likes of Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges when speaking of the efforts of the free grace movement, during class.
He loves free grace. What he desires more than anything is to not have our effort undermined by the lordship camp. This has happened many times in his life and it is unfortunate. I think I can safely say... this is my opinion in knowing him for only a short while.
But with all matters it is best to let a man speak for himself, isn't it? At least, this is what the free grace movement wants the world to know about Calvin's teachings and those subsequent who tried to rewrite his theology....
:)
Peace,
Michele
Rachel, Looker - Hi!!
ReplyDeleteI think they have it wrong either way. Jesus is the Redeemer. The Father is Propitiated and therefore accepts the "Redemption Price." It is He who restores proper "ownership" and who is the guarantor of this. The Spirit is His guarantee, or rather the Seal of it.
I suppose we could say that the Lord offered, and presented... and therefore by Word "guaranteed" and that our security is based on His work therefore He is the guarantee.. but I believe that makes the language needlessly complicated.
It's kind of a discussion that goes immediately to the absurd no matter what though. It's just a very very poor call to the Lost - IMO. Our call ought to be plainly seen and explained in Scripture. And the true call is!
:)
Kev
Hi Michele:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments and input.
You wrote, “He loves free grace. What he desires more than anything is to not have our effort undermined by the lordship camp. This has happened many times in his life and it is unfortunate.”
Our efforts (and the Scriptures) were undermined before there was an organized Free Grace (FG) movement such as we have today. Lordship Salvation (LS) predates John MacArthur, but his book The Gospel According to Jesus gave LS unprecedented attention, which needed a response.
For the first few years there were some good responses to LS, but for the most part the responses diminished steadily, while the LS men kept at it with passion and aggression. That is why you see untold thousands having been deceived and swept up into the errors of LS. To compound the problem both Hodges and Wilkin have consistently slipped into ever increasing forms of radical theology.
They are always going to undermine our efforts because they believe they are right and perceive the Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) peculiar interpretation FG theology as error, and a threat to their LS interpretation of the Gospel. The problem for the Free Grace camp is that Hodges and Wilkin hold views that are heretical, out-of-balance with the whole of Scripture, which men in both the LS and the FG camps recognize.
One of my goals is to alert believers across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity that the GES is an isolated cell of extremists that do NOT speak for or represent a great many pastors and teachers in the FG movement. Any suggestion that there is, or ever could be, unity with the heretical views and advocates of the Crossless gospel in the GES is utterly false.
Just because the LS men find doctrinal issues that are legitimate targets for criticism does not mean we should not obey the biblical mandates to “contend for the faith,” “mark and avoid,” and “withdraw” when we find the teaching of Hodges heretical, which it is.
Should we give Hodges a pass just because he is in the FG movement? No! That is a betrayal of the Scriptures. The last thing I want is to see the heresy of the GES “Crossless” gospel grow to the proportions that LS has grown to. MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference had 4,000 in attendance. The 2008 GES National Conference had well under 200. According to a man I know that was there, it was closer to 140, including speakers. The number of attendees is shrinking as more become aware of the GES’s views on the Gospel. Lord willing, the GES will one day be reduced to a near non-entity.
There are some in the FG camp who find it very difficult to speak out openly against the egregious errors of Hodges, partly out of respect for him. But, where should our first loyalty lie: To our friends and movement, or to the Lord and the Word of God?
LM
Michele:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, But with all matters it is best to let a man speak for himself, isn't it?
Yes, we need to let these men speak for themselves and the best way to do that is to cite what they have written in their books. This is what I did in my book In Defense of the Gospel. I quote MacArthur and other LS men liberally so that there is no way I could be misrepresenting them or create a straw man.
This is what I appreciate about Rachel’s note above in which she quotes from Dr. Radmacher’s book. He makes a very precise statement, “At the moment a person places his or her faith in the finished work of Christ, that individual is saved from the death-dealing penalty for sin and is declared righteous.”
That is a very clear, unambiguous statement on what Radmacher believes is the necessary content of saving faith.
The men who teach Hodges’ “Crossless” gospel would say it is helpful for the lost to be aware of and understand the finished work of Christ, but it is unnecessary for the lost to believe this to be born again.
That is antithetical to what Radmacher wrote and more importantly a departure from what the Bible says (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:1-ff.)
More to follow…
LM
Lou:
ReplyDeleteI greatly appreciate the fact that you alluded to the Gospel by referencing "1 Cor. 15:1-ff." This is right on the money! Consider this quote from Bibliotheca Sacra:
"No wonder then that the apostle Paul, in stating the essential facts of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, does not stop where most preachers stop when they make use of the passage. Paul does not say that the gospel embraces three items—the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He says rather than the gospel includes the appearances. He does not cease to state the gospel till he reaches the end of v. 11 [vv. 6-11 confirm vv. 3b-5]. The gospel has four ingredients, not three: that Christ died, that He was buried, that He was raised, and that He was seen. Take away the appearances and the resurrection loses much of its reality and vividness."
(Everett F. Harrision, "The Son of God among the Sons of Men
Part 15: Jesus and Mary Magdalene", Dallas Theological Seminary: Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 105, October 1948)
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteOn Friday morning I will be posting another excerpt from J. B. Hixson’s Getting the Gospel Wrong.
This excerpt will be an important addition to the discussion of the controversy over the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. It will define the author’s primary and true vision and purpose for Getting the Gospel Wrong.
LM
Hi Michele,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting your unique perspective. You are right, I am not particularly acquainted with Dr. Radmacher. I certainly do not presume to know his mind. But which is likely to be the most accurate representation of his thoughts - a direct quote from his own book, or third-party summaries and interpretations of unofficial conversations?
Perhaps Radmacher has changed his view on the gospel since he wrote Salvation. But until I hear (read) that directly from Radmacher, I don't see any reason to think that. You have provided some interesting anecdotal comments regarding your interaction with Radmacher, yet to me that still does not trump what he has clearly written.
You said,
But with all matters it is best to let a man speak for himself, isn't it?
I totally agree, which is why I'll stick with Radmacher's published view on the gospel until he officially changes it himself.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your gracious reply. I am glad that you care to have dialogue with someone such as me (whoever it is that I am, just taking me for what I say in reply to your posts).
You and Rachel have a good point, that quoting his own book on the matter is the best way to know what he teaches. I should have thought more carefully.
This quote you use from his book "Salvation," is an inclusionary statement, though; not an exclusionary statement. I would like to know what he thinks of any effort to exclude a gospel that takes less than a 1 Cor 15 approach.
It's only been in the last week or two that I have become aware that I am not the only one who notices that there are different ways to express the free grace gospel. Since I brought them up to Radmacher, I've been looking online and have found that there is a sensitive disagreement abounding within. Now that I am aware, it's been my desire to be wise enough not to pull Radmacher's reputation around according to my own purposes.
In fact as of just two days ago I was publicly making available Radmacher's reaction to my testimony, and my testimony is more liberal than Dr. Wilkin's teachings. But, it is better to not make those public until I have his permission, so I took them down.
I will confess, however, that when he and I spoke about my testimony on the phone a couple of weeks ago, he asked me if I have read Zane's book and told me that I needed to get a copy of Bob Wilkin's, "Confident in Christ," and read it. In that book, I can see from what has been written about it that Wilkin teaches that those seeking Christ must believe that Jesus grants eternal life in order to have eternal life. And on the back of this book, Dr. Radmacher says of it,
"'Confident in Christ' is a masterful treatment of the gospel that leaves no stone unturned in bringing clarity to passages that are often misconstrued. In his careful treatment of the Word of God, Dr. Bob Wilkin has provided a treasury of answers to the difficult passages regarding the gospel. This may be one of the most important books you have ever read about the Bible. I passionately recommend it.”
I bring these things up to you so that I might ask you the question:
Is there no possible way for those who think more strictly about the gospel to see God's sanctioning approval and use of a more simple expression than the "fuller gospel"?
I would like to share a bit of my own experience, here. I have spent the last six years of my life engaged in illuminating the truth to JWs, Mormons, the ICOC, Oneness Pentecostals and an Evangelical Lutheran. You wanna talk about controversy, sleepless nights, devotion to God's truth -- these things are appropriate for the true fight against false doctrines that rob people not only of salvation but a life filled with works-righteousness and no joy. Comparing these teachings to Lordship Theology is infinitely an easier thing to endure. At least within the Lordship camp we're dealing with people who believe in the infallibility of scripture so that they treat the Word of God with full authority, and they most assuredly have received the Spirit of all truth and grace. They love the LORD as you and I do. We have so much to be thankful for, about the work and faith of those who are Lordship believers!
It is only the purity of the gospel which causes us to want to correct what they promote. But I would treat them as brothers in Christ. Why?
Because in the book of Galatians, some of the brothers began to suggest to that church that believing in Jesus was necessary but so was being circumcised and obeying the ten commandments. Obviously, this is false. But also most obviously, they were believers. I know that it is possible for a believer to be deceived about the nature of their own salvation.
But none in free grace, crossless or not, make this mistake. All preach belief in Christ in ways that are pure quotes of scripture in evangelistic passages.
When I think about what a strategy like Radmacher's must be, being a founder of the FGA, keeping set upon its purpose, I wonder if all those years of controversy over larger things gives him a peace by faith of knowing that these smaller issues are under the LORD's direction.
I assume he knows what he is doing when he persists to associate in the ways he does with Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges.
However, like you I too wish that he would make a statement on it.
I happen to be someone who agrees with some of the controversial teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Antonio DaRosa and others of like minds.
ReplyDeleteI certainly have no personal knowledge of them other than having heard Bob Wilkin give 45-minute talk on the the minimum that one must know to be saved at the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta 3-4 years ago.
In my internet reading on the discussions regarding the gospel, something in this dialog has really come to the forefront lately that has been previously rarely mentioned. (IMO)
The issue is the change in the gospel message with time. Having been taught by conservative, dispensational Baptist ministers, I have often heard that dispensationalists have been charged by others with teaching different ways of salvation in different dispensations. (I may not have this all technically correct, but I hope you'll allow me some leeway.)
I have heard my current pastor reject that charge directly. It has always been faith alone he insists.
However, I had not realized that perhaps dispensationalists do allow for a certain level of change in the gospel message based on ideas of further revelation and other similar thoughts.
This is apparently the case, is it not?
Let me just assume this is true for second as it leads to a question I have. If this isn't true, then this question will sound odd.
Was there a time when the salvific gospel was crossless? Was there a time when people were saved without understanding the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Looker:
ReplyDeleteI noticed you asked: "Was there a time when the salvific gospel was crossless? Was there a time when people were saved without understanding the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?"
I would answer your question in the affirmative. Before the historical events of Christ's substitutionary death, sure burial, subsequent resurrection, and sign resurrection appearances (Jn. 18-21), those in the Old Testament could be saved without knowledge or belief in these future events which comprise the present gospel (cf. Gen. 15:6).
JP
Just a quick reminder, friends, the Gospel is NOT the "death, burial and resurrection." As a Roman Catholic for the first 18 years of my life, I believed that Christ died, was burried, and rose again. But I believed my sins were erased in the confessional with the priest. I did not know that Christ died FOR MY SINS. Please, let us stop saying the "death, burial and resurrection." If we fall in to that trap, we will be defending an indefensible position with the crossless people.
ReplyDeleteIf you think about church history, if the Nicean Creed said, "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucifed and died as a perfect and final payment for the sins of all mankind, and was buried. . . " We may never have needed the reformation!
Just a reminder. Thanks Team,
Elijah, you are certainly correct that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is not the Gospel. I did not intend to portray it as such. The acceptance of these elements has been put forth as necessary for salvation. The list of necessary elements might also include Jesus' deity, Trinitarian equality and other ideas about Jesus' identity, mission and work.
ReplyDeleteMy expression was simply a shorthand way of asking about the various sides of this ongoing debate. I was asking about the understanding of these items in the salvation experience. I wasn't using them as the definition of the gospel. JP seemed to correctly pick up on my point of view.
(By the way JP, I have gone over your thoughts on II Timothy 4 we discussed elsewhere. I may just send you a note on your blog about that.)
JP, I am truly refreshed by your direct answer. Sometimes our answers(mine included!) might die the death of a thousand qualifications.
Thanks Looker, glad I could help.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Elijah, we need to clearly point out as the apostle Paul does that Christ's death was a substitutionary death: "Christ died for our sins..." (1 Cor. 15:1-ff)
JP
To All:
ReplyDeleteJust want to let all of you know that I appreciate the discussion and tone in this thread.
Iron sharpening iron (Prov. 27:17).
Lou
Elijah:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the way in which you brought clarity to the exact message of the Gospel.
Having grown up in the RCC for 23 years I was NEVER taught that His substutionary death was for my sins. I was NEVER taught He paid it all. One of my uncles was a RCC priest, and he NEVER would have agreed to that.
LM
The following is part of a local church’s doctrinal statement. It is from that church’s explanation of how to be saved and sure you are going to Heaven. While this element is relatively sound there are portions that are not.
ReplyDelete“Believe that Jesus died on the cross for you and rose again from the grave.”
I am using that element from the church’s statement to show how one advocate of the GES Crossless gospel reacts to calling on the lost to believe in the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Crossless advocate’s reply follows for your review and/or comments.
This belief, as important as it is, falls short from receiving eternal life. Let me explain how. I was a Catholic before I came to faith in Christ. I believed, was persuaded, was convinced that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and rose again bodily from the dead. Was I saved? No. Let me tell you why. I didn't trust Jesus’ promise to give eternal life to all who merely believe in Him for it. A person can believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose again from the dead but still not take Jesus at His word in His gospel promise. They may still be clinging to their works, their church, their sacraments, their rituals, etc.
Jesus’ gospel promise is precisely this: He alone is the Guarantor of eternal life to all who merely believe in Him FOR it. Said another way, Jesus guarantees eternal life to the one who takes Him at His word when He says:
“Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life,” (John 6:47).
Sharing that Jesus Christ died on the cross for one’s sins and rose again from the dead falls short. Of course it is the heart of what one tells the sinner who needs to be saved. It shows why Jesus can be trusted in for eternal life, it shows how God provided our salvation. But, one must be told that eternal life is received by believing in Jesus’ in His promise whereby He will give anyone eternal life who simply believes in Him for the express purpose of receiving it.
Christ’s passion and subsequent resurrection has given Jesus Christ the authority to dispense eternal life as He pleases. And it pleases God to give eternal life to all who believe Jesus in His promise.
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI am indebted to your welcoming spirit. You said
"Just want to let all of you know that I appreciate the discussion and tone in this thread.
Iron sharpening iron (Prov. 27:17)."
I just want you to know that I have thought a lot about the things you have shared, the articles and scriptures. You are right, community is sanctifying.
Till February of this year, I never knew of free grace theology. I thought I was all alone, and time after time when I talked to christians and I carried out the application of salvation "in Christ alone by faith alone" I was met with silence and alienation. I began to wonder if I were insane, because of how no one would even listen, even consider what the gospel means just out of scriptures! So for years I bitterly struggled with feeling like I was crazy. The attitude boiling under the surface in me was one of growing rejection of orthodoxy, and if it had continued to go on like that, who knows where my beliefs could have ended up? I was being weakened toward error.
I suppose there are no words to describe how thankful I am that I have come to know you and several others lately, and even more that you would have the vision to dialogue with someone such as me in this place where you have a specific goal in mind.
I need to be reminded of the things you have on your heart.
Thank you
Michele
Lou,
ReplyDeleteIn responding to the Crossless advocate above I would clarify that Christians are called to preach the Gospel of the grace of God (1 Cor. 15:1-ff) and the proper response to the Gospel of the grace of God: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31, cf. 1 Cor. 15:1,2,11).
JP
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLou,
ReplyDeleteIn my article "Paul's Gospel Is More Than 'Faith Alone in Christ Alone'", I also point out that the Gospel message promises a specific result:
"Contrary to Myers assertion that '1 Corinthians 15...is not a explanation of what a person must believe in order to receive everlasting life,' instead of dying or perishing for personal sins (1 Cor. 15:3,17,18), those who believe 'the Gospel' (1 Cor. 15:1) receive forgiveness of 'sins' as opposed to judgment for sins (1 Cor. 15:3, 17-18) and eternal 'life' as opposed to death (1 Cor. 15:3, 19, 22, cf. 1 Cor. 4:15, 15:12-58)."
JP
Lou,
ReplyDeleteMaybe this summary will help: The Gospel Chronological
1. Reveal the Gospel: "For I delivered to you as of first importance..." (1 Cor. 15:3-ff)
2. Respond to the Gospel: "you believed" (1 Cor. 15:11)
3. Results of the Gospel: forgiveness of "sins" and eternal "life" (1 Cor. 15:3, 17-22)
Jon:
ReplyDeleteYou cited Myers who, speaking for the GES interpretation of the Gospel wrote, “1 Corinthians 15...is not a explanation of what a person must believe in order to receive everlasting life.”
That is one example of how Hodges and Wilkin have “REDEFINED” the Scriptures for the sole purpose of making the Scriptures fit the new theology of Hodges. No passage in the NT escapes their forcing into or extracting from it anything they must to fortify the teaching of Hodges’ Crossless/Deityless gospel.
That as much as anything is a call to action. These GES men assault the Lord's Person, His finished work, and the Word of God itself because they have put Hodges and his absurd teaching on the pedestal of preeminence.
I like that chronology, thanks for posting it.
Lou
Michele:
ReplyDeleteThose were very kind words above. I am hopeful you will always seek and prefer fidelity to the plain teaching of Scripture, and give the Word of God the preeminence ahead of friends and fellowships.
They are believers who have taken the New Evangelical road of compromise so that they can maintain a friendship. They will choose friendship ahead of loyalty to the Word of God. That is tragic, but a sad reality in our age.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Rom. 16:17-18).
False teaching can have an alluring appeal to it. Do not give ear to the “good words and fair speeches” coming from Lordship & Crossless advocates. You could be decieved just as others before you have.
The teachers of “contrary” doctrine have been biblically marked so that believers will “avoid” them and their errors.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteThis weekend I am posting a Father's Day montage. I trust it will bless all who view it.
Next Monday I will repost this article and thread at the head of my blog, for an additional day or two. I sense there may be more discussion in this thread and I want to keep it visible and active for my guests.
Afterward I will be posting the first of six new articles. Most will address the Crossless gospel. One, however, will be my initial review of John MacArthur’s Anniversary Edition of The Gospel According to Jesus.
Have a great weekend.
LM
So far only Jon P. has stated a change has occurred in the required content of the saving Gospel. The change occurred when all of the historical events he outlined occurred. Do any others have any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThis has me thinking, has the gospel changed only once as JP seems to be saying? (not directly, but it sounds this way)
Or has the saving Gospel changed multiple times in various eras throughout history as God's recorded revelation to man increased?
If the Gospel has changed, what was it before it became what it is currently?
Looker:
ReplyDeleteNo time for an extended answer to your question at this time, but may I offer...
Looking at your question with a Dispensational approach to Scripture would be very helpful.
Last summer Bob Wilkin was clamoring for an open debate on the Crossless gospel. In September Brother Ron Shea accepted the challenge. Within a few days Wilkin lost his taste for the debate he had been calling for.
There are several reasons one may assume for why Wilkin suddenly backed out. IMO chief among them was the question with which Shea proposed to debate Wilkin. Here is that proposition:
“In the present dispensation, what is the content of saving faith?” and/or “In the present dispensation, is a belief in Jesus’ divinity, His atoning death, and/or His resurrection necessary for faith in Jesus to constitute saving faith?”
Visit Open Challenege for a review the Wilkin and the debate fiasco.
Part 1…Part 2…Part 3
LM
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteI reversed the order of this article with the Preface article. It reappears now for your consideration and further discussion.
The new articles will begin within 48 hours with an introduction to the subject matter of the new articles that are in queue for publishing at this blog.
I trust you enjoyed your Father's Day weekend.
LM
Hi Looker,
ReplyDeleteYou asked: "Or has the saving Gospel changed multiple times in various eras throughout history as God's recorded revelation to man increased? If the Gospel has changed, what was it before it became what it is currently?"
Your question relates to progressive revelation and the dispensations of God. In answering your question the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, which I link to from my blog, may help. Article 5 of the DTS doctrinal statement reads:
"Article V—THE DISPENSATIONS
We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive.
We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.
We believe that according to the 'eternal purpose' of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always 'by grace through faith,' and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).
We believe that it has always been true that 'without faith it is impossible to please' God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible [or improbable] that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7)."
This is a good explanation of God's dispensations that you may find helpful. I would only clarify that faith does not have to be "manifested" to be "counted for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Abraham simply believed what God had revealed (cf. Gal. 3:8). Abraham's faith in God was not really "manifested" (seen) until Abraham was circumcised (Gen. 17; cf. Rom. 4:1-10). By contrast, in the present dispensation it is Paul's Gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16), and the revelation by which the unsaved in this dispensation will be judged (Rom. 2:16; 2 Thess. 1:7-10).
JP
Looker:
ReplyDeleteThere is more I could explain but I'm not sure what direction your questions will take from here.
JP
Last summer I was following posts about the proposed public debate on various websites. My strong opinion is the debate proposal ended for one reason - a lack of focus. You intimate here again that Mr. Wilkin "backed out" of the debate due to Mr. Shea's proposition. Others last year suggested Mr. Wilkin was unwilling to debate a man of Mr. Shea's stature and credentials. Such thinking is highly prejudicial. Focus, or the lack thereof, was the reason the quest for the debate ended. It was readily apparent in what was posted by GES. Of course, much of that is no longer available. That is unfortunate. That is how I remember what transpired back then.
ReplyDeleteI have skimmed over the links you provided, and there was a lot of unfounded speculation going up at that time. As we look back on it, we can see that much of the speculation was unfulfilled. GES continues in their work of discussing Scripture and putting out newsletters, journals and holding conferences. The prediction of their quick demise has been proven to be wrong. They have tried to remain focused on their mission. The proposed debate became entirely unfocused. You are correct in calling it a fiasco. I think both "sides" would have to agree with that - and a sad fiasco at that.
Looker:
ReplyDeleteRyrie's well-known citation bears repeating: "The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations [and according to progressive revelation]." (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 123, italics his.)
JP
JP, thanks for your follow-up. I look through it thoroughly and I'm sure I'll have something to give in response.
ReplyDeleteOne quick thought: It seems obvious to me that Mr. Hodges and Mr. Wilkin are dispensationalists. If so, a dispensational viewpoint doesn't necessarily indicate one won't be a "crossless" supporter.
from JP:"... the content of faith changes in the various dispensations [and according to progressive revelation]. (Charles Ryrie..."
ReplyDeleteSo it looks like Ryrie is a mutliple change advocate, not just a single post-Resurrection era change advocate. (poorly worded, but hope that's understandable)Very interesting.
Looker:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate and will respect your view of the debate, but there were issues behind scenes you are unaware of, that if you were you might not hold the same view.
Your wrote, “Last summer I was following posts about the proposed public debate on various websites. My strong opinion is the debate proposal ended for one reason - a lack of focus.”
IMO, the debate fell through for various reasons, but I can assure that one major contributor was the way in which Shea focused the question. “This present dispensation…” is a problem for Crossless advocates.
I have invited Ron Shea to offer some comments here for your consideration. If he can take time from his law practice and theological work, he may post here.
As for the “quick demise” of GES, time is relative, but GES’s influence is winding down, for which I am thankful. It is unquestionable (and I know for a fact) GES has lost membership, resources and venues that once hosted GES conferences. If you visit the GES site, and the Regional Conferences link, you will notice that no conferences are noted there for 2008. Why do you suppose that is? It may be that Wilkin has not posted details of any scheduled conferences, but that would be odd. I invite you to contact GES and ask for a schedule of conferences and the locations in 2008. Let us know what you hear; OK?
I am hopeful that, as more people become aware of their egregious doctrinal errors, GES will continue to lose membership, financial support and influence. It is likely we will always have the GES around, but as long as it is widely known, recognized and isolated as the home and prime instigator of the heretical Crossless gospel I am comfortable with whatever is left of it.
You mentioned GES is putting out newsletters and journals. In a few days, up to two weeks out, I will be posting one reader's reaction to one of the articles in the latest Grace of Focus journal.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteThis thread has strayed somewhat off topic, but I believe the conversation is helpful, so far.
I do want to mention however, that while Dr. Hixson’s footnote is not a treatise on the Crossless gospel, his remarks remove any doubt that there is a doctrinal divide in the Free Grace (FG) community. The cause and reason for the fracture is the GES’s introduction of the Crossless gospel into FG circles.
Calls for unity at the expense of holding hands with the originators and advocates of the Crossless/Deityless gospel can only be heeded if one is willing to reject the biblical mandates that forbid fellowship with known and vital error.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteA study in "group dynamics" will be helpful here.
We are experiencing disputes in a complex issue in which there are many factions. I think it makes sense that as the subject matter is more important, the greater the desire to be correct, the more at stake, the greater the impact on the world.
Decisions ought best to be owned by the whole.
Where there are problems with a social dynamic, it is clear that any one faction relies on other factions for help to accomplish their mission; they are not fully independent. What decisions one faction makes, affects another because they are interdependent. Solving issues, therefore, cannot be done independently.
It is always true that stakeholders possess a wide range of understandings and perceptions of a problem. If a consensus can be built, that variety can be complimentary to achieving the mission instead of disintegrating.
In my mind I sense as you are reading this you are thinking, "no no no," because you have scriptures such as "mark and avoid" and so forth. But I should take the time and build a magnificent doctrine presentation for me and others, using scripture, which command us on how we act and what we say. I have already seen self-restraint in your personality, and I appreciate your heart to glorify God, but consider again:
"A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly." prov 12:23
Consensus has been reached when the minimum agreeable point has been confirmed as being able to live with by all those with interest.
For that reason I hope that somebody with a name would submit an amendment to the FGA preamble on point... #3? The one which declares what gospel is.
The consequences if a consensus is not attempted? Those who think they are following the LORD's will are not being received as such. It didn't take long for me to come across a LT individual who reads the publications of intra-FG writers not at all to make conclusions on what the Word says but wholly to make conclusions on whether or not the FG distinction from evangelical Christianity is wise.
The two posts describing Hixson's new book make me pleased with his approach. He has the free grace movement in mind. He certainly has the gospel "marked" as "having gone too far," which is sufficient, and clear. But it's not the title of his book like it is in this post, and it's not the title of a chapter, even; in 400 pages it gets a footnote. He made it clear what his opinion is, because he loves the truth as all of us do. Yet he must be aware, that there are others who think differently and that, how we are received to the world around us has everything to do with whether or not we will accomplish anything. I mean, it does. Both inside the group and outside, in all of these ministries. How we are received speaks more than our words -- what is the statistic? 7% words, 33% tone, 60% body language?
"Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold is a wise man's rebuke to a listening ear." prov 25:12
I think Hixson did an excellent job handing this sensitive matter.
That is my opinion, to this point.
Thanks, Michele
Michele:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate what you are sharing in your posts above.
Just a few thoughts in reply.
1) From the Scriptures the Crossless gospel of the GES has been shown to be a reductionist interpretation of the Gospel. It is antithetical to the plain teaching of the New Testament. The GES extremists go to the Bible with the Hodges’ presuppositions and either force into or extract from the Bible whatever new twist of interpretation to force the Scriptures into conformity with Hodges. They first, misinterpret and abuse John’s Gospel, then they give their new interpretation of John’s Gospel the preeminence over everything else on the Gospel found in the balance of the NT.
2) There is only one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are not two, or three ways to say the same thing. Lordship Salvation (LS) errs by addition; the Crossless/Deityless gospel (CG) errs by subtraction. Both views are a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Both are false, non-saving messages. Both views have been fully explained by their lead apologists: MacArthur for LS, with Hodges for the CG.
3) You wrote, “Consensus has been reached when the minimum agreeable point has been confirmed as being able to live with by all those with interest.”
I appreciate your discussion of consensus building, but I would like to make a few remarks about that.
If you are suggesting that a consensus should be sought so that there can be a cooperative effort with the advocates of the CG- that would be a rejection of the biblical mandates (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10-11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) that forbid such fellowships.
There are individuals in and around the debate over the CG that prefers unity at the expense of truth. That is one of the earmarks of New Evangelicalism, which seeks unity even with apostate denominations. As I have written elsewhere: Unity at the Price of Truth is Treason!
Unless and/or until the teachers of these twin heresies repent and return to an orthodox position on the Scriptures there is only one consensus that can be reached: separation from the teachers of these known and vital errors.
Finally, you wrote, “…I hope that somebody with a name would submit an amendment to the FGA preamble on point... #3? The one which declares what gospel is.”
That may very well be in the works and I encourage it. An article from the current leadership of the FGA clarifying #3 would be enough to settle what the "obvious meaning" of the Covenant is. Nevertheless, there is an “obvious meaning” to the FGA’s Covenant, especially when you read #2 & #3 in succession. I demonstrate this in an article titled, Free Grace Alliance Membership. Dr. Fred Lybrand (VP of the FGA) is cited in the article and participated in the thread.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
LM
*Note to All: It is imperative for those of you who are new to these discussions to refer back to archived articles that I link to from any new article and/or thread comments such as this one. I link to these because they answer many of the questions you might have and shed light on the debate. I encourage you and those who have been engaged for a while to go back and read the links. You will find them very beneficial.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteAs for me, forgive me for not being diligent to read into the history you've been providing, it's not for a lack of desire, these are the things I've been requesting. I need more time.
I still think there is room here for thinking about approach.
I'll try and apply some basic reasoning.
How far do you think anyone is going to get by starting off a conversation walking up to someone saying,
"Hello--you're a heretic."
There's gotta be a better way.
I hung out with LDS and the first things I told them, when I first came on the scene, was, "Hello--you're going to hell," and "You are a cult," and "You are actually working for Satan."
While all those things might be true, I wasn't being heard! You are obligated by your conscience to obey God and mark this gospel. Okay. But in a social setting, if you wanna make any kind of difference, you gotta start with a different opening liner.
For every individual you come across who takes a particular approach in the scriptures, there are countless numbers of others that knowingly or unknowingly, they represent. You are not dealing with just two teachers, but of a whole theological grouping. Do you want to lose an opportunity to correct these teachings? For the sake of the little guy, who follows people first and scripture second? Then you must take care in how you treat them, by sharing some kinds of more difficult material secondarily to the most important thing you can say, which is something along the lines of what the gospel means to you, and how faithful God is to meet our needs, and how much he cares for each one of us to know the truth.
This is a huge problem in larger evangelical Christianity: they take whatever scriptures they might be justified to have, regarding social separation and rebuking, and have a hay-day.
But it makes no sense to love the Word of God more than finding ways to connect with others. The two are equally necessary to illuminate truth.
My two cents, sorry, I wish I had been more humble here, but I did not prepare like I should have.
Michele
Michele:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “How far do you think anyone is going to get by starting off a conversation walking up to someone saying, ‘Hello--you're a heretic’. There’s gotta be a better way.”
If any one had started out dealing with the Crossless gospel advocates that way it would have been a problem. However, there have been attempts to deal with the advocates of the Crossless long before I came on the scene.
More recently, Stephen (KnetKnight) and Rachel interacted directly with Wilkin for several weeks after he left spoke at and left a wake of doctrinal controversy at their church. There efforts failed to reach any other conclusion than that Wilkin holds to a reductionist, heretical view of what the lost can be ignorant of and according to Wilkin still be born again.
In the last two years there have been some public, some private attempts to resolve and/or bring closure to the issue, but the Crossless advocates have been unwilling to meet for an open discussion.
As I noted earlier Wilkin immediately lost his zeal for an open debate that he (Wilkin) had for months been calling for, when his challenge was accepted by Ron Shea, who is highly qualified as both a theologian and experienced debater.
At last year's FGA National Conferecne there was a panel discussion, and while it was some what helpful, the crux of the doctrinal controversy was not honed in on, and nothing was settled. You might to read these reviews by Dennis Rokser & Tom Stegall.
Last Fall the FGA proposed a private academic forum for 5 men on both sides to meet and discuss the issue. Several men who reject the Crossless were eager to meet, but no one from the GES side would agree to meet. Hodges, Wilkin, Stephen Lewis and Jim Johnson from the Crossless side were invited. Hodges and Wilkin declined immediately. Lewis and Johnson said they needed time to study and pray, which almost everyone knew was a facade. It was quite obvious, and was born out to be the case, that they had no intention of ever agreeing to an open discussion of the doctrinal controversy. Subsequently, Jim Johnson was discovered to have committed plagiarism on a scale probably never seen in theological circles. He, by his act of plagiarism and combative response to having been caught, has effectively disgraced and dishonored himself; therefore, he removed himself from any further relevancy. BTW, he is shutting down his blog, which is the only choice he has, because as long as he leave sit up, traces of (the parts he has not deleted) his massive plagiarism is available for any one to view. You can view the report and examples of Johnson’s Plagiarism at that link.
All attempts to recover Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES men have thus far failed. That does not mean we will not continue to pray for their recovery, but as long as they will not listen and/or are combative, there is little chance for their recovery.
LM
Wow.
ReplyDeleteThe way in which you share these accounts gives me greater confidence that there has been effort made of the kind anyone could be proud of.
Though... there is always two sides, and I haven't heard the other yet. I wonder if there is a good reason why they do and say what they have. I can only guess what is going on for them. Meanwhile I know that whatever someone else does that isn't the very best, I have probably done it myself at some point. Somehow, we need to find a way to encourage them, and lead them to a place where they feel free in our presence to challenge themselves to improve. We all share the LORD of second chances.
I can remember when I've made a choice and made myself a fool. Satan wanted me to believe I was finished. But because of the cross, I had unrestrained high expectations! God is incredibly good, isn't He?
Lou, thanks for putting up with my probing.
Michele
Michele:
ReplyDeleteGlad you are finding these notes beneficial.
LM
JP, I have gone over the post regarding dispensations taken from the DTS doctrinal statement. As I was going over the points in some detail, I think I began to get a little to deep. I don't really want to get into a long discussion of dispensational theology and how that impacts our soteriology. Also, I don't intend to have people here attempt to defend the DTS doctrinal statement. That is a rabbit trail we don't need to go down.
ReplyDeleteThat path is too broad. For now, I simply am trying to find out what the saving message was before this present dispensation. I hope that idea is clear and simple enough. Particularly of interest, due to the terminology often used in the current controversy, is the question of whether the previous saving message was crossless?
Also, since there are apparently more than two dispensations by most reckonings, are there possibly more than two saving messages? (depending upon the dispensation)
from LM:"I appreciate and will respect your view of the debate, but there were issues behind scenes you are unaware of, that if you were you might not hold the same view."
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that things occurred of which I was unaware. I was simply an anonymous reader of various sites with absolutely no inside knowledge. I was able to see some things though which did not remain public for long. Considering what I did see and what was posted, the issue of focus stood out.
As for the shrinkage of GES, what of any substance can be said of that? Size makes no difference in regards to the truth or falsity of the doctrines GES promotes. Refining improves purity and if people leave due to differences in Bible-derived doctrine, I suspect we would all think that is a good thing. The dissolution of superficial alliances is to be applauded.
If the GES shrank so much that it was no longer self-sustaining and closed up shop, it would be illogical to conclude that the closure occurred because what they taught was incorrect. Such thinking is fallacious. Number of adherents is not an accurate determinant of faithfulness.
I would like to thank you and your guests for the very civil discussions going on in this thread.
Looker:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your input in the thread.
As for your comments on the GES losing membership, venues and financial support I have a few thoughts to share. I will reply to several of your comments in successive posts.
Just curious: Did you check the GES web page that shows NO regional conferences for 2008?
LM
Looker:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “ Refining improves purity…” Crossless advocates like to refer to their view as “Refined FG Theology.”
Refining, such as with gold, is to eliminate impurities, and Hodges has determined that belief in the death, resurrection and deity of Christ are impurities that must be refined/eliminated from the saving content. In this case the Gospel has not been purified it has been stripped and neutered of its saving content.
Their use of “Refined” also shows the absurdity of their “consistent” label, because they have consistently refined their views.
Stephen (KnetKnight) has aptly titled their view as “REDEFINED FG Theology.”
LM
You wrote, “If the GES shrank so much that it was no longer self-sustaining and closed up shop…”
ReplyDeleteIt is my hope and prayer that GES will one day cease to exist. That would go a long way to protecting any more unsuspecting believers from being deceived by the egregious errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.
Their efforts to refute Lordship Salvation have been negated by their slide in gross heresy. We have done a great deal to let many outside the FG camp know that the GES is a cell of theological extremists, that no longer speaks for or represents the FG community at large.
Even if GES can remain viable in some limited form, which I expect, their views have been fully exposed, thoroughly refuted from the Scriptures and a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity have been alerted to their heretical views. This will make it very difficult for GES to enjoy much new success in spreading their views outside the churches and/or fellowships they have already infected with their egregious errors.
LM
Looker:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “As for the shrinkage of GES, what of any substance can be said of that? Size makes no difference in regards to the truth or falsity of the doctrines GES promotes.”
The “truth or falsity” of the GES Crossless/Deityless Gospel has been irrefutably settled through various articles and reviews over the past two years. It is a false, reductionist view that is a blight and open sore on evangelical community.
The current series by Pastor Rokser The Issue of Incongruity definitely nails the coffin shut on the issue. The Crossless gospel is non-saving, reduction view that is wholly antithetical to the Scriptures which they twist and reinvent to arrive at and hold the teachings of Zane Hodges together.
LM
Looker:
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate your interaction in this thread, and the gracious tone. I believe you have posted in previous threads.
I expect civility from all my guests and provide the same tones to my guests. We can say difficult things charitably.
I do not want my blog to exhibit the kind of vitriol and ethical lapses that dominate some pro-Crossless gospel blogs.
Thanks again for you comments. Feel free to visit and comment in any thread at your convenience.
LM
Looker,
ReplyDeleteI'm not JP (obviously), but I hope you don't mind me sharing some of my answers to your questions - keeping in mind of course that JP may or may not agree with me.
You asked,
Particularly of interest, due to the terminology often used in the current controversy, is the question of whether the previous saving message was crossless?
In a word, yes. The reason for this is because the cross hadn't actually happened yet. Non-dispensationalists would probably answer "no" to your question, but that's not me (at least, not at the moment :-) ). W/o going too far down the road of discussing dispensationalism itself, there doesn't seem to be much (if any) evidence that the OT saints were told about the cross and rez. And it does seem evident that there were at least some aspects of God's future plan(s) that were kept a mystery from OT saints. So I do not find it problematic to say that the saving message was "crossless" before the cross actually happened. I do find it problematic to try to prove that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, etc. as well as ALL "saved" (if you will) OT saints knew and understood the cross and rez just as we do today, or even at all.
It seems to me that even the "crossless" advocates agree that at least one thing has changed since OT times. I have yet to see a CG say that OT people were required to believe in Jesus before Jesus was alive. I think they would agree that OT saints were required to believe that God alone could/would grant believers eternal life, or perhaps that God would send a Messiah through whom believers could receive eternal life. But I don't think any of them has said (yet) that OT saints were required to know the name of Jesus and believe in him specifically (although I'm open to correction - Antonio once said something about OT saints being required to believe in a Messiah, just like we do today, which seemed to leave the door open for people today to deny that Jesus is the Messiah while still being born again - I questioned him on that and he never responded). So it would seem that even CG advocates would say that the saving message is different today than it was in the OT, in at least one way. Thus, the issue is not "is the saving message different", but "in what way is the saving message different".
Alvin, a CGer and a frequent commenter on pro-CG blogs, made a statement at one of their blogs recently that I actually agree with for the most part. (shock! ;-) ) He said, "I believe the big crux of the problem is that these ones who are making the most noise over this don't believe that ALL sin has been taken care of. Thus they MUST get the cross in there, or your sin still seperates you from God. Zane just as you and I know that sin is no longer a barrier because the Lamb of God took it all away! The real issue is life! And that's where the Christ, the same content that the disciples believed MUST be believed. And that is summed up in 'simply believing Jesus for eternal life.'"
I agree with Alvin that this is a major turning point for this whole issue. If sin still separates the lost from God, it just makes sense that the lost would need to know about, understand, and accept the specific payment (now that it's actually been paid) for their sins in order for them to be forgiven and eternal life received. However, CGers claim that the lost are essentially "neutral" when it comes to sin. They say that all sin of every person was actually paid for at the cross, whether one believes in Jesus or is a total atheist - that all the people (believers AND unbelievers) no longer have any sin in their account, it's all been actually taken away. Yet, they say that people (for some reason) still don't have eternal life, despite not having any sin, therefore they need to believe in Jesus for that life. I can actually see that position. If you (general "you") think that all the lost need is eternal life, then why would they need to know about the cross and rez? According to such a view, the only problem is lack of eternal life, thus the only thing that is needed is a reception of eternal life.
However, my view is that the lost are "condemned already" and are still in their sins. Thus, it makes no sense to say that a person could be justified/forgiven of their sins while still being unaware of, or outright rejecting, the specific payment for their sins. I see it as all connected. We lack eternal life because our sins separate us from God. When we believe "the gospel", we acknowledge that our sin separates us from God, and accept the payment made on our behalf by Jesus. When we do this, we are granted eternal life. It's all part of the package.
So while I would say that before the cross, the saving message was indeed "crossless", I do think that the other components were there (besides the name of Jesus). I think that people needed to acknowledge that their sin separated them from God (this was strongly evident to the OT saints from the sacrificial system), that they were helpless to remedy the situation on their own, and that God would provide a way (divine Messiah) for them to be eternally reconciled to him.
Beyond that saving message and the more precise saving message that we have today (now that the events have actually happened), I cannot say for sure if there were any other saving messages. It seems to me that Adam realized his own sin, that it separated him from God, that he was helpless to do anything about it on his own, and that God would provide a way to be eternally reconciled to himself. So if the first man understood those things, then I would say that probably everyone since then was expected to at least know those things. This is the first time I've seen someone ask such a question, so I may not have thought everything through. :-) But for now I would say there has always been one saving message which has gotten more specific as time has gone on, more revelation has been given, and the actual events of the saving message have taken place.
I hope that this has made sense and I haven't rambled too much. :-)
Looker,
ReplyDeleteOne other thing, you said,
If the GES shrank so much that it was no longer self-sustaining and closed up shop, it would be illogical to conclude that the closure occurred because what they taught was incorrect.
You are right, but I don't think that's what Lou was trying to say. Lou can speak for himself, of course, but it seemed to me that he was simply noting that the influence of the GES has waned signficantly recently, and he is backing that assertion up with evidence of declining membership numbers, lack of conferences, etc. I believe he is simply saying that he wants their influence to be as reduced as possible because he thinks they are seriously wrong; not that their declining influence proves that they are seriously wrong. Does that make sense?
Rachel:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the extended note to Looker above.
You wrote, “I believe he (Lou) is simply saying that he wants their influence to be as reduced as possible because he thinks they are seriously wrong; not that their declining influence proves that they are seriously wrong.”
That is accurate, but I will add one thought: The decline in membership demonstrates that there are a significant number of folks who believe the GES is “seriously wrong.” Wrong enough to separate from the GES over it.
BTW, published GES financials show that it is running at a loss. Furthermore, their published list of FG churches is also in steady decline.
LM
Just wanted to say that I ordered a copy from Amazon.com a couple days ago -- expect it in the mail any day now. I'm good at ordering books, not so good at stepping away from the computer long enough to actually read them -- would appreciate some accountability on this.
ReplyDeleteHi Stephen:
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to receiving my copy. I'll put you on a time line for reading, just don't beat me to it.
Lou