November 23, 2009

Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel: “Joined at the Hip.

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

There are two assaults on the Gospel that are of particular interest here at Lou’s blog. They are Lordship Salvation1 and the newer “Crossless Gospel,”2 also known as the Promise Only gospel. While the two are often seen as polar opposites, Tim V. P. has noticed an interesting similarity between them. Lou has asked me to introduce Tim’s article because I have noticed and commented in past months on this similarity. The connection is- they BOTH fail to bring the sinner directly to the cross of Christ for salvation.

Tim posted a very articulate comment outlining this connection. In fact, I felt Tim had articulated the matter so well that I asked Lou if he would approach Tim about posting his comment on the blog as an article. Lou felt the same way I did and Tim was agreeable to the suggestion; thanks Tim! So without any further ado, here is Tim’s (updated) very important article. *Jan Hawthorne

Its been some time since I have commented, but this article (The Gospel of the Christ: The Dilemma of Muslim Evangelism) focused my attention on something that has been brewing in the back of my mind for some time as I have followed the Lordship Salvation (LS) and Crossless Gospel (CG) issues.

While they appear to be opposite sides of the same coin, it seems to me that they are joined at the hip at the point of opposition to faith in the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ as the necessary first step for the sinner in receiving salvation. Both LS and CG advocates say in their own way that a birth relationship with God can be established apart from the cross of Christ, apart from the necessity of the death of Christ on the cross as the only point of contact between an absolutely holy God and the spiritually dead sinner (Jn.12:24; Eph.2:1,5 etc.)

An LS advocate would put a sinner’s surrender and total “commitment to Christ as Lord” ahead of trusting His work of dying on the cross for his very own sins/sinful self. This is a position very much like that of the crowd in the New Testament (NT) who “believed in Him” because they were convinced of His Lordship powers, or that of “total surrender” to His Lordship rule during His Millennial reign by those born naturally in that time. In both cases, such “surrender/commitment” is exposed as an inadequate basis for eternal salvation just as soon as Satan’s power is unleashed.

Crossless Gospel proponents, on the other hand, deny the cross by asserting that bare belief in an undefined person called “Jesus” is enough to save apart from any accurate understanding of His person or work. No misconception, faulty belief or even a complete lack of belief concerning His substitutionary death on the cross is deemed as standing in the way of eternal life. LS and CG are probably far apart on many things, but in this subtle (in the case of LS) and blatant denial of the necessity of the cross as to first point of contact between God and the sinner, they seem to be in complete agreement. All true order is God’s order and Gospel truths put forth out of His order constitutes a faulty witness at best. When these truths are completely set aside as unnecessary the witness is not faulty, but false.

In view of the prominence and centrality of the cross of Christ in the Bible as a whole and the NT in particular, it is hard to accept or believe that those who tenaciously hold to either view (LS or CG) can be accepted as sincere in their service for the One Who died there and rose again out of that death.

*Jan is author of the two part series titled, If Anyone Eats of This Bread…

1)
Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

2)
The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

Editor’s Note:
This morning I received one note of concern from a friend in regard to this (guest written) article. What follows is an edited version of my personal reply, which I want to make available for consideration by all.


I posted this article on behalf of those who believe there is a similarity on this one point between Lordship Salvation (LS) and the Crossless Gospel (CG) in regard to the cross of Christ as they expressed it. I felt it worthwhile to post for consideration by all. 

The thread is open for any who want to challenge what this article alleges. Any legitimate concerns will be posted in this thread.

Most people in these discussions understand one another in that there is a vast chasm between LS and the CG on the necessity of belief in the Lord’s deity, resurrection and what He did to provide salvation on the cross. I do understand the frustration some may have with this paragraph (bold especially) with it suggesting LS men are opposed “faith in the cross work” of Christ.
While they appear to be opposite sides of the same coin, it seems to me that they are joined at the hip at the point of opposition to faith in the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ as the necessary first step for the sinner in receiving salvation. Both LS and CG advocates say in their own way that a birth relationship with God can be established apart from the cross of Christ, apart from the necessity of the death of Christ on the cross as the only point of contact between an absolutely holy God and the spiritually dead sinner…
Maybe I should reiterate that my chief concern in the Gospel discussions is over justification. The post-conversion experience in sanctification is an important discussion, but that is not where my main concern lies. I believe there should be genuine results following a genuine conversion. However, I do believe it is legitimate for some to question whether LS men present the cross as the central and primary theme in their evangelism.

In virtually every LS message I’ve been exposed to, the primary message to the lost (in various ways) is their being called upon for a commitment to do the “good works” foreordained for a Christian to become a Christian, i.e., to be born again.

The cross may be in a LS man’s evangelistic appeal, but in my experience belief in the cross work of Christ frequently becomes an underlying theme, losing its centrality to themes of cross-bearing, following and commitment as co-conditions for salvation that are inherent in LS evangelism. I have been in and/or heard services where LS was preached and belief in the cross FOR salvation was NEVER mentioned. Those are some examples of why I often refer to LS as “man-centered.”

What I would like is to have is an overwhelming amount of examples in which LS men like John MacArthur preaches the necessity of belief in what Jesus did on the cross at the central theme of the saving message. I want to read where LS men condition justification on acceptance of and belief in the cross work of Christ, apart from the lost man’s commitment to do the foreordained “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a Christian. 

I would like examples of MacArthur preaching the cross and the necessity of belief in the cross for justification apart from a “wholehearted-commitment” to discipleship?

If it can be shown that JMac and the better-known LS men consistently preach the necessity of a lost man’s acceptance of and believing in the cross work of Christ as the central theme and focal point of the saving message and that he (the lost man) can be saved based on that belief (deity and resurrection being givens) apart from a personal commitment to do the works of a disciple then I’d be happy to post those examples in this thread.


LM

7 comments:

  1. It is interesting that both systems take the focus off of what Christ did and put it onto what the person must do.

    Isn't that the definition of being "man centred" ?

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To All:

    I asked several friends in the ministry for their take on the theme of this article. This is one of those reactions.

    I thought the article made some good points. The comparison seemed valid to me.”

    Another man wrote an extended reaction, which was...


    I read the article and your addendum and prayed about my response.

    In my opinion it is unfair and a misrepresentation to make the comparison. LS and the CG are not “Joined at the hip” or “opposite sides of the same coin” as Tim suggests. They are two distinct errors and should be kept separate, so as to not confuse the dividing lines of both errors. 1 Cor. 14:40; Matt. 7:15-20

    Please note that a similarity does not necessarily equate them as being the same thing. Let the truth be stated about the error of both false teachings, but don’t try to lump them together! Gal. 1:6-9; 2:5

    I would also question Tim’s closing statement about the sincerity of those in the LS or CG camp. Personally, I think that many of them are sincere. Howbeit they are sincerely wrong! Gal. 5:9

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Lou,

    LS and CG are not the same doctrine, they don't look the same but they actually are the same thing - man preaching his own way.

    As for discussing the sincerity of people, I know this won't be a popular sentiment but I'm convinced it's a proper one:

    We dare not be afraid to offend those who promote heresy.

    The Bible is available to these people to. Aside from the influence of charismatic false teachers there is no reason why individuals should be entrenched in fallacy.

    Paul didn't worry about questioning Peter's sincerity while correcting him. I might even assume that Paul's respect for Peter allowed him to be blunt and very public with the man.

    If we baby people who are in terrible error then that is OUR fault, and we will be responsible for encouraging them.

    Further, I wonder how the Lord feels about us worrying about their feelings and impressions above His.

    Where truth is revealed we dare not mess with it.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Kev:

    I do appreciate your for passion for the defense of the Gospel. I do my best to avoid giving personal offense in my defense of truth against these twin assaults on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    I do not hesitate to name those who promote these errors, which is consistent with the biblical examples. I am determined to do what I can to not just expose and refute the errors of Lordship Salvation (LS) and the Crossless Gospel (CG), but to also make sure the NT church knows who the prime instigators of these assaults on the Gospel are so that they might be avoided (Rom. 16:17-18).

    I do not hesitate to identify men like John MacArthur, John Piper and Steve Lawson as advocates of Lordship Salvation’s works based, man-centered message.

    I do not hesitate to identify men like the late Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society membership as the prime instigators of the reductionist heresy known as the “Crossless,” Promise-ONLY Gospel.

    In my 20 years of dealing with LS at the first, and the CG in recent years, this has NEVER been and never will be a personality or popularity contest for me. I do my best to treat men with respect where I can. I avoid the frothy rhetoric and vitriol that so often accompanies these debates.

    I will not, however, hesitate to identify the prime instigators of any assault on the Gospel (including Rick Warren, FWIW) as teachers of a false, non-saving message because that is what both LS and the CG are.

    Thanks for stopping by.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lou you noted

    If it can be shown that JMac and the better-known LS men consistently preach the necessity of a lost man’s acceptance of and believing in the cross work of Christ as the central theme and focal point of the saving message and that he (the lost man) can be saved based on that belief (deity and resurrection being givens) apart from a personal commitment to do the works of a disciple then I’d be happy to post those examples in this thread.

    If such could be done then I don't think there would be a theological issue between us and these men at all. However, stating these things would invalidate the core teachings that these men have held to for decades.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kev:

    Good pick-up and commentary on that. I worded my comment above that way because the LS men cannot produce examples of such faith alone evangelistic preaching.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete