Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel, Part 2

Earlier we began this series with the Introduction and Part One by Pastor Tom Stegall. If you missed this initial article please follow the links back and then return to this second and final installment.

Rene Lopez and his Scripture Unlocked Ministries represents another recent case of how crossless gospel leaders are continuing undeterred and unrepentant in their error. In the Spring 2010 edition of the publication, Scripture Unlocked, Lopez has an article titled, “The Use and Abuse of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.” In it he concludes, just like Bob Wilkin, GES, and Zane Hodges before him, that the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Christ in the gospel are not necessary to believe for eternal life.1 We are told that using 1 Corinthians 15 evangelistically to show what God requires the lost to believe is actually an “abuse” of this classic passage. Lopez, Wilkin, and other proponents of the promise-only view are continuing to perpetuate the lie that the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is only necessary for the Christian to believe for progressive sanctification.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, Lopez also falsely dichotomizes the gospel from the saving message of eternal life saying,

“Although this passage may be used to help persuade unbelievers that Christ rose physically (if that’s a barrier that prevents them to believe in Him for eternal life), it is wrong to assert that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15:1-11 with that intent or to evangelize the lost.” (Lopez, p.4, endnote 4).

Lopez concludes, “Thus, let’s not override Paul’s intent for writing 1 Cor 15:1-11 by abusing a passage meant for sanctification to evangelize the lost.” (Lopez, pg.4)

But this presents a false antithesis for 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. While Lopez correctly explains that this passage was originally written to challenge the Corinthian believers who were subtly shifting on the gospel and that this was negatively affecting their sanctification, this does not preclude the fact that this passage also sets forth the required contents of saving faith or “the saving message.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul recounts the evangelism message that he initially preached to the Corinthians when they first became believers and were eternally saved. Now as believers, the Corinthians were to continue in that very same gospel that they initially heard from Paul when they were unbelievers. A failure to continue in this one message would negatively impact their progressive sanctification. Conversely, by holding fast to this gospel they would be “saved” (15:2) in the sense of progressive sanctification from the damaging effects of sin and false teaching in their Christian lives. Hence, the one and only gospel/saving message is necessary to believe both for eternal salvation (justification and glorification) and for present salvation (sanctification).

There is nothing too difficult about this interpretation. It does not require a seminary education to grasp. Lopez is a highly educated Bible-teacher and yet he conspicuously ignores this interpretative possibility and provides no explanation for why it must be incorrect. He simply frames the issue in such a way as to omit any discussion of this correct interpretation while incredibly pronouncing the evangelistic use of this passage to be “abuse.”2

The tragedy of the crossless gospel continues in our day as the leading promoters of this new doctrine remain unrepentant and undeterred in their errors.

The recent articles of Wilkin and Lopez ought to shock slumbering believers within the Free Grace community right out of their spiritual stupor.

Imagine if the Grace Evangelical Society had begun in the 1980’s by openly touting its current teaching that the lost do not need to believe the gospel to go to heaven and that using 1 Corinthians 15 to set forth necessary evangelistic content is an “abuse” of this passage. If such were the case, the GES would have never survived its infancy.

Such blatantly false teaching would have immediately been identified by Free Grace believers as obvious and repugnant error.

But the leaven and gangrene of this false doctrine have had their permeating effect over time. Today, there are still too many GES loyalists who have grown accustomed to hearing the error of the crossless gospel and are now comfortable with it. It has become tolerable to some and even barely detectable to others. This is normally how false doctrine works. It is like entering a barn; initially the odor overwhelms you. But as any farmer knows, the longer you stay in that barn the more tolerable the smell becomes, until eventually it seems normal.

The Free Grace movement today needs to “be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain” (Rev. 3:2). We must continue to pray for the Lord in His infinite mercy to open the eyes of those who are still blind to this destructive doctrine. And in the meantime, we must personally hold fast to the gospel ourselves lest we be led astray (1 Cor. 15:2). We must remain vigilant and discerning and be like the Bereans of old (Acts 17:11) who closely examined what was being taught by comparing it to the only objective, infallible, and authoritative standard of truth—the Word of God.

Our loyalty must be first of all with the Lord Jesus Christ and the truth of His Word, not any man, organization, or movement.

Pastor Tom Stegall

1) See Zane C. Hodges, “The Hydra’s New Head: Theological Legalism,” Grace in Focus 23 (September/October 2008), 2-3. In this last article that Hodges ever published, he makes it perfectly clear that the one who insists that 1 Cor. 15 requires the cross and resurrection for saving faith is a “legalist” and that such a view is “theological legalism.” The followers of Hodges’s interpretation of 1 Cor. 15, such as Lopez and Wilkin, have neither corrected his error nor distanced themselves from it but are actually still perpetuating it.

2) 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is such a definitive and highly debated passage on the required contents of saving faith that it merits the most extensive treatment of any one passage in my book. See The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 479-589.

Pastor Tom Stegall is author of The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith

Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1

In the interests of remaining vigilant regarding the truth of the gospel, the following report is issued. It is grieving, and yet absolutely necessary, to provide an update about the crossless, promise-only gospel. Despite the sincere prayers and efforts of many Free Grace believers over the last few years, there are presently no signs that the leading promoters of this view have any intention of repenting of this false doctrine. They appear resolved to forge ahead.

A few recent cases in point bear this out. For example, the leading organization promoting the crossless view today, the Grace Evangelical Society, is still in denial about its error. It is continuing to defend and justify its position rather than repent of it. The recently concluded national GES conference in Fort Worth, TX, April 19-22, sponsored a session taught by Don Reiher titled, “25 Reasons Why GES Is Not Promoting a Crossless Gospel.”1

In addition, in the March-April edition of the GES publication, Grace in Focus, executive director Bob Wilkin has an article titled, “Five Current Confusions Concerning the Gospel.” While the article by Wilkin contains many gross distortions and confusions of the truth that would merit a much lengthier review, I would like to call attention to the article’s main point and its most egregious error. In the article,

Wilkin unequivocally concludes that the lost do not have to believe the gospel to be born again; they simply need to believe in the supposedly crossless, promise-only “saving message.”

Yes, you read that correctly! The very organization that has “Evangelical” as its middle name is now unashamedly avowing that the evangel is not necessary to believe in order to go to heaven!

It is being taught that “the gospel” is a very broad message about any and all good news related to Jesus Christ. This is consistent with Wilkin’s declaration two years ago at the national GES conference that,

“In one sense everything from creation to the New Earth is part of the good news.”2

Based on such a sweeping definition of “the gospel,” it would be utterly legalistic, they reason, to require the lost to believe the entire gospel in order to go to heaven. This unbiblical rationale explains why the cross-work of Christ and His resurrection can be dispensed with as essential elements in the contents of saving faith.

Based on the March-April issue of Grace in Focus, here is Wilkin’s own redefinition of the gospel and his false dichotomy between the gospel and the so-called “saving message”:

“In popular usage, however, the word gospel is understood as what a person must believe to be born again. While there is some biblical evidence that the term gospel does include that message (cf. Gal 2:14-16), that is not the way the term is normally used in the N.T. In recent years I’ve tried to use the expression the gospel to refer to the good news concerning Jesus Christ, His birth, death, burial, appearances, ascension, resurrection, and return. And I’ve tried to use the expression the saving message to refer to what one must believe to be born again.” (Wilkin, pg.1)

“Nowhere in the entire Bible are we told that the person who believes the gospel has everlasting life, is saved, is justified, will never die spiritually, or anything of the kind.” (Wilkin, pg.2)

“The gospel should lead people to faith in Christ. But believing the gospel is not the same as believing in Jesus Christ.” (Wilkin, pg.2)

It is evident that Wilkin’s rending of “the saving message” from “the gospel” cannot be correct since the Bible nowhere speaks Wilkin’s language. Where does the Word of God draw a distinction between “the saving message” and “the gospel?” Such a division is foreign to Scripture.

It is theologically contrived and not exegetically derived.

Many passages in the New Testament use the term “gospel” as the equivalent of God’s saving message. For example, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 is quite clear that those who do not “obey the gospel” (1:8) by believing it (1:10) will suffer “everlasting destruction” (1:9). The gospel that the Thessalonian believers initially heard from Paul for their eternal life was the same message as the one recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. This was a message of faith in Christ’s substitutionary death for sin and His bodily resurrection from the dead, which were “according to the Scriptures.” In Acts 17:2-3 we are given the content of Paul’s evangelism to the Thessalonians. It is stated that he “reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead.” The Thessalonians were born again when they became “persuaded” (Acts 17:4) about this message of Jesus being “the Christ.”3

This simple comparison of 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 with Acts 17:1-5 is just one of many scriptural evidences that sufficiently demonstrates that believing the gospel is synonymous with believing that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31). There is no dichotomy in the Word of God between believing in the person of Christ and believing in the gospel message, as if the former is the saving message but the latter is not. It is a tragedy that such a false, unbiblical distinction has evolved within the Free Grace movement.


Continued in Part Two of this series.

1) For abundant evidence showing clearly that the GES does promote a “crossless gospel,” see the chapter titled “Is the New Gospel Truly Crossless?” in Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), 99-128.

2) Bob Wilkin, “Gospel Means Good News,” paper delivered at the GES national conference, Fort Worth, TX, March 6, 2008, p. 8.

3) For further exegesis and exposition of this passage and the content of the Thessalonian’s faith, see The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 381-94.


Pastor Tom Stegall is author of The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith

Please refer back to Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel, Introduction for prior and additional commentary on the GES Crossless gospel.

The Gospel of the Christ: The Language of Accommodation or Correction?

Earlier this month I had the privilege of introducing the new book by Pastor Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith.

In Tom Stegall’s introduction of his book he noted:

“My objective in writing the book was to provide a biblical response to the controversy within the Free Grace community over the subject of the ‘crossless gospel’ and the contents of saving faith. Part I of the book lays the groundwork by introducing the problem of the crossless/promise-only/Grace Evangelical Society (GES) gospel and its associated doctrines. The remainder of the book still interacts with the new GES theology but it is primarily an exegetical synthesis of dozens of key passages involving the terms ‘gospel’ and ‘Christ’.”

Let’s continue with the powerful series of excerpts from Tom Stegall’s book.

The Language of Accommodation or Correction?

Furthermore, whether (Bob) Wilkin and (Jeremy) Myers would accept it or not, from the Lord’s perspective, the Word of God still uses the term “gospel” to refer to the “saving message” that the lost must believe in order to go to heaven. Simply because Wilkin and Myers no longer view the term “gospel” accurately does not mean that the rest of the Free Grace community must start using language that accommodates their doctrinal error. I have even noticed with some Free Grace people who are not crossless a new reluctance and apprehension to speak of “the gospel” as synonymous with, and equivalent to, the saving message. My fear is that some well-intentioned Grace people may be overly concerned about paying a courtesy to those in grave doctrinal error on the meaning of “the gospel,” rather than showing a greater courtesy and respect to God who equates “the gospel” with the “saving message” in His Word (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17-21; 4:15; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-10). By conceding to the wishes of those who no longer teach that “the gospel” is God’s saving message, are we not subtly accommodating error by adjusting our speech accordingly? Thus, any message that purports to be “saving,” and yet is crossless, must still be regarded as a “crossless gospel” if we wish to continue speaking from a biblical standpoint.

If we concede to drop the term “gospel” from the phrase “crossless gospel,” this will have the effect of legitimizing this false, unbiblical distinction between “the gospel” and “the saving message.” Even if we concede to the wishes of Wilkin and others who share his doctrine by refraining from the use of the phrase “crossless gospel” while still personally and privately maintaining the correct, biblical view, will this not contribute towards the further establishment of unbiblical speech within the Free Grace community? Will this not establish an unbiblical precedent that others will be expected to follow as the distinct impression is given that it is actually wrong or somehow ungracious to portray the false doctrine held by some of our Grace brethren in a negative light?


Please continue to- The Gospel of the Christ: Biblical Terminology for False Teaching

Editor’s Note: The Crossless Gospel was originated by the late Zane Hodges. This is the most egregious form of reductionist soteriology ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own. No one in Christian circles outside the membership and friends of the Grace Evangelical Society (Bob Wilkin, Executive Director) believes in and/or advocates this reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the necessary content of saving faith. For related reading and discussion see these articles.

GES Reductionist Affirmation of Faith

The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

Believing the Gospel: “May Indeed Frustrate God's Grace?”

Zane Hodges: Drifting Far Off the Marker

Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

Free Grace Theology: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know

The Gospel of the Christ: Is the Gospel Still the “Saving Message”?

I have the privilege of introducing the new book by Pastor Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith.

In Tom Stegall’s introduction of his book he noted:

“My objective in writing the book was to provide a biblical response to the controversy within the Free Grace community over the subject of the ‘crossless gospel’ and the contents of saving faith. Part I of the book lays the groundwork by introducing the problem of the crossless/promise-only/Grace Evangelical Society (GES) gospel and its associated doctrines. The remainder of the book still interacts with the new GES theology but it is primarily an exegetical synthesis of dozens of key passages involving the terms ‘gospel’ and ‘Christ’.”

This is our ninth in the series of excerpts from Stegall’s book. The selections I am publishing (with permission) provide a balanced cross section of issues related to the Gospel.

Is the Gospel Still the “Saving Message”?

Grace people on both sides of this issue may raise the objection that the phrase “crossless gospel” is no longer an accurate designation, since in the last year or so, a significant new development has occurred within the crossless camp with respect to the term “gospel.” It should be noted that the “crossless gospel” quotations provided on the preceding pages now need to be amended with a postscript such as this, since at least one major teacher of this view has changed his position on the meaning of the term “gospel.” Approximately 18 months before the publication of this book, Bob Wilkin taught publicly for the first time that the lost do not have to believe “the gospel” to go to heaven. He stated:

What if the word “gospel” doesn’t ever mean the saving message? Now hang with me hear. I gave this same message, but I didn’t say quite this, a little over a month ago in Omaha at a Regional we had there. And what I suggested is that the term “gospel” rarely, if ever, means, “What must I believe to have eternal life? What must I believe to be saved? What must I do to have, to go to heaven, to be sure I’ll be in the kingdom?” But in the intervening time as I’ve been reflecting on it etcetera, I realized that we should go further than saying, “It’s rare that this term refers to the saving message.” I’m now of the opinion it never refers specifically to “What must I believe to have eternal life?”1

Wilkin now teaches that the gospel message of Christ’s substitutionary death for sin and bodily resurrection is not the message that the lost must believe for their regeneration, rather it is only the message that the saved must believe for their on-going sanctification and spiritual growth. On the basis of this new position on the “gospel,” some in the Free Grace community may feel that it would be more appropriate to drop the term “gospel” from the phrase “crossless gospel.” They might object that the designation “crossless gospel” no longer accurately defines Wilkin’s doctrine as he himself articulates it; and so to continue using it would unfairly mischaracterize Wilkin’s own position. However, there are several reasons why such deference to the crossless position is inadvisable.

First, the crossless doctrine on this point is still developing, and it is not certain whether a significant percentage of those in the crossless camp will follow Wilkin in this distinctive. Based on precedent, however, it is likely that the majority of crossless proponents will follow suit; but this remains to be seen. The current crossless position is hardly monolithic on this particular point of doctrine. Even Zane Hodges used the term “gospel” as a synonym for the “saving message”2 until recently. Just a few months prior to the publication of this book, Hodges wrote that requiring belief in Christ’s death and resurrection is not only “theological legalism,” it also subverts “the biblical gospel.”3 While Wilkin has openly changed positions on the meaning of the term “gospel,” Zane Hodges continued using it as a reference to the content of saving faith. To date, only one other proponent of the crossless view, Jeremy Myers, has publicly articulated the same position as Wilkin.4 It may be premature, therefore, to characterize the entire crossless position by the recent views of Wilkin and Myers on the term “gospel.”


Please continue to, The Language of Accommodation or Correction?

1) Bob Wilkin, “Gospel Means Good News” Grace Evangelical Society Southern California Regional Conference, August 24, 2007.
2) In the context of explaining the nature of belief in Christ for eternal life, Hodges said, “I am convinced that some committed grace people are still a little scared by the simplicity of believing in Christ. They are eager to avoid the charge that we teach mere intellectual assent. It is hard for people like this to agree that faith and salvation occur when the core message of the Gospel is simply accepted as true.” Zane C. Hodges, “The Spirit of the Antichrist: Decoupling Jesus from the Christ,” JOTGES 20 (Autumn 2007): 39 (italics added).
3) Hodges, “The Hyrda’s Other Head: Theological Legalism,” 3.
4) Jeremy D. Myers, “The Gospel is More Than ‘Faith Alone in Christ Alone’,” JOTGES 19 (Autumn 2006): 33-56.

Editor’s Note: The Crossless Gospel was originated by the late Zane Hodges. This is the most egregious form of reductionist heresy ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own. No one in Christian circles outside the membership and friends of the Grace Evangelical Society (Bob Wilkin, Executive Director) believes in and/or advocates this assault on the necessary content of saving faith. For related reading and discussion see these articles.

GES Reductionist Affirmation of Faith
Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?
The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

Zane Hodges: Drifting Far Off the Marker

The “Christ” Under Siege

The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault From the Grace Evangelical Society

Free Grace Theology: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know

The Gospel of the Christ: The Sinlessness of Christ

Last week I had the privilege of introducing the new book by Pastor Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith.

In Tom Stegall’s introduction of his book he noted:

“My objective in writing the book was to provide a biblical response to the controversy within the Free Grace community over the subject of the ‘crossless gospel’ and the contents of saving faith. Part I of the book lays the groundwork by introducing the problem of the crossless/promise-only/Grace Evangelical Society (GES) gospel and its associated doctrines. The remainder of the book still interacts with the new GES theology but it is primarily an exegetical synthesis of dozens of key passages involving the terms ‘gospel’ and ‘Christ’.”

Today I am beginning a new series comprised of excerpts from Stegall’s book. The selections I am publishing (with permission) provide a balanced cross section of issues related to the Gospel. The first two are from chapter 14. The balance will be from chapter 5. I trust you will find each of the excerpts as edifying as I have.

The Sinlessness of Christ
One final point should be made about the person of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15. It is sometimes claimed by the proponents of a crossless gospel that in addition to our Lord’s deity and humanity being absent from this passage, the text also says nothing about His sinlessness. Thus, Wilkin writes regarding 1 Corinthians 15:3-11,

“Note that Paul didn’t say here, as he did in 2 Cor 5:21, that Jesus never sinned. A person could believe all of what Paul says here and yet believe that Jesus was a sinner just like us. Whether that is an essential truth that must be believed for one to be born again is open to question. But, if it is, then clearly this passage isn’t giving us all the essential truths that must be believed.”1

Yet, Wilkin’s doctrine seems to be a transparent rejection of what is clearly revealed in the passage as an implicit truth. A person CANNOT “believe all of what Paul says here and yet believe that Jesus was a sinner just like us.” If the passage says that Christ “died for our sins” then He obviously didn’t die for His own sin. The implication of the passage is clear: if Christ had any personal sins of His own then He Himself would have needed a substitute. The fact that He died for “our” sins, according to the passage, clearly communicates to any objective reader without a preconceived theological agenda that He was a sinless substitute. While this is only implicit in the passage, it is nevertheless present by virtue of being inherent in the substitutionary death of Christ as expressed by the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.” Furthermore, the passage cited by Wilkin in 2 Corinthians 5:21 clearly teaches the sinlessness of Christ, and it, like 2 Corinthians 4:5, is a representative summarization of Paul’s evangelistic preaching to the lost, the kind of evangelism that these Corinthians would have already heard from Paul when he traveled to Corinth with the very same message (Acts 18:4-5; 1 Cor. 15:1). This means that in the historical context of 1 Corinthians 15 the Corinthian readers would have already understood and accepted this truth about Christ. In addition, if it is conceded that the term “Christ” inherently refers to the deity and humanity of the incarnate Son of God then, of necessity, Christ would be sinless by virtue of being God. When someone believes that Jesus Christ is God-incarnate, it is assumed and implied that He is sinless and therefore able to be our satisfactory sacrificial substitute.

At this point we need to stop and consider the biblical implications if the preceding conclusions are incorrect. If Wilkin and those who are promoting the G.E.S. gospel are teaching that Christ’s deity and sinlessness are not conveyed in this passage, then what are they really saying about Him? Regarding the sinlessness of Christ, are they actually teaching that someone can believe in “a sinful Savior” and still receive eternal life? While to date they have not yet explicitly affirmed this possibility in their public writing and speaking, they have come awfully close.2 When someone believes that Christ is God-incarnate and believes every word of 1 Corinthians 15 and yet comes away believing “that Jesus is a sinner just like us,” isn’t that really implying that someone can also be saved who believes that God is a sinner? The issue of Christ’s potential sinfulness goes right to heart of theology proper, the attributes of God, and to the fundamental question of what it means to even believe in “God.” It is likely that the next logical step in the tragic devolution of G.E.S. theology will be the denial that a person must even believe in “God” in order to be saved, for that too involves the recognition of His righteous nature or character.3

1) Wilkin, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:3-11,” 1 (italics added).
2) Bob Wilkin, “Essential Truths About Our Savior,” Grace in Focus 23 (November/December 2008): 2n5.
3) Ibid., 1.


Please continue to: Excerpt 2

Editor’s Note: The Crossless Gospel was originated by the late Zane Hodges. This is the most egregious form of reductionist heresy ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own. No one in Christian circles outside the membership and friends of the Grace Evangelical Society (Bob Wilkin, Executive Director) believes in and/or advocates this assault on the necessary content of saving faith. For related reading and discussion see these articles.

The Gospel Under Siege by the Very Man Who Wrote the Book On It

GES Reductionist Affirmation of Faith

Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?

Believing the Gospel, “May Indeed Frustrate Grace.”

The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

Can the Biblical Jesus & Mormon Jesus be, “One and the Same?”

Free Grace Theology: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Hodges’s Reasoning.

Zane Hodges: Following a Man Who “Was Traversing a Course Contrary to Scripture”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

A friend of mine and of this blog read the latest issue of Grace in Focus (May-June 09) a publication from the Grace Evangelical Society. The reviewer found *Dr. Stephen Lewis’s article entitled “Consensus Theology Stinks” to be both “interesting and alarming.” Following is his reaction to the article.

Brethren:

From the outset of my reading, I had a pretty good idea where Dr. Lewis was going to land. One of the lines of debate in the Crossless gospel controversy relates to: “who really represents free grace theology?” Is it the sole possession of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES)? Has the GES cut itself off from the Classical Dispensational interpretation of the gospel grace?

Since GES cannot substantiate their novel position from historical roots, it’s no wonder that GES would include an article such as this to try to bolster their crumbling position.

In his article, Dr. Lewis concludes:

“Free Grace people sometimes have our own traditions and these traditions sometimes blind us to the clear meaning of Scripture. Take the response of some in the FG camp to the writings of Zane Hodges as an example. Some rejected out of hand his view on assurance as being of the essence of saving faith. Others rejected, out of hand, his deserted island illustration and his suggestion that all who simply believe in Jesus have everlasting life that can never be lost. Still others in the FG movement rejected his explanation of the Gospel of John because it contradicted their tradition. These people did not carefully read and consider his Biblical arguments. If they had, their traditions would have given way to Scripture. We must beware of our own consensus theology.”

The underlined statement is the height of presumption. The very reason that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and GES are being called to account is because men have thoroughly examined the Biblical evidence and found the GES Crossless/Promise-ONLY position to be wanting.

In Zane’s article, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism, he essentially declared GES to be the sole voice for “free grace theology.” In similar fashion, Dr. Lewis portrays Zane as being “the exemplar” of sound doctrine and anyone who challenges him as being in error.

When an individual or organization, begins to think that they are the only voice of truth or that they are nearly infallible, then they are treading on dangerous ground.

Certainly following the traditions of men is hazardous territory. On that point I can agree. But blindly following an individual man (Zane Hodges) who was traversing a course contrary to Scripture is an even greater danger.


Editorial Comment:
I want to thank the reviewer above for pointing out the dangerous direction of GES (Bob Wilkin, Exec. Dir.). Over the years the GES has steadily devolved into a cultic movement grounded on absolute loyalty to the personality of the late Zane Hodges at the expense of fidelity to the Scriptures. The GES people are unrepentant over and in need of recovery from the egregious reductionist errors on the necessary content of saving faith originated by Zane Hodges.

I want to conclude by reiterating and reminding all those who are advocates of Lordship Salvation of an important fact. The GES is an isolated, shrinking cell of theological extremists whose Crossless/Promise-ONLY gospel is a doctrinal aberration. The GES does not speak for or represent any man outside its own membership or its sympathizers.


LM

*Stephen R. Lewis, Th.M., Ph.D.
President, Rocky Mountain Bible College & Seminary

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane Hodges’s Reasoning, Conclusion

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

I am going to continue Ron Shea’s series by combining Part 4 & 5 into one concluding article.

For Parts 1, 2 & 3 respectively see-

What Turned Zane Hodges to This Profound “Deconstructionist” Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Regarding the Crossless Gospel Mantel

Part 4, Regarding Us

As I noted, most men will only receive reproof from one older than they are . . . especially when it is in matters of theology. IMO Bob Wilkin regards few men (if any) as his equal as a theologian. If he begins to return to orthodoxy, whether it be a result of God’s reproof, God’s blessing, God’s conviction of his error and illumination of Scripture, or a man of Dr. Earl Radmacher’s stature confronting Bob for a serious chat, each of us should keep his place in humility.

Imagine if you changed your interpretation of some particular verse (albeit, not as serious an error as the Crossless Gospel), and an immature Christian who had held the proper interpretation before you basically presented himself to the world as your mentor. It would be rather offensive. It would, in fact, almost insure that you remained in his error.

The credit should first and foremost, go to the one who displays the integrity, intellectual honesty and humility to acknowledge his or her error, and return to the truth. The credit should not go to some little narcissist who had been saved six months earlier, but by chance, happened to have arrived at the more orthodox interpretation first.

If Bob Wilkin is ever to return to the clarity on repentance that he expressed in his doctoral thesis, and clarity on the gospel of Christ crucified for the sins of the world, great credit should go to him for the humility and the intellectual honesty it will require of him after painting himself in to one heck-of-an extremist corner. The credit should not go to us. And if we seek to position ourselves as the “savior” of Bob, or MacArthur, or any other such brother, we will be held accountable at the bema for our own massive ego, which only served to anchor our brother in his erroneous doctrine.

Let’s try to keep our own egos out of it, and not make Bob feel he is “acquiescing” to men of inferior intellect and theological ability. Our actions, including our demeanor and attitude, should, first and foremost, be humble. They should be, in every way, geared to restoring him, not glorifying ourselves.

Part 5- A FINAL ADMONITION

We all seek approval and validation. And it is a stark warning to each of us. Each of us is torn by a myriad of emotions. And to us, many of these emotions are invisible and unseen by us . . . because we are in the middle of them. They can taint our view of reality. Whether it is the pain of recognizing that someone we loved is probably in Hell, or the need for validation, or any other emotional motive, Satan stands ready to seduce each of us from the purity of the gospel, one inch at a time.

This Crossless Gospel is not the only heresy we will see in our lifetime. Throughout our lives, each of us will be target by the enemy. And he will seek to sift each of us like wheat in a moment when we are weak. A moment when we deeply need an income to support our family, and a church or teaching job comes available, but at a cost. A moment when our dignity as a theologian has been abased, and we covet the validation of another. A moment when we have been rejected, and covet the love and acceptance of someone we can see and hear and touch.

Stand strong my brethren. The battle is not behind us. It is in front of each of us. And we do not know where the ambush for us has been set.


Ron Shea

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 3

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We are continuing the series by Brother Ron Shea with this third installment:

REGARDING THE “CROSSLESS” GOSPEL MANTEL

For Part 1 & 2 respectively see-
What Turned Zane Hodges to This Profound “Deconstructionist” Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Zane Hodges has gone to be with the Lord. Bob Wilkin is the heir-apparent of the “Crossless” gospel mantel. If Bob were to return to the purity of the gospel, I believe the “Crossless” gospel would evaporate in a matter of a few years.

I believe Bob is in his early to mid fifties. As one ages, one is less likely to receive reproof from one younger than he, and more likely to respond only to an elder. This is human nature for all of us even if we don’t have a serious pride problem. Being in his early 50’s, there are likely very few men left toward whom Bob Wilkin looks up.

Just as significantly, there is a natural pride component that would be true of any of us. Bob Wilkin did not advance this heresy in a poorly thought out footnote consisting of ten words. He has articulated his position with clarity and specificity. He cannot save face by saying,

“That is not what I meant. That was a poor choice of words. Yes, I agree with what you are saying about the content of saving faith.”

It is too late for that. With the paper trail Bob has left behind him, the only way he can say that is to say, “I was wrong.”

These words do not come easily to most men. Far less to a man of intelligence who has labored to advance an errant argument and cannot dismiss his error as a poor choice of words. For example, I try to pray for John MacArthur daily, that he would repent of his error, and proclaim the true gospel. (I confess, I do not pray for him daily, but I do pray for him often.) Yet, I realize that MacArthur is a tough nut to crack. Not because his logic is so compelling. Not because his exegesis is sound. But because he is already on record, and would look ridiculous to many if he jumped ship. Pride is typically the biggest anchor holding a man in false doctrine.

And, for those of us who have known Bob, virtually every person I have ever known has perceived deep spiritual pride in Bob. He sought to make himself the epicenter of free grace… . He did not present himself as a servant to advance the ministry of others, but to get them to serve him to advance his ministry. I can’t recall meeting anyone who knew Bob and did not come away with this perception of him.

When GES was first founded, I received a letter from Bob explaining that the only way it would get off the ground was by co-operation and “networking.” He asked for referrals so that the exposure and circulation of GES would be expanded.  I mailed him the address of EVERY SINGLE PERSON I knew who was a Christian, and many who I hoped might be inclined to hear the truth.

Several years later, after The Gospel Booklet was published, I sent a copy to Bob, and asked if we could mail a copy to every one in the GES, making them aware of it if they wanted to order some for evangelism or discipleship. He wrote me and advised that “GES did not give out their mailing list.” 

I wrote Bob back explaining,

“No, you don’t need to give me the addresses. I would prepare letters and envelopes with a copy of The Gospel Booklet, and ship them to you along with the money necessary to mail all of them. You would not need to give me their addresses.”

I received Bob’s reply, telling me:

1) The members of Grace Evangelical Society would not be interested in it,
2) It was not very well written anyway, and
3) If I wanted to write a good tract, I should contact the American Tract Society and get help with it.

Of course, it is always possible that Bob was sincere in the three comments he wrote to me. That is up to each person to judge for themselves. But I perceived it as a consistent pattern and practice of Bob seeking to make himself the sole epicenter of grace. And this was not the only incident with Bob that served to persuade me of this. And I am not alone in this perception of Bob.

Nevertheless, we have a moment in time, and we should labor in prayer ten hours for every hour we spend on the “front lines” (blogging). Nebuchadnezzar was certainly a prideful man. But after being brought low, eating grass and braying like a donkey for several years, he humbled himself and acknowledged the God of Daniel.

The GES has by all external, observable evidence, lost membership and likewise significant financial support. In my opinion the GES will probably implode within two or three years. “Whom the Lord loveth, He chaseneth,” (Hebrews 12:6).

I have no doubt of God’s love of Bob Wilkin, and no doubt of Bob’s potential service to God if he returns to a biblical view of the gospel.

We should pray, not for God's reproof of Bob, but that He would work in His infinite judgment and knowledge, in the manner best suited to return Bob. This may be to bring Bob low in reproof, and it may be to bless him. (After all, “The goodness of God produces repentance” also!) The method is God’s choice. We should pray for the outcome, not the method.

If Bob returns to the gospel message, I believe the other circles emanating outward, who came under the influence of the Crossless gospel, will begin to do likewise. As I noted, Bob Wilkin is the heir-apparent of Zane’s reductionist theology.

Finally, regarding the Crossless gospel crowd, it is important that someone Bob respects will step up to the plate and confront him as Paul did Peter.

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Gal. 2:11).

At Bob’s age, as I said, that pretty well limits the options to those 60 or over. I believe Earl Radmacher could be the man Wilkin might respond to. I recognize that his (Radmacher’s) love of Zane, his respect for Zane, and their longstanding friendship of many years, might have prevented him from taking such action while Zane was alive.

I realize the Free Grace movement has not been limited to the Dallas Theological Society (DTS) crowd. The Florida Bible College, and many of the Independent Fundamental Baptist tradition were at the forefront long before Radmacher or Ryrie stepped into a visible position on the stage.

Nevertheless, the most visible defense of the Free Grace gospel has shifted, in very high proportion, to a handful of DTS graduates. And, more than any other men living today, the mantel “Elder Statesman of the Free Grace Movement” is clearly shared by Earl Radmacher and Charles Ryrie.

Earl Radmacher may be the only living person to whom Bob Wilkin looks up. We must labor in prayer that Earl would be willing to set aside his irenic personality, and sit down with Bob for a serious talk. And if not Earl, that God would raise up someone else whom Bob respects as an equal.

If all of us who love the truth do our part, in prayer, or in confrontation (only when profitable, and only in love), the Crossless gospel movement can become a thing of the past, and the vanguards of this movement can be restored to usefulness in the spread of the gospel.

End Part 3, Please continue to Parts 4 & 5.

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 2

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We continue with part two of the new series by Ron Shea. For Part 1 see- What Turned Hodges to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Brethren:

Excerpt from Part 1,

Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible.

Zane’s Crossless/Deityless, “deconstructionist” gospel is likewise indefensible. Few (if any) men who were NOT of Zane’s inner circle of friends read his arguments and came away convinced. But his inner circle was!

In every case, when Zane Hodges adopted a position that left most free-grace advocates in stunned disbelief, the same group of inner circle men consistently “saw the light” of Zane’s reasoning. And in every case, they were men approved by Zane, and who therefore had a motive to perpetuate that validation, and not short-circuit it.

This is not a coincidence. Zane’s inner circle, many being men of able minds consistently “saw the light” . . . because IMO they sought the approval of Zane more than the approval of God.

As the waves spread outward from a pebble thrown in a pond, the “second circle” were those who may have met Zane, but more significantly, enjoyed the friendship and/or validation of one of Zane’s inner circle.

When Peter played the hypocrite, and would not eat with the gentiles, Paul saw it as no small matter.

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Gal. 2:11).

When leaders are in error, those who respect their leadership will often follow their error. Paul withstood Peter, “to the face,” called him out, and as we would say in the Navy, “dressed him down.”

Very few believers outside of the GES group have come across Bob Wilkin’s writings on the web, or in print and walked away persuaded of the logic. But those with an emotional stake in Zane, or Bob, John Niemela, or others, have been seduced (or blinded) by the approval they receive from men whose approval they covet.

This really brings to mind two different groups of people, the “Crossless” gospel crowd in the GES, and the rest in the Free Grace camp who on biblical grounds have rejected and taken a stand against the errors and spread of the “Crossless” gospel.


END Part 2, Please continue to Part 3

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 1

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The series beginning today is a revised version of a thread comment by Brother Ron Shea, originally appearing in Evangelism with the Jehovah’s Witnesses at my Door. The series opens with the initial installment:

What Turned Hodges to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?

Brethren:

I have often speculated on how or why a man of Zane Hodges’s character fell to such corrupt theology.

At some time in our lives, we have ALL been in a heated argument where the other person was as “wrong as rain,” that if 10,000 people had heard the entire exchange, they would have agreed with you. And yet, your “friend” (or whomever) argued until he was blue in the face with a vigor that was undeniable, and it was clear he had chosen to believe a lie to exonerate himself. His logic may have been idiotic, but he believed it.

No one will ever know what turned Hodges to this profound (deconstructionist) error on the gospel. Is there any way to confirm such things? Could it have been an experience such as the following scenario?

Zane had been involved in a dialogue about the gospel with someone he loved. By the time that person died, he or she had assented only to the fact that Jesus offered eternal life, but had either rejected His divinity, His atoning death, or His resurrection.

It was not necessary that they rejected all three. Zane was a smart man, and would not be able to advance any kind of an argument that would eliminate one of those facts from the embodiment of saving faith from the others. (The elimination of one without the others would seem arbitrary).

The pain of his friend being in Hell was more than he could bare, and his mind began to tinker with ways to rationalize they were with the Lord. And this gave birth to the reductionist gospel known as the “Crossless” or “Promise-Only” gospel.

Is this how it happened? We will not know until we pass to the other side.

Although the free-grace movement pre-dated Zane (John Nelson Darby, C.H. MacIntosh, Harry Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chaffer), and co-dated Zane (Ray Stanford, Dick Seymour, et al.), few could deny that Zane would, today, be the elder statesmen of the free grace movement had it not been for his final departure from the historic Christian Gospel as the only message of salvation. Almost everyone in the contemporary free grace movement had been influenced by Zane’s cogent treatment of “problem” verses and books. I scheduled all of my seminary classes around my determination to take electives under Zane on Hebrews, 1st John, and James. I will never regret it. And I’m sure I am not alone in my debt to Zane.

So it was all the more that those of us who read some of Zane’s later writings, and his attempts to defend these novel theological positions . . . those of us who weighed Zane’s arguments objectively stood by and watch in disbelief. Zane’s arguments were plainly below the intellect and careful weighing of the facts that we had come to expect of him.

For Zane, we can only speculate. But as for his followers, the answer is far simpler.

In the Gospel of John, there were “secret service believers” who were unwilling to confess Him publicly, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. I have noticed that those who have embraced the Crossless gospel were not theologians and Christians punctuating the evangelical landscape, who read the work of some unknown theologian (Zane) on the web or in print, and found the arguments compelling.

NO! The “inner circle” consisted of those men (and women) who had been embraced by Zane as a friend, and/or fellow theologian. They had an emotional stake in Zane’s friendship. Or more importantly, because Zane was a respected theologian of the first order, they had a vested emotional stake in Zane’s validation of them as theologians. To a man, people like Bob Wilkin and John Niemela somehow “saw the logic” of all of Zane Hodges’s defections.

Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible. In Bob Wilkin’s own doctoral thesis, he had a section reviewing the existing works on the subject. In his remarks about one book, his comments incorporated a rather terse humor.

“So and so writes largely from her own emotional experience, and devotes little effort to a serious exegesis of the text.” (I read his doctoral thesis twenty years ago, so please indulge any inaccuracies in my attempt to quote the line from memory.)

I could not help but think, after reading Zane’s later discussions on repentance, that Bob’s words in his doctoral thesis described Zane’s articles to a ‘T’. Yet somehow, Zane’s inner circle, including Bob, “saw the light” of Zane’s new position.


Brother Ron Shea’s series will be continued with The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence