Doctrine Is Dead

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

A pastor from Wisconsin directed me to this article Doctrine is Dead, which was written by Pastor J. B. Hixson, Ph.D. The article appears at the website of Dr. Hixson’s church, Brenham Bible Church. I trust you will find this a compelling read.

“Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Timothy 4:16).

This just in from the Associated Press…Doctrine died today. The news of Doctrine’s demise, while tragic, was not entirely unanticipated. It had been battling a terminal illness for many years. Doctrine’s storied history is well known…from its powerful birth in the Apostolic Age; to its rapid rise to a firm place of centrality in the Christian life during the early days of the Church; to its serious injuries and repression throughout the Medieval Period; and finally its terminal diagnosis during the Enlightenment.

For a brief time, hope of Doctrine’s recovery re-emerged during the early 20th Century, as Inerrantists and Fundamentalists put forth aggressive treatment programs that appeared to cause Doctrine’s disease to enter remission. But such hopes were premature. With the onset of postmodern thinking, Doctrine suffered a rapid decline and finally breathed its last breath just this morning.

Reaction to this news has been swift and fairly consistent. One leading evangelical leader wrote,

“While we are saddened by this news, we are glad to know that Doctrine’s suffering is finally over. Now we can get on with more important matters like relationship building, loving our brothers, and changing lives for Christ.”

Another pastor commented,

“Our hearts go out to all of those who loved Doctrine, and stood by it until the bitter end. We pray that they will gain closure and move forward quickly. We invite them to stop living in the past. Come join the rest of us in mainstream evangelical Christianity as we seek to change the world through love, peace and goodwill, rather than the divisiveness of credalism.”

Not all Christian leaders have been as diplomatic in their comments. One highly influential Christian personality quipped,

“It’s about time! Doctrine has had a stranglehold on the thoughts and minds of Christians for far too long. Good riddance!”

The general sentiment across Christendom seems to be one of relief. The climate within Christianity has been characterized by a disdain for doctrinal standards for quite some time. Those who draw lines of doctrinal distinction are perceived as unloving, even hateful or mean, while those who draw circles of inclusion are viewed as more progressive, loving and open-minded. Anyone who claims his view is “right” based upon Biblical Doctrine is charged with trying to control the thoughts of others or force his view on someone else. Indeed, the labels “right” and “wrong” have been replaced in favor of less dogmatic phrases like “opinion” and “bias.”

Some, evidently not wanting to appear as though they have entirely shunned Doctrine, have attempted to mask their disinterest in Doctrine by referring to “essentials” versus “non-essentials.” There are “essential” beliefs that are always right and on which we must always agree, they say, but on “non-essentials” that are a matter of opinion and not a matter of right or wrong, we must give others liberty to believe whatever they want. It’s an attractive concept, really, but supporters of Doctrine are quick to point out that the term Doctrine (from the Greek root word didaskalia) means “instruction in Truth,” and since “Truth” by its very nature is always right and never a matter of opinion (a point vehemently denied by opponents of Doctrine within postmodern evangelical Christianity—truth is never capitalized in their worldview), it is therefore always essential.

Furthermore, within this postmodern essential/non-essential paradigm, it seems as though the list of essential beliefs has grown smaller and smaller to the point that no one can identify what is on it anymore. Most churches have stripped their Doctrinal Statements of all but the most basic tenets, such as “We believe in God,” leaving everything else open to personal opinion. (For those who may not be familiar with the term “Doctrinal Statement,” this is what all churches had during the glory days of Doctrine. It identified a church’s belief system.)

In any event, it is likely that with Doctrine’s passing today, the “essential/non-essential” terminology will soon disappear entirely, as it will no longer be needed to placate Doctrine’s supporters. Those from the “Can’t-We-All-Just-Get-Along” political action committee within evangelicalism already have issued a statement celebrating the dawning of a new day:

“Finally, once and for all, we can put an end to the judgmentalism, hatred, and arrogance of Doctrine’s disciples who insist that right belief is important. Such an archaic philosophy has been on life support for many years and we are heartened that we can now move definitively beyond it to happier days of fellowship, joy, affirmation and acceptance of all Christians regardless of their particular beliefs.”

One final addendum to this story…An obscure and little-known Christian leader, who goes only by his first name “Paul,” has cautioned that such celebratory response to the death of Doctrine is typical of those whose “consciences have been seared with a hot iron” and whose “itching ears” desire to hear only what makes them feel good. He goes on to point out that Doctrine is necessary for proper behavior and that Christians would do well to “hold fast to sound Doctrine,” for in so doing it will protect and preserve all who follow it.

It remains to be seen what effect the laying to rest of Doctrine will have on evangelical Christianity, but if this “Paul” is correct, it can only lead to great unpleasantness.

The Necessity of Forbidden Fellowship

I want to express my thanks to Dr. Hixson for publishing his new book, and especially for the brief footnote section that addresses the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. He has demonstrated that the Crossless gospel is not consistent with the Scriptures.

I am looking forward to the Free Grace Seminary’s New Book on the Doctrine of Salvation titled, Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology.

The GES interpretation of the Gospel is “contrary to the doctrine (we) have learned” (Rom. 16:17). It is antithetical to the biblical plan of salvation. This reductionist view that originated with Zane Hodges, which is being perpetuated by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is the source of and reason for the necessary action of marking its advocates so that they will be avoided, especially by the unsuspecting (Rom. 16:17-18).

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.

An expanded literal translation of v. 17 could read, “Now brethren, I am admonishing and begging you to continually scrutinize the ones causing divisions and offences.” That is, we are to take note of, and point out for others, those referred to in Romans 16: 17-20 as the ones who “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” Dr. Mark Minnick said,

What is this paragraph talking about? If you would look at verse 17 you will see that it is a paragraph dealing with people who are teaching contrary doctrine. . . . These are people who are teaching as truth doctrine that actually is alongside orthodoxy. They are teaching what is a contradiction to, what is the opposite of, what is antithetical to, the doctrines that are taught in the Scripture.1

Those who through false teaching cause divisions are to be marked. It is biblical to personally identify false teachers and point them out so that others may avoid them. Paul uses the word cause (poieo), meaning produce, construct, form, or fashion in reference to those who are the authors of division through their false teaching. Minnick also said,

For the sake of those whom he is leading astray or who might be led astray by him if not properly warned from the Scripture, a faithful minister of Christ must warn against that man even though he pretends to, and perhaps to an extent does, preach the gospel. At best, this is a situation in which a disobedient Christian is behaving like a false teacher. . . . But when some man is the prime instigator, promoter, and advocate of an unbiblical position, we must expose that man as we denounce the sin he is promoting.2

It would be a genuine tragedy of the Crossless gospel if even one more unsuspecting believer were to swept into these egregious errors. It would be equally tragic if any one, who understands that this is a gross departure from the Scriptures on a major doctrine, were to encourage or seek out fellowship with its prime instigators. Unity at the Price of Truth is Treason!

Until recent months the spread of the Crossless gospel had been promoted largely unchecked. The Crossless gospel has been fully exposed and the teachers of this reductionist error identified. It is, therefore, far less likely that the GES will have many new opportunities or success spreading their interpretation of the Gospel into churches and fellowships.

I want to remind guests that the “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The GES has consistently slid into ever increasing errors that have isolated it as an extremist fringe element in the Free Grace community.

I am grateful the obvious meaning of the Free Grace Alliance covenant has been clarified. (Dr. Charlie Bing Affirms the FGA Covenant) Any advocate of the Crossless gospel, who is willing to be honest about his views, cannot be in agreement with the FGA covenant now that its meaning has been unmistakably clarified.

If the Free Grace community is to ever become an effective voice for the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ and effectively resist the errors of Lordship Salvation it must cease any cooperation with and withdraw fellowship from the advocates of the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless gospel.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses 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,” (Romans 16:17-18).

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. . . . And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).

If we are to live in obedience to the Lord we must follow the biblical mandates (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) that forbid fellowship and cooperation with brethren who are the instigators of egregious doctrinal error. The advocates of the GES’s “Crossless” gospel are without any question “prime instigators” of reductionist error on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Where does your first loyalty lie; to friends and fellowships, or to the Lord?


LM

1. The Scriptural Response To Teachers of Doctrinal Error, a sermon recorded November, 1997 at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching.
2. Ibid.

New Book on the Doctrine of Salvation

On August 14 I spoke to Brother Rick Whitmire, Vice President of Administration at the Free Grace Seminary. We have been in close communication with one another for well over a year on issues related to Lordship Salvation and the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” gospel.

About six months ago Brother Whitmire informed me that a new book was in production. This book would be a comprehensive treatise on the doctrine of soteriology. This afternoon I am pleased to share the announcement of this book’s near completion. The title is Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology

What follows is the announcement at is appears at the Free Grace Seminary web site.

The Free Grace Seminary is in the process of publishing a historic book on Free Grace Theology. The work is the combined effort of more than ten scholars and represents leading edge scholarship on various issues related to salvation. For the first time ever in one volume all of the critical issues related to the doctrine of salvation will be examined and explained from a free grace perspective in one book. The book, Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology, is in the final editing stages and should be out within the next few months. Here is a sneak peak at some of the chapters in the book:

What Is Free Grace? by Dr. Mike Halsey

What Is the Gospel? by Dr. J. B. Hixson

Faith, Saving Faith and Non-Saving Faith by Dr. Fred Chay

Repentance by Dr. Richard Seymour

The Distinction Between Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Fred Lybrand

Rewards and the Bema Judgment by Greg Sapaugh

Evangelism and Free Grace Theology by Dr. Larry Moyer

Sin and Free Grace Theology by Dr. Mike Stallard

What Is Lordship Salvation? by Dr. Charlie Bing

Assurance and Eternal Security by Dr. Dave Anderson

Please join with us in praying for the success and widespread distribution of this helpful work. Above all else, pray that it helps to advance the gospel of God’s grace to a lost and dying world.

Warmly,


Dr. J. B. Hixson
Executive Director
Free Grace Alliance

Following is one line from the announcement about the new book.

For the first time ever in one volume all of the critical issues related to the doctrine of salvation will be examined and explained from a free grace perspective in one book.

I am noting, “all of the critical issues.” The concern I am going to share is not necessarily a personal one and I am hopeful it is a non-concern. If this book, that is advertised as examining and explaining “all of the critical issues related to the doctrine of salvation,” does not clearly explain and examine the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” gospel then, in my opinion, it does not fulfill its stated objective.

The subject of Lordship Salvation is clearly defined as a prime objective for treatment in the book. I am grateful for this and look forward to reading that chapter, as I am all of the chapters.

The GES gospel is, however, conspicuous by its absence from the table of contents. I trust and am hopeful that this does not indicate the GES “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel has largely been given a pass in this new book.


LM

John MacArthur’s Mandatory Performance Guidelines for “Lordship” Salvation

Dear Guests:

As an interim article between reviews of the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, I am presenting another example of Lordship Salvation as expressed by Dr. John MacArthur.

“The saving faith in Jesus Christ that the New Testament teaches is much more than a simple affirmation of certain truths about Him…. Saving faith is a placing of oneself totally in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, and it has certain indispensable elements that the New Testament clearly teaches. Saving faith in Jesus Christ involves the exercise of the will. Paul told the Roman believers, ‘Thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed’ (Rom. 6:17). Salvation begins (from the human standpoint) with a person’s willful obedience in turning from sin to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Saving faith also involves the emotions, because, as in the verse just mentioned above, it must come from the heart as well as from the mind.” (Romans, pp. 204-5, bold added)

Dr. MacArthur is stating what he believes are necessary requirements to be born again. The use of phrases such as, “salvation begins…” confirms this. His Lordship message to the lost is that for salvation they must make an up-front commitment of absolute “submission” to live in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation conditions the free gift of God on a commitment to performance of the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ.

In his new book, Getting the Gospel Wrong Dr. J. B. Hixson (Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance) addressed the above quote by MacArthur. Hixson’s response is found under a chapter titled, The Performance Gospel, pp. 304-5.

“MacArthur’s citation of Romans 6:17 in support of the notion that willful surrender and obedience must accompany saving faith is unconvincing. To be ‘obedient from the heart’ is simply another way of expressing what it means to believe. The ‘form of teaching’ to which Paul referred was the very teaching he had been putting forth, namely that righteousness comes by faith rather than keeping the Mosaic Law. The verse cited says nothing about obedience vis-à-vis turning from sin and submitting to the Lordship of Christ. Furthermore, the suggestion that saving faith involves emotions, based on Paul’s reference to heart is a strained appeal to the alleged distinction between the heart and the mind that is common among proponents of a performance gospel.”

There are numerous examples, such as the one here from John MacArthur, that remove any doubt that Lordship Salvation is a man centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).


LM

J. B. Hixson: “Crossless” Advocates Have Gone too Far!

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.

Preface to Getting the Gospel Wrong

Dr. J. B. Hixson’s new book Getting the Gospel Wrong: The Evangelical Crisis No One Is Talking About is not a treatise on the “Crossless” gospel controversy. Only one footnote in the entire book directly addresses the issue. The footnote takes the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) to task on the key issue of the content of saving faith. IMO, however, a footnote, found in a book of over 400 pages hardly constitutes a treatise against the Crossless gospel of the GES. Please visit “Crossless” Advocates Have Gone too Far to read Hixson’s extened footnote on the GES Crossless gospel.

If I had written a book on what is wrong with the Gospel I would have dedicated a major chapter on the teachings of GES’s Crossless/Deityless reductionist interpretation of the Gospel. My book would have been a treatise on the twin assaults on the Gospel by Lordship Salvation and the Crossless gospel. My current book tackles Lordship Salvation. Over the last two years I have complied more than enough documentation of the Crossless gospel and the biblical answers to it that I could organize a book for publication. I may one day proceed with the project.

The following is the Preface to Getting the Gospel Wrong. This will identify for readers the true vision for and primary purpose of Dr. Hixson’s book.


LM

Vince Lombardi is widely recognized as one of the greatest football coaches of all time. On one occasion, after a particularly tough loss for his team, he gathered his players in the locker room for the usual postgame speech. In a short but poignant statement, the coach cut right to the heart of the matter. Holding up a football, Lombardi quipped, “Gentlemen, this is a football.” His point was not lost on the players: Their performance in the game that just concluded had evidenced an utter lack of competency in the very basic fundamentals of the game.

A survey of the state of American evangelicalism reveals a similar incompetency when it comes to the basics of the Christian faith—namely, the Gospel. There is a crisis regarding the nature of the gospel within evangelical theology today and very little is being done to address the issue. While most evangelicals agree that Jesus Christ is the object of saving faith, there is widespread inconsistency regarding the specific content of saving faith. What is it about Jesus Christ that one must believe in order to have eternal life? Are there certain non-negotiable truths that must be included in a gospel presentation in order for it to be considered the pure gospel? An abandonment of certainty, as well as a general disdain for absolute truth within the postmodern ideological milieu, have created fertile ground for erroneous gospel presentations—each competing for legitimacy within the evangelical church at large.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that each of these inherently contradictory gospels is welcomed as a legitimate pretender to the true biblical gospel and few, if any, evangelical leaders seem concerned with the transparent incongruity. This suggests at least a couple of possibilities. (1) Either various evangelical pastors, scholars and leaders are not really paying attention to what other evangelicals are saying about the gospel and thus have not noticed the incongruity; and/or (2) each evangelical pastor, scholar, or leader does not hold his or her particular view of the gospel with any degree of conviction and is thus open to embracing competing views on the matter. Either explanation does not speak well of the state of evangelicalism today.

What is needed today is a Lombardi-style critique in which pastors and evangelical leaders confidently raise their Bibles and remind the church, “This is the Gospel!” The present work examines the postmodern evangelical climate and interacts with various gospel claims. Each is evaluated based upon the standard of Scripture and a five-fold standard of the gospel is outlined. The conclusion is both unmistakable and disturbing. Certain core essentials necessary in order for any soteriological method to claim a rightful place within biblical orthodoxy are missing from the vast majority of gospel presentations in postmodern, American evangelicalism.

Necessarily, the present work examines in detail not only the content of the gospel, viz. its core essentials, but also the nature of faith itself. What precisely does it mean to believe the gospel? Is there such a thing as defective faith and if so what is it that makes it defective? These questions are fundamental to any examination of the gospel. After establishing the standard of the pure gospel and examining the nature of faith itself, several case studies are undertaken as an example of five broad types of erroneous soteriological methods prevalent in the postmodern era. These include: the purpose gospel, the puzzling gospel, the prosperity gospel, the pluralistic gospel and the performance gospel. Each of these is discussed in detail with various examples cited. The present work concludes with several suggested correctives to the problem of faulty gospel presentations. Although the widespread mishandling of the gospel within contemporary evangelicalism presents a seemingly insuperable threat to the historic Christian faith, the battle is not lost. If the body of Christ will return to the centrality of the Scripture, and the clarity of the simple gospel it proclaims, revival and true evangelistic success will reshape the evangelical landscape.

J. B. Hixson: “They Have Gone too Far.”

Dr. J. B. Hixson (Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance) has written a new book, which appears to the right. I am looking forward to *receiving a copy which I have recently ordered from Dr. Hixson.

Numerous reviews I have read indicate this will be a very valuable resource for Christians across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity. It will help believers to recognize various false interpretations of the Gospel that plague our churches and fellowships today. It will furthermore aid them in their understanding, proclamation and defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There is a portion of the book in which Dr. Hixson addresses the Crossless interpretation of the Gospel. This is a new reductionist interpretation of the Gospel, which was originated by Zane Hodges, and is perpetuated by the Grace Evangelical Society. I have been given permission to reprint that section of his book here at In Defense of the Gospel. Here is a sample from that section.

“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’… 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.”

On Tuesday morning I will be posting the entire section for your review and comments.


LM

*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.

Please proceed to “Crossless” Advocates Have Gone too Far!