Unpacking the Difference Between the Gospel of Grace and the Works-Based Approach of Lordship Salvation, Final

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

This is the final of the two part series by Pastor Tom Stegall. You may read Part One and find that Pastor Stegall is answering this question,

Lou, if a person wanted to still be an idolator and be a Christian, would you tell him:

a) he could not continue in idolatry

b) he would need to stop the idolatry after he accepts Christ

Pastor Stegall opened by stating,

This is a loaded theological question that will require some careful unpacking. Yet, it is worthwhile to answer since it presents an opportunity to highlight once again the radical difference between the biblical, grace-oriented approach to salvation and the inherently meritorious, works-based approach of Lordship Salvation.

Let's continue now with the conclusion of this compelling series.


Another question that must first be addressed before someone could answer the question above is, what is idolatry according to the Bible? Is it not giving to any created thing the honor and devotion that is due only to the Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ? Many people don’t even realize the extent to which they are idolatrous when they first believe in Christ. When a man loves football to such an extent that he chooses to skip church on Sunday mornings in order to catch the pre-game show and not miss the kick-off and watches his favorite team for at least 3 hours each game, how is he NOT an idolater?! And if a person has to be willing to give up certain sins, such as idolatry, to be saved, isn’t this really saying that he has to be willing to give up watching football and come to church in order to be saved? Sounds like a works-salvation to me! And what else does he have to give up before he has forsaken all forms of idolatry and is now finally saved? For that matter, since the first two commandments prohibit having any other gods before the LORD or making idolatrous images (Exod. 20:1-4), isn’t this approach really requiring that a person must keep the commandments, the Law, in order to be justified in the sight of God? That is not salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but is the very meritorious, legalistic, works-based salvation so clearly condemned in the New Testament (Rom. 3:19-28; Gal. 1:6-9; 2:16; 3:1-13; 5:1-6).

Finally, we must ask regarding Kime’s propositional question, what does the phrase “wanted to still be an idolator” mean? The term “wanted” has also been left undefined and is quite ambiguous. What verse in all of Scripture speaks in terms of “wanting” versus “not wanting” certain sins in order to be saved, born again, justified, redeemed, receive eternal life, etc.? The issue and condition of eternal life is always stated to be a matter of “believing” something. It is conspicuous that Scripture never presents the condition for salvation in terms of us being willing not to sin certain sins or sin to a certain unacceptable degree. Why are there no Bible verses that say something along this order, “He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him and wills not to sin, shall not perish,” (John 3:16); or “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and will not to sin, and you shall be saved,” (Acts 16:31)? Therefore, we must ask, is this question at hand derived from what WE think God must require for salvation or is it driven by what GOD has actually stated in His Word to be the condition for salvation?

The Bible itself nowhere requires that we must be willing to no longer sin in some particular area before God will save us.

God is not asking US to do something with respect to our sin problem before He will save us. Rather, He is merely asking us to believe what HE has already done for our sin-problem through the propitiatory death of His Son at Calvary.

Romans 3:24-25 says, “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood....” Some professing but legalistic Christians view God as not being practically satisfied with the work of His Son. They think that they must resolve to do something about their sins in order to satisfy God before He is willing to save them. Their own resolve practically becomes the propitiating factor with God. No longer is it Christ Jesus “Himself” who is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2), it is Christ plus the determined sinner that ultimately brings satisfaction for sin in God’s sight. Yet, it is solely the Rock of Ages upon which we are rest our confidence for acceptance before God, as the hymn writer put it years ago: “Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, these for sin could not atone, Thou must save and Thou alone.”

God already knows our future earthly life and walk with all its sins and failures at the moment of new birth; and yet in spite of foreseen future failure He accepts us and clothes us with His righteousness. And if this is true, we must then ask, from God’s perspective, why would He be any more willing to save a person who willed and determined not to sin and yet still ended up sinning anyway (as all Christians do) versus the one who didn’t resolve or determine to stop sinning and yet still ended up sinning just the same? In either case, both parties still sin and God knows they will both still sin. From God’s vantage point, at the very moment He regenerates a soul He already knows that individual is going to choose to sin after the new birth, and yet He accepts that person on the basis of the finished work of His Son not their future performance or even their present determination not to sin.

In fact, to say that God will only save the one who wills or determines to stop sinning and yet continues to sin anyway (as all Christians do after conversion) actually depreciates the holiness and righteousness of God. It does this by teaching in essence that God is not so concerned with whether we actually commit sin but only that we desire not to. In other words, the committal of sin is inconsequential; it is the intentions that count! But salvation is never granted to mankind on the basis of his good intentions, but only on the basis of the perfect, finished work of Christ which is the only thing that satisfied the just requirements of an infinitely righteous God.

With that said, one final clarification is in order regarding Kime’s proposition and the sole condition for becoming a Christian (i.e., becoming born again). The preceding explanation should not be misinterpreted to mean that a sinner can actually consider sin to be a good thing, or acceptable, while still exercising faith in Christ for salvation. That is impossible. In order for people to place their faith in Christ’s propitious death for their sins, they must come to a realization and acceptance of the fact that they are sinners (Rom. 3:9-12). As such, they come to accept the fact that they are guilty before God and worthy of His judgment (Rom. 3:19-20), and that apart from Christ’s finished work and salvation by grace, they stand separated from a holy God (Rom. 3:23-25). When this realization and acceptance occurs within a lost sinner, this is biblical repentance. Such repentance is inherent to faith in Christ (Acts 20:21). Therefore, when lost people come to see their sin and its consequences, the normal result is to no longer intend to continue sinning out of sheer gratitude and appreciation for Christ’s atoning death. But although this determination normally accompanies repentance, it is not inherent to repentance; nor is it necessary for salvation. It is necessary for on-going fellowship with God (1 John 1:3-10).


Pastor Tom Stegall

Pastor Tom Stegall is author of the new book, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith and pastor of the Word of Grace Bible Church in West Allis, WI.

Previous articles by Tom Stegall include:

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

Does “Final Salvation” Serve as a Cover for Works-Salvation?

The Gospel of the Christ: The “No Lordship” Counter-Claim

Is the Message of Salvation in Luke’s Gospel?

Unpacking the Difference Between the Gospel of Grace and the Works-Based Approach of Lordship Salvation

In the comment thread under the May 20 article by Phillip Evans Clearing Up Repentance: A Refutation of Lordship Salvation at IDOTG, *James Kime posed the following question to Lou Martuneac:

Lou, if a person wanted to still be an idolator and be a Christian, would you tell him:

a) he could not continue in idolatry

b) he would need to stop the idolatry after he accepts Christ

This is a loaded theological question that will require some careful unpacking. Yet, it is worthwhile to answer since it presents an opportunity to highlight once again the radical difference between the biblical, grace-oriented approach to salvation and the inherently meritorious, works-based approach of Lordship Salvation.

Some questions are laden with false assumptions that cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” reply, or in this case a simple “a)” or “b).” For example, we’ve all heard of the classic case of prosecutorial entrapment where a man is asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” The very question is an indictment since it presumes that the man already stands guilty of spousal abuse. The same approach is commonly followed towards Bible-believing Christians who understand the grace of God. This should not surprise us since it was the same method employed by the religionists and Lordship Salvationists of Jesus’ day against Him. They repeatedly tried to frame the Savior by eliciting either one of two false answers from Him. See, for example, the Sadducees with the case of the resurrection and the woman who had seven husbands (Matt. 22:17-21) or the Pharisees in the case of tribute money that was to be rendered unto either unto Caesar or God (Matt. 22:23-32).

The theological question posed above by Kime follows a similar vein in the sense that it presupposes a person “could not continue in idolatry” and yet truly “be a Christian” or at least not “want” to continue in idolatry and still be a Christian. However, the way in which the question is framed begs several further questions. What does it mean if a person still “wanted to be an idolater?” Must the lost cease desiring all sin or certain serious sins like idolatry to make it to heaven? And what does it mean to “be a Christian?” Does this mean becoming a child of God or becoming born again (regenerated)? Or does it refer to living in fellowship with God after a person is born again? In other words, is Kime asking about the condition for becoming a Christian in the first place or the condition/s for living a consistently Christian life? Further, we must ask, why is idolatry chosen for the dubious distinction of being the damning sin? Why not other less conspicuous internal sins, like lust or pride, which the Lord also hates? And what is “idolatry” by Kime’s definition? What is it that we are being asked to agree to? These inherent problems require further elaboration below.

First, when it comes to being a Christian, we must ask whether it is possible to be a genuine, born again child of God and still continue in the sin of idolatry. This is an unfortunate reality in many of the lives of God’s children. The apostle John was acquainted with this reality as well. At the end of his first epistle, he closes with an exhortation, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” (1 John 5:21). Throughout the epistle the readers have been called “little children,” an affectionate term for the child of God. John assumes that his regenerated audience is comprised of genuine believers. Yet they are obviously capable of idolatry; otherwise, why would he even give them such a command in the first place? If a Christian, as legalistically defined by some Lordship Salvation proponents, is one who does not commit certain gross, heinous sins, then such commands in Scripture given to believers in Christ become absolutely meaningless.

Numerous examples exist throughout the Scriptures to show that the saints can actually continue in the sin of idolatry, such as Rachel (Gen. 31:34-35), the sons of Jacob (Gen. 35:2), Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-10), and the Ephesian Christians (Acts 19). Solomon not only engaged in idolatrous worship but built shrines all around the hillsides of Jerusalem to many false gods. Can you imagine a professing Christian leader today building mosques and temples here in North America to foreign gods? Lordship Salvationists would surely discount such an individual as a true child of God. And yet Solomon wrote three books in the canon of inspired Scripture—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. Imagine, a writer of Sacred Scripture and yet an idolatrous child of God! Perish the thought.

Consider also the example of the Ephesian Christians in Acts 19. It says in 19:10 that Paul taught them the Word of the Lord Jesus for “two years.” Yet, the chapter goes on to report that subsequent to their new birth they came forward to confess and forsake their idolatrous, occultic practices (Acts 19:18-19). This was clearly NOT done simultaneously with their new birth. Acts 19:18 says that “many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds.” The word “believed” is a perfect tense participle and indicates that these disciples had already believed in Christ PRIOR to their confession of idolatry and magic. It is for this reason that the great Greek grammarian of the last century, A. T. Robertson (who was no proponent of the “Free Grace” view), wrote in His Word Pictures the following concerning this passage:

Even some of the believers were secretly under the spell of these false spiritualists just as some Christians today cherish private contacts with so-called occult powers through mediums, séances, of which they are ashamed. . . . The black arts were now laid bare in their real character. Gentile converts had a struggle to shake off their corrupt environment.

Apparently these Ephesian believers continued in the sin of occultism for some time after they were saved. Did they continue in occultism ignorantly or unintentionally? Impossible. Did they have to want to stop practicing it before they could believe in Christ for salvation? Not according to Acts 19:18. This matter of “wanting” to sin will be addressed later.

But moving on from the example of believers actually practicing “magic” according to the Bible, we must return to the question of whether a person can be an idolater and still be a “Christian” or a child of God. We must ask, why is this particular sin of idolatry chosen for such a proposition? Is it worse than any other? It is generally recognized as one of the most blatant and unconscionable of all sins, so much so that many people cannot conceive of a believer practicing it and still being saved. But this leads us to ask whether a person can really be a Christian (i.e., regenerated) and commit certain other sins—heinous sins—“mortal” versus “venial” types of sins. (Here we see the similarity in theology and logic between Roman Catholicism and Lordship Salvation.) And yet, according to the Word of God, a “Christian” can even be a murderer! Peter writes, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf,” (1 Peter 4:15-16). Peter was writing to genuine, born again believers (1 Peter 1:1-3) who could either suffer for doing the will of God as Christians should or suffer for the consequences of their own sins, which included being a “murderer.” But if a person can be a murderer and yet still be a Christian (albeit a Christian who is not abiding in fellowship with Christ), then why is being an idolater impossible? A “Christian” by biblical definition, is not someone who doesn’t commit certain “major” sins, or even persist in such carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-4) like Solomon did (1 Kings 11). Rather, a Christian is someone who belongs to Christ and who is capable of committing any sin. Yet, when such a person does sin, it doesn’t demonstrate that he or she is not a child of God but only that this person is a child of God who has broken fellowship with God (1 John 1:3-10).


Pastor Tom Stegall

Please continue to Part 2 of this series.


Pastor Tom Stegall is author of the new book, The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith and pastor of the Word of Grace Bible Church in West Allis, WI.

Previous articles by Pastor Tom Stegall include:

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

Does “Final Salvation” Serve as a Cover for Works-Salvation?

The Gospel of the Christ: The “No Lordship” Counter-Claim

Is the Message of Salvation in Luke’s Gospel?

Dave Doran, “I’ve Never Read Any of MacArthur’s Books on the [Lordship Salvation] Subject”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

On Friday, July 16 Evangelist Gordon Phillips, at his Faith, Theology & Ministry blog published, There is a Difference and It’s a Name Changer! (I promoted and cited select excerpts from that article in the previous IDOTG article.)

This article discusses elements of a current series by Dr. Kevin Bauder. Brother Gordon asks,

“What are the implications of changing Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation away from the purity of the church to the purity of the Gospel and forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel?”

“That Gospel” is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. Additional excerpts from the article include,

“If you are going to change your stance on ecclesiastical separation, please do not forget to change your name, as the two go hand-in-hand. ...what he [Kevin Bauder] is presently doing appears to be giving the new life-filled movement of his “ideal” Fundamentalism the compromised thinking of Neo Evangelicalism rather than a greater degree of Biblical fidelity.”

I posted a comment in the thread to bolster the article. Elements of my comment evoked a reaction from Pastor Dave Doran. If any wish to *read the exchange I had with Dave Doran you may visit the thread through the link below. From that exchange it was the following excerpt that is the subject of today’s article. Ps. Doran wrote,

“For the record, I’ve never read any of MacArthur’s books on the [Lordship Salvation] subject. If you want to know what I believe about the power of the gospel, then read chapter four of For the Sake of His Name.”

That statement prompted a query by Pastor Tom Stegall on Saturday afternoon in the thread. To date, Pastor Doran has not acknowledged or responded to what you are about to read. Without further delay this is Tom Stegall to Dave Doran.

Dr. Doran,

As the pastor of a large, conservative Baptist church and president of a conservative Baptist seminary, I am more than a little astonished to hear you say that you have never read ANY of John MacArthur’s books on the subject of Lordship Salvation (The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, Saved Without a Doubt, Hard to Believe, etc.). The Lordship Salvation issue has been arguably the most controversial and hotly contested soteriological subject within conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism in the last two decades; and John MacArthur is the leading spokesman on this topic. This would be similar to living in 1530’s Europe and never having read anything by Calvin or Luther on the subject of justification.

That aside, I have personally read all of your book, For the Sake of His Name. On the whole, it is a very good book on missions in my estimation. I greatly appreciated and agreed with your position on missions and the local church and even your historical analysis about the detrimental effects of neo-evangelicalism and ecumenical parachurch organizations.

However, in your fourth chapter you plainly espouse Lordship Salvation. As one who has carefully read your fourth chapter, I have a question for you about salvation. In the chapter you maintain that when the lost believe the gospel they necessarily follow Christ thereafter as disciples; and if they do not, that means that they do not possess genuine saving faith and are not regenerated. While I also believe that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe, you clearly require a life of service and obedience in order to make it to heaven.

For example, on pp. 84-85 you say, “The biblical gospel makes disciples who have turned to Christ, not simply added him to their collection of gods or squeezed Him into an unaltered life. This is why Paul cold express confidence in the salvation of the Thessalonian believers . . .” and then you go on to quote 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 about turning to God “to serve” Him, followed by Matthew 6:24 about not serving two masters. You use the word “serve” three times in that paragraph on p. 85. This leaves the distinct impression in the mind of the reader that people had better “serve” Christ or else they are not truly saved and they will go to hell. How is that not salvation by works/service?

You also close the chapter by saying on p. 92, “Christ commanded us to make disciples who would follow Him in baptism and obey all that He commanded, so our missionary efforts must settle for nothing less.” Few would deny that the Great Commission entails more than preaching the good news of how a person may be justified in God’s sight. It also involves teaching them Christ’s commands and baptizing them as believers.

But this leads to another problem and question I have in regards to your chapter on the gospel, discipleship and the Great Commission. If baptism and obeying Christ’s commands is part of discipleship (and it is), and discipleship is part of believing the gospel as you argue throughout the chapter, then how does one escape the conclusion that baptism and obedience to Christ’s commands are not ultimately necessary for eternal salvation?

Tom Stegall

SITE PUBLISHER’S UPDATE:
In the thread below I have reproduced the brief exchange between Pastors Tom Stegall and Dave Doran. The thread picks up with Dave Doran’s first response to Stegall’s comment/question to him which is the main subject of this article. Please view the thread for their exchange.

Pastor Stegall’s comment appears exactly here in the thread at the Faith, Theology & Ministry blog.

*My initial comment appears at this point in the thread. You can scroll down to read the brief exchange between Ps. Doran and myself that followed. You will also want to read Brian’s penetrating responses to select portions of Doran’s comments.

Related Reading:

Is the Term “Final Salvation” Necessarily Wrong?

Does “Final Salvation” Serves As a Cover for Works Salvation?

Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?

“Whether Pastor Doran sees it this way or not, having conservative evangelical speakers [Michael Vlach], lecturers, etc., into the seminary is tantamount to having them come to Inter-City Baptist Church. If ICBC is the parenting agency and DBTS is a ministry of the church - it’s tough to reconcile the ‘academic freedom’ his article seems to be seeking.”

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.

Does “Final Salvation” Serve as a Cover for Works-Salvation?

In the scores of articles at this blog each is accompanied by a discussion thread. Some articles generate no comments, some a few comments others can exceed 100 comments. Unfortunately every thread comment is lost over time as new articles push the preceding article and its thread further down into the archives. Among these hundreds of thread comments occasionally a comment is posted that in my opinion merits repeating as a main page article. Just such a comment was posted in the thread under the previous article, Is the Term “Final Salvation” Necessarily Wrong?

Pastor Tom Stegall is the author of The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel… .
This year I ran an extended series of excerpts from The Gospel of the Christ beginning with Stegall’s introduction to the series, then ironically closed with the Foreword to his book. The “Lordship Salvation” Label was one of my personal favorites and it has some bearing on our current discussion.

Pastor Stegall has been reading the articles in which I’ve been discussing Dr. Dave Doran’s The Gospel and Separation series from his personal blog. In the “Final Salvation” article/thread he posted an extended comment with a Q&A exercise that I believe was a helpful contribution to our previous discussion of the close proximity of Lordship Salvation and Roman Catholicism. The most disconcerting statement and arguably closest to Romanism among many coming from advocates of Lordship Salvation is the following by John Piper.

“There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” (What Jesus Demands From the World, p. 160).

For the record on this matter I am repeating here a comment I made in the previous thread.

“It is statements like these…where some men find MacArthur and Piper in their LS message treading dangerously close to a Roman Catholicism like message. I don’t believe they have gone there, but these statements are very alarming and by and large given a complete pass by Reformed men in IFB circles. Not one of these extreme statements have ever been explained, edited or eliminated. They have in fact been reiterated and reinforced by the men who make them such as MacArthur, Piper, et. al., for two decades.”

With that I offer for your consideration Ps. Tom Stegall’s thread comment turned article.


Does “Final Salvation” Serve as a Cover for Works-Salvation?

I am so grateful that this topic of “final salvation” is being addressed here. This is a critical subject. So often this phrase serves as a cover for Works-salvation. Bible-believing Christians need to be far more discerning these days than we have been. It is truly disturbing to read the statements of so-called “evangelical, fundamental” or “Protestant” leaders these days that sound perilously close to Romanism.

Kev raises a great question, “Isn’t this usage of ‘final salvation’ by Lordship Salvationists just the ‘escape clause for closet Catholicism’?!” I would say, technically “No,” but practically “Yes!”

As one who was saved out of Catholicism and who was definitely trusting in his own works and righteousness before being born again by God’s grace, I will tell you it sure hits me as diluted Catholicism when I read the Lordship Salvation statements of leaders like John Piper, John MacArthur... .

Here is an interesting spiritual exercise. Try to guess whether the following quotes come from a Calvinist author, Arminian, or Roman Catholic (the answers are found at the bottom):

1) “Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.”
Arminian, Calvinist or Roman Catholic?

2) “The Scriptures repeatedly exhort us to persevere, to ‘hang in there.’ It is only the one who endures to the end who will be saved.”
Arminian, Calvinist or Roman Catholic?

3) “There is no cleansing from sin, and no salvation, without a continual walking in God’s light.”
Arminian, Calvinist or Roman Catholic?

4) “We cannot ‘earn’ our salvation though good works, but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life.”
Arminian, Calvinist or Roman Catholic?

5) “The kingdom is not for people who want Jesus without any change in their living. It is only for those who seek it with all their hearts, those who agonize to enter. Many who approach the gate turn away upon finding out the cost. Lest someone object that this is a salvation of human effort, remember it is only the enablement of divine grace that empowers a person to pass through the gate.” . . . “While justification and sanctification are distinct theological concepts, both are essential elements of salvation. God will not declare a person righteous without also making him righteous.”
Arminian, Calvinist or Roman Catholic?

And Now for the Answers:
1) [Calvinist] R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, 198.

2) [Roman Catholic] Joseph Kindel, What Must I Do to be Saved?, 79.

3) [Arminian] Guy Duty, If Ye Continue, 141.

4) [Roman Catholic] Tract, Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth, p.23

5) [Calvinist] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 183, 187.

By showing this, I don’t mean to deny that legitimate differences exist between Protestants (Arminian or Calvinist) and Roman Catholics, especially over the role of the sacraments in salvation, but I think any honest reading of these quotes also shows that their respective doctrines of salvation ultimately end up in the same place: you better have works that go with your enduring faith if you want to arrive at “final salvation.”

The modern state of affairs among Evangelicals (such as Piper & MacArthur), Reformed Fundamentalists..., and Roman Catholics is so abysmal and confusing these days regarding salvation, perhaps a new theological term ought to be coined to lump them all together:

Roman Calminians!


Please continue to, “Final Salvation” is Dependent on Christ’s Life

Editor’s Note:
In the original thread comment there was a reference to Dr. Dave Doran. In a follow-up conversation with Ps. Stegall prior to posting this article we agreed that the references to Dr. Doran from the original thread comment should be dropped for this article. Dave Doran leaves no blatant statements like the examples above. There are none of the extreme statements from Brother Doran, which can be easily demonstrated from MacArthur, Piper, Washer, Chantry, Lawson, et. al.

The Gospel of the Christ: The FOREWORD

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We have arrived at the conclusion of the multipart series of excerpts from Tom Stegall’s new book. The series began with his Introduction followed by the first in the series, The Sinlessness of Christ. You might expect that a series of excerpts like we have enjoyed from Tom Stegall’s new book would have begun with the foreword as it is in the book. To finalize the series by way of review I am closing it as it might have begun. Please enjoy the review/foreword of The Gospel of the Christ by *Pastor Dennis Rokser.

THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST
A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel
Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith

We have been printing a series of articles in the Grace Family Journal titled: **The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, that have been addressing the issues surrounding the controversy of the contents of saving faith, and what has been called the Crossless Gospel. The author of these articles has recently completed an 800 plus page book titled, THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST — A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith.

Though the backdrop of this book is the Crossless Gospel of the Grace Evangelical Society, the contents far surpass this issue as it acts as a definitive explanation and defense for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

FOREWORD

When I was 18 years old, I understood for the first time (through the witness of some friends) God’s wonderful plan of salvation by grace. Though I was raised in a religious, God-fearing home, I was under the satanic deception (through my religion) that eternal salvation was a reward for good people and good works, instead of being a free gift for sinners paid for completely through the sacrifice of Christ and offered to me by God’s love (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:8-9). While I believed the Bible to be the Word of God, I really had no clue what was written in it as I followed the traditions of men instead of the truth of God (Matt. 15:6-8). And though I believed several important facts about Jesus Christ and knew the stories of Christmas and Easter, my faith was in Christ PLUS, not in Christ alone PERIOD (John 3:16).

What made the difference in my thinking and opened my eyes to the truth of the Gospel of grace? It was the words of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross when He triumphantly declared, IT IS FINISHED! (John 19:30). For though I had believed that Christ’s death was NECESSARY to go to Heaven, I finally understood that Christ’s finished work was ENOUGH to be saved forever. He alone had died for all my sins past, present and future and rose from the dead to give me eternal life freely and forever. My sins had been PAID IN FULL by Jesus Christ at Calvary and there was nothing left for me to do but to simply put my faith alone in the crucified and risen Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Then I finally possessed a KNOW-SO salvation instead of a HOPE-SO one (1 John 5:9-13). Finally I had a personal relationship with God by His grace through divine accomplishment instead of a religious system of meritorious performance through human achievement (Rom. 4:4-5). Now I could understand and fully agree with the words of the apostle Paul when he wrote, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1 Cor. 1:18, 21). It was an understanding of the work of the cross of Christ, not the elimination or downplaying of this that made the difference for me, like so many others.

Since the early days of my Christian life, I read in the Scriptures and heard preached from the pulpit both the crucial necessity of proclaiming accurately the message of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16) but also the critical importance of guarding its purity (1 Tim. 6:20-21) and contending for its contents (Jude 3). The words of Galatians 1:8-9 were burned like a hot iron into my conscience, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed”. The Gospel must never be garbled or gutted but fearlessly guarded. Thus, even in a prison cell for preaching the Gospel, Paul penned that he was “set for the defense of the Gospel” (Phil. 1:17). What a contrast and source of conviction in our postmodern times that rejects moral absolute truth, and where even the evangelical church compromises the truth of the Gospel as it pragmatically practices the ends-justifies-the-means for the sake of attracting bodies into a building under the guise of church growth. May God be merciful to us.

Thus, the Gospel of grace is sacred ground. It is non-negotiable truth. It is the bottom-line that distinguishes Christianity from all the religions of the world. Remove the Gospel of grace from Christianity, and it becomes merely a system of meritorious salvation and ethical behavior without the power of God. So should it surprise us that Satan’s attacks against the Gospel are endless like the waves of the sea beating upon the shore? Yet, what is so unfortunate about the necessity of this book is that the recent attack upon the Gospel is not from foes of the Free Grace movement but from its friends—those who have stood shoulder to shoulder in withstanding the false gospel of Lordship Salvation.

Dear reader, it is helpful to remember that controversy is not new to the Church. It’s like what one old sage wrote, “The church is a lot like Noah’s ark. If it wasn’t for the judgment on the outside, you could never stand the smell on the inside.” And though Satan seeks to use controversy to divide and conquer, God seeks to use it to refine our understanding of the Scriptures and to purify His Church. Thus, while I do not relish the controversy of the crossless gospel, it was foisted upon us and requires a biblical response and defense of the Gospel. Tom has done this admirably in this book by God’s grace through “speaking the truth in love.”

Therefore, I am grateful for this scripturally-sound, exegetically-based volume by my dear friend, Thomas Stegall. While this book is not light weight for the casual late-night reader, it is loaded with scriptural insights that emerge from the biblical text by recognizing its context, observing its content, and then comparing Scripture with Scripture in order to arrive at a biblical and balanced conclusion. In doing so, Tom has not been afraid to tackle a number of difficult passages and unscriptural defenses in targeting the faulty conclusions of the crossless adherents, while surfacing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

Frankly, I know of nothing in writing from the Free Grace perspective that interacts and intersects biblically like this book does regarding all of the following issues in one volume, such as…

• the false teaching of the crossless gospel
• the nature and content of saving faith
• the comparison of the evangelistic message of John as it relates to the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles
• the name of Jesus Christ referring to His person and work
• the reality of progressive revelation as it relates to the Gospel
• the distinction between the various forms of good news
• the problem passages in the Book of Acts
• the necessity of repentance for salvation
• the supposed wrath of God upon disobedient believers in Christ
• the issue of judicial forgiveness versus fellowship forgiveness
• the distinguishing of eternal and temporal salvation
• the relationship of various doctrines like the Virgin Birth to our redemption and the contents of the Gospel

May God be pleased to use His Word as set forth in this book to expound the truth of the Gospel and expose the error of the crossless gospel so “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5).


Dennis M. Rokser
December 26, 2008

*Dennis Rokser is senior pastor of the Duluth Bible Church. At this blog he authored the series, The Issue of Incongruity: Actual or Artificial?

**See the complete series under the GFJ 2007 & 2008

The Gospel of the Christ is available now at Amazon.

The Gospel of the Christ: The “No Lordship” Counter-Claim

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

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 “No Lordship” Counter-claim

In spite of past precedent and practice, those aligned with the Grace Evangelical Society and its view of the gospel may still claim that it is unfair to label their teaching as “crossless.” They may point out the fact that they each individually hold to faith in Christ’s cross-work and that they often do include the preaching of the cross in their evangelism. They may even claim that they do require belief in Christ’s cross-work in one respect, namely for sanctification and spiritual growth in the Christian life. So in light of these facts how can their view justly and rightly be called “crossless”? They may even try to draw a parallel to the way their view is being labeled “crossless” and the way Lordship Salvationists refer to the Free Grace position as the “no-lordship” view.1 G.E.S. proponents may object that since Free Grace people do believe in the Lordship of Christ, it is unfair and inaccurate to refer to our view as the “no-lordship” view; and in just the same way, since they do believe in the cross-work of Christ and have a place for it, it is unfair and inaccurate to refer to their view as “crossless.” So, is applying the phrase “crossless gospel” to the G.E.S. doctrine on the contents of saving faith really no different than the phrase “no-lordship” being applied unfairly to the Free Grace position?

There is at least one significant reason why this is not an equal or valid comparison. When Lordship Salvation proponents refer to the Free Grace position as the “no-lordship” view, they are specifically referring to the subject of eternal salvation, not sanctification in the Christian life per se. They are referring to our view as the “no-lordship salvation” view. As this applies to the Free Grace movement historically, “no-lordship salvation” would not be an accurate or appropriate designation since Free Grace advocates have traditionally viewed belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as a requirement for eternal salvation or justification, just as Acts 16:30-31 and Romans 10:9-10 teach. While Lordship Salvationists have traditionally understood believing in Christ as “Lord” to include the inherent component of submission of one’s life in service to Christ, Free Grace proponents have traditionally understood belief in Christ as “Lord” to mean belief in His deity due to His divine attribute and position of sovereignty.2 In this respect, to claim that Free Grace people promote a “no-lordship salvation” is an inaccurate and misleading description of our position, since we have historically required belief in Jesus as “Lord” in the deistic sense specifically for justification and eternal salvation and not only for sanctification in the Christian life. However, the same can no longer be said of the Free Grace movement as a whole due to the advent of the new G.E.S. view of the gospel that doesn’t even require belief in Christ’s cross-work or His deity for eternal life.3

For this reason, the charge of a “no-lordship” salvation has tragically become true and fitting right now for the G.E.S. faction of the Free Grace movement.

In light of these considerations, it would be neither inappropriate, nor contrary to historical precedent, to use the designation “crossless gospel” for the current theological controversy in the Free Grace camp. Yet, if we choose to do so, we must also be ready and willing to qualify what exactly we mean by the phrase. No label is perfect or immune from misinterpretation; and “crossless gospel” is no exception. Undoubtedly some evangelicals who are uninformed of the current controversy will interpret the phrase to mean that some Free Grace people are no longer even preaching the cross. Though the cross has been a glaring omission or de-emphasis in the evangelism of some Free Grace leaders in recent years, this is not the primary implication of the phrase “crossless gospel.”

Our use of the phrase is simply in keeping with the way in which 99% of evangelical and fundamental Christendom understands the term “gospel.” There is a consensus among evangelicals, whether Lordship or Free Grace, that the gospel is the message which people must believe in order to become a Christian and belong to Jesus Christ. Beyond that, opinions on the gospel diverge drastically. But it is highly doubtful that the rest of the evangelical world will pick up the nuance that certain crossless teachers are now putting on the term “gospel.”

Probably less than 1% of evangelicals interpret the word “gospel” in the manner that these crossless proponents are now using it, as being a Christian-life message that is only necessary to believe for sanctification and spiritual growth rather than for regeneration.

For these reasons, the phrase “crossless gospel” is still appropriate, even though some may dislike it or even despise it. Other Free Grace people who are opposed to the new crossless saving message have recently proposed and begun using other labels, such as the “G.E.S. gospel,” the “promise-only gospel,” and the “crossless faith” view. These are also accurate and appropriate designations that may eventually become the standard phraseology. If that happens, I personally would have no objections to changing my own terminology since the doctrinal position defended in this book is in no way dependent upon the use of a particular phrase. “Crossless gospel” is largely a convention used throughout this book and throughout the current controversy to abbreviate the new doctrinal error of our day. It is much easier to say “crossless gospel” than “the crossless content of saving faith.” The latter expression is not nearly as recognizable to the average Christian and often requires further explanation. But regardless of what labels are used, it is virtually guaranteed that those on the so-called “Refined” side will not accept any label or descriptive phrase that we on the so-called “Traditional” side come up with unless it portrays their doctrine favorably, which is something we simply cannot do because we regard the crossless gospel to be utterly contrary to the Word of God.


Please continue to- The Gospel of the Christ: The FOREWORD

1) Bob Wilkin, “We Believe Jesus Is Lord,” Grace in Focus 23 (March/April 2008): 1-2.

2) Charles C. Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, GraceLife Edition (Burleson, TX: GraceLife Ministries, 1992), 104; Thomas R. Edgar, “What Is the Gospel?” in Basic Theology: Applied, ed. Wesley and Elaine Willis & John and Janet Master (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995), 158; J. B. Hixson, “Getting the Gospel Wrong: Case Studies in American Evangelical Soteriological Method in the Postmodern Era” (Ph.D. dissertation, Baptist Bible Seminary, 2007), 77-78; Robert P. Lightner, Sin, the Savior, and Salvation: The Theology of Everlasting Life (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 204; Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation (n.p.: Xulon Press, 2006), 170-75; Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989), 69-70.

3) Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1,” 5; López, Romans Unlocked, 216; Niemelä, “Objects of Faith in John: A Matter of Person AND Content”; Wilkin, Confident in Christ, 10.

For additional study see-
Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page
Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?
GES Reductionist Affirmation of Faith
The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society
The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault From the Grace Evangelical Society
Believing the Gospel: “May Indeed Frustrate God's Grace?”
Zane Hodges: Drifting Far Off the Marker
Free Grace Theology: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know