Introduction to the False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel

Greetings to All:

You may have read some or all of my recent articles that address the “Crossless”gospel. You can review them by visiting this Series on The “Crossless” Gospel.

This week I posted the OPEN LETTER to the Free Grace Community by Pastor Tom Stegall. That letter's primary goal was to address an issue about the channels of communication between Pastors Stegall & Rokser and the leadership of the GES, primarily Bob Wilkin. I trust you have read that important letter.

A new multi-part series that addresses the “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about to begin. The topic and subject matter will be: The False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel. The contributing writer is Mr. Greg Schliesmann.

Mr. Greg Schliesmann attends Word of Grace Bible Church in Waukesha, WI. Greg has been involved in the “Crossless” gospel debate for several months and I have appreciated his contribution. A short time ago Greg contacted me about a desire he had to do a short series on the “Crossless” gospel. He asked if he might be able to post his series on my blog. After hearing Greg’s description of the nature and direction of his proposed series I whole-heartedly agreed to post his series. Greg will be available to interact with any who desire to do so in the discussion threads that follow each of his articles.

Following is an introductory statement by Greg. Shortly afterward is Greg's opening statement to his series addressing the “False Paradigms” inherent in the argumentation of the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel.

The Lord used the writings of Zane Hodges to recover me from the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel. For his early work in response to the Lordship controversy I will always be grateful. Today I am certain of salvation based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and the corresponding promises of God.

In recent months, however, I am have come to the point where I am convinced that grave doctrinal errors are being made by men in leadership at the Grace Evangelical Society (GES), Zane Hodges in particular. Most disconcerting is removing the necessity of the crosswork, and the deity-humanity of Christ as essential truths to the saving gospel.

In spite of every controversy I have witnessed about the gospel, I believe the Word of God is clear about the Gospel of our salvation (John 3:14-18; Rom. 3:19-26; 4:1-5, 23-25; 1 Cor. 1:17-23). By His grace, I hope to humbly heed the plain meaning of His word with grace-oriented brethren rather than to re-interpret it based upon false paradigms and the reasoning of men.

With Greg's opening remarks complete I now turn this discussion over to his introduction of The False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel.


Anybody who has perused “free grace” blogs in the past few weeks has witnessed a clash of views regarding the critical question of what the lost must believe to receive eternal life. Men associated with the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) have developed a relatively new view that denies the lost must believe in Christ's death for sins, resurrection, deity, or humanity in order to be saved. Instead, they claim there are only three essentials:
1) The name “Jesus”
2) Guarantees “everlasting life”
3) Upon believing this.

The GES view says that a lost sinner will be saved upon believing these three items even while that person remains in ignorance and unbelief about Christ’s deity, humanity, death for our sins, and His resurrection.

We must note that the current advocates of this view personally believe and teach the death and resurrection of Christ, and they say these truths are often helpful in preparing the hearts of the lost. However, they sharply oppose those of us who claim the lost must believe Christ’s deity-humanity, death for our sins, and resurrection as essential truths of the message of salvation. In fact, they claim those of us holding to the classical free grace view are complicating the message of salvation by “adding extra theological information to the gospel”.[1] Some even claim we have changed and distorted the true object of faith for salvation by requiring belief in these truths.[2] For this reason, proponents of the GES view have been termed “crossless gospel advocates” in a new article series The Tragedy of the “Crossless Gospel by Pastor Tom Stegall which has sparked the discussion about this issue on various free grace blogs.

The discussions on these blog sites have exemplified a principle that generally underlies doctrinal disagreements. Differing beliefs are built upon differing paradigms. The word "paradigm" is defined as,

“A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.”[3]

It is obvious the proponents of the “Crossless” gospel have adopted a different set of paradigms that either led to their new view or that have developed to support their view. For example, some “Crossless” gospel advocates now deny the term “THE GOSPEL” is ever used in Scripture to refer to the specific message the lost need to believe in order to be saved.[4]

This was not one of the original paradigms that led to this view, but it is a claim recently developed to support the “Crossless” message. With this clash of beliefs, it is important that we follow the instruction found in 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

While this introduction and the series to follow will not thoroughly address every issue raised by “Crossless” gospel advocates, I believe this brief survey of some of their arguments will reveal that “Crossless” gospel advocates have adopted several false paradigms that collapse under even a small amount of Biblical scrutiny.


GS


[1] See Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.1,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000) and “How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2001). Available online: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/index.html. See section “Adding to the Gospel” in Pt. 1.

[2] See Antonio da Rosa, “Checklist Evangelists,” (July 12, 2007 blog entry). Antonio claims, “They make doctrine the object of faith and not Christ alone.” This is a serious charge tantamount to saying we preach a false gospel with a false object of faith that cannot save a sinner. If this is represents the position of GES leaders, it seems candor would demand GES require all members to agree with their view of the required content of faith for salvation.

[3] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005).

[4] See Jeremy D. Myers, “The Gospel is More than Faith Alone in Christ Alone,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 19 (Autumn 2006). Also Jeremy D. Myers, “Just the Gospel Facts P’s” and “Gospel Word Study Chart” Also Jeremy D. Myers, “How I Evangelize” (July 13, 2007 blog entry).


***The first in the Series on The False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel will appear early next week.

An OPEN LETTER to the Free Grace Community from Pastor Tom Stegall

Sincerest greetings to all Free Grace readers in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ who, "loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood” (Rev. 1:5).

As many of you know by now, I have recently begun writing a series of articles for the Grace Family Journal from the Duluth Bible Church titled “The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel.” The purpose of this series has been initially to alert believers to the problem of the “crossless” gospel being propagated today by a few key teachers and leaders in the Free Grace movement, principally through the Grace Evangelical Society . A second primary objective of this series (especially as it relates to future articles) is to provide believers with a Scriptural and exegetical basis to discern the true gospel of Christ from this recent false form of the gospel.

The response to the two articles thus far has been overwhelming. I have been encouraged that so many Free Grace brethren have come forward and personally expressed support for the doctrinal position that the Grace Family Journal and I have taken on this subject. While the majority of responses we've received thus far have been very much in favor of our doctrinal position and the objectives stated above, a few believers have questioned whether we adequately addressed this problem on a private, personal level with those who hold to the new “crossless” gospel before we went public with the articles. In one instance, on an Internet blogsite, one of the authors whom I cited in the first article even expresses doubt as to whether we actually did attempt to address this privately with those advocating the “crossless” gospel position, as we stated in the Summer 2007 edition of the Grace Family Journal. (See The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel, Pt. 2 . [Note comment #28 in the thread posted by Jeremy Myers on July 11 @ 3:55PM.] Also see How I Evangelize at Till He Comes, which is Jeremy Myer's blogsite. [Note comment #7 in the thread posted by Jeremy on July 14 @ 3:12PM])

It is in response to these concerns, and particularly the doubts caused by posts on public Internet sites, that I am now constrained before the Lord to offer the following clarification of our actions.

Though many Free Grace believers will not need the following explanation, I trust the following account of the facts will be sufficient for those who now have doubts about the veracity of our published statements. It will be helpful to know first of all that attempts WERE made to initially address this on a personal level; and secondly, it will be helpful to know the chronology of how we proceeded before the articles were published.

In the fifteen years or so that I was a member of the Grace Evangelical Society, I and a number of other believers and fellow pastors (with whom I was in discussion) became increasingly concerned at the number and magnitude of doctrinal departures taking place within the organization. Increasingly, we felt uncomfortable aligning ourselves with G.E.S. We also began to see how these doctrines were increasingly stumbling believers and even causing divisions among Free Grace brethren. After observing these things and discussing them privately for several years, Pastor Dennis Rokser (the editor of the Grace Family Journal) and I began discussing the possibility of writing something publicly to address these doctrinal problems. We are convinced that this growing burden was, and still is, the leading of the Holy Spirit to publish these crucial articles on the gospel. These specific discussions with Dennis Rokser about addressing this publicly began in early June of 2005.

As we discussed the possibility of publishing some articles about these doctrinal problems in the Grace Family Journal, we agreed that the best course of action before the Lord would be to FIRST contact the Executive Director of the Grace Evangelical Society, Bob Wilkin, in order to express our concerns on an individual level and hopefully resolve them. What followed was then a three-month attempt, from July-September of 2005, to address my concerns. My personal interactions with Wilkin consisted of an initial phone call, one face-to-face meeting at a conference in Chicago at the end of July, and a three month email exchange, mostly on the subject of the “crossless” gospel. Dennis Rokser joined our email correspondence at Wilkin’s invitation in the months of August-September of 2005.

After determining that Wilkin was unwilling to change his mind about his “crossless” gospel but instead offered repeated correction of mine, my interactions with Wilkin reached an impasse and I decided to end my correspondence with him in early September of 05, though he and Rokser continued briefly thereafter to no avail. It was also at the end of our correspondence that I formally resigned as a member of G.E.S. and asked Wilkin to have our church removed from the G.E.S. church-tracker list to any further association with G.E.S., which he agreed to do. From our perspective, Wilkin was unreceptive to biblical correction from the start. After expressing to Wilkin in my initial email to him that G.E.S.’s doctrines had even caused some problems within the local church I shepherd, Wilkin in his first reply in early July offered to visit our church and have an “open forum” and even “debate” on the subject of the gospel. I assured him in my reply (only my second email to him) that I had no desire to do this.

In addition to all of this, I disclosed to Wilkin in the summer of 2005 that there was the distinct possibility of me writing some articles on this subject to appear in future editions of the Grace Family Journal. He was also informed that I was planning to go forward with plans to teach two workshop sessions on the subject of the “crossless” gospel at the 2005 Fall Bible Conference at Duluth Bible Church, barring any repentance on his part. I share all of this at this point lest some in the Free Grace community be led to believe that somehow the Grace Evangelical Society was unfairly caught off guard by the recent articles in the Grace Family Journal. Here at Brother Martuneac's site readers were given a misleading impression by a comment stating that Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges "have had no contact with either of these men [Tom Stegall and Dennis Rokser] within the last two years." (See The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel, Pt. 2 . [Note comment #28 in the thread posted by Jeremy Myers on July 11 @ 3:55PM.])

In addition to my correspondence with Wilkin, my efforts to address the “crossless” gospel on a private level included writing an email to Dr. John Niemela, expressing my concerns over the content of his theological journal articles. Initially, Niemela responded back by saying that my concerns seemed genuine to him and worthy of a reply with more Scriptural substance, which he would provide within a couple of weeks when he had more time. However, I received no further emails from him. After two follow-up requests to him, I still received no further reply. I do not know what Dr. Niemela's reasons were for not responding. There may have been perfectly valid reasons for this that are unknown to me. I mention this only to show that genuine efforts were made to interact with prominent men who hold to the new, “crossless” gospel.

I did not try contacting any other representatives of the “crossless” gospel position to address this subject with them. In the meantime, as Dennis Rokser and I prayed and waited upon the Lord for His timing and leading, we intentionally decided to hold off and not go forward with the publication of any articles on the “crossless” gospel until just recently in the Spring 2007 edition of the Grace Family Journal. For various reasons, we did not believe it was the Lord's perfect timing to address this matter in written form. Now, in hindsight, we see that the timing of these articles being released in late May of 2007 was providential and that they are addressing a critical need that exists within the Body of Christ (as many emails and positive conversations have indicated).

Between the fall of 2005 and the release of the first article in late May of 2007, we observed that the problem of the “crossless” gospel was growing rather than waning. It was being taught at a variety of different conferences around the country and appearing in newsletters and theological journal articles. Still, we waited. We heard over time about others who tried interacting with Free Grace men who held the “crossless” position and how deeply rooted their convictions about the “crossless” gospel had become. In one instance, at a conference in the Fall of 2006, three men from Minnesota discussed the subject of the “crossless” gospel at length with a staff member of G.E.S., Jeremy Myers. (I and Dennis Rokser are very closely associated with these three men, one of which is the pastor of a sister church, and the other two men are part of Duluth Bible Church, with one of them being an elder at D.B.C.) Though this was not an "official" meeting with Myers and the conversation was cordial and pleasant, Myers nevertheless expressed that he and Bob Wilkin had both listened to my two workshop sessions on the “crossless” gospel from the previous Fall 2005 Conference in Duluth. They concluded that though I was wrong in my doctrinal conclusions about the gospel, they also expressed that they at G.E.S. needed to do a better job of clarifying their views. After Myers had listened to over two hours of my own teaching on the subject, as well as interacted with these three men for a couple more hours on the “crossless” gospel, Myers clearly was undeterred in his beliefs. This is just one example of other conversations with prominent “crossless” gospel teachers, which I was informed of.

What then followed was decisive in determining the timing of publishing the series on “The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel” in the Grace Family Journal. In the Fall 2006 edition of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, which came out in the winter of 2007, Myers had an article titled, “The Gospel is More Than Faith Alone in Christ Alone.” In it, he stated that "the gospel" contains upwards of 50 different items found in the New Testament, including water baptism (#5) and the Lord Jesus baptizing the world with fire (#9)! What was most bothersome was his overall doctrinal conclusion that "You do not have to believe the gospel to receive everlasting life, you only have to believe in Jesus for everlasting life." With doctrines such as this being published in the Free Grace movement's oldest and most widely read theological journal, we perceived that things were further progressing from bad to worse with G.E.S.'s understanding of the gospel; and the time had arrived to finally go to print.

I have shared all of this in order that people would understand that we did not approach the publication of these articles lightly, hastily, or ungraciously.

In addition, I must make one final point in order to give biblical balance to what I've written above. It is my understanding from Scripture that when people have publicly taught error, then they must be publicly held accountable. In the case of those teaching the “crossless” gospel, they have been teaching their views in their books, theological journals, and at conferences around the country for several years now—virtually unabated! The example of Paul publicly confronting Peter, Barnabas, and the men from James (Gal. 2:11-14), which I referenced in my second article, is certainly appropriate for the situation we currently find ourselves in today.

Though I agree that it is preferential as a courtesy to address matters privately first, this is not what Paul did with Peter in Antioch of Syria according to Galatians 2:11-14. Nor is this required anywhere by Scripture. In the case of private sins committed against an individual, I believe that Scripturally the offended party (the "victim") should go to that person who sinned and privately address the problem (Matt. 18:15). But that is a separate matter entirely from the problem of the public teaching of the “crossless” gospel occurring with G.E.S. today.

No doubt some in the Free Grace movement will still believe that I do not have the right to publicly critique in my articles the doctrines of fellow Free Grace men until I have gone to each of them individually and attempted to resolve our differences privately. This expectation is neither Scriptural nor practical. Furthermore, this is not the approach that Free Grace men themselves have taken with proponents of Lordship Salvation over the years. I am not aware of any Free Grace author, who has been expected by his fellow Free Grace brethren, to first go to MacArthur, Reisinger, Sproul, Stott, Piper, Belcher, Gentry, Horton, Boice, Crenshaw, et al, before they can critique their doctrines!

I wish to conclude this clarification with just a few more essential points. First, I want to reiterate the same point that I already stated in my past two Grace Family Journal articles. I truly do desire unity within the Free Grace camp. I had hoped that my articles critiquing the “crossless” gospel would not even be necessary. Now, for true unity's sake, I am convinced that they are necessary. Genuine spiritual unity must be based upon the truth of God's Word; otherwise we will have a false, pretentious unity that is displeasing to the Lord. The unity that God desires is the kind in which we are all preaching the same gospel (Gal. 1:6-10).

Secondly, I wish to say in closing that I did not want to write this clarification anymore than I wanted to go ahead with publishing my articles in the Grace Family Journal; and yet I felt constrained to do so in order to clarify the truth. It would be tragic if our disagreements over the “crossless” gospel degenerated into personal attacks against each others’ motives and characters, instead of objectively (though still passionately) interacting on a doctrinal and Scriptural level. I do not question the motives of those men who hold to, and teach, what others and I have come to identify as a “crossless” gospel. For that matter, I believe their motives are sincere, as they are sincerely seeking to clarify and defend the gospel of grace. However, someone can still be sincerely wrong.

Finally, it is not my desire or intention to address the subject of our pre-publication actions any further. To continue doing so only unnecessarily distracts us from the serious issue at hand of defining, defending, and preaching the one true gospel of Christ to a lost and dying world.

Sincerely in the Lord Jesus,


Tom Stegall

Pastor Tom Stegall Word of Grace Bible Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is originally from Minneapolis, MN. He was raised as a Roman Catholic and following high school attended seminary with a desire to become a priest. However, upon reading the Bible and through the testimony of a few saved friends, he came to place his faith in Christ alone for his eternal salvation and was born again by God's grace in 1987. He was actively involved in the Duluth Bible Church. from 1988 until 1998, where he became equipped through the accurate teaching of God's Word and the faithful shepherding of his pastor, Dennis Rokser. At D.B.C. he met his wife Debbie, a native of Duluth, and they were married in 1997. The Lord has blessed them with three children. Pastor Stegall attributes his primary preparation for pastoral ministry in Milwaukee to his decade of personal involvement in his local church in Duluth. He was further prepared for ministry by completing a five-year course of study through the Grace Institute of Biblical Studies, a ministry of the Duluth Bible Church; and he is also a graduate of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and the University of Minnesota.

For more complete information on the position that has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel read from the series, The Teaching of Zane Hodges.

Grace Conference: Day 2

This was the second and final day of the Grace Conference. I’ll give a quick synopsis.

Over the two days I heard challenging messages from Dr. Robert Lightner, Dr. Charles Ryrie, Dr. James Scudder and Dr. Larry Moyer.

This afternoon Dr. Larry Moyer brought a message from Romans 1:13-17 and focused on the three “I am’s” of Paul.

“I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ…”

The debtor is obligated, he is ready “eager,” and not ashamed because the gospel is a message of deliverance.

Moyer warned that,

“We are in danger of becoming known for defining the Gospel. The Gospel is defined. While we are busy defining the Gospel people are going to Hell. Declare the Gospel and people are saved.”

I conducted two workshops on the Lordship Salvation controversy. I was able to answer many excellent questions from the audience both days. Today I was able to irrefutably demonstrate, by comparing Scripture with how men like John MacArthur define their interpretation of the Gospel, that Lordship Salvation does indeed frustrate the grace of God (Gal. 2:21).

The closing banquet was a first class an event that I have ever been to. Mouth-watering menu and a dessert bar that, from 6 feet away, added inches to my waistline. I foraged the dessert bar three times, once before the main course and twice afterward. I did get my daily serving of fruit in the form of chocolate covered strawberries.

I would encourage anyone who cherishes the doctrine of grace, wants to be among like-minded believers, wants to be challenged and encouraged from the Word o God to consider attending next year’s Grace Conference. I will post update in advance of the 2008 conference.


LM

Grace Conference Update: Day 1

Greetings:

It is late, and I have to be up early for Day 2 of the conference. More detail to follow, but for now...

I have thoroughly enjoyed the conference thus far. For the first time I met Dr. Robert Lightner and Dr. Charlie Bing. Dr. Ryrie’s flight was canceled so he will be at the conference on Friday. I quote each of these men liberally in my book. Each has made valuable contributions to the refutation of Lordship theology.

I asked Dr. Lightner to sign my copy of Sin, the Savior and Salvation. He did so, and I really appreciated it. He brought the opening keynote sermon, and it as on the Lordship of Christ. I intend to post key elements of this fine sermon.

It was quite humorous how I met Dr. Bing. I was in the first five minutes of my workshop and I was showing some of the books both for and against Lordship Salvation. So, I showed some of MacArthur’s Lordship books, then I showed Ryrie’s So Great Salvation and Lightner’s Sin, the Savior & Salvation.

Then I lifted Dr. Bing’s dissertation, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response. I was remarking on my appreciation for his book and how it helped me get off the ground in 1997 while I was in South Africa. All of a sudden I notice a member of the audience to my left getting my attention and pointing to his left, my right.

So, I look in that direction, and sitting right in front of me, two rows back, is Dr. Bing. My jaw dropped! I think I did a Ralph Cramdon (Jackie Gleason: Honeymooners) “hamana, hamana, hamana.”

Dr. Bing and I have corresponded via e-mail for 10 years and spoke on the phone once. I had no idea he was coming to the conference. I greeted, and recognized him for the audience. It took me several minutes to recover and get back on track. He and I were able to visit later.

Incidentally, I also met and spent a good deal of time with Pastor Dennis Rokser and Pastor Tom Stegall. At the conference there has been some unofficial discussion of Hodge’s “Crossless” gospel making the rounds. Several men asked me about it having read some of the details here at my blog and having read Brother Stegall’s first two articles in his series.

More to follow…


LM

No Laughing Matter!

Greetings:

Yesterday one of my guests directed me to a site that has posted a review of an article in which Rick Warren (Pastor of the Saddleback Church and founder of the Purpose Driven [Seeker] movement) recently committed another serious abuse of the Bible.

The article where this is detailed is located at Extreme Theology. The article is titled; Warren’s Use of Scripture is No Laughing Matter.

What you will read is not a new revelation of Rick Warren’s misuse of the Scriptures. It is just another example of his consistent pattern of abusing and twisting the Word of God to suit his pragmatic needs.

The source of Warren’s most recent abuse of the Bible is found at The Christian Post. There is a comment thread that follows the article. It is this article that Extreme Theology refers to and its contents reviewed.

I also come across this article and recommend its reading.
RICK WARREN'S STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE: HOW THE "PURPOSE DRIVEN" PHILOSOPHY HAS MISHANDLED THE "PURPOSE" OF THE SCRIPTURES

In the Style over substance article this excerpt appears,

“One of the most disappointing aspects of Warren’s ‘Purpose Driven’ teachings is his heavy reliance on the paraphrased Bible by Eugene Peterson called The Message. Though promoted as a ‘reading Bible’ instead of a ‘study Bible’, The Message is a very flawed interpretation of God’s Word no matter how one uses it.”

Finally for today I want to recommend a book I have in my personal library and is listed in my Recommended Books section to the left. Redefining Christianity: Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement.

If anyone wants a thorough understanding of just how far askew of the Bible that Rick Warren’s philosophy and methods are he/she should read DeWaay’s book.

On the back cover is this comment,

“Bob DeWaay clearly demonstrates that Rick Warren strips the faith of key doctrines, accessorizes it with human wisdom, turns it into a journey of self discovery, and sells it to the unsuspecting world as ‘Christianity.’”

DeWaay’s book is as penetrating and powerful an exposure of the gross errors in Warren’s Purpose Driven philosophy and methods as The Godmakers was in exposing the Mormon Church.

Kind regards,


LM

NOTE: When I link to various sites please keep in mind that a link does not necessarily mean I endorse and/or support every facet and doctrine represented at that site. It is inevitable that I will link to sites that are operated by men or organizations that I may not be in complete agreement with on any number of issues.

I will link to sites that help bolster a position I take and want to discuss. I may link to sites that stand for issues I strongly disagree with, but link there so that my notes and comments on what is under discussion can be verified right from the source with which I have a disagreement. This way there is no possibility of my having misrepresented another person’s or organization's position.

Refining & Defining the "Crossless" Gospel Debate

Greetings:

In recent days I have posted a number of comments at Till He Comes. This is Jeremy Meyer's site. Jeremy is on staff at the Grace Evangelical Society .

Jeremy has visited and posted some comments under my article Tragedy of the "Crossless" Gospel, Part 2. I felt the following notes, which is the first I posted to Jeremey at his site, would be a good read for all concerned in the current debate. There are more, but this one helps define the areas of debate.


Jeremy:

It really does boil down to what you wrote here, "So rather than 'What is the gospel?' the real question is 'How much of the gospel does a person need to believe in order to be born again?'"."

Thoughts:

1) You mention Bethlehem, post-resurrection appearances, etc. That is not something anyone on either side of the debate is calling on a lost man to believe or even present to him in a soul winning situation. So, I don’t believe it is right to infer that any one is inferring/calling for a lost man to believe those, "40 other things as well." It goes for any number of the doctrinal truths about God, Jesus, and the Hoy Spirit, such as God’s natural attributes, that He is the Creator, etc. There are, however, some points that must be acknowledged and believed.

2) The reason I have used the term “reductionist” is based on two primary concerns.

a) Hodges has reduced what must be believed for salvation to one element: Believing Jesus is the Giver of eternal life (paraphrased). Nothing more and that lost man is born again.

b) Hodges has removed what I consider a key element from what a lost man must believe in order to be born again. 1 Cor. 15:3-4, which defines the Gospel, and Romans 10:9-10, which is very clear, demands a lost man, “…and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead.” I don’t see how this can be divorced from what a lost man must believe and not be a “Crossless” gospel.

Again, I’m not talking about presentation; rather what the Bible says must be believed for the reception of eternal life.

I don’t know if you have ever read my book, but I have one chapter devoted to a discussion of Romans 10:9. Thirteen pages on that single verse, not that length makes it right. I expose and unravel Lordship’s misuse of the verse, and lay out its importance to the Gospel. IMO, based on what the verse says, it is indispensable that the death of Christ for the sins of man and His resurrection must be not only presented, but also acknowledged and believed by a lost man for the reception of eternal life.

3) It appears to me Hodges has invested himself so deeply into John’s Gospel that he has come to the opinion it trumps the rest of the NT on soteriology. This is especially true when I read Antonio da Rosa who, I am sorry to say, is a difficult read.

4) I commend you men for your rejection of LS and defense of the Gospel against that work based, man-centered false gospel. The problem is that, IMO; Hodges has bounced too far off LS into a position at the other end of the theological pendulum swing.

5) You mention, “Shock value” in some of Hodges’ statements. If that was his intention he did a good job of it, because I find some of those statements “shocking.” I do not believe it is wise to do that, because how is one to know he is going for shock value?

6) A friendly observation. Some of you men are, at times, getting a little too emotionally charged. I appreciate your love and respect for Hodges, but I think it is allowing for some emotion and loss of objectivity to enter the discussion. Some MacArthur fans get extremely wound up and think my book is a personal attack on MacArthur himself, which is not the case there, nor in this debate over what Hodges is teaching. Like I wrote in my book,

“None of my work should be taken as a personal attack on any advocate of the Lordship position. I have treated the Lordship advocates with dignity and respect. The debate is focused on the doctrine of the gospel. Personality is not the issue!”

Let’s talk some more.


Lou

Rick Warren’s Foray Into the United Nations

To All:

I am returning to a discussion of an issue in the ministry of Rick Warren who is Senior Pastor of the Saddleback Church and founder of the Purpose Driven movement.

A few days ago, former Saddleback staff member and Rick Warren apologist, John Brown, decided to address/defend the various concerns many have raised with the ministry and methods of Rick Warren.

You can view the list Warren’s errors and offences, which I posted in my blog. Read Purpose Driven’s Compromise of Scripture.

John Brown, as his first choice, opted to defend #6 on the list, which is:

Warren redefines ministry in terms of social activism. Alan Wolfe of the Wall Street Journal says, "Historians are likely to pinpoint Mr. Warren's trip to Rwanda as the moment when conservative evangelical Protestantism made questions of social justice central to its concerns."

Warren's Global Peace Plan for "Purpose Driven Nations" includes involving himself with the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. in order to rid the world of "poverty, disease, and illiteracy" by forming entangling alliances between churches, secular businesses, and governments. This is an agenda completely foreign to the Great Commission and the NT church as laid out in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

Brown’s opening attempt at justifying Warren’s egregious error and methodology can be read at another blog site in a thread I titled, The Gospel According to Warren. You will need to go to and read Brown's post #263.

I found it ironic that Brown wrote,

“And consider what Warren says himself in an interview in October 06 and decide for yourself if what he says is practical and Biblical or not.”

Brown asks you to consider whether Warren’s method "is practical and Biblical or not." Biblical? In Brown’s post of the Warren interview there is not even a single passage of Scripture cited! Nor in Brown's follow-up comments does any reference to Scripture appear.

Warren and Brown take a low view of Scripture and when they do use Scripture it is often twisted to fit their pragmatic needs. [Later, and only after my encouraging Brown to cite some Scriptural justification for Warren's foray into the UN, does he cite passages that he believes justifies coopperative efforts with the UN as if this is an acceptable substitute for carrying out the Great Commission as it is defined in the Bible.]

Brown misses the thrust of my reaction to Warren’s involvement with the United Nations, governments, etc. And this should come, as little surprise because the main thrust of my concern is a biblically based concern. Because Brown takes a low view of Scripture he prefers argumentation from reason and logic whether or not it is biblically based. This is consistent with Warren's pragmatic methods and misuse of Scripture.

It is no wonder Brown avoided any discussion or citation of Biblical principle, because there is none that justifies Warren’s social gospel. Since neither Warren or Brown offer any Biblical basis for what Warren does with the UN, lets look again at my note on Warren’s foray into the UN’s approach to meeting the world’s needs:

“Warren's Global Peace Plan for ‘Purpose Driven Nations’ includes involving himself with the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. in order to rid the world of ‘poverty, disease, and illiteracy’ by forming entangling alliances between churches, secular businesses, and governments. This is an agenda completely foreign to the Great Commission and the New Testament church as laid out in Acts and the Pauline Epistles.”

The Lord Jesus Christ gives us the Great Commission, for example,

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen,” (Matthew 28:19-20).

“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,” (Acts 1:8).

As a missionary in South Africa I did what I could to meet the physical needs of individuals as I had opportunity, but that is not the purpose for which God called me to Africa. That is not what I was sent to do or the thrust of my ministry in South Africa.

It is no secret the UN engineers, promotes and funds programs that are antithetical to the Bible (see below). There is nothing inherently wrong with building hospitals and providing for the physical needs of mankind, but that is NOT the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), and certainly does not replace and is no substitute for the Great Commission.

The thrust of my concern is that Warren’s method may be misinterpreted as though this is a model and example of how we are to fulfill the Bible’s Great Commission.

Warren aligns himself, speaks to, and cooperates with these UN based organizations.

Warren aligns himself and cooperates with the UN that seeks to “rid the world of ‘poverty, disease, and illiteracy’.” It must also be noted, however, that through his cooperative efforts, Warren aligns himself with the same UN that seeks to “rid the world” of unborn infants through their murder while still in the womb.

Brown’s answer to whether or not there is justification for cooperating with the UN, in spite of their pro-abortion agenda was related to another person this way,

“There are many organizations that we all deal with daily, perhaps unwittingly, that do things that are not good, even immoral. But if we can enlist those organizations to do good should we avoid them?”

Just as Rick Warren does, Brown takes a low view of Scripture. He considers the biblical mandates for separation from unbelievers and apostasy (2 Cor. 6:14-17) an obstacle to be sidestepped for the sake of cooperation with organizations like the United Nations to “do good.” This, of course, means one must agree to disagree over the problem of abortion to work together. An agreement Rick Warren wholeheartedly enters into with John Brown’s enthusiastic support.


LM

Comments OFF for this article. Your comments can be sent to me via e-mail. Thanks.

Tragedy of the "Crossless" Gospel, Pt. 2

Greetings:

The latest in the series The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel has just been posted at the Duluth Bible Church web site.

This is the second in the series in which the major change and shift in teaching on the Gospel by Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin is being examined. In this edition Brother Tom Stegall makes this observation,

“I am convinced the magnitude of deviation from God’s Word is much greater than most Free Grace people have realized. As a result of the Crossless gospel, entirely new unscriptural doctrines are being spawned, either as a consequence of the shifting gospel or simply in conjunction with it.”

Brother Stegall goes on to detail The Domino Effect(s) of the new Crossless gospel.

Doctrines such as: Faith, Repentance and God’s Wrath have been redefined by Hodges in the domino effect fallout of his new Crossless gospel doctrine. Here at my site I have already touched on how Hodges has erred on the doctrine of repentance. See my article, The Teaching of Zane Hodges.

Go to: Duluth Bible Church. Click on the article titled, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Pt. 2 You will find this article under the SUMMER heading.

Finally, I believe it is time I provide a caution in regard to one of the more outspoken, but little known, advocates of the "Crossless" gospel in the blogosphere. His name is Antonio da Rosa. He has his own blog site Free Grace Theology and is a contributor at Unashamed of Grace both of which I have visited and commented at.

Antonio’s articles are often difficult to wade through, and many of them of late are an almost exact parrot of the Crossless gospel teaching by Zane Hodges. A quick perusal will demonstrate that Antonio’s position is on the extreme edge of the doctrine of salvation just as Hodges is.

I have begun to learn that the position of Hodges is no longer representative of what most men in the Free Grace movement would consider their personal position on the Gospel.


LM

Free Grace: Fractured by the “Crossless” Gospel

Greetings to All:

For the last 30+ days I have been focused almost solely on what I have come to conclude are the doctrinal errors of Zane Hodges. I do, however, want to reiterate that where Lordship Salvation is concerned I am convinced that it is a false, works based, man-centered interpretation of the Gospel. John MacArthur is as far off-center on the Gospel at his extreme end of the theological pendulum swing as Zane Hodges is with his interpretation in the opposite direction.

During the month long series I have devoted to the teachings of Zane Hodges I have received a number of private contacts as well as comments in various threads. The most significant contact I received was from Pastor Dennis Rokser of the Duluth Bible Church. Pastor Rokser sent me an e-mail directing my attention to an article that addresses one of the major concerns I have noted and touched on with the teaching of Zane Hodges on the Gospel.

The article I have been and will direct you to is titled, THE TRAGEDY OF A CROSSLESS GOSPEL (Pt. 1) It is written by Pastor Tom Stegall from the Word of Grace Bible Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Pastor Tom Stegall would consider himself a member of what is known as the Free Grace movement.

In the opening paragraph of his article he states,

“‘Houston, we have a problem.’ Free Grace movement, we have a MAJOR problem!!! Let’s be honest: in the last few years things have changed doctrinally. The content of the saving Gospel has been tampered with.” (bold added)

And a major problem it is! I had slowly been coming to the conclusions that Pastor Stegall articulates in his article. Stegall has done his homework and thoroughly documents the excesses, and extremes that have been adopted by key men in the Free Grace movement.

Later Pastor Stegall writes,

“There was once virtual unanimity among us in the Free Grace position that in order for a lost sinner to receive eternal life, he must believe that Jesus Christ is God-incarnate who dies for his sins and rose again to save him forever. However, today there are a growing number in our camp who no longer believe these are essential as part of the saving Gospel that is necessary to be believed for eternal salvation. That old Gospel is now considered ‘flawed.’ It is something that some Free Grace advocates now consider to be ‘adding to the gospel’ and something which makes them “shutter” and feel ‘extremely uncomfortable…’ I am deeply disturbed by such sentiments and by the shocking sentiments coming from leading representatives of the Free Grace movement these days.” (bold added)

The leading representatives of the Free Grace movement Stegall is referring to are none other than Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin founders of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). Stegall goes on to expose the Straw Man arguments of the men who advocate the, “New and improved gospel.”

Brother Stegall also adds,

“In a…book by Wilkin, “Secure and Sure,” he states no less than 113 times throughout the book in almost mantra-like fashion that a person receives eternal life simply by believing in Jesus for it…”

Stegall goes on to quote several Free Grace men who have adopted the new and improved “Crossless” gospel, such as: Hodges, Wilkin, Jeremy Myers, and John F. Hart. He then makes this observation,

“After reading these shocking statements as to what constitutes the Gospel and the contents of faith required for salvation, can we question any longer whether a significant change has occurred…? This is a radical departure from the one, true, saving Gospel of Christ described in the Scriptures and historically held by grace-oriented brethren.”

Through my own study I must concur with Pastor Stegall that Hodges and Wilkin have indeed made “a radical departure from the one, true, saving Gospel of Christ.”

Incidentally, Stegall is careful to point out that most men in the Free Grace movement do not share the new “Crossless” gospel position of Hodges and Wilkin. They are deeply concerned and I believe there may be radical consequences and changes for their movement if the leadership cannot be recovered to an orthodox position on the Gospel.

Pastor Stegall’s new article The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel is in my opinion, a must read for believers on both sides of the Lordship Salvation/Free Grace debate.

Go to: Duluth Bible Church. Click on the article titled, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel.

No matter where you are in the Lordship/Free Grace debate this article is a MUST READ for believers across of wide spectrum of Evangelical Christianity.

Yours faithfully,


LM

Important Update on the "Crossless" Gospel

To All:

As early as Monday, July 2 I will have a new article that is devoted to a brief discussion of the "Crossless" gospel of Zane Hodges.

The most significant feature will be a link to an article that documents the extremes to which Zane Hodges has gone in defining what he believes constitutes the gospel of Jesus Christ.


LM