Rachel is Beheading Hodges’s Hydra

Dear Guests:

I am pleased to announce that Rachel (Stephen’s wife) has published the first of a three part series in which she reviews Zane Hodges’s article, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism.

Part 1 of Rachel’s review has been published at her blog, The Land of Reason.

Her is a sample from Part 1 of Beheading Hodges’s Hydra

Even Dr. Earl Radmacher, who was at the center of a recent Crossless Gospel controversy, is quoted from his book Salvation, “How readily some fall into the trap of adding requirements to the Gospel beyond simply believing that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead.” Apparently even Dr. Radmacher did not think that requiring the lost to believe that Jesus died and rose again could be considered “legalism.”

Hodges is only deceiving himself if he thinks that his view is “traditional” Free Grace, and that it is a new thing to require the lost to believe in and accept Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Please visit The Land of Reason to read Rachel’s Beheading (of) Hodges’s Hydra, which is posted for your consideration.


LM

Greg Schliesmann to Review The Hydra’s Other Head

Dear Guests:

Mr. Greg Schliesmann is preparing a review of The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalists by Zane Hodges. In just a few days Greg’s review will be posted here as a feature article. Following are two samples from Greg’s review.

In the article Zane Hodges slams those who teach what Hodges himself once taught, namely that the unsaved must “trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for our sins,” as “theological legalists.”  Hodges slams this position because he now believes it is “theological legalism” to claim the Bible requires the lost to believe in Christ’s death, resurrection, or Deity as part of the content of saving faith. Instead, Hodges advocates the idea the lost must only believe someone named Jesus (even if that person is not deemed to be the God-man who died on the cross and rose again) guarantees everlasting life by faith alone.

Hodges claims the normal Free Grace position is “at war with the Gospel of John.” This is an entirely gratuitous and unsupported claim. Rather than normal Free Grace proponents having a problem with the Gospel of John, Hodges’s views on the Gospel of John create a problem with the rest of the New Testament, which requires the lost to believe “the Gospel.”

Greg has contributed a number of articles here that have devastated the reductionist teachings of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES. For example you can read Greg’s two part series, The “Christ” Under Siege and The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault from the GES.

You might also view Greg’s series, False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1 & Part 2.

Once you read those samples from Brother Schliesmann you will better recognize and understand the anti-biblical teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.

Check back for Greg Schliesmann’s review of Zane Hodges’s polarizing article, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalists.


LM

New Exegetical Defenses Against “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology’s “Crossless” Gospel

Dear Guests:

There are four new articles that either have been or will be published shortly. Two of the four that have been posted. They are:

1) Pastor Tom Stegall’s 7th installment in his series titled, The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel.

2) From Dave at the Free Grace Believer blog his opening article on the Crossless gospel titled, What Gospel Do You Preach?

First The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel, Part 7. The following excerpt is essentially the thesis statement for this article.

In fact, when it comes to being evangelistic in purpose, the Gospel of Luke in particular presents a stiff challenge to the crossless claim that John is the only evangelistic book in the Bible. This is based on the twofold testimony of Luke’s prologue in Luke 1:1-4 and the actual content of Luke-Acts. Luke is one of only a few books in the New Testament that has an explicit “purpose statement” (John 20:31; 1 John 1:4; Jude 3). And a careful, fair-minded reading of this purpose statement in Luke’s prologue (1:1-4) must leave open the possibility that Luke was written evangelistically to an unbeliever named Theophilus, who having been informed previously about Jesus Christ, still lacked the certainty and assurance that Luke’s authoritative account could provide.

It must be remembered that the crossless-saving-faith position cannot permit Luke to have an evangelistic purpose, whereas the “traditional” Free Grace perspective can permit either an evangelistic or an edificational purpose. So what is Luke’s purpose? Does the exegetical evidence point to, or even permit, an evangelistic purpose for the Gospel of Luke?

You may download in PDF the complete the article by visiting the Grace Family Journal and scrolling down to Summer 2008.

The previous articles (1-6) in the series by Pastor Stegall were intended to alert people to the problem of the Crossless gospel, to raise awareness without necessarily disproving it. Part 7, however, marks the beginning of the exegetical defense stage of the biblical and historic Free Grace view of the gospel. Parts 8-9 will also be available online in a few short upcoming weeks.

The second article, What Gospel Do You Preach? can be viewed at the Free Grace Believer blog. Following is a sample, from Dave’s article.

Do you preach the gospel that was given to Paul by the revelation of Jesus Christ? Let me ask you, would Paul have left out the mentioning of the cross of Christ when he presented the lost the gospel? Was Paul’s message to the lost, “He that believeth on Him hath everlasting life” apart from the preaching of the cross to them? Can such a message of “He that believeth” be presented to a sinner without telling him of a Savior that died for him? I’m not asking whether you believe in the cross of Christ, but whether or not the lost can be saved apart from any knowledge of the cross that Paul preached?

The two articles waiting in the wings will both be reviews of, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalists by Zane Hodges. One review will be presented by Rachel at her The Land of Reason blog. The other is being prepared by Dennis Rokser, senior Pastor of the Duluth Bible Church, and will appear at the Grace Family Journal. As these upcoming reviews become available I will announce and link you to them.

We must not rest or relent in our defense of the Gospel against the twin errors of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless gospel. Both are corruptions of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Lordship Salvation errs by additions that frustrate grace, the Crossless gospel errs through reductionist assaults on the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.


LM

Clinching the Deal on the “Crossless” Gospel

Dear Guests:

I want to share some of the thread exchanges that recently took place at the *Free Grace Believer blog over the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless gospel. Many of the comments I am going to reproduce in this series IMO clinch the deal on the teaching of the Crossless gospel advocates.

In my previous article I drew your attention to a new discussion and debate over the Crossless Gospel. There were several comments from my blog partners in the thread that I want to highlight and share here for their obvious value.

A guest named Kolton asked,

Lou, are you assuming these men hold to a crossless gospel? Can you provide actual quotes to back up what you are saying? Others here see you as misrepresenting this issue so what is the most damning evidence you have to prove that such men hold to a crossless gospel?

Thank you,

Kolton.

I was able to link Kolton to several articles that thoroughly document the Crossless/Deityless teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. At the same time, however, my blog partner KnetKnight (Stephen) posted a very helpful reply to Kolton that irrefutably demonstrates that Bob Wilkin does believe and teach a Crossless interpretation of the Gospel.

Furthermore and equally important, KnetKnight’s reply removes any questions about whether or not those of us who reject the Crossless gospel are accurately representing the reductionist position on the Gospel these GES men teach. The on-going mantra of the GES advocates has been that their views are being “misrepresented.” This is, of course, untrue and is a blatant falsehood being perpetuated by the followers of Zane Hodges. We quote liberally from the GES gospel advocate’s published material and the egregious reductionist errors there are plain to see by any objective reader. Following is Stephen’s reply to Kolton.

Kolton, I’m not Lou but I’ll take a stab at that. When we say “Crossless” we do not mean that the cross is not presented, but that sin and cross (the substitutionary atonement) is seen as optional for the lost man to believe.

If I understand Dave correctly he doesn’t want GES links posted here so I’ll summarize that one of the most “damning” things I read that convinced me we are not misrepresenting their position is Zane Hodges’s The Deserted Island Scenario, from Part 1 of his How to Lead People to Christ articles. Hodges makes it absolutely clear that in his example that the example person is completely lacking in any Christian knowledge whatsoever save that a smudged piece of paper says, “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” -- 3 1/2 versus of unreadable text -- then “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”

He sums up the scenario thusly -- “[T]here are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn’t know enough. For example, he doesn’t know that Jesus died for his sins on the cross and rose again.”

Whether you agree or disagree, this removes any doubt about whether the GES gospel is crossless in terms of it’s content of saving faith.

Dr. Bob Wilkin affirms this interpretation and attempted to introduce it to our church through sessions on evangelism that I personally attended. Wilkin’s view is that, “as long as one believes that Jesus guarantees him eternal life, he can be saved, even if he does not know that Jesus is the Son of God and even if he knows nothing about Jesus’ work on the cross.”


Whether you agree or not is the only question -- That this is GES’ view of the gospel of salvation is crystal clear and is only defended, never contested, by even Wilkin himself. And I have e-mailed him personally on the matter until he bowed out of the conversation. He was cordial but realized that we simply didn’t agree.

Not once in those e-mails did Wilkin himself ever claim that I was misrepresenting or even misunderstood his view, in fact he complimented me on being well-read and thorough in my presentation of it.

Regards, Stephen

Kolton had this reaction to what Stephen shared above,

Stephen,

Many thanks. What you said is hard to accept. I really liked BW where at times his writings spoke blessings to my heart. This breaks my heart to hear.

Kolton

Rachel, followed her husband Stephen’s statement with a collaborating statement of her own.

With Stephen, I can attest to specific words coming from Bob Wilkin’s mouth and computer as to what he believes about this issue. We have the emails archived, plus the articles are online at Wilkin’s website.

I also think it is extremely clear that we (Stephen and I, at least) have it right because even Wilkin himself did NOT correct us, in fact (as Stephen said) Wilkin affirmed through personal email that we in fact know and understand his view on this subject very well. There is also the empirical evidence of the changes made to the faithalone.org’s statement of belief, changes which, when compared to the previous version, made quite clear what they believe on this issue. (See- GES’s Reductionist Affirmation of Belief)

There is no doubt whatsoever that Hodges and Wilkin and their “followers” believe and teach that a lost person can be born again without knowing or believing that Jesus is God, died on the cross, rose again, OR that the person is a sinner.

The only issue to discuss is whether or not they are correct. But what they teach is plain for all to see.

There may be more to follow in this series.


LM

*The Free Grace Believer blog administrator (Dave) will be posting his analysis of the Grace Evangelical Society's “Crossless” gospel within a few days.

Rachel from the Pursuit of Truth blog will be posting her review of the polarizing Hydra's Other Head article by Zane Hodges. I will be directing you to those reviews as they become available for viewing.

Hodges’s Hydra Head Article Under Additional Review

Dear Guests:

In recent days at my blog there have been some helpful reviews posted on Zane Hodges’s article The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism which appears in the current Grace in Focus (GIF) newsletter.

There are more reviews on the way. Rachel from Pursuit of Truth is preparing a review that I am sure will be powerful. I have an article prepared that not only touches on some of the extremes in the article, but I also comment on what obviously has become Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) fight to cling to what little life or credibility they have left in the Free Grace community. Today, however, I want to highlight two brief reactions to the Hodges article. These reviews appear in my article Major Development in Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” Gospel. In order you will read reviews by Brothers Gordon Cloud and Art Sims. Afterward, I will offer a brief closing commentary.

On Sunday night Brother Gordon Cloud of the Heavenly Heartburn blog requested a copy of Zane Hodges’s article, The Hydra’s Other Head. Brother Gordon returned to the thread under, Major Development in Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” Gospel with a brief review. I will follow with some personal commentary.

Brother Lou:

I found a number of things in the article that caused me some concern.

1. I felt that Hodges used some extreme semantical gymnastics in a couple of areas. First, in his connection between Lordship Salvation and what he calls “theological legalism.” Second, his divorce of the “content of saving faith” from “the Gospel” has me scratching my head.

2. I believe he is using some poor hermeneutical technique where the Gospel of John is concerned. He accuses others of “picking and choosing,” yet he himself ignores the majority of the New Testament concerning the Gospel. It is almost as if he places John in contrast with other NT writers rather than viewing his writings as complementary to the rest of the canon.

3. He uses some obvious straw man arguments. I know of no one who believes the Gospel who is uncomfortable with John. Also he makes quite a leap from the “doctrinal checklist” of I Cor. 15:1-8 to another list of about eight items.

4. His pseudo-intellectual attempt to use the Greek language to explain away the priority of I Cor. 15:1-8 only proves the point he is trying to disprove. Then he convolutes his argument by his attempt to draw the line between the Gospel and saving faith.

Thanks again for sending the article to me.

In less than 30 minutes Brother Cloud read and was able to make these penetrating observations about the article by Hodges. Yet, you have his followers praising the article appearing to have no comprehension of the article’s obvious flaws. It is unfortunate that the few who still cling to Hodges’s Crossless gospel just can’t see, as easily and quickly as Brother Cloud recognized, the errors of the Hodges’s reductionist interpretation of the Gospel and the faulty methods with which he and his advocates arrive at their conclusions.

Some who read these discussions over the GES’s “Crossless” gospel may not be aware that Crossless advocates insist that the term “the Gospel” has no technical meaning that the lost must believe to be born again. See The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL”.

Hodges does more than “ignore the majority of the New Testament.” Hodges and his followers negate and/or dismiss any passage in the NT that upsets their reductionist approach to the Gospel. They go to the Bible attempting force into, negate and/or extract from it whatever they must to keep their reductionist interpretation of the Gospel in tact.

Now, please continue reading the review submitted by Brother Art Sims.

Lou, I’ve read the PDF copy of Hodges’s article. Thanks for making it available. I’ve also seen that Wilkin wrote an accompanying article (What’s your First Sentence in Evangelism), which after also reading, two things stand out to me.

First, I think Wilkin’s article contains a lame attempt to satisfy grace people who disagree with him.

Second, Hodges’s article presses their case. I am struck by Bob Wilkin’s remark where he says, “That may well be.” He acknowledges that some will object to what he suggests because no one could believe in Jesus for eternal life without knowing about His death and resurrection. And to this he replies, “That may well be,” (pg.4). Surprise! But immediately, he explains his reason for saying this is because he has never met a born again person who didn’t believe Jesus died for our sins.

When I saw this remark, “That may well be,” I wondered why he wanted to make this point, and concluded: to indulge those who disagree with him. And I think this is clever, having as its intent, help for opponents of his message to excuse his teachings if they just somehow would. With this, we are given Hodges’s article in which he asserts that Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing he died for our sins (pg.3), and with John’s Gospel being written late, no one today has to believe he died for our sins either.

No indulging of his opponents by Hodges. I have found Hodges far from persuasive for three major reasons.

1) He rejects the distinctness of the gospel Christ gave to Paul, holding instead that the gospel Christ preached during his earthly ministry and committed to his Jewish apostles is exactly the same gospel he later reappeared from heaven to give to Paul for us today. That handling of Scripture makes no sense to me (John 6:47, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 compare with Gal. 1:11,12, Gal. 2:7, 1 Cor. 1:17) and so I don’t find him persuasive.

2) Faith is reduced to passive agreement with information (much like the famous atheist Robert Ingersoll argued in defending unbelief over a century ago) whereas my understanding of faith is knowledge, volition and trust (“whosoever will, let him take”).

3) Hodges sees John’s Gospel as a stand alone message of eternal salvation, and written late being proof that no change ever took place regarding the content of saving faith since even before the cross. I just don’t see John’s Gospel that way.

Interestingly, Wilkin argues in his GIF article that few people could be found in the USA today who don’t already know about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and with this, (Wilkin) communicates that this doesn’t have to be stated. If so, how can he think John had to state this for people to know it?

When John wrote his Gospel, Paul’s gospel had already been widely preached so that John's readers would already know belief in Christ involved the well known teachings Paul’s gospel had been advancing.

Lou, thanks so much for continuing on in your labors against the Crossless message.

Friends, it is a sad tragedy to read how the shrinking cell of GES followers have been deceived by the egregious errors coming from Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. I have read some comments by the few left who openly support these egregious errors coming from GES. In spite of the teachings of Hodges and Wilkin being quite obviously antithetical to the Scriptures their followers bow in adoration to virtually any reductionist assault on the Gospel and Person of Christ that GES instigates upon these precious truths.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (*Acts 20:28-31).

Zane Hodges is a modern day example of what the Apostle Paul, “with tears,” warned believers to “take heed” and be wary of. From within the body of Christ, Hodges has risen and drifted into increasingly deeper and more extreme doctrinal errors. The distortion, twisting, redefining or dismissal of numerous clear passages of Scripture has been the hallmark of Hodges’s “Crossless” gospel. Bob Wilkin has fallen head long into Hodges’s trap of errors. Wilkin’s Grace Evangelical Society has become the prime instigator of these extremist views that, until Hodges’s articulated them, have never been introduced to the New Testament church.

We should continue to pray that these, who have been deceived and/or work to lend credibility to the heresy of the Crossless gospel, can be recovered from these errors. We need to take heed of, watch, warn and pray as the Apostle Paul taught so that not one more unsuspecting believer will be drawn away from a biblical balance on the Gospel toward the Crossless/Deityless gospel of the Grace Evangelical Society.


LM

*See Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples for an extended discussion of Acts 20:28-31.

* I have a PDF copy of Hodges’s article. You may request it from me via e-mail. I will need your full name before I will send a copy.

Major Development in Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” Gospel

Dear Guests:

There is a major development in the debate over the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless gospel. Brother Bob Nyberg just contacted me about his review of an article just published by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES), authored by Zane Hodges. Brother Nyberg’s review is titled, Zane Hodges & Theological Legalism.

The Hodges article, which appears in the current GES Journal, verifies and confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that he (Hodges) and his followers have fallen into an egregious reductionist error on the Gospel. Bob Nyberg touches on some aspects of the article by Hodges.

I have read Hodges’s article titled, *The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism. IMO it is the death knell for the GES. Hodges verifies the worst elements of his Crossless/Deityless interpretation of the Gospel. Hodges has effectively drawn the line of division between the GES and the rest of the Free Grace community, not to mention the whole of evangelical Christianity that takes a balanced view of the Gospel.

Nyberg does a masterful job of demonstrating this sharp theological break that Hodges has now identified. I encourage everyone to read Nyberg’s Zane Hodges & Theological Legalism.

Here is a sample,

“According to Zane’s limited definition of Free Grace theology, anyone who teaches that a person must believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins is a promoter of Theological Legalism and does not teach Free Grace theology. In other words, Free Grace theology is the sole possession of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society. Anyone who does not buy in to their minimalist (aka Crossless) gospel, cannot be a Free Grace advocate.”

Regardless, of your orientation in the debate over Lordship Salvation and the Crossless gospel, Nyberg’s article is a must read.


LM

Dear Guests:

For more on the Hydra Head article go to Hodges’s Hydra Head Article Under Additional Review.

* I have a PDF copy of Hodges’s article. You may request it from me via e-mail. I will need your full name before I will send a copy.

A New Blogger’s Article on Lordship Salvation that Transitioned to the “Crossless” Gospel

Dear Guests:

I am drawing your attention to two articles that appear at the Free Grace Believer blog. This is a fairly new blog that is administered by a man named Dave.

I found this blog through a link from JP’s Free Grace, Free Speech blog. I posted some questions/comments on Dave’s article on Lordship Salvation and his experience with that theology.

Later in the Lordship thread another blogger who is strongly sympathetic toward, supportive and defensive of the Grace Evangelical Society’s reductionist Crossless gospel and its most extreme advocates posted a comment. The comment was not a problem, but I felt Dave deserved a word of caution about this persons leanings in the Lordship/Crossless debates. I sent a note of caution about that bloggers support of the Crossless gospel in case she were to introduce that teaching or its advocates into the Lordship Salvation discussion.

The last thing we need in our debates against Lordship Salvation is the equally heretical Crossless gospel presented as an acceptable alternative. My caution touched off a new discussion, which Dave titled the, Crossless Gospel by Lou Martuneac, which was opened yesterday.

In that Crossless gospel thread you will much the same mantra claims of “misrepresentation.” In any event, it is a good read.

Be sure to see my comments and especially KnetKnight’s irrefutable proof that Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin do indeed hold to a Crossless gospel. You will find KentKnight’s comment posted here.

Dave at his Free Grace Believer blog will be closing the article and thread shortly. Dave plans to follow that with a closing article with his findings on the GES's Crossless gospel.

Kind regards,


LM

Please Note: I am preparing a follow-up series to share some of the exchanges that are currently taking place at the Free Grace Believer blog over the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless interpretation of the Gospel.  Many of the comments I am going to reproduce in this series clinch the deal on the teaching of the Crossless gospel as they are defined by Dr. Bob Wilkin.

Companion Articles on Lordship Salvation

Dear Guests:

I want to link you my blog partner JP’s Free Grace Free Speech blog. He has been doing a series on the errors of Lordship Salvation. Kevl, another blog partner at On My Walk, has been making valuable contributions to these discussions.

Kevl is also developing a review of John MacArthur’s latest edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, which I am looking forward to. The link is to my brief review. Once Kev begins posting his review I will link to it.

Please visit JP’s most recent contributions to the Lordship debate-

Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation

Position vs. Condition

The Gospel According to John MacArthur, Part 1

At Kev’s blog read-

An Example of Lordship Salvation on the Street


LM

The Necessity of Forbidden Fellowship (Redux)

Dear Guests:

What follows is an addendum to The Necessity of Forbidden Fellowship, which appeared last week.

I can appreciate and understand the pain and discouragement there is when we see once biblically balanced men going off into the extremes of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. Some of these were former teachers and/or close associates. You may have stood side-by-side with them against the Lordship Salvation assault on the Gospel. Your friend, however, may be one that has gone too far in the other direction, which has been right into the reductionist errors of the Crossless gospel.

If you have done all you can to admonish and recover men who have fallen into the trap of the GES “Crossless” gospel, but they will not respond, you are left with one option. You are compelled to break fellowship with another Christian who has become an instigator of this extremist theology. When this day comes let us hope it is with a heavy heart. Your motive ought to be fidelity to the Scriptures, and a desire for the brother to see his error and repent of it.

You may have or are about to come to that fork in the road with a friend who has chosen to walk the way of the Crossless gospel. Will you follow him on that path or walk in obedience to the biblical mandates?

There will be a cost to “contend” with another otherwise Bible believing Christian in your own circles who holds to the Crossless gospel and biblically “mark” him because of his errant position. However, the Scriptural command in Jude 3 to “earnestly contend for the faith” and from Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15 are not open to selective application.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Rom. 16:17-18).

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

Those are the mandated courses of action found in the Word of God.

If you truly love these erring brethren you will follow the biblical mandates to- withdraw, mark and avoid. It is God’s way to recover them and protect the body of Christ from being swept up into doctrinal error. You can’t improve on God’s plan!


LM

The Necessity of Forbidden Fellowship

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

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

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

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Romans 16:17-18).

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

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

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


LM

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