In Defense of the Gospel, Review: Its Biblical Accuracy in Answering the Lordship Position

Every believer in Jesus Christ must be informed about the subject of Lordship Salvation. It is one of the most popular, yet dangerous aberrations of the true gospel in existence today. While it claims to uphold salvation by grace through faith alone, it practically opposes this truth by adding extra-biblical stipulations such as commitment to serve, dedication, obedience, surrender, on-going discipleship, turning from sins, and faithful perseverance to the end of one’s life. All of these become practical requirements for entering heaven’s glory one day according to the Lordship Salvation scheme. In the book, In Defense of the Gospel, Lou Martuneac has provided the body of Christ with a very informative and helpful explanation of this significant difference between the false gospel of Lordship Salvation and the true, saving gospel of God’s grace.

The author knows his subject well. He is battled-tested. He first encountered this false form of the gospel and combated it on the African mission field. Later he had extensive interaction with leading advocates of this view in North America. Martuneac has been indefatigable in defending the truth of salvation by grace alone, and his book reflects this experience through its judicious selection of quotations documenting the Lordship position. One will not find here straw men being erected and then being knocked down all too-easily, leaving the reader without any real help in answering Lordship Salvationists. Instead, one will find that the author is as committed to the truth in fairly representing the opposing viewpoint as he is in his own handling of God’s Word—the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

In this respect, the most important feature of this book is its biblical accuracy in answering the Lordship position. The book’s content is consistent with its subtitle: “Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.” In Defense of the Gospel opens with an introduction to the problem of Lordship Salvation, and then provides an historical overview of the Lordship controversy up to the present day. This is followed by chapters dealing with each of the main problem areas in Lordship Salvation including the distinction between discipleship and salvation, the reality of the carnal Christian, the real meaning of repentance, the nature of saving faith, and the deity of Christ as “Lord.” These chapter-topics are followed by chapters treating key passages in the Lordship debate, such as Romans 10:9-10, Acts 16:30-31, and the rich young ruler passages in the Gospels.

What are Martuneac’s doctrinal conclusions in each of these areas? Here is a brief sampler to whet the appetites of prospective readers:

(a) In the chapter “Salvation and Discipleship: Is There a Biblical Difference?” the author appropriately distinguishes between the free gift of salvation and the costliness of discipleship in the Christian life for rewards. He writes, “Salvation and discipleship are two separate and distinct issues. Salvation is the gift of God to an undeserving Hell-bound sinner. Discipleship is what ought to flow from the man or woman who through the shed blood of Jesus Christ has been redeemed from sin, death, and Hell. Confusing the cost of discipleship for the believer with the gospel of grace through faith is one of the most disconcerting errors of Lordship Salvation” (p. 85).

(b) In the chapter “Can There Be a Christian Who Is Carnal?” Martuneac proves the reality that a person can be simultaneously born again (“a Christian”) and walking according to the flesh (“carnal”). He uses 1 Corinthians 3:1-4; Romans 7:14-25; and numerous Old and New Testament characters to support this biblical reality. He concludes by stating: “Lordship advocates who struggle with the reality of carnal Christians in the church would do well to read again 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. They would do well to let the Bible say what it says, without the trappings of logic and rationalizations to make it fit their system. They would do well to refrain from trying to force the Scriptures into conformity with the presuppositions of Lordship Salvation. The Bible is clear: a man can be genuinely born again, indwelled with the Spirit of God, and live as a carnal Christian at the same time” (p. 119).

(c) In the chapter “What Is Biblical Repentance?” the author humbly acknowledges that he has made significant changes to this chapter on repentance from the original edition of the book (p. 123). It is clear that his doctrine of repentance is the same as traditional Free Grace stalwarts such as C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Charles Ryrie. These men of God all taught that saving repentance is the change of mind about God, sin, the Savior, and salvation that is inherent to faith in Christ for eternal life. Martuneac defines saving repentance the same way, as “a change of mind where one recognizes he is a hopeless, Hell-bound sinner before a just and holy God. When he agrees with the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit that he is a sinner (John 16:7-9) and transfers his dependence to the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation—he has biblically repented. Biblical repentance is a change of mind that should produce the fruit of a change in direction from self and sin toward God. The fruit that should follow is distinct from repentance itself” (pp. 145-46). This is contrary to the Lordship Salvation position which defines repentance for eternal life as a turning from sin that will necessarily lead to a changed life and changed behavior pattern. In distinction to the Lordship view, Martuneac states that the “evidences of a changed life” are “not automatic or the necessary result of a person having initially repented about Jesus Christ at the time of new birth” (p. 147).

(d) In the chapter on “What Is Biblical Saving Faith?” Martuneac defines faith as “a child-like trust in God, which accepts the record He has given of His Son” (p. 150). He goes on to demonstrate how Lordship proponents load the word “faith” with meritorious concepts such as obedience, full surrender, paying the price, and exchanging self for salvation. Martuneac rightly objects to this “barter-system” of salvation, saying “the faith that saves man from the penalty of his sin cannot include any kind of meritorious works. . . . Salvation is obtained through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Man is saved by faith plus nothing!” (p. 151, ellipsis added).

In Defense of the Gospel continues to present the clear truth of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone by examining one-chapter-at-a-time three key passages that frequently arise in the Lordship debate. The chapter on Romans 10:9-10 shows that submission to the lordship or mastery of Christ is not being required for salvation, but belief and acceptance of Christ’s deity as sovereign are being taught. Likewise, to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” in Acts 16:31 does not make believing synonymous with surrendering all areas of the life to the lordship of Christ in order to be born again. Nor did Christ require the rich young ruler to be good and to keep the Ten Commandments in order to enter into eternal life, which is the Lordship interpretation. Instead, Christ was seeking to show the man his sinfulness, self-righteousness, and self-reliance, which was standing in the way of his faith in Christ.

Finally, the book contains three concluding chapters exhorting the reader to stand strong for the truth of the gospel and that this is an issue of biblical separation if there ever was one. This subject of separation is rarely addressed in the Lordship debate, and I am grateful that Martuneac’s book offers this distinctive appeal that is so sorely needed in our day.

There are also eight insightful appendixes at the end of the book on various subjects relating to Lordship Salvation, including the especially important connection between Calvinistic Reformed theology and the doctrine of Lordship Salvation.

The book contains endorsements on the back cover from notables such as Drs. Robert P. Lightner, Ron Comfort, and Charlie Bing, as well as evangelist John R. Van Gelderen. The book is sturdy, well-constructed, and reasonably priced for a standard-sized paperback.

It is also important to note that though this book is consistent with a Free Grace position on salvation in its opposition to Lordship Salvation, In Defense of the Gospel does not hold to the Grace Evangelical Society’s version of “Free Grace.” Sometimes Lordship Salvationists wrongly assume that all Free Grace people adhere to the unbiblical views of the G.E.S. regarding (1) repentance not being a necessary condition for eternal life and (2) not needing to believe in the deity of Christ and His finished work to be born again (i.e., the “crossless gospel”). Martuneac thankfully maintains the biblically balanced view of the nature and content of saving faith in his book by expressly opposing these excesses of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the teachers of G.E.S. theology (pp. 31-35).

So where does In Defense of the Gospel fall among the various good books currently on the market that are opposed to Lordship Salvation? In comparison to Charles Ryrie’s So Great Salvation, Martuneac’s book is beneficial in addressing the subject of Lordship Salvation more directly and more thoroughly. (Martuneac’s book is roughly twice the length of Ryrie’s.) On the other hand, it is not as technical and exegetically “heavy” as Charlie Bing’s book, which was originally his doctoral dissertation. In Defense of the Gospel is geared to the average person and is quite readable. Martuneac is to be commended for providing believers with another very valuable resource on this critical subject. I strongly recommend this book.

Pastor Tom Stegall

Originally appeared March 2011.
Word of Grace Bible Church
Author: The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith

See, IDOTG: Revised & Expanded For all endorsements in and reviews about the book.

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.

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

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

After approximately three years of exposing the reductionist soteriology of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) Crossless gospel it (GES) has been widely recognized as a shrinking cell of theological extremists. Dozens of articles contributed to the exposure and refutation of the late Zane Hodges inspired reductionist attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Examples include:

GES Reductionist Affirmation of Belief

The “Christ” Under Siege

Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?

Zane Hodges: Drifting Far Off the Marker

The Gospel of the Christ: Preach the Maximum, Require the Minimum

The Crossless gospel can be summarized as follows: The lost man simply needs to believe a man named Jesus guarantees eternal life, and by believing in nothing more than the promise of eternal life he (the lost man) is born again. According to GES the lost man does not need to know, understand or believe that he is a sinner under the wrath of God. The lost man does not need to know, understand or believe in the Person (deity) of Jesus and what He did to provide salvation. The GES insists the Lord’s titles; “the Christ” and “Son of God” do not mean or infer His deity. The GES defines “the Christ” in purely functional terms, such as “the Guarantor of everlasting life.” Furthermore, Crossless gospel advocates believe a lost man can openly reject the Lord’s deity, but still be born again. They consider any one can be saved including the Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon and Hindu “no matter what misconceptions” and heretical beliefs they hold about the Lord Jesus Christ. In an evangelistic setting any misconception the lost man has about Jesus, including open rejection of His deity, is to be “put on the back burner” and left there. (In Defense of the Gospel, Revised & Expanded Edition, pp. 32-33)

We are grateful that many of the Crossless gospel advocates and their apologists have been exposed. Their errors have been refuted from the Scriptures. From the pictorial images from the April 2010 GES national conference it appears there were less than 100 in attendance including its speakers. In most cases GES Crossless advocates and their defenders have fallen silent, their blogs are essentially defunct. If, however, they should reappear on the Internet we will make certain they are exposed so that the unsuspecting do not fall prey to their insidious errors.

The Crossless gospel is the most egregious reductionist assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own, namely Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. No other group in Christian circles, other than the GES or its sympathizers, propagates this reductionist heresy. Because the GES still exists, although in shrinking numbers, the unsuspecting might be exposed to and come under its corruptive influence and possibly fall into the trap of its Crossless, Promise- ONLY heresy. For this reason we continue to alert and inform believers of this dangerous teaching.

Pastor Tom Stegall, author of The Gospel of the Christ has written a new two-part series to address the ongoing propagation of the Crossless gospel heresy. Part one of Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel will be posted tomorrow morning for your consideration.


LM

Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel: “Joined at the Hip.”

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

There are two assaults on the Gospel that are of particular interest here at Lou’s blog. They are Lordship Salvation1 and the newer “Crossless Gospel,”2 also known as the Promise Only gospel. While the two are often seen as polar opposites, Tim V. P. has noticed an interesting similarity between them. Lou has asked me to introduce Tim’s article because I have noticed and commented in past months on this similarity. The connection is- they BOTH fail to bring the sinner directly to the cross of Christ for salvation.

Tim posted a very articulate comment outlining this connection. In fact, I felt Tim had articulated the matter so well that I asked Lou if he would approach Tim about posting his comment on the blog as an article. Lou felt the same way I did and Tim was agreeable to the suggestion; thanks Tim! So without any further ado, here is Tim’s (updated) very important article. *Jan Hawthorne

Its been some time since I have commented, but this article (The Gospel of the Christ: The Dilemma of Muslim Evangelism) focused my attention on something that has been brewing in the back of my mind for some time as I have followed the Lordship Salvation (LS) and Crossless Gospel (CG) issues.

While they appear to be opposite sides of the same coin, it seems to me that they are joined at the hip at the point of opposition to faith in the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ as the necessary first step for the sinner in receiving salvation. Both LS and CG advocates say in their own way that a birth relationship with God can be established apart from the cross of Christ, apart from the necessity of the death of Christ on the cross as the only point of contact between an absolutely holy God and the spiritually dead sinner (Jn.12:24; Eph.2:1,5 etc.)

An LS advocate would put a sinner’s surrender and total “commitment to Christ as Lord” ahead of trusting His work of dying on the cross for his very own sins/sinful self. This is a position very much like that of the crowd in the New Testament (NT) who “believed in Him” because they were convinced of His Lordship powers, or that of “total surrender” to His Lordship rule during His Millennial reign by those born naturally in that time. In both cases, such “surrender/commitment” is exposed as an inadequate basis for eternal salvation just as soon as Satan’s power is unleashed.

Crossless Gospel proponents, on the other hand, deny the cross by asserting that bare belief in an undefined person called “Jesus” is enough to save apart from any accurate understanding of His person or work. No misconception, faulty belief or even a complete lack of belief concerning His substitutionary death on the cross is deemed as standing in the way of eternal life. LS and CG are probably far apart on many things, but in this subtle (in the case of LS) and blatant denial of the necessity of the cross as to first point of contact between God and the sinner, they seem to be in complete agreement. All true order is God’s order and Gospel truths put forth out of His order constitutes a faulty witness at best. When these truths are completely set aside as unnecessary the witness is not faulty, but false.

In view of the prominence and centrality of the cross of Christ in the Bible as a whole and the NT in particular, it is hard to accept or believe that those who tenaciously hold to either view (LS or CG) can be accepted as sincere in their service for the One Who died there and rose again out of that death.

*Jan is author of the two part series titled, If Anyone Eats of This Bread…

1) Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

2) The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

Editor’s Note:
This morning I received one note of concern from a friend in regard to this (guest written) article. What follows is an edited version of my personal reply, which I want to make available for consideration by all.


I posted this article on behalf of those who believe there is a similarity on this one point between Lordship Salvation (LS) and the Crossless Gospel (CG) in regard to the cross of Christ as they expressed it. I felt it worthwhile to post for consideration by all. 

The thread is open for any who want to challenge what this article alleges. Any legitimate concerns will be posted in this thread.

Most people in these discussions understand one another in that there is a vast chasm between LS and the CG on the necessity of belief in the Lord’s deity, resurrection and what He did to provide salvation on the cross. I do understand the frustration some may have with this paragraph (bold especially) with it suggesting LS men are opposed “faith in the cross work” of Christ.

“While they appear to be opposite sides of the same coin, it seems to me that they are joined at the hip at the point of opposition to faith in the cross work of our Lord Jesus Christ as the necessary first step for the sinner in receiving salvation. Both LS and CG advocates say in their own way that a birth relationship with God can be established apart from the cross of Christ, apart from the necessity of the death of Christ on the cross as the only point of contact between an absolutely holy God and the spiritually dead sinner…”

Maybe I should reiterate that my chief concern in the Gospel discussions is over justification. The post-conversion experience in sanctification is an important discussion, but that is not where my main concern lies. I believe there should be genuine results following a genuine conversion. However, I do believe it is legitimate for some to question whether LS men present the cross as the central and primary theme in their evangelism.

In virtually every LS message I’ve been exposed to, the primary message to the lost (in various ways) is their being called upon for a commitment to do the “good works” foreordained for a Christian to become a Christian, i.e., to be born again.

The cross may be in a LS man’s evangelistic appeal, but in my experience belief in the cross work of Christ frequently becomes an underlying theme, losing its centrality to themes of cross-bearing, following and commitment as co-conditions for salvation that are inherent in LS evangelism. I have been in and/or heard services where LS was preached and belief in the cross FOR salvation was NEVER mentioned. Those are some examples of why I often refer to LS as “man-centered.”

What I would like is to have is an overwhelming amount of examples in which LS men like John MacArthur preaches the necessity of belief in what Jesus did on the cross at the central theme of the saving message. I want to read where LS men condition justification on acceptance of and belief in the cross work of Christ, apart from the lost man’s commitment to do the foreordained “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a Christian. 

I would like examples of MacArthur preaching the cross and the necessity of belief in the cross for justification apart from a “wholehearted-commitment” to discipleship?

If it can be shown that JMac and the better-known LS men consistently preach the necessity of a lost man’s acceptance of and believing in the cross work of Christ as the central theme and focal point of the saving message and that he (the lost man) can be saved based on that belief (deity and resurrection being givens) apart from a personal commitment to do the works of a disciple then I’d be happy to post those examples in this thread.


LM

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 “Lordship Salvation” Label

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 “Lordship Salvation” Label

Finally, the origin of the phrases “Free Grace” and “Lordship Salvation” is worth recollecting for a moment. Both designations resulted from the salvation controversy that peaked in American Evangelicalism in the 1980s. The Grace position coined the phrase “Lordship Salvation” for the opposing viewpoint, and like it or not, the label stuck. Initially, this designation was meant to convey the idea that something more was being added to the sole condition of faith in Christ for salvation. A commitment or submission to the Lordship of Christ over one’s life was also being required by many evangelicals. Thus the phrase, “Lordship Salvation,” was originally meant to convey a negative idea, conjuring up the impression in most people’s minds of a works-oriented salvation that is contrary to God’s grace. This was clearly how those on the Lordship side perceived it as well. That is why John MacArthur, the leading spokesman for the Lordship view, stated in 1988:

I don’t like the term “lordship salvation.” It was coined by those who want to eliminate the idea of submission to Christ from the call to saving faith, and it implies that Jesus’ lordship is a false addition to the gospel. As we shall see, however, “lordship salvation” is simply the biblical and historic doctrine of soteriology. I use the term in this volume only for the sake of argument.1

Clearly, MacArthur did not initially appreciate the designation and the negative associations it left in people’s minds. Five years later, this was still smoldering in his thinking, as he reiterated the same point in his second book:

I don’t like the term lordship salvation. I reject the connotation intended by those who coined the phrase. It insinuates that a submissive heart is extraneous or supplementary to saving faith. Although I have reluctantly used the term to describe my views, it is a concession to popular usage. . . . Those who criticize lordship salvation like to level the charge that we teach a system of works-based righteousness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although I labored to make this as plain as possible in The Gospel According to Jesus, some critics continue to hurl that allegation.2

Yet, in spite of the fact that MacArthur and many others voiced their objections to the “Lordship Salvation” label, and even felt it was a misrepresentation of their doctrinal position, those on the Grace side continued to use it based on their personal, biblical conviction that MacArthur and others really were advocating a works-gospel. That is why the crossless teachers of today’s Free Grace movement have themselves routinely used the rather pejorative designation, “Lordship gospel,” to summarize the message of MacArthur and others on the Lordship side. 3 There is not much difference between referring to the Lordship view as the “Lordship gospel” and referring to the crossless saving faith view as the “Crossless gospel.”


Please continue to- The “No Lordship” Counter-Claim

1) John F. MacArthur Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, “Follow Me”? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 28-29n20.

2) John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 23 (ellipsis added).

3) “Similarly, if the Lordship gospel is correct, then Free Grace theology is not” (Bob Wilkin, “Lordship Salvation for Dummies,” Grace in Focus 21 [September-October 2006]: 2). “It follows from what I have just said that nobody ever got saved by believing the Lordship gospel. Of course some people do believe that gospel who are already saved. I am not talking about that. I just mean that on the terms of the Lordship gospel alone, no one can get saved, since this form of doctrine garbles the gospel so badly that assurance of salvation is not available. And if some people do find assurance in a Lordship gospel, that assurance is a delusion since it is not founded on biblical truth.” (Zane C. Hodges, “Assurance: Of the Essence of Saving Faith,” in JOTGES 10 [Spring 1997]: 4).

For additional study on the “Lordship Salvation” interpretation of the Gospel I invite you to read:

Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel


Editor’s Note: For related reading and discussion of the Crossless Gospel see these articles.

GES Reductionist Affirmation of Faith

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

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

The Gospel of the Christ: Biblical Terminology for False Teaching

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.

Biblical Terminology for False Teaching

This leads to a third important consideration for the use of the phrase “crossless gospel.” It is contrary to the biblical pattern to allow those who are in doctrinal error to dictate a more pleasant-sounding, appealing label for their views. This is why the Lord Jesus Himself did not consult with the Pharisees first in order to find a mutually agreeable, less offensive, moniker for their doctrine than the spiritually charged label of “leaven” (Matt. 16:12). Do you think the Pharisees viewed their own doctrine as “leaven”? Couldn’t a less offensive label for their doctrine be chosen than one which every Israelite would have immediately associated with the presence of sin and evil? If the Bible itself repeatedly uses very unflattering language for doctrinal error, how can we refuse to do likewise or somehow consider it wrong to do so in the midst of this current gospel controversy?

Consider further the example of the apostle Paul. Was he required out of “grace” to check with Hymenaeus and Philetus before identifying their doctrine in 2 Timothy 2:17 as “gangrene” (gangraina)? Or was it actually the loving thing to do to warn other susceptible believers of the gravity of their false eschatological doctrines by employing such a potent and pejorative image as “gangrene”?

To be sure, “crossless gospel” has an unpleasant ring to it; but false doctrine itself is unpleasant, and it should make us feel uncomfortable. Besides, the phrase “crossless gospel” is even milder than likening the new Free Grace gospel to “gangrene,” or calling it something like “the gangrenous gospel.”

Now let’s move from the false eschatological doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus to the realm of today’s *redefined Free Grace soteriology. Let’s ask, which is the more serious error, to teach that the resurrection is past already or to teach that you don’t even have to believe the gospel to go to heaven? Which has far greater eternal ramifications, to teach believers that the resurrection is past already and thus overthrow the faith of some who are already saved, or to teach that the lost don’t even have to believe in a Christ who is God, who died for our sins and who is alive from the dead? If the apostle Paul deemed a false eschatology worthy of the repulsive analogy of “gangrene,” can you imagine what he would say about today’s reductionist saving message? At times, serious departure from the truth calls for an equally serious censure of that error, especially when people’s eternal destinies are on the line. Webster’s defines the noun “censure” to mean, “strong disapproval; condemnation.” When used as a verb, it means, “to condemn as wrong.”1 There is no question that the phrase “crossless gospel” is meant to express “strong disapproval” of this new error and “to condemn [it] as wrong.” Make no mistake about it; those who have chosen to use this phrase (including this author) have chosen to do so deliberately as an expression of reproof and rebuke, which is also biblical (2 Tim. 4:2).

Again, when the apostle Paul wanted to warn the believers in Philippi about the dangerous teaching of the legalizers who added law-keeping to faith alone in Christ as the requirement for justification, he wrote to them to “beware of the concision” (Phil. 3:2, KJV) or “mutilation” (NKJV). Was this really a fair way to characterize the teaching of those who believed in law-keeping for justification? Was Paul mischaracterizing their doctrinal views by using such a powerful and pejorative expression? Though they obviously believed in more aspects of law-keeping than just circumcision, he still used the abbreviated expression “concision” or “mutilation.” Was this depiction of the legalists’ doctrine open to misinterpretation by those who heard it or read it? Possibly. But it was also a powerful deterrent. In the same way, the phrase “crossless gospel” is not intended to express all that its proponents believe; but it is still fitting. In addition, when Paul wrote to the Philippians, there was nothing wrong with circumcision in itself; but Paul chose to refer to the false teachers’ views on circumcision in a negative, pejorative manner by characterizing them as a botched circumcision—a “mutilation” (katatomēn). Was this ungracious of the apostle Paul?

Indeed, some today have mutilated the saving message by removing what they consider to be excess, unnecessary content, which is actually the heart and soul of the gospel—the person and work of Christ.

Some Grace people may object that the preceding biblical examples are not a fair and equal comparison to today’s Free Grace teachers of a reductionist “message of life.” Some may protest that today’s teachers are regenerated men, whereas “the concision” of Paul’s day were unbelievers. Therefore, such charged language is unfit for fellow brothers in Christ with whom we are in doctrinal disagreement. But is it really true that the legalists that Paul had in mind were all unbelievers? Certainly some were (Gal. 2:4). Perhaps even most were. But it would be hard to maintain that all were unbelievers in light of Acts 15:5 and Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians where he viewed the Galatians as regenerate (Gal. 4:6-7) but also as having fallen prey to the false gospel of the legalists (Gal. 1:6-7; 5:1-4). In conclusion, we must consider the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus one more time. These men were most likely genuine, but disobedient, believers.2 In spite of the fact that they were fellow believers, Paul was still compelled to liken their doctrine to “gangrene.”


Please continue to- The “Lordship Salvation” Label

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

1) Webster’s New World Dictionary, ed. Victoria Neufeldt (New York: Warner Books, 1990), 98.
2) Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1992), 334-336; Thomas L. Stegall, “Must Faith Endure for Salvation to be Sure?

Next week the concluding excerpts will post under the following titles, The “Lordship Salvation” Label & The “No Lordship” Counter Claim

Editor’s Note: For related reading and discussion see these articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Language of Accommodation or Correction?

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

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


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

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

GES Reductionist Affirmation of Faith

The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

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

Zane Hodges: Drifting Far Off the Marker

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

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