An OPEN LETTER: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Last week the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) Executive Council announced its Open Break from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and its Crossless/Promise ONLY gospel.


Late last evening I received a copy of an Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay.

The Open Letter will be available shortly for download, in its entirety (37 pages) at the Fred Lybrand blog and here at IDOTG. Here are selected excerpts for your consideration.

“It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.”

“The Free Grace Movement did not start with GES, though it could end with it. If we leave the mainstream and follow the sincere, but misguided thinking of recent years, we will no longer be a Movement, but will rather star in the inevitable last act of fading away as a Monument.”

“The GES Gospel is a change in the very definition of the Gospel of Grace that violates our own FGA Covenant when it states,

‘Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.’

I was there when we formed these words together, knowing that the death and resurrection of the Savior was clearly among our concerns. I also know that it was Larry Moyer’s counsel to us that also contributed to this emphasis. In any event, believing in the finished work of Christ clearly is not the same as the GES Gospel’s notion of the gospel being nothing except ‘believing that He can guarantee one’s eternal life’. As the GES Gospel advocates point out—Jesus made this promise before He died, which means He made the promise before His work was finished. To believe the GES Gospel is to deny the Classical Free Grace understanding of the gospel through which we are eternally saved.”

There is much more that sheds light from an insider’s perspective on some previously unknown issues in and surrounding the debate within the Free Grace movement. Things that clearly define why GES is not representative of historic Free Grace theology. Things that define how GES has steadily drifted from a biblically balanced view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ thorough reductionist thinking

Following are the opening paragraphs from the Open Letter.

Dear Dr. Chay,

Fred, at your request I am finally, and reluctantly, addressing the issue concerning the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and the ‘crossless gospel’, so called. I say ‘so called’ because I would name it the GES Gospel. I am not aware of it being held by anyone, anywhere, in history; it is solely owned and promoted by GES. Of course, I am sure that when most GES folks present the gospel, they include a mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. However, when one asks, “What must one believe to be saved?” --- Then the cross and resurrection are clearly unnecessary pieces of information for saving faith and eternal salvation in the GES Gospel view. And as any objective person can see, eventually this line of thinking will invade their presentation of the saving message.

I am aware that you attended a meeting involving a number of folks to attempt to look at the text surrounding (especially) GES and its novel view of the Gospel by which we are eternally saved. I am very thankful that you were invited to attend the meeting, since as you know, in the past we have offered to sponsor such collegial and academic discussions to no avail. It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.

I’m sure they might take exception as to whether or not they have left the Movement, but the fact is that GES is no longer mainstream (if it ever was) regarding those who have been patently ‘free grace’ throughout history. In particular, traditional and mainstream Free Grace leaders such as Dr. Chafer, Dr. Ryrie, and Dr. Radmacher are all in print as affirming the necessity of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross regarding one’s deliverance from eternal damnation. My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace. (links added)

The Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay is available for download below.

Bible-believing Christians all across evangelical Christianity can be thankful for men who are coming forward to clarify the crux of the doctrinal controversy.

Lord willing the advocates of the GES “Crossless” gospel can recovered from and repent of the errors they currently propagate. While we wait the Gospel of Grace will go forward in truth and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yours faithfully,


LM

Visit the Fred Lybrand blog to view the on-going discussion there.

DOWNLOAD HERE:

For the MS Word version download: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

For the PDF format download: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

Free Grace Alliance Announces an Open Break from the Grace Evangelical Society and its “Crossless” Gospel

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Today an e-mail from the FGA’s Executive Council was sent to its existing membership. Among other items of interest the following major announcement was included:

The Grace Evangelical Society
After much discussion and reflection, the FGA Executive Council has concluded that in the light of misunderstandings in our broader Christian community, it is important for us to issue the following statement:

The Free Grace Alliance is not associated with the Grace Evangelical Society and does not endorse the GES Gospel (also referred to as “crossless” or “promise only” by some). We invite those who share our heart for the Gospel’s clarity and declaration, of both the Person and Work of Christ, to join hands with us.

This a welcome, long anticipated and necessary announcement.

Any individual in the Free Grace community that does not align with, but has by default been perceived to be a member of or sympathetic to the GES will find the FGA announcement very welcome news.

There has indeed been a long held “misunderstanding in our broader Christian community.” As I put it “a serious misunderstanding across a broad cross section of Evangelical Christianity.” The misunderstanding is that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is the representative voice of the broad base of men and women who identify themselves with the Free Grace (FG) community. This is and has been a serious misnomer that has been in sore need of correction. The GES is in fact a shrinking cell of theological extremists that do not speak for or represent any Bible-believing Christian outside the GES leadership, membership and its sympathizers.

The GES propagates what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of the GES reductionist assault on the content of saving faith; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name and/or ministry to be identified with the GES.

GES reductionist soteriology is the most egregious form of anti-biblical heresy ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own, namely the late Zane Hodges. This reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith, is propagated solely by the Grace Evangelical Society and its Executive Director, Bob Wilkin.

The reductionism, originated by Zane Hodges, has long since rendered the GES irrelevant and impotent in any discussion of or debate over the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No advocate of the GES “Crossless” gospel can be taken seriously in any discussion of the Gospel, especially in the matter of justification by faith.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the Hodges, Wilkin “Crossless” gospel it can be boiled down to this cover statement.

The GES believes that a lost man does NOT have to be aware of, understand or believe in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again. Only belief in the promise of eternal life by a man named Jesus, no matter who the lost man believes him to be, including the non-deity Mormon Jesus, grants to him (the lost man) eternal life.

It is my understanding that this major announcement from the FGA will very shortly appear at the Free Grace Alliance site.


LM

Visit the official FGA site for the announcement there.

The Issue of Incongruity – Actual or Artificial? Pt.1

Greetings in the name of the Lord:

This is the first of the series of articles (originally published May 5, 2008) that I am planning on writing on the latest issue that seems to have surfaced regarding the “Crossless” gospel controversy, namely the issue of incongruity.

I think that we can all agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest message a voice could ever proclaim and a heart could ever believe. Yet there are those in the Free Grace camp that are:

1) Denying that the Gospel has a technical meaning anywhere in the New Testament, and claiming that it never is used in reference to the message of eternal salvation.

“What if the word ‘gospel’ doesn’t ever mean the saving message? Now hang with me here. I gave this same message, but I didn’t say quite this, a little over a month ago in Omaha at a Regional we had there. And what I suggested is that the term ‘gospel’ rarely, if ever, means, ‘What must I believe to have eternal life? What must I believe to be saved? What must I do to have, to go to heaven, to be sure I’ll be in the kingdom?’ But in the intervening time as I’ve been reflecting on it etcetera, I realized that we should go further than saying, ‘It’s rare that this term refers to the saving message.’ I’m now of the opinion it never refers specifically to ‘What must I believe to have eternal life’?”[1]

2) Gutting the Gospel of the necessary components of Jesus Christ’s deity, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, etc.

“In Jewish prophecy and theology the promised Christ was also the Son of God—that is, He was to be a divine person. Recall the words of Isaiah: ‘For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given…and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ (9:6-7). But in Samaritan theology, the Messiah was thought of as a prophet and the woman at the well is led to faith through our Lord’s prophetic ability to know her life. Her words, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’ (4:19) are a first step in the direction of recognizing Him as the Christ. There is no evidence that she or the other Samaritans understood the deity of our Lord. But they did believe that he was the Christ. And John tells us in his first epistle that “whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (5:1)! A full theology of His person is not necessary to salvation. If we believe that Jesus is the One who guarantees our eternal destiny, we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved.” [2]

3) Claiming to preach the person and finished work of Jesus Christ as part of the Gospel, but are not convinced that this is necessary to be believed in order to possess eternal life/salvation.

“John keeps the signs distinct from the message of life, so evangelicals must not confuse them either. John does not set forth the sign of the cross-and-resurrection as the message that one must believe in order to receive eternal life.” [3]

So the real question then is not "How much of the gospel do you have to believe?" but rather "What do you have to believe to receive everlasting life?" If we want to know what a person must believe to receive everlasting life, we should not ask the question, "What is the gospel?" but rather, "What is the message of life?" When asked that way, the answer becomes crystal clear. The Gospel of John, which does not contain the word gospel, tells us over and over what people must do to receive everlasting life: believe in Jesus for everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.) You do not have to believe the gospel to receive everlasting life, you only have to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. [4]

Thus, it has been Tom Stegall’s and my contention from the outset of our public exposure of this aberrant teaching of the Crossless gospel (2007 Spring edition of the Grace Family Journal) that the issue is not merely what must be PREACHED to the unsaved, but what must be BELIEVED to receive eternal life. This is critical and crucial to remember as believers grapple with this new Crossless gospel (*also referred to now as “the promise-only gospel” and/or “a crossless faith that saves”).

I mention this as there are those within the Free Grace camp that have heralded, “Let’s preach the MAXIMUM but remember that God accepts the MINIMUM.” This dichotomy and tension was reflected in the recent Free Grace Alliance (FGA) **Executive Council’s statement from early March, 2008.

I appreciate the first half of their statement,

“The FGA’s mission is always and everywhere to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ when we preach the gospel. We encourage every member of the FGA to be fervent and faithful to preach that message.”

This is a step in the right direction to which I can say a hearty AMEN. But unfortunately right on its heels they go on to state,

“Within the membership of the FGA there has been discussion about the minimum one must understand to be saved. Regardless of a person’s convictions, believers are called to preach the gospel, not the minimum.”

This statement alludes to an apparent difference between “the Gospel” and “the minimum” one must understand (and believe)to be saved. This is confusing at best, and falls right into the hands of the Crossless crowd at worst. What I find amazing is how cross-less advocates remain in the FGA requiring either semantical gymnastics or a lack of personal integrity in light of the organization’s short doctrinal covenant which clearly reads,

We affirm the following:
1. The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.

2. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.

3. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.

4. Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.

5. Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.

6. Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.

7. The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since point 3 clarifies point 2, and is addressing justification before God and not progressive sanctification in time (which isn’t addressed till point 6), I am mystified how some in good conscience before God can remain in the FGA (which I also am a member of).

But all this serves to highlight the bottom-line issue of what not only needs to be PREACHED regarding the Gospel of salvation but what also needs to be BELIEVED in order for a hopeless, helpless, Hell-bound sinner to be eternally saved. Does the Bible allow for an INCONGRUITY between the Gospel preached and the content of saving faith? I will begin addressing 12 scriptural nails in the coffin of incongruity in my next article.

For those who can’t wait and would like to hear 2 audio recent messages that address the subject, “WHAT MUST I BELIEVE TO BE SAVED,?” you may hear them at the Duluth Bible Church web site.

All by God’s grace and to His glory for the furtherance of the Gospel,


Dennis Rokser
Pastor/Teacher at Duluth Bible Church

Please continue to Part 2 of Pastor Rokser’s The Issues of Incongruity.

[1] Bob Wilkin, Gospel Means Good News, Grace Evangelical Society Southern California Regional Conference, August 24, 2007.

[2] Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Autumn 2000): 5 (bold replaces original italics).

[3] John Niemelä, “The Message of Life in the Gospel of John,” CTSJ 7 (July-Sept. 2001): 18.

[4] Jeremy D. Myers, The Gospel is More Than “Faith Alone in Christ Alone,” JOTGES 19 [Autumn 2006]: 44.

*Some advocates of the Crossless gospel have been referring to their new and inconsistent interpretation of the Gospel as “Refined Free Grace Theology.” Stephen (KnetKnight) was the first to coin what would be the more appropriate label, which is: “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology.

**For discussion of the FGA’s statement, including several comments by FGA VP Fred Lybrand, please read, FGA Executive Counsel’s Official Statement.

Dr. Charlie Bing Affirms the Meaning of the FGA Covenant

Dr. Charlie Bing is President of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA). In the current FGA E-Newsletter he shares what I consider an important clarifying announcement that has immense meaning and impact for the Free Grace community.

The subject of his notes has to do with the FGA’s Covenant. In particular he addresses the “obvious meaning” of the Covenant’s Affirmation #3, which states,

“Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.”

In Dr. Bing’s article the following appears in regard to Affirmation #3,

“I think it speaks for itself about the content of what must be believed for a person to be saved. Since this is not a peripheral issue, there is a strong feeling among the FGA Executive Council that we affirm the necessity of believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. That is the message we want to work together to advance in the world.”

In my opinion, this clarifying statement from the FGA President effectively ends any further speculation over whether or not an advocate of the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless gospel can, in good conscience, sign agreement with the FGA Covenant. Lord willing this announcement signals the end of the “divisions and offences” that were introduced into the FGA through the “contrary” doctrine of the Crossless gospel.

With the FGA Covenant’s “obvious meaning” made clear the FGA can begin to advance the mission for which it was formed.

Please visit the FGA web site and read From the President for the full article.

Yours faithfully,


Lou Martuneac

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

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

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

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

“The view that one can believe in Jesus for eternal life without knowing that He died and rose again has been variously termed the ‘crossless gospel,’ the ‘promise-only gospel,’ the ‘contentless gospel,’ the ‘minimalist gospel,’ and the ‘refined gospel’… The present writer applauds the quest for precision in the content of saving faith by those who hold this view; yet, in a tragic example of a theological method gone awry, they have gone too far.”

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


LM

*Getting the Gospel Wrong will be available beginning June 30th. You can pre-order through Dr. Hixson’s website: Not-by-Works. I am going to provide a link once the book is available for on-line ordering.

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

FGA Update from Fred Lybrand

Over the weekend two new comments were posted by Dr. Fred Lybrand in the thread of my article Free Grace Alliance Membership. Following is the second of the two comments,

Lou,

I believe many things are coming together to create the context in which we can agree on essentials while leaving room for conversation. In my discussions with many key players in the Free Grace world, there is a refreshed spirit of cooperation...but not compromise...which leads me to believe a large number of us might just figure out how to get together.

I do see a clarifying of the extremes...I’m pondering a designation like HYPOGrace (toward Works Salvation) and HYPERGrace (towards Universalism) to clarify the rabid-extremes. For myself I hope to stay in a proper & historically sane middle ground…but personally I arrive there because it is the place the Bible affirms.

“Stay tuned” means more in due time...as the Lord allows.

God bless,

FRL

Furthermore, Brother Lybrand has completed a new book. The title is, Preaching on Your Feet

You can view and if you choose to, purchase it by clicking on the link.


LM

Free Grace Alliance: Redux

Dear Guests:

A great deal of new discussion was generated with the release of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) Executive Counsel’s Official Statement. Some of the discussion has revolved around the FGA Covenant. Newly appointed FGA Vice President, Fred Lybrand shared his conviction that the Covenant has an “obvious meaning.” He also kicked off our discussion with his support of the recent FGA Official Statement.

Recent comments have been made in regard to the FGA’s Covenant. Fred Lybrand has reviewed some of these statements and concluded that while some were correct other remarks were personally disappointing.

After some discussion Brother Lybrand agreed to allow me to share his thoughts on a few comments being circulated in the blogs. Following will be a selective compilation of blog comments followed by Brother Lybrand’s short responses. Everyone concerned with the current climate in the Free Grace community should gain some helpful insights from this editorial perspective.

Blog statements will be in box quote and red letters. Lybrand’s response will follow each.

I am afraid that you have not listened to the testimony of Fred Lybrand who stated that the FGA is governed by a covenant rather than a doctrinal statement.

I agree that we need to emphasize the Covenant over a traditional doctrinal statement.

The covenant, as read, could be signed on by most if not all evangelicals the way it is read! John MacArthur himself could sign on to it! And as a matter of fact, there are reformed Calvinists (who are inherently Lordship) who are in membership with the FGA because they could agree to the very broad covenant! H. Wayne House is only one example.

Anyone “could” sign it, but I don’t see how it would be an act of good faith. The Covenant was designed to leave room for discussion (at the time we discussed the varying views on ‘repentance’ as an example).

John MacArthur could not possibly sign it & Bob Wilkin cannot either (according to my conversations with him). Additionally, no one who believes one can lose his salvation could sign it, nor one who fully integrates faith and works in the salvation event. The theory that Calvinists are inherently Lordship is a bit of a theological urban legend (see Gordon Clark’s Faith & Saving Faith for an example of a ‘Calvinist’ who gets free grace).

Some seem to think if a person buys one point of Calvinism, he must buy all five. But, that would have to be true of Arminianism as well (accept 1 point, accept all 5). Most of us believe that Christ Died for All (one of the points of Arminianism), yet we don’t believe in loss of eternal salvation (another point of Arminianism).

Lewis Sperry Chafer (and Ryrie and Darby and others) all consider(ed) themselves moderate Calvinists, but were blatantly Free Grace.

I don’t believe Ryrie or Chafer could sign the GES Affirmations because of its insistence that a genuine believer can [possibly] have no works/fruit/obedience ever in his life.

It is manifestly obvious that the covenant is NOT a definition of what Free Grace Theology is.

This is true, the Covenant is not a definition of Free Grace theology, but it is a fair shot at separating the Lordshippers (rabid puritan-Calvinists / neo-Calvinists) and the Arminians. Personally, I don’t mind ‘evangelizing’ either of these folks, but maybe the FGA isn’t the best place for that!

The covenant is very broad as written that it could be signed on by just about any flavor of evangelical. Re-read the statement. It is so broad and ill-defined that any evangelical could sign it (and of course that includes me! even section 3!)

I’m not sure what he means here about section 3 since I’m not up on his particular viewpoint. The section says:

“Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.”

It is apparent that this isn’t particularly decisional, but rather faith-based. The object of the faith is focused on the finished work of Christ and its results regarding condemnation and eternal life. There is nothing, for example about “asking Jesus into one’s heart” or “giving one’s life to Jesus.” It seems this pretty much wipes out all those folks, if they are operating in good faith!

Apparently some don’t think “finished work” means “finished work.” Well, what to you do? I suppose, if I desired it, I could figure out how to “sign” any statement.

Do a little more research before you make the uninformed claim that this covenant is the sine-qua-non of Free Grace theology. It is merely a covenant for membership to this organization.

It is not the sine qua non, but I’d argue its pretty close. We often tend to think in idealized ways, hoping for perfection and absolutes in our understanding. A sine qua non simply looks at the essentials of what it means to be free grace. In this regard, one either is or isn’t. Perhaps the essentials of our burden for God’s grace haven’t yet been cleanly defined. For me, all the boundaries for Free Grace will surround how the Gospel is affected (infected?) by the various tangents in the outlying theological territory. If faith alone in Christ alone is neutralized, then all is lost. I’m quite sure we advocates of free grace, no matter our odd twists, share this motive together, even as we disagree.

Hope this helps.


Pastor Fred Lybrand

New VP named to FGA Board

Dear Guests:

In an e-mail exchange with Fred Lybrand last night I was informed that he had just been officially named Vice President of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) for 2008.

I am hopeful Brother Lybrand’s presence on the board will help the FGA find its voice and footing.


LM

General Thoughts on FGA’s Official Statement & Thanks to Brother Fred Lybrand

Dear Guests:

The following was my concluding note to Brother Fred Lybrand (former Free Grace Alliance [FGA] Executive Director) in the previous thread under, The FGA Executive Counsel’s Official Statement

After I posted my concluding note to Brother Lybrand I felt it was suitable to publish on my home page. I encourage every guest to return to the FGA article, which I link to above, and read through the thread. There are many excellent notes from my guests about the current official statement from the FGA.

I have listed that article in my Favorite Picks section of my blog.


Dear Fred:

I want to thank you for visiting my blog and interacting with my guests and me. I’m sure I can speak for all of us when I say that we genuinely appreciate it.

There are many good comments from my guests about the official statement just issued from the current FGA executive counsel. My guests have identified what are glaring problems with the statement in its present form.

It is impossible to pick just one of the many fine comments to reiterate, but I’ll go with Stephen from 3/13/2008 11:57 AM.

He wrote,

“How can defining the gospel not be part of our focus? Rachel rightly observed that we have said ‘believers are called to preach the gospel’ and our FAQ #1 says ‘The FGA is seeking to unite leaders, churches, and organizations which affirm the gospel of grace.’

How can we unite anyone around ‘the gospel of grace’ if we don’t have a consistent definition of what that is to base that unity on? i.e. if I think ‘the gospel of grace’ is the saving message and someone else thinks it’s ‘the entire bible’ or ‘any good news’ then our unity would be in word only, but not practice.”

I trust the FGA’s official statement will be up for additional review and serious revision to include a clear, uncompromised Bible based definition of the Gospel, and that the Gospel must be believed for the reception of eternal life.

At present the FGA is asking believers to ignore a major doctrinal difference on the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of an appearance of unity. There is no biblical precedent for such, which I consider an unholy alliance.

The following appears in my book, In Defense of the Gospel, which I believe captures a major component of what we are discussing.

“When people are converted and receive a love of the truth, they are baptized into a body that has an inherent organic unity. Jesus Christ prayed in John 17 for a unity that came to pass at Pentecost. And every person who is baptized into Christ is in union. The unity is God and Spirit created. There is no unity to be created, the unity is there. It is only a unity that is to be maintained. Those who teach contrary to the body of revealed truth that is the center of this unity, they are the ones who create the divisions and create the stumbling blocks.” (Dr. Mark Minnick: The Scriptural Response to Teachers of Doctrinal Error. A sermon recorded November, 1997. See p. 214.)

As long as Crossless gospel advocates like Stephen Lewis, Jim Johnson and Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet fg me) remain in FGA membership, which they joined by twisting the Covenant’s “obvious meaning” to suit their Crossless theology, there can never be genuine unity.

The “contrary doctrine” of the Crossless gospel is the reason for and cause of “divisions and offences” in the body of Christ and in the FGA. I am guardedly optimistic about and am praying for the advocates of the Crossless gospel to depart from the FGA so that the purity the Gospel and unity of like-minded believers will be restored and maintained.

With God’s help and direction I want to do all that I can to further the cause of Christ. I will do whatever I can to nurture and encourage the FGA to courageously state and stand for the truth of the Gospel, and resist all who are tearing it down through the reductionist methods of Zane Hodges & Bob Wilkin.

Finally, thank you for speaking to me on the phone yesterday afternoon. I enjoyed the fellowship around the Bible. In my opinion, it was profitable as we shared a time of iron sharpening (Proverbs 27:17).

God bless you and you seek to honor God, His Word, and the precious Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Lou Martuneac

NOTE: I will be posting some follow up articles for additional discussion of this issue in the days ahead. Please (Fred) consider yourself welcome to visit, read and comment at my blog whenever you like.

FGA Executive Counsel’s Official Statement

The Free Grace Alliance (FGA) Executive Council met March 7-8, 2008 for their mid-year business meeting. From the meeting the following official statement was issued:

“The FGA’s mission is always and everywhere to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ when we preach the gospel. We encourage every member of the FGA to be fervent and faithful to preach that message. Within the membership of the FGA there has been discussion about the minimum one must understand to be saved. Regardless of a person’s convictions, believers are called to preach the gospel, not the minimum.

Please continue to pray for and support the FGA and join us in following the Executive Council's charge to ‘always and everywhere proclaim the death and resurrection’ of God's Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ as we preach the gospel at home and abroad.”

I am reviewing this statement, have some initial thoughts, but I am reserving comment. For now, I am concerned over the direction this might indicate for the FGA in regard to the teaching and advocates of the Crossless gospel that are currently on the FGA board and in membership of the FGA. This may play itself out at the FGA’s National Conference in October.

You can view the statement at the Free Grace Alliance web site.

Your comments are welcome.


LM

Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples

False teaching can and does come from men within the body of Christ, His church. In the Book of Acts, Paul warns the elders of Ephesus that false teaching will come from both without and within the church:

“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. Over the years, from within the body of Christ, Hodges has risen and drifted into increasingly deeper and more extreme doctrinal errors. His views on repentance, the Gospel, and the Judgment Seat of Christ are striking examples of a radical departure from orthodoxy. Hodges has been teaching “perverse things” (diastrepho- distorts, twists) and consequently his teaching has drawn away disciples to him. Among the disciples who have been drawn away are: Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers, Joseph Dillow and Antonio da Rosa.

The distortion, twisting, redefining or dismissal of numerous clear passages of Scripture has been the hallmark of Hodges’ “Crossless” gospel. His errors on the Gospel, repentance and the Judgment Seat of Christ are organized in such a way that they undermine the Word of God and arrest the development of young believers. Young men have been enticed and deceived by the teaching of Zane Hodges.

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive,” (Eph. 4:14).

Men like Tim Nichols, Jim Reitman, Jim Johnson, Jeremy Myers and Antonio da Rosa were at one time feeding and growing on the milk of the Word of God. Somewhere along the way, however, elements from the teaching of Zane Hodges were introduced, and the milk was soured. Regrettably, it appears no one took these men aside, like Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside and, “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-28). Instead Bob Wilkin, who also succumbed to the teaching of Zane Hodges, hastened the slide of these men into error.

Doctrinal growth was checked, sidetracked and redirected toward the egregious errors of Hodges’ Crossless gospel. Today, we are witnessing the devastating effects that the teaching of Hodges has had on these men. These are the ones we know who have been drawn away, but there may be many more.

What we have been witnessing in recent months should serve as a wake up call to men in the Free Grace community. How many more of our young men have to be deceived and fall into the errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin before you will follow the biblical mandate to “contend for the faith once delivered” (Jude 3)? While many stand idly by Hodges and Wilkin are doing all they can to introduce the “Crossless” gospel to unsuspecting believers in the Free Grace community.

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,” (2 Timothy 2:25).

I am grateful for men like George Zeller, Tom Stegall, Dennis Rokser and Greg Schliesmann who have defended the faith and body of Christ against the “perverse” teachings of Zane Hodges. There are others who are doing what they can from blogs and other venues to refute and rebuke the teachings of Zane Hodges.

The teaching of Zane Hodges has not only drawn away some of our younger men, it has crippled and marginalized the Free Grace movement. Make no mistake about it, the Free Grace movement is moving, but is, in my opinion, come to rest at the cross roads. If good men, who know the issue, what is at stake and have the answer, but do nothing, the Free Grace movement will begin to move once again. That move will, however, be in the direction of the trap and pitfalls of the teachings of Zane Hodges.

“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).

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers,” (Titus 1:9).

“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).

I’ll close with the same question I asked in the previous challenge to men in the Free Grace Alliance and Free Grace community at large.

Where does your first loyalty lie, to God and His Word, or to your friends and fellowships?

LM



For a thorough review of the "perverse” teachings of Zane Hodges, please visit George Zeller's The Troubling Teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow and Robert Wilkin (GES)

Also read Watch & Remember…

What is the Defining Question for the Free Grace Movement & the FGA?

Dear Guests:

In an earlier article I laid out, in concise form, exactly how the advocates of the *“Refined/Crossless” gospel view the death, resurrection and deity of Christ. You can read from their own published statements what it is they believe. See my article: What is the “Crossless” advocates “Stance” on the Cross, Resurrection & Deity of Christ?

The answer to the following question is the crux of ongoing controversy in the Free Grace community.

“In this dispensation, must a lost man believe in the death and resurrection of Christ to be born again?”

The advocates of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel relentlessly try to steer the discussion away from what the lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life. Time and again at my site, Pursuit of Truth and/or other sites, Jeremy Myers, Antonio da Rosa and Jim Johnson have unsuccessfully tried to steer the discussion to what they might present to the lost man in an evangelistic setting.

From the recording of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) panel discussion I noted how every participant, with the exception of Pastor Tom Stegall, focused their comments almost exclusively on what they personally believe or would tell a lost man in an evangelistic setting. The issue, however, revolves around what the lost man must believe to be born again. The Grace Evangelical Society (GES) “Refined/Crossless” position states that a lost man does not have to know, understand or believe anything about who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. They go further to declare that a lost man can consciously reject the deity of Christ, but still be born again.

The “Refined/Crossless” advocates attempt to focus the debate on what Free Grace men personally believe because that is where they find common ground. They steer clear of discussions over what the lost man must know, understand or believe for the reception of eternal life because that is where the debate and controversy over their peculiar theology lays. They do this because what a lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life is the defining issue and the answer to that question is what will ultimately decide the direction of the FGA and Free Grace movement in general.

The teachings of Zane Hodges have permeated the GES, its leadership (Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers) and most of its remaining membership. Consequently, the GES has eliminated itself from any meaningful contribution to the debate over Lordship Salvation. The Hodges elimination of repentance for conversion, his assault on the titles of Jesus Christ, and the reductionist, non-saving evangelism of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel have rendered the GES, and any man who holds to these extremes, counterproductive in the battle against Lordship Salvation.

The FGA has an opportunity to become a meaningful, effective voice for the FG community in the battle to preserve the Gospel of Grace and effectively resist the ongoing spread of Lordship Salvation. The FGA, however, will never become that voice as long as it allows for advocates of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel to hold positions of leadership and to swell the ranks of its membership. The theology of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel weakens and undermines what might otherwise become a credible and effective voice in the battle against Lordship Salvation’s assault on the Gospel of Grace.

“Division” and “Offences” of the “Crossless” Gospel
The teaching of Zane Hodges and the GES, which has come to be known as the “Refined/Crossless” gospel, has introduced “division” and “offences” (Rom. 16:17) to the body of believers in the FG community.

In the Aftermath: Heart to Heart thread a guest wrote,

“Regarding Romans 16:17-18... I find it odd that there are some who accuse US of being the ones causing division even though all we’re doing is ‘contend[ing] for the faith once delivered.’ Though, as pointed out in 1 Cor. 11:19, divisions are practically necessary when bad doctrine infiltrates the church because those who are true will openly reject the false, a worthy division.”

It is not at all “odd” or unusual for the teachers of false doctrine to claim that those who oppose their doctrinal errors and biblically contend for the faith are the ones causing division.

“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).

What has become a political strategy of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel advocates is to claim those who reject “Refined/Crossless” teaching are causing “division.” This tactic shows a blatant disregard for the plain teaching of Romans 16:17. The intentional reversal of meaning from Romans 16:17 is common place among New Evangelicals who bristle at any suggestion of separation from unbelievers, apostasy or disobedient brethren. The “Refined/Crossless” men have begun to utilize the same New Evangelical misinterpretation of Romans 16:17 in an attempt to distract observers from the controversy that is swirling around their errors on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Deity.

I published the Heart to Heart series to show from the Bible what our mandated response must be to the teachers of doctrinal error who are the cause of “division” and “offences” in the body of Christ. The “Refined/Crossless” gospel and its advocates: Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, the GES, and da Rosa are the men who have introduced “contrary” (false) doctrine into Free Grace community churches. It is, therefore, the teachers of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel who have brought “division” and “offences” (scandal) to the body of Christ.

This quote appears in my book and the Heart series,

“It is not authentic teaching that creates the divisions; it is the contrary teaching that creates the division. They have got it just backwards. . . . Those who teach contrary to the body of revealed truth . . . are the ones who create the divisions and create the stumbling blocks.”

The advocates of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel have created “division” and the “stumbling blocks.” They are teaching that which is, “contrary to the body of revealed truth.”

Ironically, Hodges, Wilkin and Myers are hiding from any open discussion of the very doctrinal issue that has brought “division” and “offences” in to the body of Christ. For the most part all they have left is this new misrepresentation of Scripture, specifically Romans 16:17 and futile attempts to demonize those who are not going to grow weary of “contending for the faith once delivered” (Jude 3).

Dr. Charles Ryrie Answers the Defining Question:
I am not aware of anyone in the Free Grace community who would reject the suggestion that Dr. Charles Ryrie is among the most notable and prolific contributors to the Free Grace movement. His defense of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to my knowledge, is virtually unquestioned in the Free Grace community.

His books on various subjects are in the personal library of very possibly every evangelical pastor in America. This is the defining question around which the controversy in the FG community revolves, “In this dispensation, must a lost man believe in the death and resurrection of Christ to be born again?”

In his classic answer to the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel, So Great Salvation, Dr. Charles Ryrie answers our defining question. Dr. Ryrie wrote,

“The issue is, How can my sins be forgiven? . . . Through faith I receive Him and His forgiveness. Then the sin problem is solved, and I can be fully assured of going to heaven. I do not need to believe in Christ’s second coming in order to be saved. . . . But I do need to believe that He died for my sins and rose triumphant over sin and death.” (So Great Salvation, p. 40.)

Conclusion:
If the Free Grace community and the FGA are to have any chance of becoming a meaningful voice with the blessing and power of God, FG leadership and members alike must obey the Word of God. The advocates and teaching of the “Refined/Crossless” gospel must be biblically marked for the purpose of warning believers, avoiding them, and for the restoration of doctrinal purity to Free Grace local churches that have been caught up in the egregious errors of the “Crossless” gospel.

I am encouraging and praying for the FGA leadership and Free Grace pastors, who recognize the inherent dangers of the “Crossless” gospel, to obey the mandated course of action found in the Bible (Romans 16:17; Titus 1:9; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) in regard to the teachers of the “Crossless” gospel.

Your answer to this question will guide your course of action:

Where does my first loyalty lie, to God and His Word, or to my friends and fellowships?

LM

*You may have recognized that for this article I have almost exclusively used the label “Refined/Crossless” to define the interpretation of the Gospel coming from Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, GES and da Rosa. I want to share an important notation about that.

My purpose today is to alert readers so that when they read the “Crossless” advocates use of “Refined Free Grace” theology, it is in fact a new name for the same errors originally and commonly known as the “Crossless” gospel. It would be appropriate to say by definition that the Hodges interpretation of the Gospel has been “Refined” (down to a) “Crossless” Gospel.

I for one will never accept or agree to refer to the “Crossless” gospel as “Refined Free Grace” theology. This article will be the first and ONLY time the word “Refined” will appear in regard to the “Crossless” gospel.

The Devil always finds a label to make more palatable what he has soured. Abortion becomes Pro-Choice; Liberal becomes Moderate. The “Crossless” gospel is a false gospel! The “Crossless” gospel is a totally new creation that originated with Zane Hodges. The “Crossless” gospel might also be name, Abandoned Free Grace (AFG) theology.

Dennis Rokser on the FGA Panel Discussion

The following is from Pastor Dennis Rokser. He is pastor of the Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, MN. Pastor Rokser also hosts the Grace Family Journal


Greetings everyone in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ:

I also attended the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) conference and am thankful for their desire to stand for the grace of God.

Dr. Charlie Bing made it clear in his plenary session that while we must be gracious in our manner, the FGA stands behind their covenant/statement of faith:

“The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.”

Dr. Bing then proceeded to clarify that that “finished work” involves the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that those who cannot agree with that statement should not be in the FGA.

Also, I heard a number of comments after the panel discussion from a variety of people in attendance that they greatly appreciated Tom Stegall's use of the Scriptures to defend his position as well as his humble & gracious manner. I thought his biblical defense was outstanding for the time allotted.

I was encouraged with the basic doctrine and direction of the FGA leadership, and they will be in my prayers, especially their new executive director, J.B. Hixson, whom I respect.

As any start-up organization, they have some loose ends to tie up and issues to address, and may God give them the courage to stand for the Gospel and the truths of grace, leaving the results with the Lord, and to not practice the “ends justify the means” mentality of human viewpoint so prevalent in evangelical circles today.

We were assured by FGA leadership that they are going to continue to discuss and resolve the issue of the Crossless gospel in the near future. Please pray for them.

The atmosphere was relaxed; the fellowship was encouraging; the panel discussions were informative (though they needed a couple more hours on the crossless issue).

I'm glad that I attended. It was also great to meet new folks and fellowship with those I've met in the past.


Dennis Rokser

Tom Stegall on the FGA Panel Discussion

Following is the report I received this afternoon from Pastor Tom Stegall.


Dear Lou:

Greetings in the Lord. I’ve now arrived home from a profitable last few days at the Free Grace Alliance Conference in Dallas. It was a great opportunity to see many other fellow believers from around the country who are committed to proclaiming and living by God's all-sufficient grace. It was also a chance to meet many new people and establish relationships in the Lord that I trust will continue to grow over the years.

As you and your readers know, there was a panel discussion on the subject of whether explicit knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection is necessary in order to receive eternal life. I was privileged to be asked to be on the panel and to represent the affirmative view. This was not intended to be a “debate” but a panel discussion. This distinction is important, since a panel discussion of five people tends to reduce the level of rancor and the polarizing hostility that a two-person debate often generates. A panel discussion also lends itself to a greater focus on the issues themselves without turning the event into a public spectacle. So I appreciated the FGA leadership’s wisdom in setting up this kind of format.

I think the panel discussion was spiritually profitable and productive for those in attendance since they were able to hear directly from each participant what they believed. I represented the view that the term “gospel,” though it simply means “good news,” still has a technical usage and meaning in the New Testament where it refers to the particular message of Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection from the dead for our eternal salvation, and thus God requires the unregenerate to believe it.

Others on the panel, who represented the view that explicit knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection is not required for eternal life, repeatedly emphasized that the whole question is “irrelevant” and a moot point since we all preach the cross and resurrection in our practical, everyday evangelism. *In contrast, I tried to emphasize that it is the requirement for the lost to believe the gospel truth of Christ’s death and resurrection that is the issue, not whether these gospel truth’s are merely presented to the lost. If it is merely presented to the lost but we do not tell them that God Himself requires belief in the gospel truth of His Son’s death and resurrection, then the lost can walk away with a false assurance that they possess eternal life all the while believing in “another Jesus.”

I also tried to underscore that this question of the lost knowing about, and believing in, Christ’s death and resurrection is relevant because GOD says it is in the Bible. It is not a matter of whether WE think it is or isn’t, since God has clearly spoken on this question already in the Bible. He has already made the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection necessary to believe in order to be saved from eternal destruction, as stated in Acts 13:41, 2 Th. 1:8-10, 1 Cor. 1:17-23, 2:2, 4:15 and many other passages.

In addition, I also tried to emphasize with my limited time that the requirement in the Gospel of John to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” is not a message of lesser content than the “gospel” of Christ. This is born out through understanding progressive revelation and a correct interpretation of the Gospel of John, which recognizes that the book thematically sets forth a consummate view of the Christ by the time it reaches its evangelistic appeal in 20:30-31.

There were so many passages yet to be covered by us as a panel, especially about the “gospel” and the Gospel of John, that in my opinion, we barely even scratched the surface of this crucial topic. Many more passages and points need to be addressed than could possibly be covered in a 1.5 hour panel discussion. I remain convinced of the necessity to continue writing and printing articles on this subject, which Free Grace believers can look for in future editions of the Grace Family Journal . I am also grateful for the opportunity to have presented what I believe is the biblical position in order for people to see a clear difference; and I trust the Lord will use what was presented to bring biblical clarity among Free Grace believers and most importantly to bring glory to our common Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).

All of the sessions from the conference were recorded, including the particular panel discussion on the cross and resurrection, and they were made available for purchase at the end of the conference to those in attendance. I’m not certain, however, if this means that the FGA has decided to make these recordings available to the public for purchase. People will have to check with them on that question.

On a personal note, it was encouraging to meet the leadership of the organization and to know that there are some very good men providing guidance and direction to the organization who are sincerely committed to the gospel. Please keep the FGA in your prayers as they continue seeking to be vessels of God’s grace in our generation.

Sincerely in Christ and for His glory,


Tom Stegall

* It is vital to grasp the important distinction that Pastor Stegall draws out in this paragraph. The advocates of the “Crossless” gospel frequently attempt to steer discussions toward what they personally believe about the Gospel, and away from what a lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life. When you discuss the issue with a man who holds to the “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel make sure you focus your questions, in regard to their position, on what they believe a lost man must know, understand or believe for salvation. That is the crux of the debate, and around which the controversy revolves.

FGA Panel Discussion Update

Late Wednesday night Pastor Stegall contacted me. As early as today (Thursday) we will have some notes from him in regard to the panel discussion.

This morning I received a call from Pastor Stegall. He is in transit back to Milwaukee and was, therefore, able to give me only a brief synopsis of the panel discussion. There were many who met for fellowship and discussions after the evening's activities, which is why he was unable to call me last night.

Once Pastor Stegall is back home a follow-up report will be forthcoming.

Lord willing the errors of the “Crossless” gospel were fully revealed. This way there can be a skimming off and removal of the errors that have crept into the fellowship of Free Grace believers. It is my hope and prayer that once Ps. Stegall finished his teaching from the Scriptures no one in attendance had any lingering doubt about whether or not the Hodges/Wilkin message is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).

Lord willing this discussion will have galvanized men in the FGA to take action that no more would be confused and deceived by the teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.


LM

Free Grace Alliance Sponsors Panel Discussion on the “Crossless” Gospel

Greetings:

This week (Oct. 15-17) the Free Grace Alliance is conducting their national meeting. Among the various workshops is a special panel discussion to be held this evening. The discussion is being billed as an Academic Forum. Following is the question for discussion “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for salvation?”

For the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” gospel Jeremy Myers and Tim Nichols will take the platform. Tom Stegall and Ken Wilson will represent the Free Grace community position.

I might have suggested the Forum question be postulated this way, “In this dispensation, Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for salvation?”

One element that, in my opinion, should be included is the GES view that the Lord’s titles, “the Christ” and “Son of God” do mean or infer his Deity.

In the Open Question to Bob Wilkin thread Jeremy Myers stated that neither the titles “the Christ” nor “the Son of God” involve Deity. In fact, he typed Christ’s title “son of God” (lowercase). If the title “the Son of God” does not refer to Christ’s unique relationship with the Father in which He is equal in Deity, what is the meaning of the term, “the Son of God?”

The “Crossless” advocates go way beyond claiming a lost man does not need to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation. They teach and allow for a lost man to have any kind of “misconception” about, and/or including a conscious rejection of the Lord’s Deity, death and resurrection and still claim he can be born again.

The corruption of the Gospel by Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES has done serious damage to the cause of Christ. Many of us are thankful that over the last few months the egregious errors, of Hodges, Wilkin including their abuse of the Lord’s titles, have come to light. It appears they will no longer have open and free reign to spread this crossless/deityless teaching, which is antithetical to Scripture.

There several of us who are praying that the errors of “Crossless” gospel and its inherent dangers be made clear tonight. We are praying that men in leadership within the FGA will not simply recognize the dangers of the “Crossless” gospel, but take a proactive stance against it so that others in the FG community are not swept into its errors.

We are praying specifically for Jeremy Myers. It is our hope and prayer that he can be recovered to an orthodox position. At his blog Jeremy posted an article titled, Who Is The Christ? Jeremy stated,

“By way of full disclosure, I do not yet know where this study will lead… Many people today teach that the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” refer to the divinity of Jesus…However, if in my study, I find that this traditional view best fits Scripture, I will believe and teach it to the best of my ability.”

We are hopeful he is sincere in his claim to be open to what the Scriptures teach.

Twice I have written Jeremy to tell him that I am praying for his recovery to a balanced position on the Gospel and Deity of Christ. I am praying for Jeremy to be sensitive to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, that his heart and conscience will be pricked as he (Myers) hears the Scriptures opened to him this evening.

Pray that the truth of the Gospel be proclaimed and defended this evening. Pray that the Spirit of God reveal truth from the Word of God for the recovery of those who have been lead into error. Pray for others who are teetering on the fence and may be about to fall into the errors of the “Crossless” gospel.

Later this evening I hope to have a report from the FGA conference on the discussion.

In Defense of the Gospel,


LM

Please see the following articles for reaction to the Panel Discussion.

Dennis Rokser on the FGA Panel Discussion

Tom Stegall on the FGA Panel Discussion