Free Grace Theology: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know, Final- Charting the Fault Line of Fracture

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We have seen that the teachings of Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) are a radical departure from the Gospel of grace. There has never been this level of egregious reductionist error introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own until the late Zane Hodges developed his *Crossless & Deityless interpretation of the content of saving faith.

I am closing Bob Nyberg’s article The Free Grace Fracture by publishing and providing a downloadable PDF (from his article) showing how the teachings of Zane Hodges and the GES are radically different to that of Charles Ryrie and Robert Lightner. In the image below topics are shown down the left column followed by the views of Ryrie/Lightner, then Hodges/GES respectively. I see this as a helpful chart illustrating the fault line of fracture in the Free Grace community.


Bob Nyberg closes his (2007) article by stating,

“Free grace theology is not new. It’s been around for a long time. An element of free grace theology seems to be moving away from the more traditional wing, as represented by men such as Dr. Ryrie and Dr. Lightner. Only time will tell whether this free grace fracture widens or eventually resolves itself. The lines are being drawn and voices on both sides of the issue are expressing their opinions. Where we go from here remains to be seen. If nothing else, this debate should serve to clarify the essential elements of the gospel message.”

Over the last two years opinions have been clearly expressed. The result has been the appearance of a clear and deep line of fracture, which has isolated the shrinking cell of Hodges/GES Crossless gospel advocates far outside the mainstream of balanced Bible-believing Christians.

See- Contrasts in Free Grace Theology for a downloadable version of the chart above.

I am hopeful this short series will help advocates of Lordship Salvation to understand that the troubling teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES do not represent or speak for any Free Grace believer outside the GES’s shrinking cell of theological extremists. Through the teaching of Zane Hodges the GES has become an isolated, cult like, fringe element in the body of Christ.

Below my signature you will find links to additional articles that further clarify the reductionist heresies of Hodges that are propagated solely by Bob Wilkin and the GES.

Yours in defense of the Gospel.


LM

*Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?


GES Reductionist Affirmation of Belief

Is “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology; Free Grace Theology?

The “CHRIST” Under Siege (at the hands of Zane Hodges)

Free Grace Theology: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know, Part 2

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We continue with the second installment of Brother Bob Nyberg’s series, The Free Grace Fracture. See- Part 1 of the series.


In 2000, Zane Hodges wrote an article entitled, “How to Lead a Person to Christ, Part 1: The Content of our Message.”6 The article appeared in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. In this article Zane presents a “Deserted Island Scenario.” He wrote:

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable.

On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47).

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

I suspect that there are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn’t know enough. For example, he doesn’t know that Jesus died for his sins on the cross and rose again the third day. Needless to say, there is a lot more he doesn’t know either, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal Sonship of Jesus or the doctrine of the virgin birth.

But why is he not saved if he believes the promise of Jesus’ words? It is precisely the ability of Jesus to guarantee eternal life that makes Him the Christ in the Johannine sense of that term.

Is it necessary to believe in Christ’s work on the cross in order to be saved? Zane says, “no!” He continues:

The Gospel of John is the only book in our New Testament canon that explicitly declares its purpose to be evangelistic. Of course, I am thinking of the famous theme statement found in John 20:30-31, where we read: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

This statement does not affirm the necessity of believing in our Lord’s substitutionary atonement. If by the time of the writing of John’s Gospel, it was actually necessary to believe this, then it would have been not only simple, but essential, to say so….

Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved. It just does not teach this. If we say that it does, we are reading something into the text and not reading something out of it!

What is my point? That we should not preach the cross of Christ to men? Not at all.… Instead, I am arguing that we need to focus on the core issue in bringing men and women to faith and eternal life. What is that core issue?

Very simply it is this: We want people to believe that Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny. Of course, we would like them to believe a lot more than this, but this at least must be believed. Our failure to clearly define our goal in evangelism can have a negative or impeding effect on our efforts to lead people to simple faith in Christ.

According to Zane, the core issue is not the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross for sin. The core issue is that mankind lacks eternal life and they need to believe that Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny.

Remember that repentance is not a requirement for salvation in Hodges view. But Ryrie and Lightner insist that the lost sinner needs to change their mind about sin, and their own ability to deal with the sin problem. The issue is the fact that I cannot save myself and therefore I need to have a Savior. I need to place my trust in Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. But according to Hodges, sin is not the issue and repentance is not required. The core issue, to Hodges, is not lack of a right standing before a holy God. Instead the core issue is that lost mankind needs eternal life.

Hodges goes on to explain:

In the final analysis, therefore, salvation is the result of believing in Jesus to provide it. Salvation is not the result of assenting to a detailed creed. Salvation does not even require an understanding of how it was provided for or made possible. All it requires is that the sinner understand the sufficiency of the name of Jesus to guarantee the eternal well-being of every believer.

Does that mean that we should not preach the message of the cross? Absolutely not! Hodges maintains that we should indeed preach the cross of Christ. He explains:

In the light of what we have just said, should we preach the cross of Christ? The answer to that is emphatically yes. And the most obvious reason for doing so is that this is what Paul and the other Apostles did.

Why should men trust Christ for eternal life? The gospel gives us the wonderful answer. They should do so because Jesus has bought their salvation at the cost of His own precious blood….

The preaching of the cross greatly facilitates the process of bringing men to faith in God’s Son.

Why preach the cross? Because it helps to bring men to faith. According to Hodges, preaching the cross demonstrates that Christ is trustworthy. However, (according to Hodges & GES) it is not faith in Christ’s work on the cross that saves. It’s only faith in the Christ who promised eternal life that saves.

In Hodge’s view, preaching the cross is helpful, but it is not absolutely essential since a person can be saved without believing in Christ’s substitutionary death.

When you buy a car, some equipment is optional like a sun roof. Some equipment comes standard like the engine. In my opinion, the minimalist view of the gospel treats the cross as optional equipment. It’s helpful, but not absolutely necessary. In the traditional view of free grace theology, the cross is standard equipment. The package just won’t work without the centrality of the cross as being the heart of the gospel message. The cross is the engine that gives power to the message. Or as Paul wrote, the gospel of Christ (which includes the message of the cross) is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes. Paul also wrote:

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 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 it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 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. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified…’” (1 Cor. 1:17-23).

Hodges began with the idea that repentance is not necessary for salvation. If sin is not an issue, or barrier to being saved, then what is? It’s the fact that mortal man does not possess eternal life. Zane simply followed his own reasoning to a so-called “logical end.”

As you explore the differences between free grace theologians, many more contrasts begin to stand out. It’s not simply an issue of whether or not repentance is a requirement for salvation.

6) http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm


Please continue to Part 3 of this series. You will find there a chart that compares and contrasts the Ryrie/Lighter Free Grace theology over against the Hodges, Wilkin, GES “ReDefined” reductionist interpretation of the content of saving faith.

The Free Grace Fracture: What Every Advocate of Lordship Salvation Should Know

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Today I am presenting the first installment of an article that addresses and documents a rift that developed within the Free Grace community, which eventually lead to an open split. The author is Brother Bob Nyberg. I have never met Brother Nyberg, but we have become familiar with one another through the blogs and some brief discussions on the Gospel, especially the controversial Lordship Salvation and Crossless Gospel interpretations.

With Bob’s permission I am reprinting his article, The Free Grace Fracture (October 2007), which originally appeared at his personal web site. Well before I knew of or interacted with Bob Nyberg I wrote and posted, Free Grace: Fractured by the “Crossless” Gospel (July 2007). I consider his article and mine companion and complimentary articles.

Nyberg’s article is an important discussion because our brethren on the Lordship side of the Gospel controversy must recognize that there is a wide chasm in the Free Grace community. The chasm developed over a long period of time, beginning approximately 20 years ago.

Dr. John MacArthur frequently cites Zane Hodges’s writings as representative of the so-called “no-lordship” camp. MacArthur is right to a great degree in that label of Hodges, Bob Wilkin and Grace Evangelical Society (GES) soteriology, which is a theme I will develop in a future article. The shrinking cell of GES extremists insist the lost can be saved apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the Person (deity) and finished work of Christ. Every responsible Bible-believing should recognize and reject this egregious form of reductionist soteriology. IMO, however, when speaking of biblical justification MacArthur’s “no-lordship” has no traction with Free Grace men outside the GES who utterly reject the reductionism of Hodges. MacArthur himself recognizes and does draw the distinction between the Hodges and Charles Ryrie views noting that Hodges represents a more radical and extreme view than he (MacArthur) finds with Ryrie or Robert Lightner.

There are sharp differences between the views of Drs. Lightner/Ryrie and Dr. MacArthur on the necessary content of saving faith. However, everyone in or viewing the debate must understand that Hodges, Wilkin and GES have drifted far outside the main stream of Free Grace theology with their reductionist assaults on the content of saving faith. The teaching of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES is commonly known as the “Crossless” or “Promise-ONLY” gospel.

Today the fracture in the Free Grace movement is much wider across a very clear line of doctrinal division. Much more sharp and clear than it was at the time of this article’s initial publication. By following the teachings of Zane Hodges the GES has isolated itself into an extreme and radical corner of evangelical Christianity. Advocates of Lordship Salvation must understand that when they read or hear of the teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin they are not hearing historic, balanced Free Grace theology. Brother Nyberg’s article will be a helpful read for all who wish to better understand the rift and fracture in the Free Grace movement. With that I present to you part one of Brother Bob Nyberg’s article The Free Grace Fracture.

The Free Grace Fracture

By Bob Nyberg

Myth: Free grace theology began in the 1980’s as a response to John MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus.

If you do a search on the internet for the phrase “free grace theology,” you will come across this popular myth. In reality, free grace theology has been around a lot longer than that. For instance, William Newell, Harry Ironside and Lance Latham wrote about free grace theology long before the lordship salvation controversy came to the forefront within Christendom.

William R. Newell (1868-1953) wrote:

“To preach full surrender to an unsaved man as the way of salvation will just make a hateful Pharisee out of him.”

Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951) wrote:

“When anyone comes promising salvation to those ‘who make full surrender’ of all that they have to God, and who ‘pay the price of full salvation’ he is preaching another gospel, for the price was paid on Calvary’s cross and the work that saves is finished. It was Christ Jesus who made the full surrender when He yielded His life on Calvary that saves us, not our surrender in any way to Him.”

Lance Latham (1894-1985) wrote:

“Surely we must recognize WHO HE IS, or we will die in our sins (John 8:24). But this is vastly different from making Him your Lord in your life, in other words, promising to obey the rest of your life. This latter is preaching ‘works.’”

Long before these men wrote on the subject, another free grace theologian took pen in hand and scribed the memorable words,

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Paul the Apostle; Ephesians 2:8-9)”

However, John MacArthur’s books on lordship salvation did evoke a response from free grace advocates. In 1989, Charles Ryrie wrote So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ. In the same year, Zane Hodges wrote A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation: Absolutely Free. In 1991, Robert Lightner wrote Sin, The Savior, and Salvation: The Theology of Everlasting Life. All three of these men were professors at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Hodges, Ryrie and Lightner all represent free grace theology and oppose lordship salvation, but there are some differences between them. This is especially true regarding how they view repentance. Both Charles Ryrie and Robert Lightner insist that repentance is a requirement for salvation. In contrast, Zane Hodges says that repentance is not a requirement for salvation.

Charles Ryrie states:

“The only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. People can weep; people can resolve to turn from their past sins; but those things in themselves cannot save. The only kind of repentance that saves anyone, anywhere, anytime is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. The sense of sin and sorrow because of sin may stir up a person’s mind or conscience so that he or she realizes the need for a Savior, but if there is no change of mind about Jesus Christ there will be no salvation.”1

Robert Lightner wrote:

“The word repentance means a change of mind.… There is no question about it: repentance is necessary for salvation. However, Scripture views repentance as included in believing and not as an additional and separate condition to faith. All who have trusted Christ as Savior have changed their minds regarding Him and their sin.”2

“Repentance in Scripture has to do with a change of mind. Evangelicals agree no one can be saved who does not change his mind about himself and his need, his sin which separates him from God, and about Christ as the only Savior.”3

Dr. Lightner was wrong about one point. Not all Evangelicals agree that repentance is necessary for salvation.

Zane Hodges insists:

“Faith alone (not repentance and faith) is the sole condition for justification and eternal life.”4

“There can be no compromise on this point if we wish to preserve and to proclaim the biblical truth of sola fide. To make repentance a condition for eternal salvation is nothing less than a regression toward Roman Catholic dogma.”5

At first, this difference between Ryrie-Lightner and Hodges was seen as a minor issue. However, those minor cracks in the free grace dam have turned into a significant fracture within this movement today. Zane Hodges and the leadership of the Grace Evangelical Society maintain that a person can be saved without believing in Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. This teaching has become known as “the crossless gospel.” However, I prefer the term “minimalist gospel” since Hodges is dealing with the “minimum requirements” a person needs to believe in order to be saved.

1) Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ. (Wheaton, Illinois, 1989), pp. 94-95
2) Robert Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and Salvation: The Theology of Everlasting Life. (Nashville, Tennessee), p. 167
3) Ibid., p. 212
4) Zane Hodges, A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation: Absolutely Free (Dallas, Texas, 1989), p. 144
5) Ibid., p. 145

Please continue to Part 2 of this series.

For additional reading to further explain how the GES has ceased to be a voice for the Free Grace community, see- Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

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)

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.

Zane Hodges, “Legalism is Not a Very Nice Word.” (Part 3)

Dear Guests:

We continue with Greg Schliesmann’s third installment from his series critiquing Zane Hodges’s The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism.

Jesus Never Invited the Lost to Believe in His Death?
With another sweeping claim Hodges says, “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in...” Hodges then lists eight truths, none of which are part of the saving message according to Hodges. Those truths include “His death on the cross for our sins” and “His bodily resurrection.”

However, most Bible students can immediately think of verses in the Gospel of John in which Jesus connected believing in His death with the offer eternal life. For example:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,” (John 3:14-15).

With John 3:14-15 in mind, one author described salvation as a matter of “looking to Christ and his cross alone”; “trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for all our sins” (1John 2:2; John 1:29); “...look to the cross and find peace by believing,” “trust completely in Christ and what He did on the cross;” and claimed “any system of doctrine that forbids us to find complete peace by simply looking to God’s Son, who was lifted up for us on the cross, can by no means claim to be the true Gospel.”

So what? That author was Zane Hodges in the postscript of The Gospel Under Siege[11]. How could Hodges offer John 3:14-15 as the support of such statements and then claim “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in” His death on the cross?

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day ,” (John 6:51-54).

How does this passage fit with Hodges claim that “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in” His death on the cross?

In offering eternal life in this passage, Christ did not describe it being found simply in the letters J-E-S-U-S or the “promise.” Rather, he spoke of “life” being found in the “bread” of His “flesh” (6:51). Likewise, the requirement “drink His blood” illustrates an appropriation of his death, not belief in the mere promise of life apart from His death.

Advocates of Hodges’s position will deny these rather obvious observations by pointing out people were saved during Jesus’ earthly ministry without understanding or believing the picture Christ illustrated in this passage. While that is true, it is still essential to interpret this passage.

Crossless Gospel advocates fail to deal with the proleptic nature of this statement. In other words, Christ spoke in anticipation of His death and resurrection to a general audience that was neither saved nor yet prepared to believe in Him (cf. 6:15, 26, 36). It was impossible to meet His condition to “drink my blood” before His blood was actually offered. Neither Jesus’ general audience nor His disciples understood His words at the time (6:52, 60). However, Christ knew the unsaved audience would generally be alive just months later when He fulfilled His part of the illustration by actually dying on the cross. Once the blood and flesh were given, it would then be incumbent upon them to meet the requirement that Christ set forth in the illustration with the words “eat my flesh...drink my blood.” It would be incumbent in the sense that their eternal destiny depended upon it (v. 53, 54). It is very significant that John uniquely included this and other proleptic statements in his Gospel.

Yet Hodges contends, “Theological legalism maintains that the saving message has ‘changed’ since the cross...Yet the ‘theological provisos’ required by theological legalism are absent from the Fourth Gospel....” One would have thought that Hodges would have dealt with such passages as John 3:14-14 and 6:51-54 before making that claim. But if Hodges interpreted this passage in a way that upheld any real meaning in Christ’s words, he could never claim, “in offering eternal life, Jesus Himself never invited anyone at all to believe in” His death.

It is also notable that the Apostle John, writing on this side of the cross, first appealed directly to His readers to “believe” in connection with and upon describing the death (19:35) and resurrection of Jesus (20:29-31).

Finally, Jesus Christ now invites the lost to believe in His death for our sins. Jesus Christ Himself preaches through the ministry of the Gospel:

“...and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near,” (Ephesians 2:17).

“Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him,” (2Cor. 5:20-21 ).

Unlike Hodges’s crossless saving message, God’s saving message is actually described as “the message of the cross” (1Cor. 1:17-18). And unlike Hodges’s insistence on separating the name of Christ from the work of Christ, the Gospel invites the lost to believe on “Christ crucified” (1Cor. 1:23).

Greg Schliesmann

[11] Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, pp. 147-150.

Greg Schliesmann’s critique of Hodges’s polarizing Hydra’s Head article will be continued.


LM

Zane Hodges, “Legalism is Not a Very Nice Word.” (Part 2)

Dear Guests:

We continue with Greg Schliesmann’s second installment from his series critiquing Zane Hodges’s The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism.

Lack of Exegetical Evidence to Date
In the Spring of 2007, the Grace Family Journal published an article by Tom Stegall titled The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel that sounded the alarm against Hodges’s new message of salvation. The article introduced the issue that Hodges teaches a message of salvation that does not deem the cross or Deity of Christ as essential. The article demonstrated the novelty of Hodges teaching in light of the historical Free Grace position. Supporters of Hodges responded with indignation that a criticism was leveled prior to extensive exegesis.

The only exegetical attempt Hodges has made to support his “Crossless gospel” view was published by the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society in his articles How to Lead a Person to Christ, parts 1 and 2.

Hodges argued that a person could indeed receive eternal life through faith in Jesus without believing that Jesus is “the Son of God.” His foundational exegetical argument was based on the conversion of the Samaritans in John 4. His argument was exposed as negligent in my articles The Christ Under Siege, parts 1 and 2.

Ironically, Hodges and his followers who vehemently protested the label “Crossless gospel” given to their position before, they claimed, sufficient exegesis was provided by opponents of their position. It is hard not to notice Hodges’s hypocrisy.

More importantly, Hodges's article is full of incredible, sweeping claims about Scripture with absolutely no exegesis or serious biblical support or consideration of any kind. We will examine some of these claims later in this article.

How Do You Know the Content of Saving Faith?
Hodges raises the epistemological question, “how do you know?” in regards to what constitutes the content of saving faith. Hodges argues, “who determines which theological doctrines are necessary for eternal salvation? The Bible, we are told. Who then determines what the definitive list contains? The answer, of course, boils down to this: the theological legalist himself!”

Interestingly, Hodges uses the exact same epistemological argument often made by Roman Catholics against Protestants who uphold the sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture.[8] Catholics apologists use the argument in regards to knowing the canon of Scripture, interpretation of passages, and doctrines. And just like the Roman Catholics, Hodges raises a question he really cannot solve himself. In fact, as we will see, Hodges unwittingly exalts himself as a sort of authority apart from whom the Church would have never discovered the saving message!

The very premise that “all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine” warrants the consideration of “all Scripture” when examining any spiritual question. Paul wrote to Timothy:

“...that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” 2Timothy 3:15-17

Whatever view we hold should be harmonious with the sum of Scripture. If it does not, we must be willing to allow Scripture to correct our view.

In fact, few Biblical doctrines could be substantiated or entirely defined if we were confined to defining them based solely upon a “single space” in Scripture. Does that mean all such doctrines run into the same epistemological problem? Does Hodges also believe we cannot “know” the doctrine of the Trinity because it is not defined in a single space? I am not claiming the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for salvation; but why would there be an epistemological difference in defining a Biblical doctrine that is not necessary for salvation from one that is?

Furthermore, where does the Bible state that the contents of saving faith must be specifically enumerated in a single space? If it does not state that, how do we know such a standard exists? For that matter, where do we find Hodges’s view enumerated in a single space? We are told John 6:47 or 11:25-27, for example.[9] However, both of these verses describe the result of believing in Christ, but neither of them in themselves describe the necessary content of believing in Christ. In fact, John 6:47 does not even mention the name “Jesus,” which Crossless gospel advocates actually insist is a necessary component. Nor does John 6:47 by itself prove “everlasting life” defines the content of belief in Christ rather than simply the result.[10] The Crossless gospel advocate then resorts to the very procedure he condemns: combining verses, or worse yet, giving further explanation to a verse.

Hodges’s contention that the contents of saving faith must be fully defined in a single space imposes an extra-Biblical standard. That’s actually legalism. At the very least, Hodges is condemned by the same standard he imposes on others. The Bible does not tell us the contents of saving faith must be detailed in a single space nor does it tell us what space that is. So how does Hodges know what space that is? The answer boils down to this: Hodges himself! As a matter of fact, Hodges may very well be the very first person in Church history to conclude: 1) the content of saving faith is completely detailed in a single verse; or 2) that verse is John 6:47. If the legitimacy of Hodges’s epistemological approach is so self-evident, then why is Hodges the first person in 1900 years of Church history to reach this conclusion?

When Hodges claims to have found the saving message detailed in a single space, he actually ignores multitudes of verses both inside and outside the Gospel of John.

For example, Paul claims he was commissioned to preach “the gospel” (1Cor. 1:17), which is “the message of the cross” (1Cor. 1:18), which is the same message the lost must believe in order to be saved (1Cor. 1:18, 21).

It is difficult to see how this single passage, as one example, does not contradict everything Hodges has argued. It should raise a red flag that perhaps his underlying assumptions are wrong.

We do not solve the epistemological question by casting off dozens of verses that clearly state the lost must believe “the Gospel” to be saved (see my article on The Technical Meaning of the term, “THE GOSPEL.”)

When one notices descriptions of “the Gospel” (e.g. 1Cor. 1:17-23; 15:1-4; 2Cor. 4:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9; 2:16, 21; Rom. 1:1-4, 16; 10:16); statements that identify the true object of faith (1John 4:3; 5:5-6) as opposed to a false Jesus Christ (cf. 2Cor. 11:6;) and statements about what the lost must believe to be saved (e.g. John 6:53; 8:24; Acts 13:40; 1Corinthians 1:17-23; Rom. 4:4-5; 24-25; 10:9; 2Thes. 1:8), he will notice the consistency on the fact that the message of salvation centers on the Person of Jesus Christ--namely His identity as the “Son of God” incarnate--and the accomplishment of Jesus Christ on the cross--namely that He died for our sins and rose again so that salvation is guaranteed through faith in Him alone.

Many Scriptural points could be added that confirm this same message. The fact of the Bible’s consistency on this matter and the way in which these verses harmonize with each other happens to reflect itself in the general unity throughout history among the normal Free Grace position and historical grace-oriented position about what constitutes the Gospel.

Believers can take heart. The Bible is not an endless maze. It is a fixed revelation, which God limited to the exact truth He wanted us to know (Deuteronomy 29:29). To suggest a truth cannot be known unless it is limited to a “single space” within Scripture is truly a faithless position.


Greg Schliesmann

[8] For an example of the same epistemological argument used by a Catholic apologist, see “The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura”

[9] Hodges, “How to Lead a Person to Christ, Part 1: The Content of our Message,” JOTGES (Autumn 2000):

[10] John 6:47 states “He who believes in Me has everlasting life.” “Everlasting life” is the result of believing in Jesus, but it cannot be logically proven that this verse makes it part of the content of saving faith. The same logical reasoning, which confuses the result with the condition, would then require “rivers of living water” (i.e. “The Holy Spirit”) to be essential to the content of saving faith in John 7:37-39 and not abiding in darkness essential to the content of saving faith in John 12:46. If everlasting life is part of the essential content of saving faith, it must be shown in combination with other verses.

Greg Schliesmann’s critique of Hodges’s polarizing Hydra’s Head article continues in Part 3 of his series.


LM

Zane Hodges, “Legalism is Not a Very Nice Word.” (Part 1)

Dear Guests:

I am pleased to present the first installment of Greg Schliesmann’s new multi-part critique of Zane Hodges’s polarizing article, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism.

There have been a number of reviews and critiques that have irrefutably shown that Hodges has checked out on Scripture and declared war on believers of every stripe who reject his Crossless gospel that is the most extreme form of reductionist heresy ever seen in the New Testament Church. This new series by Greg Schliesmann will devastate the article by Hodges on many levels.

Be sure to contact any one in your sphere of influence in your family, church or school. Encourage them to read and consider this critique by Greg Schliesmann.

The article by Hodges has ended any speculation on whether or not he, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) have become a cell of theological extremists and have isolated themselves as such. Greg’s review will erase any lingering doubts as to just how egregious the teaching of Hodges is. This series will be a lasting defense of the Gospel again the reductionist assault on the content of saving faith being propagated by Hodges, Wilkin and the GES.

Introduction
“Legalism is not a very nice word,” Zane Hodges once wrote.[1] Clearly, Hodges did not intend to be “very nice” when he chose this word to denounce the Free Grace community at large. In his recent article, “The Hydra's Other Head: Theological Legalism,” Hodges condemns Free Grace proponents who teach what Hodges himself once taught in regards to the Gospel, namely that the unsaved must “trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for our sins.[2] This article will evaluate some of the tragic errors of Hodges’s recent polemic. The appeal to believers will be formed upon the one area of agreement shared with Hodges: the Scriptural Gospel heralded by the normal Free Grace community and Hodges’s new saving message are two different messages that are completely incompatible.

In case you did not catch the “legalism” in the opening paragraph, Hodges now advocates the idea the lost must only believe someone named Jesus (even if that person is not deemed to be the God-man who died on the cross and rose again) guarantees everlasting life by faith alone. While Christ’s death and resurrection may be helpful for explaining the promise[3], only a “theological legalist” would insist such truths are essential to the message of salvation, according to Hodges.

Hodges’s Tone
Hodges’s recent article is actually a two-page a diatribe—“a bitter, abusive denunciation.”[4] The term “theological legalists” or “theological legalism” or “legalist” (for short) occurs 17 times in two pages to describe the normal Free Grace view. The term “theological legalism” is bolded nine times throughout the article. He compares it to “ecclesiastical legalism” of Catholicism, “cultic legalism” of Mormonism, and “commitment legalism” of Lordship Salvation.

Quite obviously Hodges is at war with the Free Grace community at large. In his own words, “In ecclesiastical circles, to call someone a legalist is to hurl an insult of the first magnitude. If someone says, ‘You’re a legalist,’ the instinctive reply would be, ‘Them’s fighting words!”[5]

Hodges’s Misrepresentation
Unfortunately, Hodges’s antagonism extends to the point of blatant misrepresentation of the Free Grace view. Hodges describes the normal Free Grace view by stating that we teach, “It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus Christ gives us eternal life when we believe in Him for that. We must also believe certain orthodox doctrines that go along with such belief. But these doctrines are not in themselves identical with believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Instead these beliefs form a kind of checklist that measures the validity of one’s faith.”

What are these “orthodox doctrines?” On the next page, Hodges gives a checklist of “orthodox doctrines” that Jesus did not ask the lost to believe including His eternal oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit, His virgin birth, His sinless and holy life, His ascension to the right hand of God, His intercessory work as our Great High Priest, and His Second Coming.

Yet Hodges does not quote a single Free Grace proponent who claims the lost must believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, Second Coming, or any of the orthodox doctrines enumerated above, in order to be saved.

In reality, Hodges is writing to condemn the view that teaches the lost must believe in the God-man Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again so we could be reconciled to God forever by faith in Him alone. Yet, instead of dealing squarely with what normal Free Grace proponents have always taught[6], Hodges creates a grotesque caricature of the position so that it is easier for him to refute.

The Scope of Hodges’s Condemnation
By his definition of “theological legalism,” Hodges condemns every single Free Grace champion of the past such as C.I Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord and every Free Grace leader of the present including J.B. Hixson[7], Charlie Bing, Robert Lightner, Roy Zuck, Dennis Rokser, and James Scudder. Only those closely aligned with the new direction of the Grace Evangelical Society (such as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, John Niemela, and Bob Bryant) are exempt from the charge.

Therefore, one must not mistake a criticism of Hodges as a criticism of Free Grace. Many Free Grace proponents now condemned by Hodges have esteemed him as a teacher, mentor, scholar, or professor. It is challenging to admit such a person has become a heretic. So I appeal to supporters of Zane Hodges, that you be “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19) as the Free Grace community responds to Hodges’s new path.

As a believer who meets Hodges’s definition of a “theological legalist,” I would like to point out some of the problems in Hodges article.


Greg Schliesmann

[1] Zane C. Hodges, Legalism: The Real Thing (JOTGES 9:2)

[2] This quote comes from Hodges’s postscript (p. 147) in The Gospel Under Siege. There he criticized Lordship Salvation proponents from discouraging a person to “trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for our sins.” In the same postscript, Hodges uses John 3:14-15 to illustrate saving faith as a matter where one “look[s] to the cross” and “must focus on Christ and His sacrifice.” Though Hodges may have held to his crossless content of saving faith his entire career, it is apparent than in the past he sometimes spoke in terms that would allow him to blend in with the normal Free Grace community. Certainly Hodges would now denounce the claim that one “must” focus on Christ and His sacrifice for salvation or assurance.

[3] Hodges, How to Lead a Person to Christ, Part 1, ( JOTGES) 11.

[4] The American Heritage Dictionary. Copyright © 2005, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated 2005.

[5] Zane Hodges, Legalism: The Real Thing, (JOTGES) 9:2.

[6] Stegall demonstrates the “normal Free Grace” view of the Gospel described in this article actually is the normal view that has been traditionally taught by Free Grace churches. Hodges’s view is novel in Free Grace theology. See- The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1.

[7] In the article, Hodges names Getting the Gospel Wrong by Free Grace Alliance Executive Director J.B. Hixson as representative of this “theological legalism.”

Greg Schliesmann’s critique of Hodges’s polarizing Hydra’s Head article continues in Part 2 of his series.


LM

New Book on the Doctrine of Salvation

On August 14 I spoke to Brother Rick Whitmire, Vice President of Administration at the Free Grace Seminary. We have been in close communication with one another for well over a year on issues related to Lordship Salvation and the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” gospel.

About six months ago Brother Whitmire informed me that a new book was in production. This book would be a comprehensive treatise on the doctrine of soteriology. This afternoon I am pleased to share the announcement of this book’s near completion. The title is Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology

What follows is the announcement at is appears at the Free Grace Seminary web site.

The Free Grace Seminary is in the process of publishing a historic book on Free Grace Theology. The work is the combined effort of more than ten scholars and represents leading edge scholarship on various issues related to salvation. For the first time ever in one volume all of the critical issues related to the doctrine of salvation will be examined and explained from a free grace perspective in one book. The book, Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology, is in the final editing stages and should be out within the next few months. Here is a sneak peak at some of the chapters in the book:

What Is Free Grace? by Dr. Mike Halsey

What Is the Gospel? by Dr. J. B. Hixson

Faith, Saving Faith and Non-Saving Faith by Dr. Fred Chay

Repentance by Dr. Richard Seymour

The Distinction Between Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Fred Lybrand

Rewards and the Bema Judgment by Greg Sapaugh

Evangelism and Free Grace Theology by Dr. Larry Moyer

Sin and Free Grace Theology by Dr. Mike Stallard

What Is Lordship Salvation? by Dr. Charlie Bing

Assurance and Eternal Security by Dr. Dave Anderson

Please join with us in praying for the success and widespread distribution of this helpful work. Above all else, pray that it helps to advance the gospel of God’s grace to a lost and dying world.

Warmly,


Dr. J. B. Hixson
Executive Director
Free Grace Alliance

Following is one line from the announcement about the new book.

For the first time ever in one volume all of the critical issues related to the doctrine of salvation will be examined and explained from a free grace perspective in one book.

I am noting, “all of the critical issues.” The concern I am going to share is not necessarily a personal one and I am hopeful it is a non-concern. If this book, that is advertised as examining and explaining “all of the critical issues related to the doctrine of salvation,” does not clearly explain and examine the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” gospel then, in my opinion, it does not fulfill its stated objective.

The subject of Lordship Salvation is clearly defined as a prime objective for treatment in the book. I am grateful for this and look forward to reading that chapter, as I am all of the chapters.

The GES gospel is, however, conspicuous by its absence from the table of contents. I trust and am hopeful that this does not indicate the GES “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel has largely been given a pass in this new book.


LM