The Technical Meaning of the Term “THE GOSPEL,” Wrap Up

Dear Guests:

Let me begin by offering my sincere apology to Greg Schliesmann. At my request he wrote the multi-part series, The Technical Meaning of the Term, the “GOSPEL.” For some reason I forgot to post the final in the series, which acts as a sort of addendum. What follows was originally to post on December 20, 2007. All I can figure is that with the onset of the Christmas holiday I forgot to post this and moved on. Here, at last, is Greg Schliesmann wrapping up his penetrating series.

The following comments were posted to former GES staff member Jeremy Myers* at his personal blog, Till He Comes. What followed was a longer comment that Greg recently developed into the multi-part series just concluded, which is Greg’s full rebuttal of Jeremy’s definition of the Gospel. We’ll end this series with this original comment from Greg Schliesmann to Jeremy Myers.

Jeremy,

After reading your post, How I Evangelize I read the articles by Pastor Tom Stegall again. Here is a quote that I think gets to the heart of my thoughts and observations about your latest post:

“The Gospel which contains the cross, resurrection, and deity-humanity of Christ is now considered by Crossless proponents to be a fuller gospel needed only for Christians for their sanctification in time, but not necessarily for the unsaved regarding their justification before God. With the very definition of ‘the Gospel’ there has been an abandonment of a once universally held position within the grace camp.” (Tom Stegall, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Pt. 2 p. 6:

My first observation is that you fumed over a particular distinction that the articles supposedly did not acknowledge, but the fact is the distinction is acknowledged right here and over 17 other places I counted and numbered with pen on my printed pages of the article. I would be happy to scan it for you so you can see yourself. You protested that the articles suggested you do not include the cross in the “Gospel” which you defined yourself in your latest post and in previous articles as “the entire New Testament gospel.”

However, the quote above directly states you include “the cross, resurrection, and deity-humanity of Christ” in what you consider the “gospel” in the very general sense of New Testament revelation. The articles acknowledge this fact, but specifically highlight the REAL issue that you do not include this as an essential element for the lost to believe for salvation. I have 14 instances marked, that are either statements by the author or quotes from GES members, where this issue is specified very clearly as being what is essential for the lost to believe for salvation–NOT whether you believe the message of the cross and Christ’s deity-humanity are part of general New Testament revelation. You express great offense that the articles claim your version of “the gospel” is Crossless, but your complaint hinges entirely upon a distinction that you’re making that 99.9% of evangelicals would never understand — that you consider “the gospel” to be all the good news of the NT, not the message that the lost need to believe to receive eternal life. And even then, the article specifically states this distinction and acknowledges what you claimed it did not — you do indeed include the cross, ect., in what you define as“the gospel,” i.e., the entire NT revelation and, and your words “possibly the Old Testament too.” In light of these facts, I must say–even as I am humbly looking to our gracious Lord and remembering that my speech must “be with grace, seasoned with salt”–a serious question is thus raised as to the purity of your intentions in protesting a supposed misrepresentation that is not even true and leveling an attack on the author, claiming,

“...the author of that article is making himself look foolish…;” “I laughed in his general direction…;” “as for the article…the only thing it does reveal is a lack of scholarship…;” “his baseless claims…,” ect.

Now if the true issue is so clearly defined in the article–THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE LOST MUST BELIEVE TO BE SAVED–and I believe it is, and like I said, I can scan my own copy of the article with notes and numbering in my own handwriting–and if your position on this issue is so Biblically solid, then why do you not deal with the real issue at hand, rather than raising all these sorts of protests and all this fuss about the author that can be directly quashed by quotes from the articles?

What I am most interested in is defending the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Again, the quote above gets to the heart of my thoughts on this. Christians have recognized that there is a general sense of the word “the gospel” meaning “good news”, e.g., “The Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, ect.” But based upon a plethora of New Testament passages, Christians have also recognized that there IS indeed also a technical usage of the term “the gospel” that came into effect after Christ’s resurrection that refers not to good news in general, nor to the general revelation of God given through the Old and New Testaments, but to the specific message that must be preached to the lost and must be believed by the lost to receive eternal life.

For years, even GES recognized this and took this for granted in all their literature which sought to defend “the gospel,” i.e., not the general revelation of God given throughout time, but to the message of salvation that the lost must believe to be saved. Even the title of Zane Hodges’ book, “The Gospel Under Siege” refers to this very thing–not New Testament revelation in general–but to the specific message that must be given to the lost and received by the lost for salvation. In light of the denial of “the gospel” as a technical term for this message by GES advocates, and the insistence that “Jesus guarantees eternal life to whoever believes in Him” by itself, without any substantiating truth such as His cross work or Deity, constitutes the message by which sinners are saved, for consistency, Hodge’s book should be retitled to “The Promise of Eternal Life Under Siege.” But of course “The Gospel Under Siege” refers to a specific message that nearly all evangelicals recognize because it is a thoroughly Biblical usage of the word that is substantiated in so many passages that it would be impossible to miss unless a person had some pre-determined reason to argue “the gospel” is never a technical term for the message the lost must believe to receive eternal life.

What could this pre-determined reason be? It seems once you accept “the gospel” as a term that in addition to being used in its general sense also as a prominent technical sense, then you are forced to admit Jesus Christ’s death for sins, resurrection, Deity, and humanity are an essential element to it. The claim that this belief also forces us to include the virgin birth and all sorts of other New Testament teachings in “the gospel” is simply wrong, ill-conceived, and contradicted by Scripture.

***END***

For an additional submission in this series see, THE GOSPEL & FAITH ALONE

*See Grace Evangelical Society Dismisses Jeremy Myers

Editor’s Note: I want to caution anyone who might visit Jeremy Myers’ blog, Till He Comes. Jeremy seems to enjoy posting some articles with a “shock value” to them. This demonstrates a disturbing lack of discernment that one might otherwise expect. Jeremy Myers not only holds to the false Crossless interpretation of the Gospel, but he has a whole other set of disconcerting issues, which lead to his dismissal from GES. Again, if you visit his blog, read with discernment.

Grace Evangelical Society Dismisses Jeremy Myers

UPDATE: At the de-Conversion blog Jeremy is publicly commenting on his termination from the GES. See his comments on January 30. For example he writes,

“So they didn’t fire me because I stopped believing some of their core doctrines, but becuase I wanted to study views that were contrary to those doctrines. I was told that studying such views brings major discredit to the ministry. Personally, I thought it was a way to help the ministry…”

Because of the high number of hits on this article I re-dated it to appear at the head of my home page. Please view my two latest comments, posted 1/31 @ 9:30 & 9:41am in the thread below. The 9:41am comment I partially directed to Jeremy’s attention. Following is the original posting of this article. While I was away on a recent vacation I was notified by telephone that a comment was posted at my blog that lead to a series of comments at the de-Conversion blog. Upon my return I read the note posted by Roopster in the thread under my article, Is There Genuine Concern for “The Heretic in Me?” (See 1/26 @ 10:13am). I followed the link to the de-Conversion blog, which Jeremy has been frequenting in recent weeks. There I found Jeremy confirming he had been fired by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). Jeremy wrote,

“I’m not sure who Khristian is, or how he/she found out I got fired… but word was bound to get out eventually.”

This morning (Jan. 31, 2008) I visited the GES web site and found no announcement of Jeremy’s dismissal. Furthermore, I noted that Jeremy is still slated as a speaker at the 2008 GES national conference.  Jeremy’s biography appeared at the GES website, (but was subsequently removed).  Assuming Jeremy’s dismissal is actual and genuine GES site corrections are sure to follow. Furthermore, I suggest Bob Wilkin verify Jeremy’s dismissal from the GES site his earliest convenience. The GES is a fairly high-profile ministry. It is not fair to Jeremy and his family to have individuals at the de-Conversion blog announcing Jeremy’s termination when, in my opinion, that should have come from his former employer Bob Wilkin.* 

I posted Is There Genuine Concern… shortly after Myers published The Heretic in Me at his personal blog. In that article Jeremy was the first to publicly announce he had been having “misgivings” and reconsidering his long held beliefs on various doctrinal issues. He expressed having “misgivings” on Bible doctrines such as the literal, six-day-24-hour creation, a future seven-year Tribulation and an eternal, conscious torment in Hell. Jeremy was not simply asking questions about these doctrines, he was questioning these doctrines. Questioning the reliability and accuracy of the biblical account on Creation, the Tribulation and Hell indicates to me that Jeremy had begun to have doubts about the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible on these subjects. 

It is widely known that the teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin introduced what has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel. This is a reductionist, non-saving message that has brought “division” and “offences” (Romans 16:17) into a number of Bible-believing churches and ministries. Once the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been corrupted and undermined more doctrinal foundations are sure to crumble. We have a sad and stark example of this in the life and ministry of Jeremy Myers. Jeremy came under the corrupting influence of the Zane Hodges “Crossless” gospel, which lead to his slide into more error. 

The tragic fall of Jeremy Myers renews my hope and prayer that the Grace Evangelical Society will one day cease to exist. The GES has long since departed from a balanced biblical view on the Gospel, i.e. the necessary content of saving faith. The unscriptural “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel has rendered Wilkin, Hodges and the GES irrelevant, and in fact a detriment to any defense of the Gospel against Lordship Salvation. There is no way a Bible-believing Christian, who understands what the GES has become, and the damage (the late) Zane Hodges and Wilkin have done to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can support the GES with his/her prayers or finances. 

As long as the GES has any influence in Christian circles the possibility exists there will be more men and women who will come under the corrupting influence of the “Crossless” gospel. Jeremy Myers is a casualty and genuine tragedy of the “Crossless” gospel. 

LM 

*(I have e-mailed Brother Wilkin encouraging him to break this news himself to quell any rumor-mongering that is sure to follow. Wilkin never did reply, but all biographical information of Jeremy was removed from the GES site and he did not appear the the 2008 GES national conference.)

Is There Genuine Concern for “The Heretic in Me”?

There are two recent developments related to Jeremy Myers’ personal revelations in his article, The Heretic in Me. The first item is not a major, but has to do with Jeremy’s unwillingness to discuss the doctrines he is leaning away from or toward. The second item, however, is a far more serious issue. I will follow those two items with a brief personal note to Bob Wilkin.

Discuss the Doctrine
In the thread under his Heretic in me article Rachel from Pursuit of Truth, kindly asked Jeremy the following,

“Jeremy: I’m wondering, if you listed for us here the doctrines you are considering changing your mind on, why wouldn’t you discuss your ideas about them here as well? If you think there are some ‘compelling reasons’ to change your views, then why wouldn’t you share them here, and others can see them and either change as well or possibly present ‘compelling’ reasons from the other side? It does seem kind of like ‘hit-and-run’ for you to post that you are considering changing on some major issues, but then potentially not give any reasons as to why.”

Another person asked Jeremy a question along the same lines of what Rachel asked him.

Both requests for clarification and discussion were unfortunately brushed aside by Jeremy.

Why does Jeremy post an article about his “leaning & teetering” on major doctrinal issues, such as Creation and Hell, and then refuse to discuss them? It would seem reasonable to me that Jeremy, who we trust would claim the Bible as his sole authority, should be willing to discuss his doctrinal positions. This at least allows for a better understanding of the direction he is headed, and/or recovery from a possible slide into heresy.

The Second Development
This is, in my opinion, a more serious concern. Jeremy has discovered, linked to from his blog, and begun participating at a blog that has an unfortunate reason for its existence. The blog Jeremy has linked to and commented at is titled, de-Conversion The blog’s subtitle is: “Resources for Skeptical, De-Converting, or Former Christians.”

The following is how de-Conversion describes itself and its requirements for becoming a contributor.

About
For the most part, we believe the teachings of Judaism, Christianity, & Islam, based on the perceptions and myths of a nomadic ancient Middle Eastern tribe, should be viewed critically - as should the holy books of these religions. This blog attempts to critically, but respectfully, address issues with these religious ideologies, especially Christianity. If you are a skeptical, de-converting, or former Christian, you may find these discussions interesting.

We also believe that whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds -when there is a significant lack of evidence on who God is or if he/she even exists.

Becoming a Contributor
If you are a de-converted Christian or a Christian with a healthy dose of skepticism towards the teachings of Christianity and would like to become a contributor to the de-Conversion.com blog, please email us at… . (bold added)

With those descriptions of the de-Conversion blog in mind please read Jeremy’s comment which he posted under the article titled, Christianity is Confusing.

I just found your blog yesterday and am enthralled. I am a pastor’s kid that went to a Christian grade school, a Bible College, pastored a church for five years, and am now finishing up a Seminary degree.

Recently, I have found myself not wanting to be associated with what has come to be known as “Christianity.” I don’t think Christ is pleased with us and what we have become. I find myself in agreement with much of what is written on this blog. And the things I disagree with, I understand (I think) where you are coming from.

This post really hit home with me. I am getting tired of doctrinal statements. Recently, I made it known to some Christian friends that I am questioning seven key doctrines that I have believed my entire life. WOW, did I ever get blasted! Apparently, I am now a heretic under the influence of Satan for even questioning the truth of these seven doctrines. I haven’t rejected them yet, I’m just questioning them. I wonder what would happen if I actually rejected a few?

Jeremy wrote that he is, “leaning, not holding firm, and teetering.” My question would be what are you (Jeremy) teetering toward? Does Jeremy’s interest in the de-Conversion blog give any indication of where he is headed? Could it be Jeremy is headed toward an Emergent Church mentality?

The emerging church (also known as the emerging church movement) is a controversial 21st-century Protestant Christian movement whose participants seek to engage postmodern people, especially the unchurched and post-churched. To accomplish this, “emerging Christians” (also known as “emergents”) deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, standards, and methods.

The Heretic in Me article and note at the de-Conversion blog should raise genuine concern among those who are close to Jeremy. IMO, any pastor/teacher who might have some influence in Jeremy’s life, has a genuine concern for him and senses the danger of where he may head doctrinally, should sit down with Jeremy and find out exactly what direction he is headed.

Personal Note to Bob Wilkin
Bob, I am putting aside my view of your “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel for the moment. Jeremy works along side you at the GES office. I am, therefore, going to ask you point blank: What are you doing to help and counsel Jeremy through this time of personal doctrinal upheaval he is experiencing? Are you cautioning him about the direction he may be headed? Of course I do not ask these questions for a public reply. Bob, God help you if you are either encouraging Jeremy's new direction, or doing nothing while this young man is floundering and may be sliding toward some form of doctrinal heresy and/or the Emergent Church movement.


LM

The Heretic in Me: Jeremy Myers' Plea or Pronouncement?

In a comment in the thread under The Technical Meaning of “THE GOSPEL” Part 3 I posted the following to Matthew,

“We are witnessing from men in the ‘Crossless’ camp a doctrinal-erosion-in-progress that can be seen through (their) own writings.” (12/20/07 @ 5:00pm)

I had not realized that just a day earlier the nature of my comment had already been realized in the starkest terms. If you will go to Grace Evangelical Society (GES) staff member Jeremy Myers’ personal blog, Till He Comes, you will find an article titled, The Heretic in Me.

In his article Jeremy reveals,

“Long held doctrines that I’ve held unswervingly to for years and years are beginning to teeter in my mind.”

For example he writes,

“But just as one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure, so also, one person’s heresy is another person’s cardinal doctrine. But I find these days that I have fewer and fewer cardinal doctrines…I do not hold to these things as firm as I once did.”

What are these “cardinal doctrines” that Jeremy no longer holds to? He lists six, including “the literal six day, 24 hour creation,” and a “future seven day Tribulation.”

Even Antonio da Rosa, who holds to the most extreme views of the Zane Hodges “Crossless” gospel, expressed grave concern to Jeremy. Antonio wrote,

“When I read your (Jeremy’s) list, my stomach began to turn, literally. I began to get sick in my stomach, literally.”

Toward the end of his article Myers writes,

“There is not a church in the country that would hire a pastor who has doubts about this list of doctrines.”

Who or what has lead Myers to the brink of what he acknowledged is viewed as heresy? Myers notes author/speaker Donald Miller’s book Blue Lake Jazz as a source that has contributed to his shifting positions.

Is it possible Myers is simply expressing more of what he has been lead to believe under the teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin? Has Bob Wilkin contributed to the list of “cardinal doctrines” that Myers has noted he is now “shifting” his position on?

These are not mere nuances on minor doctrines. These are serious issues that Myers raises about his personal theology. He is “shifting” on major doctrinal truths.

Would it be wise for the remaining members of the GES to take note of where Myers is headed, especially since he is on staff at the GES? Do the positions Myers is suggesting he has adopted (or about to embrace) reflect the doctrinal position of GES Executive Director Bob Wilkin? Shouldn't Myers be taken under wing by someone who can help him recover to a balanced biblical position?

In Acts 18:24-28 we see the episode where Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside and “expound unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Shouldn’t someone take Jeremy aside for the same purpose? Someone has taken him aside and the obvious detrimental ramifications of what has been introduced to him are coming to the fore.

Myers is on staff at the GES. Why is Myers in a leadership capacity with the GES when he has admitted to having lost his theological moorings? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to encourage Myers to step down until such time he finds his doctrinal footing once again?

Until Myers can (if ever) be recovered he should not be among the leadership of any church or para-church organization in evangelical circles. Was Myers thrust into the GES leadership before he had grown from a “novice” (1 Tim. 3:6)?

No one, possibly not even Myers, may fully understand why he posted The Heretic in Me article. Is it a plea for help? Could it be his initial pronouncement of an adoption of what most across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity would call a radical departure from “the faith once delivered” on several levels?

These questions, for now, remain unanswered. What we know with certainty, however, is that Jeremy Myers is on shaky theological ground, and he may teeter to the point of toppling into gross heresy, if he has not already done so.

Jeremy is, in my opinion, one of the young men who has become a genuine tragedy and casualty of the teachings of Zane Hodges & Bob Wilkin.


LM

What Is The “Crossless” Advocates “Stance” on the Cross, Resurrection & Deity of Christ?

Dear Guests:

*Jim Johnson, a former apologist for the “Crossless” gospel and its advocates, posted the following at the Grace Evangelical Society’s blog. He wrote,

“...the minute you identify yourself as being sympathetic to a faith alone position of Zane or Bob - no matter what your stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ, you are attacked ”1

Did the late Zane Hodges and today does Bob Wilkin teach a “faith alone position” on the Gospel? The initial reply would be, Yes, they do. What we have been primarily concerned with, however, is what these men insist is unnecessary for the lost man to believe for the reception of eternal life. What the lost man must be convinced of and believe that will result in his being born again is the crux of the debate and concern among many in evangelical circles.

We begin by noting there is a missing element in Johnson’s quote above. The missing element is that Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin do have a specific “stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ.” Their position is that a lost man can be saved apart from knowledge, understanding or belief in the death, resurrection or deity of Christ.

In recent weeks we have been learning a great deal about what the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel consider false, unnecessary additions to what a lost man must believe for the reception of eternal life. We have learned exactly what the stance is of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers and Antonio da Rosa.

For example, consider these statements by Zane Hodges:

“You see, as we noted previously, the facts surrounding the gospel message—such as the death and resurrection of Christ—are important facts for what they tell us about the reasons for trusting Christ. But believing these facts doesn’t save anyone. People are only saved when they believe that Jesus gives them eternal life the moment they believe in Him for that.” 2

“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.” 3

“In recent years I have become aware of a way of presenting the gospel invitation that troubles me. I believe I have heard it from my earliest years, and I admit it didn’t really bother me for a long time. Now it does. I have heard people say this: ‘In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.’ In the context of our present discussion, I mean that this is their summary of the requirement of faith. It is not just one item, among others, to be believed. Whenever I hear that nowadays, I get extremely uncomfortable.” 4

“The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.” 5

How does Bob Wilkin define his “stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ?”

“What they fail to understand is that biblical faith in Jesus is not faith that He existed, nor faith in His deity, nor even faith that He died for our sins and rose again. In the Bible, to believe in Jesus is to be convinced that He who died and rose again guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him.” 6

At first glance Wilkins's statement seems reasonable. Then, however, we have the following statement, which negates what might have been considered orthodox in the previous.

“Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.” 7

Wilkin views telling the lost man that for salvation he must believe Jesus died for his sin and rose from the dead, (the finished work of Christ) as additions to the Gospel. Wilkin considers the finished work of Christ and His resurrection a “different gospel.” His meaning and intent is clear. In his opinion, to preach the necessity of belief in the death and resurrection of Christ is to preach a false Gospel through unnecessary additions.

How does Jeremy Myers (former GES staff member) define his “stance on cross and resurrection and deity of Christ?” Jeremy Myers recently articulated that stance. Jeremy verified his personal position on the cross and resurrection when, at the Pursuit of Truth blog he wrote,

“I have a view that one does not have to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus to be born again.” 8

How does Antonio da Rosa define his “stance on the cross and resurrection and deity of Christ?” At the Pursuit of Truth blog he wrote,

“Theologically speaking, ‘explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection’ is not soteriologically necessary for the reception of eternal life.” (emphasis his) 9

Antonio has made one of the clearest statements on belief in the “deity of Christ” as being unnecessary for the reception of eternal life. At his Crossless gospel blog Antonio wrote,

“If a JW hears me speak of Christ’s deity and asks me about it, I will say, ‘Let us agree to disagree about this subject…’ I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions (sic) and beliefs about Jesus.” 10 (caps his)

da Rosa continued,

“If someone asks me point blank, do I believe (sic) that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say “NO!” 11 (caps his)

The position being articulated by da Rosa and the “Crossless” gospel advocates includes the belief that a lost man can openly reject and deny the deity of Christ and yet be saved by believing in nothing more than a promise of eternal life.  Some have come to define this view from GES as the “Promise-Only Gospel.”

Johnson’s analogy of persons being “attacked” for agreeing with another man’s doctrine is a facade. Johnson seeks to portray an important doctrinal controversy as though it is a personality clash. The questions and concerns are raised because, in the opinion of pastors and teachers, the “stance” the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel take is antithetical to Scripture.

Jim Johnson has written that Zane and Bob hold to a “faith alone,” position. It must be noted, however, that if it is faith alone that Zane and Bob teach, it is “faith alone,” but apart from faith believing in the “cross, resurrection and deity of Christ.” This is a reductionist assault on the content of saving faith and a serious departure from a balanced, biblical view of God’s redemptive plan for mankind.

The teachers and advocates of the “Crossless” gospel have departed from, “the faith which was once delivered,” (Jude 3). I intend to do what I can to, “earnestly contend for the faith.”


LM

*In early 2008 Jim Johnson was caught in numerous acts of massive plagiarism. Furthermore, Johnson manipulated some of the plagiarirzed material to make it appear to support his views, when some in fact did not. See- Jim Johnson’s Plagiarism... To this day Johnson is not just unrepentant, but has brazenly attacked any who have called him to repentance. In any event, since his plagiarism was identified he deleted the plagiarized articles he once posted and has refrained from posting any new comments on the debate.

1] Not unexpectedly the GES is blocking and deleting comments at its blog. Many of you likely remember the sudden and unexplained disappearance of two articles and threads at the original GES blog. I felt I had a reasonable, brief response to Jim's post. It was, however, blocked. This article is my reply to Johnson's note.

2] Zane Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2, JOTGES 14 (Spring 2001)‏.

3] Zane Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.1. JOTGES 13 (Autumn 2000)‏

Reading quotes such as the previous by Zane Hodges sufficiently demonstrates why the interpretation of the Gospel coming from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES has come to be known as the “Crossless Gospel.”

4] Zane Hodges, How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.2, JOTGES 14 (Spring 2001)‏.

5] Ibid.
For more examples of the teaching of Zane Hodges see, The Unusual and Troubling Teachings of Zane Hodges by Pastor George Zeller.

6] Bob Wilkin: Secure and Sure‏

7] Bob Wilkin: JOTGES Autumn 1998)‏

8] Jeremy Myers: Pursuit of Truth See post on 06 Nov 2007 at 2:13 am.

9] Antonio da Rosa: Pursuit of Truth See post on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:39 pm.

10] Antonio da Rosa: Believe Christ’s Promise and You are Saved, No Matter What Misconceptions You Hold

11] Ibid.


Next week I will return to my Heart to Heart series.

The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault from the Grace Evangelical Society

In my first article in this series I discussed the attempt of Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) to remove Deity from the Biblical concept of Jesus as “the Christ.” Hodges’s fraudulent arguments regarding the Samaritans in John 4 were exposed.

The purpose of this article is to show the Biblical concept of “the Christ” involves Deity, and that this is necessary for salvation. Future articles will show the truths of His death and resurrection are equally important truths of the gospel necessary for salvation today.


I. The New Assault From the GES

In recent days I have become aware of new arguments from GES regarding the Lord’s titles, “the Christ, the Son of God” that are troubling to many fellow believers in the Free Grace community. The latest round of attacks claims neither “the Christ” nor “the Son of God” is a title that involves His Deity.

Readers of my previous article will recall Hodges argued the lost must only believe in Jesus as “the Christ” but not “the Son of God” in his article “How to Lead a Person to Christ” [1]. In it, he defined “the Christ” as “the Guarantor of eternal life to all believers.” Hodges conceded that “the Son of God” is a title that involves the Lord’s Deity but denied the lost must believe it (contrary to John 20:31).

The GES recently added a new twist. This new GES approach admits, in accordance with John 20:31, that the lost must believe in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of God” but suggests that neither title involves His Deity. They argue the words “anointed” (from which we get “Christ”) and “sons of God” were applied to other people in the Old Testament so we cannot insist on a unique meaning in reference to the Lord.

Let us observe the arguments of GES editor Jeremy Myers. In a recent blog post to Myers, I countered Hodges's prior argument that divorced “the Christ” from “the Son of God” in John 20:31. I pointed out “the Son of God” is appositional (it gives explanation) to “the Christ” throughout Scripture. Myers responded:

Regarding the biblical usage of the term “Christ” I did not get this from some “GES Mantra” but from the lexicons and word study tools that are available in any Bible college or Seminary. Even without the Lexicons and word study tools (since they sometimes make mistakes) a word study that can be done by anybody will reveal that since Cyrus is called the Messiah in Isa. 45 (check the Hebrew), the term cannot and does not inherently refer to deity. Extrabiblical literature confirms this as well.

Regarding the term “Son of God” the Biblical usage doesn’t fit your claim either. After all, we have the “sons of God” in Genesis 6, as well as the statement in Hos. 1:10 that Israelites were sons of God. Even from the mouth of Jesus, we are told that we will be sons of God (Mat. 5:9). The argument that these are plurals and when used of Jesus it is singular won't work due to the most basic of grammatical rules that plurals are used when referring to groups, and singulars are used when referring to a single entity.

You are right that in John, the terms “Christ” and “son of God” are in apposition, but if neither "Christ" nor "Son of God" inherently refer to deity, then it is quite likely that in the days of Jesus, someone could believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and NOT understand, know, or believe that He is divine. [2]

Myers noted in a second response:

Carson has an excellent discussion of the word “Messiah” as well, in which he points out that not only is Cyrus called a Messiah in Isa 45:1, but also the king of Israel (1 Sa 16:6; 2 Sa 1:14), the high priest (Lev 4:3), and the patriarchs (Ps 105:15). (Carson, p. 155-156). The term Messiah (or Christ) therefore, cannot inherently mean “God.” Again, nearly all the commentaries state this. [3]

Does Myers not realize his argument is self-refuting? If we cannot identify an essential concept of “the Christ” that is different from Cyrus, high priests, prophets, and patriarchs, then neither could we accept the GES definition of “the Christ.” Apparently, I do not have access to any of “the lexicons and word study tools that are available in any Bible college or Seminary” because I cannot find one that gives the GES definition of “the Guarantor of everlasting life to all believers.”

Myers’s error is alarmingly elementary. He confuses the lexical meaning of words with theological concepts that come to be technically described by certain terms.

This is a simple matter of recognizing the difference between a broad meaning and technical usage of a word. For example, the word “Bible” comes from a word meaning “book”. The Greek word “biblion” (transliteration) is used for any book. Even in English we sometimes use the word “bible” as an idiom for an authoritative book. For example, we could refer to the “Engineer’s bible” or the “the bible of Italian cooking”. These usages would not convey Divine inspiration. However, it is also possible for us to refer to “the Bible”, and any Christian will know exactly what we are talking about. Although the “Divine inspiration” is not necessarily inherent to the word “bible”, the true concept of “the Bible” certainly involves Divine inspiration.

In seeking whether “the Christ” is a concept that involves Deity, we would not look in a lexicon as Myers suggested. A lexicon will tell us that “Messiah” or “Christ” means “anointed” but it is simply not the job of a lexicon to explain theological concepts that can be signified by the technical application of a term. And contrary to Myer’s argument, every Biblical lexicon notes there is a technical usage of the term “the Messiah” or “the Christ” that applies to a single promised figure unique from any other person to whom the term is applied. The lexicographer leaves it to the theologian or Bible student to search the Scriptures to find “what is the essential concept of this particular, unique person called ‘the Christ’?”

I would like to suggest a passage that will help answer this question:


II . “What think ye of the Christ?”

Matthew 22:41-46

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘LORD,’” saying: 44 ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL’?” 45 “If David then calls Him ‘LORD,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

This passage is especially appropriate for several reasons. There is no way to read this passage without concluding there is a single figure called “the Christ” who is uniquely set apart from any other “anointed” person or thing. The Lord Jesus talks about the concept of “the Christ” without speaking of Himself directly. This clearly distinguishes this passage as one that speaks of the essential concept of “the Christ.” His question will expose the deficient concept of “the Christ” held by the Pharisees and also lead to the true concept of “the Christ.” His teaching also confirms the Deity of “the Christ” has been taught since this term was first applied to Him in Scripture.

In regards to the context of the passage, this discussion took place after the Lord Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem and second cleansing of the Temple. The Pharisees responded by plotting “how they might entangle him in his talk” (22:15). After a series of questions from the Pharisees (22:15), Sadducees (22:23), and Scribes and Pharisees (22:34), the Lord Jesus asks His own question unrelated to any of their own. In fact, it is the only preemptive question we know the Lord asked to a group of religious leaders, as if to suggest they neglected the most important question of all, “what think ye of the Christ” when plotting their own questions. However, this discussion did not take place in the midst of religious leaders alone but “all the people” at the Temple (cf. Luke 20:45), so that “the common people heard Him gladly” (cf. Mark 12:37). It is likely that His connection of “the Christ” and “whose Son is He?” relates to the charge of the High Priest shortly thereafter, “tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” (Mt. 26:63).

Several points about this passage can be made in regards to the efforts of GES proponents to divest Deity from the essential understanding of “the Christ”. These points will center around three questions.

Question 1: Is there a unique Biblical concept “the Christ” distinguished from other “anointed ones?”

Myers argued that Deity “cannot” be conveyed by the concept of “the Christ” because the Hebrew word for “anointed” is also applied to others. But if the answer to the question above is “yes,” Myers’s arguments are irrelevant. If so, we can then move on to the next question: does the Biblical concept of “the Christ” convey Deity?

Notice the Pharisees clearly understood there was a single figure called “the Christ.” These Pharisees did not respond, “which king, prince, prophet, priest, table, lampstand, pillar, wafer, burnt offering, shield, or thing are you talking about? There are many anointed ones.” They understood the term referred uniquely to one individual. This simple point refutes Myer's misguided argument.

Furthermore, the Lord’s question, “What think ye of...” implies there is an essential concept of “the Christ”. The Lord did not expect the Pharisees to respond, “Well, sir, ‘christ’ means anointed.” That went without saying. The Lord was not asking the Pharisees to look in lexicons available at Bible colleges for the lexical definition of the term. He asked about the Biblical concept of “the Christ.”

Now let’s consider the next question:

Question 2: Does the Biblical concept of “the Christ” involve Deity?

In light of this passage, the obvious answer to this question is “yes”. The Lord quoted Psalm 110:1 for the fact that it conveys the Deity of the Christ. The Pharisees were unable to answer His question because they were unwilling to admit “the Christ” is not just the Son of David but also the eternal Son of God. His question, "whose Son is He?" cannot be answered apart from His Deity. This is clear from the Lord's follow up question: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord?" Since crossless gospel proponents tend to blunt statements that refer to Christ's Deity, several points will prove this quotation of David conveys Christ's Deity:

1. David called the Christ “my Lord.” The fact He is David's Lord/Master while also David’s distant descendent puts Him in a unique category that requires His Deity. The Hebrew commentator Delitzsch remarked:

“The inference which is left for the Pharisees to draw rests upon two premises, which are granted, that [Psalm 110] is Davidic, and that it is prophetico-Messianic, i.e., that in it the future Messiah stands objectively before the mind of David...Since the prophetico-Messianic character of the Psalm was acknowledged at that time...the conclusion to be drawn from this Psalm must have been felt by the Pharisees themselves, that the Messiah, because the Son of David and the Lord at the same time, was of human and at the same time superhuman nature; that it was therefore in accordance with Scripture if this Jesus, who represented Himself to be the predicted Christ, should as such profess to be the Son of God and of divine nature.” [4]

2. David called the Christ “my Lord” a thousand years before Christ's arrival. This implies His eternal existence. As Micah foretold, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” (Micah 5:2).

Barnes commented:

“If he was then David's lord if he was his superior--if he had an existence at that time how could he be descended from him? [The Pharisees] could not answer him. Nor is there any way of answering the question but by the admission that the Messiah was divine as well as human; that he had an existence at the time of David, and was his lord and master, his God and king, and that as man he was descended from him.” [5]

3. Other NT passages apply this Psalm to Christ’s Deity. In Hebrews 1:8-13, the author sets forth Christ’s Deity from Pslams 45:6-7; 102:25; and 110. It is likewise applied to His deity in Acts 2:34-36 where Peter calls Jesus “Lord and Christ.” Also, Psalms and other OT prophecies clearly refer to the Deity of the Christ (e.g. Psalm 2:2-12; 45:6-7, 11; 72:17). Why insist on a meaning here that is less?

4. The phrase “Sit thou at My right hand” is used throughout Scripture to refer to Christ’s unique heavenly reign with the Father from within the Godhead during the time between His ascension and second advent (cf. Ps. 110; Mt. 26:64; Lk. 22:69; Acts 2:33-36; 5:30-31; 7:55-58; Heb. 1:3, 13). In fact, this claim was part of the basis for the High Priest and the Sanhedrin to call for Christ's death sentence on account of blasphemy (Mt. 26:63-66).

If Jesus was NOT pointing out the Deity of “the Christ,” then what was He describing? The Pharisees already knew “the Christ” would be sent from God. They already knew “the Christ” would have the highest authority of any man. They already knew He would have a unique relationship with God. Yet, if that was a sufficient understanding of His Sonship, why did He challenge them?

Question 3: Is the Deity of the Christ, as the Lord taught in Matthew 22:42-45, essential to the issue of salvation?

Crossless gospel proponents are likely to argue that while Deity may be part of the true concept of “the Christ,” it is just one of many truths about “the Christ” that are not essential for salvation. They attempt to separate the “evangelistic” meaning of “the Christ” in the Gospel of John from the meaning in other Gospels.[6]

Well, the Gospel of John also proves one must know “the Christ” as God in order to receive eternal life. I focused on Matthew 22:41-46 in this article because it is helpful for dealing with the new GES arguments regarding the terms “the Christ” and “the Son of God” together. Several observations demonstrate the relevance of the Lord’s point in this passage to the issue of salvation:

General Observations:

First, the Lord is certainly speaking to lost people in this passage about “the Christ.” Not only does He speak to the Scribes and Pharisees, but His audience includes “all the people” at the Temple (Luke 20:45), so that “the common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37). In order to prepare them to recognize Himself as “the Christ”, it is important they have the right concept of “the Christ.”

It is significant the very first issue He brings up relates to the nature and Deity of Christ. Notice the Lord did not first ask, “what think ye of the Christ? what does He guarantee by faith alone?” Although the true concept of “the Christ” actually does involve His work and role as Savior, the very first matter that arises is His nature as the Son of God: “what think ye of the Christ? Whose son is He?”

How contrary to the stated practice of a crossless gospel advocate who criticized me for leading a Jew “away from eternal life” due solely to the fact that I shared verses on the Deity of the Christ when I gave the gospel to him! [7] Apparently, the Lord Jesus Himself was unaware of the pitfall of teaching Christ’s Deity to lost Jews when He spoke the words of Matthew 22:42-45!

The Lord’s words clearly show the true concept of “the Christ” includes truth about His nature. Jeremy Myer's non-Deity definition of “the Son of God” still does not escape the fact that this speaks of His relationship to God. Even this exceeds the three-point “saving message” checklist of GES. If Myer’s non-Deity definition were true, the title “the Son of God” would still convey Christ’s unique relationship to God. How could this title square with the crossless gospel proponents’ denial that it is essential for the lost to believe there is one God in order to be saved?

Lastly, some general observations can be made about the question “whose Son is He?”

It is notable that the term “the Son of God” was not specifically applied to the Messiah in rabbinical literature prior to the time of Christ. Oscar Cullman noted,

“The difficulty lies in the fact that no known ancient text definitely calls the Messiah ‘Son of God’.” [8]

The reluctance of the Pharisees to admit the Christ is the Son of God (Mat. 22:41-46) and the condemnation of Jesus for His claim to be the Son of God (Mat. 26:63-65; Mk. 14:61-64; Lk. 22:67-71; John 19:7) evidence the emphatic teaching of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus, that the Christ is the Son of God. If the concept “the Son of God” only conveyed the significance given to it by Myers, i.e., that the Christ would have a unique relationship to God or serve some unique function, the Pharisees would have had no problem agreeing the Christ is the Son of God in Matthew 22:41-46.

The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John parallel each other in demonstrating the significance of “the Son of God” in the narratives. Matthew records both a negative (unbelieving) and positive (believing) response to this title. A short time after this discussion with the Pharisees took place, the High Priest charged Jesus at His trial before the Sanhedrin, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matthew 26:63). When He answers affirmatively, He is charged with “blasphemy!” Positively, His identity as “the Son of God” means that He is worthy of worship: “Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God.’” (Matthew 14:33). Jews were strictly taught that only God was worthy of worship. Worship of any other would be idolatry. Matthew certainly expects us to see that “the Son of God” is a Divine title.

This is paralleled in the Gospel of John. There is an antagonistic response to His claim to being “the Son of God”: “the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He…also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). To Pontius Pilate the Jews exclaimed, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” On the other hand, there is a believing response to His identity as the Son of God: “Jesus…said unto him, ‘Dost thou believe on the Son of God?’ He answered and said, ‘“Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.’ And he said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshipped him.” Both the negative and positive responses show “the Son of God” signified Deity. Matthew and John totally agree on the significance of this term. In light of this, the Gospel of John’s requirement to believe in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31) specifically highlights the necessity of believing in His Deity.

The Relationship of This Passage to Salvation Texts:

Myers argued neither term “the Christ” nor “the Son of God” refers to Deity. In fact, he argued the singular “the Son of God” cannot legitimately be taken differently than the plural “sons of God.” But Jesus Christ Himself referred to the Deity of the Christ to explain “whose Son” He is. He explained the Christ is the Son of God by quoting David in Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said unto my Lord...” He quoted this to prove He is more than just the son of David--He is the eternal Son of God. The Lord's point may be represented like this:

A. Question: what think ye of the Christ? whose Son is He? (v. 42 asked)
B. Premise: David spoke of “the Christ” in Psalm 110:1 (v. 43)
B. Premise: David calls Him “my Lord”, i.e., He is Divine (v. 44)
A. True answer: the Christ is the Son of God, i.e, He is Divine (v. 42 answered)

The Lord Jesus’ explanation of Christ’s Deity by the quotation of Psalm 110:1 is appositional to the question, “whose Son is He” which is appositional to the first question, “what think ye of Christ?” The only true conclusion one can reach, given the Lord’s premise, is that “the Christ” is “the Son” of God and that this specifically speaks of His Deity.

It is no wonder that He put together the questions, “What think ye of the Christ? Whose Son is He?” This appositional relationship of “Son” to “the Christ” does not only appear in the question form of this passage. The title “the Son of God” is appositional to “the Christ” throughout Scripture including the salvation text of John 20:31:

“...You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:18)

“…I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matthew 26:63)

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)

Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61)

And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Luke 4:41)

“Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6:69)

“Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” (John 11:27)

“...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.” (John 20:31)

We could go on (e.g. Acts 8:37; 9:20; 2Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 3:6; 5:5; 1John 2:22; 5:20; 2John 3, 9).

Dozens of passages describe Him as “the Christ, the Son of God” or interchange the terms “Christ” and “Son.” Several passages indicate the lost must believe on “the Son” or “the only begotten Son of God” (See John 3:15, 16, 18, 36, 5:23-25; Acts 13:33-39; Rom. 1:4, 16; 1John 4:14; 5:5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20).

The relationship between these terms is further reflected in 1John 5:1 and 5:5. in 1John 5:1, we read: “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God....” while in 5:5 we read: “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” It is not as though the content of v.1 one summarizes one message to salvation while v. 5 summarizes a different route. As we have already seen, believing that Jesus is “the Christ” (v. 1) necessarily involves believing He is “the Son of God” (v. 5).

This title certainly emphasizes His Deity, just as Christ did when He used Psalm 110:1 to explain “whose Son” He is. The Apostle John wrote, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31).

The Lord Jesus showed the true concept of “the Christ” involves Deity. Though the Pharisees could not argue with the Lord’s premise, they still refused to reach the same conclusion in Matthew 22:41-46.

I plead with “Crossless” gospel advocates to change their minds and avoid the same hard-hearted response of the Pharisees.


Greg Schliesmann

-----------------------------------

[1] Zane Hodges, “How To Lead people to Christ, Pt. 1.” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, (Autumn 2000).

[2] See Jeremy Myer’s comments on OPEN QUESTION to Bob Wilkin at the Grace Evangelical Society. Blog comments posted 8/28/2007 2:29 PM.

[3] See Jeremy Myer’s comments on When Simple Faith is Not Enough (August 29, 2007). Blog comments posted 9/03/07 1:39 PM.

[4] C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Reprinted 1978), Volume 5, Psalms, by F. Delitzsch, Psalm CX, pp. 184-185.

[5] Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible (Electronic version). Notes on Matthew 22:45.

[6] E.g. “It is precisely the ability of Jesus to guarantee eternal life that makes Him the Christ in the Johannine sense of that term.” See Zane Hodges, “How To Lead people to Christ, Pt. 1.” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, (Autumn 2000), p. 4.

[7] In a thread at the blog site of GES that was removed by GES without explanation, I stated: “Three days ago I witnessed to an Orthodox Jew in the parking lot of a grocery store. He told me that in Jewish theology, it is impossible for someone to be God and a man. The first verse I showed him was Micah 5:2. He looked at [it] for a minute quietly before responding...”

Due to this statement, GES apologist Antonio da Rosa replied, “It is a fact that you may have turned such a one away from eternal life.”

[8] Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley Guthrie and Charles Hall, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 274. He also notes, “The passages in II (4) Esd. (7:28f., 13:32; 37–52; 14:9) can hardly be considered as examples, because they point to the pais in the sense of the ebed Yahweh and do not refer directly to the sonship.” Cited by Kenneth W. Wilson, “Is Belief in Christ’s Deity Required for Eternal Life in John’s Gospel?” Chafer Theological Journal (Fall, 2006).


Originally appeared September 27, 2007

Myers Launches New Study on the Deity of Christ

To My Guests:

I noticed that GES editor Jeremy Myers is posting a new series on his website on the terms “the Christ” and “the Son of God.” In the introductory article, Myers stated:

“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. While that certainly has been a popular view in the past, and may be what is considered the ‘traditional’ view, more and more students of the Word are realizing this view does not fit all the Biblical data. 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.”

Please notice that Myers suggested that he has not yet reached a conclusion on the meaning of “the Christ” and “the Son of God.” However, a few sentences later he claims the "Biblical data" indicates that His Deity is NOT conveyed by these terms. The fact is, Myers has already argued that Christ's Deity is NOT involved in these terms as quoted in the latest article, The “Christ” Under Siege, Part 2

Here is an important question for Myers:

Eternal life is conditioned on believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (cf. John 20:31). Since you are uncertain right now, by your own admission, what John means by these vital terms, then how can you say with certainty that you know you have eternal life?

Myers also stated:

“There are certain men out there right now on different blogs and publications calling me a heretic for even proposing such a study.”

We highly doubt anybody called Myers a heretic for “even proposing such a study.” Myers did not cite any examples of such men. Not until late Friday evening, did we even know that Myers was “proposing such a study.”

Myers has already drifted into heresy because he has already argued that someone can believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as “the Christ, the Son of God” without believing in His Deity! Furthermore, there are men sympathetic to the GES “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel who believe a lost man can consciously reject the Deity of Christ and still be born again by believing in the name Jesus for eternal life. Myers and Bob Wilkin refuse to discuss or answer questions about this especially disturbing aspect of their evangelism.

It is dishonest for Myers to pretend that he has not already argued for a certain conclusion, and that we called him a heretic for “proposing such a study.” This is not unlike the approach of the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad (sounds like “I’m in a Jihad”). Ahmadinejad profusely argued the Holocaust is a “myth” and held a conference with notable Holocaust-Deniers to build his case. Then when he was recently challenged for making such an absurd claim by the president of Columbia University, he claimed to have only asked for “more research on the Holocaust.” With all due respect, Myers demonstrated the same transparent lack of honesty.

Whether or not Myers concedes these titles convey His Deity, we believe his lack of honesty reflects his agenda to continue to deny that a lost man can be saved apart from believing in the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is our hope and prayer that Jeremy Myers will repent of the teaching he has brought, and will return to orthodoxy.


LM & GS

*Later today (10/1) I will be moving this article down the home page to keep Greg's The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault from the GES at the top.

A Snap-Shot of the "Crossless" Debate

To All:

While we wait for Bob Wilkin to respond to my offer to help him have the debate he is calling for I thought this would be a good article to serve in the meantime. This is a synopsis of the issues in the “Crossless” gospel debates and I feel this would be a good transitional piece for over the holiday weekend.

The following is a slightly edited version of a note I just posted at the pro-“Crossless” gospel blog, UnAshamed of Grace. Antonio da Rosa administers that blog. Antonio is one of the most vocal, emotionally charged and spiritually immature {see below} advocates of the “Crossless” gospel you will find anywhere in the blogosphere.

{Antonio da Rosa deleted my post and one from another man, which is da Rosa's standard practice when he has to bury some of the most disturbing aspects of their theology and/or practices. He is often banned and/or reprimanded at blogs for this and other poor choices in behavior.}


On the doctrine of the Gospel, popularized by Zane Hodges, there is no doubt that Antonio and Jeremy Myers (GES staff member) have checked out on Scripture. They not only have reduced the Gospel to a message that has little resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they have undermined His deity with the twisting of His titles.

When my book on Lordship Salvation came out I warned Antonio that he might not want to get too cozy with me. I purposely did NOT quote Hodges and even in my book gave a warning to my LS readers about Hodges. I saw the signs of this radical departure from orthodoxy as far back as 11 years ago. That is why I kept my distance.

Once I finally went ahead with public thoughts and posts at my blog on Zane Hodges (June 2007) and his interpretation of the Gospel, which is the official position of the GES, it set off what is now over two months of open and sharp debate. The one disappointment is that in a very short time it became obvious, to any objective observer, that the men who advocate the “Crossless” gospel were never going to be thoroughly clear, genuine or transparent about their belief system. Their doctrine has come under intense scrutiny. They are unaccustomed to this level of scrutiny and are having a hard time dealing with it. They consistently fall back to what they feel are the safe mantras and will not deviate from them.

The acceptance of the teaching of Hodges on the Gospel has thoroughly corrupted their view of the Scriptures. They view the Gospel of John such single-mindedness that for them it trumps and negates the balance of the Bible whenever it touches on the Gospel and/or salvation. To make matters worse they have badly misinterpreted and skewed John’s Gospel.

Now, their egregious errors have come to light. Their view is now under intense scrutiny and I am finding that many who had little idea of just far they have gone doctrinally astray are seeing it in full view for the first time.

Readers (at my blog) have also been able to witness the evasion and dodging of the deity of Christ questions. Matthew (Dyspraxic Fundamentalist) is one of the few who has been open and transparent. He is a regular contributor at one of Antonio's blogs, and he admits that under their system a man who consciously denies the deity of Christ can be born again only by believing in the name of Jesus for eternal life. At the GES blog I have gained more admissions to this disturbing fact that is inherent with their interpretation of the Gospel.

For these men a Jehovah's Witness (JW), who clings to his heretical beliefs about the deity of Jesus, can be born again under their system of believing in the name of Jesus, who for the JW, is anything but deity. William Fiess and Alvin at the GES blog have affirmed this position. This is no hypothetical situation; it is real and reveals one of the most egregious extremes coming from the GES on the Gospel.

There is no doubt Antonio da Rosa and Myers take the same position, their message demands it, but they will NOT acknowledge the deity question let alone answer it. Jeremy is especially unwilling to do so because from his GES position, that admission would be catastrophic for the GES.

Furthermore, I have been in contact with Bob Wilkin, who has written me several times, but has not yet replied to a proposal I have made to him to have the public debate he has been calling for. I am somewhat disappointed that once I offered to help organize that debate Bob stopped replying. I trust and asked him if I might expect to hear from him by Tuesday. I have been updating this exchange at my blog (see below).

By the way, there is new set of articles coming to my blog shortly after the holiday weekend. These articles will raise the level of debate on their interpretation of the Gospel. The men (Jeremy, Antonio, Wilkin, et al.) who hold to the position coming from Zane Hodges and the GES will have much to be called to account for.

{Please view an important comment I have posted in the thread below. It addresses the spiritual immaturity of Antonio da Rosa.}


LM

I have added a new site to my Helpful Links. It is a penetrating article by Brother George Zeller. Please visit The Teachings of Zane Hodges, Jospeh Dillow, Robert Wilkin, & the GES