Can the Biblical Jesus & Mormon Jesus be “One and the Same?”

In the Chafer thread at Unashamed of Grace, Kevl of On My Walk, is discussing *Antonio da Rosa’s article in which he (Antonio) claims Dr. L. S. Chafer would support the GES “Crossless” gospel.

Early in the thread Kevin wrote,

“There are many Jesus’ There are many gods. There are many religions. There is only one Christ Jesus who died on a cross for my sins, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later. Just one. No problem of confusion. It’s not all that hard to understand, but it sure separates the difference between professing faith and having it.”

Matthew replied,

“Yes. But the Gospels refer to only one Jesus. And only one Jesus offers eternal life.”

Now, I want to post a comment made by Antonio about the Lord Jesus Christ. Rose (**Rose’s Reasonings) wrote an article titled, Is Christ’s Deity Essential? In the thread that followed (6/15/2007 @ 7:08 PM) Antonio wrote,

“The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same.”

This is among the most egregious and dangerous statements to date coming from Antonio da Rosa or any advocate of the “Crossless” gospel. The Mormon Jesus is believed to be a spirit (or half) brother of the Devil. To equate the Mormon view of Jesus with the biblical Jesus is as abominable a heresy as can possibly be uttered about Him.

When Matthew wrote, “…the Gospels refer to only one Jesus,” he is correct because there is no other like unto Him. And there is no doubt that the Gospels do not infer or suggest that the Mormon Jesus is, “one and the same.” Yet, Antonio believes they, “are one and the same.” Can anyone document where Dr. Chafer would support da Rosa’s view of the biblical Jesus being no different than the Mormon Jesus?

Wasn’t it enough that Zane Hodges and the GES trampled the Lord’s deity out of His titles, “the Christ” and “Son of God?” (See The Christ Under Siege, Part 1 & Part 2) Apparently not, for now da Rosa has assaulted our Lord and Savior’s person and character by equating Him to Mormonism’s false Christ.

When I read statements like the above from Antonio I am reminded that we can never relax and never allow for this kind of heretical mind set to gain any new ground in the hearts and minds of believers or the lost.

Those who through false teaching cause divisions are to be marked. It is biblical to personally identify false teachers and point them out so that others may avoid them. In Romans 16:17 Paul uses the word “cause” (poieo), meaning produce, construct, form, or fashion in reference to those who are the authors of division through their false teaching.

“For the sake of those whom he is leading astray or who might be led astray by him if not properly warned from the Scripture, a faithful minister of Christ must warn against that man even though he pretends to, and perhaps to an extent does, preach the gospel. At best, this is a situation in which a disobedient Christian is behaving like a false teacher. . . . But when some man is the prime instigator, promoter, and advocate of an unbiblical position, we must expose that man as we denounce the sin he is promoting.” (Dr. Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation, p. 65.)

There can be no lingering doubt that Antonio da Rosa is a “prime instigator, promoter and advocate of an (increasingly) unbiblical position” on the Gospel.

If we are going to live for and please God, we must obey His Word even on the difficult matter of separation from disobedient brethren. The Bible says,

“And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thessalonians 3:4-6; 14-15).

Antonio is the blogospheres most vocal advocate for the false “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. He has refused instruction and correction. He is determined to see the Hodges’ GES view of the Gospel flourish and penetrate a wide circle of evangelical churches. The Bible mandates what every believer’s course of action must be, and that is to “withdraw” from him. We do not view him as a personal “enemy,” but a “brother” who has gone astray and we are to continue to “admonish him.”

Those of you who are “contending for the faith once delivered,” the “common salvation,” (Jude 3) don’t quit! The advocates of the “Crossless” gospel are determined to sow the seeds of their doctrinal errors far and wide. It would be tragic if even one more unsuspecting believer was swallowed up in this departure from the biblical Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


LM

*See comment thread.

**Rose’s Reasonings is a blog that is highly sympathetic to the Crossless gospel and its advocates, especially Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and Antonio da Rosa.

Addendum: August 23, 2008

Antonio da Rosa recently made a visit to another discussion board. Predictably he tried to infuse the egregious errors of the GES/Hodges Crossless gospel into the threads. Fortunately, I was participating at this board and was able to expose his heretical views for all objective readers.

Antonio’s extremism was drawn out with his statement that the “Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are one and the same.” I dealt with this and I invited Rachel to address him because he used her name in his comments.

This was one of Antonio’s remarks about his view of the Mormon Jesus,

“The Mormons and the Evangelicals refer to the same New Testament Jesus. Yes, they have widely divergent conceptions of the Historical New Testament Jesus. All of this talk about ‘ontology’ is a red herring.”

Following is Rachel’s reply to that remark by da Rosa

Did everyone catch that? Antonio dismisses discussion of Jesus’ very NATURE (ontology) with a hand-wave and considers it a “red herring”! How can Jesus’ nature be irrelevant to discussions of saving faith? Antonio’s remark is beyond unbiblical, and is in fact anti-biblical.

His example about identifying Lou falls way short, as all of his analogies have. A person’s occupation or hometown is not part of that person’s nature.

Antonio is not ontologically different than Lou, even if he lives in a different state and has a different occupation. It’s true that someone could still receive a copy of the book no matter what they thought Lou did for a living. But that’s not comparing apples to apples.

Let’s say someone sends an email to Lou Martuneac the bookshelf, asking the bookshelf for a book. When asked to clarify, the person says, “you know, Lou, that bookshelf who has a blog at (correct blog address) and lives in (correct city).” Clearly the person is referring to the same “historical” Lou that the rest of us are, but the fact is that Lou is NOT a bookshelf, and no bookshelf can send someone a book. The person may be thinking of the correct Lou, but the person’s “misconceptions” about Lou are of an ontological nature, therefore he really does not have the correct Lou and will never get a book.

“Crossless” advocates, such as Antonio, like to say that what matters is who Jesus is, not who you believe Jesus is. They say that Jesus is God whether someone believes him to be or not. Of course this is true, but the issue is that God has conditioned eternal life upon what we believe about Jesus.

Antonio said, “When one trusts into the Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the New Testament (the KJV or otherwise) for eternal life he becomes regenerate.”

Notice that Antonio finds Jesus’ hometown more important to be believed for eternal life than the very nature of Jesus, his deity! This is preposterous. I guess in Antonio’s theology, believing that Jesus hailed from Galilee is a more serious error than believing that Jesus is a created being.

Finally, notice that Antonio claims yet again that we’ve taken his comment out of context, yet spends his entire post defending the very thing we say his comment means. The problem is that Antonio believes it possible for a person (such as a Mormon) to be born again even while being ignorant of or actively denying the deity of Jesus. Antonio’s statement that Lou referenced earlier summarizes such a view. If Antonio disagrees with this view, let him say so now.* Otherwise, the claims of “taking out of context” are simply false.

As I make it a general policy to not interact with Antonio, this will be my last comment here. If anyone doubts the veracity of what I’ve said, they should simply follow the link to Lou’s blog where we discussed this with Antonio (when he masqueraded as the Sock Puppet: fg me in that particular thread) and the links from there- Antonio’s own words bear these things out.


Rachel

*It was at this point that Antonio disappeared from the discussion board. The morning Rachel’s comment was posted he was on line, but he has not been back since. Why? Rachel called on him to confirm or deny how his view was portrayed, which was done so accurately by Rachel. Faced with the proposition of confirming what is universally believed to be heresy, Antonio checked out.

The Crossless Gospel: Consistently “Refined”

Dear Guests:

Some of you may have noticed that the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel have been floating new labels to identify their reductionist interpretation of the Gospel.

In 2007 the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and its supporters were attempting to portray the GES as though it was the voice of the broader Free Grace (FG) community. That attempt fizzled when various men, such as Pastor Tom Stegall, irrefutably demonstrated that Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin have devised a message that is a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. The GES interpretation of the Gospel came to be appropriately identified as a “Crossless” gospel.

In 2008 the attempts to portray the GES as if it is the voice of the FG community have continued. Many, however, have come to see that the GES has reduced itself to and become an isolated off-shoot in the FG camp. The GES has positioned itself to the far left of a balanced Free Grace theological center.

Once the deep differences in beliefs in the Free Grace community about the true nature of the “Crossless” gospel were revealed the GES initiated attempts to redefine what they want their system to be identified as. They have, therefore, invented the label(s), “Refined”or “Consistent” Free Grace Theology.

On January 16, 2007 Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me), posted an article at the pro-Crossless group blog Unashamed of Grace. The full title of his article is, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer uses Refined (Consistent) Free Grace Theology phraseology.

The article itself has several problems, some of which Kevin at On My Walk has addressed. Kevin’s article is titled, Chafer Was a Proponent of the “Crossless” Gospel? IMO, Antonio is forcing out of context what Chafer wrote to declare Chafer would support his own “Crossless” theology. Even if Chafer took a “Crossless” view of the gospel, this would not make it any more biblical.

In the title da Rosa refers to the Hodges/Wilkin “Crossless” view of the Gospel as “Refined (Consistent) Free Grace Theology.” When you ponder “refined” and “consistent” in light of what we know the “Crossless” gospel to be you quickly see that the title of Antonio’s latest article at Unashamed of Grace is an oxymoron. The title is, “an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory statement.”

By definition consistent means, “constantly adhering to the same principles.” Maybe Antonio uses “consistent” because he is under the impression the “Crossless” gospel is “consistent” with Scripture. This analogy has repeatedly been shown to be quite the opposite. Hodges has forced into or wrenched out of numerous passages whatever he must to produce his “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.

“Refined” means, “to bring to a fine or a pure state; free from impurities.” The refining process is used to eliminate impurities. What are those “impurities” that Zane Hodges and “Crossless” advocates have sifted out of the Gospel to arrive at a “Refined” Gospel? Those “impurities” are the Lord’s death, His resurrection and His deity.

Once Hodges refined the Gospel to the “Crossless” interpretation it has become, the GES teaches that the lost man does not need to know, understand or believe that he is a sinner, nor does he need to know who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. Antonio da Rosa insists that a lost man can consciously reject and deny the deity of Christ and still be born again. We have learned from Jeremy Myers and da Rosa that belief in the finished work of Christ is not a condition for salvation.

While these men personally believe in the finished work and deity of Jesus Christ, in their evangelistic presentation they will practically deny these truths, if they become a stumbling block for the lost man. In the GES approach to personal evangelism, belief in the death, resurrection and deity of Christ have been “refined” out of what must be believed by the lost man for the reception of eternal life. Hodges views the truths about our Lord and Savior as “excess baggage that we bring into our encounter with unsaved sinners....” Hodges has sifted his “excess baggage” out of the Gospel.

Why does da Rosa title his view of the Gospel “consistent,” when it has been “refined” over and over by Hodges and Wilkin? A friend wrote, which is appropriate at this time,

“What do you have left with all of this removed from the ‘kerugma’ of the Gospel? Practically nothing!”

The refining process of the GES has been “consistent,” in that it has consistently “refined” the Gospel down to a Crossless & Deityless, non-saving proposition.

The “Crossless” gospel is simply being repackaged by its advocates under a “Refined/Consistent” banner. They hope it will be widely accepted. The new label in no way negates the reductionism of their belief system that truly identifies it as a “Crossless” gospel.


LM

For an important companion article, please read, Is REDEFINED Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?