Voice of the Evangelists Publishes: What is the “Crossless” Gospel?

Dear Guests:

*Voice of the Evangelists, one of my recommended sites, has recently published an article I wrote that addresses the “Crossless” gospel. I was asked by the site’s owner, Evangelist Tom Farrell, to prepare this two part article for publishing at Voice.

Members and contributors to Voice of the Evangelists include: Dr. Chuck Phelps, Dr. Ron Comfort; Evangelists Dave Barba, Morris Gleiser, Steve Pettit, Mike Manor, Dave Young, Rich Tozour, Jim & John VanGelderen, Bryan Samms and many more.

You can find Part 1 of the two part series by scrolling down the home page. Or use this link to, What is the “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1 at Voice of the Evangelists.

It is my hope and prayer that this series will awaken Fundamental Baptists to the dangers of the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Grace Evangelical Society reductionist interpretation of the Gospel.

It would be a genuine tragedy if even one unsuspecting believer in Fundamental or any Evangelical circles were to fall into the trap of the “Crossless” gospel.

Yours faithfully,


Lou Martuneac

*The purpose of the VOICE OF THE EVANGELISTS is to present a unified, positive voice of independent Baptist evangelists for the cause of national and international biblical evangelism and revival in the twenty-first century through passionate and Spirit-filled praying and preaching.

The Issue of Incongruity: Actual or Artificial? Part 3

Part 3 of the series by Pastor Dennis Rokser will be posted on Monday morning. Pastor Rokser asked me to share this note prior to the release of his next installment.

“If you have not read my previous two articles, I would recommend that you do so first in order to sufficiently grasp the issue I am addressing. Please refer to Part 1 & Part 2 of this series.”

LM

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

Dear Guests:

In recent days I have noticed that my blog is hosting a significant number of new and returning visitors. I imagine my involvement in the Sharper Iron thread on the Crossless gospel has created and/or renewed interest among folks outside the Free Grace (FG) community in this vital debate over the true nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the SI thread I have noted that some do not realize there is a clear cut division in the FG community over the Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin Crossless interpretation of the Gospel. I first noted this division in my article titled, Free Grace Fractured by the “Crossless” Gospel. Because of the heighten level of interest I felt it was time to offer another, but related perspective of the divided Free Grace community.

In recent weeks I have been viewing various blogs on both sides of the Lordship Salvation & Crossless Gospel debates. One item that has stood out in my reading is the unfortunate misconception that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is largely perceived as the voice of the Free Grace movement at large. The problem is that there are many men in the FG movement that reject and have separated from the GES over the very teachings that have come to be associated with all men in the FG camp. I have been interacting at these various blogs to correct and dispel that misunderstanding.

One reason for the misconception is that some of the more vocal GES/Crossless gospel advocates have been writing and presenting their views as though they are the official voice and representative of the Free Grace movement. In fact, the views they present are unique only to the Hodges, Wilkin, GES faction of the FG movement.

I recall my introduction to Antonio da Rosa and his Crossless view of the Gospel. Antonio interacted in the discussions about Lordship Salvation during my debates with key Lordship advocates in 2006. His failure to have a meaningful, helpful impact was largely due to his arguing from the presuppositions of his Crossless/Deityless interpretation of what the lost can be unaware of and/or reject and still be saved. Not at first, but soon I began to see that Antonio held to a peculiar and disturbing view of the Gospel. This made his entrance into the threads an unwelcome presence and distraction. I kept my distance from Antonio so that I would not be identified with his theology or the GES faction of the Free Grace movement, which he was writing on behalf of.

Many Lordship Salvation advocates refer to the Zane Hodges interpretation of soteriology as “Free Grace” theology. Last week I was surfing blogs that are favorable toward Lordship Salvation and I came across this statement from the author of an article,

“In case you haven’t heard of it, ‘Free Grace’ is the name given to a theological system founded by Zane Hodges and currently promoted by Bob Wilkin and The Grace Evangelical Society. According to ‘Free-Grace’ theology…”

The problem begins when the writer identifies Hodges, Wilkin and the GES with “Free Grace theology” without drawing a distinction between GES and the vast majority of Free Grace men who reject much of GES’s theology. I took a moment to demonstrate that there is clear and sharp division in the FG movement over what is coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES. This was my (revised) comment to the article’s author and guests.

“I have not visited here in many weeks, but glad I saw your opening remarks. I want to provide some clarification on your statement above.

Today there is a very clear and definite divide in the Free Grace (FG) community. There are two very distinct factions that have become even more sharply divided in the last year. One FG faction is the Hodges, Wilkin, GES camp. Then there are those in the broader FG community who reject the extremism of Hodges and Wilkin.

The dividing line between the two camps in the FG community is primarily over two areas of doctrine. The first is over repentance: Hodges/Wilkin teaches that repentance is not part of or a condition for salvation. Hodges says repentance as a “change of mind” is not found in Scripture. Many, many men in the FG camp reject this from Hodges.

The second issue, which is the main and very sharp dividing point, is over what has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel.

This reductionist view of the Gospel from Hodges and Wilkin teaches that the lost man does not have to understand or believe who Jesus is or what He did to provide salvation, but can still be born again.

Even conscious rejection of the Lord’s deity, in a personal evangelism setting, is viewed as something to be put on the back burner and left there. The GES believes issues like that are to be dealt with in a discipleship setting.

Other dangerous teaching coming from Hodges and Wilkin include: 1) There is no sin barrier/problem between God and man. 2) There is no technical meaning for “the Gospel.” 3) The Lord’s titles, “the Christ” & “Son of God” do not mean or infer the Lord’s Deity.

I share these things with you and your readers to make the point that there are many men in the FG community who reject these egregious errors coming from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES. These men are Free Grace, they reject Lordship Salvation, but they are not in any way holding hands with the theology of Zane Hodges.

At several blogs your guests can read scores of articles where the theology of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES is sharply refuted. Those refutations are being written by men from within the Free Grace community.”

In the comment thread of another article, because Antonio was posting comments as though he was speaking on behalf of the broader Free Grace movement, I wrote,

“Antonio da Rosa is the most vocal apologist in the blogosphere for the troubling teachings of Zane Hodges and the GES. Antonio does not speak for the Free Grace community at large. Some of the most extreme statements you will read anywhere on the Gospel come from Antonio. (I inserted links to some of Antonio’s most extreme teaching) His views are examples of what the GES faction of the Free Grace community has spiraled down to by following the teaching of Hodges.

Antonio da Rosa’s “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel and related extremes are NOT representative of the Free Grace community at large. Scores of godly Bible-believing pastors in the Free Grace community, utterly reject the teaching of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and GES on the Gospel. The Hodges faction in the FG community has become a rapidly shrinking group that tries to portray itself as the voice of the Free Grace community at large. This is a serious misnomer!”

IMO, there is little chance members of the FG community are deceived by attempts to characterize the entire FG community as though it holds to the Crossless gospel and its various disturbing implications. It is, however, important to keep the general evangelical community informed that GES men like da Rosa do not write for or represent a vast segment of FG men who vigorously and biblically reject the Crossless gospel.

The “Crossless” gospel, which is the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Grace Evangelical Society (GES) position is unique ONLY to that shrinking cell of (GES) people that commonly fall under the larger FG label. So, when Antonio is speaking of “Refined Free Grace” theology, he is speaking of Zane Hodges’ “ReDefined Free Grace” theology.

When Antonio and other Crossless advocates present their view of the Gospel it is a misnomer to suggest their view is representative of the whole of the FG community. Antonio’s lumping the majority of FG people who reject the Crossless gospel is steadily and successfully being corrected across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity.

If GES’s Crossless gospel was the representative view of the entire FG movement I never would have come to identify with the movement. I am thankful to have met men like Charlie Bing, James Scudder, Tom Stegall and Dennis Rokser who do not hold to the GES’s Crossless interpretation of the Gospel. They have not succumbed to what is most definitely a REDEFINED Free Grace theology.

As a parenthetical note: Crossless advocates are fond of self-identifying their view as, “Consistent Free Grace Theology.” This label is a rather novel misnomer, and I may exapnd on this later. Anyone who has watched the GES over the past few years knows GES leadership and membership has consistently changed and shifted in their theology of the Gospel. One pastor wrote,

“The one thing I appreciate about Hodges, Wilkin and GES is that they are consistent. They are consistently wrong!”

It is a serious misunderstanding to assume the Zane Hodges Crossless interpretation of the Gospel is widely held by men in the Free Grace community. Because of this I will continue spending time interacting with various non-FG groups to help them understand that the GES faction of the Free Grace community is an isolated, shrinking cell of people who have gone off to the far extremes that most in the FG camp reject and have separated from the GES over.


LM

For a companion article, please read: The Crossless Gospel: Consistently “Refined.”

“Crossless” Gospel Under Discussion at Sharper Iron

Dear Guests:

Pastor Dennis Rokser’s third installment of his continuing series will post later this week. See links below.

In the interim the Christian blog Sharper Iron (SI) has opened a discussion thread in regard to the Crossless Gospel. This blog is primarily a meeting place for fundamental Baptists to discuss theology and other issues. It is probably the 3rd largest blog in Christian blog circles.

For the last 10 months I have posted a series of articles there to alert the membership and guests of SI about the consistent doctrinal errors of ReDefined Free Grace theology’s Crossless Gospel. An SI administrator opened the current thread. You can view the current discussion by visiting The Crossless Gospel and our Doctrinal Statement

Many of SI’s members understand the Crossless gospel is a reductionist non-saving message. There are however, many visitors and lurkers. Some contributors do not understand or appreciate the errors coming from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES.

This is an opportunity to advise and alert a large segment of evangelical believers about the dangers and propagators of the Zane Hodges Crossless interpretation of the Gospel. God forbid that even one more unsuspecting believer be caught up in the egregious errors of the Crossless gospel.

UPDATE (5/12/08)
The Sharper Iron thread has had some trying moments for me. IMO, however, a great deal is being accomplished to advise a large segment of believers, who were previously not fully aware, of the radical teaching coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES.

Thankfully, this is going to make it increasingly difficult for GES to attract (and deceive) unsuspecting believers with their Crossless interpretation of the Gospel. I remain hopeful those who have already been swept away by the teaching of Hodges and Wilkin will one day be recovered to a balanced, biblical view of the Gospel.

Please visit the Sharper Iron thread (see link above) and read through how this is developing.

Kind regards,


LM

Destroying Free Grace Theology- Gone Missing!

Dear Guests:

Last weekend Mr. Jim Johnson deleted his entire Destroying Free Grace Theology five part series from his blog. This was the series that contained numerous episodes of mass plagiarism. Johnson not only copied and pasted other men's work, but he also manipulated some of the plagiarirzed material to make it appear to support his views, when some in fact did not.

You can read a synopsis at ReDux: Jim Johnson’s Plagiarism in “Destroying Free Grace Theology”.

Ironically, Johnson left the articles up in which he denies, and at the same time, inexplicably defends the mass plagiarism of the articles that he removed. When you click on links that are supposed to take you to the series, you are taken to a page that says, “Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.”

Because of the plagiarism Johnson never should have posted his series in the first place. IMO, his series should never be returned for the same reasons that plagued and discredited it. If his article(s) do resurface they will be largely ignored, by both camps in the debate, just as it was the first time around.


LM

The Issue of Incongruity – Actual or Artificial? Pt. 2

Greetings again in the name of our wonderful Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

In my first article in this series, I drew attention to the sad reality that there are those who are claiming to PREACH the person and finished work of Christ as part of the Gospel of salvation but amazingly espouse that a sinner NEED NOT BELIEVE in these cardinal truths to have eternal life and security. This is the issue of incongruity that I am addressing.

The critical question I want to focus upon boils down to the following,

“Does the Bible allow for an incongruity or difference between the CONTENT OF THE GOSPEL message which is to be faithfully PREACHED and the content of SAVING FAITH post-Calvary which must be BELIEVED in order to have eternal life today?”

In seeking to search the New Testament Scriptures regarding this issue of incongruity, I propose that this artificial dichotomy be buried and this straw man be burned forever by hammering 12 nails in the coffin of incongruity.

So I invite you to examine with me in this series 12 passages of Scripture that should nail the coffin shut on this matter.

Nail #1: 1 Corinthians 15:1-2

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain.

I would ask that you follow along with me as I draw out several principles from each of these passages.

1. The Gospel is a DEFINITIVE message of GOOD NEWS which was PREACHED evangelistically to the Corinthians. (15:1a)

There are several observations in these verses worth noting.

First of all, Paul makes it clear in verse 1 that he is declaring (present, active, indicative of gnorizo) in this passage “the Gospel.” The definite article (“the”/ to) preceding euangelion (“Gospel” – good news, normally from God to man about salvation) indicates that Paul has a very specific and definite message in mind that he is making known. This message was not the contents of the entire Bible, nor was it the entire New Testament as some erroneously purport today. It was a definitive message of good news that will be developed later in this passage.

Secondly, this message of “the Gospel” was not new to these Corinthian believers in Christ because this is the very same message Paul had previously preached evangelistically to them when he was at Corinth (“which I preached to you”) before they had been saved from sin’s penalty. The word “preached” is an aorist, middle, indicative of “euangelizo,” in which we derive our English word “evangelize.” Thus, Paul is declaring to these believers in this section of this epistle the same Gospel message that he had literally “gospeled” prior to them coming to saving faith. Greek scholar of yesteryear, W.E. Vine states,

“He was not simply giving them a reminder of the gospel facts, he was beginning again and stating the foundational truths he had ministered to them at the first.” [1]

2. The Gospel which Paul was going to “declare” in this passage was the very same message he had previously PREACHED and which had been previously RECEIVED by the Corinthians. (15:1b)

It is interesting to note that Paul not only “PREACHED” (aorist, indicative) THE GOSPEL, but also this message of salvation was “RECEIVED” by them. The word “received” (paralambano) is an aorist (completed action at a point of time in their past), active (they chose to receive the Gospel), indicative (the mood of fact) verb that highlights the reality of the Corinthians’ positive response and reception of the Gospel which had been preached to them.

But how had these believers “received” the Gospel? The end of verse 2 tells us, “unless you believed in vain.” The verb “believed ” (pisteuo – to believe, trust) corresponds EXACTLY in its tense (aorist), voice (active) and mood (indicative) as “received.” These individuals had made a decisive decision in the past to choose to receive/believe the Gospel that was preached by Paul.

Note that THERE IS NO INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE GOSPEL that was PREACHED by Paul and THE GOSPEL which was BELIEVED by the Corinthians! There was no MAXIMUM preached and MINIMUM believed!

3. The Gospel was the very message upon which these believers were willing to STAND, and so should you. (15:1c)

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand...

“In which” refers back to THE GOSPEL which had been PREACHED by Paul and had been RECEIVED by these Corinthians. They had chosen in the past and continued in the present (perfect tense) to take a definite stand for the Gospel against those who would twist it, pervert it, undermine it, or reject it.

Dear friends, if there is any message we must not compromise, and for which we must stand without compromise and apology– even against fellow-believers if necessary, it is the Gospel of the grace of God. Amen?

I say this because some in the Free Grace movement want to focus on promoting the movement, instead of standing for the clarity of the Gospel and guarding its purity – leaving the results with the Lord. Others are finding it difficult to stand because of friends who are advocates of the crossless gospel, or due to fear from the negative fallout their ministry plans and agendas may receive. As I stated before in my article titled “Two Clarifications” in the 2007 Summer edition of the Grace Family Journal,

The modern Free Grace movement, of which I am glad to be a small part, began in the mid-1980s because there were those who stood for the Gospel of Grace in opposition to the false teachings of Lordship Salvation. Its design was not to start a movement but to proclaim and guard the purity and contents of the glorious Gospel of salvation. So why should we not continue to stand for that same Gospel, even though there are those in our camp who have shifted from the Gospel that they once preached and proclaimed when the movement began? For God has not asked us to seek to create unity or a movement, as He alone must do that if He so chooses. And if God does so in human history, it will be based on sound doctrine, never at the expense of it, starting with the foundation of the Gospel of Grace.

Will you concentrate on preaching the message and standing for its purity or focus on promoting the movement? Let’s be faithful to the former and trust the Lord with the latter!

4. The Gospel, if held fast, can have a SAVING/SANCTIFYING effect upon believers. (15:2)

“by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:2)

“By which” once again refers back to the Gospel Paul PREACHED, the Gospel the Corinthians RECEIVED, and the same Gospel in which they were STANDING. Notice that there is NO INCONGRUITY in any form occurring in this passage!

The phrase “by which also you are saved” (present, passive, indicative of sozo) appears to be best understood to refer to the present tense or second phase of spiritual salvation which we theologically call “progressive sanctification.” Unlike justification before God which occurs at a point of time when a helpless, hopeless, Hell-bound sinner trusts in Jesus Christ and His finished work to save him (Romans 3:19-28), progressive sanctification in time is to be an ongoing process involving among other things, fidelity to the Gospel.

Therefore, it has been commonly held in the past by those who rightly divide the word of truth that God’s plan of salvation for mankind involves 3 phases or tenses. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer comments regarding this in his classic book titled, “Salvation,” can be found in a subsection titled, The Three Tenses of Salvation. [2]

1. The past tense of salvation is revealed in certain passages which, when speaking of salvation, refer to it as being wholly past, or completed for the one who has believed (Luke 7:50; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; Eph. 2:5, 8). So perfect is this divine work that the saved one is said to be safe forever (John 5:24; 10:28, 29; Rom. 8:1).

2. The present tense of salvation, which will be the theme of the next chapter, has to do with present salvation from the reigning power of sin (Rom. 6:14; 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 2:19-20; Phil. 1:19; 2:12-13; 2 Thess. 2:13).

3. The future tense of salvation contemplates that the believer will yet be saved into full conformity to Christ (Rom. 8:29; 13:11; 1 Pet. 1:5; 1 John 3:2). The fact that some aspects of salvation are yet to be accomplished for the one who believes does not imply that there is ground for doubt as to its ultimate completion; for it is nowhere taught that any feature of salvation depends upon the faithfulness of man. God is faithful and, having begun a good work, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).

In anticipation of the doctrinal problem that Paul will begin addressing in verse 12, “Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”, the apostle of grace then reminds these believers that salvation from sin’s power practically in their lives will not properly occur if they deviate from the Gospel he preached. Thus, “if you hold fast that word (the Gospel –vs.1) which I preached to you” is designed to encourage these saints to remain doctrinally faithful to the Gospel of grace. Why is this reminder needed? For the very reason that even genuine believers in Christ who knew, believed, and stood for the Gospel in the past MAY shift or be led astray from the Gospel they once embraced by faith. Has this become true of you?

Furthermore, “unless you believed in vain” (eike) carries the idea of that which has not resulted in reaching its entire purpose. This clarifies for us that while these Christians had believed the Gospel resulting in justification before God and eternal life – changing their eternal destinies, God also desired for them to enjoy salvation from sin’s power and spiritual growth – changing their lives. This again would be based or built upon the very same message they heard evangelistically – the Gospel.

So when advocates of the crossless gospel like Bob Wilkin seek to relegate this important passage on the Gospel to being irrelevant to this debate stating that it is a sanctification passage for believers and not a justification passage for the unsaved, he has stated a half-truth. For these believers ongoing sanctification was dependent upon the very same Gospel that was PREACHED to them EVANGELISTICALLY before they trusted the Savior, which they have RECEIVED/BELIEVED in the past, and which they STOOD FOR in the present, and needed to HOLD FAST or FIRMLY to in the future.

Can you hear the hammer hitting the nail of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 as it sounds out loud and clear … NO INCONGRUITY!

In my next article we will examine nail #2: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11.


Pastor Dennis Rokser


[1] W.E.Vine, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, Gospel Tract Publishers, 196
[2] Chafer/Walvoord, MAJOR BIBLE THEMES, Zondervan Publishing Co., 184

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 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

[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.

Please continue to The Issue of Incongruity, Part 2.

Is There a Spirit of Compromise?

Dear Guests:

I am going to share a portion of a theme I am developing. This will be a sample that will remain here just below the new series by Pastor Rokser, which begins tomorrow morning. I simply want to share my concern over this disconcerting trend I am seeing.

Many pastors and Christian leaders I interact with in various camps have been noting a disturbing trend in recent years. The trend is toward a political type of compromise. What we are witnessing is New Evangelicalism’s mindset of compromise with the teachers of false doctrine for the sake of unity.

I am not referring to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) or Mormonism. There are, of course, evangelicals who are willing to embrace the RCC and Mormonism, treat them, as though they are Christians. That has been on the radar for decades. The issue I am more concerned with at this time is the same trend toward compromise with teachers of known and vital errors that are being propagated from within the body of Christ by genuine believers. This trend is not limited to, but is becoming increasingly rampant in Free Grace circles.

One pastor said, “I am not nearly as concerned with the infidels and skeptics on the outside of the church as I am with the termites on the inside.” I share that concern as I view the increasing numbers of believers who are agreeing to look the other way and cooperate with the teachers of a false gospel.

Last year I posted a sermon in print by Charles H. Spurgeon. I encourage every guest to take a moment and read this challenge from the Prince of Preachers.

Lord willing Spurgeon’s Stand for Doctrinal Purity will help awaken senses.



LM