Post-Holiday Update
Since much has happened over the Labor Day weekend I am pulling forward a combination of two previous posts. Many of you have been away, and this will get you back up to speed on the controversy over the "
Crossless" gospel.
Saturday, 9/1/07:
I thought this would be a good time for an overview of the current debate being waged at my blog and the
Grace Evangelical Society (GES) blog. 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 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'a 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 this issue 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 and dumbing down of His titles.
When my book on Lordship Salvation came out I warned Antonio (and other GES men) not to get too cozy with me. I purposely did NOT quote Zane 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 and his interpretation of the Gospel, which is the official position of the GES, it set off this months long open debate. The one disappointment is that these men are never going to be genuine or transparent. Their doctrine has come under intense scrutiny and they are having are hard time dealing with it. They fall back to what they feel are the safe mantras and will not deviate from them.
The acceptance of the teaching of Zane 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 on the Gospel 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.
Readers have also been able to witness the
evasion and dodging of the deity of Christ questions. A few notable exceptions have admitted 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 the advocates of the “
Crossless” gospel a Jehovah's Witness, 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 Jeremy Myers take the same position, their message demands it, but they will NOT acknowledge it or even address a question about the deity of Christ if it involves their belief on the Gospel. Jeremy is especially unwilling to do so because from his GES position,
that admission would be catastrophic for the GES, which has already lost a great many members over this issue.
Furthermore,
I have been in contact with Bob Wilkin (Executive Director of the GES), who has written me several times, but to date has not yet replied to a proposal I have made to him to have the public debate on the doctrine of the “
Crossless” gospel he has publicly called for. Once I offered to help organize that debate he stopped replying. I trust and asked him if I can expect to from him by Tuesday. I have been updating this exchange at my blog.
UpDate (Monday, 9/3) Another very important development in the debate over the "
Crossless" interpretation of the Gospel.
Please read,
Bob Wilkin (Alleged) Response to the Debate & Deity Questions.
There is new set of articles coming to my blog this week. 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.
LM
