The “Crossless” Gospel at the Crossroads

Lou,

Thanks for your blog and your book along with your challenge to everyone regarding the soundness of our understanding and presentation of the gospel. While it is true God can use our ineptness it does not justify it.

When I read, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" I clearly see that the Jesus is presented as Lord. His Deity is not absent from the gospel but part of the gospel.

 

Why do these proponents imagine that presenting the gospel in a way that allows a person to attack it while believing it is even reasonable? I am reading more on your blog to get familiar with that end of it (I am far more familiar with the erring "Lordship" doctrine forwarded by John MacArthur).

 

Thanks and I am reading it.

 

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin . . . Hebrews 9:22

Without the Cross there is no Gospel . . .

"And that's all I got to say about that . . ." Forest Gump:laugh:

In Christ,
Deborah

 

Zane Hodges, where have I heard that name before? It was here on BB, but under what setting? Does anyone else know?

 

Millenial Exclusion/Mercy Eliminated

 

Really? That's right.. come to think of it... Hmmmm.

 

This talk about a crossless Gospel reminds me of another Forest Gump line...

"Stupid is as Stupid does..."

 

I marked no in the poll, because it used the word rejects....

But I know many Christians that don't understand the Trinity, therefore don't understand the Deity of Christ...
But they accept it anyway...

There is a difference in understanding and rejecting...
I don't think any of us truly understand everything about the cross or trinity, but we accept it...

 

I have known for several years that Wilkin, Hodges, and company were heretics. Their latest theological "twist" is therefore no surprise to me. Maybe the reason these people don't see a need to preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is because they have never come to saving faith in the crucified, risen, Lord of Glory.

The Bible is clear, a belief in the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is 100% necessary for salvation.

"Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you recieved, in which also you stand...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" -1Cor 15:1,3-4

"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? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" -1Cor 15:12-19

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" -Rom 10:9

This does not sound like an issue we can "agree to disagree" on. This is the heart of the Gospel. Apart from this, faith is useless (1Cor 15:2,14). To preach salvation with out the death, burial, and resurrection is to preach a false gospel which is not the Biblical Gospel and to offer people a false salvation.

These people who preach the crossless gospel are in eternal trouble. As far as I am concerned, Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges are no less dangerous than John Crossan and the Jesus Seminar.

 

Of course I have to ask myself this question:

Is the crossless gospel the result of anti-Lordship teaching?

I think the answer to that is yes and no.

The extreme anti-Lordship folks who follow the likes of Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges are certainly prime targets for this kind of heresy. In an attempt to back away from Lordship salvation, these people have moved so far to the other side of the mountain that they have fallen off the mountain. When a person starts stripping the gospel down, the crossless gospel is a natural result. There is a sense in which the extreme anti-Lordship folks are always walking towards these kind of heresies. If Wilkin and Hodges are around long enough, they will at some point start denying the need for direct faith in Jesus Christ. Mark my words on this, they will start saying that anyone will be saved who believes in God (non-specific). They are on the fast track to universal salvation theology. Which, of course, is heresy.

Now, there are non-Lordship folks who would never dream of going as far as Wilkin and Hodges have. In this group there are some fine scholars/theologians such as Charles Ryrie, Robert Lightner, Darrell Bock, and others. These folks reject Lordship salvation, as is commonly taught by people such as John MacArthur, but they also reject the extreme form of anti-Lordshipism (I think I just made up a word) taught by Hodges (etc). The people who hold to this position are generally not walking towards this kind of heresy. Generally these people are strong, Bible believing, born again, Christians who happen to believe that the Lordship position goes too far. These people are not stripping down the gospel and they are not in danger of universalism. Personally, I have very few actual differences with the people in this group. My belief in Lordship Salvation is strong, but I am not always in agreement with MacArthur (etc). I do, at times, find myself in agreement with Ryrie (etc). So, in reality, I am between the MacArthur position and the Ryrie position. However I do lean closer to the MacArthur position in some ways.

 

Did you know that Calvin actually wrote about topics other than the doctrines of grace? I guess when you're not all about self promotion you can learn to play more than one tune.

 

Yeah, we get it. You think Hodges et al make the Gospel too simple. You think MacArthur and others make it too complicated. Okay, now we're all wagging our fingers at them. Bad men. Bad men. Mission accomplished.

Now, can you think of anything else to talk about besides criticizing how others present the Gospel (even if you have to take people out of context to do so)?

Heck, I'll even buy your book if it will make you move onto another topic.

 

To respond to you with your own post:
Post #23

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Who cares?

The Lord God in Heaven cares.