The “Crossless” Gospel at the Crossroads

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by MartinThese 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.

Ditto John MacArthur for his Lordship Salvation (LS) message. LS is a man-centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace.

LS is as far left of Bible truth as the Crossless interpretation is to the right.

Both are false gospels.
LM

LM, it is simple unfair to compare John MacAthur's Lordship Salvation teaching with the others mentioned here.

I have demonstrated to you by clear references to John MacAthur's website and to scripture that you are misrepresenting what John MacAthur believes and teaches concerning Lordship Salvation. At this point, I can only conclude that you are doing so deliberately.

Shame on you for continuing this attack on J. Mac.

peace to youraying:

 

[npetreley]

Who cares?

The Lord God in Heaven cares.

I'm not sure what you're asking, here. Who cares about what?

My point is simply this. Maybe it's just me, but the whole LS/Crossless-gospel thing is coming across to me as an unhealthy and unprofitable obsession with what the author believes are false teachers, in some cases with no more evidence than out-of-context quotes. Do I agree that some of it is false teaching? Sure. What good does it do to gripe about it incessantly on BB, though?

We could obsess on false teachers out the wazoo if we want - there are plenty to go around. How about I write a book about the false teaching of the prosperity gospel and then come on here and plug the topic relentlessly, each time with a link to a place where you can buy my book? Fair enough? Or, like me, would you get tired of the same old tune? Each to his own, I guess, but that's how I see it.

 

[npetreley]

LM, it is simple unfair to compare John MacAthur's Lordship Salvation teaching with the others mentioned here.

I have demonstrated to you by clear references to John MacAthur's website and to scripture that you are misrepresenting what John MacAthur believes and teaches concerning Lordship Salvation. At this point, I can only conclude that you are doing so deliberately.

Shame on you for continuing this attack on J. Mac.

peace to youraying:

A hearty Amen to this. John MacArthur is a Godly teacher. At worst, he gets fuzzy and unclear when he fights easy believism. As such, he can sometimes be misinterpreted -- especially if you take his words out of context. He's been very clear about the doctrines of grace excluding any possible "work" toward salvation. Whether or not one agrees with JM, it is clear that his view of Lordship is evidence of true salvation.

IMO, attacking him on this and misrepresenting his views is just evidence of someone with an anti-Calvinist ax to grind.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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...

The problem is that Hodges and Wilkin believe the lost man can be aware of and then consciously reject His deity, but still be saved.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Who cares?

The Lord God in Heaven cares.

Exactly! If we act as though these strange twists on the Gospel coming from men like Hodges and MacArthur are no big deal to God, or just a matter of semantics, we allow for the Word of God to be compromised and misused to our shame.

I see we have some in this thread who think evaluating how Gospel is presented is not worth the time and effort, and we should move on to other topics.

What doctrine is more important than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? The Lordship Salvation and the “Crossless” interpretations of the Gospel are departures from the faith once delivered.

This is an area that we must “contend” over (Jude 3).


LM

 

[npetreley]

Exactly! If we act as though these strange twists on the Gospel coming from men like Hodges and MacArthur are no big deal to God, or just a matter of semantics, we allow for the Word of God to be compromised and misused to our shame.

I see we have some in this thread who think evaluating how Gospel is presented is not worth the time and effort, and we should move on to other topics.

What doctrine is more important than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? The Lordship Salvation and the “Crossless” interpretations of the Gospel are departures from the faith once delivered.

This is an area that we must “contend” over (Jude 3).


LM

The Gospel is supremely important. So talk about it.

In contrast, spending all your time whining about John MacArthur and wagging your finger at people who get it wrong gets old, and one suspects the only reason you're obsessed about it is because you have a book to sell. Who do you think you're enlightening here? Like I said, there are plenty of people who get the Gospel wrong. Joel Osteen, for example. Do you think it would do a lot of good to whine about him and other prosperity gospel preachers - and talk about virtually NOTHING else? Would you not get the least bit suspicious if I posted about those things AND NOTHING ELSE, and coincidentally had a book to sell about it?

Learn a new tune. You've worn out the crossless gospel, LS, and your crusade against Calvinism already.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Learn a new tune. You've worn out the crossless gospel, LS, and your crusade against Calvinism already.

And your crusade against Lou is...okay? :laugh: Oh I forgot, one standard for you and another for others.

 

[Martin]

If we act as though these strange twists on the Gospel coming from men like Hodges and MacArthur are no big deal to God, or just a matter of semantics, we allow for the Word of God to be compromised and misused to our shame.

==While I agree with you about Hodges, I don't agree regarding MacArthur. The message MacArthur teaches is basically the same message the Church of Jesus Christ has been preaching for nearly 2,000 years. The non-Lordship would have been considered aberrant not too long ago. Not too long ago, the very idea that a person could "get saved" and continue to live in rebellion against Jesus Christ, and reject His Lordship, would have been recognized as faulty thinking/theology. There has been a shift in thinking in recent church history. This shift started, in its current form, around the time of Spurgeon and it has only gotten worse.

What doctrine is more important than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? The Lordship Salvation and the “Crossless” interpretations of the Gospel are departures from the faith once delivered.

==The crossless message is certainly heretical and unBiblical. The Lordship teaching is very Biblical. I would argue that arguing against Lordship salvation is, in a way, a departure from the faith once for all delievered to the saints. Why? Because the non-Lordship position, mainly in its extreme form, is nothing but pure antinomianism. It allows people to think that they can "get saved" and keep on living as they have lived. That, my friend, is a dangerous and unBiblical idea. Don't be decieved by empty words, those who practice unrighteousness will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:5-8, 1Jn 3:9-10, Rev 21:8,27).

 

[Martin]

Learn a new tune. You've worn out the...LS, and your crusade against Calvinism already.

Its funny how many times those who reject Lordship Salvation also reject Calvinism. Do these things go together in some way? Is there a common thread? I think there might be!

Those who oppose Lordship Salvation, as it is called, are opposing the right that Jesus Christ has to be Lord of His people. They are actually claiming that a person can reject Christ as Lord and still have Him as Savior. In the same vain, those who reject Calvinism are rejecting the right God has to be sovereign over all His creation including salvation.

So, what do we see here? We see mortals fighting against God's right to rule and to be totally sovereign. We see people fighting against God's right to demand obedience from those He saves.

This is a interesting common thread that I have not thought about until I ready your reply to LM. I will have to explore this idea further, maybe I am on to something...

 

[righteousdude2]

I've Run Into a Bunch of These Nuts!

These folks are all around us. Their understanding that everyone can get to heaven without the confession of faith in Jesus is short of blasphemy. I have talked with a lot of people on line, and these folks really think they are headed to heaven, and little can be said to convince them of anything else.

I feel bad for the person that started this lie.....their blood will be on his or her, hands for eternity:tonofbricks: .

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Impossible Decision

To All:

I can't get back here until tomorrow.

I only have time to link you to my article, Impossible Decision

Read and mull it over. It should answer some of the questions here about some of the concerns have with LS.


LM

PS: My chief concern for this thread is to deal with Hodges "Crossless" gospel. I'd like to get back to that shortly.

 

[canadyjd]

To All:
I only have time to link you to my article, Impossible Decision
Read and mull it over. It should answer some of the questions here about some of the concerns have with LS.

Since I have already demonstrated through links to his website and with scripture that you are misrepresenting what J. Mac believes and teaches concerning lordship salvation, why would anyone want to "mull over" any more of your distortions? Why would anyone want to "mull over" any more of your misrepresentations?

Your agenda is clear. No amount of truth will sway you at this point.

Shame on you for continuing this attack on J. Mac.

peace to youraying:

 

[Rippon]

Perhaps someone here is not that familiar with the teachings of John MacArthur . If you have not read his books or heard any of his sermons ( highly unlikely ) --- you must have seen him numerous times on the Larry King program . His witness for the Lord is always marked by biblical clarity , he stands for the faith once delivered . He does not contend "over" the faith ( as L.M. ) refers to Jude 3 -but he contends "for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to us , his people ." ( TNIV ) .

His clear presentation of the Gospel and other biblical truths on that program are a real encouragement to Christians such as myself . Plus, many non-believers are affected by his appearances . A number have eventually been led to the Lord because of the Scriptural truths J.M. so lucidly proclaims .

I can't think of many who are as stalwart for the faith as Dr.MacArthur . For any to put him under the curse of Galatians 1:8,9 is irresponsible and just plain sinful .

Louie , you are a one-trick pony . Find a new act , or bow out . Someone may have to devote a website to your errors .

 

[npetreley]

Its funny how many times those who reject Lordship Salvation also reject Calvinism. Do these things go together in some way? Is there a common thread? I think there might be!

Those who oppose Lordship Salvation, as it is called, are opposing the right that Jesus Christ has to be Lord of His people. They are actually claiming that a person can reject Christ as Lord and still have Him as Savior. In the same vain, those who reject Calvinism are rejecting the right God has to be sovereign over all His creation including salvation.

So, what do we see here? We see mortals fighting against God's right to rule and to be totally sovereign. We see people fighting against God's right to demand obedience from those He saves.

This is a interesting common thread that I have not thought about until I ready your reply to LM. I will have to explore this idea further, maybe I am on to something...

I think you nailed it, personally. I see a connection between free-willism and the motto, "You ain't the boss of me."

So, Lou seems to want people to be able to say, "Jesus, you ain't the boss of me," and still say they're saved. That's a misguided crusade if ever I saw one.

 

[npetreley]

Louie , you are a one-trick pony . Find a new act , or bow out . Someone may have to devote a website to your errors .

LOL!! Wow, I hadn't thought of that. I should write a book about LM's errors and plug it here on BB in my signature.

 

[Amy.G]

From the link that Lou provided on his website:

From the September 29 post on Pulpit Magazine Dr. MacArthur wrote:


“We must remember above all that salvation is a sovereign work of God…. As a part of His saving work, God will produce repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, obedience, and ultimately glorification. Since He is not dependent on human effort in producing these elements, an experience that lacks any of them cannot be the saving work of God.”

This clearly states that we are saved by grace. It is God's work. All things that follow are the work of God, not ourselves.

If we claim to be saved yet we do not have:
repentance
faith
yieldedness to God
obedience

then we did not experience the saving work of God.

I guess I don't understand the problem with this because it's what I believe. When God saves us, we experience a change toward God.
And that change is the work of God, not of ourselves.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Well Lou, I went back and finished reading the book "Truth Wars." It was a fantastic read! I think I understand why you think that John's (and my) theology would be read as legalistic and putting conditions upon saving grace.... prior to receiving. If you read John's book with open eyes, you will see that he in no way is teaching that there are conditions for one to be born again. He is very monergistic. I think that unless you know John and have read his previous books, you could come away with the idea that he is legalistic and puts conditons on becoming regenerate. However, if you know John and have read his books, you know he is very monergistic. I think you know that, and are in fact deliberately trying to misrepresent him.... in order to sell your product. You are definately synergistic, but fail to defend synergism. Without the ability to defend your synergistic position, I suppose attacking monergism is the only aveneue you have left. Its quite sad actually.

 

[John of Japan]

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

Hi, Brother Tim.

Zane Hodges with Arthur Farstad edited The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, the first Greek NT since the TR based on the Majority/Byzantine text type.

John

 

[webdog]

Wow. The Macarthurites have no problem attacking Lou, but call him out on his "attacks" on Macarthur? Shame on who?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Wow. The Macarthurites have no problem attacking Lou, but call him out on his "attacks" on Macarthur? Shame on who?

Hi Web:

I don't pay any attention to the mocking crowd.

BTW, any objective reader will see that my notes and comments never approach a personal attack against the man. I deal with what the man is teaching.

What we see is the reverse from some here. IMO, they should memorize Matt. 7:1-2 before they post a comment about me again. It may help them temper their emotions and remarks.


Lou