Clearing the haze of "always"

GES/Crossless advocates have long fussed over how we should ease up on'em because they "always" present the same information in their evangelistic presentations that we do, namely Jesus' deity, atoning sacrifice, and resurrection. Thus, we are told that our concerns are "theoretical".

Well, a fellow blogger (Dave of Free Grace Believer) pointed out the following article on GES' site which proves that crossless advocates, if they are logically consistent with their view, in fact do NOT always present those facts.

http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2004/04F2.html

This is what the author, writing in an approved GES publication, says about her gospel presentation:

When I share the gospel with children, I tell them the same thing I tell everyone with whom I share the gospel, “God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him. And the great thing about the Bible is that it’s always true!” (emphasis added)

First, Jessica is clear that this is what she tells "everyone". Second, she summarizes that God "sent" his son. While true, it's a terrible oversimplification of what Jesus did when he was "sent". He wasn't just "sent" (eg. apostello & pempo), he was "given" (eg. didomi in John 3:16) which means "to give, to give something or someone, ... to bestow a gift". That, in the evangelistic context of John 3:16, carries a truckload of meaning which "sent" is insufficient to convey.

I applaud Jessica for making some statements that are indeed very good about presenting a clear gospel of salvation. I also applaud her for being logically consistent with her view. However, her article which was accepted by GES and not (to the best of my knowledge) contested in any way as a valid application of their view in practice, proves what we have said all along -- that if Jesus' deity and finished work on the cross are merely psychologically helpful then they may indeed be left out of the gospel presentation entirely, only injected at such time as they are believed to be specifically helpful to whoever is being presented to.

Jessica's accurate portrayal of the crossless view in practice clears the air of the obfuscating smog offered by crossless advocates that they always present the same info we do.

Beheading Hodges' Hydra - Part 1 of 3

Here we go again. Zane Hodges has written another article defending his "crossless" gospel. One person said several days ago that Hodges has been quietly studying the Word and not engaging and interacting at blogs. It may be true that Hodges is not posting at blogs, but it seems obvious that he is either reading or is being informed of the goings-on. This article seems to be an attempt at a rebuttal of sorts to his detractors, although it is too short to contain much in the way of real discussion. Instead, the article ends up "preaching to the choir" and falling far short of any kind of well-reasoned defense of Hodges' position... actually it only exposes just how weak his position really is.

There is much I could bring up about this article, but I will try to summarize. I see three primary errors in Hodges' latest article. First, he errs regarding his critics. Errors in this area abound throughout the article, which is why I say that this article seems to be rather polemic. Hodges starts out right from the beginning by attempting to attach a label to the view of those who oppose him - "theological legalism". This quite clearly seems to be an attempt to "get back" at the use of the label "crossless gospel" for his view. It really just comes off as rather juvenile, sort of, "oh yeah, well, I can call you a name too, so there!" Playing this word game is silly and unnecessary.

Hodges then resorts to trying to cast HIS view as traditional Free Grace theology, and claims that requiring the lost to accept Jesus' death and resurrection is "recent" and "co-opt[s] Free Grace theology"! This is beyond ironic. Zane Hodges is the first Bible teacher I've EVER heard teach that a person could be saved without admitting their sins and believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. If anything is "recent" here, it's Hodges' fringe view. Even some Crossless Gospel advocates often call those of us who oppose Hodges on this point "traditionalists" or "traditional free grace". A view cannot be simultaneously "recent" AND traditional! Hodges is simply going for shock value and well-poisoning to get the reader on his side. This is actually a repeated tactic throughout his article. Hodges tries to make it sound as if his view is the normal, older, common view, and that we have suddenly showed up trying to change things. In fact, the opposite is actually the case. It is ridiculous and utter nonsense to claim that Free Grace theology has always held that the lost only need to believe that Jesus can give them eternal life, and that WE'RE the ones coming along and changing things! The opposite is clearly the case, as any reader of Charles Ryrie can testify. Tom Stegall did a great job setting forth the "traditional" Free Grace view quite some time ago in Part 1 of his series, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel. Even Dr. Earl Radmacher, who was at the center of a recent Crossless Gospel controversy, is quoted from his book Salvation, "How readily some fall into the trap of adding requirements to the Gospel beyond simply believing that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead." Apparently even Dr. Radmacher did not think that requiring the lost to believe that Jesus died and rose again could be considered "legalism". Hodges is only deceiving himself if he thinks that his view is "traditional" Free Grace, and that it is a new thing to require the lost to believe in and accept Jesus' death and resurrection.

Further, Hodges sets up a strawman by trying to portray those of us with the "traditional" view as if we require some kind of complicated test before a lost person can be saved. He says that if "the legalist" doesn't tell people what they must believe, "no one will ever figure it out!" As if we have some long, complex crossword puzzle of assorted items that the lost must guess at to figure out how to be saved. I'm sorry, but acknowledging that we're sinners and believing in Jesus' deity, death, and resurrection are hardly hidden concepts in Scripture. Reading the Gospels, you can't miss those things. They're quite obvious. Many, many people have "figure[d] it out" just fine. He seems to be trying to convince readers that accepting Jesus' death and resurrection as payment for our sins is somehow difficult to decipher from the Scriptures. Apparently Hodges is stumping for the popular, yet arbitrary and non-biblical, "the simplest gospel wins" argument. No one has explained yet why it is that the 'traditional' gospel is rejected solely for not being "simple" enough (and of course, "simple" is quite relative and subjective, as I've pointed out in the past... what's "simple" to one may or may not be "simple" to another).

Later in the article, Hodges includes a list of things Jesus never specifically asked anyone to believe. He makes it seem like traditionalists include all (or many of) these things as requirements for the lost to believe. Of course, this simply serves as shock value and another strawman, to try to get the reader to agree that the lost don't need to assent to everything on that list for salvation, when no one is suggesting that. Again, Hodges seems to think that requiring the lost to believe in Jesus' death and resurrection is tantamount to requiring them to pass a seminary exam. If he can't see the difference, then there's not much else that can be said.

At the conclusion of the article, Hodges claims that traditionalists "communicate to the unsaved person that he can only be saved if his doctrine is correct ... [and] make[s] him wonder, 'Did I believe enough doctrine to be truly saved?'" The issue of having our doctrine correct for salvation unnecessarily broadens the point. As if traditionalists require every minute doctrinal point to be correct. It is not a matter of doctrine per se, it is a matter of correctly identifying the person and work of the Savior who paid for our sins. Wondering "did I believe enough?" isn't unique to traditionalists and can happen to an RFGer too, i.e. "did I really believe I could never lose my salvation?" We all (should) mature and grow in our faith and understanding, such that we look back on our times of immature understanding and wonder if it was enough. Hodges' attempt to castigate his critics for something that applies to everyone, and to cast his view as "traditional", clearly fails.

Really Consistent?

(This article was originally posted on 5/19/2008 and was completely revised throughout the day of 5/20/2008.)

• Consistent:: agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent. (bold added)
  

There is a relatively new movement in Free Grace that distinguishes itself from historical Free Grace. It's become commonly known as; the Crossless gospel, the Promise-only gospel, or Redefined Free Grace. Understandably, not liking such labels, some in this movement have suggested that one of their preferred labels is "Consistent Free Grace" (CFG). The goal of this article is to set forth just one of several reasons why I believe "consistent" does not belong in a label for this movement at all by simple demonstration of a glaring inconsistency in the CFG view vs CFG practice.

So, I was thinking about their special claim to consistency yesterday and remembered an exchange I had with Bob Wilkin about a year ago in which I had asked Bob,"What is the simplest gospel?" He replied:

• My view is that the Lord Jesus told us what the saving message is and we can't err by proclaiming the message He proclaimed.

Okay, so what was Jesus' message? Is CFG in fact "consistent" with it?

• Jesus said in John 3:16:
• For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
• note: CFG is fond of pointing out that J3:16 (Jesus' message) does not explicitly mention sin, or Jesus' death, burial, or resurrection and so the lost man cannot be required to believe those things)
• John 4 and the woman at the well is another favorite CFG passage that supposedly demonstrates their minimal content of saving faith.
• Bob Wilkin's summary of this passage as it regards the saving message is that "[Jesus] didn’t tell her anything about His person or work other than that He gives living water which once received springs up in a person into everlasting life."
  
• Bob Wilkin goes on to explain that this was not unique to Jesus' message to the woman at the well, that "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism"
• Not surprisingly John 6:47, a (in)famous CFG "mini-gospel", does not mention anything about Jesus' person or work either save, of course, the promise of Everlasting Life for those who believe.
• When Bob Wilkin caught our church unaware, his message was "Evangelism: Do what Jesus Did".
  

In short, CFG has a view that:

• We can't err by proclaiming the message Jesus proclaimed.
• Do What Jesus Did
  

And...

• Jesus didn’t tell the woman at the well anything about His person or work.
• Jesus rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

CFG advocates and defenders are adamant that other evangelicals should cut'em some slack -- making statements like "We preach the same message you do: Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection for the atonement of sin". In light of the statements from CFG's own top advocate however, one begins to wonder indeed why they would say such a thing and routinely include those details since that clearly exceeds the message they claim Jesus' himself usually presented. Sure, CFG can provide some (psycho)logical reasons for including add'l info, at least sometimes, but (psycho)logical arguments fall flat in light of their own ultimate litmus test -- namely that "we can't err by proclaiming the message [Jesus] proclaimed."

CFG folks, it's simple -- if it's your view that we should "do what Jesus did", and "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism" (and that IS your view) how on earth do you justify that it's somehow consistent to claim it's "important/critical/essential" for anyone else to routinely do so?

Refer back to the bolded portion of the definition at the beginning of this article and consider this:

• CFG View
• We can't go wrong by proclaiming the message Jesus proclaimed.
• Jesus' message rarely alluded to add'l info such as his deity, death, or resurrection.
  
• CFG Action
• Insist that it's important to routinely present info that Jesus himself only rarely presented.

That simply is not "consistent"
Stephen

Paul and the Holy Spirit at odds with Redefined Free Grace

In a recent article at freegracefreespeech: The Powerless "Crossless Gospel" JP summarized a list of questions that he does not believe the Redefined Free Grace camp has or even can sufficiently answer. One of the questions raised that really hits home with me is #3: that of the role of the crosswork of Jesus in evangelism. I responded in the comments of that article that one of the most compelling scriptures to me in the early stages of my exposure to, consideration of, and ultimate rejection of "The Crossless Gospel" is 1 Cor 1:17-25.

1 Cor 1:17-25 NASB: 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

In this passage the Bible is clear that the cross is oft considered "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" to unbelievers. It is crystal clear that Paul, under inspiration, does not see these facts surrounding Jesus as necessarily helpful to provoke the lost to saving faith in Jesus.

In contrast, Redefined Free Grace would have us be appeased that they always present these facts in their presentations of "the saving message" because they are powerful and persuasive reasons for the lost to believe in Jesus. Though in some cases that may be true, the obvious problem with this thinly veiled attempt to appease is that it fails to address why Paul, or anyone else, would/should include these items when it is known that they are in fact obstacles to saving faith. To be consistent, the adherents of Redefined Free Grace would have to ultimately conclude that it is completely acceptable to entirely leave out any known stumbling block as part of "the saving message". It is inconsistent for Redefined Free Grace to claim that there is anything that needs to "always be said" in a presentation of "the saving message" save whatever is necessary to convince the lost to believe what they see as the only belief that ultimately matters -- that "Jesus guarantees Everlasting Life to all who simply believe in him for it."

If Redefined Free Grace sees us as guilty of obfuscating "the saving message" for insisting that the lost accept such facts as the deity or crosswork of Christ, then they are essentially guilty of the same thing by always bringing up those same facts in the first place and possibly turning the lost one away by even mentioning these intellectually offensive and controversial facts surrounding Jesus.

No, I'm convinced that Paul and the Holy Spirit at face value have got it right. The only consistent reason to always bring known stumbling blocks into the presentation is if they are necessary elements of contemporary saving faith in Jesus. In light of this, the attempts of Redefined Free Grace to appease it's naysayers by claiming they always present this information is revealed as nothing more than that -- an attempt to appease men and appear more orthodox than they really are. It is language to try to appear in harmony with Christianity when in fact they are ravaging it from the inside and destroying the very Free Grace message they claim to hold so dear. No, they don't see it this way, but that doesn't change the result.

As I said, when I was first exposed to, considered, and rejected The Crossless Gospel it was pretty much this passage alone that convinced me to stay the course. I've learned much since then and have added other reasons, but this passage stands at the core of my conviction that there is more to the biblically req'd content of contemporary saving faith than the minimum proposed by Redefined Free Grace.

What say you?
Stephen

Last edited on 14 April 2008 @ 23:55 for typos and minor corrections.