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.

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.