Liberating you from bad ideas about God
For years I have been looking for a good alternate acronym to the Calvinistic TULIP to sum up what I believe.
I came across one today at the Unashamed of Grace Blog. It follows the acronym PULPIT instead of TULIP.
Since the key to getting an acronym to stick is wide acceptance and memorablness (is that a word?), go check it out, pass it around, and post a comment about it.
This may be a good acronym to help spread a message different than Calvinism.
I indicated in a previous comment that I would refrain from debating this gospel issue any more because none of us on either side are getting anywhere with the others, and I have better things to do. But in light of what I came across today, I am compelled to begin another post.
Besides, I guess public “debates” like this are not really for the debaters, but for those who are “on the fence” trying to understand and decide between the two positions. Even still, my follow-up comments to this post will be limited.
Following the attempts by some of the commenters (from both sides of the debate) to get simple “yes” and “no” answers from each other to theological questions, I have a REAL LIFE situation to pose to the readers of this blog, and I want you to state with a simple “Yes” or “No” whether you believe the following woman is saved or not.
Certainly, only God knows, but based on how you understand the Bible, the Gospel, how people are justified, and what she says, is the following woman justified, Yes or No?
And just so you know, I am not making this woman up. She is a REAL woman I encountered today. So give her the benefit of the doubt. If she says she really believes something, let’s assume she really does believe it.
And here are the RULES for the comments on this post. YOU MUST, IN YOUR FIRST COMMENT, BEGIN WITH EITHER A “YES” OR A “NO.” Following your one-word answer, you may then explain your answer. Also, in subsequent comments, you do not need to begin those posts with your answer, unless you change you answer.
Obviously, none of us are the true judges of a person’s eternal destiny (Isn’t that a relief?), and the Gospel is not even primarily about where one will spend eternity, but this exercise is for the purpose of helping us think through what the Bible says about how to receive eternal life. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t go around judging people the way we are doing here on this post.
OK, the cat is out of the bag (I guess it was never in the bag)…The article I referred to in the previous post about the Crossless Gospel is indeed the one by Tom Stegall. But I am also now including Rokser’s “Two Clarifications” from the most recent issue of the “Grace Family Journal.”
It appears from Comments to my previous post that although Stegall is accusing various Free Grace writers and speakers of having a “Crossless Gospel,” what he really means is that we have “Crossless evangelism.” I see these two things as distinctly different since nobody ever shares the entire New Testament gospel when they evangelize. So the issue isn’t whether the cross is part of the gospel or not. Of course the cross is part of the gospel.
Instead, the issue seems to be, “Does a person need to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to receive eternal life?”
So to help clarify the debate, I thought it might help to share what I try to do when I evangelize…after all, this is what it is all about, right? Please note that I don’t exactly know what the evangelistic method is of Zane Hodges, Antonio DaRosa, or any of the other Free Grace people accused of teaching a “crossless gospel.” I do, however, know that the evangelistic practice I describe below closely resembles what Bob Wilkin does. I know this, becuase I work with him, and we have talked a lot about it. Even still, I am not speaking for him, but for myself alone.
But before I get to my practice, it is probably best to begin with what Stegall says a person must believe to receive eternal life. If I remember correctly, Stegall has five things he says must be believed if a person is to be born again. These five things were not listed in his article, but I think I heard him list them in a talk he gave at the Annual Fall Conference at Duluth Bible Church. (So my memory may be wrong on these five…).
He says that for a person to be born again, they have to believe in:
Technically, this is more than five, but I’m not going to quibble over that.
My question for Stegall is: “Why these five?”
What if a person believes all these five, but doesn’t believe in the virgin birth and believes that Jesus sinned? What if a person doesn’t believe in the Trinity, and instead is a modalist? What if they believe these five things, but believe that Jesus is “a god” just like the rest of us? What if they believe these five things, but don’t believe in life after death, and “salvation” is only a good life here and now?
Personally, I believe that the virgin birth, the sinlessness of Jesus, and the Trinity are all essential to the gospel, as well as numerous other truths. But do I expect a person to know and believe all of this in order to become a Christian? No. So I don’t have a “crossless gospel.” I have a gospel that includes all five elements Stegall includes, plus a bunch of other Scriptural truths that Stegall does not.
So the real issue is, “What do I share when I evangelize?” Right? Though not directly stated, it seems this is what people want to know. Here is how I evangelize.
I share any truth of the gospel I think is necessary to get a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. All of the truths of the gospel either prepare a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, or prove that He can make good on His promise.
So, when I evangelize, I always begin with the gospel invitation and tell them that if they believe in Jesus, He guarantees them eternal life.
Then, I allow the convicting and drawing work of the Holy Spirit upon that person and their natural, logical questions to lead me into what other information about the gospel I might share. Most people, I find, already know and believe that Jesus was God, that He died on the cross for their sins, and that He rose again from the dead. Even most unbelievers believe this.
So generally, the conversation centers around how Jesus can guarantee eternal life to those who believe or how it can be only faith without works, or why a good person cannot get into heaven. This is when we get to Stegall’s five truths plus any of the other gospel truths that will convince the person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.
One time, I actually talked to a person in the United States who didn’t know who Jesus was. I was pretty amazed that they had never heard of Jesus, but went on to explain to them that He was God, who came to earth 2000 years ago, and lived a sinless life, yet died a painful death on a cross for the sins of the whole world. His resurrection three days later proved that His death was acceptable to God as the payment for our sin. We were able to have a long and lively discussion about the gospel and the offer of eternal life. The conversation naturally led to all of Stegall’s five points, plus several others. But even if the conversation is short, I have still expressed the bottom line gospel invitation.
This, it seems, is the most natural and biblical way to evangelize. It’s what Jesus did. It’s what Paul and Peter did. I’m not trying to run through a checklist of ideas, which have no basis anywhere in Scripture, or in actual practice. I can’t find any place in Scripture where a person shares all five of Stegall’s points when evangelizing or defining the basics of the gospel. Even 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 10 don’t include all five of these truths. And when compared, those two passages don’t even include the same gospel truths. The truth is, I can’t find one Scriptural passage that includes all five of Stegall’s truths. He has to pick and choose from various passages to get his essential gospel truths, and these five seem pretty arbitrary.
He may accuse me of having a crossless gospel (which I don’t), but I can accuse him of having a cherry-picked gospel.
So what do I share?
When I evangelize, I share anything and everything I can in the time I have that I think will get the person to the point where they become persuaded that simply by faith alone in Jesus they have everlasting life.
Once, when I was a pastor in Montana, I was outside by my woodpile (we use wood to heat our houses in Montana) talking with a man about all of this, and he wasn’t persuaded. He said, “I just don’t know if all of this is true. If it is true, I wish God would just hit me over the head with a 2×4. Then I would believe it.”
I almost reached out and grabbed a 2×4 and whacked him on the head with it! If he said “Why did you do that?” I could have responded, “God told me to, and He wants to know if you’ll believe in Jesus for everlasting life now.” If I had done that, I would have called it the “2×4 gospel,” because not only did I share with him about his sin, the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I also got a 2×4 in there…all in an effort to get him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.
In light of my previous post on Luther, and my opening post for this blog about being called a heretic, I thought I might comment on some recent articles and books which condemn me (and other speakers and writers) as someone who teaches a crossless gospel.
These books and articles, by pastors, bloggers, and writers who will go unnamed in this post, basically accuse me (and several others) of removing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the biblical gospel. They accuses us of teaching a “crossless gospel.”
Here is my brief response:
Frankly, when I read these books and articles, I was shocked to read what I (supposedly) believed. It was reported that I believed the cross was not central to the gospel.
Yet I have always believed and taught that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no biblical gospel. There is no such thing as a crossless gospel. I believe the cross is central to the gospel.
Without the cross of Jesus, there is no gospel!
The authors quote a few writings of mine as proof that I have ripped the cross out of the gospel, and all I can say is that they should have read the entire article from which they quote, and some of my other writings as well. Anybody can be quoted out of context to get them to say the exact opposite of what they are actually saying. This tactic began in the garden when Satan misquoted God to Eve, and continued when he misquoted Scripture to Jesus. (Not that I am God or Scripture and my opponent is Satan, but the point is that people must be quoted in context.)
If these authors had read the entirety of the article they quote, they would see that I do not believe in a crossless gospel, but believe in the centrality of the cross for the gospel!
And I did some researching into the other writers and scholars these authors quote, and discovered that the same tactic was used against them. In each instance I looked up, the quote was ripped from a context which says the exact opposite of what was quote appeared to be saying. Each of these men the author attacks believes the cross is central to the gospel.
And so now, sadly, the unnamed authors of the accusatory books and articles make themselves look foolish because, for everybody who knows better, the view they are trying to refute doesn’t exist!
Initially, when I read some of these books and articles, I laughed at the way I had been so misrepresented. But now, I just feel bad for those who need to defend their own views and consolidate their own power by misrepresenting the views of others.
I wish that these unnamed authors would have checked with me and a few others that were quoted out of context to see if our views were properly presented. As the books and articles now stand, the only thing they do is reveal a lack of scholarship based on misquotes and straw-man fallacies. They have set up a false gospel of their own making, called it a “crossless gospel,” assigned this so-called “false-gospel” to some innocent bystanders (such as me), and then accused us of holding this gospel of their own making, which of course, we do not.
The worst part about this is that those who read the books and articles of these various teachers might not do their own homework by checking out the baseless claims that they read and hear, and as a result, may be led astray into confusion and the false maligning of godly men.
The bottom line is that whatever these books and articles claim I believe, I think I know better. I’ve said it in my writings and sermons: The cross of Jesus Christ is central to the gospel. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there would be no biblical gospel, no offer of eternal life, no hope of heaven, and no forgiveness of sins.
So away with this “Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel” travesty. I don’t believe in a crossless gospel, and don’t know anybody who does.
There is no such thing as a crossless gospel, and those who purportedly teach such a gospel do not actually believe there is any such thing. The term “crossless gospel” is a pejorative misnomer.
