How liberal am I?

Good question. I might be taking back some of my most liberal positions regarding the JWs and LDS at bible.org, which were written a year or two ago. I know what they are and they are there on public display. I won't bother now with those.

Lou Martuneac left two comments on my post in May quoting Antonio da Rosa's parable, which depicts what has been called "the crossless gospel" or "redefined free grace theology."

There is a controversy brewing over the content of the gospel message, within the Free Grace movement.

I have been trying to decide for myself in years passed, what I ought to believe. I feel relieved that I found Free Grace. Unfortunately I don't fit quite right in with them either. I'm going to exercise the freedom to keep improving my understanding, and admitting when I've made a mistake.

So that you understand the controversy, let me give a couple quotes for reference:

Here is what the free grace fringe say themselves.... Da Rosa's comments (courtesy of being forewarned second-hand) are:

At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable [sic] eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions [sic] and beliefs about Jesus.

{1}

And here is what the free grace mainstream say of the fringe.... This quote (below) is from Martuneac's post which assessed the crossless gospel (here).

Even conscious rejection of the Lord’s deity, in a personal evangelism setting, is viewed as something to be put on the back burner and left there. The GES believes issues like that are to be dealt with in a discipleship setting.

Both capture the concerns I myself take by being liberal.

I want to moderate it and blur this disagreement, using the truth found in God's Word. I don't think it's wise to take sides! Because all of them are used by God to cause the people to believe. If we think it has to be one or the other, we pit our minds and understandings against a portion of scripture. And that is never good!

To say that "the full gospel," meaning a three-fold understanding of Jesus' payment for our sins, deity and resurrection, are not part of the gospel that brings eternal life, as Da Rosa says and I have also said, may be going too far.

What did Paul preach, what did Paul teach? He preached a simple gospel of "Christ crucified" to Greeks and Jews, and reminded believers of the gospel already taught to them in 1 Cor. 15. But, Paul also taught that the righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. Can we say that Paul had more than one way to express the gospel message? I think it needs to be explored.

What about Jesus' gospel? As for Jesus' statements of those who believe have eternal life, they cannot be wrong. Certainly Jesus would not have spoke such a sentence if the sentence stood incomplete.

Is there a scriptural reason why the gospel message can be, or maybe even should be, slightly variant? Has anyone pointed out yet that every time Jesus declared the gospel in scripture, it was always a little bit different in content? He even went so far to describe it in Mark (16:16) saying, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Somehow evangelicals have enough wisdom to realize that He's added baptism in here as an extra non-salvific component. Did we forget to apply the same wisdom to the rest? It was only fear of being wrong, fear of being found lacking, that caused some Christians to think that baptism was necessary. We had to stand out from them by pointing to the freedom we have by faith. Let's take that freedom the rest of the way for the same reason -- to keep evangelicals from living in fear, which is living according to laws or lists or rules. We are born of God, Spiritually!

The written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. Our praise is not from checking off a list but from God who sends the Spirit because of the condition of a believing heart toward Christ.

The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

No one knows the thoughts of a man except that man himself.

A man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. In the inward places a man is born again and even we cannot see it happen but we often find subsequent evidence of it having taken place.

Having believed, you were marked in Him with the Holy Spirit, a deposit guaranteeing the redemption of those who are God's possession. This is much more about the Holy Spirit than it is about eternal life. Or it is to my understanding, thinking of how God applies the covenant of His Son described in Ezekiel 36:25-29.

Consider this passage in which Jesus describes salvation in a very minimalist way:

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scriptures has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said, 'Truly this is the Prophet. Others said, "This is the Christ."

john 7:37-41

Salvation is a mysterious thing, is it not? That's because it is Spiritual, not something we can precisely measure with rules. We have some really basic rules as being conscious outsiders to this process. One ought to be able to tell a tree by its fruit. We ought to, and many times we can, but, God ultimately knows.

Free grace or no, anyone who goes around telling others "you personally are saved because of this scripture," speaks too quickly. We are saved because God "puts his Spirit within us." (ezekiel 36:27)

I think all of these versions, from a minimist's "he who believes has eternal life," to the mainstream's use of 1 cor. 15, are the gospel. Which one we use depends on our audience. Oftentimes we cannot know for sure what their spiritual need is, but God does.

To some, believing in more than just "Jesus gives eternal life," is legalism. Consider the pagan who has never even heard of an Abrahamic faith. They have so much to hear, nothing is inherent.

To others, not understanding the transaction of my sin for His righteousness, leaves the whole need for deliverance by a Savior, unmet. I and my kind like Da Rosa, must take note.

I do not think we need to be afraid to use by inspiration a "crossless gospel," though, because Jesus did. Only the Spiritual man can agree and understand Spiritual things, like what sin is. No one can say "Jesus is Lord," except by the Spirit, and as you can see above in John 7, once they heard Jesus proclaim an invitation to receive the Spirit, then subsequently ensued the discussion of his identity.

Do we not know what it means to be led by the Spirit into all truth? How far can we trust this? All the way to John 6:47?



{1} Antonio da Rosa, Free Grace Theology, Believe Christ’s Promise and You are Saved No Matter What Misconception You Hold, (May 2006).