A Critique of the Crossless Gospel

This post will seek to critique this view, and defend the biblical view that one is saved by trusting the person and work of Jesus Christ for their salvation, and argues that the "crossless gospel" is an insufficient message. 

 

Now, it should be mentioned first that the crossless gospel is often seen as a pejorative term as the advocates of this view do still believe that the cross is the means by which God gives life to those who believe, however this view holds that one must not have knowledge of the saving work of Christ to be saved, and all one must believe is that Jesus gives eternal life. Thus, it can be summarized as the view that one must only believe that Christ gives eternal security to be saved. This article will use the term "crossless gospel" due to it's recognizeability and widespread us, but does not attempt to be pejorative by the use of the term.

1 Corinthians 15

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

First, the advocates of the crossless gospel argue that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is not a list of the knowledge we need to believe to be saved. They argue that the word "save" refers to sanctification, and thus the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15 is not necessary to be justified. However, as even Zane Hodges admitted, the Greek word does not necessarily refer to a continual event:

"The problem in correctly understanding this verse is caused by the English translation. A very flexible Greek verb (katechō) is translated “hold fast” in the NKJV (the AV has “keep in memory”). But the verb could equally be rendered “take hold of” or “take possession of.” In that case it would refer to the act of appropriating the truth of the gospel by faith."

Yet, modern translations always always have "hold fast" and thus even if taken about sanctification, this would still not give credibility to the crossless gospel, as continuing in the gospel is necessary to live a Christian life, this is the view Charlie Bing takes: "Paul is saying that the Corinthians must continue to follow the truth that they learned from the gospel in order to experience its sanctifying effects. This is not a condition of eternal salvation, but a very real condition of sanctification.". In fact, many people who do not hold to the crossless gospel believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is sanctificational, however as Charlie Bing said, we need to continue in the truth in order to be able to live a Christian life. Thus, there are no good reasons to assume that Paul is not giving the facts of the gospel of salvation to the Corinthians.

It is sometimes asserted that it is inconsistent not to take the resurrection appearances mentioned from verse 5 onwards as part of the gospel. Yet, it seems that Paul is listing them as evidences of the gospel, as he always added "according to the scriptures" in verses 3-4 for the core facts of the gospel, however "according to the scriptures" is not mentioned for the resurrection appearances. Thus, it seems that the appearances mentioned in 5- 8 are evidences of the gospel, while the three facts of the cross, burial and resurrection are a part of the gospel. 

Paul clearly saw the atonement as part of the gospel by which we are justified, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.". It may be pointed that the word "saved" is translated as "being saved" in many versions, however there is sufficient proof that the present participle does not always refer to a continious event, but can refer to an one time event (such as the KJV seems to imply). And even if it did refer to a continious even, it maybe interpreted collectively, as Stegall takes this view and wrote thus:
 "With respect to 1 Corinthians 1:18, this means that the expression,  “but to us who are being saved” (tois de sōzomenois hēmin), is a categorical reference to those individuals from the world who are daily being born-again and joining the ranks of believers.66 This phrase is collectively describing all those who have come to Christ by faith for salvation and whose eternal destinies have now irrevocably changed" (The Gospel of the Christ)

Romans 10

Romans 10 is a very debated chapter, however I would argue that Romans 10 clearly shows that the work of Christ is a part of the gospel. First, Romans 10:10 states: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.". Now, the part which causes issues to the one who teaches the crossless gospel is that Paul in the previous verse defined what it means to "believe unto righteousness", by saying in verse 9: "and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead". Thus the belief that leads to being justified in verse 10 "believeth unto righteousness" is defined as belief that Christ has been raised from the dead in verse 9. 

Now, it's true that the word "salvation" is referring to a physical salvation, yet one cannot have physical salvation without faith in Christ, thus he first mentions how one is justified (faith in the person and work of Christ) and then how one is saved temporarily (by confession).

Book of Acts

Everytime Paul preached, he preached the cross. We see this in Acts 13, where Paul preaches in Antioch. This chapter also seems to equate believing in Christ with believing in the work of Christ, as Acts 13:38-39 reads:

 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

These verses seem to equate believing in the preaching of the forgiveness of sins with being justified. Verse 39 merely says "all that believe", while the only thing mentioned in previous verses is the preaching of the cross, thus by implication the believing is related to the thing previously mentioned. When Paul preached, he did not just say "believe in Christ for eternal life", but preached the people to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Now, I would argue that forgiveness of all sins does include eternal security, but those who teach the crossless gospel believe that one does not need to know that Christ forgives sins to be saved, distinguishing between eternal life and forgiveness as different concepts. We see no such distinction in Acts 13 or anywhere else in Acts, where Paul and the apostles teach the gospel. 

If we were to except the apostles as teaching the crossless gospel, we should see the concepts of eternal life and forgiveness of sin being clearly distinguished, which they aren't.

The Gospel of John

Those who teach the crossless gospel point to the fact that the apostles were justified (John 15:3) even though they did not understand the cross (Luke 18:34). However, this is very easily explainable, the bible says that "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Thus, the amount of knowledge one has to have is in accordance on how much God has revealed to us. During the ministry of Jesus, the amount of light the people had was smaller than the amount of light after the cross, so they were required to know less to receive salvation, while today we have the full revelation of Christ, and thus are required to know more than the apostles during the ministry of Jesus knew. I believe that the advocates of the crossless gospel do not sufficiently take into account the doctrine of progressive revelation in their defense of the crossless gospel.

Additionally, although the gospel of John is evangelistic, it doesn't mean that it's the only evangelistic book of the bible. Romans is also clearly evangelistic. Zane argued that Romans mainly deals with how to escape God's wrath in the present, although Romans 5:9 makes it clear that it's dealing with future wrath with the future tense. Although Zane argued that the future tense in 5:9 doesn't imply certainty of outcome, if we applied the same hermeneutic to the promises of eternal life in the gospel of John, that would deny eternal security itself. For example, why would the future tense in John 10:28 imply certainty but not in Romans 5:9? An inconsistent hermeneutic is a sign of an error made in theology. The fact that the gospel of John is Evangelistic does not in any way support the crossless gospel, as John mentions the death, burial and resurrection in great detail. The gospel of John also emphasizes the deity of Christ above all other gospels.

The gospel of John teaches that we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God to be saved, as it says in John 20:31. Crossless gospel advocates often re-interpret the words "Son of God" to mean "giver of eternal life", however is this what the bible teaches? Clearly not, the gospel of John used it as a divine title:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33)... Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:36)

Atonement Theology

Crossless gospel advocates often believe in a certain atonement theory, where Christ takes away the penalty of sin from all men, believer and unbeliever alike. Thus, they argue that hell is not the penalty of sin but only the result of not believing in Christ for eternal life. Although some people who do not agree with the crossless gospel (such as Robert Thieme) have taught this view, this form of the atonement does really make the crossless gospel easier to hold to, as Wilkins says ( GES blog, August 14, 2020 by Bob Wilkin):

"If I believe that Christ’s death was for all, then I evangelize in this way:

Though you and I and everyone in the world is a sinner, our sins do not separate us from God. Do you know why? The reason is because Jesus took away the sins of the world when He died on the cross (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). Sin is no longer the issue in terms of getting right with God. Isn’t that good news? But we have a life problem. We lack everlasting life, God’s life. Jesus Christ promised that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24). So, if you believe in the Son of God, then you have everlasting life that can never be lost. The New Testament calls that the promise of life."

I would argue that this model of the atonement is not biblical, although the atonement was made for all, it is applied to the believer only when they believe.2 Thessalonians 1:9 clearly sees hell as punitive, by reading:  "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;". I don't see how someone can hold to such a view that hell isn't the payment for our sins when the bible is so explicit on it. 

Did The Gates of Hell prevail?

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18), thus there can never be a period where the gospel was totally lost. However, the problem is that we have 0 existing mentions of anybody teaching the crossless gospel before 1990. We do not even have secondary references of earleir theologians mentioning other people to have held this view. Although Free Grace theology itself is historical (read my article "Is Free Grace Theology Historical?", the crossless gospel is completely absent from history. This point is secondary, however it does put into question on what did Jesus mean by the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the church.

Baptismal Regeneration Was Not Taught By All Christians Before 1500

 Many people assert that Ulrich Zwingli (1484 –  1531) was the first person to deny baptismal regeneration in history. This article is a revision of my earlier article "The Early Christians Did Not All Teach Baptismal Regeneration".

1: Apostolic silence

The so-called "apostolic fathers" were those early Christians who lived close to the apostolic era, this includes such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. The issue for the baptismal regenerationist, is the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to be left out from their writings. Although arguments from silence cannot be pressed too far, one can still ask. Why does the Didache have an entire section for baptism, but never mention it as salvific? Why does Clement consistently mention salvation, but never add baptism as a condition of salvation? In fact, Clement (98ad) says that faith alone is a condition of salvation:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;

but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, some groups such as the Lutherans have attempted to harmonize faith alone and baptismal regeneration, however the question still remains, why does Clement not mention baptism on his answer on how to be saved? Baptismal regeneration is neither mentioned by Ignatius, who wrote 7 different epistles, Polycarp, the Didache nor Mathetes. 

2: Josephus (1st century)

Josephus was not a Christian, however he mentioned that the followers of John the Baptist (thus also believers in Christ) denied that baptism is a means of grace.

and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5.2)

Thus, we know that the Jewish followers of Jesus in the 1st century did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

3: Aristedes (2nd century)

Aristedes makes an interesting statement that implies both against baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, as he writes:

Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. (The Apology of Aristedes)

 Note how Aristedes did not say that infants become Christians by baptism, but that we are only Christians when we are persuaded to the gospel. This highly implies that Aristedes did not believe that baptism is tied to salvation. 

4: Treatise on rebaptism (250ad)

An anonymous treatise that deals on the issue of rebaptism was written somewhere around 250ad, here we find these words:

Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

In this treatise, baptism is said to be an "invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", meaning a public confession of Christ. This text explicitly says that water baptism is not tied to the event of salvation. This is the earliest text which explicitly rejects baptismal regeneration

5: Misunderstanding of the early Christians?

 Theologians such as Justin Martyr or Cyril are commonly cited as holding to baptismal regeneration, but they may have been misunderstood. The Baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund has argued that these theologians may have not taught baptismal regeneration, but instead used the figure of speech called metonomy, as he says in his debate with Trent Horn:

"So similarly when we say baptism saves, this doesn’t mean baptism per se, baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it. But baptism as representative of that entire process because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. "

Thus, Gavin's argument was that some early writers tied baptism to salvation "symbolically" or as a figure of speech, without literally trying to say that baptism regenerates. This can be seen for example can be seen in Justin Martyr (2nd century):

"as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life." (Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)

Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. AD 165)

Note the words "which he announced", yet he was commenting on Isaiah 53. Here however is the problem, is water baptism ever mentioned in Isaiah 53? This should be taken as indicative that Justin is not speaking of water baptism. In the context, Justin seems to use "baptism" as a figure for salvation through faith.

This same appears in Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - AD 386):

“Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.” (Catechetical Lecture 3.4)

Noting the terms "Having been born again by faith", which is speaking of the past. The grammar means that the act of being born again preceded the act of baptism, thus it's impossible that he believed that being born again happened in the water itself. It is thus entirely possible that Cyril used these words figuratively, as Gavin Ortlund comments:

So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I’ve read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I’m aware there’s other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one.

Barnabas is often cited as the earliest example of someone who believed in baptismal regeneration, however this is a bad misunderstanding of his work. We must remember that Barnabas was a writer in the Alexandrian (allegoric) school of thought, and it appears that when Barnabas said "This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.", he was speaking allegorically. Now, this is not a mere trying to "explain away" data, but the immediate context shows it, as it reads:

“Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them. But now He says, Their leaves shall not fade. This means, that every word which proceeds out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says, And the land of Jacob shall be extolled above every land. Zephaniah 3:19 This means the vessel of His Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.” (Epistle of Barnabas, 11)”

Barnabas is clearly equating believing in Christ and "going down into the water", which seems to imply that he was speaking of baptism symbolically to refer to faith. This is consistent considering his background in the Alexandrian school of thought, and consistent allegorical exegesis all over the letter. Notice how it says "placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water", which seems to imply that these two events happen simultaniously.

The reason for such figures of speech being born may be due to the symbolism of baptism. Because baptism symbolized salvation, the word may have been connected figuratively to salvation itself by some early Christians.

6: Others

Jovinian (400ad) is an interesting figure in the early church, and he seems to have taught against baptismal regeneration. As Philip Schaff writes on Jovinian (History of the Christian Church): 

and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

Thus it appears, that for Jovinian, the baptism of the Spirit is how one enters the invisible body of Christ, while water baptism is meant for entrance into the physical church.

Jovinian had many disciples, who likely would have followed his opinion.

I will briefly mention the fact that according to Augustine, some of the Pelagians denied baptismal regeneration. Now, this fact is not meant to be a major thing, as Pelagianism was declared a heresy. However, it does seem that Pelagius' views were strawmanned, as scholars analysing his commentary on Romans did find him affirming the necessity of grace (which Augustine claimed he denied). Yet, despite this, Pelagianism still is a major error. This is a brief reference and not a major point I am making, however Augustine said this:

" But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no sin; and thus the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament." (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book II))

7: Medieval

There were also medieval Christians who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. One example is the Hussite theologian Petr Chelčický, who lived between 1390 and 1460, "Baptism, he said, could not save in and of itself" (The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius By Craig D. Atwood). The Waldensians (12th century) also believed that the "ablution which is given to infants profits nothing" (from the writings of Renerius Saccho).