Time to acknowledge New Thought and Liberal Christian roots
According to pro-A.A. author Dick B., “…Mel B. recently said to me he didn’t think early A.A. people were John 3:16 Christians.” 
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. (John 3:16)
Mel B. is an A.A. historian, a New Thought follower, and the author of the excellent New Wine, which deals with the roots of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Not John 3:16 Christians?
Dick B. never likes hearing this sort of thing since it calls into question his No, really, A.A. really, really has Christian roots claims. As has been covered elsewhere, another A.A. historian believes most Christians in early A.A. were liberal Christians. READ
“In fact, early A.A.’s went even further than most of the classical Protestant liberals in terms of insisting that all of the world’s great religions had valid truths (going even further than the Unitarian Church),” wrote A.A. historian Glenn C. [1A]
The point is, it is inaccurate to give people the impression that Alcoholics Anonymous has fundamental Biblical or Christian roots. It does not. If it did, it would never have gained the full fledged support of liberal/heretic Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick, who rejected the inerrancy of the Bible, denied the Virgin Birth, and did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ. ***Yet Fosdick was one of the first “Christians” to support A.A. READ
Unfortunately Dick B., author of The Akron Genesis of Alcoholics Anonymous, has never truly understood the poisonous spiritual mix that formed Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Steps, particularly in the area of New Thought spirituality. Belatedly, he has acknowledged, “I’ve already written that earlier in my research and writing, I missed the boat on the significance of New Thought ideas in early A.A.”  (bold mine)
This is why references to the Bible or God by A.A. co-founders Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob should probably be understood from the perspective of a New Thought influence. New Thought heretic Emmet Fox’s Christ-denying book, The Sermon on the Mount, was even being recommended to alcoholic newcomers at meetings in the home of Oxford Group member T. Henry Williams–before Alcoholics Anonymous was even known as Alcoholics Anonymous! 
According to Dick B., Emmet Fox’s “writings were favored by Bill W. and Dr. Bob.” [3A]
The Emmet Fox book was used by early A.A. before the Big Book was published. What Bible believing Christian would have anything to do with something like this? READ
New Thought, writes Ray Yungen, extensively uses Christian terms like salvation by faith, virgin birth, and sin, but completely rejects the biblical definition of these terms. “New Thought teaches that sin is ignorance of divine law and that heaven and hell are states of consciousness rather than actual places. Jesus Christ is considered to be a great example of what we can all become–a man who manifested his own Christ Self or higher self to the fullest.”
When Bill Wilson made a comment about being born again, he was not speaking of Christ’s explanation (John 3:3-21).
Interestingly, Emmet Fox redefined born again as, “Because the change caused by prayer is a radical one, Jesus refers to it as being ‘born again.’”  Thus Fox stripped the term of its biblical meaning. After all, Fox taught, “‘The Plan of Salvation,’ which figured so prominently in the evangelical sermons and divinity books of a past generation is as completely unknown to the Bible as it is to the Koran.” 
New Thought teaches that Jesus was a man who had learned how to tap into the Divine. Could those in early A.A. who were under Fox’s influence have nevertheless considered “Jesus” their higher power? Absolutely. According to Fox, “Jesus, by surmounting every sort of limitation to which mankind is subject, and in particular by overcoming death, performed a work of unique and incalculable value to the race, and is therefore justly entitled the Saviour of the world.” 
A.A. has always been a spiritual mix. It has never been a gift from Christ, but a sly infection from the enemy.
According to author Mel B., “[Wilson's] was clearly a kind of ‘born-again’ experience, but he did not think adherence to the Christian religion was a prerequisite for such an event in one’s life. ‘Christ is, of course, the leading figure to me,’ he wrote to an A.A. member. ‘Yet I have never been able to receive complete assurance that He was one hundred percent God. I seem to be just as comfortable with the figure of ninety-nine percent. I know that from a Christian point of view this is a terrific heresy.’”  (bold mine)
Did Emmet Fox have any other anti-biblical factors in common with Alcoholics Anonymous co-founders Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith? We will cover Emmet Fox’s belief about communication with the dead in a future article.
Those seeking A.A.’s spiritual roots should investigate spiritualism, automatic writing, and contemplative spirituality (meditation): READ
Because, yes, A.A.’s origin is spiritual indeed:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)
Related: Bill Wilson’s “born again” click HERE
1. Dick B., Henrietta B. Seiberling: Ohio’s Lady With A Cause, pg. 17-18
4. Ray Yungen, For Many Shall Come In My Name, pg. 45-47 (hope these are right pages, check back)
5. Emmet Fox, The Sermon on the Mount, pg. 44
6. Ibid., pg. 4-5
7. Ibid., pg. 15
8. (Mel B., New Wine, pg. 87-88)
***Christianity Today states:
In a May 1922 sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Fosdick replied by repudiating the core beliefs of the fundamentalist faith: belief in the virgin birth was unnecessary; the inerrancy of Scripture, untenable; and the doctrine of the Second Coming, absurd. Though he ended on a note of reconciliation, in the sermon he castigated fundamentalists as “bitterly intolerant.”