Featured Free Grace Theology: Mocking God?

The system is probably not that old, insofar as when it was crystalyized into a system. The false teachings were garnered from some teachers in the past, notably Thomas Boston and Robert Sandeman.

Some believe Chuck Swindoll's book 'The Grace Awakening' to have been that which helped popularize and crystalize this system in the mind of the modern church.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'it seems to be in your house and not mine'. The teaching is everywhere as it has several popular proponents.

Basically the system teaches and endorses antinomianism, that is, that one can live in sin and expect to reap eternal life. Of course they deny this by statement of faith, but the actual teachings prove their statement to be a pretense and false.

Repentance is also mitigated from the Gospel which makes their gospel false. The system also misrepresents what a true believer looks like, allowing true believers (according to FGT) to walk in darkness, live in sin, love the world and still be regenerate. Nothing in the Gospel account of Scripture paints such a portrait of a true believer.

 

You're welcome brother.

 

Exactly...and thanks.

 

The first sign of losing an argument is to begin to slander the one you are debating. This is your second round of this behavior.

For the record, there is no ignorance on my part concerning the FGT camp, nor am I swayed from a periodical that has contributors from both camps. That may just make them wash things a little in bias. That should be a given to anyone who reads that, but obviously it slipped past you.

Thanks for sharing Bibsac with us, albeit things have, well, certainly changed since 1990.

Keep in mind I've never stated every person who sins is saved or lost, so the point of the article is moot. In fact that statement can be applied to almost any given congregation, so it is rather pointless.

Bibsac certainly would not want to alienate anyone from either camp, so their piece is from a biased stance and would please both camps. People love happy ignorance and self-deception, and to be painted as agreeing in so much when that is simply not the case. It all reminds me of the ECT document.

The actual teachings of Zane Hodges, Stanley, Ryrie, others, teachings that go on in the real world verify the OP.

Hopefully in the future those who disagree with your slant won't be awarded the 'troll' and 'ignorant' badges simply due to the fact their presentation differs from yours. The fact remains that nothing stated in the OP misrepresents FGT teaching.

Have a good day Rob.

 

This will help clarify Rob's animosity toward the OP and its author:

Should I call this trolling and ignorance? No. I won't stoop to that level.

However, that statement is a strawman and not even remotely true concerning so-called LS.

This sheds light on his animosity towards this threads OP. True representation is not what Deacon is all about as is witnessed in his false accusation on the opposing system to FGT. Perhaps Deacon has his own version of FGT? Why not? He's made up his own version of LS...

 

Here is more misrepresentation (used after his quoting the same old Bibsac document he over-uses and used in this thread):

This is also a false statement. Albeit it sounds close, any learned person can see its error. LS doesn't demand anything. LS proponents know that works are evidence of true conversion, but no one in that true belief demands this from anyone. In fact LS proponents see the Scriptures making works as necessary evidence. It sounds here as if Deacon is actually in the FGT camp, as this camp conflates evidence with works as Deacon does himself by implication.

Deacon makes this burden and yoke (works signifying conversion, that yoke and burden which Christ gives His own which are easy and light - note Matthew 11:25-30) seem 'heavy', legalistic, demanded and burdensome.

Here is the truth of the matter of how those in LS feel about this 'burden' - 'For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome'. 1 John 5:3

 

Who would disagree with that agedman? Does that have anything to do with what FGT teaches? No one, including me, denies salvation by Grace, through Faith, in Christ alone. Using that document is a bit deceitful and seems to be used as if you won and proved the OP wrong. Have you actually read the OP? If so, you'd realize this is not what is at stake at all.

You're aware that church's can make doctrinal statements and claim them all they want, yet depart from it in their teaching unawares, out of ignorance or misguided theology? For instance a KJVO church would preach 'Christ Alone'!!! then (as some do) preach that others cannot be saved if preached to from anything other than a KJB. Therefore that church can preach 'Christ Alone' all they want but it isn't really true. They've undone their doctrinal stance when they started actually teaching. This happens often in different ways.

This is not even the issue being discussed or debated in this thread so it is off topic with the OP. Do you honestly think if that were the issue there would be such heated debate here in this thread???​

 

Here is a message from Zane Hodges showing his reductionist version of the gospel:

http://faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm

'That’s why the man on the deserted island can get saved with only the barest minimum of information. When he believes John 6:47 he is believing in Jesus as the Christ'.

The above is a quote from his article and Hodges is a leading proponent of FGT and was a professor at DTS and the context is that the person 'believing' knows nothing about the Christ he is 'believing' in. His theological stance does not match the DTS statement of belief. Keep in mind here that my argument, as agedman and others have erroneously supposed, is not about salvation by faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone. It is about the teachings of Hodges and others who have reduced the Gospel and teach lawless living still equates to eternal life. I will give evidence of this as well in another post.

I will also give evidence that FGT proponents do not adhere to the Bibsac argument given by Deacon in this thread.

If you are going to debate this issue you need to be aware of what it is about and what is at stake. agedman and others have misrepresented the topic and argument and have erected a strawman rebuttal which has nothing to do with the OP. Nothing in the OP suggests any of these men denied salvation is according to the 'solas'.

Hodges statement is erronoeous to those who know the true Gospel, to those who reject his hyper easy-believism message.

Hodges is noted for the false teaching known as reductionism or reductionist theology. In his truncated gospel he has removed repentance, the cross, the death, burial and resurrection (note 1 Cor. 15:1-8). He has also mitigated lawlessness making those who live such a lifestyle assured of eternal life. There are many today who have picked up where he left off and continue this false gospel of salvation without repentance, a cross, or evidence.

 

revmitchell I am asking you to refrain from trolling and from posting in this thread. You offer nothing more than snide comments that are not even remotely Christian nor on topic.

Troll elsewhere. Thanks.

 

Hi Brother Reformed. I think you mean 'opponents' of LS in your opening statement, not proponents? If not then I am misunderstanding your post altogether. If the former is the case I give a hearty 'Amen' to what you say here. There is, however, a vast difference between one living a lifestyle of sin (in which it is a given said is unrepentant) and those who struggle with their own sin, fight it, live repentant lifestyles. The struggle is key in my opinion. Thanks for your good post!

 

Here is more evidence of FGT error. In the OP It was mentioned that FGT proponents teach that a person can apostatize, yet they are still saved.

"It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing. He is called a carnal Christian" Joseph Dillow, from The Bible Knowledge Commentary.

Joseph Dillow is another FGT proponent. It has been suggested in this thread that the things I stated in the OP are false and a misrepresentation of FGT. This is simply not the case. Dillow's own words show the actual teachings of those in FGT and validate what was stated in the onset of this thread. There is more.

 

Zane Hodges teaching that an apostate is still going to reap eternal life:

'I have a friend, and more than a friend, a man who labored with me side by side in the ministry of God’s Word in the little group that has become __________ Bible chapel and this friend has fallen away from the Christian faith. He graduated from Bob Jones University and from Dallas Theological Seminary. And about the time when he and his wife left Dallas his wife contracted a very serious illness which over the years got progressively worse until she was reduced to being a complete invalid, and after the death of his wife I visited my friend (who now lives in the Midwest and who teaches Ancient History in a secular university).

And as we sat in the living room together, face to face, he told me very frankly but graciously that he no longer claimed to be a Christian at all, that he no longer believed the things that he once preached and taught, and the situation was even worse than he described because I heard through others that in the classroom on the university campus he often mocked and ridiculed the Christian faith. As I sat in that living room I was very painfully aware that it was impossible for me to talk that man into changing his mind. It was impossible for me to talk him back to the conviction he had once held. It was impossible for me to renew him to repentance. You want to find someone harder to deal with than an unsaved person? Find a person like that….

Oh how disgraceful for a man to have known the truth and proclaimed the truth and then to deny the truth! He has put the Son of God to an open shame! Well you say, “I guess he’s headed for hell, right? I guess he’s headed for eternal damnation. He’s renounced his Christian faith.” Wait a minute. I didn’t say that, and neither does the writer of Hebrews. Let me remind you that Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to Me shall never hunger and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” And He also said, “He that cometh to Me I shall in no wise cast out.”… God’s will is that He lose no one . He has never lost anyone and He never will! And I grieve because my friend and brother has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him. He has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him! Do you believe in the grace of God?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To those trained in Scripture (Hebrews 5:11-14) the error above is apparent. Such teaching denies the Biblical doctrine of apostates who show they were never regenerate in the first place.

 

I believe you should have actually comprehended both the OP and that which you frantically copied and pasted before posting.

Yes, I know what they teach and the redundant links you googled and hastily thought were refutations give part of that answer and actually support what I've said. Thanks!

Perhaps you should re-read the OP? Yes, you should as you aren't even discussing the argument at all and are on a rabbit trail and different subject matter altogether.

The quotes you have given validate what I stated. There is in FGT the false distinction between disciples and believers. You quoted that portion. Thanks for establishing what I stated, but you're probably unaware that's what you've even done.

Did you even bother to read what you've copied and pasted? It is highly doubtful because it actually supports what I've stated. I'm certain that was not your intent.

Then let's move on to your next quote as if the quote refutes anything I stated. No one here is arguing against the fact that a person is saved by grace through faith or saying that FGT doesn't teach that. That is what your second alleged refuting post states, that the system adheres to those solas: But this has nothing to do with this thread, the subject or the OP.

This is more evidence you have not read nor understood the point of the OP or even the information in the quotes you've provided. Go start another thread because it isn't the topic of this thread.

Let's move onto the last portion of your post that you erroneously thought refuted the OP:

Here is part of that quote:

Do you even realize that what you posted was Phil Johnson showing the limited scope of the FGT error, and that it is mostly confined to GES? This quote wasn't to shed positive affirmation on the FGT movement.

Do you even know what you copied and pasted????????

No. Obviously you do not.

Are you aware that Phil Johnson is an opponent of FGT? I'm chuckling here. This is almost hilarious!

lolzzzzz...You don't even understand the OP and are totally ignorant of its topic.