The Casual gospel

[Martin Marprelate]

Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin.

Not necessarily so. It is possible to believe in Christ without repenting, and to feel shame and remorse over one's sins without trusting in Christ.

If I put my faith in Christ then my life will change.

Not necessarily (Matt. 7:21-23).

Repentance is a change of mind with respect to one's attitude to God. Putting one's faith in Christ initiates that and accomplishes it. The two go together hand in hand.

Not in the case of the Jews in John 8:30ff, nor in that of Simon Magus.

However, some teach that they must repent of their sins, or even all of their sins. That is works salvation. Repentance of sins comes after salvation not before. It is called progressive sanctification.

You are confusing repentance with sanctification. If there is genuine faith and repentance, then there will be progressive sanctification.

As far as the sermon at Pentecost it was unique.
First it was addressed to the Jews, the very Jews that crucified our Lord. They needed to repent of that very act--killing Christ. There are many things in Peter's sermon that you will never find in any other sermon. It is unique to the Day of Pentecost.

I agree that the sermon was unique in many ways, but Peter's preaching was not. He worked to convict his audience of sin and then urged repentance and trust in Christ upon them. In those respects it is a textbook sermon for us to follow.[/QUOTE]

 

[agedman]

My answer was already given to Icon.

Just to make certain I am following the train of thought, let me kind of paraphrase what you might be giving:

About the thief, the conversation between he and Christ was private (sort of like that of Nicodemus) and not for public consumption (such as the public rebuke given to the rulers). Therefore, the gospel account is not sufficient to make a determination of salvation for it was not accompanied by works or a daily living of one transformed.

The determination of salvation is left to God, alone, for He alone knows the heart. That the believer may also know of their own relationship (John 20, restated in 1 John 5) but such determination is made by reliance upon the Scriptures and not some event such as prayer.

Repentance (change of mind) follows salvation, and that salvation is the determiner between one who merely feels sorry they got caught or some other emotion impulse, and the true repentance of a believer who knows he brought shame upon the very Christ.​

It is a bit hard to follow the main points you are attempting to make when I am distracted as I am. So, if I have written askew from your actual presentation, please take time to make correction.

 

[Internet Theologian]

My answer was already given to Icon. But apparently you didn't understand. Unless you are God Almighty with the attribute of omniscience you would not be able to understand. Read what I said to Icon.

You have no answer. I stated I can, then asked if you can.

Luk 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

Luk 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
Luk 23:36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,
--There was a great crowd present.

There is no way you would be able to comprehend the discussion that went on. If you were there you would see a common thief die as a common thief with no apparent change in his life. You wouldn't be able to hear the discussion that took place. What makes you think you would?

Sorry, I wasn't around back then.

I'm going by the conversation he had with the Christ of God that is revealed in the Scriptures. Your above example is absurd if not down right delusional thinking. How do you come up with this stuff? It is senseless and silly!

Now answer the question of the thief:

Could you outwardly judge that the thief on the cross was a transformed saved person?

Can you? I can. Answer it from what the Scriptures say in his conversation with Christ. Luke 23:29-43

 

[InTheLight]

Icon or Internet Theologian--Please provide a link to these numerous sermons by Lewis Sperry Chafer, Zane Hodges, and Charles Ryrie that are all over the airwaves where I can hear these preachers expounding on Free Grace Theology, or Casual Grace, or whatever you're calling it today. Otherwise, in my mind it's just a huge strawman.

 

[agedman]

Not necessarily so. It is possible to believe in Christ without repenting, and to feel shame and remorse over one's sins without trusting in Christ.

I'm not certain that one can "believe in Christ without repentance."

Perhaps you meant to say, "It is (not) possible to ...."

Although, I agree that one can FEEL shame and remorse without any impulse from the Holy Spirit.

Imo, the single element between one who is sorry and one who expresses Godly repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon or Internet Theologian--Please provide a link to these numerous sermons by Lewis Sperry Chafer, Zane Hodges, and Charles Ryrie that are all over the airwaves where I can hear these preachers expounding on Free Grace Theology, or Casual Grace, or whatever you're calling it today. Otherwise, in my mind it's just a huge strawman.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html

The "free grace" movement is not synonymous with no-lordship teaching. There are many no-lordship teachers who do not fall into the "free grace" camp. However, all "free grace" teachers do hold fundamentally to a no-lordship viewpoint. But their teaching goes much further than that. Having started with the tenet that one may receive Christ as Savior and not as Lord, they then interpret the whole New Testament in that light. This has led to an interpretation of many New Testament passages which departs from the historic understanding of these texts. Among their beliefs are the following:

• Repentance is never to be included as part of the gospel message.
• One may receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord. That is, one may receive Christ by faith alone ("intellectual assent" is the definition some of them affirm), yet do so with ongoing rebellion--accepting the gift while shaking a fist at the giver. God does not necessarily change the heart (to grant a love for Christ, or even a receptivity to Him) when He saves someone.
• True Christians will not necessarily evidence their faith by works (or "fruit"). In fact, a true Christian may never show any evidence of the new birth.
• True Christians will not necessarily persevere in the faith. In fact, a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior, later become intellectually unconvinced of the gospel, denounce Christ and become an atheist; however, because of that one human decision made at one point in time, he is still considered to be saved. For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign of the Sevant Kings, says, "It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing." (p.199). True Christians may fall away completely from the faith and still be saved. God in no way grants them perseverance, or sustains them in their faith.
• At the Bema seat, Christ will divide believers into two distinct and separate groups: the faithful, "overcoming" Christians will be allowed to reign with Him in the millennial kingdom; they are the "heirs" of the kingdom. Unfaithful, carnal believers, however, will get into the kingdom, but will not be allowed to reign with Christ. They enter the kingdom but do not inherit it. In fact, they will be barred from the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, and will be cast outside of the wedding banquet, where they will weep and gnash their teeth (just as unbelievers will do in hell). The millennium will therefore be a time of sorrow and weeping for these children of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/free-grace.html

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2263

 

[DHK]

I am not even trying to be funny....but you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot. The one who constantly criticizes and complains with nothing positive to add to the conversation is usually the one in the wrong.

I know what the verse teaches.... you do not just from what you said so far, in fact you cannot as you have revealed enough of your contorted theology...it is not possible you are going to land on your feet here or anywhere on sanctification.

You say you know. But you are unable to say what you know. You simply criticize what others do say. We remain in silence of what you actually do believe. You are unable to verbalize what you actually do believe, and when you attempt to say what you believe it probably will be with a CoF or some other quote. Try explaining what you believe in your own words. But probably not; criticizing is so much easier.

You start with a wrong base, a wrong foundation, so you are building on sand day after day.

How would you know. You are simply the BB critic who doesn't know what he believes.
You simply copy and past what others believe and have your finger on the dislike and like, or the agree and disagree buttons.

I believe that when someone turns away from truth they go into darkness ...the principle is found here;
35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

What I conclude from your quoting of these verses and your comments on them is one of two things:
1. Either you deny your Calvinism and believe a person can lose their salvation, or:
2. You don't believe I am saved in the first place. A terrible accusation to make which should immediately be brought to the attention of the administration. So, be careful. Clarify what you say.

Your day in and day out opposition to truth puts you in direct danger of this principle, because it is not the cals who you teach against, but the truth itself...you turn and teach directly against the truth.
many have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt , but many of us have been hammering you these last few months as your increased attacks have brought you into a dangerous predicament.

I teach the truth. It disagrees with what you believe because you follow Calvin's teaching. I don 't.
Just because I don't follow Calvin's teachings does not mean I don't teach the truth. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Perhaps dhk will read this and the latter especially as he as well as others have falsely accused that the things from DTS are unfounded. Instead of actually knowing what they are talking about, studying it, being aware of this error that is everywhere they resort to attack and ridicule the messenger(s).

Free Grace Theology is in grave error and has done much damage and has IN FACT preached the things in the OP.

Either stay in a pretense of ignorance or preach against this error. I will preach against it and against whoever espouses it, even here on this debate board.

People think, like dhk, that they came up with this false repentance ideology and false disciple/believer dichotomy by their own personal study. It is rather that they are parroting the false teachings popularized by DTS through folks who edited one of his favorite and used commentaries 'The Bible Knowledge Commentary' (among other proponents).

 

[Internet Theologian]

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html

The "free grace" movement is not synonymous with no-lordship teaching. There are many no-lordship teachers who do not fall into the "free grace" camp. However, all "free grace" teachers do hold fundamentally to a no-lordship viewpoint. But their teaching goes much further than that. Having started with the tenet that one may receive Christ as Savior and not as Lord, they then interpret the whole New Testament in that light. This has led to an interpretation of many New Testament passages which departs from the historic understanding of these texts. Among their beliefs are the following:

• Repentance is never to be included as part of the gospel message.
• One may receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord. That is, one may receive Christ by faith alone ("intellectual assent" is the definition some of them affirm), yet do so with ongoing rebellion--accepting the gift while shaking a fist at the giver. God does not necessarily change the heart (to grant a love for Christ, or even a receptivity to Him) when He saves someone.
• True Christians will not necessarily evidence their faith by works (or "fruit"). In fact, a true Christian may never show any evidence of the new birth.
• True Christians will not necessarily persevere in the faith. In fact, a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior, later become intellectually unconvinced of the gospel, denounce Christ and become an atheist; however, because of that one human decision made at one point in time, he is still considered to be saved. For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign of the Sevant Kings, says, "It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing." (p.199). True Christians may fall away completely from the faith and still be saved. God in no way grants them perseverance, or sustains them in their faith.
• At the Bema seat, Christ will divide believers into two distinct and separate groups: the faithful, "overcoming" Christians will be allowed to reign with Him in the millennial kingdom; they are the "heirs" of the kingdom. Unfaithful, carnal believers, however, will get into the kingdom, but will not be allowed to reign with Christ. They enter the kingdom but do not inherit it. In fact, they will be barred from the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, and will be cast outside of the wedding banquet, where they will weep and gnash their teeth (just as unbelievers will do in hell). The millennium will therefore be a time of sorrow and weeping for these children of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/free-grace.html

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2263

Yet dhk, itl, jamesl and others have rushed into judgment on me and state no one teaches that stuff. This was seen both here and in another thread where I denounced this teaching.

They're completely wrong, all of them, and are bearing false witness against both me and those who teach this error. I in fact see that some themselves teach the same things. It is seen in this thread and on this board. This must be why they express outrage - exposure?

There is now no longer an excuse to stay in their pretense of ignorance.

By the way, thanks Iconoclast.

 

[DHK]

Perhaps dhk will read this and the latter especially as he as well as others have falsely accused that the things from DTS are unfounded. Instead of actually knowing what they are talking about, studying it, being aware of this error that is everywhere they resort to attack and ridicule the messenger(s).

Free Grace Theology is in grave error and has done much damage and has IN FACT preached the things in the OP.

Either stay in a pretense of ignorance or preach against this error. I will preach against it and against whoever espouses it, even here on this debate board.

People think, like dhk, that they came up with this false repentance ideology and false disciple/believer dichotomy by their own personal study. It is rather that they are parroting the false teachings popularized by DTS through folks who edited one of his favorite and used commentaries 'The Bible Knowledge Commentary' (among other proponents).

I have not taken one side or another. You don't know what I believe.
Here is what you know.
1. I am not a Calvinist.
2. I disagree with your interpretation of Heb.12:14 and the other verse recently quoted.

But to your dismay I do not believe all the tenets of either Free Grace Theology, Easy-believism, etc. You don't know what I believe, and yet go on laying false accusations anyway.
I point out your errors, and you refuse to acknowledge them.
For example, with a great multitude of people surrounding the cross there is no way that you could no that the thief was a saved person. So don't claim things you know not.
Neither would you be able to determine that Lot was a just person, declared just by God.

Your OP makes allegations which are false. I have pointed them out to you. You have failed to respond.

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot. The one who constantly criticizes and complains with nothing positive to add to the conversation is usually the one in the wrong.

You say you know. But you are unable to say what you know. You simply criticize what others do say. We remain in silence of what you actually do believe. You are unable to verbalize what you actually do believe, and when you attempt to say what you believe it probably will be with a CoF or some other quote. Try explaining what you believe in your own words. But probably not; criticizing is so much easier.

How would you know. You are simply the BB critic who doesn't know what he believes.
You simply copy and past what others believe and have your finger on the dislike and like, or the agree and disagree buttons.

What I conclude from your quoting of these verses and your comments on them is one of two things:
1. Either you deny your Calvinism and believe a person can lose their salvation, or:
2. You don't believe I am saved in the first place. A terrible accusation to make which should immediately be brought to the attention of the administration. So, be careful. Clarify what you say.


I teach the truth. It disagrees with what you believe because you follow Calvin's teaching. I don 't.
Just because I don't follow Calvin's teachings does not mean I don't teach the truth. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

I explain what I believe to those who want an explanation.
They do not complain in fact most times they say.....thank you.
You despise teachers given to the church. You call them old dead theologians. Any of them knew more than you do, but rather than learn from them you ridicule .
In fact you have never came close to responding in any meaningful way to those links because it would expose your bankrupt ideas.
I just posted a link to ITL....many false ideas in the link can he found in your theology.
I only bring it up because you are in attack mode so as we offer return fire you Resort to threats.
That is why many do not even answer you anymore. ...can you not see that?

 

[agedman]

Perhaps dhk will read this and the latter especially as he as well as others have falsely accused that the things from DTS are unfounded. Instead of actually knowing what they are talking about, studying it, being aware of this error that is everywhere they resort to attack and ridicule the messenger(s).

It is rather that they are parroting the false teachings popularized by DTS through folks who edited one of his favorite and used commentaries 'The Bible Knowledge Commentary' (among other proponents).

Why don't you to start a thread about the teaching of DTS and prove they are teaching error?

Did you attend, graduate, or in some manner have contact with the school?

Is there some agenda that you carry against the school?

Perhaps you might invite Dr. Kevin Bauder a graduate of DTS into the conversation to validate your statements.

Perhaps you might invite someone who was and is involved such as Dr. Swindoll, or some others that have first hand experience and information and that still participate in some manner to the direction of and teaching at DTS.

Until then, your accusations against DTS don't have much traction.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Why don't you to start a thread about the teaching of DTS and prove they are teaching error?

Did you attend, graduate, or in some manner have contact with the school?

Is there some agenda that you carry against the school?

Perhaps you might invite Dr. Kevin Bauder a graduate of DTS into the conversation to validate your statements.

Perhaps you might invite someone who was and is involved such as Dr. Swindoll, or some others that have first hand experience and information and that still participate in some manner to the direction of and teaching at DTS.

Until then, your accusations against DTS don't have much traction.

Honestly agedman I couldn't care less as to what you think about my accusations as they are well documented and well known. Therefore I don't need anyone from DTS to validate a thing I've stated.

One need not not to have attended DTS to know what theologies have stemmed from there. It began with Lewis Sperry Chafer and you are completely unaware of that fact. Do some research and see for yourself, or just act like you have a case? I say this as your post is full of implications that the things stated in the OP and links are incorrect. Thus it is mere implied false accusations.

Apparently you are not aware that Swindoll's teachings support the links provided by Iconoclast. But I digress as your judgments are amiss and frankly either naìve or done in a pretense of ignorance.

 

[DHK]

Not necessarily so. It is possible to believe in Christ without repenting, and to feel shame and remorse over one's sins without trusting in Christ.
Not necessarily (Matt. 7:21-23).

Then you are not "believing in Christ" are you?
Judas "repented" and went out and hung himself. Let's not play word games. We both know that Judas simply felt sorry for what he did. It was not true repentance.

Faith always has an object. The object of "biblical faith" is Christ and his redemptive work.
When one puts their faith in Him, they will be saved. That is the promise of the Bible.

Not in the case of the Jews in John 8:30ff, nor in that of Simon Magus.

Please! You are just playing word games here.
Those in Mat.7:21-23 are not those "who put their faith in Christ," and neither was Simon Magnus.
In Matthew 7, they were false teachers, and Jesus said, "depart from me, I never knew you."

You are confusing repentance with sanctification. If there is genuine faith and repentance, then there will be progressive sanctification.

Here is what I said:

However, some teach that they must repent of their sins, or even all of their sins. That is works salvation. Repentance of sins comes after salvation not before. It is called progressive sanctification.
--I am not confused at all. I have already explained that repentance is part of faith, the other side of the coin so to speak. If one puts their faith in Christ then repentance takes place. That is why there is very little taught about repentance in the epistles. The emphasis is salvation by faith. In the Christian life repentance is a doctrine with an emphasis on sorrow and repenting after a sin committed in the Christian life. And then, as 1Jn.1:9 indicates, one confesses that sin to the Lord, and he will forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That has nothing to do with salvation. That is all about sanctification.
The immoral man in 1Cor.5:1ff was a brother in Christ who needed to repent of his sin of immorality.

I agree that the sermon was unique in many ways, but Peter's preaching was not. He worked to convict his audience of sin and then urged repentance and trust in Christ upon them. In those respects it is a textbook sermon for us to follow.

Yes, it was a very good sermon. Every person in his audience was a Jew.
The mistake of many is to take a pattern of that (or a small portion of it), and call upon people to "repent of all your sins," which is not biblical.

 

[InTheLight]

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html


http://www.gotquestions.org/free-grace.html

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2263

This is simply more Calvinists saying the same thing you've been alleging. I want to hear sermons, read books, read articles written by these preachers where they personally say the things you guys are accusing them of saying.

 

[InTheLight]

Yet dhk, itl, jamesl and others have rushed into judgment on me and state no one teaches that stuff. This was seen both here and in another thread where I denounced this teaching.

They're completely wrong, all of them, and are bearing false witness against both me and those who teach this error. I in fact see that some themselves teach the same things. It is seen in this thread and on this board. This must be why they express outrage - exposure?

There is now no longer an excuse to stay in their pretense of ignorance.

By the way, thanks Iconoclast.

If anything, you are bearing false witness against yourself! You keep alleging these preachers say these things and when you are asked for proof there is none forthcoming.

Either put up or shut up.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

Honestly agedman I couldn't care less as to what you think about my accusations as they are well documented and well known. Therefore I don't need anyone from DTS to validate a thing I've stated.

One need not not to have attended DTS to know what theologies have stemmed from there. It began with Lewis Sperry Chafer and you are completely unaware of that fact. Do some research and see for yourself, or just act like you have a case? I say this as your post is full of implications that the things stated in the OP and links are incorrect. Thus it is mere implied false accusations.

Apparently you are not aware that Swindoll's teachings support the links provided by Iconoclast. But I digress as your judgments are amiss and frankly either naìve or done in a pretense of ignorance.

I merely asked for proof. First hand accounts by graduates.

What is obvious is that you don't have anything at this point to back up you claims.

The assembly called stonebriar community church in which Swindoll is the senior pastor has a web. Perhaps you can gleen erroneous teaching from those documents.

Bauder is not shy about giving opinions. Search his writing.

You made a claim.

Either start a thread and prove your statements or be ashamed.

That is all I asked.

It is your claim, so back it up with facts.

And please note, I don't have to engage demeaning terms to bolster what I stated.

You did, which would seem to indicate rather weak or lacking documentable support.

You may be correct.

Then again, you may be wrong or thinking more of Southwestern seminary or Moody, perhaps Liberty.

All I am asking for is what anyone should be ready to prove when accusations are made, in this instance, without supporting evidence given.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is simply more Calvinists saying the same thing you've been alleging. I want to hear sermons, read books, read articles written by these preachers where they personally say the things you guys are accusing them of saying.

Put on the AM radio in to scan to dial you hear about a dozen of them in 2 hrs

 

[Internet Theologian]

I merely asked for proof. First hand accounts by graduates.

What is obvious is that you don't have anything at this point to back up you claims.

OH, OK, remain in your willful pretense of ignorance. A person who has allegedly been around as long as you would know and would have heard these things many times so I don't buy your story. I've only been converted some 30 years and knew about this 25 years ago.

What is obvious? That you refuse to see.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Put on the AM radio in to scan to dial you hear about a dozen of them in 2 hrs

Maybe it's just on our radios, you know, they're watching us LOL!!!!!!!!!!! LaughLaughLaughRoflmaoRoflmaoRoflmaoRoflmaoRoflmaoRolleyesRolleyesRolleyesRolleyesRolleyesRolleyesRolleyesRolleyes