Featured Free Grace Theology

Thank you, Agedman, for your succinct summary of the debate.

No one can 'make' Jesus Lord. He is Lord. The question is, can one be saved if one does not acknowledge His Lordship or if, whilst acknowledging it, one denies it in one's life.

Exactly so. But what if repentance does not 'pour forth from the new nature'? 'Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.' But what if the new 'Christian' carries on his life just as before. Does that not suggest that the Holy Spirit has not been at work and that there has been no new birth?

 

I look back on my experience of salvation as a young teen as well as other lives that I have touched. Salvation is simple, believe - walking with the Lord in that belief afterwards is a tougher road.

I had recognized my sinful nature even before hearing the gospel - God was drawing me.
I heard of the work of Jesus through the ministry of 'Young Life'.
Deliverance was offered through belief. God opened my ears to hear.

While walking alone to school one cold winter day I stopped along side a small stream and turned from my own ways and accepted Jesus' way.

To me, it meant leaving friends and lifestyle behind and walking a new way, with different people.

The idea of Lordship still had to be learned; I believe it is part of the process of sanctification.

A believer need not prove their salvation to God by works of righteousness, they will flow naturally from his position in God's family.

God looks on the heart, not on outward appearances.

Rob

 

My friend, that is salvation. But if you had not left your friends; if you had not started walking a new way, if you had merely declared that Jesus was your Lord while denying Him in your life, would that have been salvation?

 

I didn't know anything about Lordship; I didn't know simple theology,
I didn't know, care about or acknowledge Trinitarian ideas.
I only knew that Jesus paid the price for my sins and I was going to trust him.
Very basic stuff - the heart of Free Grace Theology.

Rob

 

I had a similar experience grown up which I cannot explain. All I know is that God eventually led me to believe in Lordship Salvation.

 

Fair enough, but my question above still applies.

 

Complicated question with euphemism.

Are you saying that one could declare Jesus Lord without believing he could save ones life?

The answer is 'no '.​

Are you saying that one could declare Jesus is their Savior and still live a life of sin?

It would be a hard, worthless and unsatisifying life. I would question their salvation.

But 'The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.' 1 Samuel 16:7 NIV​

Are you saying that one could declare Jesus is their Savior and not have good works?

Yes, deathbed conversions don't allow the evidence of sanctification to display itself.
The thief on the cross is an example.
​

The follow up question would be, If good works are the primary assurance of ones salvation, how long does a person have to wait in order to know they are saved?

​

Rob

 

Bam! Lordship in a nutshell Wink

 

I think the debate around the Lordship conversation is different people see "lordship" in different ways and define it based on that view. There is not one static view of lordship everyone is working off of. So people end up talking past each other.

 

I've posted this a number of times because it so clearly communicates the great agreements between what we are discussing while still noting the differences.

[G]reat essential agreement exists between proponents and opponents of lordship salvation. Both sides agree that regeneration, or the impartation of eternal life by the Holy Spirit to a sinner, is required for salvation. Both sides agree that regeneration produces a positional change: a Father-child relationship is established between God and the believing sinner. Both sides also agree that regeneration produces a constitutional change: a person receives the Holy Spirit and eternal life, which is God’s quality of life placed within his soul. This constitutional change provides the possibility and the power for a superb transformation of character and conduct. Both sides agree that such transformation is expected, desired, demanded, and possible for the believer. Both sides also agree that Christians can sin, and sin severely.
Both sides agree that sin in a believer is serious and brings on him or her the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and should result in confrontation and discipline by the church. And both sides agree that such disobedience can last for some period of time in a believer.… The truth is, lordship salvation does not teach that every professing Christian who sins is not a true believer. Likewise, free grace teachers do not affirm the salvation of everyone who claims to be a Christian.
Undoubtedly, much of Christian history has taught that regeneration will produce some outward and visible change and that no change whatsoever may be evidence of a lack of true regeneration. But free grace teachers teach the same thing. The points of disagreement go back to the nature of faith and assurance. What the free grace position simply will not allow is that the change produced by regeneration is the grounds of or the evidence for assurance of genuine salvation.
T. G. Lewellen, “Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught throughout Church History?” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (January–March 1990), 65.

Rob​

 

I'm sure you're right. I think the two sides may not be as far away as we may suppose. I was especially pleased with DWK's last post on the other thread.

However, I think it's important to try and tease out the truth. We have to steer our lives and our churches between the Scylla of Legalism and the Charybdis of Antinomianism and to veer too far towards either side will lead to disaster.

I'll try to get back to Deacon and Agedman a bit later.

 

The issue between the 'two camps' is not how salvation is obtained, but what true conversion looks like.

Now, that said there is a serious issue with one noted proponent of FGT, one Zane Hodges, in his man on the beach illustration concerning how salvation is 'obtained'.

There may be more as well, but the main issue is not really how it is obtained, for we all believe it is by Grace through Faith. The dividing ground is on what true conversion looks like.

That is the issue.

 

Then there is the issue of Robert Sandeman, 'Sandemanianism' or the theology of the 'Glasites'. This same theology is seen in the views of Zane Hodges. Robert Sandeman is also seen as one who is a proponent of FGT. You can check Theopedia for a brief detail on how he (Sandeman) thought salvation was obtained (basically mental assent to facts = salvation). Zane Hodges agrees with his theory, as do others who embrace FGT views (these are many and varied). This is where we apply the label of 'easy-believeism'.

So, after all, perhaps there is more to the issue of how it is obtained.

Let's keep in mind that statements of faith or of belief can be undone when the person actually begins to hash out their theology.

One example of this is the views between synergists and monergists, synergists believing they are actually monergistic.

 

Here is a link with an official video on FGT's position. Dr. Bob Wilkin lays the foundation of this system in a brief discussion.

Basically it does not matter how one behaves (after 'obtaining' salvation). One need not much of an imagination to conclude where that can lead and actually does lead concerning what 'true conversion' looks like.

Scripture begs to differ. There are descriptions used throughout concerning what true salvation looks like, and what false conversion looks like. Both are expressed in ones behaviors, or 'fruit'.

 

I think those who do not like the term "Lordship" often see it going far beyond what is ever intended. And those who hold to Lordship often see the other side as seeing salvation as nothing more than a mental ascent. Both sides are often wrong about the other.

Although some folks like those in the ME camp do take non-lordship to an extreme.

 

The "Crossless Gospel" is bothersome to me as well.
So too, the derisive slang "easy believe-ism".

But each side of this particular Christian debate has its extremes.

Rob

 

Here is more evidence that Sandemanianism is adopted into FGT, including Hodges error as well:

Although Free Grace theology goes back to the Lord Jesus and to His Apostles*—and it was certainly evident in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries as well (e.g., Glas, Sandeman, Darby, Mackintosh, Lange, Govett)—it has really taken shape in the last 35 years. The Gospel Under Siege by Zane Hodges came out in 1981 and it helped to define some of the major issues. But even today, there is still more work to be done to nail down all of the particulars of Free Grace theology.

http://faithalone.org/magazine/y2014/What-Is-Free-Grace.pdf

*There is a noticeably huge gap of time between their theory (FGT) that this system existed with Jesus and the Apostles then 'reappeared' a couple hundred years or so ago.

 

Here is an article from the same site that gives official teachings of FGT (faithalone.org). It is lending credit to one of their own, Zane Hodges which shows the 'easy-believism' heresy. Wouldn't want anyone to say Hodges does nbot represent FGT or teach their actual position.

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

My apologies, it is the 'deserted island scenario', not 'man on the beach'.