That is just awful! Pure sandemanianism, which I had supposed was dead and buried forever. It requires one to remove large sections of the Gospel in order to accept it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Free Grace Theology
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
It is alive and well brother. It is what FGT is all about. People can deny it all they want but this is what it officially teaches. No need to be in denial or remain naìve about its real tenets, nor pretend the things it preaches do not exist.
I fully expect, as in the other thread to be ridiculed, maligned, called a liar and attacked over this.
Adamantly attacking the extremes of an opposing opinion builds anamosity.
It's harder to find brotherly agreement within differing opinions.
I hope we can come to some agreement, even if it is an agreement to disagree.
Rob
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I gave examples of the official teachings within FGT. I've done so in three threads now. Your first response deacon was to attack me and ridicule.
Remember? Was it necessary? That is how you CHOSE to react while nothing I stated misrepresented the official teachings of FGT, you attacked me and not the teachings. I also believe now that you've seen the official teachings here you've presently been made aware of what it truly is. If this is not true, and you knew this official teaching all along then there would have been no need to attack me when I discussed these things in the past.
I hope you can get on without doing this again. I promise I won't initiate any of it. Thank you.
Now:
If one denies what FGT officially teaches, yet claims to be one or a teacher thereof with differing views, they certainly are either naìve, not truly of FGT or patently in denial of the system. Again, I've provided the official stance of FGT for all to take note of.
FGT (official) in itself is an extreme view and a false gospel. You brought up the word extreme deacon. How are they extreme, and IF you are of FGT, how are you different? I ask you to share with me how you differ with FGT and look for a very knowledgeable response addressing the tenets of the system, and how you either agree or disagree.
One tenet is the easy-believism seen in Zane Hodges Deserted Island Scenario and is based in Sandemanianism. I assume you are aware of Robert Sandeman and his heresy. It is the foundational stance of FGT and one cannot be of FGT without this. The listing of the men as 'founders of the system' gives this away, there is no way around that fact.
Another tenet is that a person can behave however, even unto apostatizing from the faith, yet are still going to heaven.
These two tenets are non-negotiable official stances of the system, and lend to really understanding why it is named FGT because it is a distorion of 'free' and 'grace'.
So this is it in a nutshell: It distorts how salvation is obtained AND what true conversion looks like.
It's founding proponents have set the stage on what it teaches.
I will most gladly dialog with you on these facts but will not partake in the malice, taunting, name calling or ridiculing that takes place on this forum.
Only if you are assuming that there are those on this board that take that position. Do you?
If a person tells you that they don't accept "easy-believism" for example, do you believe them?
IMO, your credibility is at stake for lack of evidence in many of these matters.
You also assume that if one believes or even has a belief similar to one or two of the points under FGT then he must believe them all. Therefore, in your mind, he falls under the category of FGT, when he is not.
Again, your credibility is left wanting.
Free Grace Theology appears to be a reaction to the LS presently preached by MacArthur and others.
Fred Chay, a graduate from Dallas, and now a professor of another Seminary compares the two.
The following gives a comparison of just four of eight points. To quote all 8 points would take up too much room.
Often times the best way to explain what you mean is to compare and contrast what you mean with what you do not mean. "Free Grace" theology stands in contrast to "Lordship Salvation" theology. By that I mean the following distinctions.
1. "Free Grace" theology teaches that we receive eternal life the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord. "Lord" refers to our belief that He is the Son of God and therefore, able to be our "Savior". "Faith" is viewed as a simple and uncomplicated response to the truth God has revealed about His Son, and the Gift which He offers. When Jesus says "Truly, Truly I say unto you, he who believes in Me has eternal life" (John 6:47), "believe" means to be convinced and assured that what He says is true. (See John 1:11-13)
"Lordship" theology teaches that "faith" is not a simple and uncomplicated response. It is an all out commitment to follow Jesus Christ that includes the mind heart and will. It is equivilant to being His disciple, to surrender all that we have and are to Him. "Lordship" theology says that "saving faith" involves such a radical turning to Christ and commitment to surrender all and follow Him! That is also why so many of those committed to "Lordship" theology have difficulty with the salvation of children, because in their view, there is just more to it than simply believing in Jesus as your personal Savior. How unlike Jesus who taught that we must have the faith of a little child in order to enter His kingdom
2. "Free Grace" theology distinguishes between the "call to believe" in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and receiving His gift of eternal life, and the "call to follow" Him and become His disciples. (See John 4 and compare what Jesus told the woman she needed in vs. 10 with what He told His disciples they needed in vs. 31-38).
"Lordship" theology sees faith and discipleship as two sides of the same coin. To "believe" is the same as being willing to become His disciple and follow Him.
3. "Free Grace" theology stresses the believer’s assurance of salvation. It teaches that we can know we have eternal life and are going to heaven based on the very promise inherent in the offer itself. (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47) The Word of God becomes the basis of our assurance of salvation.
"Lordship" theology teaches that we can never be completely sure we are going to heaven until we die, because we might fall away and thus prove that we were not real believers to begin with. We can, however, become somewhat confident if we see the Holy Spirit producing good works in our life. The basis of our assurance of salvation is the change in our life - it is based on what we do. People who validate the reality of their own salvation based on how they live, are usually quick to validate the genuineness of other peoples’ salvation on the same basis.
4. "Free Grace" theology teaches that real Christians can fall away, slide into serious sin, and utterly fail. (Consider the many warnings to Christians in the New Testament). Conceivably, Christians could even end up denying the Lord, if they continue forsaking the truth and hardening themselves to the work of the Spirit of God in their lives. Nevertheless, God does not forsake His children, but patiently disciplines them. (1 Corinthians 10:30-32; Hebrews 6:1-12; 12
And even if they are "faithless, yet He remains faithful", they will enter into eternal life. (1 Timothy 2:11-13)
"Lordship" theology teaches that if a so-called Christian falls into sin, persists in sin, and does not soon return to the Lord, that that so called Christian is not a real Christian at all. He is only a professing Christian. Real Christians persevere in the faith. If you do not persevere, then you are not a Christian, and you are lost. The logical consequences of such a theology on a believer’s sense of security, which is tied to his identity, is defeating. Believers caught up in this theology hear God saying, "If you want to know you are My child, consistently act like My child! 5
Read the full article here:
http://www.graceline.net/Articles/What is Free Grace Theology.pdf
Fred Chay, a graduate from Dallas, and now a professor of another Seminary compares the two.
The following gives a comparison of just four of eight points. To quote all 8 points would take up too much room.
Often times the best way to explain what you mean is to compare and contrast what you mean with what you do not mean. "Free Grace" theology stands in contrast to "Lordship Salvation" theology. By that I mean the following distinctions.
1. "Free Grace" theology teaches that we receive eternal life the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord. "Lord" refers to our belief that He is the Son of God and therefore, able to be our "Savior". "Faith" is viewed as a simple and uncomplicated response to the truth God has revealed about His Son, and the Gift which He offers. When Jesus says "Truly, Truly I say unto you, he who believes in Me has eternal life" (John 6:47), "believe" means to be convinced and assured that what He says is true. (See John 1:11-13)
"Lordship" theology teaches that "faith" is not a simple and uncomplicated response. It is an all out commitment to follow Jesus Christ that includes the mind heart and will. It is equivilant to being His disciple, to surrender all that we have and are to Him. "Lordship" theology says that "saving faith" involves such a radical turning to Christ and commitment to surrender all and follow Him! That is also why so many of those committed to "Lordship" theology have difficulty with the salvation of children, because in their view, there is just more to it than simply believing in Jesus as your personal Savior. How unlike Jesus who taught that we must have the faith of a little child in order to enter His kingdom
2. "Free Grace" theology distinguishes between the "call to believe" in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and receiving His gift of eternal life, and the "call to follow" Him and become His disciples. (See John 4 and compare what Jesus told the woman she needed in vs. 10 with what He told His disciples they needed in vs. 31-38).
"Lordship" theology sees faith and discipleship as two sides of the same coin. To "believe" is the same as being willing to become His disciple and follow Him.
3. "Free Grace" theology stresses the believer’s assurance of salvation. It teaches that we can know we have eternal life and are going to heaven based on the very promise inherent in the offer itself. (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47) The Word of God becomes the basis of our assurance of salvation.
"Lordship" theology teaches that we can never be completely sure we are going to heaven until we die, because we might fall away and thus prove that we were not real believers to begin with. We can, however, become somewhat confident if we see the Holy Spirit producing good works in our life. The basis of our assurance of salvation is the change in our life - it is based on what we do. People who validate the reality of their own salvation based on how they live, are usually quick to validate the genuineness of other peoples’ salvation on the same basis.
4. "Free Grace" theology teaches that real Christians can fall away, slide into serious sin, and utterly fail. (Consider the many warnings to Christians in the New Testament). Conceivably, Christians could even end up denying the Lord, if they continue forsaking the truth and hardening themselves to the work of the Spirit of God in their lives. Nevertheless, God does not forsake His children, but patiently disciplines them. (1 Corinthians 10:30-32; Hebrews 6:1-12; 12
And even if they are "faithless, yet He remains faithful", they will enter into eternal life. (1 Timothy 2:11-13) "Lordship" theology teaches that if a so-called Christian falls into sin, persists in sin, and does not soon return to the Lord, that that so called Christian is not a real Christian at all. He is only a professing Christian. Real Christians persevere in the faith. If you do not persevere, then you are not a Christian, and you are lost. The logical consequences of such a theology on a believer’s sense of security, which is tied to his identity, is defeating. Believers caught up in this theology hear God saying, "If you want to know you are My child, consistently act like My child! 5
Read the full article here:
http://www.graceline.net/Articles/What is Free Grace Theology.pdf
Luke 10:25. 'And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" So he answered and said, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind,' and you shall love your neighbour as yourself." And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you shall live."
Luke 18:18. . 'Now a certain ruler asked Him, "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life?" So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder, Do not steal' etc."'
Why does the Lord Jesus keep referring people to the law for salvation?
I don't know if one could say "he kept referring people to the law." I don't see that.
In this event with the rich young man, he referred him to the law because he he was a self-righteous individual who had said "he kept all the law from his youth up." Jesus was demonstrating that what he said was not true, but in fact a lie. In the end he broke another commandment: "Thou shalt not covet," for he desired or coveted his riches more than he desired Christ, and thus went away sorrowful.
"How hardly shall a rich man enter into the kingdom of God," Jesus said to his disciples.
Brother IT, your very first "like" was from me.
My "attack" concerned the title you chose for the thread {Free Grace Theology, Mocking God?] The title appeared to me to be deliberately provocative and quite derogatory in tone. You were ridiculing those who follow Free Grace Theology!
I merely pointed out to you what your thread titles exposed about you.
The current thread of yours titled, "A Casual Gospel" begins, "…one need only to take a look at the message stemming from Free Grace Theology and other easy-believe-ism systems". This also belittles those of us that believe in Free Grace Theology. Do you see what you're doing???
If you want to dialog in a friendly manner I'd suggest that you approach the topic with grace.
Take a closer look at the words you use, your Calvinism is showing.
This aggressive tone is throughout the pages of responses you give to others. Your internet wife follows you and the two of you "like" one another's aggressive theology. Tone it down a bit and we can discuss things civilly.
You mention the "official teaching of FGT". Zane Hodges is not a spokesman for Free Grace Theology – he's dead. He was a lightning rod, particularly relating to his illustration as you note. I never liked it and disagree with it.
The simple message of Free Grace Theology is:
1) God saves sinners by grace.
2) God keeps through grace those who are saved, and
3) God teaches in grace those who are saved and kept, how they should live and how they may live to his eternal glory. (Lewis Sperry Chafer, 1922)
Free Grace Theology CLEARLY separates God's work of Salvation from that of Sanctification and Discipleship. Salvation is an instantaneous event. It's one condition is faith. It was obtained through Christ's work alone, no works of ours needed.
Rob
I gave two examples. Here's another.
Matt. 5:19. "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
In citing these instances, I am not accusing you of being a supporter of FGT. You have made it clear to me that you are not, and I accept that.
Jesus teaches principles. It was a principle not an absolute. He never said that a rich man could never enter into heaven. Riches are a hindrance to many that would enter heaven. I live in an affluent society. So often their materialistic outlook and their wealth turns them away from Christ.
You question is actually disgusting. Paul answered it in Rom.6
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Who here advocates the position described in the question that you asked?
As defined by Fred Chay I have no problem with FGT. As defined by IT, I don't follow. However, IT has lost credibility with me.
In Matthew 5, it is a part of the sermon on the mount, which is also giving principles of the Kingdom.
The context here:
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Here he seems to be contrasting his commands to what the Pharisees command. I think the verse is taken out of its context. It is pre-cross and is not in the context of salvation at all.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes, this is in fact what FGT teaches. No evidence of conversion necessary. When Dr. Bob Wilkins says 'behavior' not being a part of it what is he really saying? It is just another word for evidence, fruit. It's subtle and deceptive.
Satan is well aware if just one word change were there it would set off an alarm (iow if Wilkins said no fruit bearing is needed, no evidence of conversion necessary). Changing evidence and fruit to behavior is deceptive enough on its own, and it is working.
The other deceptive piece is the desert island scenario, easy-believism LIE.
Hebrews 5:11-13ff is in order.
Last edited:
First, I believe that is an extreme position. Read my post quoted from Fred Chay, and the link provided.
Second, I also can give extreme positions provided by advocates of LS, that you may not agree with. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Third, is there anyone on the board that advocates the position you are portraying and would still put themselves into the FGT camp. I doubt it. So this characterization is not fair.
Brother, I never heard of FGT until IT brought it up on the previous thread. 'Free Grace' means something very different in the U.K. IT posted a thread which I have read http://faithalone.org/magazine/y2014/What-Is-Free-Grace.pdf It is written by a fellow called Bob Wilkin whom I don't know. According to that link, FGT would plainly be saying, 'Let us continue in sin that grace may abound.'
Now I thought you had said that you were not FGT, now you're saying you might be. Why don't you read that link and tell me whether you agree with it or not?
This is part of your quote from Fred Chay
Secondly, 'Lord' means one to whom obedience is due. Thirdly, based on this quote, why shouldn't the Rich Young Ruler spend all his money on booze, drugs and prostitutes, so long as he believes that Jesus has saved him?
First of all we see the tyranny of the isolated quote. Why not quote John 8:34-5? 'Most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin, and a slave does not abide in the house forever.'
Secondly, 'Lord' means one to whom obedience is due. Thirdly, based on this quote, why shouldn't the Rich Young Ruler spend all his money on booze, drugs and prostitutes, so long as he believes that Jesus has saved him?
It's close but it is biased and therefore throws FGT purposely in a bad light.
Please read my post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/free-grace-theology.97497/page-2#post-2193639
especially at the link that is given. That will give you a much better idea from one who actually believes in it and not is out there to criticize it.
Why?
Read what is said:
"believe" means to be convinced and assured that what He says is true. (See John 1:11-13)
If one believes in Christ he is not going to live the kind of life you describe. I have taught here many times that belief and repentance are two sides of the same coin. If one believes in Christ his life will automatically change. Belief in life does not bring a profligate life but rather one changed for his glory.
The Philippian jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved.
His life was changed. How? For the better or for the worse?
BTW, I thought Calvinists believed in sola fide. Whatever happened to it?
Luke 14:33. "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple." It is a simple and uncomplicated response: "Repent and believe the good news" (Mark 1:15). Nothing complicated about that. We must forsake our sins and our selfishness and place all our abilities and our worldly possessions at the Lord's disposal.
The faith of a little child. Absolutely necessary. We must forsake all our presuppositions, all our prejudices, all our intellectual baggage to enter the kingdom. Children find that easier than adults.