-
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
Frankly, those two are really of little value.
It is like the "disagree." It seems that if one marks a post as "disagree" then it obliges some indication of what basis of Scriptural truth is used.
I don't put much stock in the rating system, though I do use it primarily to show agreement, something is funny, and like.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
On the other thread concerning FGT, I stated that these proponents teach that when one believes it automatically means they've also repented. This was met with the typical 'No one teaches that. Who teaches that, prove it, you're a liar!!!!!!!?' argument.
OK, I will prove it:
That is classic, presumptuous, erroneous FGT teaching.
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/conditional-salvation.28221/
OK, I will prove it:
That is classic, presumptuous, erroneous FGT teaching.
https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/conditional-salvation.28221/
Whoops let me be more clear. I ACCIDENTLY hit dumb or old.
LoL...I'm serious...I was looking back at some of the postings and realized it said undo rating and I looked and it said dumb or old lol. I've never intentionally hit dumb or old.
For some who do not embrace the typical DofG view, they place repentance and faith as in some manner mingled, front and back of the same coin, as water and salt blended into a singular mixture, or some other picture.
Perhaps, you and I would see repentance not bringing salvation, nor on an equal footing as salvation, but the results of salvation or the natural outpouring of devotion from that implanting of a new nature by God in which the Lord Jesus Christ is valued above all.
For example, the thief at the crucifixion would not have asked to be remembered, if he first did not have assurance from a changed heart and mind (a new nature) that such a request was honorable and exulting the Savior. He could "boldly come" with his request, understanding from the changed heart that he would not be shamed. His statement of getting what he justly deserved was not one of regret, but of understanding that repentance would not change the judgment of the world, but the judgment of God who would forgive and cleanse.
The extremes of FGT seems to relegate repentance to some mind game in which the rebuke of the Holy Spirit is considered an affront to "soul liberty." The boast, "Everything is lawful" shouts down "but not everything is beneficial."
But then, the extremes of the Calvinistic thinking brings about a puritanical approach which also does not listen to the Holy Spirit, but makes judgments usually of a binding, shackling, shunning and punitive nature considering them Godly.
What I consider lesser views, place humans as the primary instigators and the faith holders in which the person has the innate right to exercise some measure of control over placing into God's trust "their faith." That faith was not God's to give, but humankind's to offer. That one's faith could be enlarged or increased experientially. That all manner of health and wealth is offered by God and it is the lack of faith that causes the rewards to be limited or non-existent. That if a person has enough faith, they can name the prize and have it at their bidding.
None of that seems to be the teaching of the FGT view, but an extreme position that is unsupported by either the basic thinking of the view or Scriptures.
The similar can be said of the extreme of the reformed view towards FGT.
It is hoped that this thread could explore areas in which FGT (excluding the extremists) might fit rather snugly with the reformed thinking. Not that one completely endorse the FGT, but be able to show how reformed thinking and FGT are perhaps similar and therefore the differences could be more clearly discerned.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I have a touchscreen too and I hit 'ignore' (not on you) but it wasn't on accident.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Hello brother Deacon,
And the charge stands, which is verified by the FGT official statements of belief. You are defending this error as this system is yours. I believe you are laying claim to this, correct?
Yes, they also lay claim to Robert Sandeman as a founder of their system. Perhaps you ought to seek out what he actually taught and what this mere mental assent to facts means as it is the basis for FGT error. Grave error mind you. Sandemanianism is just that and you attempt to justify it and dress the dead corpse in fancy verbiage below but the end result is you actually argue for this position unaware that you are doing so:
I'll attempt to help you here with your accusation. Yes my stance is pejorative (contempt and disapproval of heterodox teaching specifically). Pejorative sounds so 'nasty' and I am certain that is your intent and objective as to paint me in that light? It simply means 'contempt and disapproval' and therein I stand against your position, rest assured of that brother. I take it putting my moniker in parentheses is intended to add some malignity and ridicule towards my person, correct?
But let's continue as you attempt to prove faith as mere mental assent to facts, even quoting Sproul.
I agree with this, but none of that proves faith as mere mental assent as FGT does, and as both Sandeman and Hodges, others and yourself believe. The above is not an exhaustive treatment of faith. You do agree with this, correct, that this is not the end all of what faith is?
The end result of faith, the evidence of salvation is belief in the facts of the Gospel, something a person cannot believe merely by self, it is not innate so your attempt to make conclusions is incomplete brother. Faith did not secure salvation, it is not the cause, and this is what you are implying in your argument.
The argument you present is redundant and goes nowhere. In FGT true converting faith is denied as it need no evidence, there is no behavior needed (fruit). Is this also your definition of saving faith brother? It is the FGT position, it must also be yours, so while you attempt to explain faith theologically, what it actually looks like in reality according to your belief falls well short of Scripture support.
Faith is the gift of God; Romans 12:3, Php 1:29, comes from God not self, not of mental ability to believe in facts; Romans 10:17, and is the same power that raised the Christ of God from the dead, Eph.1:19.
The Reformers also believe this concerning faith so your above is only a part of the story, not the whole story brother. This is the point I am making - it, faith, is not mere mental assent as Sandeman who is claimed by FGT and Hodges among others teach. This is what you are attempting to make faith out to be yourself. Do a search on mental assent or faith for the complete story, and look at the Scriptures provided (below) and what it says true faith looks like, what it does, the Gospels true effect on a person as well in the Scriptures. These are all what faith is, not just mere assent to facts as you are arguing.
Yes my brother, I am well aware of this and their statement. The above stands in support of faith being what Hodges expresses in his desert island scenario.
I take it you also adhere to this scenario as well? Yes? No?
Also, we must as handling the Word of God truthfully, 2 Timothy 2:15 add what true belief looks like in its complete package. Your position is so wrought in Finneyism and Sandemanianism/decisional salvation that you cannot see its error. John 1:13, Romans 9:16, James 1:18 each refute this false teaching brother. You are mitigating the Gospel down into a truncated version and caricature, basing its cause on man.
The position of FGT thus far and in your argument is taking John 20:31 to an extreme, divorcing it from context. John 8:30 and following is the proper context brother of true faith.
Do you stop at John 8:30 and claim those that believed as eternally saved? You have to because thus far this is what you are arguing. These men made claim of mental assent as believers. Were they saved brother Deacon? Do tell. Use your system in that passage, show me and others how they are saved in its context please. FGT claims these as saved, apparently using its system to do so.
I'm sorry brother but the charge most assuredly does stand. And how are you denying Sandemans teachings so far? Based on what? Tell me exactly how you are denying his teachings as being wrong. This entire time you have done nothing but prove you support his teachings brother.
(part 1)
Hello again brother Deacon. I still await your answers to my posts here, numbers 55, 56, 58. I see you are able to come give 'likes' to those who offer malicious posts on my person, and that is fine it's just you, but I would like for you to answer the posts I addressed in keeping with the OP and hope you can do so and leave the callow behavior in the past? 1 Corinthians 16:13? Can you do the former instead of the latter? I would like to have you answer my questions and leave off the ad hominem objective.
Sorry I.T. Chock it up to this brothers weakness.
I find your mischaracterizations of Free Grace Theology abusive.
Our interactions are irritating rather than edifying.
I've stepped back until there is a change.
My weakness!
Rob
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I agree. I am sorry brother but you've done what you claim I've done after I addressed you kindly in response (noted in the post numbers I've provided). This is clear for all to see.
It is odd that you can come at me forceful (your own words), and call things I've shown clear evidence for 'derisive', 'pejorative' among other adjectives meant to malign and discredit me, and then to top that off you make certain to go around and 'like' others posts determined to malign me as well. However if I present a case with mere evidence, which several have agreed are true, and to which I've provided links to official teachings, you go on the attack, not on that evidence but on me as a person.
Frankly that is ignominious behavior.
I will consider you a brother and attempt to look past the assault on me you allow and personally bring, while you show contempt for me as a person.