Featured Free Grace Theology

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.

 

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.