Free Grace Theology: Mocking God?

[Internet Theologian]

The devises of men always want to invent some new theological system of belief... Well it seems to be in your house and not mine... I'm not even going there and let you brethren fight it out in your own camp... I bid you all adieu and see you on another post that makes more sense... Brother Glen

The system is probably not that old, insofar as when it was crystalyized into a system. The false teachings were garnered from some teachers in the past, notably Thomas Boston and Robert Sandeman.

Some believe Chuck Swindoll's book 'The Grace Awakening' to have been that which helped popularize and crystalize this system in the mind of the modern church.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'it seems to be in your house and not mine'. The teaching is everywhere as it has several popular proponents.

Basically the system teaches and endorses antinomianism, that is, that one can live in sin and expect to reap eternal life. Of course they deny this by statement of faith, but the actual teachings prove their statement to be a pretense and false.

Repentance is also mitigated from the Gospel which makes their gospel false. The system also misrepresents what a true believer looks like, allowing true believers (according to FGT) to walk in darkness, live in sin, love the world and still be regenerate. Nothing in the Gospel account of Scripture paints such a portrait of a true believer.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome brother.

 

[SovereignGrace]

According to SG, he told me he was banned from the board... He just wanted to do his own thing and it cost him... Some never learn... Brother Glen

SBM would jumble a bunch of verses together and all in the KJV. When someone would seek clarification from him, he'd get defensive and ask 'did you read my post? Review each point back to me and then we can debate those points.' He just was not that sharp of a knife. IT is not SBM, and not even close. Their postings are not even on the same continent.

 

[Internet Theologian]

SBM would jumble a bunch of verses together and all in the KJV. When someone would seek clarification from him, he'd get defensive and ask 'did you read my post? Review each point back to me and then we can debate those points.' He just was not that sharp of a knife. IT is not SBM, and not even close. Their postings are not even on the same continent.

Exactly...and thanks.

 

[Internet Theologian]

The post title reads like a slander to those who profess Free Grace Theology, either you are ignorant of the FGT position or you are trolling.
You write and reason like an educated person so I'm just calling it as I see it.
If you are just ignorant of the position, I apologize.

The first sign of losing an argument is to begin to slander the one you are debating. This is your second round of this behavior.

For the record, there is no ignorance on my part concerning the FGT camp, nor am I swayed from a periodical that has contributors from both camps. That may just make them wash things a little in bias. That should be a given to anyone who reads that, but obviously it slipped past you.

I understand from what you write that you came from a Free Grace Church that missed the mark. That's a shame. It's not characteristic of Free Grace Soteriology.

Here's a quote I shared a while back that might clarify things a bit.

Rob

Thanks for sharing Bibsac with us, albeit things have, well, certainly changed since 1990.

Keep in mind I've never stated every person who sins is saved or lost, so the point of the article is moot. In fact that statement can be applied to almost any given congregation, so it is rather pointless.

Bibsac certainly would not want to alienate anyone from either camp, so their piece is from a biased stance and would please both camps. People love happy ignorance and self-deception, and to be painted as agreeing in so much when that is simply not the case. It all reminds me of the ECT document.

The actual teachings of Zane Hodges, Stanley, Ryrie, others, teachings that go on in the real world verify the OP.

Hopefully in the future those who disagree with your slant won't be awarded the 'troll' and 'ignorant' badges simply due to the fact their presentation differs from yours. The fact remains that nothing stated in the OP misrepresents FGT teaching.

Have a good day Rob.

 

[tyndale1946]

SBM would jumble a bunch of verses together and all in the KJV. When someone would seek clarification from him, he'd get defensive and ask 'did you read my post? Review each point back to me and then we can debate those points.' He just was not that sharp of a knife. IT is not SBM, and not even close. Their postings are not even on the same continent.

SBM had a style that was termed sermonizing... Post upon post not answering any and ignoring any who questioned his thread unless you did it according to his rules... Check some of his pass posts and you'll understand... You are definitely not him... Brother Glen

 

[Internet Theologian]

This will help clarify Rob's animosity toward the OP and its author:

Lordship Salvation places a burden upon the unsaved that they need not bear until after they have crossed the line from darkness to light.

Rob

Should I call this trolling and ignorance? No. I won't stoop to that level.

However, that statement is a strawman and not even remotely true concerning so-called LS.

This sheds light on his animosity towards this threads OP. True representation is not what Deacon is all about as is witnessed in his false accusation on the opposing system to FGT. Perhaps Deacon has his own version of FGT? Why not? He's made up his own version of LS...

 

[Internet Theologian]

Here is more misrepresentation (used after his quoting the same old Bibsac document he over-uses and used in this thread):

Lordship Salvation demands that a believer must show works in order to prove their position in Christ - it is the primary evidence of salvation.

Rob

This is also a false statement. Albeit it sounds close, any learned person can see its error. LS doesn't demand anything. LS proponents know that works are evidence of true conversion, but no one in that true belief demands this from anyone. In fact LS proponents see the Scriptures making works as necessary evidence. It sounds here as if Deacon is actually in the FGT camp, as this camp conflates evidence with works as Deacon does himself by implication.

Deacon makes this burden and yoke (works signifying conversion, that yoke and burden which Christ gives His own which are easy and light - note Matthew 11:25-30) seem 'heavy', legalistic, demanded and burdensome.

Here is the truth of the matter of how those in LS feel about this 'burden' - 'For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome'. 1 John 5:3

 

[agedman]

Keep in mind, when considering the title of the OP that Free Grace Theology is a system of soteriology, a theological 'camp' if you will, thus the phrase refers to that camp and not to the fact that salvation is by God's grace.

The soteriological view contained in Free Grace Theology teaches a person can apostatize from the faith, deny Christ, deny the Gospel, live in any number of habitual sins, and, is still saved. Adherents to this system teach a saved person may never exhibit any evidence of regeneration.
Dallas Theological Seminary is well known for this teaching as well.

From the DTS website doctrinal statement:

We believe that, owing to universal death through sin, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless born again; and that no degree of reformation however great, no attainments in morality however high, no culture however attractive, no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation, and only those thus saved are sons of God. We believe, also, that our redemption has been accomplished solely by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made to be sin and was made a curse for us, dying in our room and stead; and that no repentance, no feeling, no faith, no good resolutions, no sincere efforts, no submission to the rules and regulations of any church, nor all the churches that have existed since the days of the Apostles can add in the very least degree to the value of the blood, or to the merit of the finished work wrought for us by Him who united in His person true and proper deity with perfect and sinless humanity.

We believe that the new birth of the believer comes only through faith in Christ and that repentance is a vital part of believing, and is in no way, in itself, a separate and independent condition of salvation; nor are any other acts, such as confession, baptism, prayer, or faithful service, to be added to believing as a condition of salvation.
(verse list left off this copy and past but available from Doctrinal Statement of DTS)​

Would you please take the time to specifically point out the error?

I am not certain that what you scorn is actually in error and not actually what is Biblical.

Let me be clear in my own view.

First, I DO hold to "Lordship salvation" in that one who is drawn by the Holy Spirit will proclaim Jesus as Lord. HOWEVER, that doesn't always translate into immediate maturity of all things dedicated and submissive to the Lord.

Second, There is a continued work done by the Holy Spirit upon those in whom Christ redeemed as they grow in both wisdom and knowledge and develop the experiential walk with Christ. Some on the BB use the term "progressive sanctification" but as I have shared in other threads on this topic, the term "progressive" cannot by definition apply to the term "sanctification." Rather, growth and maturity as a believer provides a far better definable set of terms.

Third, A believer can become (by the circumstances of this world) as Peter did the night of the trial of Christ - "I never knew Him." Be it a psychological problem, emotional problem, physical / chemical problem or any number of other factors including the oppression of the enemy that compels such a declaration. Christ KNOWS those who are His and not a single one will be set outside of His fold.

Fourth, I also recognize that God has no great tolerance nor rewards for such as continue in sin, and if they are unresponsive to His correction are in fact either not truly believers (saved) or will soon be in the grave.​

Too often, (imo) the lack of "show me your works" (as indicated by James) is a neglected teaching, yet one may conclude that "show me your faith without works" may in some way actually be a viable believer. It is just not the case. Such are not believers, but have deluded themselves and others. The believer that does wrong will met with rebuke from the Father. One who continues with no apparent rebuke by the Father are just not His.

So, I think rather than providing an OP that scorns, it would be wise for you to specifically make the argument that DTS teaches error by pointing out specifically what in their Doctrinal Statement is in fact heretical (which is what essentially you are contending).

 

[Internet Theologian]

From the DTS website doctrinal statement:

We believe that, owing to universal death through sin, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless born again; and that no degree of reformation however great, no attainments in morality however high, no culture however attractive, no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation, and only those thus saved are sons of God. We believe, also, that our redemption has been accomplished solely by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made to be sin and was made a curse for us, dying in our room and stead; and that no repentance, no feeling, no faith, no good resolutions, no sincere efforts, no submission to the rules and regulations of any church, nor all the churches that have existed since the days of the Apostles can add in the very least degree to the value of the blood, or to the merit of the finished work wrought for us by Him who united in His person true and proper deity with perfect and sinless humanity.

We believe that the new birth of the believer comes only through faith in Christ and that repentance is a vital part of believing, and is in no way, in itself, a separate and independent condition of salvation; nor are any other acts, such as confession, baptism, prayer, or faithful service, to be added to believing as a condition of salvation.
(verse list left off this copy and past but available from Doctrinal Statement of DTS)​

Who would disagree with that agedman? Does that have anything to do with what FGT teaches? No one, including me, denies salvation by Grace, through Faith, in Christ alone. Using that document is a bit deceitful and seems to be used as if you won and proved the OP wrong. Have you actually read the OP? If so, you'd realize this is not what is at stake at all.

You're aware that church's can make doctrinal statements and claim them all they want, yet depart from it in their teaching unawares, out of ignorance or misguided theology? For instance a KJVO church would preach 'Christ Alone'!!! then (as some do) preach that others cannot be saved if preached to from anything other than a KJB. Therefore that church can preach 'Christ Alone' all they want but it isn't really true. They've undone their doctrinal stance when they started actually teaching. This happens often in different ways.

This is not even the issue being discussed or debated in this thread so it is off topic with the OP. Do you honestly think if that were the issue there would be such heated debate here in this thread???​

 

[Internet Theologian]

Here is a message from Zane Hodges showing his reductionist version of the gospel:

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

'That’s why the man on the deserted island can get saved with only the barest minimum of information. When he believes John 6:47 he is believing in Jesus as the Christ'.

The above is a quote from his article and Hodges is a leading proponent of FGT and was a professor at DTS and the context is that the person 'believing' knows nothing about the Christ he is 'believing' in. His theological stance does not match the DTS statement of belief. Keep in mind here that my argument, as agedman and others have erroneously supposed, is not about salvation by faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone. It is about the teachings of Hodges and others who have reduced the Gospel and teach lawless living still equates to eternal life. I will give evidence of this as well in another post.

I will also give evidence that FGT proponents do not adhere to the Bibsac argument given by Deacon in this thread.

If you are going to debate this issue you need to be aware of what it is about and what is at stake. agedman and others have misrepresented the topic and argument and have erected a strawman rebuttal which has nothing to do with the OP. Nothing in the OP suggests any of these men denied salvation is according to the 'solas'.

Hodges statement is erronoeous to those who know the true Gospel, to those who reject his hyper easy-believism message.

Hodges is noted for the false teaching known as reductionism or reductionist theology. In his truncated gospel he has removed repentance, the cross, the death, burial and resurrection (note 1 Cor. 15:1-8). He has also mitigated lawlessness making those who live such a lifestyle assured of eternal life. There are many today who have picked up where he left off and continue this false gospel of salvation without repentance, a cross, or evidence.

 

[Revmitchell]

It looks to me like the rabbit giver has come back as the so called "Internet Theologian".

 

[Internet Theologian]

revmitchell I am asking you to refrain from trolling and from posting in this thread. You offer nothing more than snide comments that are not even remotely Christian nor on topic.

Troll elsewhere. Thanks.

 

[Reformed]

Hodges is noted for the false teaching known as reductionism or reductionist theology. In his truncated gospel he has removed repentance, the cross, the death, burial and resurrection (note 1 Cor. 15:1-8). He has also mitigated lawlessness making those who live such a lifestyle assured of eternal life. There are many today who have picked up where he left off and continue this false gospel of salvation without repentance, a cross, or evidence.

It is your last paragraph that I want to address.

Opponents of Lordship Salvation (which is nothing less than the biblical view of salvation) often criticize its adherents of combining works with the Gospel. They have a patent misunderstanding of the reality of Christians and sin. Positionally, Christians are no longer sinners (Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 1:5, 7). We are saints, joint-heirs, in the light, children of the king. However, in this life we have a corrupted mind and body. That corruption is at war with the new spirit within us (Rom. 7). Sadly, Christians often given in to the temptations of the flesh. But if a Christian has moments when they act contrary to their faith, how do we they know - how do we know - that we are truly in the faith? One word: repentance (Rom. 2:4; 1 John 1:8, 9). If a professed believer continues to sin with impunity then their behavior belies their profession (Rom. 3:7, 8; Rom. 6:1).

LS understands the corruption of the flesh will cause us many pains until we are finally liberated in glory. But even with those many pains, the work of the Spirit will have evidence in the lives who truly are children of God. These precious saints may not just struggle with sin, they may fight a battle that leaves them bloodied and bruised. I am reminded of the lyrics of the song C*ry out to Jesus from the band Third Day, "For the one's who can't break the addiction and chains, you try to give up but you come back again. Just remember you're not alone in your shame and your suffering". Some of the sins that Christians commit are shameful. How can a child of God do such things? With Paul, I cry out, "Who shall rescue me from this body of death?!" Jesus Christ, the Son of God! As we crawl back to Him (and sometimes it seems like a literal crawl) in contrition and repentance, we find Him always faithful to accept us. Even when we are faithless to Him, He will not be faithless to us because we carry His name (2 Tim. 2:13).

 

[Internet Theologian]

It is your last paragraph that I want to address.

Proponents of Lordship Salvation (which is nothing less than the biblical view of salvation) often criticize its adherents of combining works with the Gospel. They have a patent misunderstanding of the reality of Christians and sin. Positionally, Christians are no longer sinners (Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 1:5, 7). We are saints, joint-heirs, in the light, children of the king. However, in this life we have a corrupted mind and body. That corruption is at war with the new spirit within us (Rom. 7). Sadly, Christians often given in to the temptations of the flesh. But if a Christian has moments when they act contrary to their faith, how do we they know - how do we know - that we are truly in the faith? One word: repentance (Rom. 2:4; 1 John 1:8, 9). If a professed believer continues to sin with impunity then their behavior belies their profession (Rom. 3:7, 8; Rom. 6:1).

LS understands the corruption of the flesh will cause us many pains until we are finally liberated in glory. But even with those many pains, the work of the Spirit will have evidence in the lives who truly are children of God. These precious saints may not just struggle with sin, they may fight a battle that leaves them bloodied and bruised. I am reminded of the lyrics of the song C*ry out to Jesus from the band Third Day, "For the one's who can't break the addiction and chains, you try to give up but you come back again. Just remember you're not alone in your shame and your suffering". Some of the sins that Christians commit are shameful. How can a child of God do such things? With Paul, I cry out, "Who shall rescue me from this body of death?!" Jesus Christ, the Son of God! As we crawl back to Him (and sometimes it seems like a literal crawl) in contrition and repentance, we find Him always faithful to accept us. Even when we are faithless to Him, He will not be faithless to us because we carry His name (2 Tim. 2:13).

Hi Brother Reformed. I think you mean 'opponents' of LS in your opening statement, not proponents? If not then I am misunderstanding your post altogether. If the former is the case I give a hearty 'Amen' to what you say here. There is, however, a vast difference between one living a lifestyle of sin (in which it is a given said is unrepentant) and those who struggle with their own sin, fight it, live repentant lifestyles. The struggle is key in my opinion. Thanks for your good post!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Here is more evidence of FGT error. In the OP It was mentioned that FGT proponents teach that a person can apostatize, yet they are still saved.

"It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing. He is called a carnal Christian" Joseph Dillow, from The Bible Knowledge Commentary.

Joseph Dillow is another FGT proponent. It has been suggested in this thread that the things I stated in the OP are false and a misrepresentation of FGT. This is simply not the case. Dillow's own words show the actual teachings of those in FGT and validate what was stated in the onset of this thread. There is more.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Zane Hodges teaching that an apostate is still going to reap eternal life:

'I have a friend, and more than a friend, a man who labored with me side by side in the ministry of God’s Word in the little group that has become __________ Bible chapel and this friend has fallen away from the Christian faith. He graduated from Bob Jones University and from Dallas Theological Seminary. And about the time when he and his wife left Dallas his wife contracted a very serious illness which over the years got progressively worse until she was reduced to being a complete invalid, and after the death of his wife I visited my friend (who now lives in the Midwest and who teaches Ancient History in a secular university).

And as we sat in the living room together, face to face, he told me very frankly but graciously that he no longer claimed to be a Christian at all, that he no longer believed the things that he once preached and taught, and the situation was even worse than he described because I heard through others that in the classroom on the university campus he often mocked and ridiculed the Christian faith. As I sat in that living room I was very painfully aware that it was impossible for me to talk that man into changing his mind. It was impossible for me to talk him back to the conviction he had once held. It was impossible for me to renew him to repentance. You want to find someone harder to deal with than an unsaved person? Find a person like that….

Oh how disgraceful for a man to have known the truth and proclaimed the truth and then to deny the truth! He has put the Son of God to an open shame! Well you say, “I guess he’s headed for hell, right? I guess he’s headed for eternal damnation. He’s renounced his Christian faith.” Wait a minute. I didn’t say that, and neither does the writer of Hebrews. Let me remind you that Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to Me shall never hunger and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” And He also said, “He that cometh to Me I shall in no wise cast out.”… God’s will is that He lose no one . He has never lost anyone and He never will! And I grieve because my friend and brother has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him. He has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him! Do you believe in the grace of God?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------

To those trained in Scripture (Hebrews 5:11-14) the error above is apparent. Such teaching denies the Biblical doctrine of apostates who show they were never regenerate in the first place.

 

[DHK]

Who would disagree with that agedman? Does that have anything to do with what FGT teaches?​

I believe you should have done more research on your subject before misrepresenting an entire movement. The reason you have been avoiding giving a link to your OP is because you have posted your opinion, not a valid position.

Here is what the FGT teaches, and from three different sources:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Grace theology is a Christian soteriological view teaching that everyone receives eternal life the moment they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord. "Lord" refers to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore able to be their "Savior".[1] The view distinguishes between the "call to believe" in Christ as a Savior and receiving the gift of eternal life, and the "call to follow" Christ and become obedient disciples,.[1]

and

Question: "What is free grace? What is Free Grace Theology?"

Answer: Free Grace Theology is essentially a view of soteriology grown from more traditional Baptist roots. It was systematized by theologians such as Dr.’s Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges in the 1980s, mainly as a response to Lordship Theology or Lordship Salvation, which has its roots in Reformed theology. Today, Free Grace is still going strong, supported by such Christian voices as Tony Evans, Erwin Lutzer, Bruce Wilkinson, Dallas Theological Seminary, and the Grace Evangelical Society.

The basic teaching of Free Grace Theology is that responding to the “call to believe” in Jesus Christ through faith alone is all that is necessary to receive eternal life. This basic, simple belief brings assurance of “entering” the kingdom of God. Then, if a person further responds to the “call to follow” Jesus, he becomes a disciple and undergoes sanctification. The follower of Christ has the opportunity to “inherit” the kingdom of God, which includes receiving particular rewards based on works accomplished for God on earth.

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

and

Those who hold to the Free-grace position are generally Arminian in theology, although classical Arminianism does not adhere to this. By contrast, Reformed Christians generally hold to what is termed Lordship salvation. However, among adherents of each view one will find there are differences of language and emphasis.

According to Phillip Johnson:
"These days, support for the no-lordship gospel is mostly confined to a small but prolific group of speakers and writers. Dallas is still the geographical hub of their movement. The Grace Evangelical Society has published their journal since 1988. In fact, for the past 15 years or so, GES has almost singlehandedly kept the drumbeat alive for the no-lordship position."^[2]^ John MacArthur notes that, "Apparently, no-lordship doctrine no longer dominates Dallas Seminary the way it once did, but controversy over the issue is by no means dead."^[3]^

http://www.theopedia.com/Non-lordship_salvation

Your OP comes nowhere close to properly representing the FGT position.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I believe you should have actually comprehended both the OP and that which you frantically copied and pasted before posting.

I believe you should have done more research on your subject before misrepresenting an entire movement. The reason you have been avoiding giving a link to your OP is because you have posted your opinion, not a valid position.

Here is what the FGT teaches, and from three different sources:

Yes, I know what they teach and the redundant links you googled and hastily thought were refutations give part of that answer and actually support what I've said. Thanks!

Perhaps you should re-read the OP? Yes, you should as you aren't even discussing the argument at all and are on a rabbit trail and different subject matter altogether.

The quotes you have given validate what I stated. There is in FGT the false distinction between disciples and believers. You quoted that portion. Thanks for establishing what I stated, but you're probably unaware that's what you've even done.

Did you even bother to read what you've copied and pasted? It is highly doubtful because it actually supports what I've stated. I'm certain that was not your intent.

Then let's move on to your next quote as if the quote refutes anything I stated. No one here is arguing against the fact that a person is saved by grace through faith or saying that FGT doesn't teach that. That is what your second alleged refuting post states, that the system adheres to those solas: But this has nothing to do with this thread, the subject or the OP.

This is more evidence you have not read nor understood the point of the OP or even the information in the quotes you've provided. Go start another thread because it isn't the topic of this thread.

Let's move onto the last portion of your post that you erroneously thought refuted the OP:

Here is part of that quote:

According to Phillip Johnson: "These days, support for the no-lordship gospel is mostly confined to a small but prolific group of speakers and writers. Dallas is still the geographical hub of their movement. The Grace Evangelical Society has published their journal since 1988. In fact, for the past 15 years or so, GES has almost singlehandedly kept the drumbeat alive for the no-lordship position."^[2]^ John MacArthur notes that, "Apparently, no-lordship doctrine no longer dominates Dallas Seminary the way it once did, but controversy over the issue is by no means dead.

Do you even realize that what you posted was Phil Johnson showing the limited scope of the FGT error, and that it is mostly confined to GES? This quote wasn't to shed positive affirmation on the FGT movement.

Do you even know what you copied and pasted????????

No. Obviously you do not.

Are you aware that Phil Johnson is an opponent of FGT? I'm chuckling here. This is almost hilarious!

Your OP comes nowhere close to properly representing the FGT position.

lolzzzzz...You don't even understand the OP and are totally ignorant of its topic.

 

[Rob_BW]

___________Theology: Mocking God?

I'd invite the OP to fill in the blank with his own preferred brand (Reformed, Lordship?), and then say with a straight face that the title isn't the least bit inciting. It is amusing to watch him cry out that he's being attacked for no reason after firing the first volley in the thread title.