Free Grace Theology: Mocking God?

[Internet Theologian]

___________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.

Did you note the '?' in the OP? Of course the title is inciting and there is nothing wrong with that. It is no more inciting than the allowable 'The Reprobate Calvinist' thread that was allowed on this board.

Instead of participating in defaming and denigrating dialog, why not actually show how teaching that a lifestyle of iniquity will lead to eternal life, or not? Either do that or troll and denigrate elsewhere. Thanks.

 

[Revmitchell]

___________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.

This thread is not intended to create discussion. It is simply to be inflammatory and defame those with whom the author disagrees with. When you disagree with him/her in any reasonable way then he/she acts as if you have attacked him. The title is simply false. No one listed is mocking God. When anyone disagrees with the author in the slightest way he/she wants to use the strongest rhetoric possible to attack them, and its inappropriate. His/her first response to me was nothing but personal attacks and false accusations that I had attacked him/her. The author is not capable of having a reasoned discussion with those who do not hold his/her views.

 

[DHK]

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

No need to question my intelligence. That only shows your lack of debate skills.
I not only read and understood the OP, but I took the time to read through the entire thread before I posted anything. Then I did what you didn't do--found out what FGT really is.

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!

In this entire thread you haven't referred to FGT to anything remotely similar as to the definitions I have given you.

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.

I am quite aware what you wrote. You gave your opinion unsubstantiated by any link as all were able to see.

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.

You are wrong. According to those links those that believe in FGT do not believe in the LS camp, but simply believe in salvation by faith. Not so difficult is it?

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 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:

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!

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

Your ad hominems are a weakness of those unable to address a point in debate, or have nothing more intelligent to say.
Phil Johnson wrote in the 80's as you noted, about the same time that MacArthur popularized his view of LS. Coincidence? No.

 

[DHK]

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.

Keep in mind, that by definition (that given by me on page four) the FGT does not mock God. Therefore this is an inflammatory OP right from the very beginning.

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.

Who teaches that one can apostatize from the faith, and demonstrate how that falls in the boundaries of the FGT camp.
Who denies Christ, denies the gospel, and is still saved? Who believes that? Document your information.
--All you have so far is opinion and hearsay. Hearsay is one of those seven sins that God hates and is an abomination to him. He only calls it by a different word.

Popular proponents of this teaching are the late Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie and Charles Stanley (among many others) and one notably from the past Robert Sandeman (reference 'Sandemanianism'). Dallas Theological Seminary is well known for this teaching as well. Furthermore there is a dichotomy drawn, in this teaching, between a 'believer' and a 'disciple'. This presumably makes allowance for the antinomian like teachings.

You have made many assumptions and accusations and all without any documentation.
BTW, even Jesus made a difference between a new believer and a disciple.
LS advocates don't get that and don't seem to understand what progressive sanctification is.

The above is only a brief description of the teachings from this camp, which are quite popular today. Perhaps some on this board are advocates of this newer theological camp?

The above is not a description; the above is defamation.

Is this theological system biblical? Can a person sow to the flesh and still reap eternal life (Galatians 6:7-8)?

That which is theological and biblical is what I quoted to you already. But you dismissed it.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[agedman]

Observational questions:

Is there a post by the author of the OP that specifically points out the violated Scriptures that those in whom he quotes have trampled underfoot?

Is the author of the OP not basing his posts upon what various people have stated, and used terms that would lead the reader into considering the author of the thread is scorning those positions?

Where is the offering of Scripture alternatives or even support?

Is the author deceitful in the design and objective desired, or merely wants to see who would slip on the banana peal he left laying in the path?

Suggestion:
The author of the OP should progress to using Scriptures in which all may participate and come to agreement or disagreement.

Imo, the author of the OP should begin with:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. (Hebrews 6)​

Show how these believers are not under the judgment of God who will require of them (most certainly) to answer, but are not indeed surely saved.

Demonstrate how (if the author considers them not believers) how such are made "partakers of the Holy Spirit?" Are not such partakers only those of the redeemed?

For (imo) in the analysis of this thread, it would seem to me that the author is questioning the validity of this passage.

Or, is the author suggesting that believers can ultimately be erased from the "book of life" based upon what they do and say?

Is the author suggesting that, when one is redeemed by the work of God, circumstances and oppression can convene together to construct such conveyance as to thwart or in some manner cancel the work of God?

 

[Reformed]

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!

Sorry. Typo on my part. I went back and fixed it.

 

[Reformed]

FWIW I am not interested in the personal side show that has taken center stage in this thread. My responses are directed to the theological implications of FGT and LS.

 

[JamesL]

FWIW I am not interested in the personal side show that has taken center stage in this thread. My responses are directed to the theological implications of FGT and LS.

honestly, the "implications" argument seems to be all there is:
discounts holiness
mocks God
teaches Antinomianism
yada
yada

everything that has come from this supposed "internet theologian" has been based on his perceived implications. Then the worst part is when he blatantly and dishonestly claims that these "implications" are being taught explicitly.

 

[Internet Theologian]

FWIW I am not interested in the personal side show that has taken center stage in this thread. My responses are directed to the theological implications of FGT and LS.

Nor am I and I should not have addressed any of it. My apologies.

 

[Internet Theologian]

honestly, the "implications" argument seems to be all there is:
discounts holiness
mocks God
teaches Antinomianism
yada
yada

everything that has come from this supposed "internet theologian" has been based on his perceived implications. Then the worst part is when he blatantly and dishonestly claims that these "implications" are being taught explicitly.

Yep, this is the typical response (above). Nothing to bring to the table.

There is more than 'yada yada' as I've provided the proponents positions and have quoted them, affirming the OP. Nor is the OP only based upon perceived implications. Instead it is based upon actual statements that I've given from the likes of Dillow and Hodges.

There is more to come.

The only attempts at rebuttal of the OP in this thread are mockery, scorning, and taunting. Then there are quotes that state DTS and FGT believe in the 'solas' as if that were the subject matter and is a rebuttal the OP.

None of these rebutals have a thing to do with the OP whatsoever, but that is what you all have brought as an argument.

As to the 'mocking' portion contained in the OP, the question is being asked if in fact, teaching that living a lifestyle of sin is an attempt to make a mockery of God and the law of sowing and reaping. That is the point of the OP.

The FGT system in fact mitigates holiness, draws a false dichotomy between believers/disciples, (a new teaching) and is in fact antinomian theology.

For a person to believe they can sow to the flesh and reap eternal life is to show said person to be deceived. To teach this is to be an accomplice of the same. The admonition of Galatians 6 is warning 'be not deceived, God is not mocked...' If one teaches that a person can live in iniquity and still 'go to heaven' they are teaching deception.

 

[Internet Theologian]

No need to question my intelligence.

brother (assuming you are a male) your post actually supported my OP, anyone can see this. It didn't address the argument -- as stated no one is arguing against any of the 'solas'.

You're showing a complete misunderstanding of what the OP is addressing. If you'd care to actually address that then I will respond - it has nothing to do with Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone nor with the FGT statement of faith. Anyone can have a SOF, I am dealing with what they actually teach.

 

[JamesL]

what you've posted in the quotes of Dillow and Hodges are their respective teachings. One of which is a bona fide Free Grace position (Dillow). The other was met with much criticism even from within the Free Grace camp. Did you know that?

you're whole argument is nothing but quote mining and Lordship talking points.

that's not debate, and that most certainly isn't theology.

 

[InTheLight]

___________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.

Yep. I also find the charges of opponents erecting strawman and not understanding Free Grace to be ironic.

But I was told to stay out of this thread by IT, so I'll fade into the background.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

[JamesL]

I am dealing with what they actually teach.

Ummm, wrong. You haven't "dealt" with anything. You have falsely accused me of teaching something I don't, and hurled anathema based on your perception of implications.

have you responded yet to my "dealing" with your false accusation that a heinous "sinner's prayer" is synonymous with Free Grace theology?

 

[Internet Theologian]

what you've posted in the quotes of Dillow and Hodges are their respective teachings. One of which is a bona fide Free Grace position (Dillow). The other was met with much criticism even from within the Free Grace camp. Did you know that?

you're whole argument is nothing but quote mining and Lordship talking points.

that's not debate, and that most certainly isn't theology.

Yep I knew that. He's still a proponent of FGT.

What exactly is 'quote mining'?

Is this supposed to nullify what they actually teach and give them a pass, because, um, I actually quoted their teaching? Huge 'no no' you cannot actually use what they teach as evidence of what they teach? lolzzzzzzzzzzz

When you quote others, is that OK and considered 'evidence'? But of course it would be!

Since when has 'debate' been redefined (by you, nonetheless) to not include actual quotes of the proponents and opponents? That's what debate is and what debate has always been!

Your attempt to redefine what debate is, mitigate, and trivialize is nothing more than dishonesty on your part and quite frankly is asinine behavior.

Then there is the fact you've brought nothing to the table again, haven't addressed the actual OP with honest debate and evidence, but simply continue your campaign to malign what is offered and who offered it.

You're trolling jamesL.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Ummm, wrong. You haven't "dealt" with anything. You have falsely accused me of teaching something I don't, and hurled anathema based on your perception of implications.

have you responded yet to my "dealing" with your false accusation that a heinous "sinner's prayer" is synonymous with Free Grace theology?

Now you're fabricating stories; I've not once falsely accused you of teaching anything.

 

[JamesL]

Now you're fabricating stories; I've not once falsely accused you of teaching anything.

you have leveled a charge against "those" who espouse and teach Free Grace theology. That includes me.

 

[Revmitchell]

Who teaches that one can apostatize from the faith, and demonstrate how that falls in the boundaries of the FGT camp.
Who denies Christ, denies the gospel, and is still saved? Who believes that? Document your information.

Millennial Exclusionists of which those men listed in the op are part of.

 

[agedman]

Who denies Christ, denies the gospel, and is still saved? Who believes that? Document your information.

As I posted above, imo, the Hebrews 6 passage is stating that very scenario. When a believer has so embraced apostate thinking and views and have "fallen away."

Their is no room to consider such a believer will be sent to some millennial exclusion / kingdom exclusion flames for punishment. Such thinking is out of energy when it comes to being found Scriptural.

So, what then awaits that believer? Not rejection, but shameful admission of unworthiness.

Because "shame" has become almost non-existent in this modern world system, few now comprehend the depth of shame Peter felt when the Lord Jesus Christ looked at him after the rooster crowed.

No matter of good works stands the flames found at the judgment of Christ, and the shame of the apostate causes the stink of burned work to cling to them (imo).

The question ultimately resolves to whether the apostate is a faker or believer.

God knows those who are His.

 

[Jerome]

Have you been here before with a different handle?

Hmm...has anyone heard from savedbymercy? Cautious

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

Seems many are sensing a familiar M.O. from the O.P.

My guess: 'preacher4truth'