-
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: Mocking God?
- Thread starter Internet Theologian
- Start date
- Status
Yeah...my spidey sense was going off lol
Yeah, he hasn't asked anyone to explain what he said, so he knows you understand. Hahaha
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
I don't misunderstand the the FGT position at all. The have no statement of faith. What you posted was your opinion. You have no link. You have no statement of faith. If you did you would provide the URL to such a document but you can't. Why try to deceive people? IMO, You are acting like a troll.
BTW, unless the abbreviation is well known (like BTW), spell things out. Not all of us know internet jargon. It took the entire thread to figure out what DTS referred to. I don't know what SOF means. Perhaps I don't have one and you do, especially it means something like "sophomoric opinion,": but then I wouldn't know. I don't know what you are referring to. You say anyone can have one.
You have made so many accusations in the OP it is difficult to address them all at one time. Take one at a time.
Is a person a disciple at the moment he is saved? Does the Bible teach that?
Is it possible for a believer to apostatize? Is that a Biblical position? Are these FGT positions?
Does the FGT actually lead to antinomianism? Do you actually know the correct theological meaning of that term?
Take a couple of those accusations and address them. Show where the FGT teaches these--if indeed you can. Be sure you document you material, and not just give opinion.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
No-no. You need to go back and actually address the topic of the OP. You don't even know what it is nor have you addressed it to date.
In addition to that I've provided the teachings of FGT proponents and have quoted them in this thread. Therefore I've already addressed my arguments in the OP by said quotes which affirm my statements in the OP.
It's not my fault you're so far behind, off topic, present cut and paste material that has nothing to do with the OP, (not to mention your Phil Johnson gaffe who also supports my arguments) nor is it my fault that you don't understand abbreviated terms. But look, you read this thread and answered at least what DTS means. You're advancing and catching on. BTW 'SOF' is 'statement of faith'. Many churches and Christian groups abbreviate that. It is common knowledge.
Scorn that is without the support of Scripture is offensive, and not a mark of Spiritual maturity.
It matters so little how knowledgeable a person is, if they have not love for the brethren, coupled with the desire the edification of believers, all they say is as a irritating noise
The display of scorn and deceit in this thread lacks all sincere effort to enhance the understanding and wisdom of members of the BB.
This thread does not edify, nor is the author of the OP (imo) seeking the betterment of other believers.
He has not supported his statements with Scriptures, and has made scorn the temper of his posts.
Let me be the first to call for the thread to be closed.
No more time and space should be given to this sadness.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Actually brother agedman you're incorrect. Instead of others engaging the OP they've simply attacked and assumed things that were not said. Your assessment is dishonest. As far as Scriptural support show me exactly where I've failed. Youll find you cannot accomplish that.
In this thread I've provided statements showing the false teachings addressed in the OP. Instead of seeing this and admitting I've given evidence there is pretense it never happened, and in providing what these proponents have taught, clear evidence is mocked as only quoting their teachings or quote mining.
You don't know me nor my intentions and your accusations are false albeit I certainly did not react correctly towards those who came in only to ridicule, misrepresent, and name call. My apologies for that yet in the rest of your accusations they are false.
Six Hour Warning. Sometime after 4am 11/15/2015 Pacific Time, this thread will be closed.
I already addressed the OP line by line or at least passage by passage.
I did it here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/free-grace-theology-mocking-god.96836/page-5
You just didn't like my answer. Why should I do it a second time. Do you think you would like my second answer any better than my first?
The problem here is you fail to respond to the answers I give you. Go back and give an honest answer to my post, which you haven't done yet.
You have provided nothing but your opinion. I provided you quotes with links or URL's. You haven't done that. Give me one good reason why I should believe your hearsay.
Oh, I am not far behind. I have written my own statement of faith. Phil Johnson does nothing to help you. We haven't really discussed him. We can't discuss anything unless you put something on the table to discuss with some documentation including scripture.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Brother DHK I addressed your post you link above, yet you continue to pretend you've addressed it, yet it isn't addressing the OP. The OP addressed not if FGT says 'Christ alone' and that is what you argued, so you erected a strawman. Pretending is good enough for you obviously.
The OP talks of how FGT teaches a false dichotomy of disciple/believer, that professing believers can live in sin and are promised to reap eternal life and etc. You've addressed none of this to date. I provided quotes of men who teach this in that system. It's a proven fact and well known they teach this. Your response was to go hastily grab a google search and pretend you addressed the OP subject, and acted as if you understand FGT deeply.
You don't.
If you in fact did you'd know the well known erroneous teachings.
I'm not sure which camp you are in but according to your polemic and not addressing this issue I'd say you are of the easy-believism, carnal Christian assurance of eternal life camp. I'd bet (and you haven't taken time to read it because if you did you'd be all over it) you agree with Hodges that a person need only see the verse John 6:47 and express belief in that verse, and be saved, not even knowing who Jesus is, what He's done, nothing of His payment for sin, the cross, death, burial and resurrection. Hodges preached this hypothetical person into heaven only because he saw a verse and made mental assent to believe it (man on the beach scenario). That is false teaching and reductionist error.
The OP talks of how FGT teaches a false dichotomy of disciple/believer, that professing believers can live in sin and are promised to reap eternal life and etc. You've addressed none of this to date. I provided quotes of men who teach this in that system. It's a proven fact and well known they teach this. Your response was to go hastily grab a google search and pretend you addressed the OP subject, and acted as if you understand FGT deeply.
You don't.
If you in fact did you'd know the well known erroneous teachings.
I'm not sure which camp you are in but according to your polemic and not addressing this issue I'd say you are of the easy-believism, carnal Christian assurance of eternal life camp. I'd bet (and you haven't taken time to read it because if you did you'd be all over it) you agree with Hodges that a person need only see the verse John 6:47 and express belief in that verse, and be saved, not even knowing who Jesus is, what He's done, nothing of His payment for sin, the cross, death, burial and resurrection. Hodges preached this hypothetical person into heaven only because he saw a verse and made mental assent to believe it (man on the beach scenario). That is false teaching and reductionist error.
You gave no Scripture to show the teaching as false.
The BB just doesn't take one's word for it. Show us the Scriptures.
So show the verse and express from that context that the statement of Hodges is wrong. We of the BB are in this part of the forum because we desire to build Scripture upon Scripture. Precept upon Precept.
IF you had done so, you probably would have met with far more agreement than push back.
If you claim a theological system is wrong, then it must be shown wrong by Scripture, not merely human contrivance.
John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
Is this not the truth? Are you saying that Christ added head knowledge at some point as a requirement?
Is your argument that someone must acquire some skill, or some creed understanding?
Show me in Scripture that other than Belief one is redeemed.
Show me in Scripture that such Belief does not come by the direct and purposed work of God without regard to station, wealth, talent, intellect and cunning.
Give Scriptures to support your thinking. Man's opinions don't make much difference on the BB.
No you haven't addressed. I will demonstrate that for you.
Let's stop here. I challenged you on this one point alone.
You came back with zip, nada, nothing.
I will ask you again?
Where in the Bible does it teach that a new believer is a disciple?
Can you give scripture or demonstrate that through scripture. Stop calling it false doctrine if you can't do this. The erroneous doctrine is all yours. You simply shy away from debate. You are good at laying down the accusations, but not very good at backing them up.
I am of the "believe the Bible camp," and take no man's word for it.
That is nonsense.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
So let me ask you something, DHK, do you believe the false dichotomy of believer/disciple?
Do you believe this to be made up by me, that FGT didn't bring this teaching?
(I have evidence they teach this, but why quote them you'd simply deny it when it proves you wrong? )
Thirdly, did you come up (if you believe in it, and you assuredly do, as it allows carnal christian error) with this teaching on your own?
Now, you dismissed the 'man on beach' portion, and have called it nonsense. Elaborate what you mean. That the easy-believism contained in it is nonsense, that it shows what you believe, so you write it off (as you do things regularly), that you are saying what Hodges teaches is nonsense. Which is it. Elaborate, don't hide. Or do you believe a person can read a verse and know nothing of the Christ on it and be 'saved'?
BTW, everyone says they are of the 'believe the bible camp' and it means absolutely nothing.
Proof that the Bible show s new believers are called 'disciples'? Matthew 28, ark, new convertgs on Paul's missionary journeys in Acts. It's there. But even if you are shown proof you must continue on in denial of Bible to hold to precepts of men such as Hodges, Ryrie who, in fact gave you your teachings that have grown as a leaven in IFB type churchs, 'unawares' as most false doctrine creeps in this way.
Do you believe this to be made up by me, that FGT didn't bring this teaching?
(I have evidence they teach this, but why quote them you'd simply deny it when it proves you wrong? )
Thirdly, did you come up (if you believe in it, and you assuredly do, as it allows carnal christian error) with this teaching on your own?
Now, you dismissed the 'man on beach' portion, and have called it nonsense. Elaborate what you mean. That the easy-believism contained in it is nonsense, that it shows what you believe, so you write it off (as you do things regularly), that you are saying what Hodges teaches is nonsense. Which is it. Elaborate, don't hide. Or do you believe a person can read a verse and know nothing of the Christ on it and be 'saved'?
BTW, everyone says they are of the 'believe the bible camp' and it means absolutely nothing.
Proof that the Bible show s new believers are called 'disciples'? Matthew 28, ark, new convertgs on Paul's missionary journeys in Acts. It's there. But even if you are shown proof you must continue on in denial of Bible to hold to precepts of men such as Hodges, Ryrie who, in fact gave you your teachings that have grown as a leaven in IFB type churchs, 'unawares' as most false doctrine creeps in this way.
I simply say that these are your assertions. Back them up with scripture!
Here is an example:
Act 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Why did John depart?
This is only verse 13. The first four verses of the chapter describe the church commissioning Paul and Barnabas on this, their very first missionary journey. Now, not very far into it, John quits and goes home. Why?
Perhaps he was a believer but not yet a disciple.
For Jesus taught:
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
--He didn't pass the test of discipleship. According to your theology he wasn't saved.
According to Jesus he wasn't a disciple.
Who do you think I should believe?
I believe the words of Christ over the opinions of man.
I am not certain what you are asking, DHK.
Are you attempting to say that there is no contrast (dichotomy) between the make up of a believer and the make up of a disciple?
Perhaps you are asserting that the two stand separate and unconnected?
Or, that the above two questions are to be taken as there a contrast, and the two cannot be separated?
The word "false" suggests that you hold that there is no dividing that can be discerned between believer and disciple - is that the correct assumption?
Excellent example of question begging. Nicely played!
I wish more was done on this topic.
When documenting why one doesn't accept the teaching of another, isn't it helpful to attend to the Scriptures and display what violation is taking place by the teaching?
For example: Are the words put together (Free, Grace, and Theology) actually wrong?
Is not the Grace of God given to humankind without regard to that human's ability, wealth, status, ...?
So, if the view of "Free Grace Theology" wrong, then it must be discovered not by just posting statement of those who may or may not be associated with the view, but also the intention and application of the Scriptures that show that the view is un-Scriptural. Perchance is the title of the view, not really supporting the internal evidence of the view?
Perhaps there should be another thread started on the topic and a complete disclosure attempted in which the Scriptures are ascendant, appropriately applied, and various nuances of the topic be made available for the edification of all.
I really do consider that the topic should and needs to be discussed.
I would encourage, Internet Theologian to start again, make appropriate adjustments to his approach, and see where the thread leads.
Is in fact FGT Scripturally unsound?
When documenting why one doesn't accept the teaching of another, isn't it helpful to attend to the Scriptures and display what violation is taking place by the teaching?
For example: Are the words put together (Free, Grace, and Theology) actually wrong?
Is not the Grace of God given to humankind without regard to that human's ability, wealth, status, ...?
So, if the view of "Free Grace Theology" wrong, then it must be discovered not by just posting statement of those who may or may not be associated with the view, but also the intention and application of the Scriptures that show that the view is un-Scriptural. Perchance is the title of the view, not really supporting the internal evidence of the view?
Perhaps there should be another thread started on the topic and a complete disclosure attempted in which the Scriptures are ascendant, appropriately applied, and various nuances of the topic be made available for the edification of all.
I really do consider that the topic should and needs to be discussed.
I would encourage, Internet Theologian to start again, make appropriate adjustments to his approach, and see where the thread leads.
Is in fact FGT Scripturally unsound?
This thread is closed.
- Status