Free Grace Theology: Mocking God?

[Internet Theologian]

Though I'm on the fence regarding the whole lordship vs. free grace thing, I must admit that free grace theology from the outside may look like antinomianism. But the rhetoric concerning FG proponents are a little extreme.

I agree the rhetoric may seem extreme, but the fact is the teaching makes allowance for professing believers to live in accordance with the lifestyles given in the OP. There is nothing in Scripture assuring any person living a lifestyle of sin that eternal life is their's - quite the opposite is presented in the Scriptures. FGT conflates evidence of salvation with works and the system is a reaction against so-called Lordship Salvation which became more well known after MacArthurs book 'The Gospel According to Jesus'. However, Macs book only reiterated what the church fathers, Puritans and other Divines had taught for years.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Hmm...has anyone heard from savedbymercy? Cautious

From looking in on BB for a long while it is assumed you are speaking of savedbymercy, the resident hyper-calvinist? There is nothing hyper-cal in the OP nor in what I believe brother. Presumably the above post is your attempt to castigate and draw ridicule on a brother.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I see this as an issue of sanctification. If people are truly saved, they will, even if very slowly, will conform their lives more and more to the image of Christ. Now, if all of us lived to be 1,000,000,000 years old, we would never attain the level that Christ is. But, we will show growth in our walk with God.

If someone is saved, they are sanctified, justified and converted. You can't have one without the others. 1 Cor. 6 bears this truth Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.[vss 9-11]

Agreed wholly on this issue. Having come from a church background heavily influenced by DTS and FGT teachings, it was taught to professing believers that; 1) There is no evidence of regeneration; 2) Preaching of evidence of salvation is a works-based religion; 3) Say this prayer and you are going to heaven; 4) One can apostatize from the faith and is still saved if they prayed a prayer to be saved (Romans 10:13) because, in its circular reasoning 'God cannot lie' (referring back to Romans 10:13).

In the Gospel of Paul and Christ there is no such teaching of assurance of salvation for those who sow to the flesh, but quite the contrary. The passage you've given supports this, and so also Galatians 5:19 and following, to which 6:7-8 are in the same context which is used in the OP.

 

[Deacon]

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.

Your title of this thread stating that those who follow Free Grace Theology are mocking God is preposterous and troll-like.
It reveals to me that you are polarized, unable to focus outside the box you are in.
It tells me you don’t try to understand those with a different theological frame of reference.

Free Grace Theology simply recognizes the sufficiency of the cross to bring a sinner to salvation.
The process of sanctification is not a part of one's new-birth but a product of it.
Anything less is a works based theology.

Rob

 

[Internet Theologian]

I agree with Rev. The OP misrepresented the Free Grace position with the use of the word Antinomia. The insinuation is that FG teachers are advocating a licentious lifestyle, which is hardly the case.

You also are all over the place. You say that it is a false accusation, by implication, that these advocate salvation for those who live a licentious lifestyle, then below you affirm what they teach and are in agreement with it.

but it is possible that some believers will become apostate, deny the faith, live their whole life for themselves.

The above teaching is antinomian and is the same things taught by DTS and FGT, and is, in fact advocating a licentious lifestyle.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Your title of this thread stating that those who follow Free Grace Theology are mocking God is preposterous and troll-like.
It reveals to me that you are polarized, unable to focus outside the box you are in.
It tells me you don’t try to understand those with a different theological frame of reference.

Free Grace Theology simply recognizes the sufficiency of the cross to bring a sinner to salvation.
The process of sanctification is not a part of one's new-birth but a product of it.
Anything less is a works based theology.

Rob

Thanks for the slanderous remarks, brother. Can you show me in the OP where it is 'stating' that those who follow FGT are mocking God? The fact is that you cannot and that you are assuming then slandering. That is not at all what I stated.

My point is to show that teaching others that living in iniquity, they can still be assured they are saved, is to 'Be deceived' and that 'God is not mocked'. Note the '?' on the OP title.

I agree that FGT teaches the sufficiency of the cross, no one doubts that, nor do I deny that. Can you show in the OP or elsewhere that I've denied this? The OP is focused not on that portion of its teaching, but on another, and its outcome.

The OP is about how it treats those professing believers who live a lifestyle of iniquity. No need to underline, I am in full agreement concerning sanctification being a product of regeneration. The teachings of FGT deny this, when making eternal life an assurance to those who live in iniquity - that is the point of the OP, not the false accusations you've given, laden with insults.

It is an attempted mockery of God to teach that living in iniquity will equal eternal life reaped.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Your title of this thread stating that those who follow Free Grace Theology are mocking God is preposterous and troll-like.
It reveals to me that you are polarized, unable to focus outside the box you are in.
It tells me you don’t try to understand those with a different theological frame of reference.

Free Grace Theology simply recognizes the sufficiency of the cross to bring a sinner to salvation.
The process of sanctification is not a part of one's new-birth but a product of it.
Anything less is a works based theology.

Rob

It is of my opinion you have judged the OP's intent rather hastily my Brother. As you rightly stated, sanctification is a product of regeneration and subsequently salvation. Can the truly converted remain in a state of rebellion while sanctification is dormant? Even if growth...sanctification...may be slow, the truly saved will grow more and more into the image of Christ.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It is of my opinion you have judged the OP's intent rather hastily my Brother. As you rightly stated, sanctification is a product of regeneration and subsequently salvation. Can the truly converted remain in a state of rebellion while sanctification is dormant? Even if growth...sanctification...may be slow, the truly saved will grow more and more into the image of Christ.

Thanks brother, that is my point. I regret all the name calling and scorning in this thread, it is sad to behold. Those that have done so are most likely good brothers in Christ and that's how I will leave it.

 

[JamesL]

I see this as an issue of sanctification. If people are truly saved, they will, even if very slowly, will conform their lives more and more to the image of Christ......

If someone is saved, they are sanctified, justified and converted. You can't have one without the others...

The most unbiblical aspect of your view is that works are inextricably joined to faith, so that the end validates the beginning. You end up with the very same teaching as an Arminian, except on a dishonest level

Scripture clearly teaches that we are justified APART FROM works. Justification is fixed and secure before any potential for success or failure

 

[JamesL]

You also are all over the place. You say that it is a false accusation, by implication, that these advocate salvation for those who live a licentious lifestyle, then below you affirm what they teach and are in agreement with it.

It seems you are engaging in the same type of inflammatory sensationalism that "Mac" and company have for 25 years. BTW.....Mac? You sound like someone else on this board who calls him that and also misrepresents the Free Grace position.

The above teaching is antinomian and is the same things taught by DTS and FGT, and is, in fact advocating a licentious lifestyle.

Do you understand the word "advocate" ??

If I say..."It's possible for you to drink bleach, but there are dire consequences."
Does that equate to "advocating" the drinking of bleach? If you think so, then you have a problem with language and proper representation, and are not worth the discussion

 

[Internet Theologian]

Part of the problem with theological disciplines such as FGT is the focus of the evangelistic effort. It has become increasingly popular to ask 'Would you like to know that you will go to heaven when you die'? In my opinion this is peddling the Word of God; 2 Cor. 2:17.

Of course people want to know this, but it is not biblically accurate. The logical outcome is then that people are being assured they are going to heaven when they die. But this is not the main concern of the transforming Gospel message at all. Recently I spoke with a woman who has lived a lifestyle of adultery, immorality, yet in a church here she prayed a prayer. I did ask her from what Christ came to save her from and she responded 'From Hell'. This is partly true but at the same time is way off. I expressed that He came to save His people from their sins, and she wanted none of that while at the same time she was guaranteeing that even in her life of sin she is 'going to heaven'.

The fact is Jesus did come to save His people from their sins. This is the focus of the Gospel; Matthew 1:21. The sinner, under influence of the Gospel message becomes one who is aware of his sinful state, Matthew 11:25-30; Luke 18:13; Psalm 79:9; note also Psalm 51:10, and of his need for mercy and salvation from sin. The point of focus of true biblical salvation is just that - salvation from sin, and also these: Sanctification; Hebrews 12:14; 2 Cor. 7:1; Being conformed to the image of Christ; Romans 8:29. Note that all believers are being transformed, not merely a few who have 'decided' to become disciples; 2 Cor. 3:18.

The thrust of the Gospel is to save His sheep and to transform them into the image of Christ - every single one of them, and this decree will not fail. To preach eternal life reaped for living in iniquity is foreign to Scripture and is a deformed gospel, and many are being deceived by this false promise and message.

 

[robustheologian]

Presumably the above post is your attempt...

Yes, you are presuming.

 

[Don]

Part of the problem with theological disciplines such as FGT is the focus of the evangelistic effort. It has become increasingly popular to ask 'Would you like to know that you will go to heaven when you die'? In my opinion this is peddling the Word of God; 2 Cor. 2:17.

Of course people want to know this, but it is not biblically accurate. The logical outcome is then that people are being assured they are going to heaven when they die. But this is not the main concern of the transforming Gospel message at all. Recently I spoke with a woman who has lived a lifestyle of adultery, immorality, yet in a church here she prayed a prayer. I did ask her from what Christ came to save her from and she responded 'From Hell'. This is partly true but at the same time is way off. I expressed that He came to save His people from their sins, and she wanted none of that while at the same time she was guaranteeing that even in her life of sin she is 'going to heaven'.

While I agree with most of your post, I've sectioned only this part because I find some fault with the superficiality of this section.

For example, you indicate there is fault with the woman's response about Christ saving us from Hell -- i.e., "partly true." I submit that your fault is your expectation of the woman's understanding of her sin condition. In other words, she answered to the best of her understanding. Instead of jumping ahead and expressing that He came to save His people from their sins (this statement is true; bear with me), how about asking her why she (or any of us) needed to be saved from Hell? What did we do that put us in a condition of needing to be saved? In other words, leading her to the conclusion that it is sin.

I may be presuming, and that what I've described is exactly what you did. If so, my apologies. If not, please consider. You presented to a person that her answer was incorrect, without ensuring an understanding of why the answer was incorrect. Human nature -- especially sinful human nature -- abhors being told we're wrong.

 

[Internet Theologian]

...not worth the discussion

Fair enough.

Yes, you are presuming.

Actually I nailed it, your intentions were noted and were willfully meant to denigrate a brother and be divisive. Anyone can see that.

 

[Internet Theologian]

While I agree with most of your post, I've sectioned only this part because I find some fault with the superficiality of this section.

For example, you indicate there is fault with the woman's response about Christ saving us from Hell -- i.e., "partly true." I submit that your fault is your expectation of the woman's understanding of her sin condition. In other words, she answered to the best of her understanding. Instead of jumping ahead and expressing that He came to save His people from their sins (this statement is true; bear with me), how about asking her why she (or any of us) needed to be saved from Hell? What did we do that put us in a condition of needing to be saved? In other words, leading her to the conclusion that it is sin.

I may be presuming, and that what I've described is exactly what you did. If so, my apologies. If not, please consider. You presented to a person that her answer was incorrect, without ensuring an understanding of why the answer was incorrect. Human nature -- especially sinful human nature -- abhors being told we're wrong.

Thanks Don, and yes, you are presuming although incorrectly, and if you find it 'superficial' it is due to the fact that it wasn't a comprehensive examination of the event. The context of the discussion with the woman is that it was OK for her to live in sin, because 'she is going to heaven' no matter what, as she was a professing believer because she had once prayed a prayer. However she continued in her life of sin. She practiced adultery, was into pornography. There was more to end the dialog with the woman as well - it was an opportunity to share with her that Christ came to set us free from the bondage of sin.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The most unbiblical aspect of your view is that works are inextricably joined to faith, so that the end validates the beginning. You end up with the very same teaching as an Arminian, except on a dishonest level

Scripture clearly teaches that we are justified APART FROM works. Justification is fixed and secure before any potential for success or failure

Nope. James avers faith w/o works is dead. As Brother Paul Washer noted in his book 'Gospel Assurance and Warnings', he correctly stated Apostle Paul and James' teachings are the same. Paul came from justification by faith as the intial aspect of salvation, whereas James from the resultant works being a product of salvation. And no, I am not purporting a works based salvation, either, so don't go there. James' book is where I take my stance.

 

[SovereignGrace]

JamesL, remember, we are justified apart from any works on our part. But we don't have justification alone, but there is also sanctification, salvation and finally glorification on the day the Lord returns. When are we justified? When we believe. Belief is not a work, and that is what Paul emphatically stated. James is showing that works flow from after being justified, having justification. The works we do are the evidence of who we are working for someone, whether it be Satan or God.

 

[JamesL]

....The context of the discussion with the woman is that it was OK for her to live in sin, because 'she is going to heaven' no matter what, as she was a professing believer because she had once prayed a prayer. However she continued in her life of sin....

here's where your whole premise is off track. You have attributed that warped "pray this prayer" nonsense to Free Grace Theology. Why? On what grounds?

Have you read any DTS heavyweight promoting it?

the whole notion is the antithesis of Free Grace

 

[Reformed]

I must admit that free grace theology from the outside may look like antinomianism. But the rhetoric concerning FG proponents are a little extreme.

I do not know how free grace theology can be anything but antinomian. Some of the advocates of FGT (as mentioned in the OP) hold to a more nuanced view, but their core belief is the same. At its extreme there is a very eastern-religion connection between FGT and its evangelistic efforts (Easy Believism). According to the FGT schema the power is in the prayer, not regeneration. Easy Believism rejects repentance as being part of soteriology. In fact that rejection is essential to FGT. If there is nothing to repent from then there is no consequence to the individual, even if the individual professes faith in Christ but lives a life of wanton, open sin. That is exactly what the Apostle Paul condemned in Romans 6.

 

[robustheologian]

Actually I nailed it...

Far from it, you were right the first time...you presumed.

Actually I nailed it, your intentions were noted...

As far as intentions go that's all anyone but God can do is presume or should I say assume what someone else's intentions are.

...and were willfully meant to denigrate a brother and be divisive. Anyone can see that.

Several of the above replies actually make you out to be the one denigrating other fellow Christians.

Anyone can see that.

Here you go assuming again...so sure that you're right huh? lol

Your attitude seems very familiar and seeing that you're still new here......I wonder what happened to SBM.