Free Grace Theology: Mocking God?

[tyndale1946]

Hmm...has anyone heard from savedbymercy? Cautious

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

 

[Internet Theologian]

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.

Excellent response. Romans 3:28 is being at the least, misused in his response. But those who understand salvation as we do will always be accused of works based religion, which is a conflation of evidence and works on the accusers part.

His (jamesl) claim 'justification is fixed and secure before any potential for success or failure' is absurd and a feeble attempt to wax scholarly (or something)

Firstly we can never successfully gain it in any effort, and if we could lose our justification (salvation) we would.

The attacks on this board by many is sad - this is how they welcome brothers, witnessed from the outside looking in prior to joining. It's amazing how solidly some think they are theologically but the way they treat others shows many are actually clueless.

 

[Internet Theologian]

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

No, actually I nailed it, your post was an attempt to malign a brother you don't even know, and right off the bat. That's who you are obviously, and there you are at it again.

 

[robustheologian]

I do not know how free grace theology can be anything but antinomianism. I do disagree with the charge of FGT proponents mocking God. 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.

I don't disagree with the antinomianistic character of free grace...it looks the same as antinomianism. The primary difference is FGT proponents still view sin as serious (just not that serious) while antinomians don't view sin are serious at all. Like Revmitchell said, many FGT advocates hold some sort of pre-consummative punishment for sins (such as Millennial Exclusion) while antinomians don't really hold any substantial penalty for sin.

 

[Reformed]

I don't disagree with the antinomianistic character of free grace...it looks the same as antinomianism. The primary difference is FGT proponents still view sin as serious (just not that serious) while antinomians don't view sin are serious at all. Like Revmitchell said, many FGT advocates hold some sort of pre-consummative punishment for sins (such as Millennial Exclusion) while antinomians don't really hold any substantial penalty for sin.

I do not disagree. That is why I mentioned some hold to a "nuanced view", but in the end it reaches the same conclusion: Sin, whether serious or not, does not effect the validity of a person's profession. That is the inherent danger of FGT.

 

[robustheologian]

No, actually I nailed it, your post was an attempt to malign a brother you don't even know, and right off the bat. That's who you are obviously, and there you are at it again.

You've joined Saturday and you know who I am too?? I guess you can't be wrong since you obviously know everything. LOLOL

 

[Internet Theologian]

I do not know how free grace theology can be anything but antinomianism. 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.

Thanks for the candor and honesty, and I agree with you that it is antinomianism. You are correct that FGT rejects repentance and that is a huge red flag. To those hoodwinked by it, it is very subtle, a few pretexts here and there and they believe the system. One of the worst is the 'fire insurance' teaching (1 Cor. 3:15).

 

[robustheologian]

in the end it reaches the same conclusion: Sin, whether serious or not, does not effect the validity of a person's profession. That is the inherent danger of FGT.

Exactly.

 

[tyndale1946]

No, actually I nailed it, your post was an attempt to malign a brother you don't even know, and right off the bat. That's who you are obviously, and there you are at it again.

First of all you say free grace?... Was grace free?... It was for you and me but it came with a cost that in human terms cannot be fathomed... It was a gift that none of us deserved... Can you lose it?... There are some who say you can... I'm not one of them!... Do we think so low of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that he will lose of those he died for on the cross one that he shed his life's blood for... It is true in life we may fall to the lowest depths but never forget my brothers and sisters... I am God I change not therefore ye Sons of Jacob are not consumed!... Brother Glen

 

[Internet Theologian]

You've joined Saturday and you know who I am too?? I guess you can't be wrong since you obviously know everything. LOLOL

I don't know you by name but I'm getting 'who you are', yes. Keep slandering, scorning, denigrating, and keep up the callow taunting, its all I have to go by as that is your walk. It was unnecessary for you to attempt to malign me by suggesting I am SBM in the beginning of this thread, and that was only meant to defame a person and malign them to others who would join your scorning. But that's 'you'.

 

[Internet Theologian]

First of all you say free grace?... Was grace free?... It was for you and me but it came with a cost that in human terms cannot be fathomed... It was a gift that none of us deserved... Can you lose it?... There are some who say you can... I'm not one of them!... Do we think so low of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that he will lose of those he died for on the cross one that he shed his life's blood for... It is true in life we may fall to the lowest depths but never forget my brothers and sisters... I am God I change not therefore ye Sons of Jacob are not consumed!... Brother Glen

Free Grace is a theological system. I am not mocking that Grace is free. You need to go re-read the OP. Goodness sake brother know what you're doing and saying before you conclude...

 

[Internet Theologian]

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.

Nailed!

 

[Van]

It is easy to find fault with the soteriology of others, less easy to put forth with clarity the soteriology of the bible. Easy Believeism is the mistaken view that comes closest to OP characterization of Free Grace Theology.

Do we save ourselves by believing the right things with the right intensity? Or are we saved only when God credits our belief as righteousness and places us spiritually "in Christ." Automatic salvation upon professing Christ is found no where in scripture. We are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, but it is God doing the choosing.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It is easy to find fault with the soteriology of others, less easy to put forth with clarity the soteriology of the bible. Easy Believeism is the mistaken view that comes closest to OP characterization of Free Grace Theology.

Do we save ourselves by believing the right things with the right intensity? Or are we saved only when God credits our belief as righteousness and places us spiritually "in Christ." Automatic salvation upon professing Christ is found no where in scripture. We are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, but it is God doing the choosing.

I was reading some on Finney. He equated salvation, and making one's heart new as when one chooses a career. It is achieved simply by 'determination'.

 

[Internet Theologian]

It is easy to find fault with the soteriology of others, less easy to put forth with clarity the soteriology of the bible. Easy Believeism is the mistaken view that comes closest to OP characterization of Free Grace Theology.

Do we save ourselves by believing the right things with the right intensity? Or are we saved only when God credits our belief as righteousness and places us spiritually "in Christ." Automatic salvation upon professing Christ is found no where in scripture. We are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, but it is God doing the choosing.

BTW finding fault with the theology of others isn't necessarily easy as you suggest so that would be a misnomer. Some of the nuances are quite subtle. One must be acquainted with the true in order to see that which is error - Hebrews 5:11-14.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I was reading some on Finney. He equated salvation, and making one's heart new as when one chooses a career. It is achieved simply by 'determination'.

Yuck. I am sure he meant well, but his teachings are killing our churches even unto this day.

 

[Deacon]

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.

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.

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.

...great essential agreement exists between proponents and opponents of lordship salvation. Both sides agree that regeneration, or the impartation of eternal life by the Holy Spirit to a sinner, is required for salvation. Both sides agree that regeneration produces a positional change: a Father-child relationship is established between God and the believing sinner. Both sides also agree that regeneration produces a constitutional change: a person receives the Holy Spirit and eternal life, which is God’s quality of life placed within his soul. This constitutional change provides the possibility and the power for a superb transformation of character and conduct. Both sides agree that such transformation is expected, desired, demanded, and possible for the believer. Both sides also agree that Christians can sin, and sin severely.


Both sides agree that sin in a believer is serious and brings on him or her the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and should result in confrontation and discipline by the church. And both sides agree that such disobedience can last for some period of time in a believer.… The truth is, lordship salvation does not teach that every professing Christian who sins is not a true believer. Likewise, free grace teachers do not affirm the salvation of everyone who claims to be a Christian.

Undoubtedly, much of Christian history has taught that regeneration will produce some outward and visible change and that no change whatsoever may be evidence of a lack of true regeneration. But free grace teachers teach the same thing. The points of disagreement go back to the nature of faith and assurance. What the free grace position simply will not allow is that the change produced by regeneration is the grounds of or the evidence for assurance of genuine salvation.
T. G. Lewellen, "Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught throughout Church History?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (January–March 1990), 65.

Rob

 

[robustheologian]

I don't know you...

Exactly

...its all I have to go by as that is your walk.

My walk...from an internet forum Laugh

It was unnecessary for you...

You seem the one to be majoring in the unnecessary right now

...suggesting I am SBM in the beginning of this thread...

If you can suggest that you know me by what I type, then I can suggest that you are SBM by what you type.

 

[tyndale1946]

Free Grace is a theological system. I am not mocking that Grace is free. You need to go re-read the OP. Goodness sake brother know what you're doing and saying before you conclude...

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

 

[Don]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.