Free Grace Theology

[Internet Theologian]

Brother IT, your very first "like" was from me.
My "attack" concerned the title you chose for the thread {Free Grace Theology, Mocking God?] The title appeared to me to be deliberately provocative and quite derogatory in tone. You were ridiculing those who follow Free Grace Theology!
I merely pointed out to you what your thread titles exposed about you.

The current thread of yours titled, "A Casual Gospel" begins, "…one need only to take a look at the message stemming from Free Grace Theology and other easy-believe-ism systems". This also belittles those of us that believe in Free Grace Theology. Do you see what you're doing???

If you want to dialog in a friendly manner I'd suggest that you approach the topic with grace.
Take a closer look at the words you use, your Calvinism is showing.

This aggressive tone is throughout the pages of responses you give to others. Your internet wife follows you and the two of you "like" one another's aggressive theology. Tone it down a bit and we can discuss things civilly.

You mention the "official teaching of FGT". Zane Hodges is not a spokesman for Free Grace Theology – he's dead. He was a lightning rod, particularly relating to his illustration as you note. I never liked it and disagree with it.

The simple message of Free Grace Theology is:

1) God saves sinners by grace.
2) God keeps through grace those who are saved, and
3) God teaches in grace those who are saved and kept, how they should live and how they may live to his eternal glory. (Lewis Sperry Chafer, 1922)

Free Grace Theology CLEARLY separates God's work of Salvation from that of Sanctification and Discipleship. Salvation is an instantaneous event. It's one condition is faith. It was obtained through Christ's work alone, no works of ours needed.

Rob

Thanks brother. I'm not concerned that you gave me a 'like' and there was no need for you to rush in to the thread in the manner you did. No matter what my thread title was, or the content, you CHOSE to be combative and malicious.

Now, in the future be sure to notate the attacks against me, and not just what you subjectively see from me in my 'tone' (before you ever even speak to me) and be sure to address that 'other' behavior as well? Or, is it just because I'm from a different camp that you went off on me first post?

I also want you to be aware I'm not going to hang my head in shame concerning the truths of DoG that I adhere to, so it's going to bleed through in whatever I post because this is a theological forum. Your theology will as well. What I am really sensing is actually animosity for me due to my position coming from you.

By the way FGT is much more than you make it out to be. In its official stance it is grave error and your description of it is somewhat surreptitious and a bit short of the reality of what it teaches and allows. I tell what I believe no holds barred. Anyhow there has been provision in this thread for what FGT really teaches in all its error without dressing it up, and there is no need for anyone to continue to tell me I am a liar, or have a bad tone because I am direct.

Furthermore Scripture doesn't distinguish between disciples/believers nor does Scripture separate and categorize sanctification away from salvation, FGT does that. The system is in error and is a newcomer on the scene. Many teach it and are unaware they've adopted this error from popular speakers.

Tone down your attitude and how you address me and we could possibly get along. You've chosen not to in the past and the decision is still yours. Just keep in mind I'm not going to let you blame your behavior on me and a thread I made. It's frankly a lame excuse and as a believer I am sure you are above that.

 

[Iconoclast]

I found this;
http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/heresy-and-error/1337-sandemanianism

The Origin of Sandemanianism
This theological error is founded on the ideas promoted by Robert Sandeman (1718-1781) and his father-in-law, John Glas (1695-1773). Their belief is simple yet heretical – that ‘saving faith’ is merely the intellectual assent to a proposition. Their ideas are exemplified by the following:

"In a series of letters to James Hervey, the author of Theron and Aspasia, he [Sandeman] maintained that justifying faith is a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, differing in no way in its character from belief in any ordinary testimony." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition).

For those who do not readily recognise it, this is yet another version of Arminianism, for it tells us that our own works (assent) bring salvation. The problem is, that “simple assent” can be made to anything, from the colour of a car to choice of herbs in a soup! Mere assent is not how we obtain eternal salvation.

We must certainly agree with the terms and commands of the Lord, but unless we are reborn (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit, our assent is only intellectual and not spiritual. Therefore, it will not lead to salvation, but to an illusion causing us to join the tares. All true charismatics are with the tares, for example, as are Roman Catholics, etc. They do not know salvation, because their assent is only intellectual, or even emotional, or both. It is essential to understand that genuine regeneration is ONLY given to those who are already elect and predestinated to salvation. So, the deepest and most profound “simple assent” will have no effect on our eternal position, unless it is firstly caused by regeneration. And true assent will be enjoined with joy.

The “easy assent” taught by Sandeman is the same as “non-Lordship salvation”, or “easy believism” (or “cheap grace”) taught by so many cults and unbiblical groups today. It is found in their constant battle to get people to “just believe”, without teaching that belief must be backed by action – a truly saved life of discipleship. Sadly, we see abundant evidence of ‘non-Lordship” lives, who assent to Christ and the Gospel but then do nothing to prove their salvation by way of discipleship. They tend to be very active in their church life – something they believe is what they ought to do. But, this is not the same as discipleship, which has nothing to do with following the ‘churchy herd’ in planned activities and corporate misbeliefs. This kind of easy-believism is usually found amongst Arminians, whereas Reformed people tend to hold to ‘Lordship salvation’. However:

"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." 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." (Phillip Johnson: theopedia.com).

John Glas, a clergyman, took members out of the usual church life to begin a new church, and its people became known as ‘Glasites’; members accepted him as their overseer. He mainly taught the views and theology of the reformation. He was later joined by his radical son-in-law, Sandeman, who took the ideas and changed them, thus becoming open to the charge of antinomianism (the rejection of God’s laws in favour of grace alone). The Glasite churches no longer exist. (The same churches found in England were known as ‘Sandemanian’.

Sandeman disputed imputed righteousness, and taught that faith was a continuous activity finally resulting in assurance of hope. This is, again, faith achieved by works, whereas God says faith is a gift freely given by Himself to the born-again. At the time there was much heated argument over his views, which today are said, by some, to be “repetitive and of low intellectual worth” (banneroftruth.org).

We should note that the current Alpha Course can be described as ‘Sandemanianism in action’, for assent to its words is taken to equal salvation. Sandeman failed to see that his notion, that “simple assent” is itself a work and not faith, though his intentions appeared to be honourable. Many men, in an attempt to strip scripture to bare bones, can fall into error. The aim should simply be to expound what God says. The famed preacher, Christmas Evans, at one time adopted Sandeman’s view, but noted that this led to a deterioration as he entered ‘the cold and sterile regions of spiritual frost’, and was in the grip of ‘a cold heart towards Christ, and his sacrifice, and the work of his Spirit’. (the-highway.com). He then discarded Sandemanian ideas.

Andrew Fuller of Kettering, England, wrote a definitive opposition to Sandeman, from actual contact with his churches. He agreed, as I do, l that many churches were subjective and without truth, looking inwards instead of to Christ, to feelings instead of to the Spirit – much as happens today in charismatic circles. The heart cannot be separated from objective truth, he said.

© June 2012

 

[Internet Theologian]

I hope all of us are learning something!

 

[DHK]

Luke 14:33. "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple." It is a simple and uncomplicated response: "Repent and believe the good news" (Mark 1:15). Nothing complicated about that. We must forsake our sins and our selfishness and place all our abilities and our worldly possessions at the Lord's disposal.

The faith of a little child. Absolutely necessary. We must forsake all our presuppositions, all our prejudices, all our intellectual baggage to enter the kingdom. Children find that easier than adults.

And is a little child at the point of maturity in his life "to forsake mother and father, and his own brothers and sisters also", even to "hate them" to follow Christ. Will he forsake all to follow Christ?
Ludicrous! There is an obvious difference between a believer and a disciple which this example points out with clarity. A child is not ready to be a disciple.

 

[MB]

"Free Grace Theology" (FGT) stands (in some people's thinking) as the complete opposite of "Lordship Salvation." (LS)

That may not be accurate, especially as those who are reformed would perhaps express there view(s) on salvation.

Comparison (in simple terms) of the two views:

The reformed consider that God not only initiates, but in every aspect brings about the salvation of a person. That the person has no claim of initiating nor in any manner making a self willed decision of salvation. That God / Christ is not just the "author" but also the "finisher" of salvation.

. Why would God want to save an unrepentant sinner? Someone who most likely hates the Idea of a God that will rule over him when he is having such a good time racking up all those sins he has not confessed.
What good is repentance? Is it something we shouldn't worry about? I ask because if you can be saved without repentance we must not need it. Can we really be saved and still follow Satan's lead?
Can we be save without faith?

In the simplest terms, "FGT" has similar thinking. There is a lack of agreement among theological groupings, but basically all hold that God is the initiator and the one that accomplishes all that is necessary for salvation. That not one item of work is accomplished by anyone to gain salvation. Salvation is a gift and not of works. (Certainly, there are those Arminian types who use the word "accept" and "reject" but at the basic level salvation is still presented as a gift) So, there is at the very basic level agreement.

A gift must always be accepted which requires decision. Now if we do not accept it then this Gift is no longer a gift but a demand.

For this thread, let's start with two "sticking points."

One "sticking point" seems to be is the matter of "Lordship." That some "making Him Lord" must be part of the salvation or there is no salvation.

I don't see it that way at all but rather because of His love for me in saving me in the first place and because I love Him as much as I do. My desire is to do what pleases Him.

Here is the problem as I see it. Anytime one has to "make Him" anything that is initiating on some level works.

That one will by the new nature grow and mature as a believer is a distinguishable characteristic that even the world can bear witness - that the believer is changed. Such growth and evidence of growth is Scriptural. But that evidence does not bring salvation, nor is it a token of salvation. It is a token of the work of the Holy Spirit bringing the believer to separation away from the fleshly. Salvation is already given - it is a gift.

Another "sticking point" is the matter of repentance as it relates to salvation. Again, some view the repentance or lack of repentance as some key to unlock (my terms) salvation.

Here is the problem as I see it. Anytime one has to repent to be saved, one must do a work. Such thinking is NOT consistent with reformed views, but more in line with the Arminian.



When the Holy Spirit works and a believer is born, repentance pours forth from the new nature as natural as the cry, "Lord I believe!" Such "Godly sorrow" cannot be separated from the believer anymore than the salvation. It is part of the new nature and the impulse of the Holy Spirit bringing that believer aware of their need is hand in glove. It is not a work of flesh, but a work of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is already given - it is a gift.

The problem as I see it, conviction is what makes a person repent, so that he can be saved..

Now there are other "sticking points" that this thread may travel, but what I have attempted by this OP is to show that FGT may fit the Reformed thinking far better than some may have understood it could fit.

Then again, it may not.

I look forward to how this thread develops.

Maybe so.
MB

 

[Internet Theologian]

The reformed consider that God not only initiates, but in every aspect brings about the salvation of a person. That the person has no claim of initiating nor in any manner making a self willed decision of salvation. That God / Christ is not just the "author" but also the "finisher" of salvation.

This is the biblical view, it's not merely the Reformed position. It is purely monergistic 100% of God, Soli Deo Gloria!

Now there are other "sticking points" that this thread may travel, but what I have attempted by this OP is to show that FGT may fit the Reformed thinking far better than some may have understood it could fit.

I'm afraid you've failed in your attempted objective brother. What you've shown is that you are unaware of what FGT actually is and what it teaches. Only those in ignorance to FGT would consider or entertain the thought that it would be closer (fit) to Reformed doctrine than one would think. It is not, they are diametrically opposed. In fact some anti-Reformed know the system is a spurious theological position.

Then again, it may not.

Yes. It may not because it can not.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is alive and well brother. It is what FGT is all about. People can deny it all they want but this is what it officially teaches. No need to be in denial or remain naìve about its real tenets, nor pretend the things it preaches do not exist.

I fully expect, as in the other thread to be ridiculed, maligned, called a liar and attacked over this.

Of course no one on BB believes such things. Just ask themSneakySneakySneaky

 

[JonShaff]

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

So I've read through this thread and I'm still not sure what's being debated lol. Sounds like a lot of people talking past each other. Lots of accusing going on, too. Does a person have a hatred of sin upon conversion? Absolutely, we've been given God's nature. Does that mean we will recognize every sin we do and are capable of doing and stop doing it immediately? Get real...Every epistle has the continual reminder of the old man's desires and what the new man's desires should be and then exhorted to walk in them.

 

[Revmitchell]

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

So I've read through this thread and I'm still not sure what's being debated lol. Sounds like a lot of people talking past each other. Lots of accusing going on, too. Does a person have a hatred of sin upon conversion? Absolutely, we've been given God's nature. Does that mean we will recognize every sin we do and are capable of doing and stop doing it immediately? Get real...Every epistle has the continual reminder of the old man's desires and what the new man's desires should be and then exhorted to walk in them.

What I have believe could be the real issue when this subject comes up is there are some who see it as a personal issue for them. They may in fact not have been saved when they thought they first were if some of this is true that that threatens them. So people go in talking past each other using the same words and never really meaning the same things.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

So I've read through this thread and I'm still not sure what's being debated lol. Sounds like a lot of people talking past each other. Lots of accusing going on, too.

Oh come on, I'm sure you know exactly what is going on here. Maybe FGT hits home? And I will tell you this as well, not one person in this thread is falsely accusing FGT proponents nor is it being misrepresented.

Does a person have a hatred of sin upon conversion? Absolutely,

Not according to FGT. It's optional and only for disciples. They draw this false dichotomy and by their own words admit a gap between their beliefs and that of Christs by some 1800 years. Their position has only gained popularity within the last some 40 years. Does that tell you anything?

we've been given God's nature. Does that mean we will recognize every sin we do and are capable of doing and stop doing it immediately?

Who has made such a claim? Burn your straw man and stick to the facts, you're in a pretense at the present.

Get real...

You go first, I want to see how this is done, people been telling me this all my life!

Every epistle has the continual reminder of the old man's desires and what the new man's desires should be and then exhorted to walk in them.

OK. Every Epistle? I especially agree with the latter but in FGT that is all optional. No obedience necessary. Yet Jesus said His sheep follow Him, John 10:27. FGT says no they don't. Wonder who is correct here? Maybe those with options aren't actually sheep, but are maybe, goats? If you don't believe that these things are what FGT you need to re listen to the links provided, and read some because you'll hear it straight from the horses mouth.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Of course no one on BB believes such things. Just ask themSneakySneakySneaky

Exactly! It's funny how a couple grandstand with this claim as if they are the great spokesperson for all on BB and know each and every persons exact beliefs. Then what we've claimed all along comes to plain light and they come crawling out of the woodwork and admit to what we've seen them to believe.

Let's also not forget the 'No one teaches these things, you're a liar, give me links, give me proof, no one teaches these things'!!!!!!!!!!!!

I still don't buy that false pretense. They've heard it. They probably TEACH it themselves.

 

[Deacon]

Internet Theologian has charged those who believe Free Grace Theology with "grave error"

He posted an article by Bob Wilkin and charged us with "Sandemanianism", which in a nutshell says that saving faith is merely the intellectual assent to a proposition.

Correct me if I'm wrong; the charge comes from this statement in Bob Wilkins brief article, where he summarizes:

"Faith in Christ is intellectual assent. Stripped of its pejorative connotation, "intellectual assent" is a good definition of what faith is."​

The problem here is that "Internet Theologian" doesn't want to drop his pejorative stance.

The Reformed author, R. C. Sproul in his article, Faith Defined, denotes three concepts that define faith identified by the Reformers

Notitia: [facts] defined as the content of faith, or those things that we believe. In order to believe, we must know something about that someone, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Fiducia: [trust] Sproul defines as our conviction that the content of our faith is true. You can know about the Christian faith and yet believe that it is not true.

Assensus: [assenting to truthfulness] defined as the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition​

Bob Wilkins notes the first two aspects of faith early in the paragraph when he states: "Everlasting Life is a free gift (which the Lord Jesus fully paid for by his death on the cross for our sins) which is received by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from works of any kind." Wilkins continues… "The Free Grace position has its first characteristic that simply by believing in Jesus a person has eternal life. It advocates for faith alone, in Christ alone, nothing added, and no strings attached."

The charge of Sandemanianism fails. Wilkins agrees with the Reformed theologians here.

Sproul notes additionally:

Justification by faith alone has been opposed by Roman Catholicism, which says that a combination of our faith and good works provides for our justification. One impetus for this understanding has been Rome’s fear that the doctrine of justification by faith alone would encourage people to live immoral lives. Rome fears that this doctrine might lead some to think that the casual acceptance of Jesus without any change in one’s life is the kind of faith that justifies.​

Isn't this what the Internet Theologian fears, that Free Grace believers revel in their sin. It seems the Roman Catholic Church and Internet Theologian have the same fear; that people will believe, will know that Christ alone, without works rescued sinners from their hopeless state and gave them new life.

John MacArthur in his book Hard to Believe, states our assurance of faith comes not from our belief but from our works. He too fears that grace will lead to lawlessness. He once again places the burden of righteousness on us rather than on Christ.

"Don't believe anyone who says it's easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it is the fruit of actions not intentions…" Mac Arthur, Hard to Believe p. 93​

Free Grace Theology does not teach believers are free to sin: it teaches that our assurance rests not on our actions but on our belief.
For the believer, sin has a cost.

"The Bible also teaches that the Christian, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is possessed with a new standard of what is good or bad. His conduct either grieves, or does not grieve, the Holy Spirit. There is limitless suffering of heart in the path of the child of od who sins lawlessly. ... It is concluded, the, that the true child of God cannot sin lawlessly without great suffering and that suffering is due to the presence of the divine seed or nature in the Christian, which could never be experienced by unregenerate men who have not the Spirit (Jude1:19), constitutes a ground of distinction between those who are the children of God and those who are not. Lewis Sperry Chafer, He that is Spiritual​

I've been rather forceful confronting Internet Theologian, his posts have been many and his charges against Free Grace Theology have been severe.
I'd have hoped that he would have learned a bit from the words of those that started the thread that some understanding could be obtained. ... there is some hope.

Enough

Rob

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And is a little child at the point of maturity in his life "to forsake mother and father, and his own brothers and sisters also", even to "hate them" to follow Christ. Will he forsake all to follow Christ?
Ludicrous! There is an obvious difference between a believer and a disciple which this example points out with clarity. A child is not ready to be a disciple.

First of all the 'little children' can be of any age https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/babes-in-christ/
Secondly, the answer is YES!! If children are not of an age to fosake whatever will keep them from Christ, they are not yet Christians and shouldn't be treated as if they are.

That's why I'm a Baptist and not a Presbyterian.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Hello brother Deacon,

Internet Theologian has charged those who believe Free Grace Theology with "grave error"

And the charge stands, which is verified by the FGT official statements of belief. You are defending this error as this system is yours. I believe you are laying claim to this, correct?

He posted an article by Bob Wilkin and charged us with "Sandemanianism", which in a nutshell says that saving faith is merely the intellectual assent to a proposition.

Yes, they also lay claim to Robert Sandeman as a founder of their system. Perhaps you ought to seek out what he actually taught and what this mere mental assent to facts means as it is the basis for FGT error. Grave error mind you. Sandemanianism is just that and you attempt to justify it and dress the dead corpse in fancy verbiage below but the end result is you actually argue for this position unaware that you are doing so:

Correct me if I'm wrong; the charge comes from this statement in Bob Wilkins brief article, where he summarizes:

"Faith in Christ is intellectual assent. Stripped of its pejorative connotation, "intellectual assent" is a good definition of what faith is."​

The problem here is that "Internet Theologian" doesn't want to drop his pejorative stance.

I'll attempt to help you here with your accusation. Yes my stance is pejorative (contempt and disapproval of heterodox teaching specifically). Pejorative sounds so 'nasty' and I am certain that is your intent and objective as to paint me in that light? It simply means 'contempt and disapproval' and therein I stand against your position, rest assured of that brother. I take it putting my moniker in parentheses is intended to add some malignity and ridicule towards my person, correct?

But let's continue as you attempt to prove faith as mere mental assent to facts, even quoting Sproul.

The Reformed author, R. C. Sproul in his article, Faith Defined, denotes three concepts that define faith identified by the Reformers

Notitia: [facts] defined as the content of faith, or those things that we believe. In order to believe, we must know something about that someone, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Fiducia: [trust] Sproul defines as our conviction that the content of our faith is true. You can know about the Christian faith and yet believe that it is not true.

Assensus: [assenting to truthfulness] defined as the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition​

​

I agree with this, but none of that proves faith as mere mental assent as FGT does, and as both Sandeman and Hodges, others and yourself believe. The above is not an exhaustive treatment of faith. You do agree with this, correct, that this is not the end all of what faith is?

The end result of faith, the evidence of salvation is belief in the facts of the Gospel, something a person cannot believe merely by self, it is not innate so your attempt to make conclusions is incomplete brother. Faith did not secure salvation, it is not the cause, and this is what you are implying in your argument.

The argument you present is redundant and goes nowhere. In FGT true converting faith is denied as it need no evidence, there is no behavior needed (fruit). Is this also your definition of saving faith brother? It is the FGT position, it must also be yours, so while you attempt to explain faith theologically, what it actually looks like in reality according to your belief falls well short of Scripture support.

Faith is the gift of God; Romans 12:3, Php 1:29, comes from God not self, not of mental ability to believe in facts; Romans 10:17, and is the same power that raised the Christ of God from the dead, Eph.1:19.

The Reformers also believe this concerning faith so your above is only a part of the story, not the whole story brother. This is the point I am making - it, faith, is not mere mental assent as Sandeman who is claimed by FGT and Hodges among others teach. This is what you are attempting to make faith out to be yourself. Do a search on mental assent or faith for the complete story, and look at the Scriptures provided (below) and what it says true faith looks like, what it does, the Gospels true effect on a person as well in the Scriptures. These are all what faith is, not just mere assent to facts as you are arguing.

Bob Wilkins notes the first two aspects of faith early in the paragraph when he states: "Everlasting Life is a free gift (which the Lord Jesus fully paid for by his death on the cross for our sins) which is received by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from works of any kind." Wilkins continues… "The Free Grace position has its first characteristic that simply by believing in Jesus a person has eternal life. It advocates for faith alone, in Christ alone, nothing added, and no strings attached."

Yes my brother, I am well aware of this and their statement. The above stands in support of faith being what Hodges expresses in his desert island scenario.

I take it you also adhere to this scenario as well? Yes? No?

Also, we must as handling the Word of God truthfully, 2 Timothy 2:15 add what true belief looks like in its complete package. Your position is so wrought in Finneyism and Sandemanianism/decisional salvation that you cannot see its error. John 1:13, Romans 9:16, James 1:18 each refute this false teaching brother. You are mitigating the Gospel down into a truncated version and caricature, basing its cause on man.

The position of FGT thus far and in your argument is taking John 20:31 to an extreme, divorcing it from context. John 8:30 and following is the proper context brother of true faith.

Do you stop at John 8:30 and claim those that believed as eternally saved? You have to because thus far this is what you are arguing. These men made claim of mental assent as believers. Were they saved brother Deacon? Do tell. Use your system in that passage, show me and others how they are saved in its context please. FGT claims these as saved, apparently using its system to do so.

The charge of Sandemanianism fails. Wilkins agrees with the Reformed theologians here.

I'm sorry brother but the charge most assuredly does stand. And how are you denying Sandemans teachings so far? Based on what? Tell me exactly how you are denying his teachings as being wrong. This entire time you have done nothing but prove you support his teachings brother.

(part 1)

 

[Internet Theologian]

(part 2)

Sproul notes additionally:

Justification by faith alone has been opposed by Roman Catholicism, which says that a combination of our faith and good works provides for our justification. One impetus for this understanding has been Rome’s fear that the doctrine of justification by faith alone would encourage people to live immoral lives. Rome fears that this doctrine might lead some to think that the casual acceptance of Jesus without any change in one’s life is the kind of faith that justifies.​

Isn't this what the Internet Theologian fears, that Free Grace believers revel in their sin.

I have no fear because I know believers don't behave this way. It is actually FGT that gives 'believers' this license. Remember, it is not about behavior (evidence and fruit) only assent to facts. This is what FGT teaches and what you teach as well.

It seems the Roman Catholic Church and Internet Theologian have the same fear; that people will believe, will know that Christ alone, without works rescued sinners from their hopeless state and gave them new life.

John MacArthur in his book Hard to Believe, states our assurance of faith comes not from our belief but from our works. He too fears that grace will lead to lawlessness. He once again places the burden of righteousness on us rather than on Christ.

"Don't believe anyone who says it's easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God's Son His life, and it'll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn't the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it is the fruit of actions not intentions…" Mac Arthur, Hard to Believe p. 93​

Free Grace Theology does not teach believers are free to sin: it teaches that our assurance rests not on our actions but on our belief.

The directly above is only a deceptive way of embracing antinomianism. There is no false dichotomy of belief and action as you are stating above. That is a fallacy. Do you see that? If you still adhere to it you are saying it doesn't matter about your actions (fruit) it is what you mentally assent to. Scripture completely denies this error.

For the believer, sin has a cost.

"The Bible also teaches that the Christian, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is possessed with a new standard of what is good or bad. His conduct either grieves, or does not grieve, the Holy Spirit. There is limitless suffering of heart in the path of the child of od who sins lawlessly. ... It is concluded, the, that the true child of God cannot sin lawlessly without great suffering and that suffering is due to the presence of the divine seed or nature in the Christian, which could never be experienced by unregenerate men who have not the Spirit (Jude1:19), constitutes a ground of distinction between those who are the children of God and those who are not. Lewis Sperry Chafer, He that is Spiritual​

I've been rather forceful confronting Internet Theologian, his posts have been many and his charges against Free Grace Theology have been severe. I'd have hoped that he would have learned a bit from the words of those that started the thread that some understanding could be obtained. ... there is some hope.

Enough

Rob

Brother Deacon you are here conflating two doctrines from two opposing systems, conflating them into one. It is a novel attempt but it doesn't fit, it is incomplete. My charges on FGT stand and it is apparent that you are defending and supporting these charges you claim as false.

Brother with all due respect you do not even see this. In the above you are arguing for Sandeman and a false system all the while thinking you are denying it. It is plain that FGT adheres to his teachings, they come out and document this, and you are spending much time denying the official stance! Goodness sake brother.

I have asked pertinent questions above, on Sandeman, faith, and John 8 for you to examine and for you to use your system of beliefs to show us your stance on John 8:30.

Thanks for your time brother!

 

[Jerome]

easy-believism. . .is based in Sandemanianism. I assume you are aware of Robert Sandeman and his heresy.

I found this;
http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/heresy-and-error/1337-sandemanianism "The Origin of Sandemanianism"

I also found something!

Some poster named 'preacher4truth' over at the doghouse, barking about that obscure sect too.
Imagine that!

The-DoG-House - Sandemanianism

Is this the heresy that is propagated with the easy-believism gospel? . . .Has anyone been acquainted with Sandemanianism?

 

[Revmitchell]

I also found something!

Some poster named 'preacher4truth' over at the doghouse, barking about that obscure sect too.
Imagine that!

The-DoG-House - Sandemanianism

They always have some ism to howl about. It gives them power. Power to demonize anyone with whom they disagree with. Power is the goal.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Now, here is some more from Sproul that will help crystallize his belief concerning faith, and that it is not simple mental assent as presented by brother Deacon:

...in chapter 14 the confession lays out the key prerequisite for salvation. The title of the chapter is 'Of Saving Faith' and it begins with these words: 'The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts...' Take careful note of those first four words. The confession does not simply speak of faith. Rather it calls our attention to 'the the grace of faith'. It calls faith a grace because it comes to us as a gift of God - something we cannot buy, earn, or merit in any way. The usual definition for grace that we have in theology is 'God's unmerited or undeserved favor'. So faith is a manifestation of the grace of God. Simply put, those who are saved are enabled or empowered to believe to the end of the salvation of their souls. Faith is not seen as an accomplishment of the human spirit. IN fact, faith is not something that is naturally exercised by a fallen human being...Augustine was saying that God makes His requirements of people who are fallen, who have a corrupt nature, who lack the ability to create faith in their own hearts. Before Adam fell, he had the ability to respond in faith to God without the supernatural assistance of grace. But after the fall , according to Augustine, man lacks the ability, so grace is an absolute prerequisite for us to meet the requirements. The theology of the Westminster Confession is Augustinian throughout. When it addresses saving faith, it is echoing the teaching if Augustine and the church throughout the ages, saying that the faith that is required to please God is not something that we can conjure up out of our own strength. If we are to have saving faith, God the Holy Spirit must change the disposition of our hearts.' 'What is Faith?' - R. C. Sproul

We can see here that faith is not what Deacon has described in his brief quotation. It does not represent the big picture of what Sproul and the Reformed believe, nor is it an accurate description of biblical faith by any means.

The quotes were somewhat taken out of context and make it appear as if Sproul and Reformed doctrine agrees with not only FGT concerning faith, but the views of Sandeman as well. This is simply not the case.

If a person has saving faith all the glory goes to God and not to the person in some exercise of mental assent.

 

[JonShaff]

LoL @ exercise of mental assent. Now THAT is a strawman. Faith is a trust/belief/surrender of one's will....a yielding of one's will.

Edited for IT. I'm still waking up!

 

[Internet Theologian]

LoL @ exercise of mental accent. Now THAT is a strawman. Faith is a trust/belief/surrender of one's will....a yielding of one's will.

Mental 'accent'? LOL!!!! Espanol? Francois? Roflmao

Hey bro they are the ones arguing that is what faith is (FGT, Deacon, others) not me sir! And definitely not Scripture!