Free Grace Theology

[JonShaff]

If you think that my response that Scripture tells us what a believer looks like is an end all and that we can tell who each and every elect person is you're tripping my friend and your point is moot.

I'm going reread through this thread....do more research on Free Grace Theology...and then prayerfully engage with you and others.

 

[JonShaff]

But first things first! I'm going to enjoy fellowship in the Lord Jesus with friends and family...Merry Christmas!

 

[Internet Theologian]

I'm going reread through this thread....do more research on Free Grace Theology...and then prayerfully engage with you and others.

While you're reading through actually go to what GES explains as to what it is, they are the official position. And undo that ridiculous 'dislike' you recently gave for no good reason while you're at it. This here is supposed to be above facebook, being Christian and all.

 

[Internet Theologian]

...and undo the 'old' you also just gave me too. Stop being callow.

Merry Christmas!

 

[JonShaff]

While you're reading through actually go to what GES explains as to what it is, they are the official position. And undo that ridiculous 'dislike' you recently gave for no good reason while you're at it. This here is supposed to be above facebook, being Christian and all.

I didn't like your assumption.

Earlier you also said I used the phrase "false accusations." I did not. I said "accusations". I should have disliked that as well

 

[JonShaff]

...and undo the 'old' you also just gave me too. Stop being callow.

Merry Christmas!

That was an accident. Touch screen is sensitive.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I didn't like your assumption.

Earlier you also said I used the phrase "false accusations." I did not. I said "accusations". I should have disliked that as well

Oh, perhaps I should allow you to type my responses back to you just how you would like them.

 

[Internet Theologian]

That was an accident. Touch screen is sensitive.

Touchscreen allows undo's. Get busy.

 

[JonShaff]

Oh, perhaps I should allow you to type my responses back to you just how you would like them.

Putting a smiley face after your responses is quite misleading at times. I doubt either of us is smiling

 

[Internet Theologian]

Putting a smiley face after your responses is quite misleading at times. I doubt either of us is smiling

I certainly am smiling and have been throughout the exchange.

I'm not uptight bro. Chill, it's Christmas Eve, we celebrate the advent of our Lord and Savior.

 

[JonShaff]

I certainly am smiling and have been throughout the exchange.

I'm not uptight bro. Chill, it's Christmas Eve, we celebrate the advent of our Lord and Savior.

I'm wound some times lol

 

[JonShaff]

Forgive me...Merry Christmas!

 

[agedman]

The OP attempts to demonstrate how posts in this thread should at least be attempted.

1) State a specific area (such as was done in the OP with Lordship and repentance).
2) Demonstrate how FGT and some theological scheme (I chose reformed) is in agreement, how the two can "fit together."​

This thread is NOT specifically about what is disagreeable but what is agreeable.

For example. In the recent couple of pages of posts, there was discussion of the position of discipleship as part of salvation. No doubt such a discussion is well worth exploring, but as I read through the posts, I saw agreement on the basic principle that all redeemed will be compelled to mature (some call it progressive sanctification), that discipleship and salvation may be linked as discipleship is a must to, or a must of, but a must resulting from salvation. And that pretenders can have great knowledge and "be followers" and even do might works, each demonstrating outwardly that they are disciples yet not redeemed. (Matthew 7)

The disagreement seems to be with the dispute of whether all disciples are redeemed. If there is a weakness to both reformed and FGT, it is in this area. Both may present or assume that disciples are exclusive to redeemed.

Yet, does not the Lord Jesus ask the twelve if they too were going to leave? So, it is true that not all disciples are redeemed, and (imo) is why at times the phrase, "endure to the end shall be saved" is important as a distinguishing tool of those who are of the believers and those who are of the pretenders. Redeemed who sin willfully and continue to flaunt their sinfulness will bring upon themselves unpreventable rebuke from the Father. (Imo) there is agreement in this matter with the FGT and the reformed.

In summery:
I would like to see less posts toward each other and more in the manner of the OP. On the posts, show the agreement in which FGT may share common ground with some other theological system.

Not that there are areas of disagreement that can be found in all schemes. But for this thread it is good that agreement be discovered.

Keeping the balance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, he learns. It is called progressive sanctification. And the goal is in becoming a disciple. Many churches have "discipleship classes." Why do they call them that? Because they are for new believers with the aim of making these new believers into disciples, preparing them to live as mature Christians.

Discipleship classes are so-called because they are for disciples.

Matt. 28:19-20. 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them........'

First you make disciples, then you baptize them, them you teach them. Simples.

Ananias was a disciple (Acts 9:10). He lived in Damascus. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was a missionary or that he had given all his money away or given up his day job. What he had given up were his sins. He was also open to obey the calling of the Lord whatever it might be (Vs. 11ff).

Acts 11:20ff. 'But......men from Cyprus and Cyrene....when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.............and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.' There is no indication that these disciples were all missionaries or that they gave all their money away.

The disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1) were so ignorant that they didn't even know about the Holy Spirit. Again, there is no indication that they were missionaries. They needed to learn; that's why they were called 'disciples.'

People who leave their houses, jobs and friends to go off to other countries for the Lord are called 'missionaries.' People who leave their sins to follow Christ are called disciples. People who do not leave their sins but still claim to follow Christ are called false disciples or false brethren.

 

[Internet Theologian]

People who leave their houses, jobs and friends to go off to other countries for the Lord are called 'missionaries.' People who leave their sins to follow Christ are called disciples. People who do not leave their sins but still claim to follow Christ are called false disciples or false brethren.

That right there. Whomever comforts the latter above and assures them that heaven is theirs deserves the same just punishment that hypocrites will endure.

 

[Internet Theologian]

And forget 'keeping the balance' statement from the OP as if that somehow lends the presentation and arguments toward truth. Instead get to the teachings and then either commend them or condemn them.

This is about truth not how one appears when debating in the presence of others.

As J I Packer succinctly stated 'balance' is such “a horrible, self-conscious word.” He's right and that is what it is. It's nothing but prideful pointing to self; 'Me, me, me, and more of me'. Self and appearance of self becomes more important than the cost of the pursuit of truth and defending the true Gospel against error.

How ridiculous and appalling.

God help us and give us some more Elijah's instead of this pandering nonsense!

 

[DHK]

Discipleship classes are so-called because they are for disciples.

I disagree. Especially in our society when people don't know what it is to live by faith, suffer for Christ; become a Christian and pay for it with their life as they did in the first century and in many Islamic nations today. Then what did Saul do before he was saved, and what happened to him after he was saved? The new "believer" was typically disowned by their family, persecuted by the Roman government and often left with no place to go except to a community of Christians. So it is in Islamic nations today. Such persecution matures a believer very quickly.

The anemic American believer has everything spoon-fed to him; faces no persecution; has his every need met--good job, nice house, never in need, etc. There is no faith required when all your needs are already provided. I don't know if many will understand that.

Matt. 28:19-20. 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them........'

First you make disciples, then you baptize them, them you teach them. Simples.

That is not the command. Put all the commands in all four gospels together plus the book of Acts and see what you come with.
1. Acts 1:8 Be witnesses.
2. Mark 16 Preach the gospel to every creature.
3. Luke 24 That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in all nations.
4 Mat.28 "Go therefore and "teach" (make disciples). The meaning here is teach enough to lead them to the Lord, and then teach them some more in order to baptize them, and then teach them all things whatsoever I have commanded you. That is what discipleship is all about. It is a process.

Ananias was a disciple (Acts 9:10). He lived in Damascus. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was a missionary or that he had given all his money away or given up his day job. What he had given up were his sins. He was also open to obey the calling of the Lord whatever it might be (Vs. 11ff).

There is plenty of evidence that he had been a believer for some time, that is a mature believer, i.e., a disciple.

Acts 11:20ff. 'But......men from Cyprus and Cyrene....when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.............and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.' There is no indication that these disciples were all missionaries or that they gave all their money away.

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
--These were believers that were taught by Barnabas and Saul himself. They were taught for a full year. Yes, by that time they would be disciples, especially under those circumstances which I have already described to you. They were not once a week (just Sunday morning) Christians as most Baptists are.

The disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1) were so ignorant that they didn't even know about the Holy Spirit. Again, there is no indication that they were missionaries. They needed to learn; that's why they were called 'disciples.'

Seriously!!
Many commentators believe that these "disciples" were not even saved!!
They were disciples of John the Baptist, not Christ. They had never even heard of the Holy Spirit.
No, they were not disciples of Christ. We don't know for sure if they were even saved.

People who leave their houses, jobs and friends to go off to other countries for the Lord are called 'missionaries.' People who leave their sins to follow Christ are called disciples. People who do not leave their sins but still claim to follow Christ are called false disciples or false brethren.

And yet Jesus stipulated that a disciple is one who forsakes all that he has, not a missionary. You have a man-made distinction that Christ never made.

 

[agedman]

Here are a few quotes:

And I wonder as well why you lie about about disciples/believers false dichotomy to young ones. I'd dare say that is more of a grave matter than that of St. Nicolas, right?

That's one of the most asinine conclusion I've seen on a forum. Congrats, because that is no easy feat!

Jesus made no such distinction, men such as you have crafted this error on their own from fallacious doctrine of late.

You continue to show a profound misunderstanding of Scripture. Daily. Wonder what that means?

James 3: "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy."

Are the posts above not in conflict with James 3?

Are the statements "first pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy?"

Not with such declarations.

The following is offered as an excuse to violate the Scriptures with inappropriate attitude.

And forget 'keeping the balance' statement from the OP as if that somehow lends the presentation and arguments toward truth. Instead get to the teachings and then either commend them or condemn them.

This is about truth not how one appears when debating in the presence of others.

As J I Packer succinctly stated 'balance' is such “a horrible, self-conscious word.” He's right and that is what it is. It's nothing but prideful pointing to self; 'Me, me, me, and more of me'. Self and appearance of self becomes more important than the cost of the pursuit of truth and defending the true Gospel against error.

How ridiculous and appalling.

God help us and give us some more Elijah's instead of this pandering nonsense!

(emphasis added by me)


It would be good for members of the BB to realize that "contending for the faith" is also learning how to restate an opposing view so that those that hold that view would agree with the statement. That one is not right merely because they can argue against a view in which they disagree, but can actually show areas of agreement, which this thread was been an attempt.

The OP was not endorsing FGT, nor was the author one who holds to all things of FGT. As one who embraces the Doctrines of Grace, it is rather sad that some reformed "theologians" have little ability to engage in sharing areas of agreement in a view they don't hold.

It is not "pandering nonsense" nor is "keeping the balance" some "horrible" wording. I agree with Packer on much of his writing, just not all of it.

Presenting "arguments toward truth" (or better agreements of truth) is one of the basic rules of edification, which is the intent of this thread. That all the readers may find what is agreeable, that the disagreeable be more clearly distinctive.

One learns new "truth" not by having old truth immediately condemned, but by remembering what they already have learned, showing how such learning was correct in some areas, and being shown how the learning is ultimately incomplete, a failure, and less than desirable for outcomes that should be attained.

I do not know of a teacher, a REAL teacher, one who communicates with both authority and success, that does not incorporate that technique throughout their instruction.

One is not edified by someone "condemning or commending" views for a person. Rather, such condemning or commending is the shackling of the learner to the one who condemns or commends.

This is EXACTLY the same thinking that the late Jack Hyles used. One dared not question his view, because he had the whole of fundamentalism resting on his shoulders. He thought that if he was wrong, that fundamentalism would suffer irreparable damage. It was wrong when he used that thinking and it is wrong in this thread, too.

Edification comes when the learner can discern and adequately articulate what is BOTH good and evil, what is principled and what is preference. When one, who engages with another believer, is able to mark areas of agreement with a view, and yet be able with the use of Scriptures to state how that view does not meet a certain level or standard then learning can and usually does take place. It puts the learner in a position of choice, and having the tools to understand the decision making.

When Saul was confronted by Samuel at Gilgal, what was the first statements by Samuel? 1 Samuel 15:

"Samuel said, “Is it not true, though you were little in your own eyes, you were made..."​

See how Samuel starts with what Saul can agree? Saul is first drawn into the discussion, and then questioned, then judged. "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams..."

Unfortunately, there are some who do not know how to do anything other than condemn and commend which is sad considering that Elijah was a school teacher and knew how to educate as well as declare the truth, respectfully. "Elijah mocked them and said, “Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.” So they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them."

See, even Elijah in his mocking was able to use what was agreeable and customary to those ungodly.

Perhaps, it would be wise that more Elijah types were on the BB. At least there would be balanced and appropriate posting.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Agedman certainly takes posts and loves to show half the story by only showing one side. That is bearing false witness. Obviously he has fear of man and won't call out the moderator to whom my responses are directed in kind. If agedman did call out the other side then he'd be a man like Elijah who didn't always fear the popular or influential persons.

Agedman as you continue to pursue me throughout bb to malign me you're simply doing the exact same thing you accuse me of. Thumbsup

Now, why not address the posts I've made addressing the OP instead of cherry picking half a story only to attempt to malign and slander? In other words be the big spiritual giant you attempt to make yourself out to be.

 

[agedman]

Agedman certainly takes posts and loves to show half the story by only showing one side. That is bearing false witness. Obviously he has fear of man and won't call out the moderator to whom my responses are directed in kind. If agedman did call out the other side then he'd be a man like Elijah who didn't always fear the popular or influential persons.

I'm so sorry you have the feeling of being picked upon, and you entirely miss the point of the post, as reflected below.

Agedman as you continue to pursue me throughout bb to malign me you're simply doing the exact same thing you accuse me of. Thumbsup

I am "following you?" Didn't I start this thread? How is that "following you?" Again, you missed the point of the post, above.

Now, why not address the posts I've made addressing the OP instead of cherry picking half a story only to attempt to malign and slander? In other words be the big spiritual giant you attempt to make yourself out to be.

Have I slandered?

Please post the quote in which I slandered, that I may address my weakness and make amends.



I pointed you and others to James 3. If you think I am demeaning by showing you and others the Scriptures, that is just missing the point of the post, entirely.

I admittedly have a fairly high standard of interacting with other members of the BB. I am most certainly ashamed that there have been times in which I have not met such a standard.

However, if you do not take the post above in the manner of correction and edification so that your interaction on the BB be more fruit filled, then I have failed. For that I am also apologetic that I am not wise enough to motivate you appropriately.