New view, or same old view?

I believe that site is the site of Zane Hodges who holds an heretical position he calls "free grace." He is one who truly believe that man is saved even he is doesn't really believe. He has radically redefined the nature of saving faith.

 

I do not believe God chooses not to save anyone except in that He has foreknowledge of who will and who will not respond to His call. Romans 8:29 says "For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." So I agree that who He saves depends on the sinner responding to His call. We cannot respond if He doesn't call, and He calls to everyone. Unfortunately, not everyone will respond to His call.

Those who don't respond are forever lost. However, He does NOT say, "I will save that one, but I won't save that one even if he does ask, because I have not predestinated him. Too many people are confused as to what "predestination" means. It does NOT mean that God won't save someone even if they call on him, repent and seek forgiveness simply because he has not chosen them.

Jesus came to seek and to save ANYONE who would respond to His call and will turn no one away that truly repents and seeks forgiveness. 2nd Peter says that God is not willing that any should perish--so He does NOT choose some over others except in His foreknowledge of who will and who will not come to Him.

 

The verse you cite, romans 8:29, draws a straight line from foreknow to glorify. No one gets dropped along the way.

yes, this is exactly what Calvinism teaches. So you agree with Calvinists at least on this point.

Yes, again, you are agreeing with Calvinists.

 

Let's see...God being the author of sin is not heretical, but a viewpoint opposite of yours is? Cite your source that man is saved even if he doesn't believe...in context of his statement, of course.

 

I think God being the author of sin is heretical. But that wasn't the topic here. Arminianism is the opposite of my view, and I don't think it is heretical. So clearly, being opposite of me is not the standard by which I judge heresy.

I did in a PM to you several months ago when you offered these lengths. I quoted the exact place, in context, where this was affirmed. So I am not sure why you are pretending that you don't know, unless you forgot. You can find that one and post it here for us.

Here are some more.

But what I do mean is this: at the moment of saving faith the believer is sure that he is eternally saved. I do not hold to the doctrine of the indefectibility of faith, as Reformed theologians do, or even as John Calvin did. I do hold to the indefectibility of God’s saving work in the believer.
Several years ago I was in Dr. Charles Ryrie’s apartment with a friend. My friend asked Dr. Ryrie, "Can a believer stop believing?" As usual, Dr. Ryrie was crisp and concise. His answer was: "Of course."
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1997i/Hodges.html

Among the most impressive sections in the book is the chapter entitled, "For Those Who Stop Believing" (chapter 8). Here Stanley clearly says some things which should have often been said before. For example, he writes: "The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand" (p. 74). This is beautifully put. Equally lucid is the striking paragraph: "Faith is simply the way we say yes to God's free gift of eternal life. Faith and salvation are not one and the same anymore than a gift and the hand that receives it are the same. Salvation or justification or adoption- whatever you wish to call it-stands independently of faith. Consequently, God does not require a constant attitude of faith in order to be saved-only an act of faith" (p. 80). A little later, Stanley also writes: "You and I are not saved because we have an enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our enduring Lord" (p. 80)... (from a book review of Stanley's book on Eternal Security at http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1993/93may5.html).

This from Robert Wilken: The only way a believer cannot know he is saved is if he stops believing the promise and loses his assurance (but not his life, which is eternal) (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1997ii/Wilkin.html)

Hodges also tells a story of a man he knew who was a pastor who gave up his faith. Hodges said he was stilled saved, even though he no longer believed. The story and reference can be found here: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesas.htm

I think he also expresses this in Absolutely Free though it has been a while since I read it.

All of these quotes reveal that Hodges beleives that a man is saved if he stops believing and no longer believes.

As I recall, Hodges also says that you do not have to believe in teh death of Jesus to be saved. So there are clearly problems with Hodges view. I don't have all my notes here, but he has been pretty soundly and easily refuted by the exegesis of Scripture.

When a man says that a mentally competent person can be saved who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ who died for sin, he is a heretic.

 

I would come to expect more of you James. I have a life outside of the BB. Playing the "aaaw, hello" card is kindergarten-ish and quite lame. You know my views already on it, you just don't agree with it...and that's fine.

BTW, who ever said that the free grace view was "my view"? While I do agree with certain aspects of it, as with any other theological position, I don't align myself with it 100%.

 

...and as was pointed out to you in the PM's, you pulled quotes clear out of context to say what you wanted it to say.

The way you talk about Hodges, you sound like you believe you can lose your salvation. Are you secure in Christ or not?

 

If you pointed that out, then you were incorrect. I don't remember you saying that. As you can tell, my assessment is completely right.

Yes, I am secure in Christ. I do not believe you can lose your salvation. I also do not believe that Christ will save people who do not believe. Hodges does.

Let's not distract this thread any further however. I think my point has been clearly shown.

Why not answer Jarthur's questions ...

 

As to the OP, they are both saying the same thing. So in this respect, the Free Grace view is no different than the Arminian view.

As for Webdog's views on election, I imagine that he will say that 'election' does not apply to Gentile believers, as he has recently supported the view of election only applying to Jewish believers. Correct me if I'm wrong, Webdog. And such a view is not Arminian/Free Grace, but is something entirely different.

 

It would really help first to actually read the links, no?

It's another view of calvinism from outside of calvinism.

 

You are wrong. The term "the elect" is in reference to jewish believers, not the act of 'election'. Pharaoh was elected for a purpose, but he was not "the elect".

 

Help me understand, then. Are Gentile believers recipients of the act of election in the same way Jewish believers are?

 

If we are all in Christ, we have a common denominator. In the same sense all of those who preceded us in death that were righteous are not all considered the church, not all righteous person's are considered the elect.

 

Can you elaborate a little more? So are you saying that some believers are elected and others are not? I'm sincerely confused.

 

I'll answer a question with a question: Is every person in Heaven from "the Church"?

 

That depends if one is a dispensationalist or not. Since it is appears you are a dispensationalist, I will answer "No". I'm not looking for a rabbit trail on this, though, so you can cut through the chase.