Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by Puritanhead, Aug 12, 2006.
Free Grace Theology and Repentance
[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Puritanhead]
Good comments, Ryan.
That brand of dispensationalism is certainly more popular today than is the Reformed faith, no doubt about it.
This thread is really irratating to me. I can't believe how shallow and irrational the responses are.
This one guy Glenn writes in response:
I don't know about a list of things, but I am sure being an avowed atheist and concurrently denying the Gospel to your last breath is unforgivable. YOU KNOW UNFORGIVABLE SIN... TO DIE IN UNBELIEF!!! TO REJECT THE GOSPEL IS WRONG!!! Such, a person is obviously not regenerate. Yet Glenn, the dispensationalist antinomian, equates Zane Hodges' hypothetical atheist with a "believer."
[Edited on 8-13-2006 by Puritanhead]
FreeGracer Is a new member I believe the one who own's the blog you linked too.
Okay... I won't waste anymore time discussing things with adherants of the Zane Hodges' barnyard school of theology.
If Christ died for all then he failed because not all go to heaven according to them. Or Christ died for all and so we can go on sinning. Or like the mormons we can die without being a mormon and go to the lower heaven and wait for HItler's great grandson to baptize me to a better level of heaven. Similar to Purgatory.
Either Christ's death and resurection was a failure since it did not save all.
Or The Bible is worthless because were all going ot heaven anyway so why bother not sinning.
God will complete the good work which He starts in all regenerate believers of faith:
Well now, you know that's just for disciples. What about the carnal Christian?
This is no Gospel at all. There is no Gospel without the recognition of sin.
Anathema! Anathema (Gal 1:8-9)
Well, I was naive enough to continue interacting.
Free Grace Theology and Repentance -- A Reply To Matthew Waymeyer Part 5
They only seem adept at emotionally-charged ad hominems and erecting crude straw man caricatures of what both the Reformed and Lordship Salvationist dispensationalists believe.
If you sever Christ's command to "repent" from the Gospel, and what do you have?
Well, now as evident by the last round of comments, they take issue with my blogspot article that says we must proclaim the law to proclaim the Gospel. I have asked for their Gospel message.
Consider this: Zane Hodges, author of Absolutely Free has no problem saying that a person who totally abandons the Christian faith is still saved. He gives the following illustration:
This illustration presented at the Church of the Open Door which at the time was pastored by G. Michael Cocoris. The series of tapes is entitled, "Great Themes in the Book of Hebrews," which is available through Redencion Viva Publishers).
Hodges insists that this man is truly saved, and that although he lost his faith, Christ did not lose him. Hodges' account for of the Biblical parable of sower tires stir around the traditional interpretation. He claims the hearers on the stony ground, the thorny ground and the good ground (in Christ's parable of the sower) all collectively represent saved individuals. I don't write this man off as unreachable or beyond restoration. This troubled and arguably lost man can always repent and trust in Christ in this life-time, but without faith it is impossible to please God. What Christian would dispute this?
Sadly I know many Christians who would dispute that. Hodges has a big audience.
Still, even at conservative evangelical colleges such as Liberty, Pensacola, Regent and Wheaton, the Lordship view of John MacArthur is held in higher respect, and many dispensational evangelicals cast derision on these antinomian easy-believism screeds. It just happens the antinomian adherants have really big mouths, and I think their influence is overblown.
Maybe, it is big on the Left Coast, and at prosperity Gospel churches. I don't know. Heresy tends to run together.
It seems to stem from the arminian "Eternal Salvation" beliefs. We believe in preservarance, but that's not the same thing as "eternal security". It seems to me that these people desire so much to defend "eternal security" that they will believe anyone is saved if they so much as nodded their head in some fashion when asked if they believed in God, or said the Lords prayer with their high school football team before a game.
[Edited on 8-25-2006 by houseparent]
Doesn't Charles Stanley teach a view of "eternal security" very similar to Hodges?
There are also some vocal adherents of this "free grace" teaching on Pal Talk if you ever feel like mixing it up.
Eternal Security/OSAS is not Arminian, but is actually a bastardization of Calvinistic teaching. Consistent Arminianism teaches conditional security.
Now, a wait a minute. I profess a belief in quote-unqoute "eternal security," albeit it is coincidal with the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints." (John 10:26-28)
We might not articulate "eternal security" as the antinomian "Free Grace movement" does; but we can still affirm "eternal security" for the true believer.
I don't know what is more offensive? Zane Hodges or David Corner?
Conditional preservation of the saints
The Believer's Conditional Security
No, I think you're mistaken here.
The James White writes:
There are so many passages that are utterly unintelligible, outside of special pleading, in the anti-Lordship "naked faith" position. Two come to mind immediately:
Reformed theology cuts the ground out from underneath the position presented by Wilkin, for the faith that saves is the work of the Spirit in regeneration itself, and hence cannot possibly be separated from the rest of the work of the Spirit. Hence, there is no contradiction between saying that a person who believes has eternal life and saying that a person who keeps Christ's word has will never see death. Only the synergist has to struggle to explain the relationship: the monergist has a consistent understanding.
I will be noting many more problems with the non-Lordship position in future commentaries.
Being the horrible sinner Iam I honestly dont see how they can believe such a lie that we cannot be saved without repentance. Im constanlty battleling the flesh and feel and know in my heart the need of repentance. You cannot read scripture and not see it commanded from Genesis to Revelation. For these people to not see it is plain nuts to me.
Ideas have consequences. How does it effect their evangelism? I asked their proprietor to articulate the Gospel of Grace. They scoff at me for saying evangelist should even make reference to law. However, the law serves it purpose to bring people to knowledge of sin. Without knowledge of sin there is no Gospel.
Yet they are so averse to proclaiming not only the law and but also Christ's call to repentance. I have to ask what do they proclaim? Do they even proclaim the Gospel of Grace? Where's the Gospel in this malaise where liberty becomes license. All I hear behind the "Jesus saves" platitudes, are faint whispers that vindicate living life however the heck you want to, because grace abounds! Grace apparently even covers the sin of atheistic unbelief to the death, just so long as one once called on Jesus' name, or signed a card, or made a decision for Christ.
It's non-sense like this, that leads people astray and creates stoney and thorny hearers of the Word that fall away. Grace isn't license. What they teach does damage to the church, and the cause of Christ.
Hell's Best Kept Secret (Video)
[Edited on 8-26-2006 by Puritanhead]
This whole doctrine arises from aberrant rivivalist views of sin, decisional regeneration and aberrant views of sanctification popularized by the Keswick Convention in the 19th Century. It's an amalgum of Finney, Wesley, and a guy named William E Boardman, with a little Darby mixed in for flavor, and you get heresy stew!
These guys are taking it farther, however, and becoming intranigent in their antinomianism, in the process denying the Gospel. All we can do is pray for them and try to articulate the Gospel in hopes that God will save them. I think there's a verse near the end of Jude that warns to use caution when trying to extricate various people from heretical beliefs.
I thought he did as well...
Well that is a well-articulated summation of this antinomian melange and its origins.
Decisional Regeneration by James E. Adams