Free Grace Theology - The theology that allows devil worshippers into heaven

Status
Not open for further replies.

SwordFall

Junior Member
Oct 4, 2013
1,071
37
✟1,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So, apparently, griff takes issue His Lord and Savior. This demonstrates a failure to understand God's grace.

God cannot justify evil.

That is the problem of free grace notions. You all are the ones who proverbially fail to understand what god is, who the Abrahamic God is.

(insert definition here) and then marinate on how much of a mistake free grace theology is.

Or not, I don't really care. It's hard to take seriously people who can so extraordinarily miss the mark on God's nature.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Except what Jesus and Paul said, using the aorist tense for "believe".

Luke 8:12 "lest you believe and be saved"
Acts 16:31 "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

Luke 8:12
is hina me pistuesantes swthwsin (that they may not believe [and] be saved] You are correct that Pisteusantes is an aorist tense. It is also a passive, subjunctive participle. Aorist refers to punctiliar action, and this refers to the initial act of faith.

But we must go on to the next verse, Luke 8:13, which uses hoi de epi tes pisteuousin [who for a time continue to believe] - pisteuousin is present tense, middle voice, indicative mood, i.e. continue to believe for themselves.

So the interpretation of Luke 8:12 cannot be made in isolation from the very next verse, Lk 8:13. Yes, there is an initial act of believing in 8:12, but they continue to believe (8:13) for a short time and then fall away.

Therefore, I cannot accept Luke 8:12 as an example of no need to continue to believe.

Acts 16:31 states, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'. It is true that 'believe' is pisteuson, a 2nd person singular, aorist, active imperative. It refers to the point action of something that happened.

But Acts 16:31 cannot be separated from Acts 16:34, 'he had believed in God'. Here believed is pepisteukws (from pisteuw-). It is a perfect tense, active, participle. What's the meaning of the perfect tense in Greek? 'The perfect represents a present state resulting from a past action' (Wenham 1965:139). So the application of Acts 16:34 to Acts 16:31 is that the believing in the past (16:31) continues the believing in the present (16:34).

Therefore, I do not see that Luke 8:12 and Acts 16:31 reach the exegesis that you are pressing because of the context that refutes such an aorist idea. For a person to be saved, he/she must have an initial act to believe, but he/she must continue to believe/trust in Christ (present or perfect tenses). The results from a past action are continuing in the present. That's what these two verses teach in context.

  • The aorist tense indicates the beginning of the believing action (Lk 8:12), but in Lk 8:13, the present tense of 'believe' indicates the need to continue believing.
  • The aorist tense indicates the beginning of the command to believe (Acts 16:31), but Acts 16:34 has the perfect tense of 'believe' to demonstrate the need for continuing results.
Oz


Works consulted
Wenham, J W 1965. The elements of New Testament Greek. London / New York: Cambridge University Press.


In Christ, Oz
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a system of theology out there called Free Grace theology, which teaches that it doesn't matter how bad a person sins, nor how long. If they believed at least once in their life, they are saved no matter what. There's no guarantee of sanctification in this system.

For example, little Johnny decided to believe in Jesus when he was eight years old. Little Johnny got bored with Jesus when he turned nine and decided to worship Satan. Now, Johnny is 80 years old, and is a full blown devil worshipper. Johnny loves Satan and wants to be with him. Unfortunately for Johnny, God is not going to give him what he wants. God is going to force Johnny into heaven against his will when he dies because of that one time when he believed when he was eight. I guess Johnny will get what he wants after all, since heaven will actually be hell for him since he hates God and loves Satan.

That is a riot! Like when Cardinal Law called the unrepentant pedophile priests children of God because they were baptized...ouch!
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Jn 10:28,29 only promises that nobody else can snatch His people out of YHVH's or Messiah's Hands... the reason being, there is no power greater than Them.
The Greek does not contain "else" to modify "no one". The point is that no person can snatch you from the Father's hand. And that includes your own person. There's no other way to take it.

For further evidence of that, Rom 8:37-38 speaks of "nor things present nor things future", which speaks of whatever is included from now and into the future. That would definitely include any behavior changes, or belief changes that occur. Would it not?

I cannot comment on the book of Romans.
My question should still be easy to answer.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No, it is not "clear than Danker has a theological agenda in mind with these changes". Whomever wrote this showed no data or evidence - except the author's own allegation - that this change was based on his specific preconceived theology or evidence otherwise from ancient Greek manuscripts.
Excuse me, but the data of evidence was the change itself; the added meaning to "pisteuo" of commitment which never existed before in that text.

In fact, the evidence shows otherwise. Other lexicons, as I've shown in this very thread, also gloss meanings similar to BDAG's gloss re: compliance.
Please check the edition dates. Arndt & Gingrich goes back over 100 years.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
God cannot justify evil.
Correct! But Calvinism, through the WCF, claims that God ordains "whatever comes to pass". Well, sin "comes to pass". The rest of the WCF only contradicts the first part, when it says "but not so as to be the author of sin".

David ordained the murder of Uriah. He authored the plan. And God held him guilty of murder.

That is the problem of free grace notions. You all are the ones who proverbially fail to understand what god is, who the Abrahamic God is.
Could you be more specific here, please? I have no idea what you are referring to.

(insert definition here) and then marinate on how much of a mistake free grace theology is.
Again, I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Or not, I don't really care. It's hard to take seriously people who can so extraordinarily miss the mark on God's nature.
Please be specific as to how you think I've missed the mark on God's nature. I still have no idea what you are talking about.

You've made claims and charges. Do you have any specifics to point out so that I can understand where they come from?
 
Upvote 0

extraordinary

Newbie trainee
Jun 1, 2013
1,159
19
✟16,402.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Eternal life is granted WHEN one believes. Jesus SAID so. Jn 5:24
You don't understand the basics because you fail to see what "pisteou" really means.
It must include obedience to line up with all of the many warnings in the epistles.
This is what the indwelling Holy Spirit reveals to some.

But, I will grant you this much ...
it must be wonderfully satisfying to have the aptitude for twisting Scriptures to agree with one's doctrine.
Think I'll try it some time ... could be a lot of fun!
.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Luke 8:12
is hina me pistuesantes swthwsin (that they may not believe [and] be saved] You are correct that Pisteusantes is an aorist tense. It is also a passive, subjunctive participle. Aorist refers to punctiliar action, and this refers to the initial act of faith.

But we must go on to the next verse, Luke 8:13, which uses hoi de epi tes pisteuousin [who for a time continue to believe] - pisteuousin is present tense, middle voice, indicative mood, i.e. continue to believe for themselves.

So the interpretation of Luke 8:12 cannot be made in isolation from the very next verse, Lk 8:13. Yes, there is an initial act of believing in 8:12, but they continue to believe (8:13) for a short time and then fall away.
I agree that 8;12 cannot be made in isolation of v.13. In fact, that is one of my points. The fact that Jesus used the present tense of believe but adds "for a while" certainly removes the claim that one must continue to believe in order to be or stay saved.

Recall what happens the moment one believes. God forgives, justifies, adopts as sons, and saves (gives eternal life). And don't forget regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised who would be with us forever. There are no verses that teach that any of these things can or have been removed from anyone.

Therefore, I cannot accept Luke 8:12 as an example of no need to continue to believe.
To be clear, the command is to continue to believe. But at the moment of faith, all these things occur and cannot be removed. So, one is saved and secure the moment they believe. Whatever happens beyond that point is covered under "and things future" in Rom 8:38.
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers"

Acts 16:31 states, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'. It is true that 'believe' is pisteuson, a 2nd person singular, aorist, active imperative. It refers to the point action of something that happened.
Right. Paul did not tell the jailer he had to continue to believe in order to be saved. One is saved WHEN one believes; that very moment.

But Acts 16:31 cannot be separated from Acts 16:34, 'he had believed in God'. Here believed is pepisteukws (from pisteuw-). It is a perfect tense, active, participle. What's the meaning of the perfect tense in Greek? 'The perfect represents a present state resulting from a past action' (Wenham 1965:139). So the application of Acts 16:34 to Acts 16:31 is that the believing in the past (16:31) continues the believing in the present (16:34).
The "present action" is one's salvation from believing in the perfect tense. Actually, Wallace says it this way:
The force of the present tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past, (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the presemnt time (ie, in relation to the time of the speaker). Or as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action." Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics page 573​

So, the perfect tense isn't speaking of continuing to believe, but rather the continuing results of the past action of believing.

Therefore, I do not see that Luke 8:12 and Acts 16:31 reach the exegesis that you are pressing because of the context that refutes such an aorist idea.
How does the context refute this? It is unarguable that in both soils 2 and 3, the seed germinated into plants, but the plants didn't produce fruit. i.e.: they believed, were saved (existence of plants from the seed {word of God}), but due to various life circumstances, didn't mature and produce fruit. The general current state of affairs as seen across evangelicalism, unfortunately.

For a person to be saved, he/she must have an initial act to believe, but he/she must continue to believe/trust in Christ (present or perfect tenses). The results from a past action are continuing in the present. That's what these two verses teach in context.
I believe I've clarified and corrected your points.

[*]The aorist tense indicates the beginning of the believing action (Lk 8:12), but in Lk 8:13, the present tense of 'believe' indicates the need to continue believing.
In fact, the phrase "for a while" does not remove the action of being saved through faith.

[*]The aorist tense indicates the beginning of the command to believe (Acts 16:31), but Acts 16:34 has the perfect tense of 'believe' to demonstrate the need for continuing results.
The perfect tense is about continuing results from the past action of believing.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You don't understand the basics because you fail to see what "pisteou" really means.
It must include obedience to line up with all of the many warnings in the epistles.
Incorrect, because the "many warnings" aren't about loss of salvation, but loss of blessings and/or eternal rewards.

But, I will grant you this much ...
it must be wonderfully satisfying to have the aptitude for twisting Scriptures to agree with one's doctrine.
I wouldn't know about what it feels like to "twist Scripture". Never done it. You might ask some of the reformed, who have certainly twisted Heb 2:9 from saying that "Jesus tasted death for all" into "Jesus tasted death for the elect".

Think I'll try it some time ... could be a lot of fun!
.
Whatever suits you. But I can't see how wanting to twist Scripture could ever be seen as "fun".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

extraordinary

Newbie trainee
Jun 1, 2013
1,159
19
✟16,402.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It would mean that whatever you were believing wasn't saving faith.
To believe "in vain" means to believe "without reason".
Gee, for most of my 73 years, I was taught ...
"in vain" means ... failure to achieve the intended purpose, a waste of time, not producing the intended result, etc.

However, lots of reasoning can have been employed to arrive at this failure.
How one arrives at this failure is not the issue.

BTW, saving faith (from God's free gift of grace-faith) requires NO REASONING!
No one has any advantage over anyone else in "believing".
This puts everyone in the same category ... initial "belief" comes via revelation.
Any idiot is able to receive a revelation of spiritual Truth from the Lord.

BTW, are you deliberately attempting to deceive the brethren ... again?

There's a moderator elsewhere who has the nickname of "DD" (deliberate deceiver).
Oh, what fun!
.
 
Upvote 0

extraordinary

Newbie trainee
Jun 1, 2013
1,159
19
✟16,402.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Rev 2:10 • Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison,
that you may (will) be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days.
Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. (see James 1:12)


This is a reference to eternal rewards for faithfulness. Unfaithful believers will not receive eternal rewards.
I can easily prove from Scripture that "the crown of life" refers to eternal salvation!
The James 1:12 is just a good start.
Anyone interested? ... FG2 won't be.
.
 
Upvote 0

extraordinary

Newbie trainee
Jun 1, 2013
1,159
19
✟16,402.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God cannot justify evil.
That is the problem of free grace notions.
You all are the ones who proverbially fail to understand what god is, who the Abrahamic God is.
(insert definition here) and then marinate on how much of a mistake free grace theology is.
Or not, I don't really care.
It's hard to take seriously people who can so extraordinarily miss the mark on God's nature.
Gee, hope you weren't includin' me, for I would consider that to be a definite slap in the face!
.
 
Upvote 0

extraordinary

Newbie trainee
Jun 1, 2013
1,159
19
✟16,402.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Incorrect, because the "many warnings" aren't about
loss of salvation, but loss of blessings and/or eternal rewards.
The Scriptures I am referring to do NOT link the warnings/threats to any blessings or rewards!
Otherwise, they would obviously be discarded (disregarded) as proof against OSAS!

Au contraire, SOME of the warnings/threats are DIRECTLY LINKED to dynamite ...
losing "eternal life", gaining "eternal death", going to hell, going to perdition, etc. etc.
(Anyone interested in these? ... FG2 won't be.)

All of which you have seen multiple times ... but have chosen to ignore!

So, I am still asking you ... Are you trying to deliberately deceive the brethren?
.
 
Upvote 0

extraordinary

Newbie trainee
Jun 1, 2013
1,159
19
✟16,402.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why don't you start a thread for each of them, and we'll see whether your presupposition stands or falls. :D
I say 'each of them' because throwing a wall of Scriptures as proof texts all out of context does nothing
for your point. Every text needs to be looked at and interpreted with care.
I started a new thread just for you:
"Warning: do not be a habitual doer of any of these sins"
... and am curiously awaiting your response.
.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

guuila

Guest
I wonder if this person will be saved according to Free Grace theology:

1. Bob is a nine year old boy. Bob has decided to follow Jesus.
2. Ten years later, after having faith, being active in church, praying, evangelizing, repenting of sin, striving to live a Godly life, etc. Bob goes off to college and becomes "enlightened" by his Philosophy 101 class and decides Jesus is stupid. He still believes Jesus exists, but this class made him believe Jesus is a megalomaniac and he wants nothing to do with Jesus anymore.
3. Bob spends the next 60 years persecuting Christians and worshipping Satan. He even sets a church on fire and kills 200 Christians because he hates them so much and he hates Jesus so much.
4. Bob goes to prison and gets the death penalty for the crimes he has committed.

Did Bob go to heaven?
 
Upvote 0

SwordFall

Junior Member
Oct 4, 2013
1,071
37
✟1,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I wonder if this person will be saved according to Free Grace theology:

1. Bob is a nine year old boy. Bob has decided to follow Jesus.
2. Ten years later, after having faith, being active in church, praying, evangelizing, repenting of sin, striving to live a Godly life, etc. Bob goes off to college and becomes "enlightened" by his Philosophy 101 class and decides Jesus is stupid. He still believes Jesus exists, but this class made him believe Jesus is a megalomaniac and he wants nothing to do with Jesus anymore.
3. Bob spends the next 60 years persecuting Christians and worshipping Satan. He even sets a church on fire and kills 200 Christians because he hates them so much and he hates Jesus so much.
4. Bob goes to prison and gets the death penalty for the crimes he has committed.

Did Bob go to heaven?

Let's mirror that circumstance:

Gandhi: freedom fighter, enacted nonviolent protest, inducted the Salt March in which people died in martyrdom, endured imprisonment without conviction against those who put him there, employed peace and modesty, and was celibate.
Was never a Christian, though he emulated the greatest saints.

Did Gandhi go to Hell?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

guuila

Guest
Let's mirror that circumstance:

Gandhi: freedom fighter, enacted nonviolent protest, inducted the Salt March in which people died in martyrdom, endured imprisonment without conviction against those who put him there, employed peace and modesty, and was celibate.
Was never a Christian, though he emulated the greatest saints.

Did Gandhi go to Hell?

Are you going to answer my question?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.