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

[jamantc]

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there has to be growth in order to be saved. I'm saying that true faith always results in growth. That's a big difference. This is why Peter admonishes us to check to confirm our election and calling in 2 Peter 1:3-11.

Please see 2:23


Again - you have misunderstood me. I am not saying our deeds justify us. Never - no how - no way. I am saying our justification always results in deeds which is why we are admonished to check to make sure our election and calling are true by Peter. There is no such thing as a believer living in sin - or if he is in it he is fighting like crazy to get out of it.


Problem is you can't stop reading at verse 18.




But there are plenty of verses that say faith is accompanied by works (which I have demonstrated) - which pretty much means the same thing as resulting in works. Remember - I'm not saying works are required for salvation. The issue is what does real faith look like.

Agreed, we are justified by faith alone and no other way! Again, works were created for use to walk in before the foundation of the world that the things we do might bring glory to God as He commands. James was specific: Show me faith without works and I will show you a dead faith while I show you my faith through my works. James never believed salvation was by works or faith plus works, he simply believed that works was the outward expression of faith or the faith was dead and not real. Thankfully, God has led me to the works He had planned for me and I delight in them with satisfaction that I am pleasing God by doing His will. Thanks for reminding me why I do my works, to glorify God. I think those who refuse to want to work or to declare works as a result of faith should do as Peter stated, make their election and calling sure. I am not saying they aren't saved, that is not for me to know their heart, but I am saying Christ Himself said we would know His sheep by their works.

 

[Leasaithe]

If we can seperate faith and repentance, why then does Jesus curse Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin for not repenting? Why do scriptures not say they were condemend for not having faith? I do not believe these are seperable. If someone has faith they will repent, if they repent it is because they have faith. No man will repent without faith. If man does not repent it is obvious he does not have faith.

 

[ananda]

Yep. Just like the first century church.

actually ... one branch of the early church

 

[ananda]

Some of the theological liberals I read struggle with the mix of the theological and historical in John's writings. They want to deny the historicity of aspects of John's Gospel because he engages in theological reasoning to which they object, e.g. Christ's deity, bodily resurrection, miracles, etc.

However the latter examples seem to most often relate to their anti-supernatural worldviews.

Oz

If someone approaches the text with an anti-supernatural bias, it is not surprising that such a view is taken.

 

[guuila]

actually ... one branch of the early church

The correct one.

 

[ananda]

The correct one.

... not from my perspective

 

[OzSpen]

... not from my perspective

Or, do you consider that that correct perspective is your perspective? Which perspective are you advocating and promoting?

 

[ananda]

Or, do you consider that that correct perspective is your perspective? Which perspective are you advocating and promoting?

My perspective, which I obviously advocate, is one which promotes the idea that love, faith, trust, faithfulness, and diligent obedience (basically, a true relationship) with and for Messiah and YHVH is required for salvation, and that this message is given to all peoples, Jews and Gentiles, equally, by YHVH's & Messiah's command.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're dodging again. The text says those who practice unrighteousness are of the devil, not of God. Yet you're teaching that devil worshippers (pretty sure they're not practicing righteousness) can be of God.

Incorrect, as usual. Jesus addressed Peter as Satan. Not "of the devil". Sometimes Scripture contains figurative language. It's helpful to understand when.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"Else" is my interpretation of the text.

No, neither we ourselves nor any other man or woman or person, animal, angel, demon, nor anything created can take us from the Father's and Messiah's hand. But that does not discount the fact that the text allows for the fact that the Father and Messiah can still let us go.

I don't see that anywhere in that text. And Rom 8:35-39 clearly refutes that idea, imho.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I am not privy to the methods Danker used to justify the new addition to the 3rd edition text, but I work under the assumption that new Greek manuscript discoveries since the 2nd edition gave him the support for the new gloss.

Or, much more likely, his agenda was to provide support for those who teach Lordship Salvation, and needed a source to quote from.

The change in BDAG on its own is not evidence of a preconceived "theological agenda". Evidence to support or deny that change such as the presence of or lack thereof of Greek manuscripts behind his change would be appropriate evidence, but there is no such evidence presented in your claim.

What evidence does Danker bring to the table to justify a change from over 100 years of published material in Arndt & Gingrich?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why do I need to give an explanation when your argument is this:

Apparently you are unable to give an explanation. OK.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this is a way to blatantly sabotage Christianity by making it sound erroneous.

What do I make sound erroneous??? How can Christianity be made to sound erroneous? That doesn't even make sense.

If you took the time to actually read the rest of the Bible other then your flimsy proof texts, you'd know the true nature of what those verses represent, and it is nothing you are prescribing.

Obviously your opinion of my study habits is sorely lacking of any facts. btw, no text is "flimsy".

With Osas, if you become apostate are fall away, you were never saved to begin with.

That would be a flimsy opinion, imho.

You can't have it any other way with Osas, because God does not justify evil. That is why predestination is required for the stupid doctrine to work.

Here is the truth: Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world. That is not my flimsy opinion; it is found in the Word of God. So whatever happens to one of God's children after the point of faith in Christ, they REMAIN saved because God NEVER goes back on His promise.

But I can't imagine why anybody would believe in a God whose form of righteousness is sending people to Hell through little to no fault of their own, that's just bad theology and for Christians up their own rear who can't fathom the idea that it's by God that you even came to Him in the first place and that there's no reason other then your good works why God would choose you from a pine cone.

I can't imagine what your point is here. Seems to be more ranting than anything else.

That you can do whatever you want without consequence because you were lucky enough to have been brought Christianity to you, where others who are virtuous go to Hell for not having joined your religion.

This is full of error. First, there are HUGE consequences for any of God's children who rebel. Heb 12 is quite clear on that. And 1 Cor 10 and 11:30 are clear examples of that. So it is clear that your view of my view is in error.

Second, no one goes to heaven for "joining" any religion. That is absurd. And luck has nothing to do with anything.

When you do figure out what my view really is, then we can have a discussion about it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Indeed, words do mean things - "believe for a while" - indicates to me a person who is not a true believer. A true believer keeps believing. Seems simple enough to me.

All based on a preconceived idea. Where in Scripture is there a clear explanation that short term believing isn't saving faith. Maybe the problem is a faulty understanding of what "saving faith" really is.

IMO its a speculation to believe it means a genuine faith.

Also speculation to view "believing for a while" to mean "not saved".

Not really - I'm pretty sure Paul was referring to himself being saved to begin with. Like on the Damascus Road.

Please interact with what I said:

But here is the definition of a "false faith". Trusting in anything or one for eternal life other than the Lord Jesus Christ. That faith surely is false, and does not save. But, saving faith is faith IN Christ FOR eternal life. 1 Tim 1:16
Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

If you disagree with my definition of "false faith", can you provide a better one that has support from Scripture?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Again - you have misunderstood me. I am not saying our deeds justify us. Never - no how - no way. I am saying our justification always results in deeds which is why we are admonished to check to make sure our election and calling are true by Peter.

If our justification ALWAYS results in deeds, then WHY are there so many warnings to be holy and "stop living as the gentiles" per Eph 4:17?

There is no such thing as a believer living in sin - or if he is in it he is fighting like crazy to get out of it.

Of course there are. 1 Cor 10 and 11:30 proves it with examples of those God takes home because of it.

Problem is you can't stop reading at verse 18.

No, the problem is your lack of information of what I read. I'm thoroughly familiar with ALL of James 2, as well as the rest of his epistle. Your comment is just a cheap jab.

But there are plenty of verses that say faith is accompanied by works (which I have demonstrated) - which pretty much means the same thing as resulting in works.

Assumption. Yes, there are many passages that show that faith IS accompanied by works. And there are many passages that COMMAND that our faith be accompanied by works. But that doesn't mean it MEANS the same thing.

 

[AndOne]

All based on a preconceived idea. Where in Scripture is there a clear explanation that short term believing isn't saving faith. Maybe the problem is a faulty understanding of what "saving faith" really is.

Ironically - there is nowhere in scripture that gives a clear explanation of what short term "saving faith" is. What is in scripture are vast descriptions of what saving faith looks like and none of them include a description of a falling away and then coming back again. In fact any description given of someone actually falling away includes them not being able to come back. So I would say that its a preconceived idea to assume that a temporary faith can be scriptural

Also speculation to view "believing for a while" to mean "not saved".

Why is it speculation? I provided scripture to explain why.

Please interact with what I said:

I am.

If you disagree with my definition of "false faith", can you provide a better one that has support from Scripture?

In relation to this topic of conversation false faith is a faith that does not last - if you stop believing in Jesus you never believed in Him. In addition to Hebrew 6:4-6 we have 2 Peter 2:21-22. Another definition is found in 1 John 1:19 - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

 

[AndOne]

If our justification ALWAYS results in deeds, then WHY are there so many warnings to be holy and "stop living as the gentiles" per Eph 4:17?

Because we are not perfect and still sin. I probably shouldn't have said it always results in deeds - but it does always result in sanctification which will produce fruit. Hence I should have said it WILL produce deeds.

Of course there are. 1 Cor 10 and 11:30 proves it with examples of those God takes home because of it.

But are these folks taken home because of a lack of faith? Did they loose faith and stop believing in Jesus? Christians are not perfect - they will and do get punished for sin.

Yes, there are many passages that show that faith IS accompanied by works. And there are many passages that COMMAND that our faith be accompanied by works.

agreed.

 

[guuila]

Incorrect, as usual. Jesus addressed Peter as Satan. Not "of the devil". Sometimes Scripture contains figurative language. It's helpful to understand when.

I'm not talking about Peter. I'm talking about John. Dodge noted.

 

[guuila]

1 John 3:6-9 ESV

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.

Okay thanks John. So does that mean if a person worships the devil as a practice they've NEVER known God?

Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

Is there one among us trying to deceive us by teaching you can actually practice sin and be of God?

The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

Okay so if God's seed abides in a person, he can't keep on sinning like someone among us keeps asserting he can? Interesting.

 

[extraordinary]

No, neither we ourselves nor any other man or woman or person, animal, angel, demon, nor anything created
can take us from the Father's and Messiah's hand.
But that does not discount the fact that the text allows for the fact that
the Father and Messiah can still let us go.

IMO, Scripture is clear that we ourselves "can take us from the Father's and Messiah's hand."
.

 

[extraordinary]

It is my observation that many mainstream Christians are perplexed by the Apostle John's writings, preferring, instead, to focus Paul's interpretations.

I'm finishing up a summary which reconciles/explains both sets of Scriptures, which obviously is necessary!
.