Anyone believe in free grace soteriology?

[Ribosome]

I would like to ask you a question in a private message, I don't want to debate, I'm just trying to figure out what free grace soteriology is.

 

[JM]

Not sure exactly what you mean...feel free to pm me anytime.

 

[SeventhValley]

Free Grace believes fruit might not be easily seen in all christians so it is not a good way to judge the tree.

It focuses on not judging and OSAS from what I remember.

I think you find it in some dispensational camps.

 

[JM]

So...you mean non-Lordship antinomian easy-believism?

While many Protestants affirm salvation by grace alone received by faith alone, some Protestants use 'accepting Christ as...' language, sometimes 'accepting Christ as Savior,' or 'accepting Christ as Lord', to describe a condition of initial conversion, taking a cue from Colossians 2:6 in the Good News Bible for the "accept" and in the New International Version, for "receive" as synonym.

An early discussion about the initial conversion aspect of the Lordship salvation issue was in the 1948 systematic theology of Lewis Sperry Chafer, using (and criticizing) the phrase "believe and surrender to God".[14] AW Pink (d. 1952), also used this language, but anticipated (and advocated) key terms in the later debate, speaking of both 'surrender' and 'Lordship'.[8] Connection of the word "Lordship" and salvation existed in a Ph.D dissertation at Wheaton College in 1958.[15] Therefore the use of the term 'Lordship salvation' came before the first edition of MacArthur's 1988 book,[16] possibly after the 1959 debate in Eternity magazine, Sept., 1959, between Presbyterian Everett F. Harrison, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, and John Stott, an Anglican theologian.

While the concept of "free grace" dates to the 17th century or before, "Free Grace" became the popular term for the opposing camp in the Lordship salvation debate, and for the ideas against Lordship salvation by authors such as Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright.[citation needed] While free grace is nominally undisputed in Protestantism, and the "Free Grace view" affirms good works are a proper response to salvation, it argues they should not be taken as the only or sine qua non evidence of one's salvation or righteous standing before God.

You can't have Jesus as "saviour" and not Lord. The remedy will quickly be had if you submit to scripture (and read A. W. Pink's work Studies on Saving Faith. )

Yours in THE LORD,

jm

 

[SayaOtonashi]

That is taking eternal security to far.

 

[Ribosome]

I am convinced that calvinism's lordship salvation adds works to salvation and therefore is legalism. Free grace is not antinomian though, that is a misunderstanding, but lordship folk love to call it that. Free grace people on the other hand love to call lordship salvation works-salvation though.

I was just wondering if there was anyone here who believes in free grace soteriology so that they could help me understand some things about it.

 

[JM]

I am convinced that calvinism's lordship salvation adds works to salvation and therefore is legalism. Free grace is not antinomian though, that is a misunderstanding, but lordship folk love to call it that. Free grace people on the other hand love to call lordship salvation works-salvation though.

I was just wondering if there was anyone here who believes in free grace soteriology so that they could help me understand some things about it.

Hi Ribosome,

If I say I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but faith is never alone or without some kind of fruit (of the Spirit that leads to action), is that legalism?

j

 

[Ribosome]

Hi Ribosome,

If I say I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, but faith is never alone or without some kind of fruit (of the Spirit that leads to action), is that legalism?

j

How much fruit exactly does a person need to have in order for it to count as saving faith?

 

[JM]

How much fruit exactly does a person need to have in order for it to count as saving faith?

I would say if someone NEVER had any fruit in their lives God was not in their lives.

"it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"

If someone claimed to believe and never had "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5.22-23) they were never saved.

jm

 

[Ribosome]

I am not sure yet about what the free grace people say about fruit, i just discovered free grace theology. but looking to ones own fruit to get assurance of being saved never works, that's for sure.

 

[child630]

I do believe in free grace. Making Jesus my Lord and abiding in Him is the only work I need to do. Everything else will fall into place.

He gives us the heart of obedience. He gives us the fruit of the Spirit. He gives us a repentant heart. All we need to do is spend time with Him in prayer and He changes us. This is what His grace does.

"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and I will make you clean. Your filth will be washed away, and you will no longer worship idols. And I will give you a new heart with new and right desires, and I will put a new spirit in you. I will take out your stony heart of sin and give you a new, obedient heart. And I will put my Spirit in you so you will obey my laws and do whatever I command.

Ezekiel 36:25-27

This promise is slowly happening in my life.

 

[Skala]

I am convinced that calvinism's lordship salvation adds works to salvation and therefore is legalism

It doesn't "add works" to salvation, it merely affirms that God's spirit works in us to produce fruit in accordance with our new, regenerate, born again nature.

A born again person will experience fruit in his/her life, since he has God's spirit working in him to produce that fruit.

This is not legalism, it's God's promise. We are His workmanship, created to do good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10) and "God is at work in us to will and do according to His good pleasure" (Ph 2:13)

If you disagree with this, then it's not Calvinism or Lordship salvation you disagree with, it's the Bible you disagree with.

 

[Bluelion]

How much fruit exactly does a person need to have in order for it to count as saving faith?

It depends on what you mean when you say fruit. If your talking about Good deeds no it is not a good way to judge. But if you talking about what comes out of a persons mouth, it is a good way to judge if you know the Bible. Jesus said out of the wicked heart proceed fowl things. So it can be a good way to know what is in a persons heart, or what the tree is(the heart) by the fruit(there words). What do they say about God, where is there heart. Is it with the word of God or against it, do they take part of Gods word and not all of it? Do they have a word view or a God view. These are fruits from but good and evil trees.

 

[now faith]

How much fruit exactly does a person need to have in order for it to count as saving faith?

None.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

We are saved by Gods grace,his unmerited favor,through Christ.

It is by grace we are given faith.

Our fruit or rightious works are as filthy rags to God,salvation is a gift that was to be from the beginning of time.

 

[now faith]

It doesn't "add works" to salvation, it merely affirms that God's spirit works in us to produce fruit in accordance with our new, regenerate, born again nature.

A born again person will experience fruit in his/her life, since he has God's spirit working in him to produce that fruit.

This is not legalism, it's God's promise. We are His workmanship, created to do good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10) and "God is at work in us to will and do according to His good pleasure" (Ph 2:13)

If you disagree with this, then it's not Calvinism or Lordship salvation you disagree with, it's the Bible you disagree with.

No its the systematic way the word is conformed to Calvinism I disagree with.

 

[now faith]

It baffles the mind that a translation error in interpretation of one man,could confound people for hundreds of years.

As in Ephesians the term predestined?

It is perceived as a verb pertaining to a direct object,but it was never intended to be,it was a generalisation
For any one who would accept Christ.


A verb that has a direct object which receives its action is called a "transitive" verb. A verb without a direct object, without specifying anything or anyone to receive its action, is called an "intransitive" verb. Since an accusative direct object indicates a specific object receiving the action, it is said to "limit" the action of a transitive verb, that is, the action of a transitive verb is less general and more limited in scope than an intransitive verb. For example, the transitive, "He loved the disciples," is more limited in scope than the intransitive, "He loved," where no direct object is specified, and where it indicates how a man generally performed an action of loving.

 

[DeaconDean]

No its the systematic way the word is conformed to Calvinism I disagree with.

For my benefit, would you please explain further?

What "word is conformed to Calvinism"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm not so much "free grace" as I am "Sovereign Grace".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[now faith]

Hello Deacon.
the above post explains my opinion on systematic study since the Word of God is authored buy more than one person along with the use of semantic terms we cannot assume that we approach study systematically we take each passage by the contextual Relevancy.

forgive my grammar as this is done on my cell phone

 

[DeaconDean]

Hello Deacon.
the above post explains my opinion on systematic study since the Word of God is authored buy more than one person along with the use of semantic terms we cannot assume that we approach study systematically we take each passage by the contextual Relevancy.

forgive my grammar as this is done on my cell phone

See, this is where we may disagree.

I have spent a lot of time studying the morphology (linguistics) of the Greek New Testament.

And I can tell you personally that the word for "predestinate" only occurs six times in the NT, and in each and every case, it basically means "to set bounds".

If you would like, I can give you the longer definition from The "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament".

There are also a number of web-sites that trace the Greek back to around 350- 300 B.C. to the Hellenistic era.

So, if I disagree that Calvinists twist each occurrence of the word to suit our theology.

And I majored in Systematic Theology in seminary classes. Got a 98!

God Bless

Till all are one.