# Free Grace movement



## August

I think the "free grace' movement is the biggest issue we face in modern Christianity. The hollow theology promoted by Hodges, Wilkin et al seems to pervade every discussion board, every second church and most of the popular Christian books I pick up. 

I was astounded to learn that they position Calvinism as a "works-based" theology, and therefore a heresy. Other gems include that you can have assurance of salvation if you trusted Christ for one second, sometime during your life. There is no need for perseverance, no outward signs of regeneration and no need to repent. 

Has anyone else had interaction with or experience with proponents of the "free grace" movement?


----------



## Larry Hughes

Actually Horton et. ali. had the best book on the errors of both dispensational camps Hodges and MacArthur from the Reformed perspective.

L


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

I have heard of the "free grace" movement but have not done any research on it. From what you have shared its sounds like a belief system that will lead many of the anti-intellects astray. 

There is no doubt that Christianity in the US is very hollow theologically. All one has to do is visit the "Christian" bookstores and see what is selling these days. 

What you shared about there assurance of salvation if you trust in Jesus for atleast one second during your lifetime is due to human arrogance.

Where did you get your information concerning this teaching by the "free grace" movement?

I have been on a few other forums and I have seen lots of heresy being preached and it seems that many that will disagree in heresy will bond together to fight against the Doctrines of Grace. Which is rather strange to watch as threads develope.

I will definitely be lookinig into what you have shared.

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Free Grace is also synonymous with the no-Lordship salvation crowd. It very antimonian.



Yes! Another example of how error begets error. Good point!


----------



## August

Here is a good place to start:
http://www.e-grace.net/

Joshua, you are right that it seems to be antimonian, although they say that by being obedient, you earn rewards in heaven. They divide believers into so-called "carnal" believers, and those that will through their obedience earn the right to reign with Christ. Thcarnal crowd will be the servant class of heaven, and depending on which one of their authors you read, the carnals will have to go through the 1000 years of punishment first before entering eternal life.


----------



## August

Sorry, forgot to add, John MacArthur is singled out for special attention, of course. He is the one that is most quoted in debates, to show how Calvinists can never be sure of their salvation, since you won't know if you will persevere to the end.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Josh,

The book is "Christ The Lord - The Reformation And Lordship Salvation". Gracious correction of serious errors are made in it by:

Michael Horton
Robert Godfrey
Alister McGrath
Kim Riddlebarger
Rick Ritchie
Paul Schaefer
Robert Strimple

Horton over saw the project as the seriousness of both sides errors where leading back to Rome. It's a very gracious yet firm address. 

The irony of it all is - is that both sides end up denying true unconditional free grace (the Gospel) for a legal Romish false grace...at least as their writings "spell it out". Reformed folk would do good to revisit Rome's anathemas against the Gospel ocassionally, then Calvin's rebuttal to refresh ourselves frequently.

"Michael Horton has brought together a team of talented writers, who inject sanity & theological responsibility into the discussion...This balanced & informed book will delight readers who have become alarmed at the weakness of both extremes inthis highly polarized debate."

You'll find much help in it.

Blessings, 

L

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

From Hendrickson's Commentary on Gal 5:13-18


> Having previously dealt with the subject of freedom (2:4; 4:21"“30; 5:1), Paul feels that further treatment is necessary, and this, it may well be surmised, particularly for two reasons: a. the charge of the Judaizers, that Paul´s rejection of the law as a precondition of salvation would lead to lawlessness, and b. the presence of leftovers of pagan vices in the hearts and lives of the formerly chiefly pagan Galatians.
> 
> The Christian religion resembles a narrow bridge over a place where two polluted streams meet: one is called legalism, the other libertinism. The believer must not lose his balance, lest he tumble into the refined (?) faults of Judaism on the one side, or into the gross vices of paganism on the other. He must tread the safe and narrow path. Whether fashionable or coarse, both kinds of evils are products of "œthe flesh," that is, of sinful human nature. Since the apostle had devoted a large part of his epistle to the task of combating Judaistic self-righteousness, arrogance, exclusivism, etc., he now turns the attention of the Galatians, and of all who then or now read these warnings, to those sins which, though to a certain extent also present among the Jews (Rom. 2:1, 21"“24), were especially conspicuous among the Gentiles. He fully realizes that even though the Galatians were now "œbrothers" in Christ, they were still plagued and beset by the sinster influences of contaminated heredity, long-existing habit, and dissolute environment. Generally speaking, sanctification does not complete its task in one day. So, this new section begins as follows: 13. For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh."¦ For the meaning of freedom see on 5:1. The present passage is linked in thought especially with verse 8. When these two verses (8 and 13) are combined the meaning of for and of both passages becomes clearer: "œThis persuasion (is) not (derived) from him who is calling you."¦ For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh." When God applies the outward call, the gospel message, to the heart, thereby producing the effectual call, the person who experiences this basic change is introduced into the realm of freedom, the sphere of grateful and spontaneous living to the glory of his marvelous Benefactor, and is invited to roam about freely in this new country, delighting in its treasures and making full use of its opportunities. The Galatians must beware, nevertheless, that they do not accept a distorted interpretation of the concept freedom, as if it were an opportunity, that is, bridgehead, springboard, pretext, or incentive (cf. II Cor. 5:12; 11:12; I Tim. 5:14) for sinful human nature to assert itself.
> 
> Paul is not tilting at windmills when he issues this warning. Cf. Rom. 3:8; 6:1; Rasputin (cf. R. K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra, New York, 1967, p. 196). Turning liberty into license is an evil ingrained in sinful human nature. It is so easy to interpret liberty as "œthe right to sin," and to construe freedom as "œthe privilege to do whatever one´s evil heart wants to do," instead of looking upon it as the Spirit-imparted ability and desire to do what one should do. Even today how often does it not happen that such baneful practices as attending places of worldly amusement, chain-smoking, "œboozing," desecrating the sabbath, and reading smutty novels are defended with an appeal to "œChristian liberty!" The apostle´s own inspired interpretation of the meaning of true liberty is set forth both here in Galatians and in equally touching passages of his first epistle to the Corinthians: see especially 6:12; 8:9, 13; 9:12, 19, 22; 10:23, 24, 31; 11:1.
> 
> Surely no loftier description of the essence of true freedom has ever been offered than the one given in the words: but through love be serving one another. For the concept love see the explanation of verse 6, where Paul speaks about "œfaith working through love." Here in verse 13 note the paradox: "œfreedom "¦ serving." A paradox, indeed, but not a self-contradiction, for such service is voluntary, from the heart. It is a service rendered in imitation of him who "œtook the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7), and who, during the solemn night when he stepped upon the threshold of his most profound and indescribable agony, "œrose from the supper, laid aside his garments, and having taken a towel, tied it around his waist, poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples´ feet and to dry them with the towel" (John 13:4, 5). He was the thoroughly consecrated, wise and willing servant pictured by Isaiah (42:1"“9; 49:1"“9a; 50:4"“11; and 52:13"“53:12), the spontaneously acting servant who resolutely fulfilled his mission, so that with reference to him Jehovah said: "œBehold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delights." It is such service that Paul has in mind when he says: "œ"¦ through love be serving one another."ï»¿155ï»¿ And what is meant by this love by means of which one brother voluntarily serves the other? Such ingredients as deep affection, self-sacrificing tenderness, genuine sympathy, readiness to render assistance, yearning to promote the brother´s (and in a wider sense the neighbor´s) welfare, spontaneous giving and forgiving: all these enter into it. But would it not be easier to count the glistening beads in the descending chains of rain than to catalogue all the elements that enter into that mysterious force which causes many hearts to beat as one?ï»¿156ï»¿
> 
> When Paul warns the Galatians not to turn freedom into an opportunity for the flesh but through love to be serving one another, he is placing service over against selfishness, the positive over against the negative. Paul does this frequently: see Rom. 12:21; 13:14; I Cor. 6:18"“20; Eph. 4:28, 31, 32; 5:28, 29; 6:4; Col. 3:5"“17; I Thess. 4:7, etc. Vice can only be conquered by virtue, which is the Spirit´s gift, man´s responsibility. Continued: 14. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, namely, in this: "œYou must love your neighbor as yourself." Paul quotes Lev. 19:18. One can also say that he is quoting the words of Jesus (Matt. 22:39, 40; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 7:12; 19:19; Rom. 13:8"“10; and I Cor. 13). Love, then, is both the summary (interpretive epitome or condensation) and the realization in practice of the entire God-given moral law, viewed as a unit. True, in harmony with the immediately preceding context ("œthrough love be serving one another"), the apostle here refers specifically to the second, not to the first, table of the law, but that first table is in the background, for the two are inseparable (I John 4:20, 21). Paul´s teaching throughout is that though it would be a gross error to say that the sinner must love God and his neighbor in order to be saved, it is entirely true that the "œsaint," saved by grace, out of gratitude for (and by dint of) this salvation loves God and his neighbor. Though love and the deeds which it produces must not be considered preconditions of salvation, they are, nevertheless, very important, namely, as fruits of the work of the Holy Spirit in man´s heart. Once this is understood it becomes clear that Paul is entirely consistent when, on the one hand, he maintains that believers are not under law, yet, on the other hand, emphasizes that they are "œunder law to Christ" (I Cor. 9:21; and see on Gal. 6:2).
> 
> It has been maintained that the rule here quoted differs in no respect from that of the non-Christian moralist. The resemblance, however, is only superficial. The believer´s incentive to obey this summarizing command is gratitude for the redemption accomplished by Christ; the strength to observe it is furnished by the Spirit of Christ (Gal. 5:1, 13, 25; cf. Eph. 3:16, 17; 4:20 ff.; 5:1 ff.); and it was also Christ who himself supplied the example of obedience (John 13:34).
> 
> When the question is asked, "œBut who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29), the answer is: anyone with whom, in God´s providence, we come into contact; anyone whom we can assist in any way, even though he hates us and in that sense is our "œenemy" (Matt. 5:43"“48). Here, too, Christ himself has given us the supreme example (Luke 23:34; cf. I Peter 2:21"“24). The parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25"“37) proves, moreover, that, instead of asking, "œBut who is my neighbor?" each person should "œprove himself a neighbor" to the one whom he is able to benefit in any way. Continued: 15. But if you bite and devour one another, watch out lest you be consumed by one another. The attitude toward "œone another" that is described and condemned in this passage is the very opposite of the one that was urged upon the addressed in verses 13 and 14. Here, in verse 15, people"”church-members at that!"”are pictured in the act of rushing at each other like wild beasts. By means of an ascending series of gruesome acts their violence and its threatening woeful result is pictured: they bite each other, "œgulp each other down," and, if they persist, will in the end be totally consumed by one another. They obey the dictates of their old self, and resemble nature "œraw in tooth and claw." Robertson reminds us of the story of "œtwo snakes that grabbed each other by the tail and each swallowed the other." (Word Pictures, Vol. IV, p. 311). And Cole refers to "œthe two Kilkenny cats of Cromwellian times who fought so furiously that not a scrap of fur remained of either" (The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 158). One might expect such acts of terror and violence from the enemies of God´s people in their onslaught upon the righteous (Ps. 35:25; 79:2, 7; 80:13; 124:3), but surely those who style themselves "œbelievers in the Lord Jesus Christ" and "œmembers of the one holy universal church" cannot be accused of such behavior?
> 
> The question arises, therefore, "œJust what does Paul have in mind? Is he merely warning the Galatians against certain sins which they might be considering, without in any way implying that such evils as "˜biting´ and "˜devouring´ already existed in their midst? Or, on the other hand, has he received information regarding actual conditions of dissension and strife, and is he now warning the churches as to what will be the inevitable result of the continuation of such discord and contention?" Some commentators favor the first,ï»¿157ï»¿ some the secondï»¿158ï»¿ alternative. I side with the latter. My reason is as follows. It is clear from the entire epistle"”especially from 1:1"“5:12"”that a considerable segment of the membership here addressed was in the process of yielding to the wishes of the Judaizers. Also, it is equally obvious (see 5:19, 21) that there were others who leaned in the exactly opposite direction, and were abusing the doctrine of grace, as if it implied a license to sin. Paul surely must have had a reason to dwell in such detail on the vices enumerated in the verses that follow. And finally, does not the fact that he knew so much about the conditions that prevailed in these churches indicate that he must have had close friends there, who shared his views, were infected neither with legalism nor with libertinism, and were his informers? Does it not seem reasonable, therefore, to believe that, at least to some extent, there were "œparties" or "œfactions" in these churches? Besides, as Ramsay points out, older rivalries, as between person and person, town and town, race and race, etc., may not have been completely and immediately eliminated with the coming of Christianity to these parts. Of course, it is not necessary or even reasonable to suppose that all the Galatians were engaged in internecine strife. If we accept the theory that at least some of the addressed were thus engaged, and that Paul writes as he does not only to prevent these quarrels from becoming more extensive and/or intensive, but also to put an end to them completely by urging the contending parties to adopt "œthe more excellent way" of love, have we not done justice to the meaning of his words? At any rate, the apostle shows "œhow distressing, how mad it is that we, who are members of the same body, should be leagued together, of our own accord, for mutual destruction" (Calvin).
> 
> What, then, is the remedy for this evil? Paul mentions it in these words: 16. But I say, walk by the Spirit,ï»¿159ï»¿ and you will definitely not fulfil the desire of the flesh.ï»¿160ï»¿ Let your conduct be governed by the Spirit, that is, by God´s gift imparted to you (3:2, 5). If you follow his directions and promptings you will not be dominated by your human nature regarded as the seat and vehicle of sinful desire (as in 5:13), but instead will conquer it. It takes the tender leaves of early springtime to rid the oak tree of the remnants of last autumn´s withered foliage. It is only the living that can expel the dead. It is only the good that can push out the bad. See also on verse 13 above.
> 
> Verse 16 clearly implies that there is a conflict between the Spirit and the flesh, therefore also between the believer´s new, Spirit-indwelt, nature and his old, sinful, self. Hence, Paul continues: 17. for the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are opposed to each other."¦ True, as long as one allows himself to be led by the Spirit he will definitely not fulfil the desire of the flesh, but how often does it not happen that the person in question does not allow the Spirit to be his Leader? And so, because the Spirit persists, a fierce conflict takes place inside the believer´s heart. The antagonists are: the Spirit"”hence also the Spirit-indwelt new nature"”, on the one side; and on the other side: the flesh, that is, "œthe old man" of sin and corruption (same meaning as in verses 13 and 19 of this chapter, and as in 6:8; cf. Rom. 7:25; 8:4"“9, 12, 13).
> 
> In connection with this contest, note the following:
> 
> (1) The libertine experiences no such struggle at all, for he follows his natural inclinations.
> 
> (2) The legalist, who is destined for grace and glory, having been reminded of his sinfulness by the law but for a while unwilling to accept grace, struggles and struggles but without achieving victory or experiencing the sense of certain, ultimate triumph. This condition lasts until grace finally breaks down all the barriers of opposition (Phil. 3:7 ff.).
> 
> (3) The believer, while still on earth, experiences an agonizing conflict in his own heart, but in principle, has already gained the victory, as the very presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart testifies. In full measure this victory will be his portion in the hereafter; hence,
> 
> (4) For the redeemed-soul in glory the battle is over. He wears the victor´s wreath.
> 
> As to (3), therefore, the very wording of the text"”note: "œsets its desire against" and "œare opposed to each other""”indicates the intensity of the lifelong tug of war. This shows that the Christian life means far more than stepping forward to register one´s decision at a great revival meeting, after listening to a powerful, evangelical, and heart-warming message, and while one is under the influence of the singing of old familiar hymns by a massive choir. When, under such circumstances, the sudden change is genuine, it is wonderful, but it must be borne in mind that as a rule a sinner is not wholly saved all at once ("œPresto!"). He does not leap into heaven in one prodigious bound. On the contrary, he has to work out his own salvation (Phil. 2:12). This takes time, struggle, intense effort and exertion. He is his own most powerful enemy, as Paul proves by continuing: so that these very things which you may wish to be doing, these you are not doing. What a battle between the will and the deed! Paul, writing as a converted man (Rom. 7:14"“25) and recording his present, "œstate of grace" experiences (for proof see Rom. 7:22, 25), complains bitterly about the fact that he practices that in which his soul no longer takes delight; in fact, practices that which his regenerated self hates (Rom. 7:15). He cries out, "œWretched man that I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24). Nevertheless, he is also fully aware of the fact that in the struggle between his own flesh and God´s Spirit, the latter´s victory"”hence also Paul´s"”is certain; in fact, in principle is a fact even now. Would there have been this genuine, God-centered sorrow for sin, had not Paul been a truly converted man? Of course not! This very conflict, therefore, is a charter of the apostle´s salvation. We are not surprised, therefore, that the exclamation "œWretched man! "¦ Who will deliver me?" is followed by "œI thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord."¦ There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 7:25; 8:1; cf. I Cor. 15:57). Similarly here in Galatians the thought of victory through the Spirit is basic to the understanding of verse 18. But if you are being led by the Spirit you are not under law.ï»¿161ï»¿ Being "œunder law" spells defeat, bondage, the curse, spiritual impotence, for the law cannot save (Gal. 3:11"“13, 21"“23, 25; 4:3, 24, 25; 5:1). It takes the Spirit to set one free (4:29; 5:1, 5; II Cor. 3:17).
> 
> Being Led by the Spirit
> 
> (1). Whom It Concerns
> 
> According to a rather popular view "œspiritual leading" is the Spirit´s gift to the select few, "œthe holiest men," the flower of the flock. It is imparted to them to protect them from physical harm, especially while traveling, to deliver them from dangerous situations, and sometimes even to insure them success in their business enterprises.
> 
> However, when, with Gal. 5:18 as our starting-point, we trace back the line of Paul´s thinking, it becomes evident that this limitation of "œspiritual leading" to a group of super-saints is completely foreign to his mind. Those who are being led by the Spirit (5:18) are the same as those who walk by the Spirit (5:16), and vice versa. Going back a little farther, we notice that these, in turn, are the ones who have been set free (5:1; 4:31, 26), who belong to Christ (3:29), and are "œof faith" (3:9). All true believers, therefore, are being led by the Spirit.
> 
> Moreover, the powerful influence that is being exercised upon and within them by the Spirit is not of a sporadic character, being, as it were, injected into their lives now and then in moments of great need or danger. On the contrary, it is steady, constant, as even the tense here in Gal. 5:18 implies: they are being led by the Spirit. Even when they disobey the Spirit"”and they certainly do, as has just been set forth (verses 13"“17) "”the Spirit does not leave them alone but works repentance within their hearts.
> 
> This representation is in keeping with the only other truly parallel passage in Paul´s epistles, namely, Rom. 8:14: "œFor as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Here, too, being led by the Spirit is set forth as the indispensable characteristic of God´s children. If a person is a child of God he is being led by the Spirit. If he is being led by the Spirit he is a child of God.
> 
> (2). What It Is
> 
> Before giving a positive answer to this question it may be well to point out what is not meant by being led by the Spirit. Naturally, it cannot refer to being governed by one´s own sinful impulses and inclinations, nor to "œbeing easily led" into waywardness by evil companions. Also definitely excluded here is the idea of those moral philosophers, ancient and modern, who hold that in every man there is a higher and a lower nature, and that each human being has within himself the power of causing the former to triumph over the latter. This idea is excluded even if for no other reason than this, that throughout, in Paul´s teaching, the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, of one substance with the Father and the Son. He is not "œour other or better self." See Rom. 8:26, 27; I Cor. 2:10; II Cor. 13:14. This also shows that, strictly speaking, being led by the Spirit cannot even be identified with the triumph of "œthe new man" (the regenerated nature) within us over "œthe old man" (our corrupt nature, not yet fully destroyed). That victory and that implied struggle are certainly very real; yet they are not in and by themselves what is meant by being led by the Spirit, but are rather the result of the Spirit´s active indwelling. They are certainly implied, but are not basic.
> 
> What then does the leading of the Spirit"”to change from the passive to the active voice, for the sake of the definition"”actually mean? It means sanctification. It is that constant, effective, and beneficent influence which the Holy Spirit exercises within the hearts of God´s children whereby they are being directed and enabled more and more to crush the power of indwelling sin and to walk in the way of God´s commandments, freely and cheerfully.
> 
> By so defining it extremes are avoided. Thus, on the one hand, to be led by the Spirit means more than to be guided by him, though, to be sure, the Spirit is also our Guide (John 16:13; cf. Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39; Acts 8:31; Rev. 7:17). But the very fact that, according to the passage now under consideration (Gal. 5:18), the enslaving power of the law has been broken for all those who are being led by the Spirit, indicates that this leadership which the Spirit provides implies more than "œpointing out the right way." It reminds us not so much of the Indian guide who pointed out to the pioneer white explorers the pass through the Rockies, as of the blind man of Jericho who was led to Jesus (Luke 18:40; cf. Matt. 21:2; Luke 10:34; John 18:28; Acts 6:12; 9:2). Merely pointing out the way to him would not have helped him. When the Holy Spirit leads believers he becomes the controlling influence in their lives, bringing them at last to glory.
> 
> On the other hand, however, this representation also steers clear of the opposite extreme, that of denying human responsibility and activity. The blind man of Jericho was not carried or borne (II Peter 1:21) to Jesus, but did his own walking. Warfield has said very aptly: "œIt is his [the Holy Spirit´s] part to keep us in the path and to bring us at length to the goal. But it is we who tread every step of the way; our limbs that grow weary with the labor; our hearts that faint, our courage that fails"”our faith that revives our sinking strength, our hope that instills new courage into our souls"”as we toil over the steep ascent" (The Power of God unto Salvation, p. 172). Being led by the Holy Spirit, to be fully effective, implies that one allows himself to be led. As to the interrelation of these two factors"”the believers´ self-activity and God´s (the Holy Spirit´s) leading"”, Paul´s own Spirit-inspired statement cannot be improved upon: "œWith fear and trembling continue to work out your own salvation; for it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12, 13; and see N.T.C. on that passage).
> 
> (3). Its Blessed Results
> 
> a. Those who are being led by the Spirit breathe the exhilarating and invigorating air of moral and spiritual freedom. Being no longer under law´s bondage, they obey God´s precepts with gladness of heart (Gal. 5:1, 18).
> 
> b. They detest and vigorously oppose "œthe works of the flesh" (5:17, 19"“21, 24).
> 
> c. They love the Word (whose very Author is the Spirit) and the Triune God revealed therein in all his marvelous attributes (Rom. 7:22; cf. Ps. 119; John 16:14).
> 
> d. "œThe fruit of the Spirit" abounds in their lives (Gal. 5:22, 23; 6:2, 8"“10).
> 
> e. This enhances their freedom of access in approaching the throne of grace (Eph. 2:18; cf. Rom. 5:1, 2; Heb. 4:14"“16).
> 
> f. It also goes hand in hand with the testimony of the Spirit in their hearts, assuring them that they are children of God (II Peter 1:5"“11; cf. Rom. 8:16).
> 
> g. Finally, it (the fruit of the Spirit abounding in their lives) greatly strengthens their testimony to the world, all this to the glory of God Triune (Acts 1:8; cf. John 15:26, 27).


----------



## tdowns

*Thanks Rich*

Great reading.

And I don't want to ever forget, I've been meaning to say it every time I see that awesome avatar of yours, God Bless you and Thanks for serving and protecting....you guys are the true Super Heros. God Bless the Armed Forces.

Thanks.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by tdowns007]


----------



## tdowns

*???*



> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> "Christ The Lord - The Reformation And Lordship Salvation"
> 
> Horton over saw the project as the seriousness of both sides errors where leading back to Rome. It's a very gracious yet firm address.
> 
> The irony of it all is - is that both sides end up denying true unconditional free grace (the Gospel) for a legal Romish false grace...at least as their writings "spell it out".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He asserts the above concerning John MacArthur? If you have the book, I'd love to read an excerpt where he points out MacArthur's romish tendencies in this. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I'm glad this is coming up, because I've had some confusion about it.

I remember a while back, when there was some debate about "Lordship Salvation", or discussion of it on the White Horse Inn, and then I've read support of lordship salvation on here. Obviously Jesus must be our Lord to be saved, but the title, "Lordship Salvation" and those writings under that title ALMOST made up a system of salvation, that might have SEAMED to promote works based salvation. I don't know. 

Maybe there is a thread, but I do remember the debates, and having listened to MacArthur, I know he def. now holds to the 5 points--but to my ear, some legalistic tendencies slipping in. 

My thinking, is since he's independent, raised in fundy America, but a true man of God--and a powerful thinker/speaker-- he's moving closer and closer to reformed thinking over the years, but it's taking time to chip away the culture of American Christianity; hence the moving from more of a 4 pointer early days to full Five, and coming to better understanding of sonship. I think in his zeal to combat free grace, he may have come across as works based, but I know he is not that at all.

I think he's a great example of how God brings people toward truth, and how if he'd studied under the reformed Schools (I don't think he did) instead of Fundy America, he would have save alot of time in getting to those truths.

Just my own thoughts on it based on many years of listening to him and LOVING HIS SERMONS, despite now finding it hard to believe he holds to the eschatology that he does.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Just don't confuse the dispensational use of "free grace" with the traditional Reformed use. People new to the Reformed faith may get confused otherwise.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by August_
> I think the "free grace' movement is the biggest issue we face in modern Christianity. The hollow theology promoted by Hodges, Wilkin et al seems to pervade every discussion board, every second church and most of the popular Christian books I pick up.
> 
> I was astounded to learn that they position Calvinism as a "works-based" theology, and therefore a heresy. Other gems include that you can have assurance of salvation if you trusted Christ for one second, sometime during your life. There is no need for perseverance, no outward signs of regeneration and no need to repent.
> 
> Has anyone else had interaction with or experience with proponents of the "free grace" movement?



This antinomianism is certainly a challenge. I would think you had challenges of your own with you pastor's harsh denunciation of Calvinism last year, if the church you attend is the Prestonwood in Plano.


----------



## tdowns

*Thanks Josh.*

Thanks buddy. Good info.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Josh,

I'll get some out. Give me some time, I'm pretty busy and its been a bit since I've read it. But I would recommend getting & reading the whole book so as not to misunderstand, because I've read it and Dr. MacArthur's books on this very issue. And don't hear me wrong I LOVE Dr. MacArthur, so in doing this I don't want to sound otherwise. It was a well done clarification on the issue.

And it's crucial to understand that the book addresses both camps, not just Dr. MacArthur's side of the issue.

When all truth be said & done, because of the old man still in us, we ALL, even the best teachers struggle with the legal bone & inherant works mindset in us. Myself included...It's a life long battle.


----------



## Pilgrim

At the risk of turning this thread into a real burner, I'll note that John Robbins slammed MacArthur, Piper and others on the "Lordship Salvation" side as teaching works righteousness since they say that "bare mental assent" doesn't cut it. 

The denials of Robbins aficionados notwithstanding, I can still find no practical distinction between the Robbins view and Ryrie's, although they may be coming at it from different directions (some say the Robbins/Clark view on this has some resemblance to Sandemanism). Both camps essentially say (as I understand it) that agreement with the facts of the gospel is all that is necessary for saving faith.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## August

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by August_
> I think the "free grace' movement is the biggest issue we face in modern Christianity. The hollow theology promoted by Hodges, Wilkin et al seems to pervade every discussion board, every second church and most of the popular Christian books I pick up.
> 
> I was astounded to learn that they position Calvinism as a "works-based" theology, and therefore a heresy. Other gems include that you can have assurance of salvation if you trusted Christ for one second, sometime during your life. There is no need for perseverance, no outward signs of regeneration and no need to repent.
> 
> Has anyone else had interaction with or experience with proponents of the "free grace" movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This antinomianism is certainly a challenge. I would think you had challenges of your own with you pastor's harsh denunciation of Calvinism last year, if the church you attend is the Prestonwood in Plano.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is the church I attend, or at least used to. I took up that particular sermon with some of the senior pastors, referring them to the BCF, which they reference in their statement of beliefs. I received some wishy-washy answer about the church not having any official position on Calvinism, and that they merely "preach Jesus". I have since not attended, and have been looking for a new church.


----------



## August

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Just don't confuse the dispensational use of "free grace" with the traditional Reformed use. People new to the Reformed faith may get confused otherwise.



That is one of the problems, they seem to have "hijacked" the name out of the reformation. I think I agree with someone earlier who said it is better described as cheap grace, but that will not go over well as a marketable brand.


----------



## August

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Mr. Stone, have you been regularly visiting elsewhere?



I'm ashamed to say not, we have been to a few other churches in the area, but everywhere I turn I seem to find either cheap grace or purpose-driven God-served human happiness theology.

Rather frustrating, to say the least.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by August_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Mr. Stone, have you been regularly visiting elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ashamed to say not, we have been to a few other churches in the area, but everywhere I turn I seem to find either cheap grace or purpose-driven God-served human happiness theology.
> 
> Rather frustrating, to say the least.
Click to expand...


There are at least a couple of Calvinistic Baptist churches in the general N. Dallas area I can think of offhand. One is in Denton and the other in the Plano area. Feel free to U2U me if you want more information.


----------



## August

Thanks gents. There is also a new Presbyterian church nearby, I will also go there for a visit.

Back to the issue at hand, in my discussion with one of the 'free grace' proponents, I was told that I could not be sure of my salvation until I died, because only then will I know that I persevered. A complete strawman, since the reformed faith holds that the perseverance comes as a result of the working of the Holy Spirit, but assurance from the testimony of the Spirit. The rebuttal was that MacArthur at one point said that he was not sure if his salvation for that very reason, that he was not sure that he would persevere until the end. Has anyone else heard that? I would be extremely surprised if MacArthur ever said that.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Josh,

I had a 30 minute window so I thought I shoot you a section. If there are any errors its my typing skills and time allotted. Ldh

Under "œWhat Is Saving Faith?", page 35...


"œWhen MacArthur writes, "œReal faith results in obedience" (p. 46), there is nothing with which we would take issue. However, when he adds repeatedly such statements as the following, we cannot help but take issue with him: "œDisobedience is unbelief"(p. 47). "œTrue faith is humble, submissive obedience" (p. 140). "œWe have seen already that repentance is a critical element of genuine faith"¦" (p. 172). "œIn other words, faith encompasses obedience"¦faith is not complete unless it is obedient" (p. 173,), and we could go on.

The fruit of genuine faith is grateful obedience; nevertheless, in order to clear the garden of the antinomian weeds, the danger is that we may pull up some precious flowers along the way. Martin Luther coined the phrase, "œjustification by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." This simple formula was calculated, on the on hand, to protect the doctrine of justification against the additions of human works as merit or even as unmeritorious conditions to the forensic declaration; and on the other hand, to guard against the antinomian menance, that both Luther and Calvin faced, that denied the inseparable union of faith and repentance; justification and sanctification.

Faith produces obedience, but to suggest that faith IS obedience is to confuse justification and sanctification. Thus, when MacArthur writes, "œrepentance is a critical element of genuine faith" (p. 172), he is inconsistent with the Reformation position. Defending the evangelical doctrine of saving faith against the Roman Catholic position, Calvin wrote the following:

"œFor their inclusion of faith under repentance disagrees with what Paul says in Acts: "˜Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles of repentance to God, and of faith"¦in Jesus Christ" {Acts 20:21}. There he reckons repentance and faith as two different things. What then? Can true repentance stand, apart from faith? Not at all. But even though they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished. As faith is not without hope, yet faith and hope are different things, so repentance and faith, although they are held together by a permanent bond, require to be joined rather than confused."

Not only did Calvin guard against confusing faith and repentance; he argued that the former produced the latter:

"œHowever, our immediate transition will be from faith to repentance. For when this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also BORN of faith"¦There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such person have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument."

Furthermore, the classical evangelical definition of saving faith encompasses three elements: knowledge (an intellectual grasp of the facts), assent (the conclusion that these facts are true), and trust (the conviction that these true facts are true in MY CASE and for MY salvation). MacArthur argues that the elements of saving faith are knowledge, assent and the determination of the will to obey truth." After all, "œfaith is not complete unless it is obedient" (p. 173). He quotes Louis Berkhof, whose Systematic Theology is the standard contemporary summary of Reformed Theology, in his favor:

"œBerkhof sees three elements to genuine faith: An intellectual element (notitia), which is the understanding of truth; an emotional element (assensus), that is the conviction and affirmation of truth; and a volitional element (fiducia), which is the determination of the will to obey truth. (p. 173)"

Nevertheless, this is not actually what Berkhof says. The section where Berkhof lists these three classical Protestant elements states nothing at all about "œthe determination of the will to obey truth." Berkhof has much to say about fiducia, but it is all along the lines of trust, which is how this third element has been understood by evangelicals since the Reformation. As Berkhof summarizes, "œThis third element consists in a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender of the soul as guilty and defiled to Christ." It also includes the reception of Christ "œas the source of pardon and spiritual life." While it is clear that Berkhof would never sever the relationship between saving faith and the determination of the will to obey the truth, he certainly does not confuse the two either, as MacArthur implies of Berkhof and certainly accomplished himself.

In fact, Berkhof shares the Continental Reformed view that assurance of salvation does not require earnest introspection, but that it is part of the very essence of faith itself. Berkhof´s warning against what he called "œpietistic monism" could be easily directed at the fundamentalism out of which MacArthur comes, although that is, Happily, not where MacArthur seems entirely to stand these days:

"œPietistic monism asserted that assurance does not belong to the very being , but only to the well-being of faith; and that it can only be secured, except by special revelation, only by continuous and conscientious introspection. All kinds of "˜marks of the spiritual life,´ derived not from Scripture, but from the lives of approved Christians, became the standard of self-examination. The outcome proved, however, that this method was not calculated to produce assurance, but rather tended to lead to ever-increasing doubt, confusion, and uncertainty. (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 508)"

Etc"¦

p. 39

"œFaith, according to Reformation theology, is NOT conversion, obeying God´s commands, repentance or commitment to live a new life. It produces inevitably all of these effects (contra Hodges), but it is not itself to be confused with its effects (contra MacArthur). This is an essential issue, of course, because what is at stake is the biblical and evangelical doctrine of sola fide (faith alone).

If, for instance, anyone would have said at any time throughout our Protestant history, "œI am justified before God by faith and works," any informed lay-person would have been convinced that such a person was a Roman Catholic or at least an extreme Arminian. After all, faith is not enough, according to Thomas Aquinas, because his definition of faith is knowledge of and assent to the teachings of the church, not a trusting reliance on the person and work of Christ himself. Therefore, to faith was added love, and this faith formed by love was to produce the obedience necessary for justification.

I know that this is certainly not what John M. means, but his language certainly does cause some confusion in this important area. For instance, is there really any substantial difference between saying one is justified by faith and works (that is, obedience) and saying one is justified by faith alone, but faith includes works (obedience) IN ITS DEFINITION, and until one´s faith is obedient, it is not justifying? Surely not. If obedience is a work (and who would deny this?, and "œfaith is humble, submissive obedience," then MacArthur is telling us that faith IS works. He seems to be saying that we are justified, not by faith and works (the Roman Catholic view) or by a faith that works (the Protestant view), but indeed by a faith that is works, for "œfaith is not complete unless it is obedient" (p. 173)."

Etc"¦

"œMarArthur, it seems, is so disturbed by the antinomianism of his opponents that, in order to make what he calls easy-believes more untenable, he insists that the believer I justified by knowledge, assent and obedience (or, at least, "œthe determination of the will to obey truth"), rather than knowledge, assent and trust. Granted, the formulation is different from official Roman Catholic teaching, but it merely moves the element of works into the definition of faith itself. This leaves the impression that, if a believer is repeating the same sin, he or she must not be justified yet, since "œrepentance is a critical element of genuine faith" (p. 172) and "œfaith is not complete unless it is obedient" (p. 173).

On the passage concerning the Rich Young Ruler and under the section of "œWhat Is The Gospel"œ:

MacArthur insists, even though he acknowledges that the ruler was self righteous and was seeking to be justified by his own efforts. "œOur Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything." (p. 78)"¦

"¦MacArthur seems to be saying that instead of functioning as the law telling us that we have not fulfilled its requirements to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, this passage is the gospel offering us salvation if we are at least willing to fulfill this duty,. It is not an antinomian like Hodges, but the biblical theologian Calvin who writes the following concerning the Roman Catholic exegesis of this passage:

"œI do not want to pursue the individual testimonies that the stupid Sorbonnists (Roman Catholic theologians at the University of Paris) of today have groundlessly torn from Scripture-whatever first came to hand-to fling at us"¦The lawyer, accustomed to the persuasion of law righteousness, blinded himself with confidence in works"¦ Therefore he is rightly sent back to the law wherein there is a perfect mirror of righteousness. 

With a clear voice we too proclaim that these commandments are to be kept if one seeks life in works. And Christians must know this doctrine, for how could they flee to Christ unless they recognized that they had plunged from the way of life over the brink of death?"¦Therefore, since we are barred from law righteousness we must betake ourselves to another help, that is, to faith in Christ. For this reason, as the Lord in this passage recalls to the law a teacher of the law whom he knew to be puffed up with empty confidence in works, in order that he may learn he is a sinner subject to the dreadful judgment of eternal death, so elsewhere he comforts with the promise of grace without any mention of the law others who have already been humbled by this sort of knowledge: "œCome to me all who labor and are heavey-laden, and I will refresh you"¦and you will find rest for your souls [Matt. 11:28-29]." (John Calvin)

In other words, Jesus´ comment was not a test to see whether the young man was willing to surrender all, but a chalenge to his pretensions of law keeping. In Calvin´s exegesis, the problem was that the young man did not keep the law at all, and therefore, should have fled to Christ; in MacArthur´s the problem was that he did not keep the law enough, and therefore, should have sold his possessions."

WHEW! That´s just a taste but should be some insight. Keep in mind this is just from the section addressing JM, there is an entire discussion concerning the other side.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## August

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> After all, "œfaith is not complete unless it is obedient" (p. 173). He quotes Louis Berkhof, whose Systematic Theology is the standard contemporary summary of Reformed Theology, in his favor:
> 
> "œBerkhof sees three elements to genuine faith: An intellectual element (notitia), which is the understanding of truth; an emotional element (assensus), that is the conviction and affirmation of truth; and a volitional element (fiducia), which is the determination of the will to obey truth. (p. 173)"
> 
> Nevertheless, this is not actually what Berkhof says. The section where Berkhof lists these three classical Protestant elements states nothing at all about "œthe determination of the will to obey truth." Berkhof has much to say about fiducia, but it is all along the lines of trust, which is how this third element has been understood by evangelicals since the Reformation. As Berkhof summarizes, "œThis third element consists in a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender of the soul as guilty and defiled to Christ." It also includes the reception of Christ "œas the source of pardon and spiritual life." While it is clear that Berkhof would never sever the relationship between saving faith and the determination of the will to obey the truth, he certainly does not confuse the two either, as MacArthur implies of Berkhof and certainly accomplished himself.
> 
> In fact, Berkhof shares the Continental Reformed view that assurance of salvation does not require earnest introspection, but that it is part of the very essence of faith itself.



Sorry for butting in....

In my copy of Berkhof (1986 reprint), in the section about _fiducia_, the following sentence appears, directly preceding the sentence quoted above: "Faith is not merely a matter of the intellect, nor of the intellect and emotions combined; it is also a matter of the will, determining the direction of the soul, an act of the soul going out towards its object and appropriating this. Without this activity the object of faith, which the sinner recognizes as true and real and entirely applicable to his present needs, remains outside of him."

I fail to see how this does not mean what MacArthur said it meant, the sinner recognizes the truth and the will seeks to exert a personal trust and complete surrender. Is the objection because he used the word "obey"?


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by August_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Mr. Stone, have you been regularly visiting elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ashamed to say not, we have been to a few other churches in the area, but everywhere I turn I seem to find either cheap grace or purpose-driven God-served human happiness theology.
> 
> Rather frustrating, to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A list of Reformed Churches in/near Plano/Dallas:
> Trinity Presbyterian
> Manna Presbyterian Church in Plano (May Be Chinese, not sure, but it's PCA)
> 
> Faith OPC-Dallas
> Christ Covenant OPC-Dallas
> First Baptist Church of Parker-a Particular (Reformed) Baptist Church.
Click to expand...



First Baptist Parker (Plano area, I think) is one of the churches I had in mind. It is pastored by Hal Brunson, who has a lot of sermons posted on Sermon Audio. There are no doubt a number of OPC and PCA churches in the metroplex as well.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I debated Wilkin back in 2004. He'll change the debate topic midstream and argue against something else instead of dealing with the topic at hand.

The link is in the lefthand column on the front page of my ministry website so you can read the whole debate.

http://theologicallycorrect.com


James White debated him in 2005 a little under a year later. He pulled the same stuff on JRW that he did with me.


----------



## August

Kerry,

I read your debate with Wilkin, and this is exactly how every debate of one of his followers go. No matter how many times you deal with what they say, or how many times you present the difficulties apparent from their position, they simply act as if you did not say anything, and proceed to burn the strawmen they themselves create. You did a good job debating Wilkin, as did James White. Somehow I can't ever seem to get a 'free gracer' to call into Dr. White's DL program....


----------



## August

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by August_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Mr. Stone, have you been regularly visiting elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ashamed to say not, we have been to a few other churches in the area, but everywhere I turn I seem to find either cheap grace or purpose-driven God-served human happiness theology.
> 
> Rather frustrating, to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A list of Reformed Churches in/near Plano/Dallas:
> Trinity Presbyterian
> Manna Presbyterian Church in Plano (May Be Chinese, not sure, but it's PCA)
> 
> Faith OPC-Dallas
> Christ Covenant OPC-Dallas
> First Baptist Church of Parker-a Particular (Reformed) Baptist Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First Baptist Parker (Plano area, I think) is one of the churches I had in mind. It is pastored by Hal Brunson, who has a lot of sermons posted on Sermon Audio. There are no doubt a number of OPC and PCA churches in the metroplex as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Stone, I'd encourage you to be weary of any Presbyterian churches that are PCUSA. Off hand, the good Presbyterian denominations I can think of (with exceptions, mind you) are:
> 
> Orthodox Presbyterian Church
> Reformed Presbyterian Churches of North America
> Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
> Presbyterian Reformed
> 
> As it is, though, I'm thinking that the only 3 Presbyterian denoms in Dallas/Ft. Worth area would be OPC, PCA, and PCUSA (with the latter being liberal).
Click to expand...


Oh brother, this is the first I have heard of the PCUSA being liberal. What are the liberal teachings they follow?

EDIT: Never mind, Google is our friend. Wow.

I also tried the Reformed Church out here, but they also seem to have a liberal political agenda.

[Edited on 3-19-2006 by August]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Josh,

It is the "ify" language. Except on issues like the RYR, there I'd have to stand opposed without waivering, yet graciously for even Peter slipped in Gal.

We must never forget that the Gospel is utterly unconditional, which if you read that book you will find that out. Free grace really is free grace. What I didnt have time to quote was where MH, et. ali. spell out is that the "free grace" movement is not free grace at all but works. The idea of "cheap grace", as they go to show, is always the "language" of legalism & works, and such person's arrogant pride is evident in their thinking higher religiously of themselves. Even if they "profess" with lips, faith alone.

There's a difference between a real cheap grace that's no grace at all but a works, albeit low level works, that is false grace. And real grace that is, from our side, not cheap but unconditional and free, from Christ's side it cost Him His blood. To make real grace cheap OR "expensive is in fact blaspheme, is anti-Christ and an outright denial of THE Christ.

Your quite welcome. I'd still advise getting the book and reading it, you won't be disappointed.

Always, your brother in Christ,

Larry


----------

