This is a quick post to recommend two great articles on Free Grace Theology over at Faith and Practice. Matt Waymeyer has taken that system of theology to task in what I believe are two very important articles.
Never heard of Free Grace Theology? Think easy believism. Think “no repentance needed for salvation”. Think 1-2-3 repeat after me. Well, maybe not that last one, but the other lines adequately describe this theological system. It is the view that a bare faith alone saves, and when I say “bare” I mean “bare”. I blogged a little about this earlier in my post entitled: “Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!?” There I highlighted how proponents of this view literally believe that someone can renounce the faith moments after getting saved, walk away from Christianity never to return, become a leading atheist, and still get to heaven. To learn more of this system check out Grace Evangelical Society, their statement of faith, and this “answer” to the question “What do you mean by Free Grace Theology?”
This veiw of salvation seems to have some Scriptural support, and its proponents are masters at reinterpreting texts. I am sure there are many good people (and genuinely saved, born again people) who are confused by this system and hold to it with fervor. They are wrong and the system, I believe is very dangerous.
Before I go on endlessly with my opinions, let me refer you to these recent and excellent posts by Matt Waymeyer. First, he looked at Acts 17:30-31 and masterfully defused the free grace attempts to make this passage mean something else than its apparently obvious meaning. That post alone refutes the basic premise of the whole doctrinal system. Then, he followed it up with a good treatment of 1 Cor. 15:1-5 which points out something fairly basic about that passage which undermines key elements of free grace theology.
I just had to get in one other link. This is to a more in-depth and detailed discussion of free grace theology from someone with much experience with this teaching (as the author was himself in a church which taught this system). Reformation Theology posted a link to this guy’s (Phillip Simpson) paper, and I refer you to that post.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
I’ve got a friend at work who subscribes to this theology. Perhaps I’ll bother him with Matt’s posts.
Isn’t this Free Grace theology basically the thing John MacArthur took to task back in the eighties with his book, “The Gospel According to Jesus”?
John,
Yes. It is basically the same thing, except more extreme. Coming from the IFBx crowd, I was familiar with people who deny repentance. But that bunch is nothing compared to these guys.
For those of you interested, I have been posting a response to Matthew Waymeyer’s faulty appraisal of Free Grace theology and inadequate treatment of Acts 17:30, 31 on my blog. I have dissected Matthew’s arguements and respond to each of his points.
Prov 18:13
He who answers a matter before he hears it,
It is folly and shame to him.
NKJV
Free Grace Theology Blog
Come interact. Maybe we can all learn something.
Antonio
Greetings:
Sorry I am late to the discussion, but…
I want to dispel the misnomer being spread by some Grace Evangelical Society (GES) members, especially Antonio da Rosa. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that GES is the voice of the Free Grace movement in general.
The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless†interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine†of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “Crossless/Deityless†interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “division and offences†in the FG camp and churches. (Rom. 16:17-18).
The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,†“ReDefined Free Grace Theology†and the “Promise Only Gospel.†It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES.
Once the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed it became the new home of many men who departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin.
Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, Neimela, Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put GES in cardiac arrest. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel. May I share this article with your guests, Is “ReDefined†Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?
The article will help them understand that Hodges, Wilkin and especially Antonio da Rosa do not speak for and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the so-called Free Grace community.
The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over the Hodges/Wilkin “Crossless†interpretation of the Gospel.
Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.
LM
Thanks Lou. I probably don’t agree with your entire position exactly, however I join you in seeing much error in the GES. Your explanation helps us understand FGT better, and see that it, like so many ideas, is not monolithic.
Blessings to you from the Cross,
Bob Hayton
Bob:
Glad you found this helpful.
You know that I am never going to agree with Lordship Salvation, but neither will I endorse or be associated with the heresy coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES.
Antonio da Rosa’s extreme views are NOT representative of scores of balanced pastors/teachers in the FG community.
Kind regards,
Lou
Hi Bob:
I wanted to share what are some of the more extreme examples you will get from the advocates of the GES Crossless interpretation of the Gospel.
At Antonio da Rosa’s blog he wrote an article titled, Believe in Christ’s Promise and You are Saved No Matter What Misconceptions You Hold. In regard to evangelizing the lost and the content of saving faith he wrote:
“If a JW hears me speak of Christ’s deity and asks me about it, I will say, ‘Let us agree to disagree about this subject.’â€
“At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable [sic] eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions [sic] and beliefs about Jesus.â€
“I would never say you don’t have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific! If someone asks me point blank, do I believe that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’â€
Elsewhere he also stated, “The Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are One and the Same.â€
He has been asked by several men if he would answer the following questions,
MUST a person believe that they are a sinner, that Jesus is God, that He was here in the flesh and died on the Cross for our very own personal sins, that He was buried, that He rose to life again and was seen in the flesh by a multitude of people in order to be saved?
Can anything in this “list†be unknown, unbelieved, or rejected at the moment of conversion and the person ACTUALLY be Eternally Saved at that moment?
He has refused to answer any of these or like questions. Why? Because he knows that a truthful answer, which is “YES†exposes the soft underbelly of the GES’s Crossless gospel.
Take care,
LM