Are Free Grace Christians Same Theology as Classic Arms?

Brother, the name of a church is not a determiner of their theological stance.

When we are speaking of 'Free Grace' here it is not the name of a church, but a theological view point. Yet even in this view there are variations that most don't even realize

Basically and most essentially it is the opposing view to Lordship salvation.


NOTE: Let me add a clarification.. When I said they are closer to modern day Arminians, which include various groups like 'Word of Faith' types.. that is not to say THEY hold to the same. Classical or Reformed Arminians (just as classical Wesleyans) hold more to a Lordship type view. Whereby if a person is saved, they are saved by calling upon Him to both save them and lead them. Free Grace makes a distinction in that a person can call out to God to save them (Justification) but discipleship or leading them is a separate aspect known as sanctification and should not be confused as being the act of the salvation process because it appears to make salvation more a bargaining process and a free gift. IE.. you can be saved if you promise to be discipled

 

The view in which the 'Bible' is God's grace.. Skan and Winman both hold to it

 

Do you mean Gods Sovereignty when you mean "Lordship Salvation" ?

Here you loose me.....they back out Sanctification? my understanding of sanctification in my own belief system is that "Justification" is monergistic & "Sanctification" is synergistic.... a joint work of both God & Man... Phil 2:12-13.... but we believe all the energizing grace & power is of God! I believe I am currently in a sanctification process & till my glorification. ...are you saying there is no order of salvation for Free Grace believers?

I guess Im also asking where the bargaining comes in or are you referring to Free Grace that believes their bargaining...please clarify. Thanks.

 

I did not get that from my interaction with them on here, but thanks. Could it be a matter of semantics? Of course the Gospel in itself is an act of grace, but so is everything leading up to the person hearing and receiving it including the conviction of sin.

Is there another act of grace you are referring to?

 

No, like Free Grace, Lordship Salvation is a soteriological view held to by many calvinists including John MacArthur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy

You should read up on both views. There is a clear order of salvation (from man's perspective that is) in the Free Grace camp. Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

 

The point of difference is that I and many other hold that God must reveal spiritual truths to people because they do not and will not comprehend them on their own. For the majority of Non-Cals, we hold this to mean God uses normative means to convey these truths to all men, though it is not at the same time for all men nor the same way, but that all are revealed the same basic spiritual truths.Yet God must be the one to reveal the truths to man that they might know them (example.. age of accountability) otherwise man will never know them for what they truly are. Skan's view holds that man via his own intellect can grasp the things of God via His Word as through normative means. IOW - man can grasp these truth via intellect through the normative or outward means God sends from the Bible, teacher/pastor, Church, ect...
That is a 'short' rendition and does not do justice to his position or mine but is simply a quick gist. Both views hold that man coming to know spiritual truths is based upon God's grace.. the distinction is not in principle but in application.


Give me a moment and I will try to find a thread where we discuss this.
Here it is: Dealing with ONE of many misconceptions of Non-Cal Theology.. in post #7 I speak to a question he posed me earlier in another thread on the issue and he answers back in #21

 

No. It a discussion a bit bigger than a post or two.. though I would honestly encourage you to check them both out.. if for nothing else to understand why each group holds the view they do. Both have merit but I take the central ground. Salvation is given because I choose to make Jesus my Lord, but nor am I saved without submitting to His authority as God.

Yes, there is an order. However some in the Lordship view state.. in essence, a person can't be saved if they didn't make Christ their Lord as well as Savior.

No.. the Free Grace group accuses the Lordship group of making a bargain that the person might obtain salvation. Free Grace is also known to the Lordship group as Easy Believe'ism.

 

Thanks for the explanation and link. I guess I need to know what "on their own" refers to. Acts 17:26-27 seems to contradict anything pertaining to seeking God being done on their own.

 

Thanks for that, Allan. I fully agree that the name of a church does not necessarily determine what that church believes - here, For example, we have a denomination known as the United Reformed Church (or URC for short), but it is certainly not Reformed in the sense of being DoG/calvinistic.

However, the links I gave were to sites of churches that not only call themselves "Free Grace"; they also believe in salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone, to the glory of God alone, set out in the bible alone - the so-called "Five Solas" of reformed doctrine.

Take the first church I linked to, Free Grace Baptist Church Belvedere, Kenk, UK. I followed the link, and when I clicked on the tab "What We Believe", I saw that it started like this (my bold):

[SIZE=-1]We are an independent baptist church, in fellowship with the Association of Grace Baptist Churches (south east) in the United Kingdom.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]We are a reformed and evangelical baptist church and believe the Bible to be the final revelation of God to man. our church is based upon the 1689 Second London Baptist confession of faith and the ‘Doctrines of Grace’, sometimes called the five points of Calvinism.[/SIZE]
​

The same with the others. Free Grace Baptist Church San Antonio, Texas (sorry! I had that linking to the church in Sidcup in my earlier post) starts its "What We Believe" section:

While we believe wholeheartedly in the inerrant and infallible word of God as preserved in the 66 books of the Bible (39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT), we also share the belief of C.H. Spurgeon and countless others who expressed the conviction that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith presents a reliable summary of what the Bible teaches.
​

Your comment about the Free Grace position being the opposing view to Lordship salvation puzzled me. "Lordship salvation" is not a phrase I know well. I used to think it was simply a denial of the idea that it is possible to have Jesus as your Saviour without having Him as Lord, but in a thread some years ago on the BB, I seem to remember discovering that the phrase means more than that, including the supposed need for full understanding of Christ's lordship for a person to be saved. I have yet to come across a church or individual Christian who believes that. I am sure that the churches I linked to are not opposed to the idea that Jesus is Lord, but would be opposed to the notion that it is possible to have Jesus as your Saviour without having Him as Lord, and to the idea that you have to understand His lordship perfectly in order to be saved.

Apart from all that though, to me, the word "free" is redundant when coupled with grace. It wouln't be grace if it were not free.

Thanks again for your post, Allan.