Pages

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The Protestant Denial of Sola Gratia

This was addressed to Steve, but I couldn't resist comment. I know Steve can hold his own, but this is just one of my pet peeves. I posted an article on this theology a few weeks ago in a thread that published Jim Eliff's article "Southern Baptists An Unregenerate Denomination." I have watched the SBC and many independent churches fill the pews with unregenerate souls and bloat membership rolls for years now. So you should be able to figure out exactly what I think when I see this:



So Free Grace is Marcionism. Hmmmm.

Free Grace is the belief that those things that are essential to successfully living the Christian life can be distinguished from the offer of eternal life.

We think this is valid because the NT writers never blur the distinction between following Christ and receiving eternal life/being justified before God's legal bar of justice.

We accept and proclaim everything good coming out of the incarnation but we correlate and distingush those things that are correlated and distinguished by the NT writers.

The offer of eternal life is not a bulletin board for everything urgent in Christian theology. We proclaim the whole canon. The Free Grace enterprise insists that there is nothing free about discipleship and to mingle it with what is free inexorably dismisses the power given it by the NT wriers.



# posted by H K Flynn : 2/13/2006 10:36 PM http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6789188&postID=113967719173577570

This is so basic. Let's put this together for H K Flynn, and let's not mince words.



"Free Grace" is a denial, not an affirmation of Sola Gratia.

On the "Free Grace" view, regeneration and election are both put outside, not inside the work of the Holy Spirit. In Calvinism we believe because we are born again and no other reason (1 John 5:1). We persevere, again because we are born again. We repent, because we are born again. We commit our lives to Christ because we are born again. We obey Christ because we are born again. The Spirit's work lies directly behind each of these. They do not arise from a state of (fallen) nature. They arise as the result of His work and all in conjunction with the gospel and the Word of God itself.

Ergo, we do not apostatize from the faith. We can backslide, but we do not apostatize. Let's not forget here that the definition of "eternal security" in Free Grace theology is "If you have at any time in the past made a commitment to Christ, you are saved." Can an unbeliever apostatize from the faith completely? The Free Grace position says "Yes." Reformed theology says "No."

R.B.C. Howell, the 2nd president of the SBC defined apostasy as the embracing of 3 evils: repudiation of the evangelical doctrine (the gospel); a gradual (if not radical) decline in morality; and a loss of spirituality of mind (conviction of sin, interest in spriitual things, love for the brethren, etc). Backsliding encompasses only one, maybe two , but not all three. Apostasy embraces all three. If a man apostatizes, he was not regenerate from the start. We cannot, of a certainty, know of another man's state in this respect, but the Free Grace position affirms the security of the believer in such a way that a man can apostatize and still be counted of the brethren. It conflates a credible profession of faith, which is what Baptists require for baptism, with a saving profession of faith and couples this with an affirmation of the security of the believer that denies the reality of spurious faith and the inevitable necessity of some degree of sanctification.

It doesn't end there, either. Oh no. This is typically what passes for soteriology in conservative/fundamental Baptist circles. Baptist ecclesiology proceeds from the notion of a regenerate church membership...not merely the universal church, but the local church as well. Free Grace Theology has conflated a saving profession of faith with a credible profession of faith. Baptists require a credible profession of faith for baptism (John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology Chapter 12, Treatise on Church Order).

Free Grace theology merely assumes these are all saving professions of faith. It is one thing to give your baptismal candidates the benefit of the doubt and mistakenly allow unregenerates into the local assembly as members. That's why a 100 percent regenerate membership is an ideal. Believer's baptism is a control, but it is not infallible.

However, the Free Grace Theology amounts to Campbellite ecclesiology without baptismal regeneration, for, if you "pray that prayer and really really mean it" and "make that decision to ask Jesus in your heart to your Lord n' Savior" (even if it is the fifteenth time you've done it...you just really really mean it this time), you can be validly baptized, and you can be a full member. These f0lks don't want to be Campellites. (God forbid they believe baptismal regeneration), but they want to be sure they have a regenerate church membership, so they turn the sinner's prayer into a sacramental prayer that functions in the same way. Presto! You get a big church with big numbers and a soteriology that says that if they apostatize, they're still considered true converts, and a sacramental prayer and an invitation have become your new sacraments.

There's a reason we call this "Easy believism." There's a reason we call this a "dispensational soteriological innovation."

It is the Free Grace Theology that bloats the membership rolls.

It is the Free Grace Theology that results in churches with 29,000 members but only 9000 or less show up on any given Sunday morning, 1/3 of which are visitors.

It is the Free Grace Theology that gives us Pastor's Conferences that are full of men who pat themselves proudly on the back for their inflated numbers without regard to the church members they actually cultivate and then get snippy when you bring up that issue.

It's Free Grace Theology that gives us an SBC President that spends 2 years touring the nation promoting a baptismal program we affectionately call "The Million Man Dunk."

So, not only is the gospel reduced and redefined, a new sacrament is invented, the ecclesiological value of a regenerate church membership is diminished, and the ordinance of baptism is trivialized. I wonder also how many have taken the Lord's Supper to their condemnation to boot.

This isn't the gospel of the Protestant Reformation. This isn't the gospel of the Bible. Arminians wonder at this. You know, I actually have Arminian friends that call this Pelagian. You have to be pretty far out there for that to happen if you ask me.

I'd add that this is the Campbellite Movement all over again. Honestly, I'm surprised nobody has really noticed that yet. The sinner's prayer has replaced baptism. All baptisms are valid and the membership is, at least at the conceptual level, considered regenerate, since all the elect are preserved but all the elect do not also persevere. Add a dose of Keswick spirituality to make sanctification a second blessing, and you have a modified form of the old restoration movement.

How does this do this you ask? Well, the logic works something like this:

The Free Grace position's definition of saving faith is exactly that of Arminian theology, it just waters it down to assent to some facts about Jesus. It's removal of the "fiducia" component of "noticia, assensus, fiducia" plus a removal of prevenient grace.. The problem of course, is that it is less Arminian than Arminianism, and that’s not a compliment.

For one thing, in Arminianism you have a doctrine of prevenient grace. Depending on what strand of Arminianism being articulated by a given theologian, this can mean a grace given to all men without exception at the time they hear the gospel that stays with them enabling them to believe. At that point, the prevenient grace become effectual. There's a "point of no return" so to speak, if the individual does not resist it. On the other hand, it is sometimes spoken of as a spiritual benefit for all men without exception that comes by way of the cross that enables them to be led to God via common grace and from common grace to special grace. Then, there are those who would say that this prevenient grace leads them to a point of "equipoise" in which the will makes an uncaused choice for some unknown reason to choose Christ or reject Christ.

The Free Grace position, if you pay close attention, never discusses prevenient grace or buries it so far from view it may as well be nonexistent. Prevenient grace is merely the universal, external call of the gospel. The Spirit "woos" people, but then He "woos" everybody.

Prevenient grace as actual Arminian soteriology teaches it is built upon a doctrine of total inability virtually identical to that of Reformed Theology. Perhaps one of these days H.K Flynn will read the Opinions of the Remonstrance and realize that his position is the historically new kid on the block, for Free Grace Theology denies this.

Free Grace theology, makes absurd exegetical comments like Dr. Jack Graham of Prestonwood Baptist Church did last year in which he ripped Romans 12:3 from its context to say that God has given every man a measure of faith. First, he assumed that "every man" is "every human being." In context, it is every believer--the brethren to whom the text is addressed. The faith discussed here has to do with Christian living and the sound judgment required for it, not saving faith. Dr. Graham interpreted this as saving faith. Then he used this to deny total inability.

Unlike the Free Grace Theologians, the Reformed community as well as, I would argue the classical Arminian community take passages like John 6:44, Romans 8:7, and 1 Cor. 2:14 and others seriously. When Scripture declares we can't do something, that means we can't do it. Free Grace theology denies this.

I'd add that Chafer was a dispensational Amyrauldian. I have friends that were at Dallas Theological Seminary before the "Free Grace" movement at the Geislerian, Dave Hunt, Zane Hodges, Herb Reavis 4 - point Arminianism + eternal security position took hold. These men believe the doctrines of grace as strongly as I do. They look at DTS now and see what has happened and can't believe their eyes. Why?

The dispensationalists of the Free Grace community have so watered Chafer down that now "Total Depravity" is interpreted to mean "We are all guilty of sin and sinful," but we are not so sinful as to be unable to contribute any spiritual good to our salvation. That's closer to Rome than Arminianism. That's closer to functional Pelagianism than Rome. Pelagius focused on the “free will” of every man, not just when they hear the gospel, to accept Christ. Why is grace needed if man has the free will to choose Christ?

So, Free Grace soteriology begins with a functionally Pelagian anthropology of man due to this denial of spiritual inability and the further denial or, at best, incoherent articulation, of prevenient grace, much less effectual grace.

Then Free Grace Theology borrows the Arminian view of election (foreseen faith). Lately, I've heard pastors in the SBC speak of us all being elect, which sounds remarkably like the universal election view of a certain Pelagius from well over a millenium ago.

Why mention this? Well, by denying monergisitic regeneration and placing election outside the grace of God, both election and regeneration are placed outside a chain of grace that results in saving faith in the believer. On this view, the work of Christ is all that is in the chain of grace, and it's not an effectual grace, for Christ does not secure salvation for the elect, He merely secures the opportunity to believe. I've even read some statements by professors at DTS that state that Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief. I've seen discussions at the Baptistboard that deny that not believing in Christ is a sin. In short, you end up with functional Unitarianism.

So, when you say this:




We accept and proclaim everything good coming out of the incarnation but we correlate and distingush those things that are correlated and distinguished by the NT writers.

We say, "No you don’t." You are functional Unitarians, for you deny election and the inevitability/necessity of sanctification in such a way that you deny the covenant of redemption, which underwrites the whole reason for the Incarnation. Grace is relegated to the cross and effectual for justification and security, but not sanctification or any other spiritual benefits. This is "fire insurance" salvation nothing more. Election and regeneration are outside the chain of grace. Sanctification is a second, optional, work. Christ came to offer eternal life and to set aside and rule a people for Himself and purify them in this life as well as the next. In your treatment of sanctification, you deny this part of the Incarnation’s purpose as well. This isn't an offer of eternal life you affirm, it's an offer of fire insurance, a bill of goods I would argue that sends folks to hell with a policy in their back pocket on a regular basis. However, the Free Grace Theology wishes to maintain its doctrine of eternal security. By divorcing saving faith from regeneration, it is the Free Grace position, not the Calvinist position, that makes faith arise from a state of nature. By divorcing sanctification from the work of the Spirit beginning with regeneration and further asserting that one can embrace the three evils of apostasy from the faith and still be counted among the regenerate, you make sanctification optional an add-on, an appendage.. Ergo, if a man perseveres in the faith, it is from himself, not the Spirit at work in him, for it is not the natural, inevitable result of regeneration.


But that's not all. Then you have the whole "carnal Christian" theory to add insult to injury.

Remember this little jewel?

In this theory, men have not one regenerated new nature, but two natures, a sin nature and a new nature living side by side. When a man sins, this is attributed to his sin nature. When a man obeys this is attributed to his new nature. One would ask then, who then is to repent for sin in a man’s life? If a man has two natures at work within him, then we have a problem, for there is but one man, yet his new nature is not charged with sin, according to this theory, it is his old. This is a man with a sin nature (evil) and a new nature (good) at work within him. This is just plain old fashioned dualism. This smacks of good old fashioned Gnosticism.

So, when you say this:



Free Grace is the belief that those things that are essential to successfully living the Christian life can be distinguished from the offer ofeternal life.

We think this is valid because the NT writers never blur the distinction between following Christ and receiving eternal life/being justified before God's legal bar of justice.

We rightly say that what you have done is severe justification and sanctification such that the latter is viewed as a second, no, a secondary, work of grace, but, even then, it’s not a work of grace, it’s a form of dualism, for you have good and evil coexisting as separate natures in one person and the only real operative grace in this system of yours is the work of Christ, not the work of the Spirit, and that is ineffectual with respect to bringing about both saving faith (for you deny monergism) and sanctification (for you essentially render it optional and a separate and secondary work of grace that may or may not occur).

We do not do this. God does not fail to sanctify that which He justifies, for God is the one who brings about the faith that justifies and, just as Paul argued in Romans, that will lead to a changed life. Justification and sanctification are separate and distinct, but they are not so separate and distinct that the latter does not always result from the former. Let’s not forget yours is the view that says Simon Magus was a true convert, a discussion I have actually had with a Free Gracer before, yet all of church history says he, Helena, and Meander founded Gnosticism. How ironic, indeed you would implicitly affirm dualism.

Ernest Reisinger, bless him, said it well:



The "Carnal Christian" teaching is primarily based on an erroneous interpretation of a single passage of Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-4).

The "Carnal Christian" teaching perverts many other doctrines of the Christian faith.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching separates the two main doctrines of the Christian faith--justification and sanctification.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching separates the new covenant by making the act of submission to Christ optional--what God has joined together let no man or teaching put asunder.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching makes holiness, obedience and discipleship optional. See John 10:26-28; 14:21-23; 15:10; 1 Pet. 1:155,16; Heb. 12:14; Titus 2:10-14.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching breeds antinomianism and gives a false standard of what a Christian really is.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching is the mother of many of the second-work-of-grace errors.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching actually teaches two ways to heaven: one, the carnal-Christian way and two, the spiritual-Christian way--whichever your prefer.

The "Carnal Christian" teachers ignore the biblical distinction between the grounds of salvation and the grounds of assurance.

The "Carnal Christian" teaching breeds a false spirituality and Pharisaism in the so-called "spiritual Christians" who have measured up to some man-made standard of spirituality.

There ought to be no professed "spiritual Christians," much less "super-spiritual" ones! George Whitefield, a man who lived very close to his Savior, prayed all his days, "Let me begin to be a Christian." And another Christian has truly said, "In the life of the most perfect Christian there is every day renewed occasion for self-abhorrence, for repentance, for renewed application to the blood of Christ, for application of the rekindling of the Holy Spirit.


So, Free Grace Theology affirms Sola Fide, but it's Sola Fide light. Its not composed of "noticia, assensus, fiducia" but only "noticia and assensus." It's less Arminian than than Arminius. It's closer to Rome than Arminianism, but it's actually funcitionally Pelagian, something Rome, I would argue is not, to her credit.

The Free Grace is a Unitarian grace. It may as well be Socinian, for the election of the Father is not determinative and the Spirit's work is inefffectual and negated by men's wills ad infinitum at virtually every turn. Regeneration and election and ultimately sanctification itself are all put outside of the chain of grace, so Free Grace is, in point of fact a denial of and Sola Fide Sola Gratia, for to get to Sola Fide you have to redefine it and then deny Sola Gratia.

So, Mr. Flynn, you may assert this is Sola Christus, but it denies what Christ says about faith and salvation; it's not Sola Fide except in name only and the Free Grace is not grace at all, it's a denial of, not an affirmation of , Sola Gratia. Add Baptist ecclesiology and the sinner's prayer and a pinch of Keswick spirituality and you have Neo-Campbellites.

10 comments:

  1. Justification and sanctification are separate and distinct, but they are not so separate and distinct that the latter does not always result from the former.

    On who's time table?

    When a man sins, this is attributed to his sin nature.

    Who would be sinning, then, according to you? Would it be the new creation in Christ, the one that is actually a partaker of the divine nature? Can God sin?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would only add that not only has Antonio ignored my material, as well as the material I've posted by Moo, Davids, Waltke, and Stein, but he's also ignored Gene's material.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gene:

    You have long posts. :) However, I have to admit -- when I've been disciplined enough to read through them all, I've been very blessed and challenged.

    Thank you sir for taking the time to post such things.

    No, better said -- thank God for you.

    SDG,
    David Hewitt

    ReplyDelete
  4. On who's time table?

    What does Scripture say?

    Are you arguing that God does not sanctify that which He justifies? Are you seriously arguing that if a man believes a few facts about Christ and prays a prayer, he is, without question regenerate? There is a long discourse on this material, Rose, and you have been a part of it.

    Who would be sinning, then, according to you? Would it be the new creation in Christ, the one that is actually a partaker of the divine nature? Can God sin?

    ^That, Rose, is closer to Eastern Orthodox theosis soteriology than the Free Grade view.

    Well, who do you think needs to do the repenting, Rose? If the new nature cannot sin and the old nature sins, how can the old nature be said to repent, since repentance, of necessity, arises from the new nature and not the old? So, on the one hand you credit sin with the old nature, but it cannot repent for that which it commits; this is left for the new nature, but it would be repenting for something it did not do and for which you deny it is responsible.



    We have one and only one soul. We have one and only one new nature. We do not have 2 separate natures. There is a link to Ernest Reisinger's articles on this above. Do you ever bother to read that which you criticize?

    Being a new creation does not mean we have a sinless new nature put inside of us along side the old. "Regeneration" is not "creation ex nihilio." It means we have been re-created anew, but sin is still with us as an active principle. When a man sin's he sins from that nature. Being regenerate means we have been made "alive" spiritually, raised from the dead as it were, not that we have a perfectly sinless new nature put inside of us alongside an unchanged old nature that is wholly sinful. The Carnal Christian doctrine conflates justification and sanctification in that respect.

    Justification is what Christ does for us in heaven. Specifically, He covers our record with His blood and gives us a legal right to enter in. Sanctification is what Christ does in us by His Holy Spirit on earth-this gives us some practical fitness.

    This: will lead you to the first part and the 3rd:

    http://www.founders.org/FJ17/article2.html

    The third deals with this:

    The non-lordship teaching is that a new nature is implanted in the soul. This results in two distinct natures in the Christian. Nothing actually happens to the old nature except that it has an entirely different new nature placed along side it-this is a real dualism.

    The Lordship teaching is that a new foundation for action, a new disposition, is implanted in the old ego, thus the Christian is still one person with two struggling principles, and the new principle is destined to conquer the old. This is quite different from the non-lordship teaching of two utterly distinct natures, that is, two selves. This view has profound implications on the doctrine of sanctification. The old nature continues as it was before regeneration throughout the earthly life only to be annihilated at death. One of the non-lordship teachers put it like this - "Flesh is flesh, nor can it ever be made aught else but flesh. The Holy Ghost did not come down on the day of Pentecost to improve nature or to do away with the fact of incurable evil . . . ." This means that the old nature is not changed.

    Many, if not all, non-lordship teachers teach that progressive sanctification is false, and is not to be expected.

    The non-lordship teaching is that the evil nature is not at all weakened by grace, but, rather inflamed. The old nature is not changed at all. The old nature remains in all its distinctness, and the new nature is introduced in all its distinctness.

    The new nature has its own desires, its own habits, its own tendencies, its own affections. All of these are spiritual, heavenly, divine. All the aspirations of the new nature are upward.

    One antinomian teacher stated it very clearly, "Be warned that the old nature is unchanged. The hope of transforming the old nature into holiness is as vain as the dream of a philosopher's stone, which was to change the dross of earth into gold." This is just why I must emphasize and reemphasize, in this study, that the teaching of the non-lordship teachers is that the old nature is not changed in regeneration or at any time thereafter.

    There is not one text in the New Testament that teaches that regeneration is the implanting of a "new nature" beside the old, or, that the renewed man has two hostile natures. What he does have is two hostile principles in one nature.

    Your theology, Rose, appears to have more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy on the one hand and Gnosticism on the other.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What's going on in this theory is a hamfisted attempt to read the Incarnation back into the nature of man in his regenerate state.

    The libertarianly free will or the Holy Spirit (depending on who you ask) is said to act as a bridge between the old and new natures in the same way as the hypostatic union.

    The problem here is that we aren't Christ. We aren't God taking on humanity in one person via the hypostatic union. This theory, if it was applied to Christ would look more like real Nestorianism than anything else, for, on this theory, the old nature is a human nature, though fallen and sinful, and the new nature is also a human nature, though new and holy Well, we were one person with one nature beforehand, why then aren't we now two persons after we are converted? Two human natures does not equal one human person. Two human natures is two persons. This is derivative of Nestorianism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gene,

    It is quite obvious that you really do not understand the theology that you argue against. This has been a post of extreme blather and straw men.

    You mischaracterize, and flat out misrepresent free grace every time your hands type a sentence. It is quite disturbing indeed.

    It may indeed be beneficial for yourself and your readers to actually familiarize yourself with the TRUE doctrines of grace (Free Grace Theology) before you again are faulted for such deep and careless caricatures.

    Try reading about Free Grace theology from its advocates rather than from its detractors, should be step number one.

    You, Steve, and Evan are a couple of peas in a pod. Very little substance in your arguments against that which you do not understand.

    A remedial course in research tools and principles may be in order.

    Traditionalism's Baseless Charges and Pejorative Labels of Free Grace Theology: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

    "Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically." (Zane Hodges We Believe in Assurance of Salvation

    Antonio

    ReplyDelete
  7. Only one critique here- I seem to remember H K Flynn being a female, and you refer to 'Mr. H K Flynn.' Other than that you said what I couldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gene:
    Are you seriously arguing that if a man believes a few facts about Christ

    No. That is so sterile. I think you know that this sterility is not at the heart of those soteriologies that fall in the camp outside your own.

    That, Rose, is closer to Eastern Orthodox theosis soteriology than the Free Grade view.

    Huh? What is Free Grade?

    Well, who do you think needs to do the repenting, Rose?
    That is a good question. I have to think about that some more.

    I don't understand your attitude, Gene. All I did was ask you two questions and you write a chapter, labeling me with a bunch of misnomers.

    How can you slap those labels on me having just read two questions that I asked?

    Do you ever bother to read that which you criticize?

    I read your whole article ... not the link because it took a long time to read just the article. I wasn't criticing you, and I wasn't questioning the link.

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am not a Gnostic. I don't think we should feed the flesh. What an insult to call me that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't have time for garrulous and meticulously misinformed bluster.

    I found so many outright errors (not just exaggerations or hostile interpretations) in your introduction that I'll wait until you hit the books and come back with something much shorter and more substantive.

    Some of your errors:

    GB: Ergo, we do not apostatize from the faith. We can backslide, but we do not apostatize. Let's not forget here that the definition of "eternal security" in Free Grace theology is "If you have at any time in the past made a commitment to Christ, you are saved." Can an unbeliever apostatize from the faith completely? The Free Grace position says "Yes." Reformed theology says "No."

    This is not a small error. It is a brazen insistence on taking that which you give the appearance of being knowledgeable about and projecting it on to that which you desire to refute but about which you are thoroughly misinformed. First of all we believe that because of the muddled gospel there a great swaths of people who think they are born again but are not. We don't believe that making a 'commitment ' to Christ is even close being a proper response to the biblical offer of eternal life.

    GB: However, the Free Grace Theology amounts to Campbellite ecclesiology without baptismal regeneration, for, if you "pray that prayer and really really mean it" and "make that decision to ask Jesus in your heart to your Lord n' Savior" (even if it is the fifteenth time you've done it...you just really really mean it this time), you can be validly baptized, and you can be a full member.

    This is laughable. Here is Zane Hodges's advice:

    Notice please! I have not asked him to pray, or to make a decision for Christ, or to do any of the many other things people often ask the unsaved to do.
    All I have done is to ask if he has understood the truth we have discussed, and I have asked if he believes it. I absolutely insist that this is all the personal worker needs to do. I am encouraging the unsaved person to believe, but I can't make him do that.
    If he does believe, a prayer is unnecessary. If he doesn't, a prayer will be confusing since I may direct him to say things he can't yet understand or believe, because God has not yet opened his heart.


    Amen! Besides Hodges, the Grace Evangelical Society's own Jeremy Myers warns:

    But one thing was confirmed in my own mind. The “sinner’s prayer” is a dangerous witnessing tool. It can leave many people thinking that they are going to heaven because they have “prayed a prayer” yet never understood that eternal life is received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.


    Amen to that to. And concerning child evangelism, Jessica Wempe says:

    How many people do you know who prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” five or six times in their lifetime because they weren’t convinced that it really “took”? If a child understands that eternal life is given to all who believe, you alleviate needless worry in his or her life. You don’t have to say a magic prayer to be saved—you have to believe.

    This suggests Triablogue's strategy: a sort of make-believe heresy-invention. You say:

    GB: These folks don't want to be Campellites. (God forbid they believe baptismal regeneration), but they want to be sure they have a regenerate church membership, so they turn the sinner's prayer into a sacramental prayer that functions in the same way.

    Unbelievable.

    But amazingly your statement (the second GB quote I quoted above) had two other errors packed into it.

    GB: (supposedly quoting a F/G type ...) "make that decision to ask Jesus in your heart "

    F/G pastors and writers have been preaching against this for years. Here Shawn Laughlin reviews a book entitled "Seven Reasons NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart":

    However, this book offers much more. Pastor Rokser explains that asking Jesus into your heart requires no understanding of the Gospel ...; confuses the means of salvation with the results of salvation ...: and how that asking Jesus into your heart either results in no assurance of salvation or a false assurance of salvation ... As these reasons are addressed, the reader will be shown why one must understand the Gospel, what the results of salvation are, and how the believer in Christ can have true Biblical assurance of his salvation. Included are several diagrams, illustrations, and personal examples to make the points exceptionally clear. The reader is also provided with a thorough exegesis of Revelation 3:20, a verse often used to support asking Jesus into one's heart. The reader is shown that this verse is not an offer for salvation to unbelievers, but rather an appeal for fellowship to believers. The 7th reason is perhaps the one that arouses the most reaction, stating that asking Jesus into your heart does not clarify the condition of salvation, but confuses it; especially with children.

    Jessica Wempe writes:

    Nowhere in Scripture is anyone told to “ask Jesus into your heart”—this is an expression we created because it sounds simple and child-like. But these are not biblical terms. Do we have to quote Scripture? Not necessarily (though it’s not a bad idea), but we do need to use language that communicates biblical truth. The gospel tells us to believe in Jesus to receive eternal life. Believing is not asking; it’s being convinced something is true. Of course a child who asks Jesus into his heart could be a believer; but it is his believing that saves him, not the act of asking and that is important for him to understand.

    Chester Chemp says:

    Unbiblical clichés such as, "give your life," "make a commitment," "ask Jesus into your heart," etc., also added to the confusion.

    Dr. Bob Wilkin sums it up:

    I began to share my faith regularly shortly after I became a Christian during my third year in college. For about a year, whenever I got to the invitation, I would challenge people to ask Jesus into their hearts to be saved.

    Odd things began to happen. These things forced me back to the Scriptures and led me to stop challenging people to ask Jesus into their lives.

    My policy became: Don't ask. Or, more fully: Don't ask, believe. "


    That is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31

    Finally you say that F/G want people to ask Jesus...
    GB: ...in your heart to your Lord n' Savior" (even if it is the fifteenth time you've done it...you just really really mean it this time), you can be validly baptized, and you can be a full member

    The idea that F/G advocates the asking or accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour for the purpose of eternal salvation is rich. This is exactly the muddled attempt at hitting all the bases that we find so tragic. It is certainly not our solution!

    F/G theology doesn't make the sinner's prayer or any other human convention into a sacrament. F/G proclaims that believing in Christ as the sole provider of eternal life results in the bestowal of eternal life, and therefore salvation from eternal damnation at the Great White Throne Judgment:

    "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31

    As you can imagine I didn't read the whole novella. If there's an accusation that you know gets the facts straight and you want me to respond to it, than email me to let me know you've posted it. I'm somewhat new to blogging and I find your blog particularily difficult to navigate so I don't frequent it. Try to put it in a single sentence or at least a few hundred words.

    Glad you engaged. And while you seem to know quite a bit about historical threats to Calvinism, so far you've failed at matching them up to the F/G movement. Maybe you should do research first, analysis second.

    BTW I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell, but as you correctly note, I don't agree with all of his views.

    H.K. Flynn (Jodie Sawyer)

    ReplyDelete