This is THE Church!

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Its not my quote......

I understand that but you said it in response to my complaint about your "Seeker-bashing."

[Jason B]

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.

STOP IT!!!!!

None of these people are "Seeker"!!!! Aaaaaacccccckkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.

Just my 2 cents, but Grace isn't dictated by good-works. Grace just is. But a true act of Grace will change people.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

This is what bothers me:

Free Grace theology
Main article: Free Grace theology
The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, exist to advance Free Grace soteriological views.

When Evangelicals such as Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright denied that Reformed soteriology was biblically superior to the Dispensational view, and since the term Dispensationalism denoted a broad hermeneutic and philosophy of history, they called their own view Free Grace theology.

The Free Grace view posits that salvation is a gift of divine grace whereby the recipient is declared righteous before God on account of Jesus' atonement and righteous life, and that God's declaration of righteousness is unaffected by the future behavior of the saved person. Free Grace views faith or belief as trust or a conviction that something is true. Faith does not include notions of surrender or submission. The Free Grace consensus, however, is that sanctification is an "inevitable" part of every Christian's life[10][11][12] and that good works are outward evidence (especially to the unsaved world) that God is at work in a person's life and that the person is truly following Christ. But the Free Grace position rules out seeing good works as evidence of one's own salvation. For this, they would argue, one can only look to the sufficiency of him who provides eternal life to the person who believes in him. Free Grace proponents further point to the way apostasy is treated by the New Testament writers whom they understand to teach that apostasy suggests, not an unregenerate nature as Lordship proponents teach, but a failure and a "wandering from the truth".[13] Essentially, the Free Grace view is that the New Testament writers are quick to call on believers to question whether they are truly following Christ as "disciples," but these writers never encourage the person who is believing Christ for eternal life to doubt his or her born again status.[14]

Miles J. Stanford goes further in suggesting that "Lordship salvation ... rightly insists upon repentance, but wrongly includes a change of behavior ... in order to be saved. No one questions that there must be a sincere change of mind, a turning from oneself to the Savior; but Lordship advocates attempt to make behavior and fruit [godly character], as well as good works essential ingredients of, rather than evidence of, saving faith." [15]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

The Gospel changes people. If theres no change, then there was no conversion.

How much did Peter "Change"?

After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church.

Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Just my 2 cents, but Grace isn't dictated by good-works. Grace just is. But a true act of Grace will change people.

AMEN!!!!!! Great statement!! "Grace just is"!!! Yes!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

How much did Peter "Change"?

Peter was a changed man, its not even worth the conversation. He failed, we all fail, we all come short of the glory. Our works and righteousness can never save us, we can never maintain God's standard. PEter had weaknesses, but He also repented after denying Christ, and He was faithful unto death. I love that scripture in Acts 4 where it said the Sanhedrin took notice that Peter and John had been with Jesus. Mr. Smith, we have plenty to disagree about, so why make an issue we both believe alike a point of contention?

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?

Again, I'm not saying performance equals salvation. I am simply saying if someone REPENTS and makes Jesus the LORD and Savior of their life, being justified by faith (true faith, as personified by Abraham in Paul & James' writings) then there will inevitebly be a change. I cannot accept a Christianity that doesn't change people, and I think you agree. I don't think there is a minimum performance, just a total reliance and trust on Jesus Christ, and if that trust and continuing faith is there, his grace is suffecient for all our failures.

My concern is the teaching which says "Take Christ as Savior, but not as Lord." Hogwash.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

STOP IT!!!!!

You STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Peter was a changed man, its not even worth the conversation. He failed, we all fail, we all come short of the glory. Our works and righteousness can never save us, we can never maintain God's standard. PEter had weaknesses, but He also repented after denying Christ, and He was faithful unto death. I love that scripture in Acts 4 where it said the Sanhedrin took notice that Peter and John had been with Jesus. Mr. Smith, we have plenty to disagree about, so why make an issue we both believe alike a point of contention?


Again, I'm not saying performance equals salvation. I am simply saying if someone REPENTS and makes Jesus the LORD and Savior of their life, being justified by faith (true faith, as personified by Abraham in Paul & James' writings) then there will inevitebly be a change. I cannot accept a Christianity that doesn't change people, and I think you agree. I don't think there is a minimum performance, just a total reliance and trust on Jesus Christ, and if that trust and continuing faith is there, his grace is suffecient for all our failures.

My concern is the teaching which says "Take Christ as Savior, but not as Lord." Hogwash.

Ok, so what gives you the liberty to determine whether or not people have changed? Maybe, for all you know, they just have "weaknesses" as you called them. Maybe they "fail" and "come short of God's glory." Why don't you leave the "changed" determination up to God? It's His business, not yours.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

How much did Peter "Change"?

After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church.

Exactly how well would you like for everyone to perform?

What do you mean, "After his conversion, he attempted murder, denied Christ with vulgarities while Christ was being crucified, was arrogant, was a racist, and was the first legalist in the early church". You are speaking of
Peter BEFORE his conversion. No power!

After his conversion, at Pentecost, he was a changed man. He was put in jail, along with John, for preaching the name of Jesus at the gate, Beautiful. A lame man was healed and it so stirred up some people, that Peter and John were put in jail. After getting released, they went back out and preached the name of Jesus again. Acts 3. YES, Peter was changed after his conversion at Pentecost.

Jesus told his disciples that they would receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost was come upon them. That they would be witnesses unto him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Act 1:8
We still receive power AFTER that the Holy Ghost has come upon us. If we haven't receive power, could it be that the Holy Ghost hasn't come upon us! We should have power to witness, power to overcome sin, etc. IT does NOT say power to argue. But power to witness of the saving NAME of JESUS!
We must receive the Holy Ghost as the scripture hath said!

Falla39