Talk:Free grace theology

POV?
I question the POV of the characterization of the two schools of FG theology as "Traditional" and "Refined" (which is said to be the "more progressive and exegetical approach"). Sounds like an implicit slam to me. So it needs to be substantiated. What reliable source characterizes them this way? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotations Edit
Took out bulk of quotations in main section to improve quality of encyclopedic style. Replaced them with a summary and its citations.

Also, I wonder if the Current Issues section should be longer than the main section. Maybe main section could be enlarged slightly and current issues shortened... I also rewrote intro to Current Issues section to stress nuetrality--Johanna Sawyer

Perseverance of the saints
Is Perseverance of the saints different from FGT? Malick78 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit
This article was massively, massively over-written; had numerous violations of the NPOV rule; and often read like an advert for GES. I deleted the excessive verbiage, and condensed a great deal of other material. Re my credential to do these things: I am an EFCA pastor, a theological credentialer in our denominational district, hold my B.A. from a dispensational Bible college, and my M.A. and M.Div. from Columbia International University (Columbia, SC). Jack Brooks (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it still has. All those lists of bible statements supporting it without secondary critical sources is like an advertisement for a certain theological view. WP is not a private scribble board for this or that POVvy theology. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³  ) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposition
I've essentially rewritten the Opposition section. Previous section has some major POV issues. Also, the Opposition section of an article should simply present what the opposition has to say, not how proponents would respond to the opposition. I've corrected errors in that section and removed arguments against the opposition. Those arguments might work well elsewhere in the Free Grace article, but they don't work here.

Columcille (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor restructuring?
Those long lists of bible citations presumedly supporting Free Grace theology don't fit the Wikipedia model of providing secondary analytical sources, but on the other hand the guys in the History section would (partially) fit as secondary analytical sources. The problematicity of the long could be remedied by using citations from guys in the History section – just a hint... ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 11:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't plan to remove the citations; that would be reverted. An inclusion of secondary sources is in order, but whoever volunteers, it will take days for him/her to add a scholarly reference to each and every Bible citation. Gregorik (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not reassessing at this time
Per request at WikiProject Christianity assessments, I have read the article and feel that the current rating is accurate. The introduction needs some work. Specifically, I thought it was fine until it starts talking about the Gospel of John. It's just not very clear. Also, I'm not sure whats going on with the massive Scripture references. It makes this article way too long. If there is a way to summarize this content, it should be done.Ltwin (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also a WikiProject Christianity member, and I find the article fine as it is. Wikipedia has a predilection (and a unique opportunity) to include long lists in the articles to complement other sections. I think all the Free Grace article needs now is a better History section. Gregorik (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * History section has been reorganized and expanded.--Readingwords (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

POV tag
This page still has POV issues. For example, "Reformed accusations of Free Grace theology with an inherent superficiality are not necessarily valid." The key thing about this list of Bible verses is that opponents of FGT will accept these texts as well. So how do they support FGT? Who says that they constitute scriptural support? StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own POV is all too obvious: "This user is a Calvinist or Reformed Christian." You may delete the problematic sentence, but simply adding a tag does not help. Besides, much of the list is now supported by citations. Gregorik (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly. That's not what POV means at all. The fact that I'm Reformed does not mean I cannot make neutral edits to an article. StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the offending sentence and the tag. The article has a decent Opposition section which makes the whole affair more or less neutral. Editors of Lordship Salvation (the counterpart of this article) are encouraged to include a list of Bible citations to match. Gregorik (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for taking out that sentence - that had to go. But I'm still not happy about this list of Bible verses, though most do have a reference to a page in Bing. Your comment seems to suggest that if we edit the Lordship Salvation article the two articles will somehow balance each other out - but each article needs to be balanced and non-neutral. Don't be fooled into thinking that this article is a place for adherents of FGT to express their views, while Lordship Salvation is for the other guys. Anyway, we're still left with a list of verses that is substituting for a reasoned argument. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the section to the more impartial "Scripture claimed to support Free Grace". I think the two articles are supposed to balance each other out -- as a reflection of the 500 year-old debate. Gregorik (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As a longtime project member, I've re-rated the article as B and Mid-importance. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bible Study?
In what way are extensive bible quotes adding to this article? Do they help to understand the topic? --79.223.26.25 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Free Grace theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221093708/http://www.faithalone.org:80/sermons/freegrace.htm to http://www.faithalone.org/sermons/freegrace.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209031633/http://www.freegracealliance.com:80/about-fga/covenant/ to http://www.freegracealliance.com/about-fga/covenant
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120023150/http://www.faithalone.org/about/4.html to http://www.faithalone.org/about/4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100620092158/http://faithalone.org/news/y1988/88oct1.html to http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1988/88oct1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Free Grace theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071229055145/http://www.scriptureunlocked.com:80/doctrine.html to http://www.scriptureunlocked.com/doctrine.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080703173344/http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2006/wilkin6.html to http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2006/wilkin6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Era
Unless there's an objection, I intend to change the article's use of "CE" to "AD," as there is a specific thematic reason for it (the article is a discussion of a specifically Christian theological point), which is acceptable under WP:ERA. Korossyl (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly concur. Change "CE" to the traditional, millennia-old "AD". —Dilidor (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

strange article
this article reads like a class assignment to write a Wiki article for a second-year seminary course at a denominational college. What on earth is "Augustine's pivot"? And where do Catholics teach that good works are necessary to merit eternal life? Nonsense. --142.163.193.167 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Moody
Moody is not a reputable publisher. It is WP:FRINGE. Another source cited is just too old to establish claims for Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Not to raise the dead here, but Moody is well known in theological circles and is an established publisher of over a hundred years. And sources cited being "too old" does not apply very well to theology pages. Landmark papers are often cited that are over a hundred years old. So what you said is rather ridiculous. Readingwords (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Chaferianism" and "Easy Believism"
The term "Chaferianism" is not a synonym for Free Grace Theology and the alleged citation does not demonstrate this as a synonym or claim it. (Andy Naselli. "Must Jesus Be Lord?". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2023-01-10. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/must-jesus-lord/ )

The term "Easy Believism" is a pejorative term as the cited article demonstrates: "That expression is not one embraced by me or other Free Grace proponents. It is one that opponents of the free gift of everlasting life use to disparage our position." (https://faithalone.org/blog/jesus-was-the-founder-of-easy-believism/ )

Therefore, I have removed both of these terms from the article. Theodoc (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article calls their views "Chaferian": Charles Ryrie (Chaferian view), Zane Hodges (a more extreme Chaferian view). --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked over the article and while it does call their views "Chaferian", I don't see where it says "Chaferian" means the same thing as "Free Grace Theology". The article specifically calls people "Chaferian" in respect to their view on progressive sanctification. Readingwords (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I assumed it referred to Free Grace theology as it referenced Ryrie and Hodges, though I might have musunderstood ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant material
This whole section does not belong in this article. If in any article at all, it would be in an article titled: 'Historical people and groups who may share at least one similarity in belief with free grace theology'. This is ridiculous. It looks like someone is reading GES publications and just stuffing anything 'historical' they find.

=== Reformation and early Protestant forerunners === Persons have tried to associate Nicholas Amsdorf (ca. 1530) with Free Grace theology as he protested against the doctrine of Melanchton and George Major, who argued that faith will necessarily lead into good works. However, he taught doctrines not taught by any modern Free Grace proponent. For example, Amsdorf explained good works were hurtful to the Christian life since they could foster a doctrine of justification by works. In contrast, Free Grace theologians insist that good works are necessary for sanctification.

This paragraph refutes its own existence in the article. It might serve as a footnote.

According to L.E Brown and Michael P. Winship, the Antinomian controversy happened between the Free Grace advocates and the Ministers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The main leaders of the so called "Antinomian" side included John Cotton and Anne Hutchinson. Henry Vane and William Dell shared these views which led to the Antinomian Controversy. John Cotton's views of salvation are shared by modern Free Grace theologians, as he argued that good works cannot prove if a person is regenerate.

As I recently posted in the Antinomian Controversy talk page, antinomian "free grace" is not the same or even close to free grace theology. When the best that can be said is that "some features of his thought were friendly to Free Grace positions"--it probably isn't worth including.

L.E Brown argued that the Marrow brethren in Scotland shared many views with modern Free Grace theologians. Robert Sandeman similarly has been seen as having taught views similar to Free Grace theology.

Sounds ok until you read the quotes. Faith as the sole condition of justification is nothing new. All protestants believe it--Sola Fide!

Bob Wilkin, a Free grace theologian and the Executive Director of the Grace Evangelical society argued that Leupold Scharnschlager's comments imply that he knew of the existence of Free Grace theology in his day, stating: "Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation". Additionally a few among the Early Plymouth Brethren taught views akin to Free Grace theology, though mainstream Plymouth theologians did not have similar views.

Same as above. Warning! Groundbreaking material ahead! Some historical protestants share the belief in Sola Fide with free grace theology. End groundbreaking material.

I'm deleting this section from the article. Readingwords (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood the sources, the materials speak from a Free grace perspective, which regards mainstream Protestant views as contradicting sola fide "faith alone", the writer of the article claimed that the Marrow were closer to the Free grace understanding of sola fide. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The entire article is used to say that the Antinomian controversy was a forerunner of the Free grace movement, the source is clear on this. The only reason to delete it, is if the source can be invalidated. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider the quote of note 7 "The 'Marrow Men' were clear: faith is the sole condition of justification" end of quote. Nothing different from mainstream Protestantism is declared in this quote. Just to be safe, let's go to the article itself. Ah, it looks like the quote was incomplete, it should have been
 * "The 'Marrow Men' were clear: faith is the sole condition of justification, and assurance is the essence of justifying faith."
 * So the Marrow Men shared "many views" with Free Grace Theology actually means the Marrow Men believed 1) what all protestants believe about Sola Fide and 2) that "assurance is the essence of justifying faith". Issue #1 was already addressed. Issue #2 is not believed by the majority of free grace theology, being exclusively a GES belief. This is without even delving further to see if the assured of "X" of Marrow Men is the same as the assured of "eternal security" of GES. Certainly the Antinomians did not share the GES definition of assurance as Brown explains on pg 52 "John Cotton anchored his doctrine of assurance on intuition, or the inner witness of the Spirit." The "Marrow Men" are conspicuously missing from the rest of Brown's article. If we go to the reference Brown cites, Makidon, on pg 77 we find an interesting quote "This is evidenced in his [Marrow Men] belief that no one 'can go to heaven in a mist not knowing whether he is going.'" Note however, this quote does not actually agree with the GES view since GES AFAIK only requires assurance at a singular point in time not continually or only at the point of death.
 * In sum, the wikipedia text in question is vague and unhelpful. While the articles cited do contain some interesting material, it doesn't really belong in the Free Grace Theology page but rather the GES page or perhaps the Assurance page. Readingwords (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect heavily that by "Sola fide" they are referring to the Free grace view of sola fide which denies a turning from sin to be necessary, while most Protestants hold that it is necessary. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Majoristic controversy
If you want to dispute my recent edits on the controversy, please write here before deletion on why the references would be insufficient? I tried to find clear sources on their belief and took hours to study the issue, I think the Majoristic controversy should be included within the page, though I won't add back the Marrow controversy nor the Antinomian controversy in Reformed theology. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Gods free grace
To my understanding gods free grace doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. What it means is that you can do. Whatever you think is right and what you think is in the message of Jesus. But if you act against what you think cause the message of Jesus, you're not guaranteed salvation but if you. Believe that Jesus would avenge something. Then you are allowed to do that. If you believe if you're back to no corner in your scared, you can do whatever you want. Yes, but you can't go an actively hurt. People understand why I'm gonna go to heaven anyway. No, it doesn't work like that. The reason why is because God makes you crooked. So when he's ready, to unbend you for the task. He needs you for You will be prepared. So the reason why you're forgiven is because God wants you to experience that to be ready for the battle. He's preparing you for when I say battle. I don't mean violence you know what I mean maybe mental or whatever god has in store. 2001:56B:3FE0:8CA9:ACD1:19B1:AE38:2DA9 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion on what you think grace is biblically, but it's an article on what the term "Free grace theology" in its more specific sense refers to, as the term has been used in scholarly literature to refer to a specific theological position on soteriology. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)