This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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? -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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
Is Perseverance of the saints different from FGT? Malick78 ( talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 ( mbork³) 11:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
As a longtime project member, I've re-rated the article as B and Mid-importance. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Free Grace theology. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Free Grace theology. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] In contrast, Free Grace theologians insist that good works are necessary for sanctification. [3]
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. [4] [5] [6]
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. [7] Robert Sandeman similarly has been seen as having taught views similar to Free Grace theology. [8]
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". [9] Additionally a few among the Early Plymouth Brethren taught views akin to Free Grace theology, though mainstream Plymouth theologians did not have similar views. [10]
Cotton was a Reformed theologian through and through. Nonetheless, some features of his thought were friendly to Free Grace positions. He objected to the notion that works have anything at all to do with accomplishing or revealing the Spirit's regenerating work. Human activity cannot reveal whether a person is regenerate. He flatly denied that gracious habits dwelt within the regenerate in such a way that they operated by their own power
Many Free Grace adherents assume that grace theology, the de facto doctrine of the first century church, was lost until recently. Such is not the case. Michael Makidon has demonstrated, for example, that Free Grace views surfaced in Scotland in the 18th century Marrow Controversy.1 The "Marrow Men" were clear: faith is the sole condition of justification,
Similarly Leupold Scharnschlager (Anabaptist Radical elder who died in 1563) says, "No one can claim that faith, which comes from the preaching of God's word, is merely a historical or dead faith, without effect or fruit. No doubt that is what people held at the time of James…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. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it?" (p. 233, emphasis added). Notice the words I've emphasized. While we have no existing documents to back up what he says, his testimony is powerful. I've often said that there must have been people in every generation who proclaimed the faith-alone message
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)
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)
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)