Ongoing continual personal repentance foir sins is not optional.. a necessary subjection

(1 Cor 9:27 KJV) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (Heb 12:9 KJV) Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

(Eph 5:24 KJV) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

(1 Pet 3:1 KJV) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (1 Pet 3:5 KJV) For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Sorry I am late to the discussion, but…

I want to dispel the misnomer being spread by some Grace Evangelical Society (GES) members, especially Antonio da Rosa. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that GES is the voice of the Free Grace movement in general.

The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “division and offences” in the FG camp and churches. (Rom. 16:17-18).

The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES.

Once the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed it became the new home of many men who departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin.

Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, Neimela, Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put GES in cardiac arrest. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel. May I share this article with your guests, Is “ReDefined” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

The article will help them understand that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and especially Antonio da Rosa do not speak for and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the Free Grace community.

The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over the Hodges/Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.

Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.

LM

1) Accuse LS of teaching ‘works salvation’ simply because an LS person actually thinks faith means trust in God.

2) Reduce Jesus’ evangelistic ministry to one gospel

3) Continually throw out new terms and redefinitions while accusing the other of doing that same tactic

I guess this lying for the cause that continually goes on from the FG side is easy; after all, if faith doesn’t really change your behavior at all, you’re free to say whatever you want knowing the LS person might actually have a conscience about lying about you.

Thank you for comment. You are mistaken when you write that the lordship position “makes works a condition of regeneration.” Regeneration is a work of the Spirit that necessarily results in a changed life (Titus 3:4-8; Eph. 2:8-10).

As I noted to Solifidian on a different thread:

It is a complete misrepresentation of lordship salvation to claim that the lordship view makes human effort, human achievement, or human merit a precondition for or basis of salvation.

The lordship view teaches that salvation is solely a work of God, not of man. Just as the command to believe demands a human response, and yet is a work of God (John 6:29); so also the command to repent demands a human response. But the ability to respond is fully a work of God in the heart. It is not the result of human willpower or ingenuity.

The desire to transfer one’s allegiance (from self to Christ) in the sinner’s heart is no less a work of God than the willingness to embrace the facts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. If repentance is considered a “human work,” than belief must be as well. And yet the Bible describes neither one as something that can be credited to human initiation or determination. They are both the work of God; and they both go hand-in-hand.

It seems to me that non-lordship advocates often confuse the “fruits of repentance” (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) with actual repentance. Repentance itself is a change of allegiance, which takes place at the moment of conversion. The fruits (or results) of that repentance are seen in the active obedience of a believer’s life. Salvation then is not based on good works, but it does inevitably result in good works. In other words, justification is not based on sanctification. But justification does begin the sanctification process. If a person lacks evidence of sanctification (”fruits of repentance”), it calls into question whether or not they have actually been justified (cf. Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 13:5; 1 John 3:10).

Thanks again for your comment.

- NB