The Lordship vs Free Grace Spitting Contest

The ongoing debate between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Free Grace, predominantly - with a few other theologies which have crept in - has been wearing on my theological nerves!  I have long known and understood what Calvinism and Arminianism teach and have disagreements with both. 

But in the past ten years or so, Free Grace theologian, Bob Wilkin, and his group have jumped into the controversy with both feet.  And I guess what has been most aggravating about the Wilkin, et al, entry into the theology wars - is their constant cannon fire at John MacArthur. 

In those three leading theologies I see at least one doctrine in each which, from a biblical view, I cannot accept.  Yet each theology camp has a lot of doctrinal teachings which are solid and biblical.  With Calvinism I cannot find biblical support for their "Elect / Reprobate based Predestination." 

With Arminianism it is their teaching that a true believer can "Lose His/Her Salvation" over a sin which they are not even aware of committing.  And with Free Grace, it is their "Saving Faith Without Repentance" - while still possibly living a sin-based lifestyle, which I find hard to swallow.

Today if we mention Calvinism one thinks of John MacArthur.  In the Reform branch of Calvinism we find the late R.C.Sproul, John Piper, Ron Rhodes, and Wayne Grudem, among others - but primarily John MacArthur under the Calvinism umbrella.

In the Free Grace camp, the first name in my mind would be Bob Wilkin.  Also a number of others, but for me, primarily Bob Wilkin.

Yet the Arminian camp, for me, is virtually faceless.  Yes there are denominational branches, many Pentecostals, some Methodists, etc. - but overall, virtually faceless.  No one person championing this theology jumps out for me at the mention of Arminianism.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are easy to tag:  the Calvinist will be marching with a flag boldly proclaiming "Predestination of Elect / Reprobate" - while the Arminians, when you can spot them, are waving a flag which declares, "Watch out!  That little sin may send you to hell!"   And those in the Free Grace camp wave a big flag which declares, "Lordship Theology will sink your ship!"   But what exactly is Lordship Theology?

What has been most aggravating to me about the Free Grace Movement is that, at first I did not understand what they were arguing about - and I truly wanted to get a better understanding of what Free Grace theology teaches.  I sent e-mails and other inquiries asking for a good definition of the Free Grace Movement and what, in their view, is found in Lordship Theology. 

Not once did I ever get a response from those folks who were so loud and vocal in their disagreements with John MacArthur.  I suppose I was thinking: "If they can spend that much effort disagreeing with John MacArthur - why can't they take just a moment and share some insight with Bill Gray?"

In muddling through their mortar fire into the Calvinist camp, I think I have discovered their main sticking point:  While most of the Christian world views "repentance" as an integral component of believing - the Free Grace Movement folks want to stand it alone as a separate action and label it a "work" and in so doing, say that it goes against the teaching found most specifically in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; NOT A RESULT OF WORKS, so that no one may boast."  

They are trying to build a wall around "REPENTANCE" and declare it to be a work.  I can see how Baptism is viewed as a work, for it is a physical thing a new believer does to acknowledge his/her new relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  But Repenting - spiritually believing that the sin nature which Christ died to "pay in full" for us - is not a physical action on our part, not a physical work. 

It is an integral, spiritual component of believing why Christ had to die on the cross - it is as integral to believing, as getting wet is when one jumps into the lake to swim.  One cannot swim without getting wet.  And one cannot believe without acknowledging the sin nature which Christ died on the cross to atone for in our stead.

In defense of my sanity, my theological sanity, I resorted to subscribing to the Free Grace Movement magazine "Grace in Focus."  And I will admit that it has become one of my favorite magazines.  In each issue I just skip over all articles with "John MacArthur" in the title and read the rest of that issue.  That magazine has great articles and shares a lot of solid theological information, insight, and knowledge.  I highly recommend it to all my Friends.  But you might want to follow my lead and stay out of the "What is a John MacArthur" arena.

Thus began my journey through the Free Grace Theology briar patch:

Wikipedia:  Free Grace Theology is a Christian view of salvation (soteriology) that says anyone can, and does, receive eternal life the moment they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31).  

Bill Gray Note:  So far, so good.

Wikipedia:  Free Grace advocates believe that good works are not the condition to merit (as with Catholics) - maintain (as with Arminians) - or to prove (as with Calvinists) eternal life.  But rather are part of discipleship and the basis for receiving eternal rewards.

Bill Gray Note:  First I have to agree with my Free Grace Friends, Eternal Rewards and Salvation are absolutely two different goals.  A person can receive Salvation while still losing Eternal Rewards in heaven.  But a person CANNOT gain Eternal Rewards in heaven, without first gaining Salvation - the reason a person is promoted to heaven.  In other words, a Saved person can lose Eternal Rewards, but not Salvation.  But for a person to gain Eternal Rewards, that person must first be Saved.

And here I am going to have to assume that, in the Free Grace Movement "Discipleship" is what most theologians refer to as "Sanctification."  In other words, a believer is saved the moment we believe, which we call Justification.  That begins the Sanctification (Discipleship) part of our Christian life where we, hopefully, on a daily basis, become more mature in our knowledge of God's Word and in our daily walk with Him.  When we die or are Raptured, that kicks in the Glorification part of our Christian faith - where we are made to be like Him, Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him (in our glorified bodies), because we will see Him just as He is (in His glorified body)."

Wikipedia:  (In the Free Grace Movement) The Grace (gift) of eternal life is said to be free - as the only condition for receiving it (Him) is initial faith.  This view distinguishes between salvation and discipleship – the call to believe in Christ as Savior and to receive the gift of eternal life (is Justification) - and the call to follow Christ and become an obedient disciple, respectively (is Sanctification). 

Bill Gray Note:   For me, the Free Grace folks are playing the name game, i.e., Salvation vs Justification - Discipleship vs Sanctification.  For me this is playing the old "Apples and Oranges" game.

Wikipedia:   The Lordship Salvation controversy (also called Lordship controversy) is a theological dispute regarding a soteriological question (the study of salvation) within Christianity on the relationship between Faith and Works.  This debate has been notably present among some non-denominational and Evangelical churches in North America at least since the 1980s.

The dispute opposes (presents) two soteriological visions: (1) "whether it is necessary to accept Christ as Lord in order to have Him as one's Savior.  The question then becomes: 'If someone accepts Christ as Savior without also explicitly accepting Him as Lord, is such a person truly saved?'." 

That is, whether accepting Jesus Christ as Savior necessarily implies one must make a concrete commitment in life toward Christ such as following a certain behaviour or moral system. 

The first opinion, that of the Lordship Salvation supporters, is, as Arthur W. Pink summarizes:  "No one can receive Christ as His Savior while he rejects Him as Lord. Therefore, those who have not bowed to Christ’s scepter and enthroned Him in their hearts and lives, and yet imagine that they are trusting Him as Savior, are deceived." 

The second opinion (2) is that of those opposing Lordship Salvation:  "That one can accept Jesus Christ as Savior - but does not need to accept Christ's Lordship^."

Bill Gray Note:    What is the difference between saying that Jesus is my "Savior" - and saying that Jesus is my "Lord"?    Jesus is my "Savior" means that MY sins are forgiven.   Jesus is my "Lord" means a change in my lifestyle - which impacts both me and everyone around me, especially my family.

Example 1:  At age 85, I spent a major part of the first half of my life partying, drinking, and satisfying my fleshly, earthly, carnal desires.  But once I became a believer at age 50 - could I still have lived that same lifestyle and truly believed I would enjoy eternal life in Jesus Christ? 

Could I truly have continued to immerse myself in that carnal, secular lifestyle - and still have been a born-again believer?  Think about it!  Could you continue to wallow in mud - and consider yourself clean?  Really?

Example 2:  I have long believed that a gay or lesbian person can be a born-again believer.  BUT, can a person who continues to live in and practice a lifestyle which God Himself has declared to be: an abomination (Leviticus 18:22) -  a detestable act (Leviticus 20:13) - a degrading passion (Romans 1:26) - an unnatural act (Romans 1:26) - an indecent act (Romans 1:27) - contrary to sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:10), unrighteous, those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) - really be a born-again believer? 

My question:  "Can a person continue to LIVE a gay lifestyle and be a born again believer?"  And the answer has to be:  NO.  Such a person may, and most likely will, still have those desires - but feeling the desires and LIVING that lifestyle are not the same.

So, to summarize:  Jesus is my "Savior" impacts me alone  -  Jesus is my "Lord’ impacts me and everyone around me.  Can He be my Savior without being my Lord? Both the Bible and I say, emphatically, NO!

Therefore I must side with John MacArthur and the Calvinist, and the faceless Arminians on this issue:  I was saved the moment I received Jesus Christ as both my Lord and my Savior.  And, to the best of my current knowledge, only on this issue do I disagree with my Free Grace brethren. 

I do agree with my Calvinist, Arminian, and Free Grace brethren that we cannot WORK our way into heaven, that we cannot and are not saved by WORKS, but by Faith Alone.  The big question becomes:  "What is a work - and what is an internal spiritual change - and how do we define each?"

Otherwise, I do highly recommend both the "Grace in Focus" magazine - and - also John MacArthur's writings, on all issues except Calvinist Predestination, to all my FRANs (Friends, Relatives, Associates, Neighbors), for I know that both will continue to help both you and me grow more mature in our knowledge of God's Word and in our daily walk with Him.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge:

 

I Have A Dilemma, A Twilight Zone Dilemma ~ Where Was I In 1962?

WHERE WAS I IN 1962?

This is a dilemma I have pondered for a few years, and recently as Dory and I were walking I shared it with her for the first time.  Sounds spooky, doesn't it?  And in a way, it is - for I have never been able to figure it out.

Let me briefly share the dilemma with you - and then I will flesh it out in more detail.  In April 1962 I attended the 20th Reunion of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders at the Del Mar Beach Club in Santa Monica, California. 

Yet in October 1962 I was in Washington DC/Virginia and deeply affected by the Cuban Missile Crisis.  But I did not move back to or travel to California until after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

However, I recall both events in great detail and have no doubt in my mind that I did attend both events - one in California, the other in Washington DC, in the same year - but at impossible times.

Now for the promised detailed accounts of both events - and then see if you can explain how this happened.

DILEMMA PART 1:

In April 1962 I lived at in an apartment at 15425 Vanowen Blvd, Van Nuys, California, corner unit 3rd floor, and totally by chance I had the honor of attending the 20th Reunion of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders at the Del Mar Beach Club in Santa Monica. 

I was a young, single, Computer Field Engineer living in Southern California, working for Ramo Wooldridge (later TRW), and making good money.  And what is a young man earning good money, living in Southern California in the early 1960s - the decadent decade - to do but party every night? 

After a while I realized that I could not continue to party and drink seven night a week.  I had to find another outlet for my energy.

I had always thought it would be cool to an actor, and I lived in Southern California - so why not go to acting school?  I found an ad in the newspaper for the Theatre of Arts which was located in the Del Mar Beach Club in Santa Monica.  I called and was told to come to their facility on the second floor of the beach club next Wednesday. 

So on that fateful Wednesday night, April 18, 1962, I went to the Theatre of Arts acting school where I met another young man, Jim Anthony.  Jim was 19 and I was 25 years old.  We met in the lobby and by the time we had walked up the stairs to the second floor, we realized we were there for the same reason and became instant friends. 

But that night there was a note on the door of the acting school telling us, "School closed.  Come down the hall to the right, to the Blue Room."  When we found the Blue Room, we realized that we were not only joining the acting school - but that was the first night of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders 20th Reunion being held at the Del Mar Beach Club - and we, the acting school, were their guests. 

They had invited the acting school to attend, I suppose to add some color to their celebration.  So the acting school I joined to stop partying and drinking seven nights a week - led me into a four day Tokyo Raiders Reunion party with a free open bar.  Oh well, I decided I could postpone my partying slowdown for one more week. 

At that time, most of Doolittle's Raiders were still alive.  It was exciting to be able to mix with those heroes and hear their personal stories.  Did you realize that all of the planes crashed except one?  The B-25s on this mission had a strict weight limit to enable them to take off from an aircraft carrier, the USS Hornet. They were stripped down and had the gallons of fuel on-board fuel calculated carefully.  One crew chief snuck an extra can of fuel on his plane, which could have killed his crew - but did not. 

They were able to take off, finish the mission, and while all the other planes crashed in China and were saved by the Chinese, a couple of crews were captured by the Japanese - his plane and crew were able to make it back to what they thought was an allied air base, a Russian air base.  The Russians held them as "house guests," i.e., captives for one year - and we never got the plane back.  The crew chief told me this story himself and I have later verified that it is true.
 
That was four nights of partying, great stories, and celebration.  And on Saturday night, at the closing dinner, Bob Hope was the guest speaker and then General Doolittle spoke. 

Bob Hope was a sight for he got caught in the Los Angeles traffic trying to get to Santa Monica that Saturday evening and evidently did not have time to change.  When he was standing on stage at eye level, his pants were inches too short (high water pants) and he had on white socks.   Yet, he was still funny.  And he was doing what he did so well, entertaining our troops.

The man in charge of the reunion that year was a suave, handsome, peppered-haired Colonel from the Pentagon - and the lady who owned the acting school, Madame Valmar Oleska, chased that poor Colonel every night of the reunion.

While I returned to my true vocation, the computer industry - Jim Anthony, who had became my friend during our acting school days, went on to have a successful career as an actor.  To join SAG (Screen Actor's Guild) he later changed his name to Anthony James and appeared as a character actor in just about every western and detective television series that aired in the 1970s and 80s. 

I was living in Huntsville briefly when I first saw Jim in a 1968 episode of the new, to me, western TV show "The Big Valley" where he was a nutty mountain man and killer.  When we turned on the TV that Wednesday evening, the first image I saw was Jim's face - and I thought, "Wow, he made it in television."  Yes, I will admit to a wee vicarious thrill.

The next Saturday evening my girl friend and I went to the movie with bowling friends and, surprise, surprise - there was Jim in the 1967 movie "In The Heat Of The Night" where he was the killer Rod Steiger and Sidney Poitier were chasing.  He retired a few years back and was living in the Boston area doing his thing as an artist, creating art through his paintings.  He died from cancer on May 26, 2020.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I attended the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders 20th Reunion the week of April 18-22, 1962.  And that week in 1962 I met my friend, Jim Anthony, and together we became students at the Theatre of Arts acting school.

DILEMMA PART 2:

Fresh out of the Air Force, in August 1958, I joined Burroughs Corporation as a Computer Systems Technician at their plant in Pasadena (Sierra Madre), California.  A year later, in 1959, I transferred into the company's Field Engineering department and was assigned to help maintain the Burroughs B220 computer system at the Naval Supply Depot in Norfolk, Virginia. 

Later I was transferred to the Burroughs district office in Washington DC - where I became lead Field Engineer on their system at Atlantic Research Corporation in Tysons Corner, Virginia. 

In October 1962, I was the lead Field Engineer on the Burroughs computer system at Atlantic Research Corporation.  In the Air Force I had been an electronic technician maintaining the F-86 jet fighter Weapons Fire Control/Radar Systems.  A friend and fellow Field Engineer, Paul, was my co-worker at Atlantic Research.  He had also been in the Air Force, and together we decided to join the Air Force Reserves just to stay abreast of military electronics.

Paul and I planned to go on Saturday, October 20, 1962, to join the Air Force Reserves.  However the computer system at Atlantic Research developed a problem so we had to work that Saturday.  We agreed that the following Saturday, October 27th, we would visit the Air Force Reserve unit and join.

But Fidel Castro, Cuba's Communist dictator, stepped into our plans.  On Sunday, October 14, the Cuban Missile Crisis burst upon us.  Russia had installed missile sites in Cuba - within easy target range of America.  That led to a 13-day (October 16-28, 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over the apparently offensive missile sites in Cuba.
 
On Monday, October 22, 1962, President Kennedy, because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, announced that the U.S. military forces would go to DEFCON 3 and the Air Force Reserve unit that Paul and I would have joined that previous Saturday - was activated that Monday.  That close call of being reactivated into active military duty convinced me of an old military maxim, "Never volunteer for anything!"
 
DILEMMA CONCLUSION:  Where was I in 1962 - California or Washington DC/Virginia?  And how do I explain that both events are very vivid in my memory, down to minute details?   I had to have been in Southern California, at the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders 20th Reunion, April 18-22, 1962 - and I had to have been at Atlantic Research Corporation in Tysons Corner, Virginia, on Saturday, October 20, 1962.  BUT, HOW? 

I have literally replayed these events over and over in my mind for years - and cannot find an answer.  Did I confuse the year?  Was the Reunion in 1963 instead of 1962?  Was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961 instead of 1962?-

As my photo collage below shows, the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders' Reunion was held April 1962 as shown in the Del Mar Beach Club May 1962 issue - with William Bower's Reunion badge also showing April 1962.

And the whole world knows when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, October 16-28, 1962 - for the whole world was holding their collective breaths for that 13 days.  If you can explain this dilemma, other than saying I was on a Timothy Leary High in 1962 - PLEASE DO!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge: