Talk:Free grace theology

message: 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)
thread_title: POV?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (mbork³) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Opposition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Minor restructuring?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  History section has been reorganized and expanded.--Readingwords (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not reassessing at this time

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: POV tag

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bible Study? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly concur. Change "CE" to the traditional, millennia-old "AD".  —Dilidor (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era 

message: 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)
thread_title:  strange article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moody 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Chaferianism" and "Easy Believism" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Majoristic controversy

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Gods free grace