05/03/2017
Someone said:
The biggest problem I see with the FG movement is a lack of personal grace that rivals cage-stage Calvinists. I was on one group where I was instantly attacked for posting a common grace view on repentance (change of mind that naturally comes with trusting Christ - not the "turn from sin" false definition) that was different from Wilkin's. It was vicious and it was apparent that they didnt want anything that wasnt 100% in lockstep with their talking points. That itself has me staying away from supporting the formal FG movement (it also keeps me away from KJVO and many IFB types that claim a free grace view).
I responded:
I would personally like to apologize for such unwarrented treatment, but like Calvinist, Arminians, FG folks are not exempt for the sin virus :-)
I like to address various things you surfaced, however:
1) I can understand how a sample taste of a portion of something could indicate the sourness of the lot, but don't let this sort illogical thinking influence such a smart individual like yourself. There are many things that one could point to this not being the case, specially in theology where you have people within groups that differ on so many points. No more are bad Christians indicative of Christ than the site you experienced are indicative of such behavior of all FG folks.
2) I think your definition of a "change of mind" view is very acceptable within our FG circles. Bob Wilkin, who's a personal friend of mine and whom I had the pleasure of knowing for years, will attest to this himself, since many folks that he invites on a regular basis to speak at the GES conference (e.g., like Charles Ryrie, who's now w/the Lord) held to the "change of mind view" of repentance. I believe as many FG folks do not believe this is a corruption of the FG message, if defined as you like many good friends of mine do.
3) However, the issue, more on an academic basis here, is not to attack or accuse one of heresy, but really of biblical and linguistic accuracy. I'm a current professor that teaches 5-7 times a year a course on Second Temple Judaism/Intertestamental Literature which covers that transition within Testaments (OT & NT). Hence, I've had plenty of exposure to the material and transition/evolution of words, specifically of the Greek term "metanoia" (noun) and "metaneo" (verb). Here's what you will find if you do the foot work. The word took an evolutionary turn from being defined as a simple "change of mind" from the Greek Classical Period (800–300 BCE) to the Koine Period (300 BCE – AD/CE 70). Hence, the leading Greek Lexicon BDAG does not attribute any NT passage to the change of mind view but to a "conversion" or "turning from sin." Now I've been one that has challenged dictionaries, but this is a task not to be taken lightly. At the risk of sounding pompous and arrogant, let me just say, that one should have plenty of formal theological training in the biblical languages before setting out to challenge a leading lexicon in the field. By God's grace I have. So, I've had issues with how BDAG has defined various terms. All of this to say that no lexicon is free form human bias and sin ;-) However, I'll say that I'm very, very, very careful to challenge a leading lexicon who's committee is composed of great linguistic scholars of all strands. Furthermore, other technical works in the field like, DNTT and TDNT who also acknowledge what BDAG suggest, are lock in step that "repentance" can and is clearly defined as involving a "change of mind" (CoM) definition but much more than that, since the word evolutioniced to include a predisposition and act to turn 180 degrees from sin. The issue then is this: "The FG folks, who are well intentioned, that continue to define repentance with the CoM definition may be misunderstanding the passage in question where such a term appears." Thus, other exegetical practices must take place in such passages that can conclude and fit with the common usage of the term in the period that's also not at odds with the biblical FG message clearly found elsewhere. I believe the answer lies very often with how the strand of FG that I belong to has been able to explain such passages in keeping with cultural linguistic norm and yet continue to employ sound exegetical skills in explaining such passages that contain the terms "metanoia" and "metaneo."
I hope that what I've written here not only helps you change your mind (no pun intended) / perception of the FG movement, but also to reconsider or take a look at the position which you currently hold. If after this you still continue to hold the change of mind view, you're no less of a brother and possible friend if I meet you one day. For, your view is very much a part of an acceptable view within the FG movement. Always has been and always will.
Blessings!
