Free Gracers -- I am Confused -- Is They Or Ain't They?

Before I get into this, I want everyone to know that I have nothing against Free Gracers on a personal level. I have shared some private corraspondense with Antonio that has really blessed my heart, for example. I would also say the same in regards to Rose, HK Flynn (Jodie), and Matthew. I admire their zeal, as none of them take the punny, wimp way out of things and say something stupid like, "This is my truth, and what you have is your truth." They stand by their convictions, no matter if Free Grace theology, in the end, be true or false.

But I am very confused about their stance concerning works in the life of the believer. Is there double talk going on? For example, here on a latest thread we find a quote from Zane Hodges:

Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically." (Zane Hodges: We Believe in Assurance Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society) Emphesis made by Antonio

Next we read this:

Zane further writes:

"Finally, we must add that there is no need to quarrel with the Reformers' view that where there is justifying faith, works will undoubtedly exist too. This is a reasonable assumption for any Christian unless he has been converted on his death bed!" (Absolutely Free, pg 215).

Here we seem to have an affirmation that where there is faith in Christ, there will also be works. We even have a "categorical" rejection to the otherwise. Even Bob Wilkin writes:

Reformed theologians suggest that good works are the inevitable result of the new birth. All believers will produce good works, they say.

Some people from the Lordship Salvation position seem to think that we in the Free Grace camp deny such teaching. While GES has no specific statement directly on this point, most members of GES would not have a problem with the above statement--at least in terms of what it actually says.

Please note what Dr. Wilkin says: 1) That Reformed theologians teach that good works are the "inevitable" result of the new birth. 2) All believers will produce good works, and 3) in terms of the actual statement, "most" Ges members would not have a particular problem with it.

But alas, it would appear that a problem does come up. Wilkin writes:

There is a difference between what is hypothetically possible and what is likely and reasonable.

I would say that it is hypothetically possible for a believer never to produce even one good work. However, I don't think that ever has or will occur--except in the cases of people who trust Christ at the very moment of death. (Most consider such cases outside the scope of this issue.)

Wilkin introduces a hypothetical catagory. He then negates the possible reality of it, but then goes on to build a theology from that catagory. In his article, he actually weds what he has just said was hypothetical to what he teaches concerning the new nature. In doing so, he winds up negating all of his above affirmations. Wilkin writes:

The real issue in this discussion is to be found in the degree to which one's new nature will manifest itself. The question is: Is it possible for sin to dominate the life of a believer, and if so, for how long?

"Good works are inevitable," he writes, but brings in the extreme duality that the new nature can be dominated by sin. One might rightfully ask just how, if the new nature can be dominated by sin, can works in any serious way be affirmed as inevitable? I ask this because he writes:

The Reformed view cannot say how long a believer might be dominated by sin. Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? The reason for this imprecision is because the doctrine itself is unscriptural. There are many verses which warn believers not to let sin have dominion over us (e.g., Rom. 6:12-14; 1 Cor. 3:14; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:14-26; Jms. 5:19-20; 2 Pet. 3:17). There are none which say that there is a time limit on how long a believer can be dominated by sin.

(God does take disobedient believers home. In some cases, such as Leviticus 10 and Acts 5, God acts swiftly. In some cases, such as 2 Samuel 11 and 1 Corinthians 11, He does not. There is no indication in Scripture how long God might allow an errant believer to continue in sin before He would choose to take him home. He is sovereign and makes such choices as He knows are best in individual cases. He has not bound Himself to some formula.)

Since Wilkin introduces another catogory that the new nature can be dominated by sin lasting until death, in the case of God's judgment, with the possibility of domination being life long (years, decades), it appears to me that he has just committed a cagagory error that he himself introduced. That is, what is affirmed on the one hand, he appears to deny on the other.

And of course, I am left confused. Are good works inevitable or not?

Going on with my confusion, I wonder why Antonio would quote Hodges as affirming the reality of good works when Antonio himself has written this.

From his article, Antonio wrote:

...the intellectually repugnant paradox that Christian growth is "inevitable" but "not automatic"

Since good works are part of Christian growth, I am still left with confusion. Does Free Grace Theology teach good works to be inevitable or not? The appearance of things is that Free Grace theology wants to teach both. But then again, I am confused..... :-)

(Lord willing, I hope to offer a critique of this article next weekend. It is my hope to have a weekend series looking at Free Grace Theology.)