LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Friday, June 22, 2007


If somebody were to consider Free Grace Theology, how important is it for that one to embrace the idea of the Kingdom as entirely future?



Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

A very good question.

I cannot think of any obvious consequences of a Free Gracer adopting a more 'here but not yet' view, as in Progressive Dispensationalism.

I think all the major issues in the Lordship/ Free Grace debate are irrelvant to the question of whether the kingdom has a present dimension.

Every Blessing in Christ


June 22, 2007 1:34 PM

Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

On a slightly different issue, Zane Hodges is not far from Progressive Dispensationalism on the question of the New Covenant.

June 22, 2007 1:37 PM

Anonymous Rodrigo said...

Oi, achei teu blog pelo google tá bem interessante gostei desse post. Quando der dá uma passada pelo meu blog, é sobre camisetas personalizadas, mostra passo a passo como criar uma camiseta personalizada bem maneira. Até mais.

June 22, 2007 8:59 PM

Anonymous john said...

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist -- I noted in your profile that you "uphold the King James Bible". does that mean that you are KJV only? Sorry to go off track Mark.

June 22, 2007 9:05 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

Hey Matthew,

What about Kendall. Isn't he in line with Free Grace? I think he is Amil. as well. And that other guy...you know....the guy who wrote "No Condemnation." I think he is Free Grace and Amil. but am not sure.

June 22, 2007 10:21 PM

Blogger Antonio said...

Michael Eaton.

He is Amil.


June 22, 2007 10:44 PM

Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Gojirah, I do not think Kendall likes getting into the subject of eschatology.

June 23, 2007 5:55 AM

Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I use and recommend the KJV. I believe all of the other translations are inadequate.

The NKJV is mostly very good, though I do not think it is as good as the KJV.

The Darby Bible is good in some ways, but it makes use of the critical text.

I support the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society.

I have never a read a book by Peter Ruckman, but from what I know of the man, I would not recommend his writings.

Every Blessing in Christ


June 23, 2007 5:58 AM

Blogger only1way said...

ok I thought you were supporting KJV only.

June 23, 2007 12:38 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

"Michael Eaton.

He is Amil.


Hmmmmmm....very interesting. I have access to his book. I'll have to see how he works that one out.

June 23, 2007 2:21 PM

Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...


Well I only recommend the KJV and I do not endorse any other translations.

June 23, 2007 2:35 PM

Blogger only1way said...

You understand thatthe KJV has gone through many changes over the years and that the KJV of today is nothing like the KJV of 1611. BTW, I have a 1612 NT KJV in my antiquarian collection. A beautiful BIble and my translation of choice as well.

June 23, 2007 4:10 PM

Blogger Scribe said...


Are those changes simply typographical? BTW the KJV is my weapon of choice :D

June 23, 2007 8:27 PM

Anonymous bobby grow said...

I think FG is highly dependent on a premil interp. of eschatology. I.e. see Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow.

June 23, 2007 8:47 PM

Anonymous danny said...

Hey Bobby. There is such a thing as a Free Grace Preterist, so FG does not depend on Dispensationalism. I posted this link for Mark in the other thread. It's an article by FG preterist David B. Curtis. He connects outer darkness to 70 A.D.


June 25, 2007 10:46 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home