Why "Theological Legalism" in Free Grace?

Why might there possibly be "theological legalism" in free grace circles?

I'll tell you why not; I am overlooking trifle things. It is not so much because:

1- people have a strict interpretation of an incredibly narrow construction of truth about the content of saving faith or the content of the gospel of salvation. (Of course this is something to make a big deal over because it is concerning the essentials of the faith.)

If you want to call this "legalism" it might or might not be so. If it is, it is a more narrow and less significant form, and I'm thinking of pinpointing a much larger element.

2- tensions have been increasing perhaps until as of late, and there has been a slow formation of theological camps. There are individuals on both sides who have a lot of scriptural might, who try and determine the course of others' convictions both within their own camp and across the free grace spectrum.

Even this, if you want to call it a form of legalism, is pretty common and normative. In the typical evangelical setting, influencing others with so heavy a hand is still considered by many to be a loving and therefore welcomed interaction.

Neither of these is what I am thinking of as the theological legalism within free grace.

When I think of theological legalism I am concerned about this one thing: its beginning premise. It is not as if no one in the world was ever getting saved in the midst of the Lordship Salvation era of evangelism. Free grace began because those who continue to hold fast "to what they heard in the beginning" as the Apostle John commands in his first epistle, are aware that the shift of the content of the gospel nevertheless reaps eternal damnation. Clarity had an unmistakeable and growing force of opposition, manifested in Lordship Salvation.

I ask this question: Is it true that there cannot be any error, therefore, in free grace soteriology, lest it fail its mission? We were created with a mission to protect the gospel message from error. I observe that we are indoctrinated by our own founding premise, that in order to preserve the gospel from any error, we must preserve it from any people who disagree.

I submit that a sustained future mission becomes less likely if it continues that we practice purging people.

Free grace began as a withstanding of the increasing error of people. As a withstanding of the error of certain teachers. As a withstanding of the error and confusion brought by a significant degree of theological error.

We started that engine righteously. But how important is it that we turn it off before it takes us further than we best go?

Are we not still looking for the same taxon of "enemy"? I think we are, unfortunately, still looking for "people" to take out of play, not quite able to prove if they are in opposition to the gospel. Is our mission forevermore to be after people; certain teachers? Is our mission to be ever increasingly seeking to eliminate people with theological error?

(For a bit of perspective, these questions are similar to those that must be asked of Christians who are legalists in their works; they don't want "sinners" to be acceptable and so they measure purity outwardly to give assurance, but assurance is never really attained.)

Where can this lead, ultimately?

All "gospel" "content" conversations aside, there must be a point even on the fundamental teachings of the faith, where a limit in detail to what is known and what is designed to be known, is perceived. Is there a limit of knowledge regarding the gospel? I don't know. Maybe Stegall and JP are right in saying the gospel and the content of saving faith can truly be known and proved without doubt from scripture. If that is true why are there so many Spirit-led free grace disciples that have not yet been convinced? This is a question that I believe deserves a great deal of respect and consideration. Maybe Rose is conversely correct; perhaps God has designed some things to maintain a small element of mystery. I myself do not know the answer of "limit" in the gospel-content debate.

I wonder about this: how long is that engine that we started up for good in the founding days, going to keep on working these same processes within? Is it not eventually leading us to impotence?

If we keep purging people, on what basis will we be doing so? On the basis of our own personal convictions. There is nothing wrong with that, excluding one thing: there is a great deal of variety in belief over the content of the gospel/saving faith. The end products? Three. Following on with this beginning premise to purge people who hold to error:

- we will all be purging one another. We have to; for any other gospel is "anathema."

- we will have no justification or freedom to publicly change position should we one day honestly be convinced differently.

- we will lose great minds and personalities to distant and broken fellowships.

May I submit some concepts for solution?

With a few exceptions, there needs be a distinction between purging error and purging people. Yes, we know there are a few "bad apples" on the fringe who cannot accept the terms of the most obvious and well established attributes of the content of the gospel. They may never change their mind. In the 1980s when we stood distinct with dissatisfaction with the worst of them, we essentially made this statement to the watching world:

"Do you know how important it is to preach the gospel with accuracy? Now that we have made so vocal a stand against those who preach error, and we have your attention, let's discuss together the content of saving faith and the content of the gospel."

In this sort of approach, you can see that the engine that was ignited by the obvious and unrepentant error of the extremists, has been intentionally, subsequently turned off. We no longer are seeking to purge people, only the error of the people caught up in this trend. Now that we have been established, shifting the focus away from people, and onto their error, allows for grace to be practiced. It allows space for people to ask questions. It permits grace for people to read for themselves. There is time to establish answers that are more than just what they were told, but what the scripture actually provides. This allows them to become teachers of free grace theology, in their own spheres of influence. It allows for the talents and work of those who have some disagreement over the gospel, to be used in whatever portion is helpful to advance the message that the gospel is an important matter for wholesale Evangelical Christianity to be self-motivated in studying.

Most importantly, this shift in emphasis off of people and onto discussing error alone, means that outsiders may no longer be derisive of our movement.

They might want to say, "Free grace began because they wanted to stop people from teaching error about the gospel, but they'll never achieve their goal because they can't unanimously prove what error is and what it is not."

But instead the mission and realization is this: "Free grace began because they wanted to stop the preaching of error in the presentation of the gospel, and everyday they are spurring their world and one another in fulfillment of that goal."

What do you think? Is there such a thing as "theological legalism"?