Free grace theology

According to Ken Wilson, the first explicit mentions of Free Grace theology come from the early 5th century, while some ideas were seen since the late 2nd century.[8]

In early Lutheranism the "Majoristic controversy" arose from George Major's statement that good works are "necessary for salvation", Major's position was supported by Justus Menius. Their position was opposed by the "Antinomians" and the "anti-Majorists", including: Nicolaus von Amsdorf, Anton Otto, Andreas Poach and Johann Agricola,[9] they rejected saying that: "Though we are forgiven by faith alone, no one can be saved without doing good works" and "New obedience is necessary".[10][11][12] Nicolaus von Amsdorf protested against Major's doctrine that good works as fruits of justification were necessary for salvation,[13] he went so far as to say "good works are detrimental to salvation", though its implications were misunderstood, as Amsdorf did not mean that good works are not dangerous in and of themselves.[14]

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871 – 1952) influenced modern Free Grace theologians.[15][16]

Wayne Grudem notes that some Free grace advocates teach similar views as Robert Sandeman.[17] Many modern Free Grace theologians were influenced by Lewis Sperry Chafer (February 27, 1871 – August 22, 1952), who published the book "He That Is Spiritual", in which he articulated many Free Grace viewpoints. This caused a smaller scale controversy in his day, when B. B. Warfield took issue with Chafer's doctrine.[15] Many Free Grace advocates hold that H.A. Ironside, living around the same time as Sperry Chafer taught Free Grace theology, though it is disputed by some due to him making some ambiguous statements.[18] Slightly prior to the Lordship salvation controversy, Everett Harrison opposed the view that one must make Christ "Lord of your life" and make a commitment to follow Jesus in order to be justified. Everett Harrison had a debate with John Stott on the issue in 1959, mirroring the Lordship salvation controversy.[19] Free grace theology reemerged under this name in the late 20th century as a critical response to a perceived legalist abuse of the New Testament by Lordship salvation, Catholicism, and Calvinism. As Free grace theologians ignited the Lordship salvation controversy with John McArthur in the 1980s. The debate surfaced when Charles Ryrie published his book "So Great Salvation", which was followed by Zane Hodges publishing his books against the positions of John McArthur. [20][21][19] Outside the United States, Free Grace views were held by Erich Sauer in Germany, Robert Govett in England and Watchman Nee in China.[8] Its more modern prominent proponents, academicians, and theologians include:

Its prominent present-day expressions are Grace School of Theology,[50] the Grace Evangelical Society, the Free Grace Alliance,[51] and local churches.

Many modern proponents of free grace theology studied and taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary, including Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Zane C. Hodges, and Dave Anderson, though the seminary itself does not hold to free grace. A number of free grace churches are pastored by graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary.[52] A number of opponents of free grace also graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary, including Darrel Bock[53] and Daniel Wallace.

Dallas Theological Seminary was more influenced by Free Grace theology during the 20th century with multiple faculty members holding soteriological views akin to Free Grace theology, despite the influence of Free Grace theology at Dallas Theological Seminary it remains a view only held by a minority as of today.[8]

Dave Anderson, former student and professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, established Grace School of Theology (originally Houston Theological Seminary)[54] in 2001. Grace School of Theology "is committed to Christian scholarly endeavor in the free grace tradition."[55] The school's vision is "To develop spiritual leaders in every nation who can teach others about the love of Christ, a love that cannot be earned and cannot be lost."[56] The school is accredited by TRACS, ATS, and the ECFA[57] with 14 teaching sites in the United States and internationally.[58] Eight of the 36 faculty members trained at Dallas Theological Seminary.[59] Grace School of Theology promotes the Free Grace position through its classes (with over 600 students internationally) and also through Grace Theology Press, which has published many resources related to Free Grace theology.[60]

The Free Grace Alliance formed in November 2004 with an emphasis on international missions.[61] Although the new organization was officially formed for a "different reason",[62] the Free Grace Alliance split from the Grace School of Theology in 2005 when most of the prominent leaders (including the chairman of the board) within GES rejected the change in the content of saving faith being taught by Zane C. Hodges and the Grace School changed its doctrinal statement regarding the content of saving faith.[63] A non-association statement was made in 2009.[64] Fred Lybrand as President of the Free Grace Alliance publicly rejected the Grace Evangelical Society view as false doctrine in 2009 and called for their repentance.[65] The Free Grace Alliance holds annual conferences, and numerous local churches and Christian ministries are associated with the alliance as members or affiliates.[66]

Founded in 1986 by Robert Wilkin, the Grace Evangelical Society focuses on publishing, podcasts, and conferences. The Grace Evangelical Society was a focal point for the mainstream Free Grace movement until 2005, when it officially altered its beliefs statement to say that eternal life and eternal security are synonymous[67] and that belief in eternal security provided by Jesus is the sole requirement for salvation.

Zane C. Hodges, a prominent Free Grace theologian, was a core theologian of the group until his death in 2008. In his later years, Zane Hodges controversially argued that the inclusion of Jesus' promise of eternal salvation was a necessity for proper evangelization.[68] He viewed the sole condition of eternal salvation as believing in Jesus' promise of eternal life, and Grace Evangelical Society began to promote this view increasingly.[63] In this view, a person could believe that Jesus is God and Savior who died and rose again, without believing in him for eternal salvation (faith in eternal security), and could therefore still be damned. A person could also become a Christian by believing in someone named Jesus for eternal security, while rejecting that he is God and Savior from sin by his death and resurrection.[69] According to the society's website salvation comes from "faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead" [70] However, society proponents deny that a person must believe in the substitutionary death for sin and a bodily resurrection of Jesus to be a Christian.[69]

The change in the Grace Evangelical Society's official doctrinal statement caused many members (including the chairman of the board) and the majority of academic members to leave the society in 2005–2006. Almost all free grace academic theologians rejected the new statement, arguing that eternal life and eternal security are not the same thing.[71] They also objected that this view would by consequence damn all Christians from the time of 100 A.D. until the 1500s, since there is no evidence that anyone believed in eternal security.[72] John Niemelä of the Grace Evangelical Society responded that the promise of eternal life was present during that time through the regular reading of the Gospel of John in the lectionaries.[46] However, Wilson responded that Niemelä's contention was based on an informal logical fallacy and a heresy.[73]

Many of those who studied and taught at Chafer Theological Seminary hold to Free Grace theology, including the seminary president, Andy Woods.[74][75][76]

Free Grace theology was majorly promoted by the Florida Bible College which trained hundreds of Free Grace pastors. The Florida Bible College at its peak had around 1500 students. The Florida Bible College shut down in the late nineties, though it restarted in 2013, being lead by Ralph "Yankee" Arnold .[77][78]

Core beliefs common to Free Grace theology historically include:

Free Grace theology is distinguished by holding a strong version of the doctrine of faith alone. Free Grace theology holds that things such as turning from sin, baptism or perseverance in the faith are necessary for salvation, but instead hold that these things are necessary for eternal rewards.[89] Free Grace writers generally agree that good works do not play a role in meriting, maintaining, or proving eternal life. In other words, Jesus graciously provides eternal salvation as a free gift to those who believe in Him.[90][91] Free Grace theologians universally hold to eternal security, however they deny that every believer will necessarily persevere.[8] Thus, Free Grace theologians hold that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will go to heaven regardless of any future actions—including future sin, unbelief, or apostasy—though Christians who sin or abandon the faith will face God's discipline.[92]

Free Grace theology is distinguished by the treatment of the words "salvation" and "save" in the bible. Free Grace theologians argue that there are many ways believers can experience "salvation", not necessarily referring to salvation from hell. This view is seen from verses such as Acts 27:34 where the Greek word soteria (typically translated as "salvation") is translated “health” or "strength" because food will assist their deliverance from physical death. Spiritually, salvation has been seen as referring to deliverance from the eternal penalty of sin (justification), the current power of sin over the Christian (sanctification), the removal of any possibility to sin (glorification), and being restored to stewardship over the world as God intended for humankind at creation (restoration to rule).[93]

Free grace theology approaches the doctrine of repentance in a different way than most other Christian traditions. Free Grace theologians have generally held one of three views on repentance:[8][94]

A major number of Free Grace theologians, including: Harry A. Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Charlie Bing and others have taught that repentance (metanoia) should be treated as a change of mind not as a turning from sin or sorrow for sin. Thus, in this view repentance is viewed as a synonym for faith.[95][8][96] Lewis Sperry Chafer said on repentance:[97]

The word means a change of mind.  The common practice of reading into this word the thought of sorrow and heart-anguish is responsible for much confusion in the field of Soteriology.  There is no reason why sorrow should not accompany repentance or lead to repentance, but the sorrow, whatever it may be, is not repentance.

A second view was suggested by Zane C. Hodges, David.R. Anderson and Robert Wilkin, in which repentance is defined as turning from one's sins, but repentance is not a requirement for eternal life, only faith in Christ. They however viewed repentance as necessary for our sanctification. In this view, passages such as Luke 13:3 are viewed temporarily, as in the word "perish" is argued to refer to the destruction of Judea by the Romans.[8][98]

Joseph Dillow taught instead that repentance refers to remorse or regret for sin, in his view being a necessary pre-condition of faith. However, Dillow rejected the view that repentance should be viewed as commitment to Christ.[8]

Free Grace theologians put a heavy emphasis on the doctrine of eternal rewards which are determined in the judgement seat of Christ. In the Free Grace system, passages which seem to connect justification with good works, are instead viewed as referencing eternal rewards, and not eternal salvation. The view that individuals will have differing degrees of reward depending upon their service is based off an interpretation of Paul's words in the first epistle to the Corinthians, in which he references being saved "through fire". Free Grace theologians have taken this to mean that those who have not served Christ will be saved, though forfeiting eternal rewards.[99][8][100] This view of eternal rewards has been influenced by the writings of Scofield.[101]

Jody Dillow divided eternal rewards into three categories (a) rewards of enhanced intimacy (b) rewards of honor and (c) rewards of service. [102]

There are some differences among Free Grace theologians on the role of good works as results of salvation due to their respective interpretations of the Epistle of James. Many Free Grace theologians such as Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, John F. Hart, Ken Wilson, Charlie Bing, Joseph Dillow and others hold that the one who possesses "dead faith" as mentioned James 2:17 is not a false convert, in this view the word "dead" is referring to a faith that is not profitable in this life nor in the judgement seat of Christ, but does not imply false conversion. Thus, when the epistle of James says "can that faith save him", it is either understood as salvation from temporal consequences of sin (Zane Hodges), salvation from a loss of reward (Charlie Bing) or both (Joseph Dillow). Free Grace theologians have argued that James contextually thus does not speak of eternal salvation.[8][103][4][104][105] Kenneth Wilson argued that Augustine erred in his view of James 2 that has led to the view that the "false faith of demons" lacks works while "true faith" must always produce good works.[106]

In contrast, Charles Ryrie, though being a Free grace theologian, believed that faith naturally leads into good works, interpreting James to refer to eternal salvation. Ryrie still held in opposition to Lordship salvation that the believer may not always have fruit nor the fruit be necessarily outwardly evident. Ryrie added that believers will have fruit "somehow, somewhere", but agreed that the category of "carnal Christian" is possible. Ryrie criticized the Lordship view of good works, as making people into "fruit inspectors".[107]

Reformed theologians have often taken the first epistle of John to be written as a test to be able to know if you are justified. However, in the Free Grace view the epistle is viewed as being a test on if the person is in fellowship with God. Thus Free Grace theologians interpret words such as "know" in 1 John to refer to intimacy, instead of as salvation.[8]

The issue of the future millennial reign with Christ has caused controversy among Free Grace theologians, as 2 Timothy 2:12-13 (NIV) reads: "If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.". Free Grace theologians have taken it in different ways. Joseph Dillow among others argued that only the faithful Christians who "overcome" are going to reign with Christ, though the unfaithful will still get into the kingdom, they will not reign with Christ. A similar view was taught by Robert Govett, though he went so far as to argue that entering the kingdom itself is a reward. This view has been opposed by some other Free Grace advocates such as Jonathan Perreault, arguing that though every Christian will reign with Christ, the unfaithful will not reign "administratively".[108][109][110] This is connected to the doctrine of the "outer darkness", Joseph Dillow and other Free Grace theologians such as Charles Stanley, Zane Hodges, Ken Wilson, the Grace Evangelical Society among some others argued that the "outer darkness" in Matthew 22:13, is not referencing hell but an exclusion from reigning millennium. However, this view of the outer darkness is not taught by all Free Grace theologians.[111][8][100][112] The view of Dillow, Wilkins and Hodges has been said to be creating a "Protestant purgatory" by its critics. Bob Wilkins opposed the term "Protestant purgatory", denying that it is punitive,[113] however Dillow on the other hand said: "Is there a Protestant Purgatory? I believe evangelicals should be open to thinking about this.", yet distinguishing his view from the how purgatory is taught in the Roman Catholic church. The view that the "outer darkness" refers to exclusion from reigning with Christ was criticized explicitly by Chafer and Walvoord, and many Free Grace theologians hold that the outer darkness refers to hell, not being a judgement upon believers.[47] Though Dillow, Hodges and others viewed the "outer darkness" as a metaphor for being disinherited from reigning with Christ, a more radical view was proposed by Chuck Missler and Watchman Nee, who argued that the outer darkness is a literal place. Missler proposed a "kingdom suburd" for those Christians who do not obey.[47]

Modern Free Grace theology is typically, but not necessarily, dispensational in its assumptions regarding the philosophy of history and in terms of its networks and affiliations.[114] Some Free Grace theologians have argued that Free Grace theology is a natural consequence of dispensationalism.[115]

One of the unique aspects of free grace theology is its position on assurance. All free grace advocates agree that assurance of spending eternity with God is based on the promise of scripture through faith alone in Jesus Christ, and not one's works or subsequent progression in sanctification. This view strongly distinguishes the gift of eternal life (accompanying justification by faith) from discipleship (obedience). Free Grace teaches that a person does not need to promise disciplined behavior or good works in exchange for God's eternal salvation; thus, one cannot lose his or her salvation through sinning and potential failure, and that assurance is based on the Bible, not introspection into one's works. God declares persons righteous through Christ's perfection. Whatever little progress humans make towards perfection is infinitesimal compared to Christ's perfection. Thus, comparing one's progress towards perfection with another person's progress is viewed as unwise (2 Cor 10:12). Assurance is based on Christ's perfection given freely to believers (imputed righteousness) and not based on progressive steps of holiness. Dallas Theological Seminary sums up the general consensus of free grace theology in Article XI of its doctrinal statement, in reference to assurance:[116]

We believe it is the privilege, not only of some, but of all who are born again by the Spirit through faith in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, to be assured of their salvation from the very day they take Him to be their Savior and that this assurance is not founded upon any fancied discovery of their own worthiness or fitness, but wholly upon the testimony of God in His written Word, exciting within His children filial love, gratitude, and obedience (Luke 10:20; 22:32; 2 Cor. 5:1, 6–8; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:22; 1 John 5:13).

A similar view of assurance was held by some of the Antinomians in the Antinomian controversy.[117]

There is some controversy on the definition of faith among Free Grace theologians. Zane Hodges in his later life and the Grace Evangelical society have held that faith is intellectual assent in the promise of Christ, thus trusting in the person of Christ is not necessary in their view. The Grace Evangelical Society teaches that knowledge of the deity, atonement and resurrection of Christ is not necessary to be saved, however they are seen as necessary for sanctification. The view that faith is intelectual assent has also been held by Robert Sandeman.[118][8][119][120] This view is not shared by many Free Grace theologians and has caused much controversy among Free Grace advocates. Influential Free Grace theologians such as David R. Anderson, Joseph Dillow, Charlie Bing, Ken Wilson and Charles Ryrie among others hold that faith includes notitia (knowledge), assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust), the object of faith is viewed as the person and work of Jesus Christ (them being inseparable). According to Charles Ryrie: "Faith in His person involves belief in His deity and faith in His work involves belief in the efficacy of His death to effect deliverance from sin". The view of the Grace Evangelical Society has been argued to separate the work and person of Christ by its critics, while the Grace Evangelical society called it theological legalism to require belief in things such as the atoning work of Christ and his deity to be saved.[8][118][107][119][121][122]

Free Grace theologians distinguish between discipleship and salvation. Free Grace theologians hold that discipleship is a condition of an enhanced experience of life (eternal rewards), however it is not necessary for salvation. Discipleship is neither viewed as an inevitable result of salvation, as Free Grace theology allows for a true Christian to not respond to the call of discipleship. Some Free Grace theologians even wish to distinguish between Christians who are "overcomers" and those who are not based off the book of revelation, referencing "those who overcome", overcoming being a basis of eternal rewards. However, unlike the distinction between discipleship and salvation, the distinction between "overcomers" and those who do not overcome is not held by all Free Grace theologians.[8][123] [124][109]

Free Grace theology holds to a synergistic view of sanctification. Free Grace theology holds that though sanctification is God's work, it is not automatic nor is it passive. If the believer chooses not to cooperate with God's grace, then he will not be sanctified.[8]

Free Grace contrasts with the teachings of Reformed Theology, which are often characterized by the acrostic “TULIP”.

The fundamental disagreement between Free Grace and Reformed theology is over humanity's ability to choose the good and believe God.[137] Adherents to free grace point to verses such as Acts 17:27 that indicate non-believers can “grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” Further, Free Grace advocates point out that the Bible is full of admonitions for human readers to make good choices. As an example, they point to Galatians 5:13 “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” “Liberty” or freedom means the ability to make choices for yourself. This verse admonishes believers to make good choices, and acknowledges they can make a choice to follow the Spirit or the flesh. The balance of the passage speaks of the consequences of giving priority to the flesh (human lusts) or the Holy Spirit. Adherents to Free Grace theology maintain that all believers have the power to overcome sin through the indwelling Holy Spirit, but have a choice whether to use that power.[138] The “TULIP” doctrines were brought into Christianity by Augustine of Hippo starting in 412 CE during his conflict with the Pelagians.[139] Free Grace theologians argue that Augustine erred in departing from his prior traditional Christian doctrines to form Augustinian Calvinism, and this in turn influenced Calvin. Free Grace theology opposes each of these doctrines as countering the teachings of the Bible as well as the teachings of early church fathers prior to Augustine.