Free grace theology

According to Ken Wilson, we find mentions of early Christians in good standing with the church who taught that salvation was by faith alone without repentance or good works. These Christians believed that God's future judgement consistent only of reward and temporary punishment and how they lived did not affect their eternal destiny. They were however attacked by Augustine.[8]

Jody Dillow quoted Pseudo-Chrysostom (6th century) as holding to the view held by some Free Grace theologians that the one who does not obey will be in the kingdom but not "reign" with Christ.[9]

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871 – 1952) influenced modern Free Grace theologians.[10][11][12]

Wayne Grudem has noted that some Free grace advocates teach similar views as Robert Sandeman.[13] Free Grace views of the assurance of salvation were also found very commonly among early Dispensationalists, this includes James Hall Brookes and C. I. Scofield, who argued for every believer's right for absolute assurance of salvation, however many of them still held to a soft form of the perseverance of the saints.[14] The modern movement can find much of its roots in the theological views articulated 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. His views were a major influence upon modern proponents of Free Grace theology.[10][12] 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.[15]

The Lordship salvation controversy involved those holding to Free Grace theology. The debate was centered around the question on whether accepting Jesus Christ as saviour necessarily implies one must make a concrete commitment in life toward the Christ such as following a certain behaviour or moral system. The debate surfaced when John McArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" generated a strong response from those holding to Free Grace theology. The first to respond against the views of John McArthur was Charles Ryrie, who wrote the book "So Great Salvation" where he articulated Free Grace theology. This was followed by Zane Hodges publishing his books against the Lordship salvation view. The debate was reignited in the 21st century, when Wayne Grudem wrote against Free Grace theology, causing much new literature to be written on the topic.[16][17][15][18][12]

Around the 1990s, Zane Hodges began to articulate what has been called the "crossless gospel" (although often seen as a derogatory term) which is the belief that one must only believe in the promise of eternal life to be saved, knowledge of the substitutionary atonement being unnecessary for salvation. This evolved into the crossless gospel controversy in 2005, when the Grace Evangelical society officially declared its stance on faith to include only the promise of eternal life, causing many members to leave the society. Other Free Grace theologians such as David R. Anderson, Joseph Dillow, Charlie Bing and Charles Ryrie hold that one must believe in the person and work of Christ to be saved, disagreeing with the view of the Grace Evangelical society.[19][20][21][22][12][23][24]

More modern prominent proponents, academicians, and theologians include:

Its prominent present-day expressions are Grace School of Theology,[55] the Grace Evangelical Society and the Free Grace Alliance.[56]

Free Grace theology has been mainly taught by individuals among: Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, Calvary Chapel churches, non-Denominational churches, Churches affiliated with Florida Bible College, Bible churches, Local churches influenced by Watchman Nee, Doctrinal Churches influenced by R. B. Thieme and other Independent churches.[57][58]

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.[59] A number of opponents of free grace also graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary, including Darrel Bock[60] and Daniel Wallace.

Dallas Theological Seminary was more influenced by Free Grace theology during the 20th century, with multiple faculty members holding Free Grace soteriological views. Despite the influence of Free Grace theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, its popularity has declined in the Dallas Theological Seminary.[12]

Dave Anderson, former student and professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, established Grace School of Theology (originally Houston Theological Seminary)[61] in 2001. Grace School of Theology "is committed to Christian scholarly endeavor in the free grace tradition."[62] 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."[63] The school is accredited by TRACS, ATS, and the ECFA[64] with 14 teaching sites in the United States and internationally.[65] Eight of the 36 faculty members trained at Dallas Theological Seminary.[66] 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.[67]

The Free Grace Alliance formed in November 2004 with an emphasis on international missions.[68] Although the new organization was officially formed for a "different reason",[69] 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.[70] A non-association statement was made in 2009.[71] 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.[72] The Free Grace Alliance holds annual conferences, and numerous local churches and Christian ministries are associated with the alliance as members or affiliates.[73]

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[74] 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.[75] 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.[70] 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.[76] 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" [77] 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.[76]

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.[22] 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.[78] 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.[49] However, Wilson responded that Niemelä's contention was based on an informal logical fallacy and a heresy.[79]

The Grace Evangelical Society additionally runs an unaccredited seminary, called the Grace Evangelical Society Seminary.[80]

Some other smaller non-accredited seminaries such as the Chafer Theological Seminary and Grace Biblical Seminary promote Free Grace theology, and train pastors in the Free Grace view.[81][82][83] The view has also been 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, though it shut down in the late nineties, being restarted in 2013 by Ralph "Yankee" Arnold.[84][85] Free Grace International is a Free Grace organization, worked on by Larry C Kitchen, Lucas Kitchen and Shawn Lazar (who also worked in GES).[86] The organization attempts to promote Free grace theology worldwide.[87]

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 not necessary for salvation, but instead hold that these things are necessary for eternal rewards.[98] 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.[99][100] Free Grace theologians universally hold to eternal security, however they deny that every believer will necessarily persevere.[12] 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. For example, Robert Thieme states “Although the believer can never lose his eternal life, he can be in danger of destroying his spiritual life and losing all the blessings that “God has prepared for those who love him”.[101][102] Free Grace theology is distinguished from so called "Hyper-Grace" views taught by a few Charismatic teachers, by arguing that a believer may experience temporal judgement for sin.[103]

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).[104]

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:[12][105]

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.[106][12][107]

A second view was suggested by Zane C. Hodges, David Anderson and Robert Wilkin (although initially holding to the view of Ryrie and Chafer),[108] in which repentance is defined as turning from one's sins, but repentance is not a requirement for eternal life, only faith in Christ. Zane Hodges presented this view in his book "Harmony with God", where he argued that repentance is not a condition of salvation, but is a condition of fellowship with God and sanctification. However, repentance may be preached to unbelievers, in which case it makes one more disposed to faith in Christ. In this view, passages such as Luke 13:3 are viewed temporarily and corporately, Zane Hodges argued that Jesus is warning the nation of Israel of the destruction of Judea by the Romans.[12][109][110][111]

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.[12]

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 on 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.[112][12][113] This view of eternal rewards has been influenced by the writings of Scofield.[114]

Jody Dillow divided eternal rewards into three categories (a) rewards of enhanced intimacy (b) rewards of honor and (c) rewards of service.[115]

Free Grace theologians hold that unrighteous believers will experience severe divine discipline. Free Grace theologians often interpret the warnings in the book of Hebrews, such as those at the 10th and 6th chapter to be warnings of severe divine discipline for apostasy.[116]

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. Free Grace theologians such as Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges Joseph Dillow among 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.[12][117][4][118][119] 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.[120]

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 salvationist view of good works, as making people into "fruit inspectors".[121]

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.[12]

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 understood this passage in multiple 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. Other Free Grace advocates believe that this verse does not question if a Christian will reign with Christ as it is a privilege of all Christians, but that a Christian may forfeit their quality of reigning with Christ.[116][122][123] This issue is connected to the doctrine of the "outer darkness", Joseph Dillow and others such as Charles Stanley, Zane Hodges and Ken Wilson have argued that the "outer darkness" as referenced in Matthew 22:13 and 2 other passages, is not speaking of hell but of an exclusion from reigning millennium. However, this view of the outer darkness is not taught by all in the Free Grace movement.[124][12][113][125] This view has been criticized as teaching a "Protestant purgatory" by its critics, although its advocates have avoided speaking of "Protestant purgatory", denying that it is a place of torment or a necessary step of purification.[126][50] Watchman Nee, Robert Govett, D.M Pember and D.M Panton proposed that only righteous believers will enter the millennium. In their view, the believers who lived a carnal lifestyle will have to spend 1000 years in "outer darkness", being a literal though temporal place of torment.[116]

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. Some Free Grace theologians have attempted to suggest that Free Grace theology is a natural consequence of dispensationalism.[127][128][116] Although a minority, there are a few non-dispensational individuals who do hold to Free Grace views of soteriology.[129]

According to Dave Anderson, Free Grace is more connected to the idea of premillennialism rather than dispensationalism by itself.[130]

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:[131]

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).

There is some controversy on the object of faith among Free Grace theologians. Zane Hodges in his later life and the Grace Evangelical society have held that faith is assent in the promise of eternal life. 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.[132][12][20][133] This view is not shared by all of those who hold to Free Grace theology. Theologians such as Charles Ryrie, Charlie Bing and Jody Dillow view the object of faith as the person and work of Jesus Christ.[12][121][20][134] A smaller scale disagreement exists on if the burial of Christ is necessary for salvation.[135]

Free Grace theologians generally hold that the "quality of faith" does not matter in salvation, but only the object of faith, as Charlie Bing says: "To emphasize the quality of one’s faith necessarily means that the object of faith is de-emphasized".[19]

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 such as Joseph Dillow, Charlie Bing and Zane Hodges among others even wish to distinguish between Christians who are "overcomers" and those who are not, this view is based on an interpretation of the Book of Revelation, referencing "those who overcome". In this view, overcoming is 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, citing 1 John 5:4, which states "For whatever is born of God overcomes the world", though those holding to the distinction argue that the term "overcome" is used differently in Revelation and the epistle of John.[12][136][137][122]

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.[12]

Free Grace theologians hold to unlimited atonement and to penal substitutionary atonement. Free Grace theology also distinguishes between two kinds of forgiveness, them being positional forgiveness and familial forgiveness. Free Grace theologians hold that positional forgiveness is received through faith alone, while familial forgiveness through confession. Familial forgiveness is not viewed as the basis of salvation but of fellowship and intimacy with God.[130][116]

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