Early Church

According to Ken Wilson, Augustine of Hippo criticized unnamed individuals who held to the view that one is saved by faith alone and that God's future judgement for Christians only consisted of temporal punishment and reward; hell was out of question. Thus, they held that deeds such as turning from sin and doing good works were not necessary to enter heaven.^[11][12]

Jody Dillow quoted the 6th-century writer Pseudo-Chrysostom as holding 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.^[13]

Later history

Wayne Grudem has noted that some free grace advocates teach similar views as Robert Sandeman (1718–1771).^[17] Free grace views on topics such as the assurance of salvation and eternal rewards 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, but many of them still held to a soft form of the perseverance of the saints.^[18][19] The modern movement is significantly influenced by 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.^[14][16] Slightly before the Lordship salvation controversy, Everett F. 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. Harrison held a debate with John Stott on the issue in 1959, mirroring the Lordship salvation controversy.^[20]

The Lordship salvation controversy involved those holding to free grace theology. The debate was centered around the question on whether accepting Jesus Christ as savior necessarily implies one must make a concrete commitment in life toward the Christ, such as following a certain behavior or moral system. The debate surfaced when John McArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus generated a strong response from proponents of free grace theology. The first to respond against the views of McArthur was Charles Ryrie, who wrote the book So Great Salvation where he articulated free grace theology.^[21][20] Zane Hodges followed by publishing his books against the Lordship salvation view. The debate was reignited in the 21st century when Wayne Grudem wrote against free grace theology, leading to a renewed interest in the topic.^[22][23][16]

Around the 1990s, Hodges began to articulate what has been called the "crossless gospel", which – although often seen as a derogatory term – is the belief that one must only believe in Jesus' promise of eternal life to be saved; knowledge of the substitutionary atonement is 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 Jesus' promise of eternal life to the one who believes, causing many members to leave.^[24][25] 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.^{[26][27][16][28][29]}

More modern prominent proponents, academicians, and theologians associated with Free Grace ideas include:

Its prominent present-day expressions are Grace School of Theology,^[63] the Grace Evangelical Society, and the Free Grace Alliance.^[64]

Free grace theology has been mainly taught 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.^[65][66]

Core beliefs table

Core beliefs common to free grace theology historically include:

Soteriology

Free grace theology is distinguished by holding a strong version of the doctrine of faith alone. Free grace theologies hold 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.^[96] 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.^[97][98] Free grace theologians universally hold to eternal security, however they deny that every believer will necessarily persevere.^[16] 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.'"^[99][100] Free grace theology is distinguished from Hyper-Grace theology taught by a few Charismatic teachers by arguing that a believer may experience temporal judgement for sin.^[101]

Free grace theology is distinguished by its treatment of the words "salvation" and "save" in the Bible. These theologians argue that there are many ways believers can experience "salvation", not necessarily referring to salvation from hell. This view cites verses such as Acts 27:34, where the Greek word σωτηρῐ́ᾱ sōtēríā – typically translated as 'salvation' – is translated "health" or "strength" because food will assist their deliverance from physical death. Spiritually, salvation is 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).^[102]

There are some differences among free grace theologians on the issue of fruit in a Christian life. More moderate free grace theologians still affirm that faith will necessarily lead into good works, although it may not be outwardly evident or last to the end of one's life. However, those who hold to a more strong form of free grace theology deny that every Christian will bear fruit in their life.^[9]

Repentance

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:^[16][103]

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 (Ancient Greek: μετᾰ́νοιᾰ 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.^{[104][16][105]}

A second view was suggested by Zane C. Hodges, David Anderson, and Robert Wilkin (although initially holding to the view of Ryrie and Chafer),^[106] in which repentance is defined as turning from one's sins, but repentance is not a requirement for eternal life, only faith in Christ. 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, Hodges argued that Jesus is warning the nation of Israel of the destruction of Judea by the Romans.^{[16][107][108][109]}

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.^[16]

Judgement seat of Christ

Free grace theologians put a heavy emphasis on the doctrine of eternal rewards, which are determined in the judgement seat of Christ. In this system, passages which seem to connect justification with good works are instead viewed as referencing eternal rewards, 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 his 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, but forfeit eternal rewards.^{[110][16][111]} This view of eternal rewards has been influenced by the writings of Scofield.^[112]

Jody Dillow divided eternal rewards into three categories: rewards of enhanced intimacy, rewards of honor, and rewards of service.^[113]

Divine discipline

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 tenth and sixth chapters to be warnings of severe divine discipline for apostasy.^[114] Although some, such as Norman Geisler, understood these warnings as pertaining to eternal rewards.^[115]

Epistles of James and John

There are some differences among free grace theologians as to the role of good works as results of salvation due to their respective interpretations of the Epistle of James. Most such as Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, and 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" refers 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 (as with Hodges), salvation from a loss of reward (as with Bing), both (as with Dillow), or as the physical salvation of the poor person described in the chapter (as with R. T. Kendall).^[116][117] These theologians have argued that James contextually does not speak of eternal salvation.^{[16][118][3][119][120]} 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.^{[121][clarification needed]}

By 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, sometime, somewhere", but agreed that the category of "carnal Christian" is possible. Ryrie criticized Lordship salvation's view of good works as making people into "fruit inspectors".^{[122][clarification needed]}

Reformed theologians have often taken the First Epistle of John to be written as a test to be able to know if an individual is 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 the Epistle to refer to intimacy rather than salvation.^[16]

Reigning with Christ

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." 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, but that the verse teaches that a Christian may forfeit their quality of reigning with Christ.^{[114][123][124]} This issue is connected to the doctrine of the "outer darkness"; 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,^[which?] 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.^{[125][16][111][126]} This view has been criticized as teaching a "Protestant purgatory" by its critics, although its advocates have avoided that terminology, denying that it is a place of torment or a necessary step of purification.^[127][56] 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 but temporal place of torment.^[114]

Dispensationalism

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 theologians have attempted to suggest that free grace theology is a natural consequence of dispensationalism.^{[128][129][114]} Although a minority, there are a few non-dispensational theologians who hold to free grace soteriology.^[130]

According to Dave Anderson, free grace is more connected to the idea of premillennialism rather than dispensationalism by itself.^[131]

Those who teach Ultradispensationalism often also have similar soteriology to Free Grace theology, however with major differences in their understanding of the New Testament compared to more mainstream Free Grace theologians.^[132]

Assurance

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 salvation through sinning and potential failure and assurance is based on the Bible, not introspection into one's works. According to this view, God declares persons righteous through Christ's perfection. Whatever little progress humans make towards perfection is infinitesimal compared to Christ's perfection. Therein, 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. The Dallas Theological Seminary sums up the general consensus of free grace theology in Article XI of its doctrinal statement, in reference to assurance:^[133]

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).

Content of faith

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 the resurrection of Christ is not necessary to be saved, but they are seen as necessary for sanctification.^{[134][16][25][135]} This view is not shared by all proponents of 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.^{[16][122][25][136]} A smaller scale disagreement exists on if the burial of Christ is necessary for salvation.^{[137][clarification needed]}

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".^[24]

Discipleship

Free grace theologians distinguish between discipleship and salvation, holding that discipleship is a condition of an enhanced experience of life (eternal rewards), but not necessary for salvation. Discipleship is also not 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 theologians such as Joseph Dillow, Charlie Bing, and Zane Hodges also 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.^{[16][59][138][123][clarification needed]}

Sanctification

Free grace theology holds to a synergistic view of sanctification, believing that though sanctification is God's work; it is not automatic nor passive. If the believer chooses not to cooperate with God's grace, then he will not be sanctified.^[16]

Atonement

Free grace theologians hold to unlimited atonement and to penal substitutionary atonement. The theology also distinguishes between two kinds of forgiveness: positional and familial. 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.^[131][114]

Election

There are many views of election within free grace theology, with most holding to a form of conditional election and libertarian free will, although some held to a moderate form of Calvinism.^[16][139] Charlie Bing listed the following views as being taught by individuals within Free Grace theology:^[140]

• A moderate form of the Calvinistic view of election, this has been taught by Charles Ryrie and Lewis Sperry Chafer.^[139][141]
• Election grounded upon God's foreknowledge, which is the Classical Arminian view of election. Although those free grace theologians who hold to this view reject other tenents of Arminianism.^[which?]
• Corporate election
• Conditional election grounded upon God's middle-knowledge which is Molinism, this has been taught by the Free Grace author John Correia.^[142][143]
• Qualitive election which is the view that God's election is always unto service, this has been taught by Shawn Lazar along with the Grace Evangelical Society.^[144][145]

Comparison to the five points of Reformed theology

Free grace contrasts with the teachings of Reformed theology, which are often characterized by the acronym "TULIP".