Free grace theology is a Christian soteriological view which holds that the only condition of salvation is faith, excluding good works and perseverance, holding to eternal security. Free grace advocates believe that good works are not necessary to merit (as with Pelagianism), to maintain (as with Arminians) or to prove (as with most Calvinists) salvation, but rather are part of discipleship and the basis for receiving eternal rewards (unlike in Hyper-Grace).[1] [2] [3] [4] This soteriological view distinguishes between salvation and discipleshipthe call to believe in Christ as Savior and to receive the gift of eternal life, and the call to follow Christ and become an obedient disciple, respectively.[5] Free grace theologians emphasize the absolute freeness of salvation and the possibility of full assurance that is not grounded upon personal performance.[6] [7] Thus, Free Grace theology allows for the salvation of an individual despite moral failings, although the disobedient Christian will face divine discipline.[8] Norman Geisler has divided this view into a moderate form and a more radical form. The moderate form being associated with Charles Ryrie and the strong form with Zane Hodges.[9]
The modern form of free grace theology has its roots in the soteriology of formulated by many dispensational theologians. This form of soteriology was coined "free grace" by Zane Hodges.[10]
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]
Wayne Grudem has noted that some free grace advocates teach similar views as Robert Sandeman (1718–1771).[14] 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.[15] [16] 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.[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] [21]
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.[22] 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.[23] [24] [25]
More modern prominent proponents, academicians, and theologians associated with Free Grace ideas include:
Its prominent present-day expressions are Grace School of Theology,[26] the Grace Evangelical Society, and the Free Grace Alliance.[27]
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.[28] [29]
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.[30] A number of opponents of free grace also graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary, including Darrel Bock[31] and Daniel Wallace.
Dallas Theological Seminary was more influenced by free grace theology during the 20th century. Despite the influence of free grace theology at the seminary, its popularity has declined in there over the last century.
Dave Anderson, former student and professor at the Dallas Theological Seminary, established Grace School of Theology (originally Houston Theological Seminary)[32] in 2001. Grace School of Theology "is committed to Christian scholarly endeavor in the free grace tradition."[33] 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."[34] The school is accredited by TRACS, ATS, and the ECFA[35] with 14 teaching sites in the United States and internationally.[36] Eight of the 36 faculty members trained at Dallas Theological Seminary.[37] 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.[38]
The Free Grace Alliance formed in November 2004 with an emphasis on international missions.[39] Although the new organization was officially formed for a "different reason",[40] the Free Grace Alliance split from the Grace Evangelical Society in 2005 when most of the prominent leaders (including the chairman of the board) within the Society rejected the change in the content of saving faith being taught by Zane C. Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society changed its doctrinal statement regarding the content of saving faith. A non-association statement was made in 2009.[41] The Free Grace Alliance holds annual conferences and numerous local churches and Christian ministries are associated with the alliance as members or affiliates.[42]
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[43] 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, Hodges controversially argued that the inclusion of Jesus' promise of eternal salvation was a necessity for proper evangelization.[44] 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.[45] 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.[46] 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" [47] 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.[46]
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 between 2005 and 2006. Almost all free grace academic theologians rejected the new statement, arguing that eternal life and eternal security are not the same thing.[48] 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.[49] 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. However, Wilson responded that Niemelä's contention was based on an informal logical fallacy and a heresy.[50]
The Grace Evangelical Society additionally runs an unaccredited seminary called the Grace Evangelical Society Seminary.[51]
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.[52] [53] [54] The view has also been majorly promoted by the Florida Bible College, which has trained hundreds of free grace pastors. The College at its peak had around 1500 students, though it shut down in the late-1990s, being restarted in 2013 by Ralph "Yankee" Arnold.[55] [56] Free Grace International is a free grace organization, worked on by Larry C Kitchen, Lucas Kitchen, and Shawn Lazar (who also worked in GES).[57] The organization attempts to promote free grace theology worldwide.[58]
Core beliefs common to free grace theology historically include:
| Belief | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|
| Faith alone | God declares a person righteous by faith in Christ (imputed righteousness) regardless of works accompanying faith either before or after. John 3:14–17 compares believing in Jesus to the Israelites looking upon the bronze serpent in the wilderness for healing from deadly venom (Numbers 21).[59] | |
| Relationship differs from intimacy | A permanent relationship with God as Father and the believer as a child begins by faith alone. When someone believes, there is a "new birth" and this spiritual birth cannot be undone. However, the familial relationship does not guarantee fellowship; intimacy with God requires obedience.[60] | |
| Justification differs from sanctification | Justification before God is a free unconditional gift by faith alone but sanctification requires obedience to God. Sanctification of all Christians is not guaranteed. Only final glorification of all Christians to a sinless state is guaranteed (Romans 8:30; Philippians 2:12).[61] [62] | |
| Eternal security | Once a person has believed in Jesus Christ as God and Savior that person spends eternity with God regardless of subsequent behavior. God's eternal acceptance is unconditionally given. Belonging to God's family is a permanent and irrevocable gift (Romans 11:29).[63] [64] | |
| Assurance of salvation | Confidence of spending eternity with God is possible for every Christian since God justifies through faith alone and provides eternal security.[65] | |
| Rewards and discipline | All Christians will undergo judgment by Christ based upon their works and degree of conformity to Christ's character (or lack thereof). This is called the judgment seat or Bema Seat of Christ, where Christians are rewarded based on obedience to God through faith.[66] This judgment does not concern heaven or hell but rewards (payment for service) or temporary punishment. God's familial acceptance of his children is unconditionally given. However, God's payments of eternal honor, riches, and positions of authority are only given for children who obediently served God. Good parents discipline their children and will not approve behavior that is detrimental. Neither will God approve sinful behavior that leads to destructive consequences (Hebrews 12:5–11).[67] |
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.[68] 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.[69] [70] Free grace theologians universally hold to eternal security, however they deny that every believer will necessarily persevere. 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.[71] [72] 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.[73]
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 Greek, Ancient (to 1453);: 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).[74]
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.
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:[75]
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 (Greek, Ancient (to 1453);: 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.[76] [77]
A second view was suggested by Zane C. Hodges, David Anderson, and Robert Wilkin (although initially holding to the view of Ryrie and Chafer),[78] 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.[79] [80] [81]
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.
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.[82] [83] This view of eternal rewards has been influenced by the writings of Scofield.[84]
Jody Dillow divided eternal rewards into three categories: rewards of enhanced intimacy, rewards of honor, and rewards of service.[85]
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. Although some, such as Norman Geisler, understood these warnings as pertaining to eternal rewards.[86]
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).[87] [88] These theologians have argued that James contextually does not speak of eternal salvation.[89] [90] [91] 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.[92]
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".[93]
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.
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.[94] [95] [96] 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, 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.[97] [83] [98] 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.[99] 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.
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.[100] [101] Although a minority, there are a few non-dispensational theologians who hold to free grace soteriology.[102]
According to Dave Anderson, free grace is more connected to the idea of premillennialism rather than dispensationalism by itself.[103]
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.[104]
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:[105]
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.[106] [107] [108] 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.[109] A smaller scale disagreement exists on if the burial of Christ is necessary for salvation.[110]
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".
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.[111]
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.
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.
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. Charlie Bing listed the following views as being taught by individuals within Free Grace theology:[112]
Free grace contrasts with the teachings of Reformed theology, which are often characterized by the acronym "TULIP".
| Calvinism | Free grace | |
|---|---|---|
| Total depravity: Humans are not capable of having faith in God because they are totally depraved (total inability).[118] | God gave men the ability to choose, and they are capable of choosing to believe God and believe in Christ (without a divine infusion of faith).[119] | |
| Unconditional election: Men are not capable of coming to faith on their own (God must infuse faith). God simply chooses to bring some to Himself independently of a choice on the part of the elected person.[120] | God desires that all persons should come to faith in Him, and election is according to God's foreknowledge, not only of faith but of all events (1 Peter 1:1-2). (However, a minority of Free Grace theologians have proposed unconditional election, for example Charles Ryrie).[121] [122] | |
| Limited atonement: Since God only elects some and not others, Christ's death on the cross only applies to the elect. Jesus therefore did not die for the entire world.[123] | Jesus died for everyone, but is only effective for those who believe in Christ.[124] [125] | |
| Irresistible grace: Man is totally depraved, God must impose His grace upon the elect in such a way that they are compelled to believe.[126] | God's grace can be and is resisted by humans, but is also embraced by humans without divine coercion.[127] | |
| Perseverance of the saints: The only way to know if you have received irresistible grace resulting in saving faith is to see whether you continuously grow in obedience and good works. Obedience and good works are inevitable. Since they view faith as God's gift then faith must be perfect and ultimately produce perfect people.[128] | The Christian is eternally secure through God's grace whether or not he/she dies in "state of grace" by persevering in good works. Perseverance in faith is the believer's choice and the means by which believers can achieve maximum joy and fulfillment, both in this life as well as in eternity.[129] |