Well,
there—I said it! And it’s true: I accept some aspects of Free Grace theology. Now
before you Google “Free Grace theology” and assume that I affirm everything you
read about it, please take the time to read this post and allow me to explain
my views.
Now,
why am I writing this post as if it’s some big revelation? Well, because in the
circles that I minister in, it potentially is a big revelation. Free
Grace theology was a point of some debate at my alma mater, Calvary University,
and it has been the subject of heated debate at times within my pastoral
fellowship, IFCA International. That means that I have dear friends who will
disagree with me on this subject—and who may not yet know the positions that I
take.
To
give you some sense of the greater landscape here, the aspects of Free Grace
theology that I affirm put me at odds on some issues with a wide swath of very
popular Bible teachers—people whom I generally respect greatly, such as John
MacArthur, John Piper, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, and basically everyone
associated with The Gospel Coalition and the Together for the Gospel Conference.
If you’re familiar with some theology and the evangelical landscape, you’ll
notice the main thing that the aforementioned teachers universally
embrace—Calvinism, either a moderate or strong form of it. As I’ll note later,
the root of my disagreement with these men grows from one of the underpinnings
of strong Calvinism—namely, a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.
Let
me sum up the essence of what I want to say before I touch on some details: I
hold to a moderately Calvinistic view of justification (becoming born again),
but I hold to a Free Grace view of sanctification (growing as a Christian)—particularly
on the question of how to find assurance of salvation. Lest anyone think I’m
theologically bipolar, the rest of this post will explain what I deny and what
I affirm with respect to Free Grace theology and how I think this marriage
between moderate Calvinism and Free Grace theology is logically necessary for
anyone who does not wish to embrace a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.
One
more summary statement before I turn to details. This statement will be helpful
for anyone who is familiar with the teachers who are on the moderate
Calvinist—Free Grace spectrum: I find myself having substantial disagreements
with Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, but I find myself in substantial agreement
with Charles Ryrie (So Great Salvation), Paul Benware (The Believer’s
Payday), Norman Geisler (Chosen But Free; Systematic Theology) and
Joseph Dillow (The Reign of the Servant Kings). I’m certain those men
would have some disagreements with each other, but collectively their works
have shaped my thinking considerably.
And
now, on to the details.
What
I Deny with Respect to Free Grace Theology
I
deny that repentance can be separated from saving faith.
The
relationship between repentance and saving faith is a hot-button issue in Free
Grace circles, with some Free Grace teachers viewing repentance as something of
a Trojan horse that has been used to smuggle works into the Gospel. For my
part, I believe repentance IS necessary for a person to be born again. I define
repentance as a change of mind about one’s sinfulness and the person and work
of Christ. It is simply the recognition and acknowledgement of one’s terrible
predicament due to sin, which then serves as a preparation leading to faith in
Christ. And yes, I’m comfortable saying that this change of mind will affect
how one behaves and lives—though a little later I will criticize the idea that
measuring spiritual fruit is a biblically commanded, sure-fire means of proving
whether or not a person has truly repented.
To
clarify what some Free Grace teachers have said with respect to repentance,
consider this statement from the Grace Evangelical Society (taken from their
website at https://faithalone.org/beliefs/): “No act of
obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as
commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or
submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of,
faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life.” This statement includes
baptism, which I’ll just exclude for the sake of this discussion because I
think it’s a different issue.
Excluding
baptism, I’m not sure why any of the attitudes mentioned in that statement have
to be construed as a work that would earn us merit in the sight of God. I think
those attitudes simply arise naturally as one realizes his sinfulness and his
danger of going to Hell and then realizes the true nature of the One who died
for His sins and offers him forgiveness. I’m not even sure why someone would
trust in Christ if he acknowledged his sins but felt no sorrow over them! Even
submitting to the lordship of Christ should flow naturally from the recognition
that I have been rebelling against my Creator but He now shows me
incomprehensible grace and mercy for the sake of Christ.
As
I said before, I think a problem does arise when it is assumed—on the basis of
a determinist view of God’s sovereignty—that repentance will unfailingly lead
to a consistently observable degree of spiritual maturity in the life of a
believer. But more on that later…
I
deny that The Gospel of John is the only book that should be used to establish the
Gospel message.
Some
Free Grace proponents have argued this point based on the explicitly
evangelistic purpose of The Gospel of John. Because of this purpose, they have
said, The Gospel of John surely contains all the essential elements of the
message that one must know in order to be saved. Furthermore, it is argued,
since the word “repentance” is not used in The Gospel of John, then repentance
must not be necessary for a person to be saved.
I
won’t belabor this point so that I can get on to some other issues, but I will
say that surely the concept of repentance is found in John’s Gospel even if he
doesn’t use that specific word. And why can’t we look to Peter’s evangelistic
message in Acts 2 to help us define the Gospel? Why must we exclude Paul’s
evangelistic message at the Areopagus in Acts 17? If such passages are equally
inspired, it seems arbitrary to say that they should be excluded from our
efforts to define the content of the Gospel.
I
deny the “Cross-less Gospel.”
The
so-called “Cross-less Gospel” arose from a thought experiment offered by Zane
Hodges in an issue of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. In
it, he envisioned a man on an island who knew nothing about Christianity. This
man noticed a piece of paper wash ashore on which he could read these words
from John 6:43-47—“Jesus answered and said to them…Most assuredly I say to you,
he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Hodges argued that this man could
become born again despite knowing nothing more about the “Jesus” who was
mentioned on the paper—even knowing nothing about Christ’s death on the cross.
Hence the name, “the cross-less Gospel.”
On
the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I have to disagree with Hodges’ conclusion.
In light of Paul’s summary of the Gospel message, the man-on-the-island’s
knowledge was simply inadequate. He knew nothing about his sinfulness, nothing
about Jesus’ status as the Christ and what that means, nothing about the
resurrection of Christ. I think Hodges makes a valid point that it can be hard
to avoid arbitrariness in announcing what a person must know in order to be
saved, but from 1 Cor 15:1-4, I think a knowledge about sin, Christ’s death,
and the resurrection can hardly be called arbitrary.
What
I Affirm with Respect to Free Grace Theology
I
affirm that genuine believers can become fruitless and lead lives that produce
little that is of eternal value.
This
claim is perhaps the hallmark of Free Grace theology, and I affirm it on the
basis of passages such as John 15:1-8, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, and 2 Peter
1:5-11. Notice that I said “become fruitless” because I believe that all
Christians manifest some spiritual fruit upon being born again. If we look at
the fruits listed in Galatians 5:22-23, I would say that every believer
manifests at least joy and peace upon conversion. Indeed, it seems typical for
new converts to manifest spiritual fruit for a time, but as the Lord warned in
John 15:1-8, if we do not remain closely connected to Him (abide), then we can
become fruitless, for apart from Him we can do nothing of any spiritual value.
Let
me briefly comment on 2 Peter 1:5-11 since it includes a verse that Calvinists
often use to encourage people to search for assurance of salvation by examining
their lives for spiritual fruit. This text states:
5
For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,
and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control
with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with
brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these
qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or
unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these
qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was
cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent
to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you
will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an
entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (ESV).
To
cut to the chase for the sake of this post, notice that in v. 9, Peter affirms
that a person who “was cleansed from his former sins” can, in fact, lack the
qualities that he outlined in vv. 5-7—the very qualities that will keep a
person from being ineffective or unfruitful according to v. 8. Peter is clearly
talking about a saved person in v. 9, so I can only conclude that a saved
person might very well lack the qualities of vv. 5-7 and thus become unfruitful
for Christ according to v. 8.
It
is very significant that the context includes v. 10, a verse that strong
Calvinists interpret as a command for believers to seek assurance of salvation.
Strong Calvinists argue furthermore that such a search is to be made by
examining one’s life for consistent patterns of and appropriate levels of
spiritual fruit. But is this likely to be how Peter would encourage a person to
seek assurance of salvation, given what he just wrote in vv. 5-9? He just
affirmed that a person who was cleansed from his former sins might lack the
qualities that allow him to produce spiritual fruit! If we take that
affirmation seriously, it seems that such an examination of one’s life could
yield a “false negative”—that is, that a saved person could conclude he is
unsaved because he does not see (or at least thinks he does not see) the
requisite amount of spiritual fruit in his life (whatever the “requisite”
amount is said to be). This observation leads me to my next point regarding the
assurance of salvation.
I
affirm that complete assurance of salvation is possible and is to be found
through trust in God’s promises in Scripture.
When
it comes to assurance of salvation, what Calvinism gives with one hand, it
takes away with the other. This reality has often been the punch line of jokes
among theology nerds—that Calvinists are sure they can’t lose their salvation
but can’t be sure they ever had it in the first place! But this humor brings an
unsettling thought to the surface—why does Calvinism find assurance of
salvation to be such a difficult hurdle to clear? Does this struggle point to a
flaw within the system? I believe it does, and as I’ll explain in a moment, the
fault lies in the deterministic engine that drives the Calvinist understanding
of the perseverance of the saints.
If
becoming born again truly is a free gift, and there is nothing more that I must
do to receive it than to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus, then I should be
able to know with complete assurance that I am saved. True, a deeper
understanding of the Gospel will be extremely beneficial whenever doubts arise,
but this deeper understanding can be achieved by looking again at precisely
what Jesus has accomplished for me and at what God has promised to me on the
basis of Christ’s work. Examining my life for spiritual fruit is necessary for
other reasons, but not for establishing the assurance of my salvation. I contend
that assurance and spiritual fruit could only be so inextricably joined
together if determinism is true, so let me now turn to that subject.
Why
I Affirm What I Do
I
reject the determinism that underlies strong Calvinism.
Determinism
is the view that God establishes all things in such a way that they could not
be different than what they are. Applied to human choices, it means that for
any given choice you made yesterday, for example, you could not have chosen to
do differently than what you actually did. To be sure, determinists affirm that
humans make choices for which they are responsible, but they argue that this is
simply a point at which our understanding of God’s ways fades into mystery.
That’s fair enough, because even if one takes a different view of God’s
sovereignty, we all have to acknowledge a point at which our understanding can
go no further.
My
concern is that determinism just seems thoroughly unscriptural. For example, 1
Corinthians 10:13 states that God “will not let you be tempted beyond your
ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that
you may be able to endure it.” According to this verse, anytime a believer
gives in to temptation, he could have chosen differently than he actually did.
Moreover, determinism would mean that commands in the Bible do not present
actual alternative courses of action that a person could take. In a moment of
decision, a person’s choice would have already been made for him, and it could
not be otherwise. Moreover, I don’t know how determinists hope to offer a
plausible explanation of Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37--"O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are
sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen
gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” What sense can we
make out of this if we have to say that God had determined that they would be
unwilling and they could not have possibly been otherwise!?
Now,
what does this have to do with Calvinism and assurance of salvation? The
Calvinist’s logic, based as it is on determinism, goes as follows: if God will
unfailingly bring the elect to be born again, then He will also unfailingly
bring them to spiritual maturity. The implication is clear—if you do not grow
to spiritual maturity (given enough time, and as evidenced by sufficient
spiritual fruit) then you are not saved.
But
if determinism is false, there does not seem to be a certain degree of
spiritual maturity that every believer will unfailingly achieve. That point
seems abundantly clear from 1 Corinthians 3:15—there will be believers whose
life work will be spiritually worthless, and “he will suffer loss, though he
himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” If your theological system
can’t account for the reality of such believers, then I think there’s just
something out of whack with your theological system. For this reason, I think
Free Grace theology is superior to Calvinism on these questions of sanctification
and assurance of salvation.
