Why I Accept Aspects of Free Grace Theology

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.