What Happens to Those Who Leave The Faith? A Defense Of Free Grace Theology

Paul the Apostle

Many Christians today hold the belief that anyone who abandons the faith is destined for eternal damnation in hell. In most denominations today, it is often asserted that such a person has either lost their salvation or was never truly saved in the first place. This assumption, however, arises from a misunderstanding of several key biblical warnings. These passages are frequently read as threats of eternal condemnation, when in reality they concern the loss of spiritual reward, temporal discipline, and the forfeiture of fellowship with God rather than salvation itself. 

However, in stark contrast to most views of salvation, Free Grace theology traditionally asserts that even those who fall into apostasy may be saved and enter heaven if they have once believed, and as I will demonstrate in this article, Scripture makes it clear that while apostasy is indeed possible, it does not result in the forfeiture of one’s salvation.

Biblical Evidence

Among the strongest evidences that Paul did not treat apostasy as something that can make you lose your standing in Christ is the Galatian church. That church was the recipient of Paul's letter to the Galatians, and as is evident within the letter, these Christians had fallen into a false gospel of works, as Paul states in Galatians 3:1 'O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?' The Galatians had been misled by false teachers into believing that salvation could be earned by keeping the Mosaic law, leading them to apostasy. Yet despite this, Paul unmistakably affirms their genuine salvation. In Galatians 3:2, he reminds them that they had received the Holy Spirit—clear evidence that they were true believers, not mere pretenders. Furthermore, in Galatians 6:1, Paul addresses them as “brethren,” a term he reserves exclusively for the saved, thus reaffirming their present standing in Christ. 

This is consistent with Paul's language elsewhere in his letters, such as 2 Timothy 2:13, where Paul writes 'If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.'. The "we" is obviously referring to Christians, as Paul was including himself in the group. Notice however, that Paul says that even in such cases, God will stay faithful to us. 

However, there are also multiple other examples which challenge the claim that apostates were never truly saved, as we see that King Solomon, the author of 3 Biblical books experienced apostasy, as 1 Kings 11:4 records his fall to paganism: 'For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.' While Reformed theology argues that this was merely a temporary apostasy, this still places multiple questions on the Reformed system, why would God allow temporary apostasy but not apostasy until the end of one's life? What if Solomon had died earlier, would that have proven him unsaved? If you interpret the Biblical warnings about apostasy to be about eternal damnation, where do you see an exception for temporal apostasy in those verses? 

Simply, it is explicitly clear from the Bible that apostasy is warned about, however it also explicitly affirms the doctrine of eternal security, as seen in Hebrews 13:5 'Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.' and John 10:28 'And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.' among many other verses. It would not make sense for Scripture to repeatedly warn against something that is impossible. Just as it would be absurd for a father to warn his son not to jump to the moon, a thing no human could do, so too, for God to warn against apostasy implies that falling away is a genuine possibility. The warnings, then, are meaningful because they address a real spiritual risk. But what about the warning passages themselves? The most commonly used one is Hebrews 6, which reads:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

However, the warning can be understood through the agricultural parable which illustrates renewal through the burning. The field symbolizes a person who has become unfruitful, the thorns and briers representing bad fruits, and the burning signifies God’s corrective judgment. In ancient agriculture, farmers would burn unproductive fields so that they could later become fertile and produce a healthy crop. Similarly, divine judgment acts like the farmer’s burning: it enables the unfruitful or wayward individual to be restored and bear good fruit once more.

Thus, the “impossibility” of repentance mentioned in the passage should be understood as a human impossibility, these people would be beyond reach through outreach, leading to inevitable divine judgement. However, just like the burning of a field, this judgement enables the apostate to bear fruit again. This verse should not be understood as a threat of eternal damnation, but of temporal discipline.

History of Free Grace Theology

400-700ad

Augustine of Hippo and Bede in their comments imply that they were aware of Free grace theology, Augustine himself wrote a whole treatise against it, and in his book "Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love" Augustine mentions that this position was held among "Catholics" (which was a term used for those not seen as under God's curse, the term was not used for the Roman Catholic church which did not exist yet):

      " There are some, indeed, who believe that those who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who are baptized in his laver in the Church, who are not cut off from it by schism or heresy, who may then live in sins however great, not washing them away by repentance, nor redeeming them by alms—and who obstinately persevere in them to life's last day—even these will still be saved, "though as by fire." They believe that such people will be punished by fire, prolonged in proportion to their sins, but still not eternal. But those who believe thus, and still are Catholics, are deceived, as it seems to me, by a kind of merely human benevolence"

Though Augustine (354 - 430) implies they believed in Baptismal regeneration (which might be a misunderstanding on his part, as they could have meant "spiritual baptism"), they still taught that being "carnal" does not mean that one cannot be saved. 

After Augustine, they were mentioned by Bede (672 - 735), saying: 

    "Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul's words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merit derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith. (Concerning the Epistle of St. James)"

Bede thus implies he knew some who argued, that because Paul said we are saved by faith alone, our works cannot later be a part of salvation.

Chrysostom (347 –  407) perhaps also tries to answer objections from some teaching Free grace theology: 

    "He that believeth on the Son, is not judged." He that "believeth," not he that is over-curious: he that "believeth," not the busybody. But what if his life be unclean, and his deeds evil? It is of such as these especially that Paul declares, that they are not true believers at all"

Medieval

It is plausible that the Brethren of the Free Spirit were Free grace, however all sources we have of them are hostile so we cannot know how much is true. They were accused of antinomianism and "rejecting the sacraments", which may refer to teaching justification by faith alone and opposing Baptismal regeneration, however they are more ambiguous, and we cannot know what they clearly taught.

The Reformation

Nicolaus von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565) was a Lutheran advocate of Free grace theology, he argued against Melanchton and George Major, who argued that if one does not have works they cannot be saved, Nicolaus stated thus against Major: 

    “All those who teach and write that good works are necessary for salvation are going directly against Luther, yes, directly against themselves. For Luther of blessed and holy memory writes everywhere and especially on Galatians that good works not only are not necessary for salvation, but are also harmful to salvation”

Nicolaus von Amsdorf

Some have taken Nicolaus' statement "but are also harmful to salvation", to mean that he was against good works in total, however he is referring to good works being harmful to salvation in the sense that works based salvation is harmful.

Additionally, Leupold Scharnschlager indicates that he was aware of Free grace theology:

    “No one can claim that faith, which comes from the preaching of God’s word, is merely a historical or dead faith, without effect or fruit. No doubt that is what people held at the time of James…Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it?”

Later Protestants

Free grace theology was similar to the teachings of Robert Sandeman and the "Antinomians" of the 17th century, however Sandeman more closely represents a Free grace position held by Bob Wilkin and Hodges, denying the trust aspect of true faith (which I hold is an error).  Cotton, an advocate of the "Antinomian" side, said thus: 

John Cotton

    "Trulie it is hard to perceive [between a temporary believer and a true believer] when men differ, and therefore it is not an easie matter to make such use of sanctification, as by it to beare witnesse unto justification"

Cotton taught the doctrine of assurance, denying that good works are necessary for our assurance, and allowed for a true Christian to be almost indistinguishable from a false professor.

The Marrow Brethren of the 18th century weren't Free grace, however their doctrines have multiple similarities to Free grace, for example they denied that repentance of sin was necessary to come to Christ, however they argued it would happen instantly after one is justified. The Marrow Brethren also had an emphasis on assurance in Christ, though they allowed good works as subordinate proofs. The Marrow position on assurance in substance is the same as Charles Ryrie proposed. 

John Colquhoun (1748-1827), though working with a false definition of repentance (holding that it means turning away from sins), denied that it is necessary to be saved, thus in essence agreeing with Free grace theologians that one doesn't have to turn from their sins to be saved, though he might have differed semantically:

    "How then can his repentance atone for his iniquities, or entitle him to the favour of God and to the happiness of heaven? How can that evangelical repentance, which he is incapable of exercising till after his sins be all forgiven on the ground of an infinite atonement imputed to him, make atonement for them? How can that true repentance, which he cannot exercise until in justification he be already entitled to eternal life, entitle him to eternal life? Does not the consummate righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed for justification, entitle the believer fully to it? What need is there, then, that his repentance should entitle him? How can that exercise of repentance which is the consequence of pardon, afford a previous title to pardon? or that which is a part of eternal life be a ground of right to eternal life?"

—John Colquhoun, Evangelical Repentance  (1748-1827) 

19-21th centuries

Right before the Lordship salvation controversy, there were some who were promoting Free grace ideas.

C. I. Scofield taught a Free grace view of repentance, seeing it as a change of mind rather than a turning from sins, Scofield Reference Bible on Acts 17:30: "Repentance is the translation of a Greek verb metanoeō, meaning to have another mind, to change the mind, and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind"

Scofield also taught the "rewards" interpretation, where passages some take to refer to salvation by works, are taken to refer to eternal rewards: "1 Corinthians 3:14. God, in the N.T. Scriptures, offers to the lost, salvation, and, for the faithful service of the saved, rewards. The passages are easily distinguished by remembering that salvation is invariably spoken of as a free gift (e.g. John 4:10; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9); while rewards are earned by works (Mt. 10:42; Lk. 19:17; 1 Cor. 9:24, 25; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8; Rev. 2:10; 22:12). A further distinction is that salvation is a present possession (Lk. 7:50; John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47), while rewards are a future attainment, to be given at the coming of the Lord (Mt. 16:27; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 22:12)."

Lewish Sperry Chafer (1871 –1952)

Charles Henry Mackintosh wasn't entirely Free grace, however he protested against the doctrine of progressive sanctification, which means that "all true believers will progressively get holier", this is a doctrine taught by Lordship salvationists, where if one isn't spiritually growing, he isn't a true believer.

Free grace theology was also taught by Lewish Sperry Chafer, who clearly distinguished between the call to discipleship and the call to salvation, he would later influence Charles Ryrie who wrote against John Mcarthur.  

In the 20th century the most well known advocates of Free grace were Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges, however the two had some differences from each other.

Free grace theology is today mostly held among Baptists, Plymouth Brethren and non-denominationals, most major theologians to teach the position graduated from Dallas theological seminary.