An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 3 And Its Importance To The Doctrine Of Eternal Rewards

Introduction

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is an often quoted and frequently debated passage in the first book of Corinthians, which is often viewed by Free Grace advocates as a very strong and compelling proof of the doctrine of eternal rewards, and the possibility of the carnal Christian being saved. In this article, I will examine the meaning of this verse, and the surrounding debates concerning the verse. These verses read thus:

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire

In this verse, Paul writes that the man who builds upon the foundation of Christ precious metals such as gold and silver will have their work rewarded, while those who do not, will suffer loss, yet themselves be saved. In its plain reading, this verse says that although those who fail in the Christian life, will suffer a loss of reward, yet still be saved and enter the millennial kingdom, however there are multiple alternative interpretations often posited from those who reject the doctrine of eternal security, which will be analyzed here.

The Catholic interpretation

The Catholic interpret this verse as a proof of purgatory, emphasizing the phrase "but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire", arguing that the fire described in the text is purgatory by fire. However, there are multiple grammatical issues with this interpretation, particularly as the "yet so as by fire" (οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός) in the text is not referring to the burning of the individual, but of the works, as Paul just previously said "If any man's work shall be burned", emphasizing that the work, not the person is burned. Although some may argue that the burning of the work necessarily includes the inclusion of the person who did those works in it, that is not substantiated by the text itself, and adds an unnecessary assumption to the text. Additionally, the text explicitly calls the fire "revealing", as it reads "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire". Catholic purgatory is not testing or revealing, but purifying. 

Thus, the grammar does not simply permit the Catholic interpretation of this text, the fire reveals what one has done, not purifying the person from venial sins.

The Chrysostomian interpretation

John Chrysostom, a 4th to 5th century early Christian writer proposed a highly difficult understanding of this verse to avoid the implication of eternal security. This may be due to the existence of individuals emphasizing this passage to teach the idea that even those who fall into sin will be saved (as Augustine mentioned such doctrine existed commonly in his day in his book City of God, though he was also critical of it). Chrysostom denied the implication of eternal security by assuming that the word "saved" is not referring to salvation from hell, but salvation from annihilation into non-existence, yet still being damned to hell, as Chrysostom writes:

Wherefore he said, "He shall suffer loss:" lo, here is one punishment: "but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire;" lo, again, here is a second. And his meaning is, "He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire. (Homilies of Chrysostom, 1 Corinthians 3)

However, this is a highly difficult reading. There are no examples in the Bible where someone who still goes to hell is called "saved" (σωθήσεται). The word "will be saved" in the text is clearly said in contrast to the negative judgement previously mentioned (the burning of the works). The contrast makes it inconceivable, that the word "saved" is not used in a positive sense, of being able to enter into the presence of the Father despite this loss. Thus, this interpretation is impossible

John Calvin's understanding

Though probably not written polemically, John Calvin's view does undermine the Free Grace understanding of this passage, as he understood the precious metals as only referring to doctrine, not Christian life generally, as he wrote:

By gold, then, and silver, and precious stones, he means doctrine worthy of Christ, and of such a nature as to be a superstructure corresponding to such a foundation. Let us not imagine, however, that this doctrine is apart from Christ, but on the contrary let us understand that we must continue to preach Christ until the very completion of the building. Only we must observe order, so as to begin with general doctrine, and more essential articles, as the foundations, and then go on to admonitions, exhortations, and everything that is requisite for perseverance, confirmation, and advancement. (Calvin's commentary, 1 Corinthians 3)

Thus, under John Calvin's view, the one saved "yet as by fire", is not a Christian who failed to live a Christian life, but someone who taught the gospel but mixed it with human philosophy. However, the Bible presents the judgement seat of Christ as dealing with both teaching and good works generally. There is no contextual separation in the text between works that build up the ministry generally, and good teaching.  On the contrary, the passage resists such restriction, the appeal to ἕκαστος ('every man') establishes a universal principle, not a specialized warning for the teachers of the church.

The "barely saved" interpretation

Sometimes thrown around is the view that the words "yet as by fire" means that the person is "barely saved", on the very verge of being unregenerate. However, as previously established, this phrase does not deal at all with the individual's status, but rather the burning of the works. To say he is 'barely saved' is to misidentify the victim of the blaze. The work perishes; the worker is safe. This interpretation, is completely foreign to the text's design. 

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 remains a strong text for Free Grace theology, as it explicitly teaches the possibility of the salvation of the 'carnal Christian', someone who failed in the Christian life and did not produce fruit worthy if reward, yet will be in the presence of the Father nevertheless due to his status as someone who has been saved by Christ, though with an eternal loss of reward. Loss of reward is real, but loss of salvation is not in view.

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.

The Early Christians Did Not Believe In The Papacy

This article will show many quotes from early Christians to show that the papacy did not exist then:

Cyprian 210 – 14 September 258 AD 

For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church

Cyprian letter 70

For no one of us  has set himself up to be bishop of bishops, or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions in that position.

Cyprian, council of Carthage

Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  

Origen 185 – c. 253

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail

(St. Basil of Caesarea) Letter 214

and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints. 

Polycrates of Ephesus 130 – 196, writing against Pope Victorinus

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Council of Chalcedon  451 AD

Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.

(the authority of Rome came from politics and not by being the infallible magisterium) 

Firmillian: died c. 269

that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

Rufinus 344/345–411ad

The ancient custom in Alexandria and the city of Rome is to be maintained whereby [the bishop of the former] has charge of Egypt, while [the bishop of the latter] has charge of the suburbicarian (= local) churchese Church of Christ.

Quinisext Council

Date    692

Canon 36

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Canon 55

Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stands fast which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.

Canon 13

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.

The Canons of the Council of Constantinople (381) 

Canon 2

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) epistle of the African synod to Pope Celestine

especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council [i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops (sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send there the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or advanced age, or any other impediment?

Pope Gregory I 540 – 12 March 604

Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.

Book VII, Letter 33 

Maximus the Confessor Died    13 August 662

And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached" [Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p 23].

28 August 2022

Claudius of Turin (fl. 810–827)

Apology of Claudius

Because of these words spoken by the Lord, the race of ignorant men, having disregarded the understanding of all spiritual things, wish to go to Rome in order to acquire eternal life.

Second Council of Constantinople 553ad, writing against the Pope

But if your holiness has drawn up a document for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them. And when he had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: We invited him (you) to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and other religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?

Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)

Similarly, there is a canon of the regional synod of Gangra which anathematises those who do not recognise married priests. This was confirmed by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned those who require that priests and deacons cease to cohabit with their lawful wives after their ordination. Such a custom was being introduced even then by the Church of Old Rome. That Synod reminded the Church of Old Rome of the evangelical teaching and of the canon and polity of the Apostles, and ordered it not to insult the holy institution of Christian marriage established by God Himself.

From the Italian region, we have received a synodal letter citing many grave matters against the bishop of Old Rome. Accordingly, the Orthodox there ask us to free them from his great tyranny, for in that area sacred law is being scorned and Church order trampled. We were told this earlier by monks who came to us from there, and now we have received many letters stating frightening news about that region and asking us to relay their message to all the bishops and to the Apostolic Patriarchs as well. For that reason, I communicate to you their request by way of this epistle. Once a holy and ecumenical Christian synod has been assembled, it will fall upon us together to resolve all these matters with the help of God and according to the rules of previous Synods, that in so doing, a deep peace may again prevail in th

Did Anyone Teach Dispensational Doctrines Before Darby?

 Many accuse dispensationalism of being a novelty to discredit the doctrine, for example Ernest Reisinger states: "Dispensationalism is a theological system which developed from a twisted, theological interpretation of Scripture that dates from the late nineteenth century. Before that time it was not know as a theological system."

Even if it were true, it would not be sufficient to debunk dispensationalism, yet this claim is blatantly false once someone studies history. This article will showcase multiple authors who agreed with dispensational doctrines.

Early Christianity (100-700ad)

Papias (60 – c. 130 AD) had some similarities to dispensationalism, firstly he was premillennial (though this alone does not make one dispensational), however there exists another interesting text where Papias sees Ezekiel 36 as being fulfilled in the millennium, instead of the church. If you read Ezekiel 36 it refers to blessings to Israel, and if attributed to the millennial age instead of a spiritualized fulfillment in the church, your theology comes very close to dispensationalism.

The reason why we know that this was attributed to the millennium by Papias, is that Irenaeus commenting on his works (as they were still available then), said that this was to be fulfilled in "those times" (a word used for the millennium by Irenaeus, who also affirmed millennialism):

As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: 

 The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.

This seems to be a quote of Ezekiel 36, which says:

28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations.

Thus it appears that Papias took Ezekiel 36 as being fulfilled in the millennium, which necessitates a Jewish restoration.

Nepos of Arsinoe (3rd century) caused a local controversy about hermeneutics, Nepos argued that Revelation and the Old Testament prophets need to be interpreted literally, thus Eusebius said that he would interpret the Old Testament prophecies in a more "Jewish" manner, stating:

Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth.

This is clear dispensationalism, Nepos was not merely "slightly dispensational", no, according to Eusebius he went full on dispensational believing that all the Old Testament prophecies that prophecy blessings to Israel will be literally fulfilled, leading to the two-peoples of God doctrine where God still has a physical plan for Israel. He was not a historic premillennialist, as the historic premillenialists still have to "spiritualize" large parts of the Old Testament to avoid holding to the two-peoples of God view, thus from what we have, Nepos was dispensational in the full sense of the word.

A minor point to consider is Sextus Julius Africanus (160 – c. 240), who interpreted the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel similarly as Scofield. We do not have many works left from Julius and we do not know his exact positions on most doctrines, yet on this area he foreshadows dispensational views. Both Scofield and Julius Africanus believed that the start of the countdown is from the degree of Artaxerxes recorded in the book of Nehemiah, while most others take it was starting from the decree recorded in Ezra.

A kind of rapture doctrine was also taught by Pseudo-Ephraim around 600-700ad, though there is some unclarity as regards to his doctrines. Some have argued that his doctrine was more "midtribulational" and that the way he defined the word "tribulation" is only the last 3.5 years of the 7 year end period, though most dispensationalists interpret him as being pretribulational, in either case he shows that the rapture of the church prior to the second coming is not new, he stated:

All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins. –Pseudo-Ephraem

1000-1800ad

Joachim of Fiore (1135 – 30 March 1202) taught some ideas that are common to dispensationalism, these include:

• A future restoration of Israel
• The Old and the New Covenant are substantially distinct (as opposed to covenant theology which sees them as substantially the same)
• Premillennialism (a literal 1000 year millennium)
• The Antichrist is a literal person

However, Joachim did not teach things such as the pretribulational rapture nor was he a Futurist, however his later follower Fra Dolcino would get much closer to dispensationalism.

Fra Dolcino lived in 1250 – 1307ad, he can be also credited as one of the earliest dispensationalists, and the first undisputed reference to the pretribulational rapture, Dolcino also appears to have interpreted the prophetical books more literally, holding that two witnesses will be the literal persons of Enoch and Elijah, instead of being symbolic for the church (like the Reformers took them to be). The information on Dolcino is found in a medieval historic book recording his beliefs, the book is named "The History of Brother Dolcino" and was written in 1316, the book reads thus:

“Again, [Dolcino believed and preached and taught] that within those three

years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the

Fra Dolcino 1250 – 1307ad

Antichrist. And that the Antichrist was coming into this world within the

bounds of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, then he

[Dolcino] and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, in which are

Enoch and Elijah. And in this way they will be preserved unharmed from

the persecution of Antichrist. And that then Enoch and Elijah themselves

would descend on the earth for the purpose of preaching [against] Antichrist.

Then they would be killed by him or by his servants, and thus Antichrist

would reign for a long time. 

Manuel Lacunza (1731 – c. June 18, 1801) was a writer who lived slightly earlier than Darby. Lacunza also was very similar to dispensationalism. Lucunza taught that there will be a future restoration of Israel along with Futurist eschatology (which refers to the prophecies of the Bible being fulfilled in the future). Though Manuel was a Catholic, his works were banned by the Catholic church.

Pierre Poiret (1646 – 21 May 1719)

According to many scholars, Pierre Poiret (1646 – 21 May 1719) developed a full dispensational system around slightly over 100 years earlier than Darby. Pierre believed in organizing history into 7 different dispensations, where the last dispensation would be the millennial age with Israel restored and Christ ruling in Israel. Charles Ryrie comments on Pierre Poiret saying:

Pierre Poiret was a French mystic and philosopher (1646-1719). His great work, L’OEconomie Divine, first published in Amsterdam in 1687, was translated into English and published in London in six volumes in 1713- The work began as a development of the doctrine of predestination, but it was expanded into a rather complete systematic theology. In viewpoint it is sometimes mystical, represents a modified form of Calvinism, and is premillennial and dispensational..... There is no question that we have here a genuine dispensational scheme. He uses the phrase "period or dispensation" and his seventh dispensation is a literal thousand-year millennium with Christ returned and reigning in bodily form upon the earth with His saints, and Israel regathered and converted. He sees the overthrow of corrupt Protestantism, the rise of Antichrist, the two resurrections, and many of the general run of end-time events

William Watson argued that many Puritan authors of the 17th century also got close to dispensationalism, teaching the rapture. The theologians he included as teaching a pretribulational rapture were: Robert Maton, Nathaniel Holmes, John Browne, Thomas Vincent, Henry Danvers, and William Sherwin.

History Of Free Grace Theology (Updated)

Early Christians

An early mention of a similar belief was made by Augustine (354 –  430), though he himself opposed the views. Augustine speaks of a group who believed that "carnal Christians", are still saved by grace. However, as we have lost our original source, we are not sure of their beliefs in detail. For example, they might have believed in baptismal regeneration, yet it is possible that Augustine mistook them as speaking about physical baptism instead of spiritual, though we aren't sure on their every detail, they were said to have believed that good works are not required before or as evidence of salvation.

    " 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"

Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, Augustine.

"But the reason why our opponents think that the one person may be admitted, but not the other, is this: they think that these persons are saved, although by fire, if they believe in Christ.... They are saved, so they think, even though they do not correct their evil ways"

On Faith and Works

Augustine also said:

But, say they [others], the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned." (The City Of God)

Bede (672/3 – 26 May 735) mentioned a similar belief existing a few hundred years later.  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, nor even proof of it.

    "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)

Chrysostom (347 –  407) in multiple cases appears to answer to objections from individuals teaching a Free Grace system, such as in these examples provided from his commentary on John:

    "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"

"Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means."

Chrysostom seems to attack arguments made by individuals teaching faith alone on the basis of the gospel of John, which can be taken as an implication that he was aware of these arguments being spread, implying the existence of Free Grace theology.

Similarly, Maximus the Confessor (580 – 662) seems to have been aware of some teaching a doctrine of faith alone:

"For Jeremiah warns us: Do not say: “We are the Lord’s temple.” Neither should you say: “Faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ can save me.” By itself faith accomplishes nothing. For even the devils believe and shudder"

Again, Maximus the Confessor is hostile to the doctrine, yet him making warnings against the doctrine implies he was aware of the doctrine being taught and being spread among certain circles. Why would he warn his readers of a doctrine that he wasn't aware of and knew that no one taught it? As an objector implies the existence of an objection.

There 4 examples given are all hostile accounts, yet their existence implies that individuals (whose writings are now lost), taught Free Grace theology or similar positions. It should be noted that we only have a tiny fraction of all Early Christian writings left for us, and they were mostly preserved by medieval Orthodox/Catholic scribes, who would refuse to copy any content deemed "heretical". We still have mentions of their existence, and implication that there was a controversy on salvation by faith alone during the early Christian period.

Jovinian (died 405ad) defended the doctrine of eternal security, as he said that no Christian can be "subverted by the devil", Philip Schaff and Calvinist historians have understood this as being a perseverance doctrine like in Calvinism, saying:

Jovinian’s second point has an apparent affinity with the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverantia sanctorum. It is not referred by him, however, to the eternal and unchangeable counsel of God, but simply based on 1 Jno. iii. 9, and v. 18

 

However, this comes from a Reformed author, who would likely have seen a Free Grace view "fringe", and would have been unlikely to think that Jovinian could have been Free Grace. It is entirely possible by the comments preserved by Jerome that he taught a more Free Grace view instead of perseverance of the saints.

Jerome (347 – 30 September 420) himself, though he seems to have taught that to get into heaven instantly after death you had to have some good works, he taught an extreme purgatory-like view, where even those who leave the faith will be saved:

"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)

Though it appears to be a purgatory-like system, this is not the same as the Catholic view. In Roman Catholicism, if one commits large sins, they will be damned forever, and thus no apostate is saved, however in Jerome's system, the apostates will have temporal pain, but they will be eventually saved by grace. Thus, though Jerome was not Free Grace in the modern sense of the word, but as he taught that even apostates would eventually get to heaven, we see some similarities. A similar doctrine was taught by Ambrose (339 – c. 397).

This was also affirmed by Ambrosiaster commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:

He [Paul] said: 'yet so as by fire,' because this salvation exists not without pain; for he did not say, 'he shall be saved by fire,' but when he says, 'yet so as by fire,' he wants to show that this salvation is to come, but that he must suffer the pains of fire; so that, purged by fire, he may be saved and not, like the infidels [perfidi], tormented forever by eternal fire; if for a portion of his works he has some value, it is because he believed in Christ

Now, Ambrosiaster again misinterpreted what "by fire" means (Paul is referring to eternal rewards), however he did believe that if someone believed in Christ sometime in their life, they would enter heaven with temporary judgements. This shows that the Early Christians understood Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 promising eternal salvation to the carnal Christian.

Medieval

It is plausible that the Brethren of the Free Spirit were somewhat similar to modern Free Grace theologians, 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. Though, it must be stressed that our knowledge of the brethren is too ambiguous and we thus cannot make proper judgements on their views.

The Reformation

The Majoristic controversy in early Lutheranism is basically the equivalent of the modern Lordship salvation controversy in the Reformation. The debate started as George Major and Melanchthon defended the idea that turning from sin and good fruit are necessary for salvation. George Major wrote:  

“This I confess, that I have always taught, still teach, and will continue to teach all my life that good works are necessary for salvation…Just as no one will be saved through evil works, so no one will be saved without good works.”

This ignited Nicolaus von Amsdorf (1483 – 1565), who saw Major's view as an attack on faith alone, stating:

     “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”

Amsdorf also stated: "And they themselves also write and cry out that we obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation by pure grace, without our works or merit, purely for free. Now if this, their own confession, is true, how then can our good works be necessary for salvation (which we have already obtained for free, by grace, before any good work, as they themselves confess)? This is contrary to their very own confession."

In this quote Amsdorf is seen as protesting against Major's claim that "though we are saved by faith alone, good works are necessary as a consequence of salvation", defending a Free Grace view of salvation.

His opponents took some of his words out of context such as "good works are harmful to salvation" to defame him as an Antinomian, yet we know from the context that he is saying that good works are harmful in attempting to get saved, meaning that if one tries to add good works into salvation, he is damning himself.  In the end, Nicolaus lost the controversy, and the position of Melanchthon prevailed among Lutherans. 

A similar controversy happened with Johannes Agricola (1494 – 1566), who got into a bitter controversy over the necessity of repentance from sin in salvation, Agricola taking a position that denied a connection between inner turning from sin and faith and denying that obedience to the law is necessary for salvation. However, Agricola would soon after recant of his views and die on the side of Rome.

There exists also a mention of independent Christians taking on Free Grace views during the Reformation from Leupold Scharnschlager , as he 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?”

The Lutheran book of concord also describes the existence of Free Grace theology during this period:

It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more extensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents of the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement,”Good works are necessary.” Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily implying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion, they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word “must” is here not in place, they protested.Agricola, as well as the later Antinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions “necessarium, necessary” and “duty, debitum

Later Protestants

Free Grace theology was similar to the teachings of Robert Sandeman and the "Antinomians" of the 17th century. Cotton, the leading figure in the Antinomian controversy taught the doctrine of assurance, denying that good works are necessary for our assurance. Cotton and other "Antinomians" (also called "opinionists") protested to the idea that our assurance should be placed in any way (even subordinately) in our good works.

    "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"

Paul Schaefer writes on the controversy:

"Hutchinson noticed with great distress that some women (and she surmised the colonists at large) based their relationship with God on their piety, religious duty, and good works. She blamed the clergy, excluding Cotton, for approaching the doctrine of covenantal assurance before God through a "legal" method."

A similar controversy happened in Scotland in the Marrow controversy, however they did not go as far as the "Antinomians". The Marrow protested to the heavy emphasis upon good works on assurance and as proofs of salvation, though unlike the "Antinomians", they did not deny the necessity of good works for assurance but merely made them "subordinate". The Marrow brethren held a view of repentance that would be similar to that of Zane Hodges (note: there are differences of opinion on what "repentance" is inside Free Grace theology). The Marrow argued that repentance is a turning from sin, yet it cannot precede or happen at the same time as faith, but takes place after salvation.

The Marrow were not Free Grace, though some of their positions would be repeated by modern Free Grace theologians.

John Colquhoun (1748-1827) also held that repentance is a turning from sin, however he denied that it is necessary to be saved, stating:

    " 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) 

The theology of Robert Sandeman (1718 – 1771) was closely aligned with Free Grace theology (mostly with the views of Zane Hodges), as he denied the necessity of repentance from sin and good works in salvation. Robert Sandeman protested against the Presbyterian Westminster confession of faith, which teaches a Lordship-like view with some ambiguity, he states thus:

In vain shall we consult catechisms, confessions, and other publicly authorized standards of doctrine for direction here. These are framed by the wisdom of the scribes, and disputers of this world. We can receive no true light about this matter, but from the fountainhead of true knowledge, the sacred oracles of divine revelation.... Thence it will appear, that justification comes from bare faith. As a Christian, What’s his faith, the spring of all his hope? And he answers you in a word, The blood of Christ.2

19-21th centuries

According to Fred Chay, Free Grace theology was taught by: Robert Govett (1860ad), D.M. Panton (1900), G.H Pember (1890), Watchman Nee (1925-35), G.H Lang (1940-50), Edwin Wilson (1950), Kenneth Dodson (1950), Erich Sauer (1940) and some others held Free Grace views before the controversy.

Some in the Plymouth Brethren held Free Grace like views, though they were a minority position. Many of them held views that had some agreements with Free Grace theologians, yet not being entirely Free Grace. For example, John Bowes' translation of the New Testament, translates the word "metanoia" as "change of mind":

"And saying, Change your mind, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 3:2)

"From that time Jesus began to proclaim, and say, Change your minds, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 4:17)

"And that a change of mind and remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47)

Other Brethren like C.H. Mackintosh argued against the invetiability of progressive sanctification and making sanctification the basis of assurance, which is also denied by Free Grace advocates, yet he did not come all the way into Free Grace theology. Others such as Alexander Marshall held views more closely aligned with Free Grace theology.

Scofield held some views that later Free Grace theologians would embrace, these include his view of repentance (as held by Ryrie and Chafer) along with his "rewards" interpretation of passages that deal with good works, these quotes are from the Scofield Reference Bible:

"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"

"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)."

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871 –1952)

The modern Free Grace movement was heavily influenced by Lewis Sperry Chafer, he especially influenced Charles Ryrie, who was a major Free Grace theologian. Chafer argued for the "change of mind" view for repentance, Chafer states:

The word metanoia is in every instance translated repentance.  The word means a change of mind.  The common practice of reading into this word the thought of sorrow and heart-anguish is responsible for much confusion in the field of Soteriology.  There is no reason why sorrow should not accompany repentance or lead to repentance, but the sorrow, whatever it may be, is not repentance.  In 2 Corinthians 7:10, it is said that “godly sorrow worketh repentance,” that is, it leads on to repentance; but the sorrow is not to be mistaken for the change of mind which it may serve to produce.  The son cited by Christ as reported in Matthew 21:28-29 who first said “I will not go,” and afterward repented and went, is a true example of the precise meaning of the word.

Around the same time as Sperry Chafer, the Canadian author H. A. Ironside taught Free Grace theology:

Looking into your own heart for a ground of confidence is like casting the anchor in the hold of a ship. Cast it outside and let it go down into the great, tossing ocean of strife and trouble, until it grips the rock itself. Christ alone is the rock, and He is the manifestation of the infinite love of God for sinners. (Full Assurance, [Chicago: Moody Press, 1968, revised edition of the 1937 original, pp.120-21).

The Lordship salvation controversy was ignited in the 1980s when John McArthur published his book "The Gospel According to Jesus", the book advocated a position where submission to Christ was seen as a synonym for faith, this book caused many in the Free Grace movement to write against him, including Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges who were major influences in the Free Grace movement. Free Grace theology is still alive to this day, advocates of the position include: Bob Wilkin, Charlie Bing, Fred Chay, Joseph Dillow and many others.

How the Galatian Church Proves That True Believers Can Apostatize

 The epistle to the Galatians was written against false doctrines being spread around in the Galatian church, however what is interesting is that Paul seems to affirm their salvation despite this falling, as he states in Galatians 3:2: "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?". If the Galatians had received the Holy Spirit they must have been saved!

Additionally Paul seems to be comfortable with calling the Galatians "brethren", as he states in Galatians 6:1 "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted." 

Paul was thus comfortable with seeing them as justified, despite their fall into a false gospel, as they had initially believed the true gospel. 

Watchman Nee (1903-1972): Every Believer Can Have Assurance

 “Every believer can know whether or not he has eternal life. Men often think, ‘We can only hope that we are saved, and we can only know if we are saved after we die or at the time of judgment.’ This is not the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that a man can know whether or not he has eternal life in this age.”

Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 02: The Word of the Cross