20 Biblical Verses To Teach Eternal Security

1. 

   Eternal security is that
   work of God which guarantees
    that the gift of salvation,
    once received, is possessed
    forever and cannot
   be lost - Charles Ryrie

   John 10:27-29: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
2. John 6:37: All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
3. John 10:28:  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
4. John 5:24: Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
5. Romans 11:29: For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
6. Romans 8:38-39: For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
7. 1 John 5:13: I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
8. 2 Corinthians 1:22: And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee
9. Ephesians 4:30: And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
10. Hebrews 10:14: For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
11. Ephesians 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
12. Romans 8:34: Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
13. Hebrews 13:5: Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
14. John 6:40: For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
15. Hebrews 7:25: Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
16. Ephesians 1:13-14: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
17. John 6:39: And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
18. Psalm 89:30-33: If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness.
19. 2 Timothy 2:13: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
20. John 4:14: but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

The Early Christians Did Not Pray To Saints

This article presents quotes from early Christians to show that praying to saints as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do, was not done by the earliest of Christians.

On the Trinity, Novatian c. 200–258 

If Christ is only man, how is He present wherever He is called upon; when it is not the nature of man, but of God, that it can be present in every place? If Christ is only man, why is a man invoked in prayers as a Mediator, when the invocation of a man to afford salvation is condemned as ineffectual?

Tertullian

Apology (Tertullian) 155 AD – c. 220 AD

And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 32), Irenaeus 130 – c. 202 AD

5. Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error. If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Menander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. But what these things were, shall be described in dealing with the proofs to be found in the prophetical writings.

Origen 185–254ad

We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” (Against Celsus, Book V, Chap. XI) 

Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325)

"They [pagans] ought therefore to have understood from the mysteries and ceremonies themselves, that they were offering prayers to dead men." (The Divine Institutes, 1:21)

"But if it appears that these religious rites are vain in so many ways as I have shown, it is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated every sacred law." (2:18)

 

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

An Explanation of the Trinity

Introduction

Every Christian is familiar with the trinity, it is generally summarized as this:

1. There is only one God
2. The Father is God
   
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. Yet each is not the other

It has also been summarized as: "God is three in persons but one in essence". Scripture most clearly says that there is only one God (Exodus 20:3), yet there are still three persons. The Son is able to call the Father "you" and prays to the Father, which shows a distinction of persons. John writes "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God."

The Nicene creed describes the trinity thus:

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,

and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

This article will favor the classical trinitarian view, and offers a critique to the social trinitarian view.

Misconceptions

In the modern day there exists some confusion about the trinity. Many people believe that there are three centers of the will and three minds in God, I believe that this concept of the trinity is not biblical. Many people who hold to this view, hold to it without knowing the other views, though the ones who hold to it, are called "social trinitarians". Though, I do not want to be unfair, there are major theologians and scholars who defend this view, but I hold that the scriptural data aligns with the classical view of the trinity (which was affirmed in Nicea).

My problem with identifying "will" and "mind" as being the concept of what "person" means is that it would imply that because Christ was only one person, He would have had only one mind and one will (as the Bible teaches that Christ has two natures, human and divine yet being one person). Yet, if Christ had no human mind, we fall into problems with Hebrews 2:17, which states that Christ was like us in "every way": Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. It is thus implied that Christ had a human mind, being able to feel human emotions and feel pain as a human.

The scriptures also speak of God's mind in the singular, implying only one mind within God, such as Paul in Romans 11:34, and texts which speak of the will in the singular (Romans 12:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, John 7:17). 

Yet as there are three persons, we can say that the one divine will and mind is "operated" by three distinct and co-existant agents (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

In conclusion, these texts together mean that "will" and "mind" are not properties of  what "personhood" means, but are properties of nature, thus as Christ had two natures He had two wills, and as there is only one nature in God, God has one will. However, the two minds are united, so the human mind of Christ is in unity with the divine. 

What does "person" mean then?

The word "person" might be misleading, as its semantic meaning has changed overtime, which is why some theologians want to change the word to "subsistence" (which is literal translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" used in the Nicean creed), however the word "subsistence" does not mean much to the average English speaker and may sound too "fancy". The problem is that human language often is problematic in describing divine truths. A very short description of the word "person" or "subsistence" would mean is "who", or "I", there are three "I"s (self distinctions) within the Divine essence. We can see the distinction of persons in multiple places, for example the Father loves the Son (John 5:20), the Father sent the Son (1 John 4:14), the Son "breathes" the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit is sent from the Son (John 15:26). Thus we clearly see there being a distinction, biblically the distinction of the persons is one of relations.

Yet, to go into detail, the Bible teaches that the three persons are distinguished by relations of origin (a theological concept to describe begetting and spiration). 

The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. This is a hard doctrine to understand, yet it is clearly affirmed in the bible. To get an idea of what the doctrine means, here is a quote from A.A Hodge, from His "Outlines of Theology":
“The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”

 There are multiple texts which affirm this doctrine. Firstly, the mere fact of being called the "Son" implies begetting, yet as Christ has been eternally the Son, He must have been eternally begotten. Now, opponents of classical trinitarianism often argue that Christ became the Son by becoming a human, however as Christ is called "Son" prior to the incarnation in the Old Testament (Proverbs 30:4), we can safely say that Christ's sonhood is not grounded in the incarnation. However, there are explicit texts to affirm this doctrine:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:26, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57-58, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.”

Another text to explicitly affirm this doctrine is Hebrews 1:3 which says:

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Sam Shamoun comments on this text: "There are several points which we can glean from this very crucial text. The first point is that Jesus is the very exact imprint, the very exact copy, the perfect reflection of God’s own substance, nature, essence etc. That is the meaning of the Greek word charakter, that Jesus is the precise and perfect imprint left by the Original or the Source. The author of Hebrews is basically saying that the Father is the underived Source of all Deity with the Son being the perfect duplicate of that Deity. If God’s substance is eternal, then Christ must be eternal also since he is the exact imprint. If God’s substance is infinite, then Christ must also be infinite seeing that he is the exact copy of it."

A similar point is made in Colossians 1:15.

Another text that is more ambiguous is Proverbs 8, which describing wisdom says: "I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.", some believe that Paul the apostle connected this text to Jesus by saying that Jesus is the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), yet I believe this to be a bit ambiguous and not the strongest text to use. 

Similarly, the Holy Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, as John 15:26 states:

But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Most theologians in the west also believe that He proceeds from the Son as well, as the scriptures call the Holy Spirit "The Spirit of Christ" (the genitive "of" often means "from" in Greek). Jesus also "breathes forth" the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit is sent "in the name of the Son" John 14:26. Commentators have also noticed that Revelation 21:1 seems to be a representation of the trinity. Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of the water of life "flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", now this text describes a literal river, yet the river is meant to represent the Holy Spirit (as water is commonly used to symbolize the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)), Who "flows" from the Father and the Son.

Thus the persons are distinct from each other by these properties, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit is spirated. We also see that the persons work scripturally in the same order, as we see the Father sending the Son and never other way around. 

Theologians have also often asked "how do generation and spiration work", some have argued from the fact that Christ is called the "logos" (word, thought) and the "Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and the "image of God" in Colossians, the eternal generation of the Son is by means of intellect. Meaning, the eternal generation of the Son happens through the Father knowing himself, meaning he has the perfect idea or image of himself. From the same logic, it has been argued that since there seems to be a special identification with the Holy Spirit and love ( 2 Samuel 7:15, Rom 5:5, Romans 15:30) along with the Holy Spirit being symbolized with the dove (Luke 3:22), the dove being used in Jewish contexts for love (Song of Solomon 5:2), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Now, while I think this may be the best way to explains these two concepts, I do not think it is so clear that we should make it dogmatic. However, the reasoning behind these seems possible, and I would accept it as true.

Answering objections

The doctrines of eternal begetting and spiration have been opposed by many of those who social trinitarianism, these are often strawmen (such as eternal generation promoting the subordination of the Son). Additionally, I would like to use caution in denying a doctrine only because it is incomprehensible. The main biblical argument used against eternal generation comes from Luke 1:35 which is argued to show that Christ was not the Son in eternity, the text reads: "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.", However there exists a really simple explanation of this verse, the text merely says that Christ will be "called" or recognized by men as the Son, not that He was not yet the Son. So this text is not saying that Christ became the Son in time, but that Christ will be understood as being the Son by men due to becoming incarnate.

Some also point to Psalm 2:7 which says: "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You". However, this text was not applied by the New Testament to the incarnation. In ancient Jewish custom, when  king was anointed, he was said to be "begotten" by God, this is why Solomon for example is called God's son (2 Samuel 7:14). Thus Psalm is not saying that Christ became the Son in the incarnation, but refers to his anointing as king. This text was applied to the resurrection by Peter (Acts 13:33), however it will have its ultimate fulfilment in the millennium.

Inseparable operations

Due to having one will, the three persons work as one. This is affirmed in John 5:19 which says:

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

We see in the Bible that all three persons work as one, for example all three persons are involved in the resurrection. Theologians have often explained the biblical data by saying "All three persons work indivisibly yet not indistinctly). As we see in the incarnation, each person of the trinity works in the incarnation, but not indistinctly as only the Son became incarnate.

Is there submission in the trinity?

Because there is only one will in God, it would mean that there is no submission of the will. The verses which speak of submission of the will should be interpreted as Christ in his human nature (Christ had two natures, one human one divine and as will is an aspect of nature, he had two wills). Thus Christ submits to the Father in His human will but not in His divine will. This is affirmed by Paul in Philippians 2:8:

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

If Christ "became" obedient, it means there was a time where no subordination existed.

Now, it should still be noted that there is a certain order in which the members of the trinity work, it's always coming from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, as there is one will, the Son does not in that sense submit His will to the Father, though as a human He did.

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.

Short Criticism Of The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

 Catholics, Orthodox, many Lutherans and Anglicans as well as some Reformed theologians believe that Mary never had other children after Jesus was born (virginitas post partum) and that Jesus did not have a normal human birth, thus Mary even being a virgin during childbirth (virginitas in partu), thus they believe that Mary had no birth pains.

Biblically however, it is clear that Mary had other children after Jesus:

1. Jesus is called Mary's "first" child, implying others (Luke 2:7)
2. Joseph did not consummate the marriage "until" Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25)
3. Jesus is clearly said to have had "brothers" (John 2:12)
4. In ancient Jewish culture, having many children was seen as a blessing, so it would be odd for Mary to avoid having any children.
5. Paul wrote against abstinence within marriage (1 Corinthians 7:5)
6. The doctrine that Mary had no other children seems to come from ascetic Platonic/Gnostic thinking rather than the Bible

 

Catholics try to argue that the Greek word "ἕως" translated "until" in Matt 1:25 doesn't necessarily imply a change, yet it almost always does (examples taken from Biblehub):

Matthew 2:9 Conj

GRK: προῆγεν αὐτούς ἕως ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη

KJV: them, till it came

Matthew 2:13 Conj

GRK: ἴσθι ἐκεῖ ἕως ἂν εἴπω

KJV: be thou there until I bring

Matthew 2:15 Conj

GRK: ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς

KJV: was there until the death of Herod:

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.