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.
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.
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
|
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:
|
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment