Puritan leaders tried Anne Hutchinson because her religious beliefs differed from their religious beliefs.
Edwin Austin Abbey created this illustration, in 1901 to show how Hutchinson may have appeared during her trial.
Puritan society put great emphasis on appearances. “Good works” were para-mount in Puritan theology,
Anne Marbury Hutchinson (July 17, 1591 – Late Summer/Early Fall, 1643) believed people were saved by faith (the covenant of God’s grace) not by deeds (the covenant of works). She was vocal about her beliefs, which were contrary to what Puritan ministers preached. She was charged with “transducing the ministers” because she publicly criticized the content of their theology.
At her trial Governor John Winthrop was her chief accuser. The trial transcript is replete with condescending remarks directed to Anne Hutchinson. A few examples make clear that the verdict against her was a foregone conclusion.
We do not mean to discourse with those of your sex…
summarizes the tone of Winthrop’s entire cross examination.
Your conscience you must keep, or it must be kept for you
alerts Hutchinson that if she did not conform to Puritan teachings, her conscience was not working.
We find such a course as this to be greatly prejudicial
to the state…We must therefore put it away from you
or restrain you from maintaining this course
warns Hutchinson that her understanding of the Bible is of no account, and she must stop “seducing many honest persons.”
We are your judges, and not you ours,
and we must compel you to it
silences Anne’s attempts to make Winthrop produce “a rule for it [his orders] from God’s word.” At the end of the trial, Winthrop read the verdict:
Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that
you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as being
a woman not fit for our society, and are
to be imprisoned till the court
shall send you away.
When Hutchinson asked, “I desire to know wherefore I am banished?” the reply was short and as curt as his cross examination:
Say no more. The court knows wherefore and is satisfied.
Today, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts honors Anne Hutchinson with a statue in front of the State House. In 1638, however, the people who ran the Massachusetts colony dishonored her.
After she and her entire family were banished, they went to Roger Williams’ settlement near Providence. Anne’s husband, William, was named the first governor of Rhode Island. He died in 1642. After a time, she and her younger children moved to an area eventually called “Annie’s Hoeck” (Annie’s Point) in the “New Netherland” colony near present day New York City. There, in 1643, she and five of her children were massacred by Indians.
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to those who, throughout history, have personally encountered the God of Grace, who have believed His promises, and who, through faith in His Son, have placed their eternal destiny into His loving hands.
May He be highly exalted, honored, and glorified in all the Earth by those who have bowed before His loving majesty and who have received the free gift of everlasting life by His grace alone through faith alone in His Son, Messiah Jesus.
Praise to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8–9).
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).
Jesus said: “I am coming quickly, and my reward is with Me, to render to every man according to His work . . . Let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost . . . .” He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with you all (Revelation 22:12, 17, 21-22).
“Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know” —Socrates
Test Question on the Final Exam:
What are the two conditions necessary for a person
to receive eternal life as a free gift from God?
1. _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________
Instructions: Answer this question when you’ve finished
reading the book. The answer is on the last page.
Do not peek!
PrefacE
He who stands immobile fails to advance. He who fails to advance falls behind if others around him are going forward. The pioneer becomes a mere camper when he becomes satisfied with his exploits; and the children of that camper usually find comfort in the recollection of their father’s victories, but they remain static in the same cozy camp.
This is also true in the realm of theology, and especially in that branch called soteriology—the study of salvation. From within that study comes the question, “What must I do to be saved?” What is the basis upon which a holy God restores a person from death and separation from Him to life and reconciliation with Him?
Now, the idea that God accepts us as His children only when we comply with a standard of behavior is as old as Adam and Eve. They dressed themselves in fig leaves when God approached. Their bodies, having lost their original radiance, were drab, pale, and naked. They tried hard to cover themselves with little fig leaves, but it was a vain effort. God noticed their nakedness anyway. It didn’t work!
Similarly, the sect of believing Jews, after the Holy Spirit had come on Pentecost, called for Gentile believers to comply with certain religious standards. They insisted that non-Jewish believers both look like Jews and act like Jews—they wanted Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the Law given by Moses. If they didn’t do so, they taught that they could not be saved. They would not be included in the Church—the corporate Body of Christ—which had just begun. But it didn’t work!
In similar fashion certain doctrines developed down through Church history which demanded participation in sacraments, ceremonies, allegiance to numerous creeds, and deference to various religious authorities. The impetus for doing so was to qualify for eternal life. Failure to comply could lead to excommunication from the institution which became known as the Roman Catholic Church. It was pronounced that outside the RCC there is no salvation. Once again, one’s eternal destiny was being threatened by a “works” requirement. Once again, it didn’t work!
The reason it didn’t work is because the Reformers came along. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their disciples led the way out of papal authority by their preaching, writing, and teaching. Each of these Reformers had their good points and their bad points. Zwingli probably had fewer bad points than the rest and maybe that’s because he was killed in battle and died earlier in life than the others. The Reformers challenged the RCC and developed the doctrinal mantra called sola fide—faith alone—or justification by faith alone. Luther discovered the biblical teaching that we (people) are justified in God’s sight by faith in Christ alone and not by following the dictates or performing the sacraments required by the Roman Church. They argued and debated by preaching, in pamphlets, and in person. In those debates the RCC rested their case on the authority of the Church Fathers and the Pope, but Luther based his apology only on the authority of Scriptures. Luther was excommunicated for his efforts.
Calvin is apparently responsible for the contradictory and incongruent claim, “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.” While the first part of that statement is biblically true, the last part inserted error into the formula for receiving eternal life by adding the necessity that one comply with certain measurable and visible religious standards (progressive holiness, repentance from sin and sinful habits, or the doing of good works) so that one’s faith in Christ would be effective or salvational. Calvin may have felt threatened by the RCC to be “politically correct” and deferred to them so as not to be labeled an antinomian, i.e., one who is loose in moral restraint. Calvin simply said to his theological opponents that if a person is justified by faith he will surely comply performance-wise!
So, what had started out on a good note soon went sour, even in the minds of Calvin and Luther. The necessity of works or human performance was established in their doctrine. When that became about, their disciples duplicated their stance and intertwined works into the warp and woof of their “Reformed” teaching. These things all played out and were solidified in the resulting denominational confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Augsburg Confession, and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, among others. The Protestant church Divines parroted the error and this eventually led to most conservative Protestant churches continuing in and defending it with resolve.
This brings us to the reason for this book. The resolve to continue Protestant misunderstanding that is so engrained in religious institutions (churches, Bible colleges, and Seminaries) today has been expressed and propagated by certain seminary professors. The writings of two of these men present a frontal indictment against Free Grace Theology. They seem to loathe the idea of not necessitating the addition of works, deeds, and one’s resolve to change or promise to obey as a basis for receiving God’s free gift of everlasting life. Two of the men who have assaulted Free Grace Theology and its adherents are Wayne Grudem and D. A. Carson. Both are of note within their own evangelical circles. But they are not the only two who have done this. Others despise Free Grace teaching as well. To reply to all of them would be a daunting task, so we have here chosen to handle the accusations, the supposed exegesis, and the defective logic of just these two men. Because they are highly acclaimed “pillars” in what might be called the society of “Protestant evangelicals” and because they have taken it upon themselves to strenuously object to Free Grace, it seems that they ought not to be allowed to get away with it.
When I first read Carson’s book Exegetical Fallacies, even as a doctoral student at Dallas Theological Seminary, and understood his criticism of Zane C. Hodges, I realized that his arguments were logically or exegetically fallacious and were completely inaccurate and without merit. I not only saw that Carson’s charges against Hodges were wrong and illogical, but that those same charges could be validly applied to his own argumentation. He had blatantly committed the fallacies that he charged Hodges with. I’ve never seen any detailed rejoinder to his accusations from the Free Grace camp. So, Part II of this book judiciously refutes him.
Further, Wayne Grudem recently came out with his book called “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways it Diminishes the Gospel. In it he expresses what he calls his “concerns” about the danger of Free Grace Theology and says that an understanding that “We are justified by faith alone” doesn’t convey the ideas of what the Reformers taught. He insists on the addition to “faith alone” Calvin’s incongruous idea that “the faith that justifies is never alone.” His accusation that Free Grace Theology doesn’t teach what the Reformers understood is precisely correct! Amen! Part I of this present work addresses Grudem’s allegations and explains why Free Grace Theology refuses to add the necessity of works to the formula for receiving eternal life as a free gift of God.
I’ve tried to maintain coherence with both writers. In Part I regarding Grudem’s book I’ve kept the chapter headings and sub-points somewhat similar to his. This should help those who have his book and want to follow the point-by-point refutation of what he says and alleges. I’ve also included page numbers of his book after the headings and quotations. I’ve also taken the charge he makes in italics at the beginning of each of his chapters and retorted by giving a summary Free Grace answer directly below it.
Regarding Carson’s accusations in his Exegetical Fallacies, I have designated the three criticisms he makes against Zane Hodges (and Free Grace understanding) and shown in detail and at length why his condemnations are invalid, and thus pointless. His page numbers are also supplied for your reference if you like.
Since I want this present book to be as beneficial as possible, I have included a number of items in the Appendix section with the hope that a further excursus on several topics might be of value.
When all is said and done, the final determinative question is always ultimately one of authority, whether speaking with a theological liberal who doesn’t believe in God or the inerrancy or the inspiration of the Bible or with a theological conservative who places authority in the laps of the Church Fathers or the Reformers. You must ask yourself, “Whom will I believe and rely upon?” What will drive your conscience one way or the other—the Reformers or the Word? Remember, you must be willing to live with your decision in light of the coming Bema Seat evaluation before the Lord Jesus. This is a rather important!
It is assumed that the reader desires to advance in his understanding of things and not be left behind looking into the hypnotic campfire with the well-known, but immobile, “historical Protestants.” You have the opportunity to progress in the truth—to do your own pioneering—and to not merely sit around the glowing embers reminiscing about the good ol’ days of the Reformers or memorizing their “politically correct,” but erroneous, clichés.
Happy pioneering trails to you!
Table of CONTENTS
Cover Photo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Part I
A Refutation of Wayne Grudem’s
“Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways it Diminishes the Gospel
Introduction – Costly Grace or Free Grace? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Initial Remarks
A. What is the Free Grace Gospel?
B. Why Grudem does not use the term Lordship Salvation
Chapter 1 – Not the “Faith Alone” of the Reformation,
For Sure! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Allegation: The Free Grace movement does not teach the Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith alone.”
FG Answer: Correct! That’s because the Reformers unwittingly added human performance into their understanding of “justification by faith alone.”
Initial Remarks
A. Have Protestant leaders throughout history consistently disagreed with the Free Grace Position?
B. Therefore, the Free Grace movement today does not uphold the Reformation misunderstanding of sola fide, or “justification by faith alone.”
C. There is no logical difficulty in claiming this?
D. Why is the proper meaning of “justification by faith alone” so important?
Chapter 2 – No Call to Repent of Sins as an Added
Condition for Receiving Everlasting Life . . . . . . . . . 55
Allegation: Free Grace theology weakens the gospel message by avoiding any call to unbelievers to repent of their sins.
FG Answer: Faith alone is the basis of repentance, obedience, and a faith-life, but not essential of the gospel offer of everlasting life. Adding repentance as a condition for receiving everlasting life muddles the clarity of God’s free offer and requires one to shift trust from Christ to oneself.
Initial Remarks
A. Repentance from sin in the New Testament.
B. Two different Free Grace explanations for the “repentance” verses.
C. However, saving faith does not include obedience.
D. Conclusion: A weakened gospel?
Chapter 3 – False Assurance or Full Assurance? . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Allegation: Free Grace theology gives false assurance of eternal life to many people who profess faith in Christ but then show no evidence in their pattern of life.
FG Answer: Free Grace Theology offers absolute assurance of eternal life to the person who has believed in Christ for it, without regard for his performance and apart from any need to show evidence in his pattern of life to validate being born again.
Initial Remarks
A. The result of the weakened Free Grace gospel is many unsaved people?
B. New Testament epistles frequently warn churchgoers that some of them might not be saved?
C. The Free Grace view says people can become complete unbelievers and still be saved?
D. Free Grace teaching about assurance makes a fundamental category mistake?
E. The historic Protestant view does not say that assurance of salvation is impossible, but just the opposite.
Chapter 4 – Underemphasis on Trust in the
Person of Christ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Allegation: Free Grace teaching overemphasizes agreement with facts and underemphasizes heartfelt trust in the person of Christ.
FG Answer: Free Grace teaching emphasizes the absolute necessity to believe in Christ alone for eternal life and sees the facts about Christ and His finished work as the foundation for God’s promise to give eternal life freely to the one who believes in Jesus for it.
Initial Remarks
A. Some Free Grace advocates say that faith equals mere intellectual assent?
B. Other Free Grace advocates say that faith includes trust in the person of Christ.
C. Both groups deemphasize the element of heartfelt trust in the living person of Christ?
D. Saving faith requires trust in the person of Christ, and this means that mental agreement with facts about Christ without personal trust in Christ is not saving faith.
E. Free Grace misunderstandings of B. B. Warfield on the need to decide to trust in Christ personally.
Chapter 5 – Unlikely Interpretations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Allegation: Free Grace advocates have to adopt numerous highly unlikely interpretations of the New Testament because of the need to defend their mistaken understanding of the word “alone” in the phrase “faith alone.”
Answer: Free Grace advocates, being untethered to Reformed theology, easily understand passages having to do with discipleship and rewards to be just that and do not read Reformed dogma into the text. We affirm that a person is justified by faith alone without regard to or necessity of any extraneous performance attachments such as accompanying repentance or subsequent good works.
Initial Remarks – Some Passages of Unlikely Interpretations
A. Passages involving Repentance.
B. Passages involving Fruit Bearing and Working Discipleship.
C. Passages involving Confession and Self-Examination.
Grudem’s Conclusion Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A. Summary of the argument of this book.
B. Topics not covered in this book.
C. What do I appreciate about the Free Grace movement?
D. My hope for the future.
Part II
A Refutation and Response
to D. A. Carson’s
“Exegetical Fallacies”
Allegation 1 – Carson’s Alleged “Logical Fallacy of
False Disjunction” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Allegation 2 – Carson’s Alleged “Logical Fallacy of
Improperly Handled Syllogisms”. . . . . . . . . . . 267
Allegation 3 – Carson’s Alleged “Logical Fallacy of
Omission of Distanciation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
APPENDIX
1. Doctrinal Statement of the Grace Evangelical Society . . . . 291
2. Mission and Beliefs of the Free Grace Alliance . . . . . . . . . . 293
3. Doctrinal Statement of the Grace School of Theology . . . . 295
4. Doctrinal Statement of Chafer Seminary (Soteriology). . . . 299
5. Carnal Christians? Well, Yes! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
6. Present Tense Solution as applied to 1 John 2:27—3:10 . . . 311
7. The Pothole in the Roman Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
8. A Simple Hermeneutical Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
9. Tenses of Salvation and the Eternal Consequences . . . . . . . 357
Free Grace Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Confronting Calvinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
Answer to the test question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Part I
A Refutation of Wayne Grudem’s
“Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways it Diminishes the Gospel
Introduction
Costly Grace or Free Grace?
“Faith in God’s revelation has nothing to do with an ideology which glorifies the status quo.” — Karl Barth
Initial Remarks – Intro Paragraph (pp. 17 – 19)
Grudem begins, “It is with some reluctance that I write this book.” He goes on to explain that he has many friends who hold the Free Grace viewpoint with which he disagrees, admitting that they “lead exemplary Christian lives. They are genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.” He affirms that they have a “partnership in the work of God’s kingdom here on earth” (p. 17).
Such initial assertions seem to suggest a kind and irenic tone in his manner, but even in his first paragraph several questions arise. How does he know whether they are living “exemplary Christian lives” or whether they are “genuine brothers and sisters in Christ”? If they hold a Free Grace position which he has determined to be erroneous, “inconsistent with historic Protestant convictions” which will lead to “harmful consequences in the church today” (p. 26), how can he rightly claim such friends are partners in God’s work on earth? Is Grudem buttering us up with niceties and then turning and condemning such folks as being a threat to the gospel and God’s purpose on earth?
When we are having a serious discussion about the gospel and its ramifications, let’s not sugarcoat the issues by such nuanced contradictions. It is, of course, possible to show personal respect for those with whom we disagree, and we should, but let’s not contradict ourselves in the process. The gospel message and offer is the central theme of our discussion here, and calling Free Grace advocates partners in God’s work on earth is an initial contradiction. If Free Grace Theology does indeed diminish the gospel, as expressed in his book title, then those who hold that position cannot be considered partners in God’s work, and they shouldn’t be called such. If words can be used plainly, those who understand the Free Grace message should be called enemies of the gospel and of God, because the gospel ought not to be diminished.
Grudem prefers his position be labeled the “historical Protestant” position, and so, there ought to be no double standard here. If what he calls the historical Protestant position is shown to diminish or pervert the gospel, then those who teach it must likewise be considered enemies of it and of God. In a discussion such as this an irenic presentation may seem desirable, but nice rhetoric should not overpower the reality of things. The magnitude and eternal consequences of false doctrine must prevail over personal friendship, if need be. This truth played out in the golden age of the Reformers when people were burned at the stake for disagreeing with the position of the authorities in power.
In Grudem’s initial paragraphs he anticipates the majority of his book in a broad sweep.
In Chapter 1 he will argue that the Free Grace position does not conform to the “faith alone” teaching of the Reformers. Here he will begin to argue for the addition of one’s repentance of sin and for subsequent good works as requirements for receiving eternal life and for finally being saved. He will support this by referring to the John Calvin and the succeeding confessions of faith developed by those who followed him in the Reformation.
Chapter 2 will deal with his criticism of Free Grace Theology in so far that it excludes a call to repentance from sin as an obligation, along with faith in Christ, to attain eternal life. He claims that repentance is “an internal resolve to turn from sin” and “a crucial part of saving faith.” As one who purports to know the truth of matter he states that he became “increasingly concerned that much of modern evangelicalism has a tendency to water down” the gospel by failing to demand the repentance of unbelievers at the time they believe in Jesus (p. 17, italics added). He will argue that without repentance a person who believes in Jesus does not receive eternal life. His position, as seen from the beginning, is one of a repentance enforcer.
Chapter 3 deals with the subject of one’s assurance of salvation, or lack thereof. He says he’s “concerned” (p. 18) for the “evangelical world.” He proposes to clear up the matter by suggesting that a believer can have a relative amount of assurance that he’s saved depending upon his observable works.
Chapter 4 argues that saving faith “involves coming into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, coming into his presence, and deciding to place my trust in him as a living divine person who sees and hears us every moment and knows the deepest thoughts of my heart” (p. 18, italics added).
Chapter 5 covers his accusations that Free Grace interpretations of certain key passages are idiosyncratic, artificial, contrived, insensitive to context, and completely unpersuasive and foreign to the New Testament (p. 119). Quite a charge!
In these initial paragraphs Grudem says he’s concerned about this or that. He seems to take a rather patronizing role by emphasizing his great concern. This would suggest that those who disagree with him are not only wrong but aren’t even concerned about it. The fact of the matter is that those in the Free Grace position are very concerned about the skewed interpretation of the Reformers regarding soteriology. Further careful reading of his book demonstrates that Grudem seems more concerned about what he calls the “historical Protestant” doctrine than anything. He thinks he is right, of course, but the correctness of one’s doctrine of salvation should be based upon Scripture, not Protestant tradition.
Grudem says he hopes his book will be useful for evangelical Christians. And so, it is the concern of Free Grace advocates that his book might convince the casual reader or student toward the twisted understanding of soteriology as held by the Calvinistic, Reformed point of view, rather than the free and gracious offer of everlasting life to the one who simply believes in Jesus, the crucified and risen Lord, for it. That would be a shame. And that is a cause for concern!
A. What is the Free Grace Gospel? (pp.19 – 22)
As Grudem begins to unfold his position he attempts to show the deficiency of the Free Grace position that, he says, “claims that we are justified by faith alone” (p. 19, italics his). He says that he has “no disagreement with that statement in itself” since the Protestants historically agree with it (but not, it seems, because it’s biblical). Grudem then proposes that the Free Grace position understands that statement “in a novel way (p. 19) and goes on to affirm that the word alone means that nothing else helps or nothing else contributes in our obtaining justification from God” (pp. 19-20). He rightly goes on to say that “our faith is the only thing that God requires of us—not good works, not offering some sacrifice, not performing some ritual or ceremony, not the use of some means of grace—just faith alone” (p. 20).[1] If we could stop here, we would agree!
But, it is in this area that Grudem slips off the rock of biblical teaching and begins to prepare his readers to follow him into the abyss of Reformed theology. He says,
Free Grace proponents have gone beyond the claim that God asks nothing more than faith when he justifies us. They have made an additional claim: that faith occurs by itself when a person is justified, in the sense that no other human actions necessarily accompany faith (such as repentance from sin or doing good works after we are justified) (p. 20, italics his).
One might ask what kind of theological word games we’re playing here. Of course, it seems that this entire discussion focuses on how Grudem and other Reformed advocates attempt to add “other human actions” to simple faith in order to make it saving faith. Out of one side of their mouth they affirm that the faith that justifies is alone and from the other side of their mouth they continue to maintain that saving faith requires more so that it will be saving faith. This contradiction boggles one’s little mind.
Let’s analyze that statement. First, Grudem confuses what is concurrent with faith with what is the logical result of faith. He says that the Free Grace position claims “faith occurs by itself when a person is justified” (boldface added) thus reversing the logical cause-effect order. Grudem misrepresents the argument of the Free Grace position by alleging that justification is prior to faith.[2] This distortion may easily lead the gullible (or Reformed-leaning) reader into thinking that it is wrong to suppose that “no other human actions necessarily accompany faith.” Neither a Free Grace advocate nor the Bible prohibits other human actions from being present at the time a person believes in Christ. For instance, a person might be scratching his nose, or feeling hungry, or experiencing regret for his sins, or being aware of his need for everlasting life as he realizes his own spiritual state of death, resolving to turn from sin in his life (either in a specific or general way), or continuing to drive his car (if he should hear the gospel on the radio at that time). All sorts of human actions can be present and nobody says they can’t. The key term is necessarily. The Free Grace position is that faith in Christ alone is the single, only, unique, and immutable condition by which a person can receive irreversible everlasting life. Repentance may be present (as well as your mother), but such is not a necessary addition to faith or a condition for everlasting salvation.
How about “doing good works after we are justified” which Grudem also claims to be a necessary result of faith? How about the necessity of one’s “continuing to believe” as an extended meaning of “good works” (p. 20)? Think about the theological word games we’re playing here. If one is irreversibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit, placed into the spiritual body of Christ, and justified in God’s sight, how can those biblical teachings be put on hold until one has satisfactorily complied with God’s supposed condition for subsequent good works and the continuation of faith? It is a logical fallacy of the first magnitude to suggest that the resulting effect is the necessary cause of that effect? You can’t be your own grandfather, but those of Reformed, Dortian Calvinist persuasion who restate the flawed perseverance-of-the-saints-in-faith-and-practice doctrine would have to insist that you can, if their view of things were dragged to its logical conclusion.
The Reformed theological position (Grudem’s historical Protestantism) thus sees qualifying oneself for heaven as a process begun by faith and repentance and which necessarily works itself out in one’s lifelong performance (glaringly misinterpreting Philippians 2:11-12). For them, being born again consists not of simply believing in Christ for everlasting life (once for all), but it consists of faith plus repentance (human action or resolve to turn from sin) and then the successful completion of a lifelong obstacle course as the believer avoids the hindrances of sin in his path.
Grudem accurately quotes the Mission and Beliefs of the Free Grace Alliance: “The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification [before God] requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” and then he contradicts that statement asserting that repentance from sin is a “necessary part of saving faith” (p. 20, n. 4).[3] Of course, once more he insists that subsequent works must necessarily follow such faith-repentance.
Grudem goes on to express his concern about the understanding of justification by faith alone by proposing what he regards as four incorrect and/or harmful pastoral practices which result from Free Grace teaching.
- First, Grudem asserts that Free Grace leaves out the call to repentance in evangelistic messages. (Like that was a bad thing!)
Leaving out the call to repentance follows his idea that saving faith must include one’s repentance and not simply consist of only one’s faith. At least, by disagreeing he indicates that he understands the point. But he apparently does not recognize that a mental resolve to turn from sin, or actually turning from sin, is a decision in one’s mind and that this makes me-and-my-sin the issue rather than the proper object of faith—the person of Jesus Christ. Adding another such dimension or “part” of saving faith, which “part” focuses on something other than Christ, is an amalgamation to the remedy for eternal death, i.e., faith alone in Christ alone for everlasting life.
- Second, Grudem argues that Free Grace gives assurance to people who deny their previous faith in Christ.
By giving assurance to people who deny their previous faith in Christ he thinks that they might have “false assurance” and thus go to hell because of it. He presents a caricature of the Free Grace position by saying,
People who accurately understood the gospel and sincerely said they believed in Christ at some time in the past but now say that they no longer believe in Christ are likely to be still saved and we assure them that they are saved (because justifying faith is a onetime act) (p. 21).
Several misconceptions are communicated by that statement and need to be clarified.
1) God’s declaration of a person’s righteousness (justification) occurs at a single moment when a person believes in Christ and, so, would certainly have happened “at some time in the past.” When else could it have happened? But faith is not an act. Calling faith in Christ an act essentially puts faith in a works category and supplies the Reformed Protestant a ground for falsely accusing Free Grace advocates of “decisionism.”[4] Contrary to what historical Protestants may desire, the charge of being a “Decisionist” is more accurately aimed against them (Calvinists or Lordship Salvationists) because Grudem and others of that sort call for a decision to turn from sin, i.e., to repent and do good stuff. If such a repentance-decision is “part of saving faith” as Grudem claims, then saving faith must rightly be called decisionism according to his own definition.
2) There is a difference between someone who believes in Christ for everlasting life and is born again on that basis and the person who says he believed. The former could deny his faith for various reasons (mental disturbance, lack of proper discipleship or study of the word, an appealing cult that says one must work or repent to receive eternal life, family pressure, cultural pressure, persecution, fear, etc.). If a person has believed in Christ alone for everlasting life, even if he later apostatizes, he most certainly (based on God’s promise) has it, and irreversibly so. One cannot be un-born again.
3) It is not, therefore, a question of whether such a believer is “likely to be still saved,” but whether he has believed in the first place. The Free Grace response to a person who says he no longer believes is to ask the question as to whether he had believed in Christ alone for eternal life and to inquire into the details of that event, as well as to ascertain why he no longer believes. There are only two possibilities. (1) Either he has, as a believer, faltered in his growth and discipleship or he never believed in Christ alone for salvation. The remedy for him as a believer is to regain his confidence in Christ by studying God’s Word and being restored to fellowship. (2) If he never believed, the remedy would be to clarify the gospel offer and communicate the free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ alone apart from works, which gift is received only through faith in Him. The issue is not what a person says, but what he is. The issue is not whether he once “confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus,” but whether he believed internally and received justification from God as a result (cf. Rom 10:9-10).
- Third, Grudem rejects Free Grace for not warning the carnal Christian that he might not be saved.
He says that the Free Grace position fails to warn a “professing Christian” that his sinful conduct is an indication that he “may not be saved.” He disagrees with the very idea that such person may be “foolishly not living according to who he or she really is” (p. 21). If he “may not be saved” (i.e., if he’s unsaved), how could he, by not measuring up to someone’s standards, “not be living according to who he is”? But if he’s only a “professor,” and not a “possessor,” then he would be living up to what he really is because he would be an unsaved person).
Now let’s clarify our terms here. A professing Christian is simply a believer (i.e., a person who has believed in Christ alone for everlasting life and has been regenerated on that basis) who tells others (confesses, professes) thathe has believed in Christ for eternal life, i.e., that he is a Christian who has professed his faith! Such person by confessing Him has performed in such a way that should satisfy the historical Protestant that he is indeed saved: he has confessed![5] How could he not be saved, according to their view? But because Grudem holds that one must look at his own “evident works” (Puritans would call it “signs of grace”) to judge whether he’s saved or not. Such demands the question as to why Grudem thinks he needs to pronounce a person to be saved, may be saved, or not saved at all! This whole thing smacks of Roman Catholicism’s indulgences, venial and mortal sins, pronouncements of sainthood, when one gets out of purgatory, etc., etc. You can take the Protestant out of Catholicism, but it’s very hard to take the Catholicism out of the Protestant!
Grudem’s so-called historical Protestant view uses the term professing Christian to mean someone who is not a real Christian—someone who is not born again. This is his error, as is seen immediately above. He wants to say, apparently, that a professing Christian is an unbeliever who only says he is a Christian. This way of saying it confuses the issue.
A person who believes in Christ (whether spiritual or carnal) is irreversibly born again not because of what he does, says, or confesses, but rather because of Whom he has believed in. A person who only says he’s a Christian, but has not believed in Christ is not a professing Christian; he’s an unbeliever-who-professes-to-be-a-Christian-but-isn’t; or let’s just call him a lying deceiver! But to call him a professing Christian is to admit that he’s born again. See? Keep this in mind when reading Grudem or others of his variety because they constantly spin things to their advantage. This is just one example.
Grudem and other Reformed proponents seem compelled to raise themselves to a position of judging whether or not a person is regenerated by looking to their actions, confession, habits, and lifestyle. Confessing Jesus with one’s mouth is an act or deed. What if a person should believe in his heart, but fail to tell anyone? No one would know whether he’s a Christian or not and, therefore, the question of being a Christian would not arise. But if he did confess Christ, that confession (work/deed) would now need to be weighed against his other deeds/sins for the historical Protestant; and this would bring into doubt whether he is really a Christian. But who died and left the historical Protestant theologian in charge of warning a person who says that he is a believer that he may not be one? The Reformed sage uses the threat of going to hell as a means of behavior modification. This problem arises, of course, due to the legalist’s stipulation that good works must, of necessity, follow saving faith in one’s life. This is usually set forth by their insistence that, “Obedience is not an option.” In their view, without works no faith occurred and, thus, no eternal life was obtained.
- Fourth, Grudem disputes Free Grace giving assurance to those who continue in good works.
This criticism is somewhat abstruse. Here are his exact words on this point. You decide what he means:
This Free Grace understanding of “justification by faith alone” leads to several significant [undesirable?] pastoral practices [namely those practices discussed above this sub-point]…
In giving assurance to people who continue to produce good works. A professing Christian’s righteous and godly conduct of life (“good works”) should not ordinarily be used as one basis for giving that person assurance of salvation (pp. 20-21).
It’s hard to determine if Grudem is objecting to the Free Grace position or his own. It seems to say that one’s works are an outward expression which may or may not reflect one’s internal faith at any particular moment and that they are not needed for assurance of salvation. Or, this it might be his conclusion that the Free Grace position should give more assurance to people corresponding to their good works (which is his own view as explained in Chapter 3).
Since Grudem repeatedly uses the term professing Christian for anyone who is essentially a church-goer, and since church-goers may or may not be saved, he apparently sees every such church-goer as a person whose salvation is in question. In fact, in his view everyone’s salvation is in question to one degree or another, as will be seen. From his perspective the relative degree of one’s observable good works operate in direct proportion to one’s ability to identify a believer and/or for that believer to be assured of his salvation. The Free Grace position bases assurance on the promise of God to freely give irreversible eternal life to the one who simply believes in Christ for it. One’s assurance is not based on the relative success or failure in one’s Christian life, but on the absolute belief that God will do what he says. Scripture simply doesn’t teach that we may know we have eternal life to the extent that we do good works. God promises to give eternal life to those who simply believe, and he does so in an absolute sense. Therefore since eternal life is not based on works (good ones or otherwise), works should not be used as a basis for one’s assurance at all.
The conclusion of the above discussion is that the historical Protestant position, coming from the Calvinistic theology of the Reformation, does not draw its doctrine of salvation solely from the finished work of Christ and the absolute promise of God to give eternal life to those who simply believe in Him for it. Rather, they see every church-goer as only a potential saint who may or may not be an “elect,” depending on their success at the Christian life. Whether one has been elected to salvation is, in their view, only secretly known to God. That must be validated by the potential saint by a lifelong process of perseverance in faith, holiness, and obedience. But such teaching is not scriptural. Scripture calls into question the usefulness and fruitfulness of believers to the degree that they faithfully follow and obey the Savior, but it never questions whether a believer will finally attain heaven. Rather God promises the believer that he most certainly will. Grudem’s historical Protestant method is to raise fear and doubt about God’s promise which, in turn, furthers an underlying agenda of behavior control. It also brings the believer under the control of those who project their opinions as to who is saved or unsaved—a mild form of excommunication because the threat is going to hell. This method is inherited not only from the Roman Catholic fathers, but also from the Reformation fathers as well. Such is their post-mortem control of the Reformers over today’s “sheep” as applied by the current traditional historical Protestant legalists.
In concluding this section entitled “What is the Free Grace gospel?” Grudem uses the same undermining criticisms that is commonly used by Reformed folks against Dispensationalism, i.e., that dispensationalism is recent and therefore incorrect. Grudem refers to “that recent origin” (p. 21) of the Free Grace Movement as being from Zane Hodges during his tenure at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1959 to 1986. He continues to exercise this logical Fallacy of Appeal to the Majority to say that “only a minority of Dallas Seminary professors held a Free Grace view”[6] and bemoans the fact that “every year some students adopted his view” (p. 22). Of course, Grudem can’t help but know that others have recognized the fact that Calvinistic theology had added works to the free offer of eternal life long before Zane Hodges came along. For instance, compare the tribulation, turmoil, and disrespect experienced by Anne Marbury Hutchinson over the Free Grace issue at the hands of the Puritan Calvinists (primarily by Governor John Winthrop with the help of Puritan ministers) from 1633 to 1643 in the Massachusetts Bay colony and later in the Colony of Rhode Island (founded by Roger Williams after he had been expelled from Puritan Boston previously). She had essentially asserted that the Puritans Divines were wrong in requiring visible signs of grace to prove that one is an “elect” and said that if they needed to see visible signs of grace they probably had not ever experienced it.[7]
Consider her statement:
“One may preach a covenant of grace more clearly than another… But when they preach a covenant of works for salvation, that is not truth.” — Anne Hutchinson
B. Why Grudem does not use the term Lordship Salvation (pp. 22 – 26)
In this section Grudem attempts to separate himself from the “Lordship salvation” label arguing that both Free Grace and those who require acknowledgment of Christ’s Lordship (in the sense of boss, master, or ruler) over their lives
agree that Jesus is Lord in some sense and is not fully Lord of our lives in another sense. Trying to define precisely how much Jesus has to be acknowledged as Lord for genuine saving faith becomes an increasingly muddled task” (p. 23).
“Muddled” is right! And it’s his job to clear up the muddling. It’s good that Grudem at least recognizes that fact, but his argument follows the same thinking and presuppositions as Lordship Salvationists. What’s the difference between asking how much Jesus has to be acknowledged as Lord and asking how many sins or bad habits one needs to repent of? The Reformed view, whether it is called Lordship Salvation or historical Protestantism, must still deal with the question of quantification: How much repentance? How much obedience? How much lordship? Whenever the question of quantification arises, those who hold to a works-based salvation twist and turn in the wind. They chafe at the idea of having to answer the question how much.
And we could go on. How many good works are needed to be relatively sure you’re saved? Or, as here, how much does Jesus have to be acknowledged as Lord for genuine saving faith to occur? Well, if one follows the Calvinistic supposition to its logical conclusion, the question simply doesn’t matter because in their view God gives you the faith in the first place if you’re an “elect”; and then you assuredly will persevere to the end of life anyway! But Grudem has to deal with the issue from the Calvinistic, Reformed position. Whether one calls himself a Lordship Salvationist or a historical Protestant (as Grudem) his dilemma is the same. He says that defining how much Jesus has to be acknowledged as Lord causes the task to be “increasingly muddled.” But this is not a problem for the Free Grace understanding because quantification of Jesus’ lordship, one’s sins, or repentance in the believer’s life is not a determining factor for going to heaven or hell. Faith alone in Christ alone is the determining factor and being accepted by God is as simple as that. But the problem with Grudem’s position is that it began historically with the Protestant Reformers and has been a muddled, word-game theology ever since.
Grudem expresses his intention not to discuss Lordship Salvation throughout the rest of his book, and he doesn’t do so under that label. However, his preferred designation as a follower of historical Protestantism is essentially one and the same. What is the real difference, for example, in determining to turn from sin (repenting) and doing those necessary good works from determining to allow Jesus to be Lord of one’s life and determining to obey him? Both Grudem and Lordship Salvationists require the same thing. They just use different nomenclature. More word games. But, in deference to Grudem’s request, we shall call his view the historical Protestant position although there is no essential difference.
It is noted that while discussing Grudem’s taxonomy he seems to reluctantly accept the designation “Free Grace” for those against whom he is writing claiming that “all orthodox Protestants believe in free grace” (p. 25). Of course, this is not accurate. And if it were, why don’t they claim that name? Could it be that if they did they would feel like an antinomian or fear someone would call them that? Could it be that they fear being called the very term that they commonly use against those who actually believe that God’s grace and gift of eternal life is absolutely free? Do they fear being accused of holding to “cheap grace”? Do they not realize that what God offers freely is cheapened only by trying to pay for it by some sort of human performance (repentance, anticipatory preparation by turning from one’s sinful practices, confession, lordship promises, etc.) that somehow makes them acceptable to God?
Grudem continues by arguing that his position is supported by “most influential leaders and statements of faith in various branches of historical Protestantism, including representative Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal groups” (p. 25). So, he continues the logical fallacy of Appeal to the Majority or Appeal to the Experts rather than appealing to Scripture. He continues this fallacy in his next chapter (“Not the ‘Faith Alone’ of the Reformation”). He will make a major attempt to appeal to the Scriptures later on, but for now the mention of a lot of religious denominations fails to give any substantial support for the supposed truth of his position.
Finally, once again, Gruden expresses his “concerns” (p. 25) that 1) the “Free Grace movement is inconsistent with historic Protestant convictions” (pp. 25-26) and 2) it “has harmful consequences in the church today” (p. 26). To his first concern one might ask, “So what?” Historical Protestantism was inconsistent with Roman Catholicism, too, but that fact didn’t make them either right or wrong. In fact, historical Protestantism retained much RCC baggage. Some of it was true, but some was false. To his second concern, it is yet to be seen if the supposed harmful consequences of the Free Grace view are proven or, rather, whether his traditional Protestant position has defiled the gospel by adding works as a requirement for saving faith. The consequences of walking in lockstep with the Reformers and their apprentices may indeed be what is harmful, even devastating. He promises further explanations of his “concerns about the practical consequences of Free Grace teaching” (p. 26, italics added).
“Roxy, stop being so obnoxious!” -Joy
“I’m never obnoxious; I’m just concerned.” -Roxy
― Katie MacAlister, in Sex and the Single Vampire
“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment”— Albert Einstein
Chapter 1
Not the “Faith Alone” of the Reformation, For Sure!
Allegation: “The Free Grace movement does not teach the Reformation doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone.’”(p. 27)
FG Answer: Correct! That’s because the Reformers unwittingly added human performance into their understanding of “justification by faith alone.”
Initial Remarks (pp. 27 – 28)
Grudem’s concern for this chapter is stated under its title: “The Free Grace movement does not teach the Reformation doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’” (p. 27). According to Grudem’s understanding of “faith alone” he is correct, at least to the extent that the quotations he uses throughout the chapter pretty much represent the essence of Reformed soteriology. The disparity of his understanding of what faith alone means is accentuated when he says “[T]he Free Grace movement teaches a novel and distorted view of justification by faith alone, a view that was never taught by the great leaders of the Protestant Reformation” (p. 27). Grudem sees the Free Grace idea that “faith alone” means really alone as “novel and distorted” against the teachings of those he considers to be “great leaders.” It would seem that Grudem has been so indoctrinated into the Reformed doctrine that he has disoriented himself from the Reformed insistence on Sola Scriptura and has replaced that teaching with what might be called Sola Reformersa.[8] A fish in water can’t sense that he’s all wet, and neither can someone infused and suffused with historical Protestantism sitting in a library of Reformed theology books and commentaries! Naturally Free Grace teaching would feel novel, distorted, harmful, and even deadly (much like the fish would feel when yanked out of his environment and encouraged to take deep breaths). The question is not Grudem’s feeling that Free Grace is novel and distorted but whether Free Grace is a common-sense understanding of biblical soteriology. It’s whether those great leaders of the Reformation rightly divided the Word or whether they misunderstood passages having to do with usefulness and fruitfulness in one’s Christian life considering those passages to be tests of saving faith. The novelty and supposed distortion of the Free Grace view only seems that way because present-day historical Protestants (whatever their ilk) continue to confuse passages dealing with everlasting life with passages dealing with faithful, useful Christian life and with eternal rewards (in eternity) as being a consequence of an close abiding fellowship with Christ and of faithful obedience to Him. The difference can be charted:
| Reformed, Lordship, or “Historical Protestant” Soteriology | Dispensational or Free Grace Soteriology | |
| Repentance and good works must be somehow included in faith as a requirement for everlasting life. | Faith alone in Christ alone is the only condition for eternal life. Eternal salvation is by God’s grace alone. | Faithfulness, repentance, and good works can only come after justification and are necessary for everlasting rewards. Eternal rewards are merited by performance. |
Failure to recognize the difference in these two positions is much like the disparity of worldviews between evolutionist and young-earth creationist proponents. Both are sure they are right and both have the same biological, geological, or astrological phenomena. But neither is willing to accept the assumptions of the other.
Following Reformed theology, Grudem argues that the statement, “We are justified by faith alone but the faith that justifies is never alone” (p. 28, italics his) is true.[9] Why? He argues that this is what Calvin said and what the Reformers and their confessions held. He categorically asserts that the latter half of that statement “means that other things always accompany saving faith” and goes on to say, “saving faith is always followed by changes in a person’s conduct of life” (p. 28, italics added). He further extrapolates from that statement when he says, “saving faith is never alone in a person, for some good works will always accompany saving faith in a person’s life and will be seen after a person comes to faith (p. 28, italics his). His next paragraph says:
Therefore the Reformers always took “faith alone” to mean that faith is the only thing that God responds to. But historic Protestant teaching from the Reformation onward has never taken “faith alone” to mean “faith that occurs by itself in a person, unaccompanied by other human activities” (the Free Grace view) (p. 28, italics his).
Grudem expresses his idea clearly. But one might ask at this point that if God only responds to faith alone, “Why it is necessary to argue that it doesn’t occur by itself in a person?” For Grudem to suggest that faith is never “unaccompanied by other human activities” is the same thing as saying that this faith must be accompanied by human works. While human works are necessary to Roman Catholicism and with Grudem’s historical Protestantism, it is completely and categorically opposite to what the Bible teaches (i.e., that eternal salvation is a gift of God by His grace through faith—faith in Jesus for everlasting life).
In the former chapter we touched upon the difference as to what might accompany saving faith and what is required as a condition for it to be saving faith. As indicated earlier, a lot of things may accompany faith in Christ for eternal life without being a necessary condition for one’s regeneration to occur. God does respond to “faith alone” and other accompanying things are ancillary and nonessential. Adding supplementary, nonessential things to faith as a necessity requires that faith not be alone! If faith in Christ alone is what God responds to, then faith plus some other required condition wouldn’t be faith alone. What’s not to understand? Methinks Grudem has misrepresented the Free Grace position by focusing on what things may or may not accompany faith and by making them a necessary additional works-requirement for reception of eternal life.
A. Have Protestant leaders throughout history consistently disagreed with the Free Grace Position? (pp. 28-32)
[1] The use of the adjective some as in “some sacrifice,” “some ritual,” “some means of grace” is a rhetorical device Grudem uses at times to depreciate the word which it qualifies in an attempt to reduce its seeming relevance. This technique may be useful if the qualified word is indeed irrelevant. But if the word it qualifies is relevant, the use of the depreciating word some serves to send the reader or hearer off on a rabbit trail by diverting the issue. This is properly identified as the Logical Fallacy of The Red Herring.
[2] This is similar to what most Dortian Calvinists do when they place one’s regeneration prior to one’s faith in Christ. The constraint of the TULIP doctrine of Calvinism requires that the Holy Spirit apply regeneration or impose life on the sinner in order to triumph over his supposed inability to believe in Christ. Such teaching is not derived from Scripture, but is a fabrication of the Calvinist (or Reformed) system.
[3] The entirety of the Mission and Beliefs of the Free Grace Alliance and other doctrinal statements may be found in Appendix 2.
[4] Decisionism is the idea that a person can or does decide to believe in Christ. Generally Free Grace advocates deny that an active decision-making process is involved, but that when one is convinced of the truth of the gospel message and God’s free offer of everlasting life, faith in Christ passively occurs internally and the believer is regenerated and guaranteed non-ending eternal life.
[5] Almost universally Romans 10:9-10 is used to add one’s confession as still another work or deed, along with faith, as a requirement for reception of eternal life. Most interpret this passage to indicate that along with belief, one must confess Jesus openly and call on his name for eternal-life-salvation. Such a misunderstanding effectively ignores the context of Romans 9—11. That subject will be discussed later. See Appendix 7 for additional insight on this discussion.
[6] Grudem, also uses the fallacy by saying “I have been surprised how many Christian leaders in various parts of the world have said to me, ‘I’m glad you’re writing about this’ (p. 22). One wonders if these were similar-thinking historical Protestants as well.
[7] Elizabeth Ilgenfritz, Anne Hutchinson (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1991); Eve LaPlante, American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson, the Woman who Defied the Puritans (San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 2004); Selma R. Williams, Divine Rebel: The Life of Anne Marbury Hutchinson (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981). Also consider viewing the following YouTube videos for a brief explanation of Hutchinson’s history and trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMllFouri0c
[8] A little pseudo-Latin humor there.
[9] See a most excellent book dealing specifically with Calvin’s cliché, “It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone”: Fred R. Lybrand, Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence (Xulon Press, 2009), 297 pages.