Harm of following "Free Grace" Theology

[Dr. Bob]

On an unrelated thread the question was asked me, "Do you hold to Free Grace theology?" We all love the gospel and seek honestly to understand God's grace and what faith involves. But a movement a couple decades back pushed "Free Grace". I thought, "If it isn't FREE, it isn't GRACE". But sadly, that is not what they were talking about.

At the heart of the gospel is the nature of saving faith. How does saving faith relate to repentance? Does it always produce good works? Should we ever doubt our faith is genuine? And what does it mean to say we’re justified by faith alone? Do we even understand what "alone" means?

“Free Grace” Theology refers to a specific set of teachings centered around not understanding what it means to be justified by faith alone. Key word: "alone". Is biblical saving faith simply saying "I believe in Jesus" or is there more? It is ALONE, but WHAT is alone? Two questions arise:

1 - Is repentance from sin (remorse, resolve to forsake) a necessary part of real, saving faith?
2 - Do good works and continued belief demonstrate real, saving faith?

The Bible teaches YES to both questions; Free Grace theology argues NO to both. This sounds like a good topic to tackle. Gracefully. We are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ, NOT the "enemy". And family wants to protect family from error or danger.

 

[Deacon]

As with every faction, there are extremes at both ends of the debate. There are some outspoken proponents of “free grace theology” that have taken their theology too far, But then there are also those proponents of “Lordship Salvation” that have jumped the shark. I’m somewhere in the middle, strongly leaning towards “free grace.”

It is important to identify the terms used in the debate, and as Dr. Bob pointed out, repentance is one of those terms.

Simply said, repentance is a turning (there are books written that define repentance). Our Scriptures use a variety of word pictures to describe it. The Apostle John pictures repentance as turning away from darkness to light.
To believe in Jesus or trust in him is to turn away from the fleshly and embrace the Spirit (Jn 3).

So how does one know they are saved?
“Lordship Salvation” puts the cart before the horse. Assurance is based upon works.One knows they are saved because they act differently.
A believer is saved because they trust in Jesus; assurance of salvation is based upon what God promises he will do.

If our assurance was based upon what we do, the question would be, “How much is necessary for me to be assured of my salvation?”
Leading a believer into a works-based salvation or at least a works-based assurance of salvation.

I know myself; I can find no assurance that my works are worthy of meeting any standard for salvation. I don’t measure up. Only through Jesus can I approach the throne of God.

Rob

 

[Zaatar71]

On an unrelated thread the question was asked me, "Do you hold to Free Grace theology?" We all love the gospel and seek honestly to understand God's grace and what faith involves. But a movement a couple decades back pushed "Free Grace". I thought, "If it isn't FREE, it isn't GRACE". But sadly, that is not what they were talking about.

At the heart of the gospel is the nature of saving faith. How does saving faith relate to repentance? Does it always produce good works? Should we ever doubt our faith is genuine? And what does it mean to say we’re justified by faith alone? Do we even understand what "alone" means?

“Free Grace” Theology refers to a specific set of teachings centered around not understanding what it means to be justified by faith alone. Key word: "alone". Is biblical saving faith simply saying "I believe in Jesus" or is there more? It is ALONE, but WHAT is alone? Two questions arise:

1 - Is repentance from sin (remorse, resolve to forsake) a necessary part of real, saving faith?
2 - Do good works and continued belief demonstrate real, saving faith?

The Bible teaches YES to both questions; Free Grace theology argues NO to both. This sounds like a good topic to tackle. Gracefully. We are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ, NOT the "enemy". And family wants to protect family from error or danger.

Good Thread! Biblical Salvation is a confessing of The Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Repentance and faith are part of the salvation that is granted unto us. Peter made it clear in Acts2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. His Lordship is never in question. Some attempt to turn "free Grace" into cheap grace. This involves taking short cut's when holiness is involved. That is not a good idea! Saving faith is a faith that works, because God works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure.

 

[Dr. Bob]

To believe in Jesus or trust in him is to turn away from the fleshly and embrace the Spirit (Jn 3).

Our missionary to Japan decades ago said the biggest issue with presenting the Gospel there is that people will BELIEVE in Jesus as Savior but not repent and cast aside their other gods (Shinto, ancestors, et al)

Faith in Jesus as Savior is NOT identical with true holy Spirit induced repentance. Turning around, remorse, a new leaf, regret - those are the world's COUNTERFEIT of biblical repentance.

Biblical repentance is a part of biblical faith. What the missionary was seeing was faith that was NOT biblical saving faith, but artificial

 

[David Lamb]

On an unrelated thread the question was asked me, "Do you hold to Free Grace theology?" We all love the gospel and seek honestly to understand God's grace and what faith involves. But a movement a couple decades back pushed "Free Grace". I thought, "If it isn't FREE, it isn't GRACE". But sadly, that is not what they were talking about.

At the heart of the gospel is the nature of saving faith. How does saving faith relate to repentance? Does it always produce good works? Should we ever doubt our faith is genuine? And what does it mean to say we’re justified by faith alone? Do we even understand what "alone" means?

“Free Grace” Theology refers to a specific set of teachings centered around not understanding what it means to be justified by faith alone. Key word: "alone". Is biblical saving faith simply saying "I believe in Jesus" or is there more? It is ALONE, but WHAT is alone? Two questions arise:

1 - Is repentance from sin (remorse, resolve to forsake) a necessary part of real, saving faith?
2 - Do good works and continued belief demonstrate real, saving faith?

The Bible teaches YES to both questions; Free Grace theology argues NO to both. This sounds like a good topic to tackle. Gracefully. We are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ, NOT the "enemy". And family wants to protect family from error or danger.

That is very helpful. Like you, I believe that grace must be free, or it isn't grace. But it seems from what you say that some use the term "Free Grace Theology" to mean that repentance and good works do not necessarily accompany salvation. I think the term "Free Grace" has a meaning depending on where you live. Here in the UK, the term seems to be used simply to refer to God's grace in saving sinners. For example, Pemberton Free Grace Church says on its website in the section about what they believe:

"Pemberton Free Grace Church is associated to Grace Baptist Assembly and the FIEC and as such adheres to the Grace Baptist Affirmation of Faith of 1966. "

FIEC is the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, whose beliefs include repentance and good works as accompanying salvation. The Affirmation of Faith referred to, and Grace Baptist Assembly similarly see the need for repentance and good works, not to earn salvation, but to accompany/follow salvation. For instance, the Affirmation has the following about repentance:

"The Doctrine of Salvation​

1. Conversion​

WE BELIEVE that conversion results from effectual calling, and is the state in which the new nature implanted in regeneration becomes active, so that the called persons are consciously involved in salvation, and turn to God.
Conversion always includes the vital elements of repentance and saving faith.
Repentance:
God commands all men everywhere to repent. True repentance is a Spirit-wrought change both of mind and will, which brings a personal conviction of sin, a true sorrow for it and a turning from it. This repentance is experienced in different ways and at different times in the lives of the children of God, and increases in depth as the Holy Spirit reveals some fresh aspect of the corruptions of human nature.
Repentance is not necessarily and exclusively sorrow for particular sins committed by the individual, nor is it only remorse. It is the continuing work of the Holy Spirit leading to Christ, creating a consciousness of the sinfulness of the heart and life, and of failure to reach God’s perfect standard.
Acts 17:30; 1 Thess. 1 :9-10; Acts 20:21; 26:16-18; Isa. 6:5; Luke 18:13; 2 Cor. 7:10."

 

[Deacon]

Wayne Grudem wrote a book a few years back, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways' it Diminishes the Gospel.
I often recommend Grudem's Systematic Theology Text (I still do), but with this book he failed to live up to his standard.

At the start, Grudem distances himself from the term, "Lordship Salvation." He doesn't use the term in the book.
Apparently the term carries some dirty connotations that Grudem didn't want to launder.
So Grudem picked a fight against Free Grace theologians without addressing the weaknesses of its theological opponent.
And I found it interesting that his primary means of attack was not Scripture, but the writings of the Westminster divines.

The book actually pushed me further into the Free Grace position. In the years since it was published there have been many books countering Grudem's charges against FGT.

While it's true that we judge people by their works, God looks on the heart. He knows his own.
Free Grace Theology believes that God is fully sufficient to save those that are lost.
We can have full assurance that once saved, we are his children.
This assurance produces good works. One should not be assured because of their good works, for even the unsaved can do good.

God's free grace produces a transformation in the believer.
I walked one way as an unbeliever, I walk a different path now.
This doesn't deny that life is a battle field, but loosing a battle doesn't mean I loose the assurance that God is all-sufficient.

Rob

 

[atpollard]

As a featherweight layman weighing in among those with more education and training then myself, I would like to offer an outsider's observation. This is one area where we "gross sinners" (like the Centurion) are at a small advantage over those that were "raised in the faith" (like Timothy). There was a time before I knew Christ when I embraced "Nihilism" ... not merely as a belief, but as a lifestyle: I set enemies on fire before they had a chance to shoot me.

Thus for me, the REALITY of Jesus Christ - the reality of his "offer that I could not refuse" (effective immediately, you belong to me; your old life is no more and your new life belongs to me - Christ - instead of you.) - created a REAL empirical change in ... well, everything. So for me, the concept of "believing" and not being "changed" is nonsensical. From my empirical experience, one cannot MEET GOD and leave the encounter less than completely transformed.

So words like "GRACE" (unmerited favor) get a 'Hell Yeah' [I mean AMEN!] and concepts like "saved but unchanged" get a 'What The Heck' [I mean "Esta loco en la cabeza?"] Those raised in the faith may be "at an advantage in every way" as Paul says of the Jews that were given the words of God in the OT, but in the small matter of an "Ebeneezer" of the transformative "turn around" (repentance) we pagans may have the advantage of a stone that can be seen for miles and miles. [Probably because we needed it.]

Just some thoughts from the peanut gallery.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

God's free grace produces a transformation in the believer.
I walked one way as an unbeliever, I walk a different path now.
This doesn't deny that life is a battle field, but loosing a battle doesn't mean I loose the assurance that God is all-sufficient.

Rob

This does not sound like free grace theology. They would say (as another member here does) that fruit does not result from faith, discipleship is optional, and that repentance is not part of the gospel (or they redefine it) and that a practicing homosexual/impenitent will enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you agree with these?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This does not sound like free grace theology. They would say (as another member here does) that fruit does not result from faith, discipleship is optional, and that repentance is not part of the gospel (or they redefine it) and that a practicing homosexual/impenitent will enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you agree with these?

I think this 'free grace theology' is an imposter. It bears no resemblance to what I understand as free grace. It resembles 'Sandemanianism,' an error that was common in Scotland in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Here's a link. What was Sandemanianism? | GotQuestions.org
The Lord Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" So if someone is claiming to be born again, but his life shows no evidence of it, he is saying that that which is born of the Spirit is still flesh.
I wrote an article on my blog a few years ago, which looks at some of the evidences of the New Birth. Some may find it helpful.

New Birth (9). Evidences of the New Birth

‘That which is born of the Spirit is spirit’ (John 3:6) We now come to the question of the proofs of the New Birth. If, as we have seen, being born again is the sovereign work of the…

marprelate.wordpress.com

 

[Van]

Saving faith is our individual faith as credited by God alone are righteousness. Any faith not credited is not saving faith.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I think this 'free grace theology' is an imposter. It bears no resemblance to what I understand as free grace. It resembles 'Sandemanianism,' an error that was common in Scotland in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Here's a link. What was Sandemanianism? | GotQuestions.org
The Lord Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" So if someone is claiming to be born again, but his life shows no evidence of it, he is saying that that which is born of the Spirit is still flesh.
I wrote an article on my blog a few years ago, which looks at some of the evidences of the New Birth. Some may find it helpful.

New Birth (9). Evidences of the New Birth

‘That which is born of the Spirit is spirit’ (John 3:6) We now come to the question of the proofs of the New Birth. If, as we have seen, being born again is the sovereign work of the…

marprelate.wordpress.com

"Free grace theology" is a very bad term for, what is in reality, false grace. Grace is absolutely free and given by God. But Zane Hodges, and those who promote his teachings, are anti-christs, they are enemies of God. That may sound scathing, but if you look into what he, and people like grace evangelical society teach, they absolutely merit it.

 

[Deacon]

... They would say (as another member here does) that fruit does not result from faith, discipleship is optional, and that repentance is not part of the gospel (or they redefine it) and that a practicing homosexual/impenitent will enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you agree with these?

Like I said, "...there are extremes at both ends of the debate".

Repentance has been understood in many various ways in history. In the early church repentance was linked with baptism (baptism being a symbol of the new life given in repentance [Acts 2:38]. Calvin and Luther saw repentance as a lifelong process stemming from the faith of a believer. Various definitions for repentance include a change in thinking, a turning from sin ... more recently it's been defined as a complete and total commitment to Christ's Lordship. Some make a distinction between the repentance necessary for salvation (establishing a relationship with God) and repentance for necessary for fellowship (maintaining communion with God).

I would say that neither fruit nor discipleship are required for salvation. They are however desired and even expected over time as an outcome of their faith.

The NT epistles are replete with admonitions for godly living. If good works came naturally to a believer, one would think that such guidance would be unnecessary.
But how much, or how little, doesn't concern one's salvation, it concerns one's sanctification.

And concerning a person's salvation, only God knows a person's heart.
We as participants in Christ's body only observe the outward expressions of a person's heart (their works).
As such, we are faulty gauges concerning a person's salvation.


~~~~~~~~

Marvelous grace of our loving Lord
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt.
Opening lines of Grace Greater Than Our Sin by Julia Harriette Johnston (1849-1919)

Free Grace Theology teaches that one should look to Christ for their assurance of salvation, rather than their works.

...present faithfulness is an unreliable basis for present assurance. Only future faithfulness can provide any grounds for assurance. But the future is always out there. Until one dies, one can always fall away. Present faithfulness is not firm footing for assurance of salvation. ...

What is being argued here is not whether a regenerate person should or should not have good fruit in his life. Obviously, he should have good fruit. But we are arguing that fruit is not the ground of his assurance, and if a person ever looks to his persevering fruit as the ultimate ground of assurance, he can never have assurance. We believe a person can have absolute assurance that he is born again the moment he believes. We can give him this assurance, not because of a change in his life that we can feel or see, but because we believe without doubt the promises of God that offer eternal life as a free gift to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior from his sins.
Anderson, David R. 2012. Free Grace Soteriology. Edited by James S. Reitman. Revised Edition. Grace Theology Press. p. 220.

Rob

 

[Dr. Bob]

Grudem's theological works were mentioned, so here is quick summary of his first chapters:

So-called "Free Grace" theology doesn’t accurately reflect the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone, which was often summarized in the formula “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone”. This means that even though faith is the only human act God responds to in justification (it’s alone in that sense), faith never exists alone in the believer since it always brings with it certain other aspects.

Since repentance appears in key New Testament summaries of the gospel message, even in places where faith isn’t explicitly mentioned (Luke 4:47; Acts 2:38) or Acts 20:21 that tie repentance and faith together, we must understand inherent in saving faith is a call to unbelievers to repent of their sins.

 

[JesusFan]

On an unrelated thread the question was asked me, "Do you hold to Free Grace theology?" We all love the gospel and seek honestly to understand God's grace and what faith involves. But a movement a couple decades back pushed "Free Grace". I thought, "If it isn't FREE, it isn't GRACE". But sadly, that is not what they were talking about.

At the heart of the gospel is the nature of saving faith. How does saving faith relate to repentance? Does it always produce good works? Should we ever doubt our faith is genuine? And what does it mean to say we’re justified by faith alone? Do we even understand what "alone" means?

“Free Grace” Theology refers to a specific set of teachings centered around not understanding what it means to be justified by faith alone. Key word: "alone". Is biblical saving faith simply saying "I believe in Jesus" or is there more? It is ALONE, but WHAT is alone? Two questions arise:

1 - Is repentance from sin (remorse, resolve to forsake) a necessary part of real, saving faith?
2 - Do good works and continued belief demonstrate real, saving faith?

The Bible teaches YES to both questions; Free Grace theology argues NO to both. This sounds like a good topic to tackle. Gracefully. We are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ, NOT the "enemy". And family wants to protect family from error or danger.

There are extremes in both so called Free Grace Theology and Lordship salvation positions, as those advocating for free Grace would hold that one be saved apart from good works and fruit evidence, as to their views sinners is saved very moment one professes jesus as Savior, and now having the Holy Spirit, should be growing up in faith and maturity, but not absolute requirement .
Extreme Lordship advocates that one is saved by the degree has managed to make Jesus Lord over ones life, as one famous catch phrase of their was "unless Jesus is lord over all, is really Lord over none" so assurance is based upon our degree and quality pf our works and obedience/behavior

 

[JesusFan]

Grudem's theological works were mentioned, so here is quick summary of his first chapters:

So-called "Free Grace" theology doesn’t accurately reflect the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone, which was often summarized in the formula “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone”. This means that even though faith is the only human act God responds to in justification (it’s alone in that sense), faith never exists alone in the believer since it always brings with it certain other aspects.

Since repentance appears in key New Testament summaries of the gospel message, even in places where faith isn’t explicitly mentioned (Luke 4:47; Acts 2:38) or Acts 20:21 that tie repentance and faith together, we must understand inherent in saving faith is a call to unbelievers to repent of their sins.

Extreme Lordship though seems to be stressing must repent of all known sinning, but is the repentance more towards a change of mind regarding we cannot save ourselves by our works and behavior, but thru grace of God alone?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Grudem (general summary) continues that such "Free Grace" gives many professing Christians a false assurance of salvation by promoting a faith that is dead - not including repentance, good works, and continuing in belie

Faith his historically included:
knowledge (notitia)
assent (assensus)
trust (fiducia)

"Free Grace" defines faith solely as intellectual assent to facts about Christ. This is "easy believism" that does NOT save.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I see the underemphasis on FAITH that makes salvation nothing more than saying "I believe" in Jesus can lead to false salvation, the easy believism. But also agree that the overemphasis on "Lordship" salvation can focus on works and that can lead to a false salvation.

The middle ground of REAL biblical faith alone (involving all parts of faith) is where I stand in this debate.

 

[JesusFan]

I see the underemphasis on FAITH that makes salvation nothing more than saying "I believe" in Jesus can lead to false salvation, the easy believism. But also agree that the overemphasis on "Lordship" salvation can focus on works and that can lead to a false salvation.

The middle ground of REAL biblical faith alone (involving all parts of faith) is where I stand in this debate.

The extreme side of both positions leave us with either saved but no real desire to grow and mature, or else with saved but always doubting if have obeyed and done enough

 

[Deacon]

So lets get down to where the rubber meets the road.

Grudem states that Free Grace Theology diminishes the gospel
Those that follow FGT proclaim that it magnifies the gospel.

How do the different positions affect the average Christian?

>>> Would there be a different response if a FG church member or a Lordship church member met someone who has fallen away and living in a degenerate state?

>>> In presenting the gospel to a non-believer, how would our presentations differ?

>>> In living a Christian lifestyle, how would I differ from a follower of Lordship Salvation?


From the very limited perspectives I've had of churches in my purview, in the churches that are FG the leadership tends to be less prone to legalism.
As a congregation, there is not much difference.

Rob