Why Classic Free Grace Theology
Faith alone plus nothing? Yes! Why Not!?! Jesus is the Only One Who Can Save
The third key doctrinal distinctive I emphasize is what is called classic free grace theology. If you are an unbeliever, the message of classic free grace theology is for you (and I encourage you to watch this video about Jesus). It is also for the Christian. Thomistic philosophy lays the groundwork for revelation and God’s existence. Traditonal dispensationalism lays down interpretive principles as well as key perspectives on the people of God. The present distinctive builds in many ways on dispensationalism, but more importantly it concerns the gospel of individual salvation. I believe it brings a more faithful understanding of faith and works than the Protestant tradition has held, and certainly more biblical than Catholic or Eastern Orthodoxy.
The Historical Context
Free grace theology has been called “The Dallas Doctrine,” a reference to Dallas Theological Seminary. The three major free grace theologians cited in the early stages of a disagreement among Protestants about the teaching were Lewis Sperry Chafer, Zane C. Hodges, and Charles C. Ryrie. It is true that most free grace theologians would probably concede that it has never been a majority position in the non-Catholic and non-Eastern Orhtodox church. However, when I think of how Martin Luther held at some times to the principle of faith alone to the point of even questioning the book of James’s validity as a book of the Bible, it give me some reassurance that there may be something to the emphases of free grace theology. In the last forty years since the Lordship salvation controversy, Zane C. Hodges and his group has moved in some even more novel directions I am not comfortable with. People like me have more gently developed the trajectory of Chafer and Ryrie, with some modifications, and that is where the term “classic free grace” theology comes in.
What is Classic Free Grace Theology?
The term classic free grace (emphasis mine) comes from a landmark work originally titled Freely By His Grace: Classical Free Grace Theology (now republished with the subtitle “Classical Grace Theology”). This flavor of free grace theology stands against the direction that previously mentioned Zane Hodges took his movement (The Grace Evangelical Society). Some of the most important groups that espouse the kind of classic free grace theology I would lean toward include Duluth Bible Church, MN; True Grace Books; Tyndale Theological Seminary, Hurst, TX; and Chafer Theological Seminary, Albequerque, NM.
Dr. Michael S. Stallard in an essay in the book summarizes the free grace movement as a whole in this way (page 343):
The free grace movement has generally been known for its staunch defense of sola fide [faith alone]. More particularly, it can be said that it possesses a reputation for its zealous pursuit and biblical critique of two distinct but related problems in theology: (1) any view of the gospel presentation that undermines salvation by grace through faith, and (2) any view of progressive sanctification that leads to a distortion of the doctrine of salvation and the weakening of the biblical view of assurance of salvation.
He also adds in a footnote (Page 343n2):
The Free Grace movement is not a monolithic group in which every member walks lockstep with others on every fine point of theology even in the area of the doctrine of salvation. Members disagree on the nature and role of repentance, the elements necessary for a gospel presentation, how to view good works as evidence of regeneration, and how to interpret various passages about rewards, to name a few areas.
That list of areas of possible disagreement outline there are differences of opinion in some areas. However, I do believe free grace manifests in theology as a mood and an emphasis that is very different than mainstream conservative Protestant Christianity, and it certainly is different than Catholic teaching. There are a handful of points to consider about classic free grace, but the first one concerns the condition of salvation - faith and faith only.
No Additions to Faith in the Condition of Salvation
We emphasize that faith and faith alone is the only condition of salvation. Faith is understood as simple belief that Jesus Christ, who is the son of God, died and rose again for our salvation and to trust that work since he promised to save us by it. I believe that philosophical categories do need to nuance how this faith is understood for fallible humans, but in broad I agree with the impulse of free grace’s explanation of what faith is. It certainly does not include obedience to God’s ethical demands (”obedient faith”), but rather the act of faith is the first and only act of obedience for the unbeliever. We must obey the gospel by trusting in Jesus alone.
Lewis Sperry Chafer classically emphasized contrasted this view with several false views of additions (See volume 3 of his systematic theology, chapter 20). He treats the problems of (1) repent and believe, (2) believe and be baptized, (3) believe and confess Christ, (4) believe and surrender to God, (5) believe and confess sin with restitution, and (6) believe and beg God to save. Free grace theology of all stripes view all of these except the first one as false additions to faith alone. As I understand the situation, some of these additions may naturally accompany faith alone by manifesting themselves (i.e. one may trust Christ but still pray to him and “ask him” to save him). However, we strictly emphasize that a condition must be limited to what is necessary - and that faith is what is necessary. Baptists agree baptism is not strictly speaking necessary for salvation. The addition of confessing Christ tripped me up for years, being afraid if I was not “confessing Christ” before men by witnessing to every person I saw. The issue of believe and surrender to Christ as Lord is where this system of theology found attack from John MacArthur with a book in the 1980s. While not unique to him, his position came to be called “Lordship salvation,” or “discipleship salvation.” It links discipleship to Christ in life and faith so strongly that the call to “follow Christ” in the gospels is part of faith. I disagree, viewing the call to discipleship as a matter separate from belief for salvation. One will naturally move toward serious discipleship after being saved, but classic free grace’s admission of the category of a carnal Christian (one who is living worldly, see later section) permits the possibility that all may not be disciples in a formal sense. On this point, dispensational distinctions I believe hold to key to properly situate the Lord’s calls to discipleship in a context of the kingdom being offered to the nation of Israel in Christ’s first advent. Therefore, these people Jesus called to follow him were not in the same situation as we are. Finally, One does not need to confess sin or even ask or beg God to save strictly speaking, as the issue is God’s willingness to save on faith. However, some of these may be part of what an average person may do. As long as they still trust only in Christ and not these additions, they can be saved and the condition of faith plus nothing is affirmed.
The matter of repentance is challenging one. There is more disagreement about how to understand the issue of repentance within free grace circles. I believe that not all repentance has the same context. But, Chafer is very helpful by noting that the kind of repentance needed for salvation is included in believing on Jesus. I prefer to view repentance and believe as synonyms in the eternal salvation context, while noting that one must have some sense that he needs saving before he will believe. Thus, I personally avoid “repent and believe” as the condition of salvation but could say “repent by believing on Jesus for salvation.” Many texts that refer to repent are ones that apply to Jewish people already part of the covenant. We point to the over 100 times, especially in the gospel of John, where the only condition of salvation is faith. Acts 17:30--”God now commands all people everywhere to repent,” spoken by Paul in the Greek city Athens--is an exception where I see faith not mentioned but repent is a synonym for faith. Finally, note that 2 Corinthians 7 includes a detailed description of repentance, but the recipients are already believers. Therefore, we should not force the description there as applicable to the repentance included in salvation. Ryrie in his book So Great a Salvation also includes a chapter on this subject. Certainly, though, one must repent in the sense of changing his mind to admit he is a sinner and needs a savior if he is to put trust in Christ alone. A second area merits consideration, and that is the area of faith and works after salvation
The James 2 Question
Roman Catholic theology might tend to communicate the idea “we are justified by faith and works,” perhaps (I am likely oversimplifying but I stand by it). The traditional, developed Protestant understanding of faith and work is to say “we are justified by faith alone, and the faith that justifies is never alone.” The older stream of classic free grace theology in Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie did not disagree with this traditional Protestant perspective. Chafer refers to works as a normal evidence for saving faith (in his book Grace), and Ryrie refers to a “two-coupon ticket” of faith and works that assumes that faith is valid only if it has works (in his book Basic Theology).
In spite of these, there is a newer school of thought within free grace theology to argue that when the book of James says “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24) the point is to show ones faith in God concerning matters outside of eternal salvation. Thus, the examples of James 2 of Abraham (from Genesis 22) and Rahab (Joshua 2) show that they were justified or vindicated before men concerning their faith in God in proceeding to sacrifice his son in obedience to God or protecting the spies of Jericho. The matter was not even Rahab or Abraham’s eternal salvation or faith in God to save them. Proponents of this approach to James point out that the author refers to the recipients as believers (e.g. James 1:16 which calls them “my dear brothers and sisters”). I also recently heard a free grace theologian argue that the point of James 2:24 this way: “a person is justified by works [in that men see their works of faith after salvation] and not by faith alone [in that justification one achieves before God the moment of salvation]” (parenethetical comments are mine). It’s at least a possibilty. I certainly do not believe that free grace theology applies to the demonic belief in monotheism (James 2:19). We argue that saving faith in Christ alone is something more than demonic belief in monotheism. But that it is still trust in Christ alone.
One critic of Lordship salvation pointed out that the less important issue in this controversy is the results of salvation and that the more important issue is the terms of salvation. In that light, I emphasize first the issue of no additions to faith. However, the critic I think does miss that there has been some degree of development within classic free grace teaching that questions whether this traditional idea of “the faith that justifies is never alone” is actually true. I am sympathetic to the newer argumentation concerning James 2. A third big-picture area merits consideration.
Sanctification Focused on Positional Truth with Personal Responsibility
Classic free grace theology frequently depends on a model of sanctification explained by Lewis Sperry Chafer. In this model, there is a clear affirmation that, even if works are viewed as the natural test of saving faith, there is a legitimate category of a carnal Christian (1 Corinthians 3:1) and a spiritual Christian (e.g. Galatians 6:1). Tightly connected to this is the concept that at any given moment one can be rightly related to the Spirit of God and thus spiritual or can be wrongly related to the Spirit of God and thus being carnal. Certainly, the state of living according to the flesh (”carnally”) is not desirable. It is not normal. However, I believe in their heart of hearts critics of this kind of teaching know the possibility of themselves or those they teach being a carnal Christian. Most Reformed approaches to salvation concede the possibility of death as the final chastisement of a believer for living in sin (though they may also hold such a person is simply a false Christian) - in this admission, they tacitly admit the very point here that a state of carnality is possible.
The real insight in classic free grace theology concerning how we grow is that it is rooted much more strongly in (1) a recognition of our position in Christ, and (2) the recognition that we do not lose our old sin nature. These points mean that we can live spiritually immediately, today, even as the Spirit works to grow us through life as we respond with being yielded to Him. The Chafer model of sanctification summarizes our responsibilities as to be (1) walk in dependence on the Spirit (Galatians 5:18), (2) greive not the Spirit by overt sin, walking in the light of confessing our sin when it is known (Ephesians 4:30; c.f. 1 John 1:9 on confession), and (3) quench not the Spirit by not yielding to his leading in the intangibles of life (Chafer cites 1 Thessalonians 5:19 for this point). These commands are the heart of Chafer’s model of sanctification. While this model is not synonymous with classic free grace theology, classic free grace emphasizes these kind of things as it has been developed. I don’t mean to suggest there is full unanimity among classic free grace theology on sanctification either, but this summary outlines the way they tend to approach things.
The Importance of Assurance of Salvation and Future Rewards for Motivation
The two biggest practical factors that free grace theology brings concern two areas that matter to many. They concern the assurance of salvation and the proper motive for living Christian lives. We understand that one should be able to recognize that on account of their trust in Jesus’ work they are saved permanently, regardless of works. If one applies fruit tests for eternal life, it can create a much more complex situation concerning one’s confidence in his salvation and security from hell. I do believe works can play a role in assuring us, as we recognize the great transformation God has done in us. However, people can pretend to reform themselves. In places where the church is stronger, it is easier to pretend Christian works. By placing the focus on whether one has believed, assurance can be more easily attained though everyone is different.
Furthermore, the security engendered by having assurance of one’s salvation apart from works and wholly on Christ’s perfect work lays a better foundation for works. The belief that we are secure apart from works but that we will be rewarded for our good works done in faith at the judgment seat of Christ is a more appropriate motivator than fear of hell (see 2 Corinthians 5:10 on the judgment seat of Christ). It leads to real fruit, rather than legalistic obedience that is not pleasing to God. We can be rewarded for our good, and if we don’t do good deeds we may lose our opportunity for the prize but we are still saved since we were justified or declared righteous when we believed (c.f. 1 Corinthians 3:15).
The Criticism of a License to Sin
I have an old article that addresses the question of sin and whether free grace theology promotes a loose attitude toward sin in one’s life or in other’s lives. This approach has been falsely described as meaning that grace has no demands with it at all. This is patently false. In fact, on this point, I just point out that some Reformed theologians (it may have been Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a preacher from England) have rightly observed from the book of Romans that the way to know you’re preaching the true gospel is you are subjected to the criticism of license (the big word is “antinomianism” or “against law”). Paul certainly was subject to this criticism based on the answering of the accusations in Romans 3 and Romans 6. I understand why to some minds, accusing free grace theology of giving permission for people to sin is reasonable. However, when you think like this, you have far more in common with Roman Catholic criticisms of justification by faith alone. Only if you assume an attitude of fruit inspection that a Christian must persevere to the end does this issue carry the kind of weight it does for many conservative Christians. They are rightly concerned about the worldliness of people who name the name of Christ. Like Paul said, “The Lord knows those who are his,, and let everyone who calls on the name of the Lord turn away from wickedness.” If we must be told to “turn away from wickedness,” does it not show that believers have a responsibility to depart from sin and that is not automatic even if it is logical that it would naturally happen? I share the fear of false conversions, but what if people are mistakenly understanding that they have to rely on their works if works must follow faith? The danger of false conversion remains.
One needs to grow in his recognition that there can be multiple categories. We are truly justified by simple faith in Christ alone. What happens after does not necessarily matter since in justification we are eternally declared righteous. You also equally as a child of God receive new responsibilities. On the matter of sin and classic free grace theology, I point to the chapter I quoted from at the beginning “Sin and Classical Free Grace Theology” in the book Freely By His Grace to show how we are hardly soft on sin. Others, I think, use this theological system to justify a wrong strategy to permit license. However, such approaches are unfaithful to classic free grace theology itself. They have more in common with a loose attitude toward the Christian life that has far more in common with the seeker sensitive church movement than with classic free grace theology.
Conclusion
There is much ground to cover in the effort to develop, defend, and proclaim classic free grace theology. I ask why would we fail by emphasizing that we are saved truly by faith alone? We have opportunity once saved to give instruction about the need to live a holy life. We don’t have to front-load the gospel with works with clever terminology. However, I would just say classic free grace theology has made such a difference in my life. It has brought clarity on grace, and I have never lost the edge of the ethical motivation to life righteously. While I am still learning how to apply its model of sanctification, classic free grace theology is the best approach to promote a spiritual life and growth in godliness. I believe Thomistic philosophy is important for classic free grace to nuance a proper understanding of faith for fallible human beings that recognizes levels of certainty. Traditional dispensationalism supports the recognition of distinctions in Scripture based on literal interpretation that make one more open to the recognition of different categories such as in Romans and in James. Since classic free grace theology affirms the duty of holiness for true believers, it aligns precisely with the impulse of fundamentalism’s call for a separation from worldliness. It also aligns perfectly with the Baptist view that church discipline should be taken on sinning members. The solution for the lack of holiness of the church is not to make the terms of salvation more difficult - it is to more faithfully practice church discipline, and let God be the final judge of whether that person is saved and carnal or not. Classic free grace theology preserves the gospel, indeed magnifies the gospel, and lays the foundation for Christians to live holy lives.
Books on Classic Free Grace Theology
I may receive an affiliate commission from purchasing using any links below. You support The New York Theologian by purchasing using these links
Basic
Faith & Works: A Clarification of James 2:14–26 by Dennis Rokser (Free download from Duluth Bible Church or Amazon paperback)
What I Want to Do, I Don’t Do...: I’m Saved But Struggling With Sin. Is Victory Available? Romans 6–8 by Dennis Rokser (Free download of an older version from Duluth Bible Church or Amazon paperback)
Just Don’t Do It!: How Not to Live the Christian Life by Grace by Dennis Rokser (Free download of an older version from Duluth Bible Church or Amazon paperback)
He That Is Spiritual by Lewis Sperry Chafer (Free download from Lewissperrychafer.org or Amazon paperback and Kindle)
Intermediate
So Great Salvation by Charles C. Ryrie (Amazon paperback or Kindle)
Advanced
Freely by His Grace edited by J. B. Hixson, Rick Whitmire, and Roy B. Zuck (Amazon paperback and Kindle)