Why I disabled most of my previous articles

 This is a short post, but I I wanted to give this information to anyone who happens to see my blogspot. 
I temporarily disabled almost all of my non-historical articles some weeks ago, as I believe to need more time to study the Bible and exegesis in order to be able to bear the responsibility of publically teaching the Bible, as per James 3. While I am fully certain about the truth of Free Grace theology and Dispensationalism, I am still trying to work around other more detailed doctrines, and I am planning to do major work on the blog and perhaps revise my booklets after I feel that I have studied enough.

Free Grace Theology In The Landmark Baptists - Ben M Bogard (1868 – 1951)

Courtesy of the Arkansas State Archives

Ben M Bogard (1868 – 1951) was an influential Landmark Baptist and the founder of the "American Baptist Association". He was a strong critic of the ecumenical movement, believing that Baptists only form the "bride of Christ", going to the radical of teaching that although non-Baptists are saved by faith, they are in a sense "lower rank" Christians. This is a highly controversial view and is often criticized as being an appropriation of the Roman Catholic view of apostolic succession. This "Baptist brider" view is something which I view as clearly anti-scriptural.

However, I often make a point of exploring the writings and ideas of past figures to understand their perspectives. While reading Bogard's debate with Eugene S. Smith, I noticed that, in some respects, his views on eternal security closely aligned with the Free Grace view of assurance and perseverance.

For example, when Eugene S. Smith accused Bogard of trying to preach comfort to Christians, instead of arguing like John MacArthur that "our sanctification is our ground of assurance", Bogard instead replied:

"Well,— now, my friend said Bogard preaches the doctrine of assurance and safety. Yes, sir. In Hebrews 6:18,19, where it says that by "two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong assurance — strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast." A thing that is sure is not uncertain. A thing that is sure, is not unstable. The idea of saying a thing is sure and yet not sure. I preach the doctrine of assurance, indeed I do. Why, he said, I preach, me and my people, Smith and his people preach the doctrine of scare"

Bogard also continues:

"I would be the most miserable man on earth if I thought that I might go to sleep tonight and wake up in the morning in hell, because maybe I did something wrong today, unforgiven"

However, Eugene S. Smith argued that those who fall into sin certainly lose their salvation, as he argued that God would be allowing sin to exist without consequence if people were eternally secure. Yet, Bogard replied that God will discipline those who fall into sin, thus eternal security does not mean that we are consequence free:

"How could he lose it? Well, you say, "Hold on here— won't God punish them? Won't some people die in sin?" Well, I believe that even a preacher sometimes may be put to death on account of sin. Wasn't Moses put to death because he sinned? Yes, sir, God said, "You shan't enter into Palestine because you sinned." But Moses went to heaven— he was punished in the flesh for the sins of the flesh. In the ninth chapter of Mark we find Moses standing up there with Elijah, and Peter and James and John and he is up on the Mount of Transfiguration though he died in the wilderness on account of his sin. Uzza, one of God's men, touched the ark and was struck dead, but does he go to hell? Certainly not— God punishes in the flesh for the sins of the flesh and in I Corinthians 11:30, "For this cause some are weak and sickly among you and many sleep." In other words, people are punished in the flesh for the sins of the flesh— even sometimes causing them to die and cutting off a career that was not finished because of their sins, like it was in the case of Moses"

Bogard even affirmed that Christians who fall into heresy may be saved:

"Well, some erred concerning the faith, made mistakes concerning the faith— don't say they lost salvation"

What I also found interesting was Bogard's understanding of Hebrews 6, as he denies both the Arminian loss of salvation view, and the Calvinist "false professors" view, instead he seems to take a position similar to Charles Ryrie, arguing that the passage is only a hypotethical:

"Hebrew six— "If they fell away after they once received the truth and tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come, it is impossible to renew them again, unto repentance." That's a fact. If they fall away— but the ninth verse said following "But beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." There were some who thought they could fall from Grace and Paul said: "If you should fall away you never could get it back." That's all— like it is in the fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians, where it said that some said there is no resurrection. Paul said, "If there be no resurrection, your faith is vain." Did he mean to say that possibly there was no resurrection? Certainly not, but he took them at their own word and if you are right about this thing of there being no resurrection, then there is nothing in our religion at all, so if you are right about your idea of falling away from Grace, and you couldn't get it back again — but, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you and things that accompany salvation though we thus speak."

Now, I think there are better ways to understand Hebrews 6, but it is interesting how Bogard does not take this passage as referring to false professors.

 

Thus, it seems like Bogard's understanding of salvation in some ways was close to Free Grace theology, nevertheless this does not mean he was always fully consistent or always agreed with Free Grace positions,  and there are a number of things which most Free Grace advocates would reject in Bogard's writings. Nevertheless, in some ways Bogard's views were similar to a Free Grace understanding of salvation, showing the emphasis on assurance in Baptist circles.

All quotes are taken from Smith-Bogard Debate. (1942, May 12-15). A Discussion Between Eugene S. Smith (Christian) and Ben M. Bogard (Baptist). Held in Dallas, Texas.

Did All Baptists Teach Lordship Salvation Before Jack Hyles? Answering Thomas Ross

Thomas Ross is a contemporary Baptist theologian with a decent influence among especially Landmarkist Baptists. While some of his work is highly informative, and I found his defense of the Classical Nicene view of the Trinity particularly edifying. However, when it comes to soteriology and things such as Baptist Briderism, I strongly disagree with him.

Ross is a staunch proponent of Lordship Salvation and has asserted that any church identifying as Baptist while teaching Free Grace theology stands outside the true churches of Christ. He has argued that Baptists, before the rise of Jack Hyles in the 1950s, unanimously affirmed Lordship Salvation. However, this claim is historically inaccurate.

Adressing the argumentation

Ross in his article "Historic Baptist Doctrine, Receiving Christ as both Savior and Lord or the So-Called Lordship Salvation, and the So-Called Free Grace Gospel" quotes multiple Baptist confessions which do affirm Lordship salvation. However, this does not mean that everybody agreed with those confessions.   A notable example is Archibald MacLean (1733–1812), who wrote: "Now, when men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections and pious exercises of heart as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration) to a sinner's acceptance with God, it perverts the Apostle'3 doctrine upon this important subject, and makes justification to be at least " as it were by the works of the law." (The commission given by Jesus Christ to his apostles illustrated). Similar non-Lordship views seem to have been held by the Irish Baptist Alexander Carson (1776 – 1844), who argued that salvation is simply by faith, and not about the excellence/quality of the faith, stating: "They who speak of salvation being by faith, on account of the excellence of faith itself, are virtually on the same foundation with those who preach salvation directly by works." (Carson, Letters to the Author of “Evangelical Preaching,” 37; idem, Works 1:354.).

Another person who lived slightly later to note is Robert Govett (1813 – 1901) who although was influenced by the Plymouth Brethren, was also closely associated with British Baptists, and his conversion out of Anglicanism was primarily caused by him witnessing a Baptist baptism, also later being immersed in that same Baptist church. Robert Govett is often seen as an early Free Grace theologian, strongly emphasizing the distinction of reward and grace, arguing that true Christians can live carnally, as he states in the introduction of his book "enterance into the kingdom":

The propositions intended to be proved in the present pages are two. 

1. That eternal life is God's unconditional gift TO believers. 

2. That believers' participation in the kingdom OF Christ is conditional on their conduct, as good or evil. (Entrance into the kingdom)

Thus, Govett argued that while every believer will be saved even if they are carnal, yet their reward of the reign in the kingdom is by works, as he later stated:

In considering the difference between the conditions on which eternal life, and the kingdom of God respectively are set, the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the third chapter of Philippians is very important. Let us contemplate it then. 

However, Govett took these concepts too far by arguing that the millennium itself is a reward, which unfaithful believers would miss, although they would still get to enjoy the new earth in eternity. Nevertheless, Govett did not teach Lordship salvation as he taught that believers who did not have a clean conduct would spend eternity with God.

Even closer to our time, John R. Rice, a Baptist pastor who began his ministry in 1926, expressed views that align closely with Free Grace theology, well before Jack Hyles came to believe in similar ideas. Rice strongly affirmed the dual nature of the believer and the reality of carnal Christians, emphasizing that salvation does not automatically result in a transformed life without discipleship and spiritual growth. He wrote:

Now a Christian should live a consecrated Christian life but that does not automatically follow.  People who are saved will find, like Paul, "When I would do good, evil is present with me . . . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:21,25). 

Every saved person still has the old carnal nature and often-times has the same kind of temptation he had before. Some people who have truly been born again have a desperate fight to quit tobacco, and some have never seemed to get the victory over that or other bad habits. Some Christians have never learned to trust the Lord enough to bring tithes and offerings, and some have never learned to win souls. When a baby is born, he is not born grown. Being born is one thing; growing is another thing entirely.

So the thing to do is to take for granted that people are saved when they trust Christ for salvation. Then one should set out to teach them to read the Bible daily, to learn to pray about their daily needs, to confess their sins and failures and grow in grace day by day. It is as foolish to expect young Christians to be good Christians by themselves as it is to expect a child, born in the family, to automatically be a great credit to the family without any rearing—whether they are spiritual babes or physical babes. I assure you that unless people are taught to be consecrated Christians, taught to read the Bible and pray, they are not likely to be good Christians, even if they are truly born again.

SOURCE: Dr. Rice... Here Are More Questions, by John R. Rice, pg. 76,77, Sword of the Lord Publishers; ISBN: 0-87398-157-X

We should also note that the Scofield Reference Bible was very popular among many Baptists even before Jack Hyles. Scofield often held a Free Grace understanding of multiple topics, such as the possibility of a carnal Christians and not placing assurance in our sanctification. It would seem likely that countless individuals whose writings are not passed unto us would have been influenced by these views.

Thus, I believe Thomas Ross is oversimplifying the data by focusing too much on the Baptist confessions, as Baptists have always held to congregational church governance, thus churches often held to a wide range of beliefs due to their independence from each other. Thus, as we see today a mixture of views on salvation among Baptists, we also can see it in the past.

Did Catholicism And Orthodoxy Prohibit The Laity From Reading The Bible?

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, at various points in history, placed restrictions on the laity’s access to the Bible in vernacular languages. While a few vernacular translations were produced, their widespread distribution was not permitted. Today, however, there is some skepticism surrounding this historical fact, but the sources on these matters remain clear. It is also often claimed that the Orthodox Church permitted vernacular translations at a time when Catholicism forbade them, yet this is not accurate. Indeed, both Western and Eastern authorities imposed restrictions on the unrestricted reading of the Bible, as seen in several ecclesiastical statements. The Council of Toulouse (1229) decreed:

We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books

Pope Innocentius III excommunicating the Albigensians (left),
Crusade against the Albigensians (right)
(British Library, Royal 16 G VI f. 374v)

Such the same was also stated by the council of Tarragona, which declared:

No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned

The council of Constance in the 1415s also condemned John Wyclif as "that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue". In fact, even as far as the 1800s when they had given some more room for translation, the Pope said thus:

"For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage. Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be ‘of one tongue and of the same speech’ [Gen. 11:1].” (Pope Pius VII, 1816 A.D)" 

Church historian Philip Schaff also points out similar occasions in the Western Church, noting that vernacular translations were banned by Pope Gregory VII in Bohemia:

Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

Allowing all Christians to read the Bible was also prohibited by the Eastern Orthodox council of Jerusalem, which states:

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.

While it is true that translations such as the Augsburger Bible were created during this era, their distribution was tightly controlled, and the laity was largely restricted from having access to them.  This runs wastly contrary to scripture, which makes the reading of scripture extremely important "have ye not read" (Matthew 12:3). And while both Catholicism and Orthodoxy today allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, this aspect of their history remains a dark chapter, marked by a reluctance to fully embrace the accessibility of Scripture to all believers. 

Free Grace Theology In The Reformation Period

Some early Anabaptists taught eternal security.

The Reformation period (16th–17th centuries) was a major era of change within the history of Christianity, marked by debates on salvation, grace, and human responsibility. During this era which was caused by figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the concept of grace was a major issue of debate. While the mainstream Reformation movements emphasized that salvation required fruit to prove or maintain its authencity, there were also movements and theologians who advocated what can be termed "Free Grace Theology."

Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is entirely a gift of God, not by any human effort, and that eternal life is granted solely through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from any subsequent good works or perseverance. This theological framework can be contrasted with both Calvinist and Arminian views, which often emphasize the necessity of works as evidence of saving faith or human cooperation in maintaining salvation.

Free Grace views of salvation seem to have appeared within the Anabaptist movement, as we see in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:

 "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."

Other evidence of eternal security comes from Lutheran polemical writings, which although hostile, may indicate a form of eternal security which is not tied to perseverance:

Source: Process, wie es soll gehalten werden mit den Widertäuffern, p.6-8

Other incorrect articles which do not concern secular government... the born again can not fall into God’s wrath and when they commit adultery, they say they are driven by the Spirit.

(This is a Lutheran polemical work against anabaptists written by eight theologians in 1558. In it, the Lutherans argued the anabaptists were to be condemned because of their beliefs and that the civil authorities were justified in punishing and executing them. This section conveys an anabaptist belief in eternal security which the Lutherans are condemning as incorrect. The second portion about adultery is probably a Lutheran interpolation critiquing the supposed ramifications of the anabaptist view. The Augsburg Confession in 1530 critiques anabaptists who believed that those who had been justified by God cannot lose the Holy Spirit in Article XII. This could lead the Lutheran theologians to falsely conclude that the ramifications of this theology are that when someone sins gravely they’re doing it in and being driven by the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot be lost to one who has been justified; and the Holy Spirit would therefore accompany the believer in whatever sins they commit.) 

However, Anabaptism was not an unified movement. The Anabaptists held a wide range of beliefs on many issues, including salvation. However, even those Anabaptists who opposed eternal security seem to have been aware of its existence, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:

Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it? (Reformation Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XIII: Hebrews, James. Edited by Ronald K. Rittgers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017, p. 233)

However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold. 

However, an intriguing note is that Luther may have initially believed something close to Free Grace, as he in his early writings says:

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. (The Babylonian Captivity) 

However, some have posited that this is merely Luther being hyperbolic. Nevertheless, it is an intriguing possibility that maybe he started out closer to Free Grace theology, and later may have changed his mind? It is very clear that Luther was opposed to Free Grace ideas within his later writings, however his early stance seems more unclear. Nevertheless, later Lutheran confessions are explicitly hostile to Free Grace theology, and condemn those who taught it, giving the pejorative label "Antinomian":

It is true, however, that the Antinomians (who will be dealt with more extensively in a following chapter) as well as several other opponents of the Majorists were unwilling to allow the statement,”Good works are necessary.” Falsely interpreting the proposition as necessarily implying, not merely moral obligation, but also compulsion and coercion, they rejected it as unevangelical and semipopish. The word “must” is here not in place, they protested.Agricola, as well as the later Antinomians (Poach and Otto), rejected the expressions “necessarium, necessary” and “duty, debitum

One of these individuals named by the book of Concord as denying that good works are necessary for the Christian was Johannes Agricola (1494 – 1566) who was initially a companion of Luther but became separated from his teaching.

However, Free Grace-like views were also later on advocated in the "Antinomian controversy" within the 1600s American Colonies. Cotton, the leading figure in the Antinomian controversy taught the doctrine of assurance, denying that good works are necessary for our assurance. Cotton and other "Antinomians" (also called "opinionists") protested to the idea that our assurance should be placed in any way (even subordinately) in our good works.

    "Trulie it is hard to perceive [between a temporary believer and a true believer] when men differ, and therefore it is not an easie matter to make such use of sanctification, as by it to beare witnesse unto justification"

Thus, while Free Grace theology was not the majority view in the Reformation, there certainly were advocates of such a view during this era.

 

 

Early Christian Quotes on the TULIP being Gnostic

An image of Mani, the creator of Manichaeanism,
the Gnostic sect in which Augustine was a member.

When hearing the claim that the "TULIP" doctrine has Gnostic origins, some may be inclined to dismiss it with a laugh. However, early Christian writings contain explicit references indicating that Gnostic groups often believed in unconditional election, and it is not a coincidence that Augustine (from whom Calvin borrowed his understanding of salvation) was a Gnostic prior to becoming a Christian. In this article, I’ve compiled several quotes from early Christians that clearly show the Gnostics taught some form of the TULIP.

These quotes not merely show that the Gnostics believed that all the saved are unconditionally elected, but that they also used the exact same arguments as modern Calvinists do for their doctrine.

Irenaeus (130 – c. 202): We have free will to believe, but the Gnostics maintain otherwise:

And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, According to your faith be it unto you; thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, All things are possible to him that believes; and, Go your way; and as you have believed, so be it done unto you. Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, he that believes in Him has eternal life while he who believes not the Son has not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him. In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, How often have I wished to gather your children together, as a hen [gathers] her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature material, as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. 

(Against Heresies (Book IV) 

Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215): Basilidians (Egyptian Gnostics) taught that humans cannot believe without being elected to believe:

Basilides' followers further say that faith and election are both particular to individual dispositions, and consequently, that faith on a world scale in every being follows from an election which lies beyond the world; further, they say that the gift of faith is proportionate to the hope of each individual. 11 (1) In that case, faith is no longer the right action of a free choice, a natural superiority; the person without faith is not responsible and will not meet his just consequences; the person with faith is not responsible; the whole essential difference between faith and unfaith could not be a matter of praise or blame if you look at it rightly, being a foreordaining natural necessity determined by the universal power. We are like lifeless puppets controlled by natural forces. It is a predetermining necessity which forces willingness34 and the lack of it. 

(Stromateis Books I-III,  translated by John Fegurson, 164) 

Origen (185 – c. 253): Heretics (Gnostics) rely on Romans 9 to justify their doctrine:

 Let us begin, then, with those words which were spoken to Pharaoh, who is said to have been hardened by God, in order that he might not let the people go; and, along with his case, the language of the apostle also will be considered, where he says, Therefore He has mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardens. For it is on these passages chiefly that the heretics rely (De Principiis, book III)  

John Chrysostom (347 – 407): The Manichaean Gnostics use John 6:44 to attack free will to believe:

Ver. 44. "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him." The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, "that nothing lies in our own power"; yet the expression showeth that we are masters of our will. "For if a man cometh to Him," saith some one, "what need is there of drawing?" But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling [1287] comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He showeth also the manner in which He draweth; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God, He addeth,  (Homilies on John)

A Biblical Case For Free Grace Theology

In this article, I will be examining the clearest and most explicit affirmations of Free Grace Theology from the Bible. Free Grace Theology asserts that salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), given freely through faith in Jesus Christ. This is a gift from God which cannot be lost, and our good works do not determine if we get to heaven or not. However, God can still discipline unrighteous Christians in this life and our good works affect our degree of eternal rewards.

In this blog, I will explore key biblical passages that uncover how Scripture consistently upholds the notion of grace as truly free and irrevocable.

Revelation 22:17

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The references to thrist and the water are obviously metaphorical for God's grace. But of specific focus is the word "freely" (δωρεάν). In both English and Greek, the word specifically refers to something without merit or payment. It is described thus that we can partake in salvation without any cost on our part. We do not need to give our good works as payment for salvation to God, but God gives his grace to us freely through just faith.

The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John has a very strong emphasis on the doctrine of eternal security, and affirms eternal security in multiple passages, such as:

John 5:24

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:37

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:39

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 10:28

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

John 11:25-26

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Matthew 5:19

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:19 explicitly shows that works are not a part of our salvation. In this passage, Jesus concretely tells us what happens to someone who has believed but breaks his commandments. That person who has believed but breaks the commandments of God will be least in the kingdom (have the lowest rank), but he will still be in the kingdom of God, and cannot enter hell. This passage clearly thus shows that works do not get us to heaven, since Jesus is here explicitly affirming that a person who breaks the commandments will get into heaven. Although they will be the lowest there.

1 Corinthians 3:14-15

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire

This verse is of particular interest, since we have much evidence that there was a large Free Grace movement within the very early church (as seen from the writings of Augustine) which centered their arguments from this passage. These verses build a contrast between the Christian whose works are righteous, done through Christ with a good motivation (who will get eternal rewards) and the Christian who has lived an unrighteous life but has believed on Christ (who will lose eternal rewards, but will still enter heaven).

It is very noteworthy that the passage explicitly clarifies that even the one whose work is burned (referring to living unrighteously) is still said to be saved, as the passage reads "but he himself shall be saved". Although the Christian who failed his Christian life is still saved, he will experience loss of reward. 

This verse simply does not make sense if works are needed to enter heaven. Within the Reformed perseverance of the saints doctrine there could be no carnally living Christians in heaven, since they believe that every Christian will live righteous to the end (as they believe in determinism, and deny that free will exists), and within the Arminian system one must remain in good works to retain their salvation. There simply is not the possibility of one's works being burned up in those systems as this verse says. 

This passage simply does not make sense without Free Grace theology. The judgement is simply pointless if the Reformed or Arminian person is correct.

2 Timothy 2:13

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

This is a very short but impactful verse. It uses the first person plural pronoun "we", if we believe not, thus Paul is speaking to Christians who already are Christians and have once believed in God. If they someday stop believing, God will abide faithful. The next words "he cannot deny himself" expounds upon these words. For God to throw a person who has been sealed with the Holy Ghost (Ephesians 1:13-14) would be to go against his own word, which is contrary to his own nature.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

This is a very strong point for Free Grace theology. Note how Paul describes these individuals as carnal and unspiritual, they are full of envy, strife and division. But Paul still calls them "brethren" (which is a term exclusively reserved for those who are saved). Despite all their carnality and bad living, Paul still calls them "brethren". Later in the book of Corinthians, it shows that God did discipline them with earthly punishments for their wicked deeds (1 Corinthians 11:30), but they were still not going to hell. Although we can experience earthly judgement for bad deeds, the Bible shows that we are still sons of God if we have once received grace.

King Saul (1 Samuel 28:19)

19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.

King Saul is a strong Old Testament example of eternal security. King Saul started as a righteous man who obeyed God with his heart, however he later began to be influenced by evil spirits. His unrighteous living lead him to be disciplined by God, and his life ended prematurely. However, despite this, it is said in 1 Samuel 28:19 that he would be in paradise with his sons. 
Some may argue that the "with me" is generally referencing the realm of the dead and not paradise, however his sons were clearly saved and righteous, and the the text implies that they would be in the exact same place. Thus, this verse shows that Saul did not lose his salvation for his bad works and is now in heaven, although he did have to endure strong discipline and a loss of eternal reward.

Ezekiel 44:10-16

This is a longer passage, and often neglected. However, this is an explicit affirmation of eternal security in the Old Testament. The context of Ezekiel 44:10-16 is that of the millennial reign, as the whole of the end of Ezekiel deals with that. 

The passage is important because it shows that even the unrighteous Levites who abandoned God were still let into the millennium (thus they did not lose their salvation and did not enter hell), although they lost their reward. Ezekiel 44:10-11 describes this judgement on the unrighteous Levites. Although these Levites were saved and are going to spend eternity with Jesus, they lost their right to minister in the temple, and have to have lesser roles. 

This passage is very important, because it shows that even the apostate Levites were not thrown into hell by God. Although our eternal rewards are affected by our works, God will not throw anyone who believes into hell. Even these Levites who lived carnally and abadoned God were not sent into hell. And although the righteous Levites described in verses 15-16 gained more rewards than the unrighteous Levites by being able to minister in the temple, both groups are going to spend eternity with Jesus.

Here is the passage of Ezekiel from the King James Version:

10 And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity.

11 Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.

12 Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity.

13 And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.

14 But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein.

15 But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God:

16 They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.