The Holy Spirit As The Love of God

 In classical western trinitarian thought, the Holy Spirit proceeds as the mutual love of Father and Son, as Thomas Aquinas writes "To see this we must know that since as shown above (I:27:2-5), there are two processions in God, one by way of the intellect, which is the procession of the Word, and another by way of the will, which is the procession of Love". 

 
The scriptures show a special connection between love and the Holy Spirit. Examples of such exists in Romans 5:5, which says "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." and Galatians 5:22, which attributes love (and actions of love such as kindness) as fruits of the Spirit. These two texts show a special connection between love and the Holy Spirit, as it is through the Spirit that the love of God is shed to our hearts. Although these two texts are not enough to alone justify the classical western view, they do implicity suggest the view.
 Another example of this special relation is found in the book of Samuel, where when the Holy Spirit departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14), it is said that the love of God left Saul "but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you" (2 Samuel 7:15). Thus, the author of Samuel seems to identify the Spirit with love.  The New Testament also depicts the Holy Spirit with the dove (Luke 3:22) which is a symbol of love in Jewish culture ( Song of Solomon 6:9, Song of Solomon 2:14). The fact that He is called "gift" (Acts 2:38) also shows the Holy Spirit's relation to love, as gifts proceed from love.

These texts together do seem to suggest that the western view of the Spirit's procession is scriptural. 

A Critique of the Crossless Gospel

This post will seek to critique this view, and defend the biblical view that one is saved by trusting the person and work of Jesus Christ for their salvation, and argues that the "crossless gospel" is an insufficient message. 

 

Now, it should be mentioned first that the crossless gospel is often seen as a pejorative term as the advocates of this view do still believe that the cross is the means by which God gives life to those who believe, however this view holds that one must not have knowledge of the saving work of Christ to be saved, and all one must believe is that Jesus gives eternal life. Thus, it can be summarized as the view that one must only believe that Christ gives eternal security to be saved. This article will use the term "crossless gospel" due to it's recognizeability and widespread us, but does not attempt to be pejorative by the use of the term.

1 Corinthians 15

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

First, the advocates of the crossless gospel argue that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is not a list of the knowledge we need to believe to be saved. They argue that the word "save" refers to sanctification, and thus the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15 is not necessary to be justified. However, as even Zane Hodges admitted, the Greek word does not necessarily refer to a continual event:

"The problem in correctly understanding this verse is caused by the English translation. A very flexible Greek verb (katechō) is translated “hold fast” in the NKJV (the AV has “keep in memory”). But the verb could equally be rendered “take hold of” or “take possession of.” In that case it would refer to the act of appropriating the truth of the gospel by faith."

Yet, modern translations always always have "hold fast" and thus even if taken about sanctification, this would still not give credibility to the crossless gospel, as continuing in the gospel is necessary to live a Christian life, this is the view Charlie Bing takes: "Paul is saying that the Corinthians must continue to follow the truth that they learned from the gospel in order to experience its sanctifying effects. This is not a condition of eternal salvation, but a very real condition of sanctification.". In fact, many people who do not hold to the crossless gospel believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is sanctificational, however as Charlie Bing said, we need to continue in the truth in order to be able to live a Christian life. Thus, there are no good reasons to assume that Paul is not giving the facts of the gospel of salvation to the Corinthians.

It is sometimes asserted that it is inconsistent not to take the resurrection appearances mentioned from verse 5 onwards as part of the gospel. Yet, it seems that Paul is listing them as evidences of the gospel, as he always added "according to the scriptures" in verses 3-4 for the core facts of the gospel, however "according to the scriptures" is not mentioned for the resurrection appearances. Thus, it seems that the appearances mentioned in 5- 8 are evidences of the gospel, while the three facts of the cross, burial and resurrection are a part of the gospel. 

Paul clearly saw the atonement as part of the gospel by which we are justified, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.". It may be pointed that the word "saved" is translated as "being saved" in many versions, however there is sufficient proof that the present participle does not always refer to a continious event, but can refer to an one time event (such as the KJV seems to imply). And even if it did refer to a continious even, it maybe interpreted collectively, as Stegall takes this view and wrote thus:
 "With respect to 1 Corinthians 1:18, this means that the expression,  “but to us who are being saved” (tois de sōzomenois hēmin), is a categorical reference to those individuals from the world who are daily being born-again and joining the ranks of believers.66 This phrase is collectively describing all those who have come to Christ by faith for salvation and whose eternal destinies have now irrevocably changed" (The Gospel of the Christ)

Romans 10

Romans 10 is a very debated chapter, however I would argue that Romans 10 clearly shows that the work of Christ is a part of the gospel. First, Romans 10:10 states: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.". Now, the part which causes issues to the one who teaches the crossless gospel is that Paul in the previous verse defined what it means to "believe unto righteousness", by saying in verse 9: "and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead". Thus the belief that leads to being justified in verse 10 "believeth unto righteousness" is defined as belief that Christ has been raised from the dead in verse 9. 

Now, it's true that the word "salvation" is referring to a physical salvation, yet one cannot have physical salvation without faith in Christ, thus he first mentions how one is justified (faith in the person and work of Christ) and then how one is saved temporarily (by confession).

Book of Acts

Everytime Paul preached, he preached the cross. We see this in Acts 13, where Paul preaches in Antioch. This chapter also seems to equate believing in Christ with believing in the work of Christ, as Acts 13:38-39 reads:

 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

These verses seem to equate believing in the preaching of the forgiveness of sins with being justified. Verse 39 merely says "all that believe", while the only thing mentioned in previous verses is the preaching of the cross, thus by implication the believing is related to the thing previously mentioned. When Paul preached, he did not just say "believe in Christ for eternal life", but preached the people to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Now, I would argue that forgiveness of all sins does include eternal security, but those who teach the crossless gospel believe that one does not need to know that Christ forgives sins to be saved, distinguishing between eternal life and forgiveness as different concepts. We see no such distinction in Acts 13 or anywhere else in Acts, where Paul and the apostles teach the gospel. 

If we were to except the apostles as teaching the crossless gospel, we should see the concepts of eternal life and forgiveness of sin being clearly distinguished, which they aren't.

The Gospel of John

Those who teach the crossless gospel point to the fact that the apostles were justified (John 15:3) even though they did not understand the cross (Luke 18:34). However, this is very easily explainable, the bible says that "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Thus, the amount of knowledge one has to have is in accordance on how much God has revealed to us. During the ministry of Jesus, the amount of light the people had was smaller than the amount of light after the cross, so they were required to know less to receive salvation, while today we have the full revelation of Christ, and thus are required to know more than the apostles during the ministry of Jesus knew. I believe that the advocates of the crossless gospel do not sufficiently take into account the doctrine of progressive revelation in their defense of the crossless gospel.

Additionally, although the gospel of John is evangelistic, it doesn't mean that it's the only evangelistic book of the bible. Romans is also clearly evangelistic. Zane argued that Romans mainly deals with how to escape God's wrath in the present, although Romans 5:9 makes it clear that it's dealing with future wrath with the future tense. Although Zane argued that the future tense in 5:9 doesn't imply certainty of outcome, if we applied the same hermeneutic to the promises of eternal life in the gospel of John, that would deny eternal security itself. For example, why would the future tense in John 10:28 imply certainty but not in Romans 5:9? An inconsistent hermeneutic is a sign of an error made in theology. The fact that the gospel of John is Evangelistic does not in any way support the crossless gospel, as John mentions the death, burial and resurrection in great detail. The gospel of John also emphasizes the deity of Christ above all other gospels.

The gospel of John teaches that we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God to be saved, as it says in John 20:31. Crossless gospel advocates often re-interpret the words "Son of God" to mean "giver of eternal life", however is this what the bible teaches? Clearly not, the gospel of John used it as a divine title:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33)... Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:36)

Atonement Theology

Crossless gospel advocates often believe in a certain atonement theory, where Christ takes away the penalty of sin from all men, believer and unbeliever alike. Thus, they argue that hell is not the penalty of sin but only the result of not believing in Christ for eternal life. Although some people who do not agree with the crossless gospel (such as Robert Thieme) have taught this view, this form of the atonement does really make the crossless gospel easier to hold to, as Wilkins says ( GES blog, August 14, 2020 by Bob Wilkin):

"If I believe that Christ’s death was for all, then I evangelize in this way:

Though you and I and everyone in the world is a sinner, our sins do not separate us from God. Do you know why? The reason is because Jesus took away the sins of the world when He died on the cross (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). Sin is no longer the issue in terms of getting right with God. Isn’t that good news? But we have a life problem. We lack everlasting life, God’s life. Jesus Christ promised that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24). So, if you believe in the Son of God, then you have everlasting life that can never be lost. The New Testament calls that the promise of life."

I would argue that this model of the atonement is not biblical, although the atonement was made for all, it is applied to the believer only when they believe.2 Thessalonians 1:9 clearly sees hell as punitive, by reading:  "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;". I don't see how someone can hold to such a view that hell isn't the payment for our sins when the bible is so explicit on it. 

Did The Gates of Hell prevail?

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18), thus there can never be a period where the gospel was totally lost. However, the problem is that we have 0 existing mentions of anybody teaching the crossless gospel before 1990. We do not even have secondary references of earleir theologians mentioning other people to have held this view. Although Free Grace theology itself is historical (read my article "Is Free Grace Theology Historical?", the crossless gospel is completely absent from history. This point is secondary, however it does put into question on what did Jesus mean by the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the church.

Baptismal Regeneration Was Not Taught By All Christians Before 1500

 Many people assert that Ulrich Zwingli (1484 –  1531) was the first person to deny baptismal regeneration in history. This article is a revision of my earlier article "The Early Christians Did Not All Teach Baptismal Regeneration".

1: Apostolic silence

The so-called "apostolic fathers" were those early Christians who lived close to the apostolic era, this includes such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. The issue for the baptismal regenerationist, is the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to be left out from their writings. Although arguments from silence cannot be pressed too far, one can still ask. Why does the Didache have an entire section for baptism, but never mention it as salvific? Why does Clement consistently mention salvation, but never add baptism as a condition of salvation? In fact, Clement (98ad) says that faith alone is a condition of salvation:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;

but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, some groups such as the Lutherans have attempted to harmonize faith alone and baptismal regeneration, however the question still remains, why does Clement not mention baptism on his answer on how to be saved? Baptismal regeneration is neither mentioned by Ignatius, who wrote 7 different epistles, Polycarp, the Didache nor Mathetes. 

2: Josephus (1st century)

Josephus was not a Christian, however he mentioned that the followers of John the Baptist (thus also believers in Christ) denied that baptism is a means of grace.

and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5.2)

Thus, we know that the Jewish followers of Jesus in the 1st century did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

3: Aristedes (2nd century)

Aristedes makes an interesting statement that implies both against baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, as he writes:

Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. (The Apology of Aristedes)

 Note how Aristedes did not say that infants become Christians by baptism, but that we are only Christians when we are persuaded to the gospel. This highly implies that Aristedes did not believe that baptism is tied to salvation. 

4: Treatise on rebaptism (250ad)

An anonymous treatise that deals on the issue of rebaptism was written somewhere around 250ad, here we find these words:

Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

In this treatise, baptism is said to be an "invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", meaning a public confession of Christ. This text explicitly says that water baptism is not tied to the event of salvation. This is the earliest text which explicitly rejects baptismal regeneration

5: Misunderstanding of the early Christians?

 Theologians such as Justin Martyr or Cyril are commonly cited as holding to baptismal regeneration, but they may have been misunderstood. The Baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund has argued that these theologians may have not taught baptismal regeneration, but instead used the figure of speech called metonomy, as he says in his debate with Trent Horn:

"So similarly when we say baptism saves, this doesn’t mean baptism per se, baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it. But baptism as representative of that entire process because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. "

Thus, Gavin's argument was that some early writers tied baptism to salvation "symbolically" or as a figure of speech, without literally trying to say that baptism regenerates. This can be seen for example can be seen in Justin Martyr (2nd century):

"as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life." (Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)

Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. AD 165)

Note the words "which he announced", yet he was commenting on Isaiah 53. Here however is the problem, is water baptism ever mentioned in Isaiah 53? This should be taken as indicative that Justin is not speaking of water baptism. In the context, Justin seems to use "baptism" as a figure for salvation through faith.

This same appears in Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - AD 386):

“Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.” (Catechetical Lecture 3.4)

Noting the terms "Having been born again by faith", which is speaking of the past. The grammar means that the act of being born again preceded the act of baptism, thus it's impossible that he believed that being born again happened in the water itself. It is thus entirely possible that Cyril used these words figuratively, as Gavin Ortlund comments:

So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I’ve read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I’m aware there’s other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one.

Barnabas is often cited as the earliest example of someone who believed in baptismal regeneration, however this is a bad misunderstanding of his work. We must remember that Barnabas was a writer in the Alexandrian (allegoric) school of thought, and it appears that when Barnabas said "This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.", he was speaking allegorically. Now, this is not a mere trying to "explain away" data, but the immediate context shows it, as it reads:

“Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them. But now He says, Their leaves shall not fade. This means, that every word which proceeds out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says, And the land of Jacob shall be extolled above every land. Zephaniah 3:19 This means the vessel of His Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.” (Epistle of Barnabas, 11)”

Barnabas is clearly equating believing in Christ and "going down into the water", which seems to imply that he was speaking of baptism symbolically to refer to faith. This is consistent considering his background in the Alexandrian school of thought, and consistent allegorical exegesis all over the letter. Notice how it says "placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water", which seems to imply that these two events happen simultaniously.

The reason for such figures of speech being born may be due to the symbolism of baptism. Because baptism symbolized salvation, the word may have been connected figuratively to salvation itself by some early Christians.

6: Others

Jovinian (400ad) is an interesting figure in the early church, and he seems to have taught against baptismal regeneration. As Philip Schaff writes on Jovinian (History of the Christian Church): 

and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

Thus it appears, that for Jovinian, the baptism of the Spirit is how one enters the invisible body of Christ, while water baptism is meant for entrance into the physical church.

Jovinian had many disciples, who likely would have followed his opinion.

I will briefly mention the fact that according to Augustine, some of the Pelagians denied baptismal regeneration. Now, this fact is not meant to be a major thing, as Pelagianism was declared a heresy. However, it does seem that Pelagius' views were strawmanned, as scholars analysing his commentary on Romans did find him affirming the necessity of grace (which Augustine claimed he denied). Yet, despite this, Pelagianism still is a major error. This is a brief reference and not a major point I am making, however Augustine said this:

" But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no sin; and thus the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament." (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book II))

7: Medieval

There were also medieval Christians who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. One example is the Hussite theologian Petr Chelčický, who lived between 1390 and 1460, "Baptism, he said, could not save in and of itself" (The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius By Craig D. Atwood). The Waldensians (12th century) also believed that the "ablution which is given to infants profits nothing" (from the writings of Renerius Saccho).

How Many People Believe in Free Grace Theology? (Updated)

 I have already made a similar article in the past, however due to new information, I want to revise the previous article.

Charles Ryrie (1925 – February 16, 2016)
The first person to respond to  McArthur

This post will seek to analyze the size of Free Grace theology and its worldwide distribution. Although exact numbers are impossible to gather, there are some things we can look at such as the number of books sold, or the amount of online usage. These can however give only rought estimates.

Firstly, there are multiple educational institutions that teach Free Grace theology, these include:

Grace School of Theology

Chafer Theological Seminary

Grace Evangelical Seminary

Grace Biblical Seminary

+ Multiple Independent Baptist seminaries

These together educate thousands of individuals, who also generally spread the views to their associates or even start churches.

However, looking online, the following Youtube channels teach Free Grace theology (there are likely more, that I am not aware of, but this list likely contains the majority):

• Tony Evans - 874k subscribers
  
• Robert Breaker - 680k subscribers (Hyperdispensationalist)
• Real Bible Believers (Gene Kim) - 416k (Hyperdispensationalist)
• Andy Woods 72k
• Ralph Yankee Arnold - 20k subscribers
• Onorato Diamante - 13k subscribers
• Jacksmack77 - 10k subscribers
• Grace Evangelical Society - 8k subscribers
• Grace Community Fellowship - 5k subscribers
• Northland Bible Baptist Church - 5k subscribers
• Streaming Truth (Afshin Yaghtin) - 5k subscribers
• Duluth Bible Church - 4k subscribers
• BibleLine - 4k subscribers
• Andy Woods' Unofficial Channel - 4k subscribers
• Jack Hyles Library - 4k subscribers
• Rev Reads - 2k subscribers
• Grace Christian Fellowship (John Ricci) - 2k subscribers
• C4C Apologetics - 2k subscribers
• Grace Institute of Biblical Studies - 1k subscribers
• Fuego Savvy - 1k subscribers
• The Layman's Seminary -1k subscribers
• Gian the Baptist -1k subscribers (Free Grace in the most moderate/soft sense of the word)
• Valiant Baptist Church (Tyler Baker) - 1k subscribers (Free Grace in the most moderate/soft sense of the word)
• Free Grace International - 1k subscribers
• Zane Hodges Library - 700 subscribers
• Learn the Word - 500 subscribers
• Toronto Bible Study - 500 subscribers

These together total to around 2 million, although the scope is very broad. These differeny Youtube channels may all hold broadly to Free-Grace soteriology, however they disagree on many major issues.

If those who hold to so-called "Hyper-Grace" theology are included (this view agrees with the Free-Grace view of salvation, although they disagree on sanctification), the number jumps to 3 million, due to the following Youtube channels:

• Joseph Prince (1.1 million)
• Andrew Farley (36k)
• Greg Jacksom (10k)
• David Benjamin (5k)
• Sniffing out Pharisees (4k)

Thus, there are over 3 million people on Youtube alone, who agree with the Free-Grace view of justification.

Now, looking at literature, the two most popular books I know of which held to a Free Grace view of salvation came from Charles Ryrie and Charles Stanley. Ryrie's studybible sold 2.6 million copies, while his other books sold 1.5 million copies. However, Charles Stanley's "Eternal Security" sold 9 million copies. Although Stanley's book on eternal security clearly presented a Free Grace view of salvation, it seems that he in his later days began to drift to a more Lordship salvation view. 

Other books defending Free Grace theology from people like Hodges or Dillow, often sold many tens of thousands of copies.

Now, going to churches, Free Grace theology is spread among multiple denominations, however we should note the influence of Watchman Nee first. Watchman Nee was an early Free Grace theologian in China, in fact, if one reads his writings, he often says things identically to later theologians like Zane Hodges or Jody Dillow, for example Nee argued that the word "save" in James 2 is not referencing eternal salvation. Watchman Nee founded the "local church" movement, which stands at around 500k to 2million members, although many of them are in China. Free Grace theology is also very popular among Independent Baptist, the very popular independent Baptist teacher Jack Hyles clearly taught Free Grace theology. Jack Hyles' books have sold over 14 million copies.
Although it is unclear how many people in the IFB believe in Free Grace theology, it is likely still a decent number. 

One can also note, that although the Primitive Baptists are not directly Free Grace, nor identify with the movement, they hold very similar views. The Primitive Baptists teach a distinction between disipleship and salvation, teach that James 2 is not about eternal salvation and such similar doctrines. They number at around 600 thousand.

Thus, to recap:

• Books sold by Free Grace authors number over 27million
• 3 million people in Youtube are subscribed to a Free Grace view of salvation (although 2 million are directly Free Grace)

Now, it must be considered that there is overlap, for example someone can have bought Zane Hodges' or Ryrie's book and be subscribed to multiple different Free-Grace channels and some are likely already dead, thus one cannot just add these numbers together. However, if one is really broad, there might be from the smallest possible number, 8 million to the largest 16million people worldwide who agree with the Free Grace view of salvation, even if they might not directly identify with the label, or not be aware of the label.

Dispensational vs Non-Dispensational Free Grace Theology

 I am a Dispensationalist, however this post is not an attempt to talk on the issues between non-Dispensationalists and Dispensationalists, but a mere overview.

Dispensational

The fact of the matter is that Free Grace history is strongly linked to Dispensational history. Free Grace theology has been taught by many among the world's most influental dispensationalists: Ryrie, Scofield, Chafer and such. Even today, all Free Grace seminaries are dispensational in their leanings. Dispensational Free Grace theologians include:

R.B Thieme, Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Shawn Lazar, Stegall, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Cyrus Scofield, Watchman Nee, John Walvoord, Erich Sauer, Hixon, Robert Govett, Mackintosh, G.H Pember, G.H Lang, Ken Wilson, Shawn Lazar, Jody Dillow, David Anderson, Kenneth Yates, Shawn Lazar, Ralph Yankee Arnold, Chares Bing, Dwight Pentecost, Andy Woods, D.M Panton among many others

Dispensationalism has emphasized the distinction between the Mosaic law and the New Testament, this naturally leads into a separation of law and grace. And the strong premillennialism has allowed a central role for eternal rewards in Dispensational theology. Additionally, the unconditionality of Israel's promise, despite disobedience, has been used by Dispensationalists to support Free Grace theology.

Non-Dispensational

Although a minority, non-Dispensational individuals who profess Free Grace soteriology have grown in the recent era. This view can be traced back to Sandemanism and Robert Sandeman, which held very similar views to Free Grace theology, although it is today an extict view. Other old movements which hold similar views to Free Grace theology without being dispensational include the "Antinomians" (Antinomian controversy), Marrow Brethren and the anti-Majorists (Lutheranism).

According to Shawn Lazar, examples of theologians who are not dispensational but hold Free Grace friendly/Free Grace-like views include: Michael Eaton, Paul Zahl, David Zahl, R. T. Kendall, Rod Rosenbladt, Tullian Tchividjian, Robert Farrar Capon, Andrew Farley, Joseph Prince and Paul Ellis. There are also some teachers popular online like Norm Diamante and Afshin Yaghtin who teach Free Grace theology, without being dispensational. Additionally, the Primitive Baptists hold very similar views to Free Grace theology, although their strong views of predestination are distinct from Free Grace theology. Additionally, Dr. Michael Eaton is one more notable example of a non-dispensationalist who has had an impact on Free Grace theologians. Eaton published a book "No Condemnation: A New Theology of Assurance.", which has been read by many Free Grace believers, and he has even spoken as a guest at the Free Grace Alliance. Eaton is Reformed, Amillennial and Charismatic.

It is a minority position, but some non-dispensationalists have taken on Free grace theology.

Early Christians Did Not All Believe In Transubstantiation

 It is often argued that all early Christians held to Transubstantiation, however this is plainly false. This post provides a short list of quotations which show this claim to be false.

Tertullian (2nd century)
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. (Against Marcion, book 4)

Clement of Alexandria (2nd century)

The Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Instructor)

Eusebius (4th century)
 ‘His eyes are cheerful from wine,’ seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, ‘Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.’ And, ‘His teeth are white as milk,’ shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body (Demonstratio Evangelica)

Theodoret (5th century)

For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. (Dialogues)

Why The "Prayer For Salvation" Doctrine is Unbiblical.

Steven Anderson

 The NIFB in general teaches that one must both believe and ask God to be saved, and that true faith always leads into a confession. In my view, this fundamentally attacks faith alone and is doing the same hermeneutic as baptismal regenerationists use. Both the advocates of this doctrine and baptismal regenerationists use a few ambigious texts which have good alternative explanations, while ignoring the massive amounts of verses which say the opposite.

The advocates of this doctrine focus mainly on two verses, Romans 10:10 and John 4:10. Both of these verses will be clearly explained.

John 4:10

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

First, the mistake of the NIFB person is assuming that "living water" in John 4:10 is eternal life, which it is not. The living water is the message of life which leads to eternal life and not eternal life itself, this is clear from John 4:14:

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Eternal life springs up to eternal life? Doesn't make sense. So Jesus is telling the woman that she should have asked for the gospel message. Bob Wilkin writes:

Jesus spoke of asking Him for living water, not for the gift of salvation. 

Thus, Jesus is not speaking about the universal way of salvation.

Romans 10:10 

The NIFB more often however use Romans 10:10, which reads:

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

However, the problem for the NIFB is what does "save" mean? The context clearly defines this as a physical salvation, as Paul quotes Joel 2:32 in the same context at Romans 10:13, which in Joel clearly references a physical deliverance for those who call in God's name. Zane Hodges comments:

While the Jew is granted righteousness on the basis of faith in his heart, God will not grant him deliverance on the basis of that faith alone. He must also confess with his mouth.

Thus, there are no texts in the bible which teach this doctrine, and we are saved by faith alone, not by faith + confession, faith + baptism or faith + anything.

 

The Early Christians Did Not All Teach Baptismal Regeneration

 Many assert that the earliest Christians universally taught baptismal regeneration, however this claim is something I wish to demonstrate false. Although the opinions of the early church fathers should not be our basis of doctrine, there are many people today who are disturbed by the claim that the early Christians all taught baptismal regeneration.

1: Apostolic silence

The so-called "apostolic fathers" were those early Christians who lived close to the apostolic era, this includes such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. The issue for the baptismal regenerationist, is the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to be left out from their writings. Although arguments from silence cannot be pressed too far, one can still ask. Why does the Didache have an entire section for baptism, but never mention it as salvific? Why does Clement consistently mention salvation, but never add baptism as a condition of salvation? In fact, Clement (98ad) says that faith alone is a condition of salvation:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;

but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, some groups such as the Lutherans have attempted to harmonize faith alone and baptismal regeneration, however the question still remains, why does Clement not mention baptism on his answer on how to be saved? Baptismal regeneration is neither mentioned by Ignatius, who wrote 7 different epistles, Polycarp nor Mathetes. 

2: Josephus (1st century)

Josephus was not a Christian, however he mentioned that Jewish Christians rejected baptismal regeneration, as he writes:

and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5.2)

Thus, we know that the Jewish Christians in the 1st century, did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

3: Aristedes (2nd century)

Aristedes makes an interesting statement that implies both against baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, as he writes:

Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. (The Apology of Aristedes)

 Note how Aristedes did not say that infants become Christians by baptism, but that we are only Christians when we are persuaded to the gospel. This highly implies that Aristedes did not believe that baptism is tied to salvation. 

4: Treatise on rebaptism (250ad)

An anonymous treatise that deals on the issue of rebaptism was written somewhere around 250ad, here we find these words:

Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

In this treatise, baptism is said to be an "invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", meaning a public confession of Christ. This text explicitly says that water baptism is not tied to the event of salvation.

5: Jovinian (400ad)

Jovinian is an interesting figure in the early church, and he seems to have taught against baptismal regeneration. As Philip Schaff writes on Jovinian (History of the Christian Church): 

and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

Thus it appears, that for Jovinian, the baptism of the Spirit is how one enters the invisible body of Christ, while water baptism is meant for entrance into the physical church.

6: Misunderstanding of the early Christians?

 Theologians such as Justin Martyr or Cyril are commonly cited as holding to baptismal regeneration, but they may have been misunderstood. The Baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund has argued that these theologians may have not taught baptismal regeneration, but instead used the figure of speech called metonomy, as he says in his debate with Trent Horn:

"So similarly when we say baptism saves, this doesn’t mean baptism per se, baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it. But baptism as representative of that entire process because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. "

Thus, Gavin's argument was that some early writers tied baptism to salvation "symbolically" or as a figure of speech, without literally trying to say that baptism regenerates. This can be seen for example can be seen in Justin Martyr (2nd century):

"as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life." (Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)

Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. AD 165)

Note the words "which he announced", yet he was commenting on Isaiah 53. Here however is the problem, is water baptism ever mentioned in Isaiah 53? This should be taken as indicative that Justin is not speaking of water baptism. In the context, Justin seems to use "baptism" as a figure for salvation through faith.

This same appears in Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - AD 386):

“Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.” (Catechetical Lecture 3.4)

Noting the terms "Having been born again by faith", which is speaking of the past. The grammar means that the act of being born again preceded the act of baptism, thus it's impossible that he believed that being born again happened in the water itself. It is thus entirely possible that Cyril used these words figuratively, as Gavin Ortlund comments:

So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I’ve read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I’m aware there’s other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one.

The reason for such figures of speech being born may be due to the symbolism of baptism. Because baptism symbolized salvation, the word may have been connected figuratively to salvation itself by some early Christians. Now, some such as Cyril, though they might not have taught baptismal regeneration. if the arguments of Gavin are valid, they did still teach baptismal sanctification, where the act of baptism is where God gives you more grace to be able to live more holy lives. While this view is not that problematic, I do still deny that baptism is a means of grace, it is neither an instrument that gives us grace to live more holy, nor the means of salvation.

Now, it is clear that theologians such as Augustine or Tertullian, did not use these words figuratively at all, but it is very plausible that many theologians still did not believe that water baptism itself saves, but that water baptism is the symbol of salvation.

.

What Did The Waldensians Believe In?

Peter Waldo

 The Waldensians were a 12th century Christian sect, although some have argued that Peter Waldo did not start the sect, but just organize it. 

Despite that, there exists a lot of confusion on the beliefs of the Waldensians today, almost every Protestant groups sees the Waldensians as their spiritual ancestors, but what did they really believe in?
This post will do something that most haven't taken the time do, which is go to the actual sources themselves.

Firstly, we have a book written by early Waldensians called the "noble lesson", although it is not full of theology, some things are implicit. 

Firstly, it seems that baptism is implicitly affirmed to be for believers only, as it reads: "They preached to Jews and Greeks, working many Miracles; And baptized those who believed in the Name of Jesus Christ."

The Waldensians apparently separated the Mosaic law and the law of Christ as substantially distinct laws, as the book reads:

The second Law which God gave to Moses, Teacheth us to fear God, and to serve him with all our strength; For he condemneth and punisheth every one that offends.  But the third Law which is at this present time, Teacheth us to love God, and serve him purely: For he waiteth for the Sinner, and giveth him time, That he may repent in this present life. 

Although not exclusively dispensational, the view that the law of Christ is a substantially distinct law from the Mosaic, is clearly against the principles of covenant theology.

However, the Cathar convert to Catholicism, who lived close to the time of Peter Waldo, "Renerius Saccho" also wrote in detail on Waldensian beliefs. Saccho when listing Waldensian beliefs mentioned these (word by word quotations):

• That the Pope is the head of all errors
• they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church... also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing
• also, they say that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles is sufficient for salvation without the statures of the church - that the tradition of the church is the tradition of the Pharisees

This shows that the Waldensians objected to infant baptism, believed that scripture alone is infallible and they denied the papacy. However, they were not a Gnostic sect, as they clearly affirmed the trinity, the incarnation and such basic doctrines. The Waldensian book "noble lesson" even directly mentions the word trinity, as it says "These three (the holy Trinity) as being but one God, ought to be called upon,".

Thus, the Waldensians held to similar theology as such as Baptists, Anabaptists and many other Evangelicals, though not being exactly identical in every respect.

The Doctrine of Eternal Generation In Scripture

The trinity

 The doctrine of eternal generation is today often neglected, however it should not. This doctrine is one of the foundations of classical trinitarian theology, it was affirmed by the Council of Nicaea and it was taught by dispensationalists such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ironside and John Walvoord. For example, Ironside says:

It is Christ as the Uncreated Word, yet the Begotten Son by eternal generation; words admittedly paradoxical, but after all distinctly Scriptural. (Proverbs and Song of Solomon)

The doctrine of eternal generation is defined thus by Charles Hodge:

The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.

Eternal generation thus does not mean that Jesus is created in any way, which would be heretical. On this, John Walvoord comments:

Procession like the eternal generation of Christ is not a matter of creation, commencement of existence, or analogous in any way with physical relationships common in the human realm. It proceeds rather from the very nature of the Godhead, being necessary to its existence. (The Person of the Holy Spirit)

Scriptures

However, the major question is, is it scriptural? This article will attempt to demonstrate this doctrine from scripture.

The most popular scripture used to defend this idea come from the gospel of John, these are:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:26: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

John 3:16 is a very commonly used verse to defend the doctrine of eternal generation, this is due to the word "monogenes", which has been traditionally translated as "only begotten", which implies a kind of generation. However, in the modern day this has been questioned, and many today have attempted to argue that it should better be translated as "only-unique". However, I would myself prefer the King James translation of this verse (although I am not KJV only), which states "only begotten". Now, there are also good evidences for translating it as only begotten as it is evident that the early church fathers who spoke Greek natively, understood it as referring to being begotten. For example, the Nicene creed clearly referenced to John, when calling Jesus " Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". We also see that Jerome understood the term as implying being begotten, as the Latin vulgate reads "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.".

The fact that almost everybody living close to the age of the apostles, understood the term "monogenes" as "only begotten" makes a very strong case for its meaning as thus.

The next verse, John 5:26 is also a very great text that demonstrates this doctrine, as it says that the Son was "granted" to have life in Himself. Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal generation, generally argue that it is referencing only communication of the ability to grant life. However, what must be noticed is the first part of the verse, which states "For just as the Father has life in Himself". Thus, whatever "life in Himself" means at the end of the verse, must mean the same as at the beginning of the verse. If this is granted, this verse alone is sufficient to establish eternal generation.

These three texts are not the only ones to establish this view, next we find Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 5:5, which also reference Jesus being begotten:

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5)

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)

Some may object that the word "today" is used, yet we must remember that this is spoken by God, Who is outside of time. The bible declares that with the Lord "one day is like a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8), thus the word "today" is not referencing a specific time in history, but eternity.  Now, Paul applied the text in Acts 13:33 to the resurrection, yet it must be carefully maintained that Christ did not become the Son of God when He rose from the dead, as Jesus is already called the Son prior (Matthew 14:33), but it was at the resurrection that He manifested being the Son of God.

Yet, there are still more texts to look at for this doctrine! The next strong verse comes from Hebrews 1:3, which states:

who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Some might question, how does this verse relate to eternal generation? Well, that comes from a closer look at the terms, as Sam Shamoun explains:

"There are several points which we can glean from this very crucial text. The first point is that Jesus is the very exact imprint, the very exact copy, the perfect reflection of God’s own substance, nature, essence etc. That is the meaning of the Greek word charakter, that Jesus is the precise and perfect imprint left by the Original or the Source. The author of Hebrews is basically saying that the Father is the underived Source of all Deity with the Son being the perfect duplicate of that Deity. If God’s substance is eternal, then Christ must be eternal also since he is the exact imprint. If God’s substance is infinite, then Christ must also be infinite seeing that he is the exact copy of it."

Christ is similarly called the "image" of God in Colossians 1:15, which aligns with Hebrews 1;3.

The last text to look at is Proverbs 8, although this one is more disputed. Some, such as Ironside see this verse as a description of Jesus, because Christ is called the "wisdom of God" in the New Testament. If this is true, it would necessarily mean eternal generation, as Proverbs 8:23 reads:

"I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."

However, this verse has been very controversial. Although Ironside took this as Jesus and a reference to His eternal generation, there are many who do not. However, it is not necessary that this verse references Jesus, thus I am leaving it open.

Is Calvinism Borrowed From Manichaean Gnosticism?

Mani was a 3rd century self proclaimed prophet
and the founder of the Gnostic religion "Manichaeanism".

 According to the well respected scholar, Ken Wilson, the doctrine of unconditional election along with other points of Calvinism are borrowed from Manichaeanism. But how can this be? What links does Calvinism have with Manichaeanism? Well there are more than one would expect. Calvinism is mostly taken from the doctrines of the early church father Augustine of Hippo, who was a convert out of Manichaeanism to Christianity. Augustine himself testified to his conversion in his book "Confessions".

But did the Manichaeans teach that God unconditionally elects some to salvation and some to damnation? - Yes

Although we do not have many early Manichaean writings, I was able to found late neo-Manichaean writings which distinctly argue against free will, as we can see from these quotes:

"Hence, by this reasoning, vain will be the belief of those who declared that those persons who are to be saved as well as those who never are to be saved have a potency for salvation and can be saved, as was said above."

"And so, we serve God when we fulfill His will with His help, not that we are able through free will to do anything good of which He himself is not the cause and principle. Thus, the Blessed James says in his Epistle, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights." " And in the Gospel of John, Christ says, "No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him."  And of himself, He said: "I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge";  and again, "But the Father, who abideth in me, he doth the works."  And the Apostle says to the Ephesians: "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory." " And the same Apostle says to the Romans, "So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that showeth mercy."

"From this one may know that those angels did not have from God a free will by which they could entirely avoid covetousness, and especially not from a God who knows directly all the future, in whom it is impossible that that which is future, with all the causes which determine it, can fail to be in the future. "

These text look like they could have come from any Calvinistic writing! However, the surprise is that these are taken from the Neo-Manichaean book "The Book of the Two Principles". The Neo-Manichaeans used every Calvinistic prooftext, such as John 6, Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 9 to support their theology. However, we are not limited to later neo-Manichaean references, we actually have church fathers also attack the Gnostics for their doctrine of unconditional election. For example, John Chrysostom protests against Manichaeans using John 6 for their doctrine of predestination, as we read in his commentary:

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,

This thus shows that Augustine's theology is clearly borrowed from Manichaeanism, it is not a coincidence that the first person to introduce this kind of theology, was himself a convert from Manichaeanism. Later, Calvin inherited this Manichaean influence from the doctrines of Augustine.

The Heretical Christology of Pastor Steven Anderson Critiqued

Steven Anderson is the founder of the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement, although it is not a large denomination by numbers, it has attracted a large group of young followers due to the internet. However, I wrote this article as a warning of this teaching of Eutychianism, which Steven Anderson teaches. Eutychianism or Monophysitism has its origins in the 5th century, from a man called Eutyches. Eutyches argued that the two natures of Jesus (human and divine), were not only united in the person of Jesus Christ, but also mixed together. Thus, Eutyches argued that Jesus is like God and man put into a blender, where the humanity mixes with the divinity like in a soup, thus Jesus' human nature is not the same as ours.

This teaching largely died out after the Council of Chalcedon, however it has been recently resurrected by the NIFB, through Steven Anderson. He has himself even called the classical view of Jesus "stupidity". According to Steven Anderson, because Jesus had two parents (God the Father and Mary), they must have mixed like any act of procreation would, Steven argued that just as a son has half of their dna from the father and half of their dna from the mother, Jesus would have had half of his essence from God and half of his essence from Mary, which then mixed like a blender. Now, there are obvious problems with this, as Steven clearly is thinking anthropomorphistically, additionally Steven Anderson's doctrine of Christ undermines the humanity of Jesus, and denies Jesus as consubstantiality with us.

A biblical refutation of Eutychianism

Steven Anderson has argued that Jesus is called the "Son" because of the incarnation, where he received half of his dna from God's divine essence. However, biblically the sonship of Christ is eternal, and He was the Son even before the incarnation.

There are many verses which speak of "Son" creating everything (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2), if Christ being the "Son" is only a matter of the incarnation, it would not have been the Son who created the universe before the incarnation. God is also called the Father prior to the incarnation (there can be no Father without a Son), for example Jesus in John 16:28 says that when Jesus came forth from the Father, He was already the Son, however the incarnation is the result of the coming forth. However, bible prophecy already calls Jesus the Son in the Old Testament, for example Proverbs 30.

The heresy of Eutychianism

We must also focus on the full humanity of Christ, Hebrews declares that Christ is like us "in every way" (Hebrews 4:15), if Jesus was a mixture or a blend of God and man into one, Jesus would not have been a normal human. Imagine this, what if Jesus' dna was half crocodile and half man, would such a person atone for our sins? Certainly He would not be able represent humanity in the cross, if He was half crocodile. In the same sense, Christ could not have represented humanity in the cross if we assume Christ being mixed. Monophysitism follows in the spirit of Docetism, which fails to affirm Christs full humanity, Docetism was condemned by John in 1 John 4:3.

Anderson's anthropomorphism must also be avoided, we should not bind God to the ways of the world. Although it is certain that Christ had a full set of chromosomes, they must have been human chromosomes, we are told is that Jesus must have been fully consubstantial with us for the atonement, thus we can rule out the view that half of Jesus' chromosomes are of the divine essence, or "God's dna" (which I would argue doesn't exist, although Steven Anderson believes is real) as heretical.

Secondly, if Eutychianism is true, and the two natures are blend together, then the human limitations of Jesus would also be non-existent, for example God does not get tired (Isa. 40:28), but Jesus got tired and slept? This cannot be explained unless we have two distinct but united natures. 

The Athanasian creed

The Athanasian creed states: "For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person."

Although the Athanasian creed is fallible, it does provide a good biblical summary of the doctrine of Christ. The problem here is, that when the Athanasian creed states " One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person.", Steven Anderson would deny the term "not by confusion of substance". However, as already demonstrated, is blatantly unbiblical and attacks the atonement.

Free Grace Theology in the Plymouth Brethren

A Plymouth Brethren church

 The Plymouth Brethren are a group of Christians that derive from the teachings of John Nelson Darby, thus they have 19th century origins. However, among the Brethren, Free Grace theology was apparently common.

For example, the "change of mind" view of repentance was very common in this group, as we see in the bible translation of John Bowers  (a 19th century Plymouth Brethren):

"And saying, Change your mind, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 3:2)

"From that time Jesus began to proclaim, and say, Change your minds, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 4:17)

"And that a change of mind and remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47)

"And Peter said to them, Change your minds, and be each of you immersed, upon the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," (Acts 2:38)

"Change your mind therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)

"That therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, he now commands all men everywhere to change their minds:" (Acts 17:30)

"But to those in Damascus first, and Jerusalem, and in all the country of Judea, and to the nations, I declared that they should change their minds and turn to God, and perform works worthy of their change of mind." (Acts 26:20)

Bowes was so strong in this view that repentance is a change of mind, that he directly translated "metanoia" as a change of mind, instead of using the word "repentance". We find the same view in Alexander Marshall (1846 – 1928), who could also be seen as a Plymouth Free Grace theologian, he wrote: 

“But does it not say, unless we repent we shall perish?” Yes ; but what do you think is the Scriptural signification of “repentance?” If you say “sorrow for sin,” you are wrong. It does not mean sorrow for sin ; it means a change of mind see Matt. xxi.29" (God's way of salvation)

In the same writing, Marshall also makes comments such as the quality of faith not being the issue in salvation:

 "If you are not already saved, you don’t believe in Jesus in any way. Scripture does not recognize two ways of believing— a “ right ” and a“ wrong ” one. Men may speak about a “ living faith ” and a “ dead faith,” a “saving faith ” and an “intellectual faith,” but Scripture speaks of believing what God says. Faith in man and faith in God are the same exercises of mind ; the difference is not in the faith, but in the person on whom the faith terminates. Those who are lost perish through believing the devil’s lie, and those who are saved are delivered through believing God’s truth. “"

Thus for Marshall, simple trust in Christ is enough. 

Free Grace views were also held by G.H. Lang (1874 – 1958) and G. H Pember (1837–1910), for example Lang argued that the "call to discipleship" is not of salvation:

 Obviously this [Luke 17:33] agrees exactly with the warnings already considered that believers may be cut short by premature death and thus lose their life. It will therefore harmonize with the Lord’s words should our passage [Heb 10:39] be rendered, “we are of them who have faith unto the keeping safe of life.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews)

We also see many Free Grace views from H.A. Ironside (1876-1951) and Charles Henry Mackintosh (1820 - 1896). Although H.A Ironside was involved with the Plymouth Brethren only for a part of his life. 

We see a strong doctrine of assurance in Mackintosh, as he wrote:

They deem it presumptuous to believe that their sins are forgiven until their evil nature is completely sanctified; and, seeing that this end is not reached, they have no settled assurance of pardon, and are therefore miserable. In a word, they are seeking for a “foundation” totally different from that which Jehovah says He has laid, and, therefore, they have no certainty whatever. (Sanctification: What Is It?) 

Isaac Watts (1674 – 1748) and Dispensationalism

 Isaac Watts was mentioned by Charles Ryrie as one who foreshadowed the dispensationalism of Scofield and Darby. Isaac Watts write a book called "The Harmony of All the Religions Which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Towards Them", where he taught many dispensational concepts.
However, he did not develop his every idea to their logical conclusions, as living in a Reformed environment, he had covenantal influences. This may put Isaac Watts somewhat closer to progressive dispensationalism, however considering the environment around Isaac Watts, the influences are understandable.

First thing to note is that Watts noticed a substantial difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant. Watts seems to have taught that the commands which are not re-established in the New Testament writings, are not binding.

“Watts furthermore changed the psalms in order to harmonize them with prevailing economic attitudes of the eighteenth century. Where the psalmist had scored usury, Watts thought it necessary also to leave out the mention of usury, which though politically forbidden by the ,Jews among themselves was never unlawful to the Gentles, nor to any Christians since the ,Jewish polity (Mosaic law) expired." 

(R. M. Stevenson, Patterns of Protestant Church Music)

This quote is not saying that Isaac tried to change the bible, but that when he borrowed from the Psalms, writing his own hymns (he was a famous hymn writer), he did not borrow from the psalms word for word, instead "omitting" mentions of Mosaic commandments which no longer apply. 

Watts is also seen as teaching the doctrine that the dispensation of the church age started in Acts 2, as he says in the book "The Harmony of All the Religions Which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Towards Them":

"the christian dispensation was not properly set up in all its forms, doctrines and duties, till the following day of Pentecost, and the pouring down of the Spirit upon the Apostles" 

Chales Ryrie thus describes Isaac Watt's dispensational scheme (Dispensationalism, page 53):

I. The Dispensation of Innocency, or the Religion of Adam at first

 II. The Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, or the Religion of Adam after his Fall

 III. The Noahical Dispensation, or the Religion of Noah 

 IV The Abrahamical Dispensation, or the Religion of Abraham

 V The Mosaical Dispensation, or the Jewish Religion 

VI. The Christian Dispensation Except for the exclusion of the Millennium (he did not consider it a dispensation), this outline is exactly like that in the Scofield Reference Bible, and it is Watts's outline, not Darby's! Thus, throughout this period there was significant thinking and considerable literature on the subject of God's dealings with mankind throughout the ages. This was a period of developing dispensationalism

Now, despite Isaac not considering the millennium a dispensation, he was clearly still premillennial and believed in a future kingdom. Isaac's song "Jesus Shall Reign" has been generally seen as proof of his premillennial theology, which reads thus:

1 Jesus shall reign where'er the sun does its successive journeys run, his kingdom stretch from shore to shore, till moons shall wax and wane no more. 2 To him shall endless prayer be made, and praises throng to crown his head. His name like sweet perfume shall rise with every morning sacrifice.3 People and realms of every tongue dwell on his love with sweetest song, and infant voices shall proclaim their early blessings on his name. 4 Blessings abound where'er he reigns: the prisoners leap to lose their chains, the weary find eternal rest, and all who suffer want are blest. 5 Let every creature rise and bring the highest honors to our King, angels descend with songs again, and earth repeat the loud amen.

This hymn is borrowed mainly from Psalm 72, now although he does not directly say that this will be fulfilled in the future, we see indications that he did. For example the words "His name like sweet perfume shall rise with every morning sacrifice" are not in the original Psalm, and the inclusion implies this being an additive interpretation of Isaac Watts. This indicates that he believed that a sacrificial system will exist when this Psalm is fulfilled, which would place it in the millennium (Ezekiel's temple), as no such thing exists today. 

He additionally in a hymn about Isaiah 9:6 (Watts, Psalms and Hymns p. 300) attributed the millennial reign to "ages yet unknown". Watts also believed in a future conversion of Israel, as in his comments on Psalm 106 and Psalm 105 he says:

"Though the Jews now seem to be case off, yet the Apostle Paul assures us, that “God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Their unbelief and absence from God is but for a season; for they shall be recalled again, verses 25, 26"

"Then let the world forbear its rage, Nor put the land in fear; Israel must live through every age, And be the’ Almighty’s care."

Now, believing in premillennialism does not make one a dispensationalist alone, but his belief in the divine preservation of the Jewish people and apparent belief in a future temple in Jerusalem seem to connect him closer to dispensationalism, as historic premillennialists take the temple allegorically and applying to the church.

Now, it does have to be noted that Isaac was not a classical dispensationalist. His dispensational theology is still underdeveloped and he was influenced by the mainstream writers of his day. This led Isaac to apply many promises given for Israel to the church "spiritually". It seems that Isaac's theology mirrors progressive dispensationalism, which applies these prophecies "spiritually" to the church and "literally" to Israel at the same time. Although I am not a progressive dispensationalists, Isaac should be given some grace on the matter, as he lived before Darby and during a time where the role of Israel was not majorly discussed, thus his information was more limited, perhaps, if Isaac knew of Darby, he would have taught classical dispensationalism instead. However, Isaac's theology does show that many dispensational beliefs were taught prior to Darby, as Isaac was born over 100 years before him. Despite Isaac's dispensationalism being underdeveloped, we thus see that Darby was not the inventor of this theology, but merely a systematizer of it.

Although this article is not to be meant to be about progressive dispensationalism, I believe it has some problems. I suggest reading from Andy Woods on the issue of progressive dispensationalism, as he makes a detailed biblical examination of the doctrine.

You can find "The Coming Kingdom by Andy Woods" here.