Ilmaisen Armon Teologia (Article in Finnish)

 (This article is written in Finnish, although most of my blog is written in English)

Henry Vane the Younger
1613 –  1662 osallistui "Antinomistien"
kiistaan.

Mikä on ilmaisen armon teologia? Ilmaisen armon teologia on kristillinen näkemys, joka perustuu sola fide oppiin. Tämä merkitsee sitä, että voimme pelastua vain armolla uskon kautta (Efesolaiskirje 2:8).

Ilmaisen armon teologia kehittyi vahvasti dispensationalistisissä piireissä 1800-luvun jälkeen, mutta sitä ovat opettaneet monet ennenkin, kuten "Antinomismit" 1600-luvulla Amerikassa. 

Ilmaisen armon teologia perustuu siihen oppiin, että kun on kerran pelastunut on aina pelastunut. Kun uskomme, Jeesus ei koskaan päästä meistä irti (Johannes 10:28). Usko tarkoittaa luottamista, kun luotamme siihen mitä hän teki meidän puolestamme olemme ikuisesti pelastuneet, kuitenkin jos emme pidä Jumalan käskyjä, voimme menettää ikuisia palkintoja ja Jumala voi kurittaa meitä maan päällä. Jeesus puhuu ihmisistä, ketkä ovat "pienimpiä taivaan valtakunnassa", joka johtaa siihen tulokseen, että jopa kristitty kuka ei tee hyviä tekoja pääsee taivaaseen, vaikka ei saa palkintoja.

Jos haluat oppia lisää, voit lukea tämän artikkelin:
"What is Free Grace theology" - Charlie Bing

Did The Early Christians Teach Roman Catholicism?

 This post is going to be composed of multiple quotations from early Christians which shows their disagreement with modern Roman Catholicism.

Eusebius

Infant Baptism

Eusebius - 260/265 – 30 May 339

When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of which is given by some ), and had consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, 'This one I commit to you in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.' And when the bishop had accepted the charge and had promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus. 8. But the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon him the seal of the Lord he had given him a perfect protection.

Church History, Book III 

Didache 1st century

But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. 

Tertullian 2nd century

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary 8730 —that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” 8731 Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; 8732 let them become Christians 8733 when they have become able to know Christ. 

On Baptism (Tertullian)

Baptismal Regeneration

And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:44-48 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.

A Treatise on Re-Baptism (c. 255) unknown author

The author said that those who believe before baptism, baptism merely "receives the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", which is a term to mean public identification with.

Priesthood of the believer

Odes of Solomon 70-140ad 

I am a priest of the Lord, and Him I serve as a priest;

And to Him I offer the offering of His thought.

For His thought is not like the world, nor like the flesh, nor like them who worship according to the flesh.

The offering of the Lord is righteousness, and purity of heart and lips.

Ode 20

Saint Irenæus (120-202)

For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.

Against Heresies

Sola Scriptura

Saint Irenæus (120-202)

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”(1) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,(2) who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

CHAPTER 2 Against Heresies

Augustine of Hippo 13 November 354 – 28 August 430

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4)

 Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (Reply to Faustus 11.5)

have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. . . . As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. (Letter to Jerome [no. 82])

Praying to saints

Origen 185–254

We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” (Against Celsus, Book V, Chap. XI) 

Saint Irenæus (120-202)

5. Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error. If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Menander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. But what these things were, shall be described in dealing with the proofs to be found in the prophetical writings.

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 32)

Novatian c. 200–258

If Christ is only man, how is He present wherever He is called upon; when it is not the nature of man, but of God, that it can be present in every place? If Christ is only man, why is a man invoked in prayers as a Mediator, when the invocation of a man to afford salvation is condemned as ineffectual?

On the Trinity

Apocrypha

Melito of Sardis (180 AD) 

"Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Melito."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Book IV, Chapter 26)

Jerome 342 – c. 347 – 30 September 420

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators. 

Preface to The Books of Samuel and Kings

Epiphanus (4th century)

6:2 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kingdoms. 15. The Second Book of Kingdoms. 16. The Third Book of Kingdoms. 17. The Fourth Book of Kingdoms. 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 27. Esther.

6:3 These are the 27 books given the Jews by God. They are counted as 22, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books are doubled and reckoned as five. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere.

6:4 And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha.

Epiphanus, Panarion

Perpetual Virginity

Hegesippus 110 – c.180 AD

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.

("according to the flesh" is a term used to mean genetic relationship, however he also distinguishes the Greek words "anopsis" (cousin, kindred) and "adelfos" (brother))

Apollinarius died 382

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III. p. 616. As though they had a grudge against the Virgin and desired to cheapen her reputation, certain Antidicomarians, inspired by some envy or error and intending to sully men’s minds, have dared to say that St. Mary had relations with a man after Christ’s birth, I mean with Joseph himself. And as I have already mentioned, it is said that the claim has been made by the venerable Apollinarius himself

Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD)

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son.

On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian denied "virginitas in partu" (That Mary kept her virginity during childbirth and Jesus did not have a human birth, this is taught by Catholicism)

Sinlessness of Mary

Origen  185–254

What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).

On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD

did not Christ, while preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one's parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. 

Hilary of Poitiers (; c. 310 – c. 367)

if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Tractatus in Ps. 118).

 John Chrysostom 347 – 14 September 407

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).

Basil of Caesarea 330 – January 1 or 2, 379

Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 

Eternal Security In Early Anabaptism

 

Although modern Anabaptist theology generally teaches the possibility of losing one's salvation, there are references which show that early Anabaptism had a portion of believers who believed in eternal security. Now, Anabaptism was just an umbrella term which means "re-bapizer", thus the Anabaptists were known for refusing to baptize infants. There is some controversy on if Anabaptism started as one movement "monogenesis" or if Anabaptism started from multiple movements which came to be independently "polygenesis". Despite this, they were all unified on the view that infant baptism and real presence in the Supper are not biblical.

Now, Anabaptism has never been totally unified doctrinally. Today most Anabaptists are Mennonites, which teach a kind of Arminian theology. However, we first find a reference to Anabaptists teaching eternal security 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."

The Lutheran churches thus condemned a portion of the Anabaptists for teaching that one cannot lose the Holy Ghost, which means that they were aware of the doctrine of eternal security being taught in these circles. It is apparent from these comments that some of the early Anabaptists held that you cannot lose your salvation. Although, despite this fact it is also true that we know that there were other Anabaptists very hostile to the idea, 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?

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.

Case for The Pretribulational Rapture

  This article is a biblical case for the pretribulational rapture. The doctrine was most clearly articulated by Darby, however it was earlier taught by Fra Dolcino in the 12th century. 

Argument 1: Paul affirmed the pretribulation rapture

There are multiple explicit text used to defend the pretribulational rapture, these include:

Scofield

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9

"For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

2 Thessalonians 2:7

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."

Now, contextually it appears that 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is not referring to eternal wrath but to the end times, thus the wrath refers to the 7 year tribulation period. This is further shown from the quote in 1 Thessalonians which says that this wrath is "to come", however hell is a present reality, showing that the wrath Paul is referring to is the tribulation period. These two texts show that the church will not go through the tribulation.

When Paul refers to the one "who now restrains", this likely refers to the church, as if the post-tribulational view is correct (that it refers to the Holy Spirit) that would indicate that He is not present in the tribulation at all, which would be a hard claim to make. 

Argument 2: The silence of the Book of Revelation

Chapters 1 to 3 in Revelation talk about the church, yet as soon as chapter 4 starts the church is never mentioned again, instead only "Israel" is mentioned. It is thus implied that the church will not be in the tribulation period, as during that time God's focus is on Israel.

Argument 3: God in the Old Testament saved his people out of tribulation

When God judges a people in the Old Testament in a total way, He saved His people out of it. For example God took Noah out of the flood instead of protecting them in the flood. God also took Lot out of judgement instead of protecting him in judgement. It should follow that God will take the church out of judgement.

Argument 4: Separation of church and Israel

If passages such as Isaiah 60 are to be taken literally, it necessitates the view that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church. Now, if the tribulation is for Israel (Revelation 7), then there is no reason for the church to be around during that time period, thus logically leading to a pretribulational rapture.

Why You Should Affirm Dyothelitism and not Monothelitism

Dyothelitism is the idea that "will" is not a property of personhood but of nature. This might sound small, however it is actually very important, as affirming one doctrine will lead to a bunch of other doctrines. Thus, in dyothelitism the one person of Christ has two wills (Human and divine), although the human will is in perfect obedience to the divine will, thus there can be no conflict.

Dyothelitism is the historical view which has been taught by most Christians, including Evangelicals, Lutherans, Reformed churches, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and others. However, in more recent times some Evangelicals have proposed monothelitism, most known of which is William Lane Craig. 

Lewis Sperry Chafer affirmed
 dyothelitism

Among the dispensationalist Free Grace theologians, the historic doctrine is dyothelitism, not monothelitism, as we see from these quotes:

A similar error developed after Chalcedon that taught that Christ had only one will though conceding verbally that He had two natures. It is called monothelitism. This was condemned at the third council of Constantinople in 680. A study of errors should help clarify the truth and make us more careful how we express it. Semantics are very important in the statements of theology. (Ryrie, Basic Theology)

 The Scriptures declare that Christ possessed a human body, soul, and spirit, and that He experienced those emotions which belong to human existence. Much difficulty arises when the thought is entertained of two volitions—one divine and one human—in the one Person. Though this problem is difficult, it is clearly taught in the New Testament that Christ, on the human side, possessed a will which was wholly surrendered to the will of His Father. The surrender of the will, while it obviates any possible conflict between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, does not at all serve to remove the human will from His unique Person. The human will was ever present regardless of the use He may have made of it. (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology) 

 Biblical basis

Dyothelitism follows from the biblical fact that Christ was fully human, He must have had a human will for him to be in "every way like us":

Hebrews 2:17

Therefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

We also see in verses such as Philippians 2:8 that Christ "became" obedient, showing that when Christ became human, His human will fully obeyed the Father, as we see in in John 6:38. 

And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.

The word "became" implies that it did not happen before the incarnation, thus when Jesus says "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.", it must be referencing the human will of Christ, not the divine will.

Although there is a specific order in the trinity (the Father sends the Son, the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit), the bible says that Christ submitting His will to the Father is something that happened only after the incarnation.

Establishing The Canon Using The Scriptures Themselves

 Many Catholics and Orthodox assert that unless we accept the Orthodox/Catholic traditions, we cannot know the canon. However, we see the Bible itself give us major evidences for the canon. Although we can trust that the canon would be preserved (John 16:13), there are additional evidences which confirm the canon being true.

1: Jude quotes 2 Peter as authoritative

Jude 1:17-18:  But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.

Now, Jude is quoting the oral words of the apostles (plural), however he appears to take the wording from 2 Peter 3:3 which states:

Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

Thus it appears that Jude is making chiefly reference to 2 Peter, yet also secondarily references what the other apostles said orally.

2: 2 Peter quotes Paul as authoritative

2 Peter 3:16, KJV: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It is thus clear that Paul's writings were seen as canonical early on, and having inspiration from God.

Peter

3: Paul claims to be inspired 

In addition to the claims of Peter, we can know that Paul himself claimed inspiration.

2 Thessalonians 3:14, KJV: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

4: Paul's miraculous conversion proves his testimony 

Paul went from a persecutor of the church to an apostle suddenly. This is mentioned both in the book of Acts but also by Paul himself in Galatians - a letter which even atheist scholars claim is Paul's:
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Why would Paul die as a martyr if he was lying?

5: Paul claims that Luke is inspired

Paul the apostle quoted the gospel of Luke as being equal to scripture:

1 Timothy 5:18

18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Luke 10:7

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Comparing the Greek:

1 Timothy 5:18: Λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή, Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις· καί, Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke 10:7: Ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστίν. Μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν.

The only difference is the word "gar", which translates to the English term "for".  It is evident that Paul had in possession the book of Luke, and quoted it as equal to scripture. This is noteworthy, because Paul would later say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.". This shows that Paul was aware of the new books being written, thus also the Catholic objection that this is only referencing the Old Testament is weak.

6: Mark and Matthew.

Since we now know that Luke is inspired from the testimony of Paul the apostle, the usage of Mark and Matthew are also something to consider, the Spirit certainly saw the two as trustworthy if Luke used them. Additionally, there exists internal and external evidence that Mark and Matthew were the authors, which together makes for a case that they too are inspired.

For example, Matthew contains a special reference to Matthew in verses 9:9-13

9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

10 And as Jesus[a] reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew was also a tax collector, which is evident in the fact that the gospel of Matthew contains the most references to money out of every gospel.  It is also clear that Matthew was able to speak Hebrew, as he quoted the Hebrew text in Matthew 2:17-18 (NIV). Matthew's quote reads:

Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Greek of Matthew: Φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμὰ ἠκούσθη, κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς· Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν.

Greek of the Septuagint: οὕτως εἶπεν κύριος φωνὴ ἐν Ραμα ἠκούσθη θρήνου καὶ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ ὀδυρμοῦ Ραχηλ ἀποκλαιομένη οὐκ ἤθελεν παύσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῆς ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν

Even if one does not speak Greek, it is clear that there are differences, it appears likely that Matthew was making his own translation of the Hebrew text.

7: Jesus claims the Old Testament to be inspired

Jesus claims that the Old Testament is inspired in the book of Luke in multiple places, quoting it with full authority. Jesus confirms that the Rabbinic canon of the Old Testament was correct: Luke 24:44, KJV: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Here, Jesus affirms the threefold canon of the Jews, who divided the Old Testament into three categories, the law, the prophets and the writings. Now, Jesus used the word "psalms" for the entirety of the writings due to being the most significant book in the category. 

8: Paul claimed the Jewish canon of the Old Testament to be inspired

Romans 3:2, KJV: Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Paul states that the "oracles of God" were given to the Jews, which necessitates an affirmation of the books affirmed by the Jews. Now, it is true that the Sadducees and the Pharisees differed in their canon, as the Sadducees only accepted the Mosaic, however it is clear that Paul (from a Pharisaic background) would refer to the Pharisaic canon. Additional evidence is that Paul always quotes books from the Jewish Pharisaic canon, not the Sadduceeic canon.

9: The book of Revelation contains prophecies, which shows its inspiration.

Revelation 2:8-11 prophesied the persecution that came to Smyrna around 140ad, when Polycarp was also killed.

Revelation 13:17 prophesied digital currency.

Revelation 22:18-19 implies foreknowledge on the book of Revelation being the book with the most variants. We know from history that the book of Revelation was carelessly copied, and yet the same book with the most variants, has the harshest warning on editing the book. This is a prophecy by implication, that the book would be carelessly copied.

Revelation 9:17 maybe prophesied modern warfare, as it talks about "fire and smoke" being used as weapons, this likely refers to modern weaponry, such as guns.

Revelation 7:9 describes the spread of Christianity to the entire world and to every nation, which is today already fulfilled.

9: The epistle of John speaks authoritatively

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 2:18

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Now anyone can make such claim, yet if an apostle makes the claim, we can have much confidence that he is speaking the truth, otherwise why would God have chosen him for the duty of spreading the gospel?

10: if Revelation is inspired, there is reason to think that the rest of the Johannine writings are

Now there is some debate on the authorship of Revelation, Eusebius argued that the book was written by a close companion of John the apostle, called John the elder, he argued that Papias (60 – 130) made the same distinction. Now, there is no objection to such an authorship, as Luke was inspired despite not being an apostle, though he was a close companion of Paul. Yet others, such as Justin Martyr (100 – 165) attributed Revelation to the apostle himself, and this has been the majority opinion of Christians in history. Nevertheless, in both cases, the authority of the Johannine corpus is established. 

If Revelation is inspired and written by John the apostle, why would not other of his writings that were preserved to this day too? If it was written by a close disciple of John, why wouldn't the preserved writings of his master be inspired too, especially if they speak authoritatively?

11: What about James, Jude and perhaps Hebrews?

Now if Hebrews was written by Paul, that goes simultaneously. However others believe that the author was Barnabas (this was the opinion of Tertullian), in these three cases, we have less direct evidences, yet their agreement with other scriptures, their content and apostolic authorship along with being preserved to our day, together make a case for their inclusion in the canon.

12: The Old Testament prophesied the future

We also can know the validity of the Old Testament due to the many prophesies in contains (such as Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Ezekiel 26 etc.). 

Did Dispensationalism Exist Before Darby?

Darby

Dispensationalism is often associated with Darby (1800 –  1882), which teaches that the the scriptures should be read using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, leading to a belief in chiliasm (premillennialism) and a futurist eschatology.  Despite being popularized by Darby, there are earlier references to such beliefs.

To start with, we have Pierre Poiret, who is often quoted as an early dispensationalist before Darby. In fact, even those who have criticized dispensationalism have mentioned him as a proto-dispensationalist theologian. For example, the book "A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology, ´states:

Some of the earliest evidence of a dispensational approach to Scripture appears also in the French mystic Pierre Poiret (1646-1719) 

Charles Ryrie (a proponent of dispensationalism) also states:

Pierre Poiret

Pierre Poiret was a French mystic and philosopher (1646-1719). His great work, L’OEconomie Divine, first published in Amsterdam in 1687, was translated into English and published in London in six volumes in 1713- The work began as a development of the doctrine of predestination, but it was expanded into a rather complete systematic theology. In viewpoint it is sometimes mystical, represents a modified form of Calvinism, and is premillennial and dispensational..... There is no question that we have here a genuine dispensational scheme. He uses the phrase "period or dispensation" and his seventh dispensation is a literal thousand-year millennium with Christ returned and reigning in bodily form upon the earth with His saints, and Israel regathered and converted. He sees the overthrow of corrupt Protestantism, the rise of Antichrist, the two resurrections, and many of the general run of end-time events (Dispensationalism)

We also see dispensationalism in Nathaniel Holmes (1599–1692), who wrote concerning the rapture:

What may be conceived to be the cause of this rapture of the Saints on high to meet the Lord in the clouds, rather then to wait his coming to the earth. What if it bee, that they may be preserved during the conflagration of the earth, and the works thereof, 2 Pet.3.10. That as Noah, and his family were preserved from the deluge, by being lift up above the waters in the Ark, so should the Saints at the conflagration bee lift up in the clouds unto their Ark, Christ, to be preserved from the Deluge of fire, wherein the wicked shall be consumed?

 John Balirchensa writing in 1660ad, argued that the promises to Israel will come to be:

[I]ndeavor to informe your selfe of those things which belong unto your present Dispensation. Look not for the Accomplishment of those things in your Age, which the Scripture hath declared shall not be brought to passe until future Times. Take heed how you apply those Promises that are made unto the Jewes, (and shall not be fulfilled unto them before their restoring out of their present Captivity) unto the Gentiles who shall live before the conversion of the Jewes.

Manuel Lacunza (1731 – c. June 18, 1801) was also a writer who lived slightly earlier than Darby. Lacunza but being similar dispensationalism. Lucunza taught that there will be a future restoration of Israel along with Futurist eschatology (which refers to the prophecies of the Bible being fulfilled in the future). Though Manuel was a Catholic, his works were banned by the Catholic church.

However, going into the early church, we see a good example of dispensationalism, that being Nepos. Nepos was a 3rd century theologian in Egypt, who wrote a book called "Refutation of the Allegorisers", although now lost, we know of the views of Nepos through Eusebius. It is evident that Nepos advocated a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, which lead Nepos to take the Old Testament millennial prophecies literally, this was mentioned by Eusebius:

Besides all these the two books on the Promises were prepared by him. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth. (Church History)

It is clear that Nepos did not teach historic premillennialism, because Eusebius specifically called him for taking the "promises to the holy men in a more Jewish manner", which is not true of historic premillennialists. Historic premillennialists take the promises given to Israel as an allegory for blessings for the church, thus they would not agree with Nepos, who argued that they should be taken literally.

Another early Christian to foreshadow dispensationalism was Pseudo-Ephraem, who stated:

All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins. –Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

We also see indications that Papias (early 2nd century) taught similar views to dispensationalism, as he appears to have attributed Ezekiel 36 to the millennial age, instead of the church. Papias was a student of the apostle John and quotes from an apparent saying of Jesus that although was not written in the scripture he claimed to be passed unto him by John. However, this does not diminish scriptural sufficiency, as even if this saying is accurate, it teaches the same content as mentioned in Ezekiel 36, thus containing no new doctrine that is not written in the bible. We know that there are many sayings of Jesus that were not written down (John 21:25), however the scripture does contain every doctrine God wanted to give to us. Although, since Papias is likely writing from memory, the exact wording is unlikely identical to what Jesus would have actually said.

 Now, If you read Ezekiel 36 it refers to blessings to Israel, and if attributed to the millennial age instead of a spiritualized fulfillment in the church, your theology comes very close to dispensationalism.  Papias is often argued to have been a historic premillennialist, not close to dispensationalism, however this quote implies otherwise as historic premillennialists do not take Ezekiel 36 as literal, because that would imply a special role for Israel.

The reason why we know that this was attributed to the millennium by Papias, is that Irenaeus commenting on his works (as they were still available then), said that this was to be fulfilled in "those times" (a word used for the millennium by Irenaeus, who also affirmed millennialism):

As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: 

 The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.

This is a quote of Ezekiel 36, which says:

28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations.

Thus it appears that Papias took Ezekiel 36 as being fulfilled in the millennium, which necessitates a Jewish restoration. We know Papias affirmed a literal millennium, because Eusebius commenting on his works said thus:

Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. (Eusebius, church history)

Although Ignatius (died 108/140ad) did not write much on eschatology, we see that Ignatius does seem to have agreed with dispensationalists on the new law, as Irenaeus argued that old testament works such as the sabbath are no longer in force, which covenant theologians hold are necessary to keep:

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath" (epistle to the Magnesians)

Irenaeus (130 – c. 202ad) also taught that God arranged history in certain "dispensations" and in premillennialism. We see in his book "Against Heresies" this written:

Irenaeus

Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away from God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God. (Against Heresies)

Irenaeus also defended premillennialism against the Gnostics. In Irenaeus' day, the Gnostics would deny premillennialism due to being too "worldly", however Irenaeus was strong in his premillennial conviction, writing:

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their ­rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times (Against Heresies)

Irenaeus also taught "futurism" (the view that biblical prophecy will be fulfilled in the future), he took Daniel as referring to a future Antichrist and that the years described are literal, about which he wrote in Book V, Chapter 25 of his "Against Heresies" in detail.

However, Irenaeus did not extend the literal hermeneutic to the entire bible, as it had became popular to take the prophecies about Israel to the church, he also taught that. Despite that, his theology has some elements of dispensationalism.

Even somewhat later, the pretrib rapture was affirmed by Fra Dolcino in the 13th century, as the book "The History of Brother Dolcino" which recorded his beliefs said:

“Again, [Dolcino believed and preached and taught] that within those three

years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the

Antichrist. And that the Antichrist was coming into this world within the

bounds of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, then he

[Dolcino] and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, in which are

Enoch and Elijah. And in this way they will be preserved unharmed from

the persecution of Antichrist. And that then Enoch and Elijah themselves

would descend on the earth for the purpose of preaching [against] Antichrist.

Then they would be killed by him or by his servants, and thus Antichrist

would reign for a long time. 

Fra Dolcino was influenced by Joachim of Fiore, who also taught some similar views to dispensationalism, although he did not believe in the rapture. 

Quotes On Assurance From Old Dispensationalist Authors

James Hall Brookes

 James Hall Brookes (1830 – 1897)
Take the text, “He that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him.” (1 John 3:24.) This cannot give assurance; for every true Christian, unless deluded by Satan, will confess that he fails to observe them in many particulars; that when he would do good evil is present with him; and that ‘no mere man, since the fall, is able, in this life, perfectly to keep (The Way Made Plain)

Charles Henry Mackintosh 1820 –  1896

They are looking for what they can never find. They are seeking for a ground of peace in a sanctified nature instead of in a perfect sacrifice—in a progressive work of holiness instead of in a finished work of atonement. 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. (Sanctification: What Is It? )

Cyrus Scofield (1843 – 1921)

Assurance is the believer's full conviction that, through the work of Christ alone, received by faith, he is in possession of a salvation in which he will be eternally kept. And this assurance rests only upon the Scripture promises to him who believes. (Scofield's Reference Notes)

D. L Moody (1837 – 1899)

There is no doubt about assurance in the Word of God. A person said to me some time ago: "I think it is a great presumption for a person to say she is saved." I asked her if she was saved. "I belong to a Church," she sobbed. "But are you saved?" "I believe it would be presumption for me to say that I was saved." "Well, I think it is a greater presumption for any one to say: 'I don't know if I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,' because it is written, "He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." [Jn. 6:47.] It is clearly stated that we have assurance (Anecdotes and Illustrations)

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871 – 1952)

No very deep conviction of assurance can grow in any heart where the mind is still wondering whether it has really believed in a saving way, and where no impressions of certainty are allowed to take root. 

Such a precious experience as is described by these passages may become clouded by sin or lost in the depression of some physical weakness, and were we depending upon the experience as primary evidence that we are saved, all grounds of assurance would be swept away. (Salvation)

Alexander Marshall (1846-1928)

But if God declares you may be sure, and tells you how you may be sure, wouldyoucall it “presumption” to believe Him? “ Assuredly not.” Then listen to Him : “ These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know That ye have eternal life” (i. John v. 13). (God's way of salvation)

Watchman Nee (1903 – 1972)

“Every believer can know whether or not he has eternal life. Men often think, ‘We can only hope that we are saved, and we can only know if we are saved after we die or at the time of judgment.’ This is not the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that a man can know whether or not he has eternal life in this age.”

You Can Read My First eBook "A Historic Critique of the Papacy"

 I made this short ebook lately, it is titled "A Historic Critique of the Papacy", where I go through the early Christian writings to show that no papacy existed.

You can read it for free using this link

Did Cyrus Scofield Teach Free Grace Theology?

 Scofield is one of the most famous dispensationalist authors, Scofield was also a friend of Lewis Sperry Chafer, who is known to have taught Free Grace theology.

And indeed, we can find statements made by Scofield that do agree with Free Grace theology.

Scofield held to the "change of mind" view of repentance, we find multiple references to this in his Reference Bible:

it is evident, from a study of all the passages, that the sacred writers use it in the sense of metanoia in the N.T.—a change of mind. See Mt. 3. 2; Acts 17. 30, note. As in the N.T., such change of mind is often accompanied by contrition and self-judgment. When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of mind.

Also saying:

This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7. 8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may "work" repentance, is not repentance. 

Scofield also held to the rewards interpretation of many passages:

1 Corinthians 3:14. God, in the N.T. Scriptures, offers to the lost, salvation, and, for the faithful service of the saved, rewards. The passages are easily distinguished by remembering that salvation is invariably spoken of as a free gift (e.g. John 4:10; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9); while rewards are earned by works (Mt. 10:42; Lk. 19:17; 1 Cor. 9:24, 25; 2 Tim. 4:7, 8; Rev. 2:10; 22:12). A further distinction is that salvation is a present possession (Lk. 7:50; John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47), while rewards are a future attainment, to be given at the coming of the Lord (Mt. 16:27; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 22:12).

And on top of it, Scofield's view of assurance is in line with Free Grace theology:

Assurance is the believer's full conviction that, through the work of Christ alone, received by faith, he is in possession of a salvation in which he will be eternally kept. And this assurance rests only upon the Scripture promises to him who believes. (Scofield's Reference Notes)

Much more could be mentioned, however these major points point Scofield towards a more Free Grace view. 

Watchman Nee (1903 – May 30, 1972) On The Epistle of James

 Verse 14 says, "What is the profit, my brothers, if anyone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" What was James's intention in writing these words? Who was he speaking to? He wrote these words because some were saying that they had faith but not works. If he did not stop these people, the church would have been greatly affected. Faith must be kept before God and not vainly boasted of before man. Faith must be accompanied by works. If anyone says he has faith and does not have works, that kind of faith cannot save him. The word save in the Scripture has several meanings. For example, Paul said, "For I know that for me this will turn out to salvation through your petition and the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:19). Was not Paul saved? "Salvation" in this verse does not refer to receiving eternal life by those who believe, but rather to Paul's release from prison. In 2 Corinthians 1:10 Paul said, "Who has delivered us out of so great a death, and will deliver us; in whom we have hoped that He will also yet deliver us." Some think that this refers (1) to the Lord's death on the cross which delivered us from the punishment of our sins in the past, (2) to Christ in heaven as our Mediator delivering us from the authority of sin in the present, and (3) to His coming back again in the future to save our body. This is not what Paul meant. The salvation spoken of here refers to the Lord's delivering the body from affliction. By reading the context, it is clear that affliction came to Paul's company while they were in Asia. They were excessively burdened that they despaired even of living. Yet the Lord delivered them out of this situation. Paul believed that the Lord would deliver them out of their present and future affliction. James's reference to the word save means to profit others in their environment. This is made clear by the following verses. James 2:15 and 16 say, "If a brother or sister is without clothing and lacks daily food, and any one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, yet you do not give them the necessities of the body, what is the profit?" The "one" in these verses is one who vainly said that he had faith, yet he was not supplying food and clothing to the needy brothers and sisters. He vainly said to them, "Go in peace." Being saved in these verses is not a matter of going to heaven in the future, but a matter of being physically warmed and fed in this age. James implied that it is not adequate just to talk and believe without also meeting the needs of the saints

(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 20: Questions on the Gospel (W. Nee))

Is Free Grace Theology Historical?

 Some have argued that Free Grace theology is an invention of the 1980s, however this claim is impossible to be substantiated, and is generally made by those who have not studied the topic in depth. 

There are mentions of Free Grace theology by Augustine (4-5th centuries), Caesarius of Arles (5-6th centuries), Bede (7th century) and perhaps John Chrysostom (4th). Free Grace views were themselves held by Ambrose (4th), Jerome (4th), Pseudo-Chrysostom (4-5th) and to a lesser degree Ambrosiaster (4th), possibly also held by Jovinian (4th). However, it must be noted that some of their views might not have been identical to the modern movement, for example they held very punitive views of the Bema. Although some Free Grace theologians do believe that the Bema is punitive, they held more radical views of it.

A very clear witness comes from Augustine, who mentioned this doctrine being in existence multiple times in his writings, in fact he went so far as to write an entire treatise against the view that carnal Christians can be saved merely through their faith. Despite the protests of Augustine, he does imply that they were in good standing with the general Christian church. We see this in book 21, where Augustine states:

But, say they, the Catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?  And who then is it, they ask, of whom the Apostle Paul says, But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire? Let us join them in their inquiry; and one thing is very certain, that it is not he of whom James speaks, else we should make the two apostles contradict one another, if the one says, Though a man's works be evil, his faith will save him as by fire, while the other says, If he have not good works, can his faith save him?

He repeated the same point again in His book "On Faith and Works":

"But the reason why our opponents think that the one person may be admitted, but not the other, is this: they think that these persons are saved, although by fire, if they believe in Christ.... They are saved, so they think, even though they do not correct their evil ways"

Augustine thus mentions the belief that one may live carnally yet go to heaven. As we see, their main arguments came from Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, using the same passage many Free Grace theologians today use. Though it is evident they misunderstood what "through fire" meant, we see a concept similar to Free Grace theology early on.

The non-Free Grace Patristic scholar John Norman Davidson Kelly in his book "Early Christian Doctrines" comments on the soteriology of Jerome, saying:

"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." 

Kelly seems to have been talking of this quote from Jerome:

"He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live 

forever." Epistola CXIX, Ad Minervium et Alexandrum Monachos, §7, PL 22:973

Jerome of Stridon

The fourth mention of this doctrine that I am aware of comes from Ambrosiaster, who in his commentary on 1 Corinthians directly stated:

He [Paul] said: 'yet so as by fire,' because this salvation exists not without pain; for he did not say, 'he shall be saved by fire,' but when he says, 'yet so as by fire,' he wants to show that this salvation is to come, but that he must suffer the pains of fire; so that, purged by fire, he may be saved and not, like the infidels [perfidi], tormented forever by eternal fire; if for a portion of his works he has some value, it is because he believed in Christ

Ambrosiaster clearly took the Bema to be punitive, being somewhat similar to Robert Govett. However, Ambrosiaster did believe that apostasy is not forgiven, thus not truly Free Grace.

Pseudo-Chrysostom, living somewhere around 400-500 also held Free Grace like views, in his commentary on Matthew, Chrysostom says that some people who enter the kingdom are disinherited from "reigning" with Christ. This position is not held by all Free Grace theologians (Ryrie, Rokser, Stegall would hold that all Christians will reign with Christ), however it still means that Pseudo-Chrysostom allowed for someone to be disobedient and enter heaven. Jody Dillow in his book "Final Destiny" quotes this part:

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) compiled from the works of the fathers a 

comment by Pseudo-Chrysostom (5th or 6th century AD) that proposed a similar 

interpretation of Matthew 5:19-20: 

But seeing that to break the least commandments and not to keep them are 

one and the same, why does He say above of him that breaks the 

commandments, that he shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven, and here 

of him who keeps them not, that he shall not enter into the kingdom of 

heaven? … For a man to be in the kingdom is not to reign with Christ, but 

only to be numbered among Christ’s people; what He says then of him that 

breaks the commandments is, that he shall indeed be reckoned among

Christians, yet the least of them. But he who enters into the kingdom, 

becomes partaker of His kingdom with Christ. Therefore, he who does not 

enter into the kingdom of heaven, shall not indeed have a part of Christ’s 

glory, yet shall he be in the kingdom of heaven

Outside the explicit mentions from Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Pseudo-Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, we may by implication reason that Chrysostom and Bede had seen individuals teaching salvation without any good works being necessary. We can find objections to a faith alone position in Chrysostom's commentary on John, as when he encountered verses in the book of John that show salvation being based of faith alone, Chrysostom paused with the question "But what if his life be unclean, and his deeds evil?", Chrysostom seems to attempt to refute an individual who would teach that faith alone is salvific by then rebuking the idea by saying "It is of such as these especially that Paul declares, that they are not true believers at all"". Chrysostom's sudden refutation of the view that this passage allows for the carnal Christian to be saved, may imply having knowledge of such a doctrine being spread. 

We also have a plausible mention of eternal security from Jovinian (died 405), who said "Those, who are once with full faith born again by baptism, cannot be overcome by the devil.", although we do not know the details of his doctrine, as his writings are fragmentary.

Bede (672- 735) in his day seems to have encountered the Free Grace position, this is clear in his commentary on the epistle of James, in which he calls out those who would teach Free Grace theology:

"Although the apostle Paul preached that we are justified by faith without works, those who understand by this that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith, have made a great mistake. James here expounds how Paul's words ought to be understood. This is why he uses the example of Abraham, whom Paul also used as an example of faith, to show that the patriarch also performed good works in the light of his faith. It is therefore wrong to interpret Paul in such a way as to suggest that it did not matter whether Abraham put his faith into practice or not. What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merit derived from works performed beforehand, because the gift of justification comes only from faith." (Concerning the Epistle of St. James) 

The interesting part is that Bede said "those who understand by this", which should be taken as a clear reference to Bede seeing this as a doctrine that was actually taught during his day. It is clear that Bede looks upon this belief in disapproval, it yet shows the existence of the Free Grace position early on. Bede is not referencing the classical Reformed or Lutheran view of faith alone, as he then says "it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things", showing that the persons being criticized by Bede argued that even the carnal Christian may be saved.

In between the time of Augustine and Bede, we also find Caesarius of Arles (470 - 542) mentioning the belief, saying that it was still a common belief, as he wrote:

There are many people who understand this text incorrectly, deceiving themselves with a false assurance. They believe that if they build serious sins upon the foundation of Christ, those very offenses can be purified by transitory flames, and they themselves can later reach eternal life. This kind of understanding must be corrected. People deceive themselves when they flatter themselves in this way. For in that fire it is slight sins which are purged, not serious ones. Even worse, it is not only the greater sins but the smaller ones as well which can ruin a person.

Sermon 179

He also wrote:

For many say: I believe; and they think that faith alone without good works is sufficient. (Sermon 186)

Thus we have seen that Free Grace Theology was within Christian orthodoxy in the early church. Although some such as Chrysostom and Augustine opposed it, they were still within the church and not a separate "heretical" sect.

Reformation

Free Grace theology did not die out after the early church, we see that some in the Reformation taught Free Grace theology from the quote of Leupold Scharnschlager, who said:

“No one can claim that faith, which comes from the preaching of God’s word, is merely a historical or dead faith, without effect or fruit. No doubt that is what people held at the time of James…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?”"

Free Grace theology was held by the anti-Majorists (a faction inside Lutheranism). The main character in this controversy was Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, who wrote against the doctrine of George Major (who argued that faith must lead into good works), Amsdorf wrote the following against him:

“All those who teach and write that good works are necessary for salvation are going directly against Luther, yes, directly against themselves. For Luther of blessed and holy memory writes everywhere and especially on Galatians that good works not only are not necessary for salvation, but are also harmful to salvation”

"And they themselves also write and cry out that we obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation by pure grace, without our works or merit, purely for free. Now if this, their own confession, is true, how then can our good works be necessary for salvation (which we have already obtained for free, by grace, before any good work, as they themselves confess)? This is contrary to their very own confession."

Some Free Grace views were also held by the Calvinistic "Antinomians" (17th century), Sandemanians (18th century) and the "Marrow Brethren" (17th century):

The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645), likely written by Edward Fisher teaches some Free Grace views. The Marrow is written as a dialogue between hypothetical individuals who held to different views, in these it is the "Minister of the gospel" whom the author meant to be taken as holding the correct view. In the book, Fisher lays down multiple arguments for why turning from sin (how they defined repentance) cannot be a condition of salvation from a Calvinistic viewpoint:

For, first of all godly humiliation, in true penitents, proceeds from the love of God their

good Father, and so from the hatred of that sin which has displeased him; and this cannot

be without faith. Secondly. Sorrow and grief for displeasing God by sin, necessarily argue the love of God; and it is impossible we should ever love God, till by faith we know ourselves loved of God.

Thirdly. No man can turn to God, except he be first turned of God: and after he is turned,

he repents; so Ephraim says, "After I was converted, I repented. (Marrow of Modern Divinity)

We see that a common argument of the Marrow Brethen came from Hebrews 11:6, in their perspective as repentance from sin is a work of love that pleases God, it cannot be a condition of salvation that happens prior to faith. This position is similar to Zane Hodges' "harmony with God" view of repentance, though there are differences.

This along with the Auchterarder creed would start the Marrow controversy, as the Auchterarder creed stated that it was "unorthodox to teach that one must repent [of sins] prior to coming to Christ". The viewpoints held by the Marrow and the Auchterarder were defended by Thomas Boston against the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Thise who sided with the Marrow were called "Marrow Brethren", these included: Thomas Boston (died 1732), Robert Riccaltoun (died 1769), Ebenezer Erskine (died 1754), James Hog (died 1734) among others.  The Marrow additionally had a heavy focus on the doctrine of assurance, whereby assurance was based off Christ. The Marrow would be later condemned by the General Assembly as "Antinomian".

Though the Marrow were condemned in Scotland, their influence still lasted later. We see the influence of the Marrow in writers such as John Colquhuon who lived in the 18th century. John Colquhuon wrote an entire book on the doctrine of repentance, in which he states:

How then can his repentance atone for his iniquities, or entitle him to the favour of God and to the happiness of heaven? How can that evangelical repentance, which he is incapable of exercising till after his sins be all forgiven on the ground of an infinite atonement imputed to him, make atonement for them? How can that true repentance, which he cannot exercise until in justification he be already entitled to eternal life, entitle him to eternal life? Does not the consummate righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed for justification, entitle the believer fully to it? What need is there, then, that his repentance should entitle him? (Evangelical Repentance. John Colquhuon)

John Cotton

The Antinomian controversy started in 17th century colonial America. Theologically, the movement
gained its views from John Cotton, however Anne Hutchinson would become a prominent member of the controversy. The Antinomian Controversy in colonial America is one of the most similar controversies to the Lordship Salvation controversy, in fact it is called the "Free Grace Controversy" by some. The controversy was heavily focused on the doctrine of salvation and assurance, the Free Grace advocates argued that good works cannot be used as a basis of assurance. Cotton heavily criticized the view that we should place out assurance in good works, and we see this clearly in the writings of Cotton who said: "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". However, Cotton erred in making assurance based off the "witness of the Spirit" instead of the objectivity of the gospel. [9] Yet, Wheelwright said that our assurance should be based off Christ and not our own good works, him stating: 

This an hypocrite will do…and the Lord will grant the

desire of hypocrites. What must we do then? We must looke

first, at the Lord Jesus Christ, and most desire now that Jesus

Christ may be received in other nations and other places, and

may be more received amongst ourselves. We must turne unto

the Lord and then he will will turne all into a right frame

So the children of God are a company, a generation that seeke

the Lord and his strength evermore, they do not only seeke the

gifts of his spirit, but the Lord himself, they doe not seeke after the strength that is in the Lord, they do not seeke only to know the Lord by his fruits and effects, but look upon the

Lord with a direct faith they seeke his face.

The Antinomian controversy of the 17th century may rightly be called the "Free Grace controversy" as many of their opinions were in agreement with later Free Grace theology.

The third event to cause a Free Grace controversy is the theology of Robert Sandeman. Though Sandeman was a Calvinist in his soteriology, his views were very similar to Free Grace theologians. Robert Sandeman denied the necessity of repentance from sin or sorrow in salvation and called out his contemporary theologians as adding conditions to salvation. Sandeman went so far as to define faith as mere assent, denying it as being trust. Most Free Grace theologians hold faith to be trust, however Hodges, Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical society do not, agreeing more closely with Sandeman. However, there are many things in common with Sandeman and both sides of Free Grace theology. Sandeman responded to criticisms of his day by saying:
In vain shall we consult catechisms, confessions, and other publicly authorized standards of doctrine for direction here. These are framed by the wisdom of the scribes, and disputers of this world. We can receive no true light about this matter, but from the fountainhead of true knowledge, the sacred oracles of divine revelation.... Thence it will appear, that justification comes from bare faith. As a Christian, What’s his faith, the spring of all his hope? And he answers you in a word, The blood of Christ.2

Sandeman did not accept the Westminster Confession as authoritative and instead answered that faith in Christ is sufficient. For Sandeman, good works and feelings must be separated from the gospel, him strongly criticizing the view that love is salvific: "The popular preachers are not so insensible that the absurdity would appear too glaring should they directly oppose the apostolic order; therefore, instead of plainly establishing the reverse, they choose rather to throw the apostolic order into confusion and cover it with mist, so as the cheat may not readily be discerned. For they always do their business most successfully in the dark.  They so confound the distinction betwixt faith and love that it is difficult to say what fixed uniform notion they have of either." Sandeman also tried to remind Aspasio in his letters that Christ alone is sufficient:

No, we must either take the one side or the other. Either Christ has done everything God requires to procure acceptance with Him and relieve the wretched conscience of its guilt, or He has not. This is why my plea with Aspasio in this respect proceeds upon this cardinal question: what is the turning point from despair toward hope?