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?