Free Grace Theology In The Reformation Period

Some early Anabaptists taught eternal security.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Early Christian Quotes on the TULIP being Gnostic

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

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

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

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

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

(Against Heresies (Book IV) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Biblical Case For Free Grace Theology

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

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

Revelation 22:17

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

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

The Gospel of John

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

John 5:24

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

John 6:37

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

John 6:39

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

John 10:28

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

John 11:25-26

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

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

Matthew 5:19

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

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

1 Corinthians 3:14-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 2:13

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

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

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

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

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

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

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

King Saul (1 Samuel 28:19)

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

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

Ezekiel 44:10-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Defense of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11)

You can now watch my newest video on Youtube:

Free Grace Theology In The Early Church (Updated)

There are those who claim that the concept of Free Grace is entirely novel, lacking any historical precedence. While our beliefs should be grounded in scripture, this article aims to address any doubts regarding the presence of Free Grace throughout history for those who struggle with it, and to provide an interesting research topic for those who are already strong in the faith.

Ante-Nicene

Within the earliest early church writings, we have general references to justification by faith alone from multiple Christian writers, such as Polycarp (2nd century), Clement of Rome (1st century), Mathetes (2nd century) and the more unknown Odes of Solomon (1st century). The following quotes seem to imply some kind of understanding of faith alone:

Clement of Rome

All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians)

In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners ( Epistle to Diognetus/Mathetes)

 In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;  into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ. (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians)

However, many of these early Christians are very ambigious, as these letters were not written as theological treatises. For example, although Polycarp mentions salvation by faith without works, he later exhorts his audience to do good works to reign with Christ. May Polycarp have distinguished reigning from salvation? Maybe, but we cannot be certain. However, the late 1st century to early 2nd century writing "Odes of Solomon", likely written by an Essene convert to Christianity seems to make some statements that more strongly may imply eternal security. Consider these following quotes:

Ode 4:13 For that which You gave, You gave freely, so that no longer will You draw back and take them again. 

Ode 5:3 Freely did I receive Your grace, may I live by it.

Ode 4:3 The ancient one shall not be perverted by those which are inferior to it. You have given Your heart, O Lord, to Your believers.

Ode 29:5-6 And I humbled my enemies, and He justified me by His grace. For I believed in the Lord's Messiah, and considered that He is the Lord.

Ode 17:2 And I was justified by my Lord, for my salvation is incorruptible.

Ode 25: 12 And I was justified by His kindness, and His rest is for ever and ever. Hallelujah. 

In addition to affirming that salvation is by grace, not of works, the writing seems to affirm the finality of salvation by describing it as "incorruptible" and by his statement that "no longer will You draw back and take them again".  The Odes may be the earliest possible writing that may be understood as teaching eternal security outside the New Testament.

 Additionally, what deserves a brief mention is Tertullian's understanding of the Greek term "metanoia" (repentance). Although Tertullian clearly did not teach Free Grace soteriology, as he was clearly involved in a works justification system, he affirmed the view that "repentance" refers to a change of mind, not to turning from sins, as he writes:

Now in Greek the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of  varying circumstances (Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 24)

We see the usage of the Greek term "metanoia" (repentance) in the earliest Christian writings as a reference to a change of mind multiple times. The following examples show the usage of the term in reference to a change of mind, not turning from sin:

Martyrdom of Polycarp (2nd century):

“The Proconsul said unto him, ‘I have wild beasts ready; to those I will cast thee, unless thou repent [metanoēsēis].’ He answered, ‘Call for them, then: for we Christians are fixed in our minds, not to change [i.e. not to repent] from good to evil. But it will be good for me to be changed from my grievous (sufferings) to their just reward. The Proconsul added, ‘Seeing thou despises the wild beasts, I will cause thee to be devoured with fire, unless thou shalt repent [metanoēsēis].’ Polycarp answered, ‘Thou threatenest me with fire, which burns for an hour, and in a little while is extinguished: for thou knowest not the fire of the future judgment, and of that eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.”

Clement of Alexandria (2nd century):

“The devil is responsible for his actions. He was capable of changing his mind [metanoēsai] or of committing the theft. It is he who bears responsibility for the theft, not the Lord who did not prevent him.” (Stromateis, (John Ferguson translation)

Lactantius (3rd century) 

“For he who repents of that which he has done, understands his former error; and on this account the Greeks better and more significantly speak of ‘metanoia,’ which we may speak of in Latin as a return to a right understanding.” (Divine Institutes, (William Fletcher translation):)

Lactantius is especially powerful, as he testifies to the usage of the term as a synonym for belief, not as a turning from sins, contrition or such.  

Post-Nicene 

Within the post-Nicene era, we have more explicit mentions of Free Grace soteriology. Augustine, for instance, vehemently debated against the notion of carnal Christians attaining salvation solely through faith, yet he acknowledged their acceptance within the broader Christian community. He highlighted this stance in his writings, including his treatise "On Faith and Works" and "The City of God". We find quotes in Augustine such as:

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.ire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. (1 Corinthians 3:15) - City of God, book 21

(The Latin term "catholicus" translated as "catholic" does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but was a designation given by early Christians to those not deemed outside the body of Christ)

Augustine even mentions people who explicitly affirmed that even those who leave the faith will be saved:

  “But let us now reply to those who promise deliverance from eternal fire, not to the devil and his angels (as neither do they of whom we have been speaking), nor even to all men whatever, but only to those who have been washed by the baptism of Christ, and have become partakers of His body and blood, no matter how they have lived, no matter what heresy or impiety they have fallen into" 

(The terms for baptism and becoming partakers of His body and blood may be understood as references to being born again instead of the sacraments (1 Corinthians 12:13,John 6:35)

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"

In his book "Early Christian Doctrines," the scholar John Norman Davidson Kelly, who does not align with Free Grace theology, discusses Jerome's views on salvation. Kelly notes that Jerome makes a distinction, suggesting that while those who have rejected God will face eternal torment, those who have placed their trust in Christ, even if they have sinned and strayed, will ultimately find salvation:

Jerome

"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."  ( John Norman Davidson Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, second edition (Harper & Row publishers, 1960)

 Kelly appears to be referencing Jerome's statement: "He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he dies in sin, shall by his faith live forever." (Epistola CXIX, Ad Minervium et Alexandrum Monachos, §7, PL 22:973). 

Individuals teaching salvation by faith alone were additionally still mentioned by Caesarius of Arles (470-542ad), who wrote the following:

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

Jovinian

Among the early Christian thinkers, Jovinian, who lived until 405, possibly hinted at an understanding of eternal security, although his surviving writings are incomplete. Church historian Philip Schaff suggested that Jovinian might have leaned towards the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, albeit without explicitly attributing it to God's unchanging counsel. However, Jovinian's statements, such as "Those who are once born again with full faith by (spiritual) baptism cannot be overcome by the devil," do not necessarily align with the Calvinistic notion that all justified individuals will persevere in faith until the end. Instead, they may simply assert that once justified, an individual cannot lose their standing before God, without directly addressing the question of ongoing faithfulness. Jovinian’s surviving writings are too fragmented to draw definitive conclusions, but it's plausible that he held an early understanding of eternal security. Nevertheless, despite Jovinian's possible understanding of eternal security, he was known to have rejected the concept of eternal rewards (which was one reason why Jerome criticized him), and thus may align more closely with "Hyper-Grace" theology.

Around the 4th to 5th centuries, Pseudo-Chrysostom expressed perspectives reminiscent of Free Grace theology. In his commentary on Matthew, he suggests that certain individuals who enter the kingdom may be excluded from "reigning" with Christ. Pseudo-Chrysostom's stance thus implies the possibility of disobedient individuals attaining salvation:

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

During Bede's lifetime (672-735), he would have encountered proponents of the Free Grace perspective, as evident in his commentary on the Epistle of James, where he rebukes those advocating for 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)

Bede's use of the phrase "those who understand by this" clearly indicates his recognition of this doctrine being taught in his time. Bede disapproves of this belief, highlighting its existence alongside his disapproval. Notably, the individuals Bede criticized do not align with the classical Reformed or Lutheran perspective of faith alone, as he mentioned the belief that immoral conduct has no bearing on salvation, indicating the presence of individuals arguing for the salvation of even the morally compromised Christian. 

Despite almost all the previous mentions being from western Christianity (as it seems Free Grace was primarily a western doctrine), some eastern writers such as Chrysostom (347 – 407) addresses objections likely raised by early proponents of a Free Grace ideology in several instances, as evidenced in his commentary on John. For instance:

"He that believeth on the Son, is not judged." He that "believeth," not he that is over-curious: he that "believeth," not the busybody. But what if his life be unclean, and his deeds evil? It is of such as these especially that Paul declares, that they are not true believers at all"

"Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means."

Chrysostom's responses suggest a rebuttal to arguments advocating for salvation based solely on faith, drawing from the Gospel of John. This indicates his awareness of such arguments circulating, implying the existence of Free Grace theology. 

Conclusion

These facts show the early existence of Free Grace ideas on topics such as apostasy, eternal security and repentance. Although scripture is our final authority, and church history should not determine our beliefs authoritatively, this demonstrates the fact that Free Grace is not a new idea. While the accounts of Free Grace theology mainly come from hostile sources, this is likely due to the fact that as time progressed, Augustinian influence (which rejected the concept) caused their writings to stop being copied, as zealous Augustinian scribes would prefer not to spend long time copying treatises which are contrary to their ideas.

(AI was used to refine the language used in this article, however the substance of the text is all human made)

 

Why the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) belongs in the Bible.

Christ and the woman taken in adultery,
 drawing by Rembrandt

The Pericope Adulterae or the story of the woman caught in adultery refers to John 7:53–8:11, which eclectic textual critics today regard as uninspired. Although it is found in most modern translations, it is always footnoted to say that it is not original. This passage has been used by millions of Christian throughout history, being a strong depiction of the wisdom of Jesus Christ and to take this passage out of the scriptures to me is disastrous. I thus take the opposite view to most modern eclectic textual critics, as I believe that this text belongs to the original text of John. 

This article will seek to defend the story as a part of the original gospel of John.

Manuscript Evidence

Firstly, it should be noted that the wast majority of all manuscripts contain this story. It is present in virtually all of the Byzantine text-type manuscripts which although are later than the Alexandrian manuscripts, constitute a majority of all New Testament manuscripts in Greek that exist. Thus, the one who wishes to reject this as an authentic story must ask themselves, how is it possible that the scribes would have added such an edit into the text? What motives would there be for scribes to add this into the text in large numbers?

However, those who deny this as an authentic part of the New Testament scripture often argue that this text is not found in the most early manuscripts, thus the later ones do not have the same weight, even if there are more of them.
Even though it is true that particularly the manuscripts of the Alexandrian region lack this text, it is still found in the early Codex Bezae from the 400s. The Codex Bezae includes the Pericope Adulterae within the main text, without indicating any doubt on its authenticity. It is also found very early on in the Latin manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate dates to the late 4th century, which is close to the timing of the Vaticanus and the manuscripts used by Jerome were likely of similar age as the Vaticanus. Therefore, the Latin Vulgate is an important witness to the Pericope Adulterae. It is also found in many of the Vetus Latina manuscripts, and so the comments that this story is missing from the earliest manuscripts is very selective, as it does not take into account the early Western manuscripts.

Codex Delta's blank space

It should also be noted that some of the manuscripts which do not contain this text still contain a large blank space, which is just  enough to fit in John 7:53-8:11. Therefore, although the scribes may have not seen it as authorative, this testifies to the scribes' memories of the text being in existence.

A short list of some manuscripts before the 10th century which include the pericope include:

• Latin Vulgate (383ad) (although we do not have the original Vulgate manuscript, we know that the original included the passage)  (Latin)
• Codex Bezae (400ad) (Latin and Greek)
• Codex Palatinus (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Corbeiensis (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Veronesis (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Sarzanesis (400ad) (Latin)
• Codex Fuldensis (541ad) (Latin)
• Codex Usserianus Primus (600ad) (Latin)
• Unicial 047 (700ad) (Greek)
• Unicial 0233 (700ad) (Greek)
• Book of Mulling (700ad) (Latin)
• Basilensis A. N. III. 12 (700ad) (Greek)
• Seidelianus (800ad) (Greek)
• Cyprius (800ad) (Greek)
• Campianus (800ad) (Greek)
• Unicial 030 (800ad) (Greek)
• Petropolitanus (800ad) (Greek)
• Boorelianus (875ad) (Greek)

The Early Christians

We find this story quoted by multiple early Christians early on, especially within the western church. It was quoted as scripture by Ambrose (4th century), Augustine (4th century), Jerome (4th century), Pacian (4th century), Peter Chrysologus (5th century), Prosper of Aquitane (5th century) and Cassiodorus (6th century):

Put to death the thief. Stone the petulant. Choose not to read in the Gospel that the Lord spared even the adulteress who confessed, when none had condemned her; that He absolved the sinner who washed His feet with her tears; that He delivered Rahab at Jericho, itself a city of the Phoenicians; that He set Tamar free from the sentence of the Patriarch; that when the Sodomites also perished, He destroyed not the daughters of Lot; willing likewise to have delivered his sons-in-law, had they believed the destruction to come.” Letter 3(39) Against the treatise of the Novatians (Pacian)

None of the accusers of the woman taken in adultery were without sin. Christ wrote their names in the earth (Jerome, Against the Pelagians (Book 2.17))

enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin (Augustine, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum)

 Now, it is not contested that this text was widely know in the Western church, nevertheless due to an outdated claim, some have argued that this passage was totally unknown in the writings of the east until around the 12th century, to give an example Metzger wrote thus: "Euthymius Zigabenus, who lived in the first part of the twelfth century, is the first Greek writer to comment on the passage, and even he declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it". Not to mention that we have manuscripts from the east before the 12th century which contain this story, we also have multiple eastern attestations to the story of the adulteress in the very early church. Didymus the Blind in the 4th century, living in Alexandria mentioned that he knew of multiple manuscripts which included this story, Didymus writing:

We find therefore in certain Gospels. A woman it says was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The saviour it says when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her said to those who were about to cast stones ‘He who has not sinned let him take a stone and cast it ‘ If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things they did not dare to strike her

Jerome

Jerome (400ad) additionally mentioned that this story was found in many Greek manuscripts, which are likely eastern, as Jerome did not seem to make use of the western Greek texts in his Vulgate:

in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the

story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord (Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, Volume. 23, col. 579.)

This story was referenced to explicitly as early as the 3rd century in the Didascalia, which reads:

If, however, you do not receive a penitent back, being without mercy, you have sinned against the Lord God, since you would not have obeyed nor trusted in God our Saviour, nor acted as did he on account of the woman who had sinned, when the elders set her before him and departed, leaving judgement in his hands. He looked into her heart and asked whether the elders had condemned her. When she said not, he said to her: ‘Go, nor do I condemn you.’

Interestingly, Agapius of Hierapolis (10th century) writes that Papias in the early 2nd century already knew of this passage in the Gospel of John:

 And there was at that time in Menbij [Hierapolis] a distinguished master who had many treatises, and he wrote five treatises on the Gospel. And he mentions in his treatise on the Gospel of John, that in the book of John the Evangelist, he speaks of a woman who was adulterous

It should be also noted that the text was quoted by Rufinus of Aquilea (345-411ad), who although was a western Christian, studied under Didymus the Blind in the east, and thus was familiar with Eastern manuscripts quoted it as scripture:

 A woman taken in adultery was brought before our Lord by the Jews, so that they might see what judgment he would pronounce according to the law. He, the merciful and pitying Lord, said: ‘He that is without sin among you let him cast a stone at her. And then, it is said, they all departed.”

 Other early Eastern, Aramaic or Greek speaking authors who reference the passage include the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century), Pseudo-Athanasius (6th century) and Zacharias Rhetor (6th century). A 10th century Greek named Nikon also accused the Armenians as deleting the passage from their manuscripts "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things" (S. S. Patrum J. B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p.235) So how can the claim that it was unknown to the Greek speaking world until Euthymius Zigabenus be still made by textual critics? 

Greek canon table from the Monastery of Epiphanus

There exists also evidence of it being known by the 5th or the 6th century in Egypt. We have found canon tables from Thebes, Egypt which date to the 6th century, containing the story of the adulteress. Although fragmentary, the numbers necessitate it's existence in it. We also found ivory pyxides from Egypt that were dated to the 5th or the 6th century, which depicted the story of the adulteress.

Additionally, some have pointed out that the 2nd century Gospel of James may perhaps include allusions to the Pericope Adulterae, as it reads "If the Lord God has not revealed your sins, neither do I condemn you" (16,2) (There is a variant in the text, where some manuscripts read "condemn" and some read "judge", however we see this variant in the biblical texts also. Many Byzantine manuscripts read "judge" while the TR reads "condemn"). This might be a possible allusion to the Pericope Adultarae in the Gospel of John, where it reads: "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.". It has also been pointed out that the Gospel of James contains multiple other parallers to the story of the adulteress, making it very likely to have drawn from it as a source.

The omission of the pericope

Augustine and Nikon evidently theorized that this passage was omitted by some copyists due to theological piety. While it is possible that some copyists might have done that, I do not believe that it is a sufficient reason for its absence in most of the manuscripts we have, instead James Snapp has pointed out that this text was skipped during the Pentecost readings, thus a scribe may have put marks on the text to point out that it should be skipped during these readings. Later copyists may have mistaken these marks as meaning that this text should be omitted. It also seems that some copyists relocated the pericope elsewhere in the Gospels (as is customary in the Georgian manuscripts), which likely happened for the same reasons as the omission. 

Free Grace Quotes From History

Clement of Rome

 Clement of Rome (96ad)
All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians)

Mathetes (2nd century)

In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners ( Epistle to Diognetus)

Tertullian (2nd century)

Now in Greek the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of  varying circumstances (Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 24)

(Tertullian did not believe in eternal security, but shows the same understanding of repentance)

Ambrosiaster (4th century)

"we find Ambrosiaster teaching that, while the really wicked, 'will be tormented with everlasting punishment', the chastisement of Christian sinners will be of a temporary duration." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)

Jerome (347 –  420)
"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." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)

Jovinian (405ad)

Those, who are once with full faith born again by [spiritual] baptism, cannot be overcome by the devil (quote from Jerome's "contra Jovinianum")

Augustine (354 – 430)

Augustine mentions many in his day who believed in OSAS, although he disagreed with it:

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. (City of God)

"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" (On Faith and Works))

Pseudo-Chrysostom (400ad)

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

Caesarius of Arles (470 –  542 AD)
For many say: I believe; and they think that faith alone without good works is sufficient. (Sermon 186)

The Reformation

Leupold Scharnschlager (1500ad)

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.

Martin Luther (1500ad)

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

(Luther later changed his mind)

John Calvin (1500ad)
But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Repentance [of sins] is not placed first, as some ignorantly suppose, as if it were the ground of the forgiveness of sins (Institutes)

To salvation Paul seems to make repentance [of sins] the ground of salvation. Were it so, it would follow, that we are justified by works. (Calvin's Commentaries, 2 Corinthians 7)

Nicolaus Von Amsdorf (1500ad)

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."

Book of Concord (16th century)

Concord mentions many early Anabaptists as teaching eternal security:

 "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."

John Cotton (1585 – 1652)

Trulie it is hard to perceive 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

John Colquhoun (1748-1827)

How then can his repentance [of sins] 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)