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

Courtesy of the Arkansas State Archives

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

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

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

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

Bogard also continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

You Deny The New Birth! Answering Objections to Free Grace

Often brought forth by advocates of Reformed Theology is that Free Grace theology, by allowing for the possibility of perpetually carnal Christians to be saved, is denying the new birth. However, this argument is flawed as it is born from a rather unbiblical understanding of the two natures of the believer. 

The Bible does not teach that our old nature is changed or totally taken away at the moment we are born again. Instead, we are given a new nature which we are told to walk in. However, the old nature still remains in us, and we have the ability to choose in which nature we want to walk in. Notice how in Ephesians 4 Paul gives to saved Christians the command to walk in the in the new nature, as he writes:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

The fact that Paul is giving this as a command, implies that the Christian has a degree of choice to walk in either.  This distinction between the flesh nature and the spirit nature is put together clearly in Galatians 5:17 which reads: 

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Thus, we have two natures in us which are constantly in conflict, the reason why some Christians can be carnal is that we still have the flesh, and sometimes people unfortunately choose to live in the flesh rather than the new nature. We this happening in the book of Corinthians, where it names Christians who live carnally:

1 Corinthians 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?

Notice how the same people who are called "carnal" are also called "brethren". Thus they were saved, despite walking in the flesh.  I like how the Baptist Evangelist and Pastor John R Rice described the conflict of our two natures, as he wrote:

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

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

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

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

However, do not believe something because a man said it. Test all doctrines by the scripture, which clearly shows the distinction of our two natures.

You can join my discord server at https://discord.gg/nPdj4286uP

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

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

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

Adressing the argumentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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