The Novelty Of Free Grace Theology, Part 2: The Dangers Of Following The Commentary Traditions

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Columbia, SC]

I. Introduction

In part one of this two-part series, I argued that in the extant writings of the early Church it is difficult to find any significant support for a Free Grace understanding of the gospel. However, the same could be said for any understanding of the gospel that proclaims justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers reflect, among other things, a works-oriented gospel that threatened the loss of salvation, the necessity of water baptism for forgiveness of sins, and a harsh understanding of the offer of forgiveness for believers who commit sin.

But it should be just as evident to anybody who reads these writings that a Lordship understanding of the gospel is also absent. Hence, it is ironic that some Lordship proponents reject a Free Grace understanding of the gospel on the grounds that it does not have the support of the very early Church on its side.

However, Lordship teachers are much more likely to point to the Reformers for support of their views. Beginning with the sixteenth century, it is maintained, Lordship Salvation is clearly taught. This gives relative antiquity to these views. Free Grace, on the other hand, is a “newer-comer” to the theological scene. This casts doubt upon the validity of Free Grace theology.

In this article I will address these issues. In addition, the reasonableness and Scriptural basis for Free Grace theology will be addressed.

II. The Gospel And The Reformation

With the coming of the Renaissance and the Reformation, dramatic changes occurred in the church. There was the cry of Ad fontes—“back to the sources.” As far as the gospel was concerned, this meant going back to the original manuscripts of the NT. Instead of what the Catholic Church taught, there was a search to find theological truths in the inspired Word of God.

Most advocates of Lordship Salvation trace their lineage to the Reformers of the sixteenth century.[1] They argue that Luther and Calvin’s teachings support Lordship Salvation. Calvin speaks of a false or temporary faith (Institutes 3.2.11). In addition, works at least provide some kind of assurance (3.17.10). Free Grace theology, on the other hand, is not clearly found in extant writings until the Marrow Controversy (late 1600s to early 1700s), Jon Glas and Sandemanism (1725-50), and Darby (1825).

These arguments are by no means certain. Calvin, at least in some places, says that assurance is part of saving faith and not by our works (Institutes 3.2.16; 3.14.19). Lane says that Calvin thought that if we find assurance of salvation from our work, we reject the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In addition, Lane says that it was the later followers of Calvin in the 17th century, and not Calvin himself, who taught that believers find assurance by perseverance.[2] Others have come to the same conclusion.[3] If that is the case, Free Grace views and Lordship views arise relatively simultaneously in extant writings.

It is also interesting that a recent book challenges the notion that Lordship Salvation beliefs are present from the beginning of the Reformation, but Free Grace is not. The writer, who is by no means sympathetic to the Free Grace view, states that many of the teachings of Free Grace theology are present alongside Reformed theology from the very beginning. He simply maintains that Free Grace ideas were the reflection of the minority.[4]

In any case, it is somewhat ironic to argue that Free Grace theology is incorrect because we do not find an expression of it from the beginning of the Reformation. Whether that is true or not, the Reformers themselves would say the test for its veracity is if the Scriptures support it. The battle cry, after all, was “back to the sources.” The battle cry was not what did others say, but what did the Word of God say.

In the late 1970s there was a debate between Zane Hodges and S. Lewis Johnson on the merits of Free Grace theology versus Lordship theology. Both men had respect for each other. It is said that Johnson commented that the problem with Hodges was that Hodges was not a theologian. Instead, he was a Biblicist. Johnson’s comment sprung from his respect for Hodges as well as Johnson’s practice that he would not adopt a belief unless he found it in the commentary tradition. Johnson felt that Hodges’s views were novel in this regard. But he also knew that Hodges would take this as a compliment. Hodges, on the other hand, felt that if Scriptures refuted the commentary tradition that tradition was to be set aside.[5]

The Reformers would agree with Hodges’s sentiments. But when interpreting the Bible, there are also some reasonable reasons for doing so.

III. The Reasonable Nature Of Free Grace Theology

Whether one is studying the Bible for oneself, or teaching it, the issues surrounding Free Grace theology inevitably come up. One notices, for example, that some people adopt Free Grace theology without even knowing they are doing so. They are not even aware of the theological debates. For those who know the issues, sometimes they find that holding to a Lordship Salvation view contradicts certain passages.

In addition, sometimes problems arise when one holds to the commentary tradition that he or she has been exposed to. There is uneasiness when confronted with certain passages. If one is honest with the text, a “novel” understanding is needed to properly understand the text. Often, this understanding springs from a Free Grace perspective.

A. Lay People And Free Grace Theology

It is probably safe to say that the majority of churchgoers today are not familiar with the terms Lordship Salvation and Free Grace theology. It shouldn’t be assumed that just because a person attends a church where the pastor holds to a Lordship view that all the people at the church do as well. The same would be true for a church where the pastor holds to a Free Grace view.

When I first went to seminary, I had a long conversation with a relative of mine. At the time, I held to a Lordship view of salvation. My relative went to a church where the pastor did as well. However, even though she did not know the terminology, she held a very strong Free Grace perspective. Whenever the issues of grace, works, and eternal salvation came up, she would quote verses from the Bible such as John 3:16 and the woman at the well. She would insist that she knew she was “going to heaven” because Jesus had promised her that was the case. She had believed in Him. If I asked her about sin in her life she would respond that Jesus’ death paid for all of them.

My relative had some very mild learning disabilities. She had never read a commentary. In fact, I do not believe she even knew what one was or that they existed.

This example is not anecdotal. It is my experience that most people in churches have not read a commentary either. You don’t have to be involved in ministry very long to find many such people who have believed in Jesus for eternal life apart from works and who know they are going to be a part of God’s Kingdom. They know that whatever they do, they are God’s children and that Jesus loves them no matter what and that He has paid for all their sins. The very idea, for example, that Jesus only died for some or that they have to look at their lives to see if they “really believed” is completely foreign to them.

Since this is not the result of the commentary tradition, surely this is the result of God’s Word. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of God’s grace through that Word to people, even if they are not theologians. These ministries of the Word and Spirit have been operative from the beginning of the Church. As I argued in part one, these ministries existed among people in the first centuries of the Church who were not familiar with writings such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as well.

We must never underestimate the power of these ministries. How many people, who had no access to commentaries, have received eternal life as a free gift through hearing and believing John 3:16? Only eternity will answer that question.

I read a recent account of the Spirit using God’s Word in an unexpected place. I was attending a Sunday school class, in which a certain curriculum was being used. Based upon past experience, I was aware that the curriculum usually leaned towards a Lordship view of salvation. However, on this particular lesson, in the introduction, the author spoke about being in a Bible study. The class was having difficulty interpreting Rom 5:10. The first part of the verse says that the believer has been reconciled to God through the death of Christ. The class understood that. However, the last part of the verse says that those who have been reconciled to God through Christ, “shall be saved by His life.” They didn’t understand how they could be saved by Christ’s death, and then saved by His life.

The class was stumped, so they decided to take a week to research the verse as to what it meant. The next week a member of the class said he found the answer in an “amplified” version of the Bible. This version suggested that the word saved does not mean salvation from hell, but from the daily deliverance from the power of sin. They concluded that the verse, in context, was telling believers to live every day in the assurance of forgiveness and in the power of the risen Christ.[6]

Of course, understanding that the word “saved” often does not refer to eternal salvation is a part of Free Grace theology. This is also the key to understanding James 2. But since it is held to be “novel,” and not significantly present in the commentary tradition, many reject it. It is thrilling, however, to see people come to an understanding of the verse based simply upon the Bible and the context of the verse.

B. Lordship Salvation Contradicts Certain Passages

One of the problems with Lordship Salvation is that, if one holds to it, he or she inevitably comes across passages that contradict what it teaches. When I held a Lordship view, while in seminary, I was given the assignment to write a paper on the meaning of Rom 8:12-17. I had a very difficult time with the assignment. I read that passage and saw Paul was exhorting his readers to live by the Spirit and not the flesh (8:13). This certainly fits the whole context of Romans 6-8. The believer is exhorted to walk by the Spirit.

The passage also says that all Christians are “children” of God (8:16). But Rom 8:14 was the problem. It says that all who are led by the Spirit of God are “sons” of God. I couldn’t understand what Paul was saying. I equated being a son of God with being a believer. But if all believers are sons of God, and all sons of God are led by the Spirit, why does Paul exhort believers to walk by the Spirit? If walking by the Spirit was true of all believers and was automatic, why did Paul struggle with it in 7:15-25? Why did I and every other believer I knew struggle with it? It was clear to me that the passage taught that not all believers automatically walk by the Spirit.

I went to the library and read through about 15 commentaries on the passage. They all equated being a son of God with being a believer and said that all believers walk by the Spirit. I concluded that must be what the passage was saying, even though it was obvious to me that was not the case. In fact, my conclusion contradicted the clear meaning of the passage.[7] I went with what the commentaries told me instead of the text.

It wasn’t until later, when I spoke with another believer who explained the passage from a Free Grace perspective, that I understood what the passage was saying. The answer was simple. There is a difference between being a son of God and being a child of God. This difference was right there in the text (vv 14, 16).

A son is a child that has matured. Believers who walk by the Spirit have matured in their walk with the Lord. Like the members of the Sunday school class discussed above, I realized that a son is one who, by the power of the Spirit, has victory over sin’s power in his daily life. Believers can experience that kind of salvation. Even if every commentary I looked at didn’t say it, the context and the Bible did. Here was an understanding of the text that did not contradict what Paul was clearly stating.

There is a beauty in the way God teaches His children. This passage had caused me a great deal of problems. God brought another believer into my life to point out what was obvious. When I saw it, I did not need to confirm it in a commentary. I did not have to search to see if the early Church supported it in any of its extant writings before I could accept it. The text taught it, and that was good enough for me. It was a liberating experience.[8]

Sometimes, our understanding of a text does not blatantly contradict the passage. We hold positions because the commentaries say it, or it is what we have been taught. Nevertheless, we are uneasy about our interpretation. We recognize something is amiss. A Free Grace perspective often removes this uneasiness.

C. Uneasiness And The Commentary Tradition

Probably all Christians have had the experience of holding to a particular meaning of Scripture because that is what they have been told it means. For some, it is because they have read it in commentaries. For others, it is because they have heard it from people they respect. The axiom is generally true that even if something is not true, if it is repeated enough, it becomes the truth. People will often hold to the truth of something in such circumstances even if occasionally something suggests it is not the case.

Even though it does not deal with the Free Grace and Lordship debate, an example of this comes from Matt 18:20. In that verse, Jesus says, “For where two or three have gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” For the majority of Christians, there is no need to discuss the meaning of this verse. It means that whenever Christians gather for Bible study, prayer meetings, or Christian fellowship of any kind, Jesus is with us. We don’t need to worry if the group is small. Jesus does not care. He is there.

We know this verse means that because we have heard it over and over again. For some, they have read it in devotional commentaries. They have certainly heard it from pulpits and while attending small meetings of believers. In fact, for the vast majority of Christians, that is the only interpretation of the verse they have heard or read.

Ten years ago, I also knew this was the meaning of the verse. I was even a seminary graduate, and had pastored military chapels around the world. I had heard the meaning of the verse and even had taught it to many small groups. However, occasionally I was a little uneasy about my understanding. Wasn’t Jesus with every single believer? Why was there a need for two or three to meet together in order for Jesus to be there? When a believer prays by himself, isn’t Jesus there? These were small details, however, since everybody (including myself) knew the meaning of the verse.

At that time, I heard Earl Radmacher teach on this passage. I didn’t understand the need, since the meaning was so obvious. He pointed out, however, that in the passage Jesus was speaking of church discipline. Part of the process when a believer sins is that, if he does not repent, two or more are to confront him.

For, as the OT states, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Matt 18:16). Just four verses later, Jesus concludes by saying, “For” when two are three are gathered in His name He is there. The word “for” is the conclusion of the passage. We can only understand v 20 if we understand the context before it.

As Radmacher pointed out, this has nothing to do with small groups getting together for fellowship, prayer meetings, or Bible study. When a church needs to discipline a believer, and it involves the “two or three” witnesses discussed (v 16), Jesus is in the midst. Such discipline is a difficult task, but what the church does, Jesus does. He is with them.

Unbelievably, even though I had been in full-time ministry for 25 years, I had never heard that! No doubt, part of that was due to my laziness in studying God’s Word. However, for me, this was a “novel” understanding of the passage. It went against everything I had ever heard or read. But it was correct. Even though I was embarrassed by my ignorance, I did not need to find this teaching in a commentary in order to accept it. It is what the text taught.

Another example of this principle does involve a Free Grace understanding of a text. It involves a portion of the text, discussed in part one of this series, that Carson uses to take exception to the Free Grace understanding of James 2. In v 19, it says that the demons also believe and shudder.

Here also, the majority of Christians see no need to discuss this verse. Its meaning is allegedly obvious. Lordship Salvation gives us the answer. James is saying that if we claim to be a believer in Jesus but don’t have works we aren’t really saved. We are deceiving ourselves. We are no better than demons, who are spiritually lost. After all, they also believe but they “shudder” before God. They don’t do good works even though they believe too. This is the meaning of James 2. Faith without works is dead because even the demons believe. So, if you claim to have faith but don’t have works, such a claim is false.

Like the previous example, this is all that most Christians have heard. If one goes to the commentaries on James they will almost certainly confirm that this is the meaning of the text. Years ago, I also held to this meaning for these reasons.

If one looks at the text a little closer, however, he or she will develop an uneasiness about this understanding of the verse. Even when I believed this was the meaning of the verse, I had these moments of doubt.

Why would James use demons as an example of people who are not saved because they don’t do good works? Hebrews 2 makes it clear that demons cannot be saved regardless of what they believe or do. Christ did not die for them. But also, Jas 2:19 says that what demons believe is that “God is one.” That belief is not the gospel. Nobody receives eternal salvation by believing that “God is one.” If James is trying to say that people who say they believe the gospel but don’t have good works are not saved, he sure uses a strange example. He uses demons, who cannot be eternally saved, and he uses a “gospel” that is not the gospel. In addition, the demons really do believe that God exists. How strange that James would use them to describe people who don’t really believe what they claim.

It should also be noted that even those not friendly towards Free Grace see the problem with the usual interpretation of Jas 2:19.[9] It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these verses, however, the uneasiness of the usual understanding of these verses is taken away if one understands that James is not speaking of eternal salvation. All of James 2, in fact, is speaking of the fact that a faith that does not work is unprofitable for the believer. There will be negative consequences, but the issue of eternal salvation is not one of them.

These examples show the danger of relying solely on what one perceives as the commentary tradition, or relying on what we have been told verses mean. Sometimes such tradition makes it difficult to see what the Scriptures themselves say. When we place such traditions over the Scripture we either contradict the teachings of the text or find an uneasiness over our interpretations. We need to be open to the possibility that our traditions are wrong.

To do otherwise is to exhibit at least a degree of arrogance and to wear cultural blinders. When we speak of our “commentary tradition,” what we probably have in mind is the teachings handed down in our own cultural milieu. For us, this means the teachings that have dominated in the West since the Reformation. Such teachings trump everything else, or at least can be an obstacle to seeing any other meaning. It also is saying that only the tradition that I have been instructed in can be correct. Our tradition trumps the Scriptures.

But one wonders how Christians who have lived in, and who currently live in, other countries understand certain verses. For those who live in those cultures, and have not been exposed to our commentary tradition, and they hear Matt 18:20 read, do they understand that Jesus is speaking of church discipline? For those who have not been exposed to our commentary tradition, or are not culturally burdened by understanding the word salvation as only referring to salvation from hell, how would they understand James 2, Rom 5:10, and Rom 8:13ff? Are they more likely to understand it in the same way as the students in the Bible study mentioned above? To discount such understandings, from the start, simply because they don’t agree with what we have been told or read in our traditions, will probably result in our misunderstanding some texts.

IV. Conclusion

For many readers of this journal, we have been blessed with an abundance of resources in our study of the Scriptures. We have a plethora of linguistic tools to help us understand the original languages, for example. These resources also include a vast array of commentaries on every book of the Bible as well as books on theology. We have all benefited from these resources. Commentaries, for example, often point out issues or ways of understanding that we had not considered.

But there is a danger in these resources. When the majority of these resources proclaim a certain view, we can subconsciously come to believe that this view is automatically correct. Any view that challenges the majority is suspect.

This majority, whether from an Arminian or Lordship perspective, often holds that works are necessary for one to have the gift of eternal life. Assurance of such a gift is not completely sure in this life. Since Free Grace theology challenges this majority, it is seen as novel.

Lordship Salvation adherents appeal to church history to bolster the strength of their majority view. However, as seen in part one, the gospel that one finds in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and in later Catholicism is not the gospel proclaimed by Lordship Salvation. These early writers did not say that works are necessary to prove one has eternal life, they said that without works eternal salvation is lost. Lordship Salvation teachers would reject the lack of grace often extended to both believers and unbelievers in these writings. They would also reject that forgiveness of sins and grace are extended through the sacraments.

It is not surprising, then, that a greater appeal is made to the Reformers to support the antiquity of their views. Certainly the followers of Calvin, by the seventeenth century and beyond, had systematized a theology that reflected their understanding of justification.

In fact, some maintain that Luther and Calvin themselves held to a Lordship view. The earliest extant writings of Free Grace theology are not found until the next century in the Marrow Controversy. As discussed above, this is debatable. However, even if that is the case, one must ask if that is a great difference when one considers the entire history of the Church.

Do such observations mean that Free Grace theology does not reflect the teachings of the Bible? Just a little reflection will answer that question in the negative. If antiquity is the standard for truth, Lordship Salvation is clearly to be rejected. Why should a gospel that is not systematized until after 16 centuries of Church history be considered ancient, while Free Grace theology, which arose at the most, a century later, be rejected for being recent? If the writings of antiquity are the standard, the writings of the early church give us the gospel. It is that one must work for eternal life and such life is easily lost. One finds forgiveness through the Church and its sacraments. God’s grace and forgiveness are only obtained through great effort.

But the most ancient record of all, the Bible, rejects such an understanding of the gospel. For whatever reasons, the early Church writings often reflect an ignorance of the wonderful grace of Jesus Christ. God’s Word shines a light on that grace.

Unfortunately, our commentary tradition can also darken that light. It often tells us that we cannot know we have eternal life. We must attempt to verify that we have that life by our works. Perfect assurance is impossible.

Upon reflection, however, we find that such an understanding of God’s grace often contradicts God’s Word. When we try to make such a theology align with that Word, there are gnawing questions of uneasiness.

Fortunately, the Spirit of God is at work in our world and lives. We see Him revealing the Biblical view of God’s grace to people, and can be confident that even if we don’t have their written records, He did the same throughout Church history.

From the beginning of this history, people have heard the same message that Jesus gave the woman at the well. It was the same message Jesus gave Nicodemus in John 3, and Martha in John 11. And what was that message? Eternal life is guaranteed to all who simply believe in Jesus Christ for it. No period of probation. No need to go to the Church to obtain it. No need to evaluate one’s work to see if it is true.

The Spirit of God uses God’s Word to reveal this grace to hearers. Have the majority of hearers ever understood and believed? No. Have the majority ever taught it or wrote about it in commentaries? No. But, is it novel? No. The Lord, the founder of the Church, proclaimed it.

Notes

1. MacArthur appeals to Luther, Calvin, and the later Westminster Confession and Puritans. See John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel according to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, ‘Follow Me?’” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 223ff.
2. A. N. S. Lane, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance,” Vox Evangelica11 (1979), 41.
3. Charles M. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance (Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1985); Kendall, R. T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Zane C. Hodges, “The New Puritanism: Part 1: Carson on Christian Assurance,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring, 1993).
4. Mark Jones, Antinomianism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013). Even though he discusses these issues, Jones does not use the term “Free Grace.”
5. Hodges himself stated that he found all of his views in the writings of others, except for one part of Romans. No doubt, Johnson held that these other writings expressed too small of a minority of Christian opinion to be taken seriously. As seen in part one of this two-part series, Carson would agree with Johnson. Hodges’s views did not reflect the view of any significant interpreter of the Bible [See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 137.] But ultimately, for Hodges, that was not the issue. As a Biblicist, all other writings were subject to what he found in the Bible.
6. Batson, Jerry W., “Live in Resurrection Power” Explore the Bible (Winter 2013-14), 101.
7. For a full discussion, see my article, Ken Yates, “‘Sons of God’ and the Road to Grace (Romans 8:12-17),” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2006), 23-32.
8. Since then, I have found this understanding in a few commentaries. This points out another weakness of relying on the “commentary tradition.” What if a believer is not aware of other options in that tradition because these options are not available to him? Throughout history, the vast majority of believers did not, and do not, have an abundance of such resources at their fingertips.
9. Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 122-26; Ralph P. Martin, James, vol. 48 (Word Biblical Commentary;Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 86-89; Martin Dibelius, James, trans. Michael A. Williams (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1975), 151-54.