I am Free Grace guy in the same sense that I am an Intelligent Design guy.
I am not an Intelligent Design guy; I am a Young Earth Creationist.
Obviously, as a Young Earth Creationist, I believe in an intelligent Designer, so I am not really a non-Intelligent Design advocate in the doctrinal sense, but I do not quite align with the Intelligent Design Movement because it does not go quite far enough. Of course, I recognize that the Intelligent Design Movement is making several positive contributions to the field of apologetics and I even use arguments from Intelligent Design whenever I teach Young Earth Creationism. The Intelligent Design Movement is dedicated mostly to refuting one particular ideological flaw, namely Atheistic Evolutionism. Intelligent Design is broad enough to include Day-Age Theory and Theistic Evolutionism, both of which tend to be influenced by Atheistic Evolutionism, which is the very ideology that Intelligent Design seeks to disprove. As such, Intelligent Design is not an exclusively Christian concept. Muslims can be Intelligent Design advocates. One of the most popular Intelligent Design speakers is even an agnostic. The broader that Intelligent Design gets, the more limited it becomes. It is limited because it does not appeal to the Bible. Some may argue that this is a strength of the argument—you do not have to be a Christian to reject evolution—but in the end, if the argument does not direct someone to the biblical text, then it stops short. I have several friends who are teachers in the Intelligent Design community. I am happy to fellowship with them, endorse them, and continue supporting them on several other theological intersections (including apologetics), especially with those who share my soteriology, eschatology, hermeneutics, or some combination therein. But being part of the Intelligent Design Movement is insufficient grounds for endorsement if that is the only point of commonality,
So it is with Free Grace. When the Lordship Salvation Controversy emerged in the 1980s, several men arose and responded. For a decade these Free Grace advocates opened the Word of God and exegetically refuted the claim that a man’s salvation is conditioned, at least partially, upon his own works. From its conception the Free Grace Movement was biblical, so it was stronger than the Intelligent Design Movement, but alas, like Intelligent Design, Free Grace developed as a responsive theology. It was more focused on responding to the specific error of Lordship Salvation rather than developing a biblically-sound soteriology.
Here we are a few decades later. In the 2000s, things changed. Some controversies among Free Grace teachers emerged and the focus of the movement went from attacking a few big-name Lordship Salvationists to attacking other Free Gracers. Some good conversations came out of that, but for the most part, it pushed away the younger crowds. By the 2010s, the original Free Gracers had gotten older and several had already burnt just about every bridge they could, so there was a chaotic scramble for another decade as everyone tried to bring in a new guard. The passing of the baton has not gone well. One particularly influential Free Grace ministry had to release their first new guy for Postmodernism, then the next for pluralism (among other things), then the next for charismatic theology (among other things). Several new Free Grace Ministries have emerged from the ashes… but here we are in the 2020s and nobody seems to know what Free Grace is.
There are two basic questions: What is Free Grace? and What is Free Grace? The first question asks where we draw the doctrinal boundaries to decide whether or not a teacher should be accepted as Free Grace. The second question asks what sort of relationship we should have with the term Free Grace.
The term Free Grace has been around for centuries. Until the 1980s, it meant Calvinism. In Calvinism, God freely chooses whom He will force His grace upon, so Calvinism was called Free Grace by such theologians as John Frith, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, and others. Opponents such as John Wesley held to an opposing Arminian view that was called Free Will. This view emphasized man’s freedom to exercise his will in choosing God. That the term Free Grace should be used as a response to Calvinism is relatively new. Perhaps we are on the verge of another redefinition of the term. There is not a clearly defined sine qua non of Free Grace. Some would say it includes Christian Pluralism and even Universalism. Indeed, a leader of a well-known Free Grace ministry could not even tell me that he thought Jehovah’s Witnesses were teaching a false gospel. Some Free Gracers have gotten upset about one crowd denying the necessity of believing in substitutionary atonement, but then through the course of the generational shift, some of them have themselves endorsed a teacher who rejects the notion of substitutionary atonement altogether.
Whatever Free Grace is, its proponents will agree that it should grow. There are two ways to make it grow: either by getting more people to agree to Free Grace or by expanding the definition of Free Grace to include more people’s theology. The earlier generations were heavy on the first method, but the current trend is toward the second.
In a recent article on soteriological compromises, I delineated a quadrant model to show that while we believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ alone, other systems (to various extremes) either deny the sufficiency or the necessity (or both) of faith alone in Christ alone. Today, Free Grace has extended its borders beyond faith alone in Christ alone to include several views that a generation ago would have rejected.
At the heart of Christianity is the idea that Jesus died for sinners. If you do not accept that, then you are not a professing Christian. You might be saved (if you have ever believed in Jesus for eternal life, then you are saved), but if you reject substitutionary atonement, then your religion is not Christianity. There is an app that calls itself Free Grace now that promotes an author who rejects substitutionary atonement. This teacher should not be considered a Christian, but he is considered Free Grace. It has become commonplace for Free Grace churches to support Lordship Salvationists on the mission field (of course, they are called “Free Grace” to save face). Other examples could be given, but in short, Free Grace is not exclusively Christian (not to mention the inclusion of errant view that are Christian). Like Intelligent Design, if a teacher calls himself “Free Grace,” this is a good start, but it is not sufficient grounds for endorsement.
Logically, this second question should come first. In practice, things are not always in order. We have been discussing Free Grace without clearly defining what it is. Some people treat Free Grace as a holistic soteriology. Others see it as a rejection of certain falsehoods. In addition to the theological delineations, there is a Free Grace Movement that is broader than any individual’s views and is also difficult to describe.
Those who would want Free Grace to be a holistic soteriology will always find themselves on the outskirts of the movement. Since Free Grace is not exclusive to Christianity, someone is going to be cut off by a holistic Free Grace soteriology. Even if Free Grace was to redraw its borders to exclude Universalists, then it would still include those missionaries who teach Lordship Salvation. But if they were cut off, then there would still be Christian Pluralists. If the pluralists were cut off, then the majority of Christianity would be cut off.
Others see Free Grace more simplistically, as a rejection of Lordship Salvation. This is not particularly helpful in today’s theological atmosphere. In the 80s, one popular pastor was leading many Bible teachers into the error that faith alone in Christ alone is insufficient, but many problems have come to the scene since then. One prominent Free Grace teacher told me that he would send a man to a famous Lordship Salvation seminary before sending him to his own alma mater. Frankly, I agree; the Lordship Salvation seminary has stood firm on inerrancy while the other seminary has not (and this is a seminary where Free Grace was thriving in the 80s). A few years ago, a Free Grace ministry published a book on inerrancy that defended, among other things, the historicity of Jonah; meanwhile, the director of publications at this ministry had a low view of Scriptures that caused him to deny the historicity of Jonah, a plain reading of Genesis, and some core issues of the faith. I can fellowship with a Lordship Salvation inerrantist, but it is much more difficult to find a point of intersection with a teacher who compromises on inerrancy, even if he rejects Lordship Salvation.
Then there is the topic of the Free Grace Movement. It is hard to decide who is in the Movement since we cannot define what Free Grace is or even what Free Grace is. It is often said, “We need unity in the Free Grace Movement!” but nobody knows what that means. In general, there are two ways to be anti-unity: one way is to advocate disunity within a body, but another way is to advocate unity with a foreign body. Since we do not know what Free Grace is or what Free Grace is, how can we be sure that we are having Free Grace unity? Since Free Grace is not exclusively Christian, should we even be trying to have Free Grace unity? If Free Grace is justified as there should be unity in the Body of Christ, and if Free Gracers teach that Jehovah’s Witnesses are saved, then would that imply that there should be unity with cults? Is Free Grace unity a biblical mandate or is it possibly a division within the actual Body of Christ in order to be inclusive of errant teachers?
There have been some efforts to treat Free Grace as something of a brand. This tendency is likely rooted in American pragmatism which misplaces biblical prescriptions for ministry success and emphasizes instead American values. Often there is an overlap. No normal Christian would say that churches should not be growing in numbers. A problem occurs, though, when clear evangelism and discipleship are cast aside to fill the pews. A mentality could be brewing under the surface of the Free Grace Movement, a mentality that says, “This teacher is of the Free Grace brand. Hit ‘share’ and do not question him!” This mentality is never healthy.
So back to the questions: What is Free Grace? and What is Free Grace? The Free Grace conversation may be too enshrouded with misunderstanding to be productive. If Free Grace means the message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone—the message that really means it, not Lordship Salvation that denies the sufficiency of faith or Christian Pluralism that denies the necessity of faith—then, yes, I am Free Grace. As for what Free Grace is, if it was just a few specific soteriological points, then perhaps I could claim them, but nobody knows what these points are. It should also be noted that just because someone accepts a certain group of soteriological points, it does not mean that our theology is like-minded on a more holistic level. Perhaps the first step toward a unified Free Grace Movement would be identifying transparent areas where we are willing to disagree.
Returning to the Intelligent Design analogy. If someone asks me if I’m an Intelligent Design guy, then the answer will depend on context. If a stranger asks me, then the answer is “Yes, I believe in an Intelligent Designer.” If a pastor asks me, then the answer is “No, I am a Young Earth Creationist.” Again, I am happy to fellowship with both Intelligent Design advocates and Free Gracers. By the way, something that I appreciate about the Young Earth Movement is that it is a point of intersection where I can fellowship with and learn from folks with whom I would typically disagree over eschatology, soteriology, or other topics. Perhaps Free Grace could grow into something like the Young Earth Movement.
Unfortunately, the current state of the Free Grace Movement is unlike the Young Earth Movement. The Free Grace Movement is fighting over boundaries: whom to include and whom to exclude. If instead, it was more about developing and promoting theology in a positive sense, then perhaps it would be more beneficial. I say “current state” because it could change and I certainly hope that it does change for the better.