GES is sometimes charged with being divisive when we point out differences among Free Grace groups. Several organizations that have Free Grace in their names disagree with GES on the saving message. There is a seminary with Grace in its name that advertises it teaches from a Free-Grace perspective. They not only disagree with GES, but they also call us heretics.
GES has not created these divisions.
In 2006, that seminary and one of those Free Grace organizations were part of GES. They left GES. GES did not split from them. They spoke and wrote against GES.i We sometimes responded, but we did not initiate the discussion.
A few years ago, someone involved with GES but not on staff, Mike Lii, came up with a name for two different types of Free Grace. He was not seeking to divide. The division happened nearly twenty years ago. He was seeking to clarify the two different positions.
The U.S. has two major political parties. It would be unclear, to say the least, to call them both by the same name.
The U.S. has two primary views on abortion. One calls itself Pro Choice, and the other calls itself Pro Life. If we called them by the same name, it would be meaningless.
Mike chose Focused Free Grace for GES because we’ve called ourselves Grace in Focus (magazine, radio, videos) for decades. He chose Flexible Free Grace for the others because they say they are flexible and tolerate more diversity of views than GES.
Just like the titles Republican and Democrat aren’t pejorative, so it is with Focused and Flexible.
I welcome those who disagree with us to devise a name for their version of Free Grace. Here are some names that I think they might consider: Genial Free Grace, Amiable Free Grace, Harmonious Free Grace, and Peaceful Free Grace.
If you are reading this on Facebook, you can comment and tell us what title you think would be suitable for people who disagree with GES but who consider themselves Free Grace. You can also email us at ges@faithalone.org and cast your vote.
It is essential to recognize that the Free Grace people who separated from GES are not monolithic in their beliefs. Their members disagree on four significant issues:
- Some say that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and works-salvation Protestants are all born again because they believe in Jesus’ deity, death, and resurrection.ii Others disagree.
- Some say that those who die in unbelief but who never heard about Christ (or about the clear saving message) will not be eternally condemned. They are given everlasting life when they die.iii Others disagree.
- Some say that faith is persuasion. Others say it includes “comprehend[ing] the claims of Christ, confidence in the claims of Christ, and commit[ment] to the claims of Christ.”iv
- Some say that in order to be born again “there must be an acknowledgement of sin and a desire to be different” and that one must “want a new way of life that includes moral change.”v Others disagree.
They may want to come up with multiple names to distinguish between themselves. However, the first step is to adopt a name that distinguishes them from GES.
Paul wrote, “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Cor 11:19).
Keep grace in focus.
i On April 7, 2009, the Free Grace Alliance (which began in 2004 and was involved with GES until separating from it after the 2006 GES annual conference), announced, “an open break from the Grace Evangelical Society and its ‘Crossless’ Gospel.” The notice by the FGA Executive Council said, “The Free Grace Alliance is not associated with the Grace Evangelical Society and does not endorse the GES Gospel (also referred to as “crossless” or “promise only” by some). We invite those who share our heart for the Gospel’s clarity and declaration, of both the Person and Work of Christ, to join hands with us.” See https://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2009/04/free-grace-alliance-announces-open.html for details. For several years, the FGA had this notice on its website.
ii Heresy of Grace Evangelical Society, p. 133.
iii I had a personal conversation with a Free Grace person who disagrees with GES and expressed this view.
iv A Defense of Free Grace Theology, p. 70.
v Final Destiny, p. 54.
