Mike Lii
I. INTRODUCTION
Free Grace Theology is unified around the concepts that (a) salvation is by faith in some truth about Jesus and (b) this salvation, when received, can never be lost (eternal security). However, Free Grace theologians do not agree on the concepts of (1) the content of the necessary truth to be believed about Jesus in order to be saved and (2) whether this necessary truth to be believed includes the concept of eternal security.
This article describes two different systems of Free Grace Theology. These two systems essentially differ on whether eternal life is an essential part of the saving message and whether one is assured with 100 percent certainty of eternal life when he or she believes the saving message.
This article uses the terms, gospel, eternal life, and everlasting life as follows:
- Although Biblically the term gospel simply means good news, this article will use the term to refer specifically to the good news of the saving message of Jesus.
- When this article uses the terms eternal life or everlasting life, it refers to the Biblical definition, which is: a guaranteed life with Jesus forever that can never be lost. In other words, the terms eternal life and everlasting life include the concept of eternal security.
II. WHAT ARE FOCUSED FREE GRACE AND FLEXIBLE FREE GRACE?
Under the banner of Free Grace Theology, we have two divergent positions. This article will distinguish between these two positions with the terms Focused Free Grace and Flexible Free Grace.
A. Focused Free Grace and Flexible Free Grace Defined
The difference between these two positions comes down to the answers to two questions regarding the content of the gospel and assurance:
- Content: What must I believe to be saved?
- Assurance: Am I assured of eternal life when I believe the saving message?
For Focused Free Grace, the answer to question 1, regarding the content to be believed for salvation is: “You must believe in Jesus’ promise of everlasting life to all who believe in Him for it.” Focused Free Grace’s answer to question 2, regarding assurance, is: “Yes, there is always assurance of eternal life when believing the saving message.”
Because of the content of the promise that is believed, one who is currently believing this promise currently knows for sure that he or she has everlasting life. Otherwise, he or she is not believing. In other words, “Assurance of eternal life is of the essence of saving faith.”
For Flexible Free Grace, the answer to question 1 is: “You must believe in Jesus, but you do not need to believe in Jesus for eternal life.” For Flexible Free Grace, there is flexibility in whether to include everlasting life in the saving message.
Flexible Free Grace’s answer to question 2 is: “Assurance of eternal life is not always present when believing in Jesus because of the flexibility in whether to include eternal life in the gospel.” You can have people who are currently believing in Jesus––which results in eternal life––but who are unsure of whether they have eternal life. In other words, “Assurance of eternal life is optional for saving faith.”
Therefore, we have two significantly different views within Free Grace Theology. Focused Free Grace adherents consider everlasting life an essential part of the gospel and believe that assurance of everlasting life is of the essence of believing the gospel. Flexible Free Grace adherents view eternal life and assurance of eternal life as optional in both presenting and believing the gospel.
B. Messrs. A, B, C, and D of Flexible Free Grace
What would be a fair, unbiased way to determine who has created the best-tasting, jarred, pasta sauce? The evaluation should be done “blind.” Tasters should judge or evaluate the different pasta sauces without knowing the brands of the sauces they are tasting. Otherwise, taste testers may end up choosing the most famous brand rather than the best-tasting pasta sauce.
Like a blind taste test, this article will provide quotations from four teachers who identify themselves as Free Grace, but their identities, as well as the citation information, will be in the endnotes rather than the footnotes. This article will refer to these four Free Grace teachers as Messrs. A, B, C, and D,i so we can better evaluate their theology without a bias toward fame or credentials.
I have been blessed by some of Messrs. A, B, C, and D’s teaching, financially supported one of their ministries for over two decades, and even helped that ministry set up its initial website. Another of these teachers once asked me about the possibility of working for his ministry. Any criticism in this article is directed solely at the leaders’ theology and not at them, personally, or any of their ministries.
III. ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN WHETHER ETERNAL LIFE MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE SAVING MESSAGE
A. Focused Free Grace: Two Non-Negotiables of the Saving Message
At the GES National Conference in 2000, Zane Hodges made the following remarks regarding the non-negotiable content of the gospel, foreshadowing the issues this article raises:
There are two non-negotiables here.
Number one, no salvation anywhere for anybody apart from the name of Jesus. Now by that, we are talking about the Jesus of the New Testament. Not Jesus Espinoza, who lives in the barrio in Los Angeles. We are certainly not talking about Mr. X, in whom we have believed, and oh, we discover later that it is Jesus. No, in this age, you must believe in Jesus, the Jesus of the New Testament. That is one non-negotiable.
The other non-negotiable is that you must believe that He guarantees eternal salvation or that He gives everlasting life. Dr. Charles Ryrie used to say that if you could lose everlasting life, it has the wrong name. It is not everlasting.
So, the two non-negotiables are very simple: Number one, the Jesus of the New Testament must be the focus of a person’s faith, and the person believes that the Jesus of the New Testament provides and guarantees his eternal destiny” (emphasis added).1
Hodges describes two non-negotiables as the content of the saving message:
- Believe in the Jesus of the New Testament,
- for the free gift of everlasting life (in other words, a life that can never be lost).
Having these two non-negotiables as the focus or “bullseye”2 are the essential elements of the Focused Free Grace gospel.
These two non-negotiables are consistent with Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well:
If you knew the gift of God [non-negotiable 2] and who [non-negotiable 1] it is who says to you, “Give Me a drink,” you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water (John 4:10).
Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she needs to know two things: 1) Who is speaking to her, Jesus the Giver; and 2) the gift of God, eternal life, which is the gift. With these two non-negotiables, the saving message taught throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-27) may be summarized as, “Believe in Jesus for eternal life.”
B. Flexible Free Grace Omits the Gift of Eternal Life as an Essential Part of the Saving Message
In Hodges’ 2000 GES conference message, he was aware of an early form of Flexible Free Grace and warned about it:
Subsection number one is, “Believe that Jesus died on the cross.”
In recent years, I have become aware of a way of presenting the gospel invitation that kind of bothers me. I believe I have heard it from my earliest years, and I admit it really did not bother me for a long time. Now it does. I have heard people say this, “In order to be saved, you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.”
In the context of this discussion, I mean that this is their summary of the requirement of faith. This is not just one item, okay? You say, “How does a person get saved?”
They say, “Believe that Jesus died on the cross.” Whenever I hear that nowadays, I get extremely uncomfortable (emphasis added).3
Why was Hodges extremely uncomfortable with this presentation? Believing that Jesus died on the cross as the only essential element of the gospel leaves out non-negotiable 2, the gift of everlasting life.
For Flexible Free Grace adherents, believing in Jesus does not mean believing that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him for it. Instead, they say that believing in Jesus means believing some other truth about Him. By dropping the gift of eternal life from the gospel message, the result is a message insufficient to save, even when believed.
Let us examine what Messrs. A, B, C, and D have written regarding whether eternal life is an essential part of the saving message of Jesus. In 2008, Mr. A wrote a journal article arguing that belief in eternal security is unnecessary for justification. He wrote:
Before a believer can serve with the proper motive, he must know that he is secure, but a person does not need to know he is secure to be saved (justified) (emphasis added).ii
Later in his article, Mr. A wrote:
But what about the content which is communicated? Some things are very clear: 1) sin separates us from God; 2) there needs to be a solution to the sin problem; 3) without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin; 4) the shed blood of Christ is the solution to the sin problem of man; 5) each person must believe in God’s provision for man’s sin in order to be justified.
But other things are not so clear. What does “to believe” mean, for example?iii
According to Mr. A, you don’t need to know that you are secure or eternally secure in order to be saved or justified. Mr. A’s content to be communicated contains the cross but no mention of eternal life. Interestingly, Mr. A is also not clear on the meaning of “to believe.”4
In a 2017 book, Mr. A wrote:
The vast majority of Free Grace theologians and The Free Grace Alliance disassociated with Bob Wilkin due to his Grace Evangelical Society teaching new doctrines we consider unorthodox (emphasis added).iv
What are these “new” and “unorthodox” doctrines of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES)? Mr. A quotes the following from GES’ doctrinal statement as being new and unorthodox:
[1] “Assurance is of the essence of believing in Jesus for everlasting life.”
[2] “To believe in Jesus (‘he who believes in Me has everlasting life’) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it.”5,v
If everlasting life is new and unorthodox, then Mr. A’s gospel does not need to include the gift of everlasting life. When Mr. A’s gospel is believed, it does not need to bring assurance of everlasting life. For Mr. A, believing in Jesus must mean something other than believing in Jesus for everlasting life.
In a 2018 article, Mr. B expressed a view similar to Mr. A’s:
John’s gospel does not demand belief in eternal life “which can never be lost.” and, These statements of eternal security [John 5:24, 6:35, and 10:27-30] are given to assure those who have believed in Jesus Christ. They are not the object, but the result of believing the saving message” (emphasis added).vi
According to Mr. B, eternal security is not the object or focus of one’s belief. Flexible Free Grace people like to use the term object of belief as distinguished from the result of belief. Object of faith means the content that is believed. For Mr. B and other Flexible Free Grace proponents, everlasting life is not the object or content of belief. For them, everlasting life is the automatic result of believing some other truth about Jesus.
Mr. B concludes his article with:
The doctrine of eternal security is a wonderful and comforting assurance that those who have eternal life can never lose it, but to demand that an unsaved person grasp this in order to be saved is an unnecessary addition to the saving gospel. A person who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior who died for their sins and rose again is adequate for salvation (emphasis added).vii
According to Mr. B, eternal security is an unnecessary addition to the saving gospel. Eternal life may be good to mention, but when it confuses or distracts, then there is flexibility to omit the issue of eternal life.
In 2020, Mr. C published a book charging GES and Zane Hodges with heresy. Mr. C wrote:
Yes, Jesus did promise us eternal life. But a guarantee of eternal life as the object of faith is absent. Jesus as Guarantor of eternal life/security is absent. The promise is never stated to be the object of our faith (emphasis added).”viii
Later in his book, Mr. C wrote:
[Apostle] John does not present Jesus as “the Guarantor of eternal life”—not in his gospel and not in his first epistle.”ix
Again, later in his book, Mr. C wrote:
This statement [John 20:31] presents life only as the result, not belief in eternal life/security as the condition for justification. Hodges and Wilkin have made John 20:31 a conditional sentence by placing the apodosis [consequence] (eternal life) in the protasis [condition] (belief in Jesus). According to their error, we must believe in the result as the condition for eternal life.”x
According to Mr. C, eternal life is not part of the message to be believed, and Jesus does not call on us to believe in His promise of eternal life. Mr. Axi and Mr. Dxii each gave Mr. C’s book a five-star review on Amazon.
Mr. D wrote in his own 2018 book:
The doctrine of the eternal security of the saints is, in my opinion, a fundamental belief that all believers must hold if they are to walk in the fullness of resurrection life in Christ (emphasis added).xiii
Notice that Mr. D regards it as a possibility that one can be a believer without believing in eternal security. For Mr. D, eternal security is a Christian growth (discipleship) issue. Belief in eternal security is not necessary to become a believer, but necessary for a believer “to walk in the fullness of resurrection life.”
Messrs. A, B, C, and D view eternal life as an automatic result and not an essential part of the message to believe in Jesus for. They allow flexibility about whether to include eternal life when evangelizing.
This is, at heart, the difference between the Focused Free Grace and the Flexible Free Grace positions. For Focused Free Grace proponents, everlasting life must be part of the saving message. For Flexible Free Grace proponents, everlasting life is non-essential information.
This essential difference regarding the gospel directly impacts not only whether one is assured of eternal life when believing the gospel, but also many other areas related to the doctrine of salvation. It also determines who needs to be evangelized. Flexible Free Grace proponents do not need to evangelize those who believe in Lordship Salvation or works salvation since these people believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose again. Focused Free Grace people witness to anyone who is unsure of whether, simply by faith in Jesus, he has everlasting life that cannot be lost.
IV. THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN WHETHER ONE IS ASSURED OF ETERNAL LIFE WHEN BELIEVING THE SAVING MESSAGE
A. Focused Free Grace: Assurance of Eternal Life Is of the Essence of Saving Faith
If you are not assured of eternal life, then you are not believing what Jesus has promised. Recall Jesus’ famous promise to Martha:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26, NKJV)
If someone currently believes what Jesus said here, then that person must be sure he or she has eternal life. Such a person believes that when he or she dies, he or she shall live (resurrection). When he believes this, he receives eternal life, or a life that will never end. Assurance of eternal life is part and parcel of believing this promise. If someone is unsure of having eternal life, then that person is currently doubting what Jesus has promised.
Due to the content of the saving message of Jesus, assurance of eternal life will always be present when a person is believing the saving message. Therefore, for Focused Free Grace:
“Assurance of eternal life is of the essence of saving faith.”
B. Flexible Free Grace: Assurance of Eternal Life Is Optional for Saving Faith
When there is flexibility about whether eternal life needs to be included in the gospel, assurance of eternal life becomes optional for saving faith. For Flexible Free Grace, assurance is not always present when a person believes in Jesus. You can see this expressed in the writings of Messrs. A, B, C, and D.
Mr. A wrote in his 2008 article:
The case for assurance being of the essence of saving faith is not exactly airtight, and the equation between assurance of salvation and eternal security suffers from failure to launch.xiv
Mr. B concurs with Mr. A on assurance and wrote in his 2018 article:
These statements of eternal security [John 5:24, 6:35, and 10:27-30] are given to assure those who have believed in Jesus Christ. They are not the object, but the result of believing the saving message (emphasis added).xv
Likewise, Mr. C wrote in his 2020 book:
No Scripture states a person must have assurance of salvation in order to be justified.xvi
and,
GES teaches a false gospel requiring assurance of eternal security.xvii
Although in his 2018 book Mr. D writes about assurance accompanying saving faith, in this quote, he qualifies this assurance:
First, some assurance must always be part of faith. There must always be some hope where there is faith or belief in the heart (emphasis added).xviii
Mr. D equates assurance with hope. In today’s usage, hope denotes a desire, a wish, and a possibility, but not 100 percent certainty. Furthermore, Mr. D qualifies both assurance and hope with the word some. When a person only has “some assurance” or “some hope,” that simply means that person is unsure.
The gospels of Messrs. A, B, C, and D do not have to include eternal life, so their gospels do not need to provide 100 percent assurance when believed. If a person does not need to be assured of an eternal salvation, then he or she does not need to be assured that Jesus has done anything at all for him or her.
For Flexible Free Grace, John 3:16 may be misunderstood as follows:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Himshould not perish but havedoes not need to know that he has everlasting life in order to have it (original text struck through and added text in italics).
Flexible Free Grace conceives of people who are currently believing in Jesus––which results in eternal life––but who, at the same time, do not know for sure that they have eternal life. There are two explanations:
- One can “believe in Jesus” but be unsure of whether he or she has eternal life, since believe is defined as an act of the will or a decision.
or, - Believing in Jesus means believing some Biblical truth about Jesus other than believing in Him for eternal life.
For many Flexible Free Grace people, the saving message may be summarized as:
Believe that Jesus is God and Savior who died on the cross for sins and rose again.
There is no need to mention or have any understanding of eternal life.
If Jesus’ deity, death, and resurrection are the bullseye or summary of the saving message, then the purpose statement in John 20:30-31 may be misunderstood as follows:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is Godthe Christ, the Son of Godand that He died on the cross for sins and rose again, and that believing you may have life in His name (original text struck through and added text in italics).
V. FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE TWO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES (ETERNAL LIFE AND ASSURANCE)
A. The Nature of the Faith That Saves
Many Flexible Free Grace proponents view assurance of eternal life as optional for saving faith because they understand faith to include more than the Focused Free Grace definition of faith: a persuasion or conviction that some proposition is true. For Flexible Free Grace, faith adds an act of the will or a decision to this persuasion or conviction.
In a 2018 book, Mr. A wrote the following regarding what it means to be believing:
R.T. Kendall likes to speak of believing more as a “persuasion” than a “decision.” But I am not convinced that the word “decision” is wrong; yet it is important to clarify just what this decision entails. I would suggest that a decision for Christ means that someone decided (chose) to trust Christ as Savior.xix
In this quote, Mr. A indicates that believing is more than a persuasion and includes a decision to “trust Christ as Savior.” How a person decides or chooses to trust Christ as Savior may be unclear, but in Mr. A’s testimony he describes his own experience:
I remember when I trusted Christ as my Savior. I had always believed Jesus, ever since I started going to church and could read and understand. We read the Apostles’ Creed every Sunday. I believed Jesus was the Son of God, died for my sins, was buried, rose, went up to heaven. But I wasn’t even close to being a Christian, I assure you.
It wasn’t until near the end of my senior year in high school that I realized I was drowning in sin, couldn’t get out of it, and needed a Savior. And so I was in the backseat of a Greyhound bus and I asked Jesus to save me. Boom! I was born again. Didn’t know what it was. Never heard Billy Graham. Never read a gospel tract. But, I knew something was different. All I wanted to do was read the Bible every day…
I am gonna say that I do not think the Bible talks about head faith and heart faith. Although, I do think there’s a validity to that concept. I think I had head faith, I believed in Jesus long before I trusted Him, and then it became heart faith (emphasis added).xx
Nowhere in his testimony does Mr. A state that he believed in Jesus for eternal life. Mr. A claims that he believed in Jesus long before he trusted in Jesus. The difference between saving trust (heart faith) and mere belief (head faith) was Mr. A’s recognizing the need for a Savior, and then making a decision by asking Jesus to save him. Mr. A also says that he did not know what eternal life was, so there was no assurance of eternal life since you cannot be assured of what you do not know.
Mr. B also sees faith as involving the will. He wrote:
Objection #8: Free Grace teaches that faith is merely mental assent.
• Sometimes the offer of salvation emphasizes mental assent while at other times it [faith] appeals to the will also (emphasis added).xxi
Mr. D also distinguishes between belief as persuasion and trust. He wrote in a 2018 book:
Faith involves believing assent to the facts of the Gospel and a personal reliance upon the person of Christ as a Savior from sin. It is a persuasion that leads to trust (emphasis added).xxii
Mr. D likewise wrote in his five-star review of Mr. C’s book:
Contrary to GES beliefs, orthodox Christianity teaches that to become a believer in Christ, one must believe in Jesus as God and trust him for the forgiveness of sin. GES denies both of these bedrock Christian beliefs and in that sense they are heretical (emphasis added).xxiii
For Mr. D, faith equals persuasion plus a personal reliance, and trust is more than belief. When faith includes a decision or is an act of the will, you again have the possibility of saving faith without assurance of eternal life. You can ask Jesus to save you, or you can make a decision for Jesus without being persuaded that His promise of everlasting life to all who believe in Him is true.
If faith includes a decision or an act of the will, then the saving message of Jesus communicated to Martha in John 11:25-26 may be misunderstood as follows:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He whobelieves indecides for Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives andbelieves indecides for Me shall never die. Do youbelievewant to decide for this?” (original text struck through and added text in bold).
B. Fundamental Differences Regarding Repentance: Must We Desire Moral Reform in Order to Be Saved?
Regardless of a person’s definition of repentance, Focused Free Grace proponents reject the notion that a desire for moral reform is a condition for salvation. Even desiring moral reform is a work, and faith in Jesus does not include a desire for moral reform. Some Flexible Free Grace proponents inadvertently teach works salvation messages by including works as part of their definition of repentance, then making repentance a requirement for salvation. Mr. D views repentance as necessary for salvation and goes beyond the traditional Free Grace “change of mind”6 definition of repentance. In these quotes, when describing the repentance required for salvation, Mr. D includes works:
Certainly, as the writer above says, “at some level” there must be an acknowledgment of sin and a desire to be different…
However, there should be no objection to the requirement that at some level (known only to God) there is a desire to acknowledge one’s guilt before God and to want a new way of life, which includes moral change…
It [Repentance] is an expression of a desire for a new way of life (emphasis added).xxiv
Mr. B also views repentance as a requirement for salvation, and typically defines repentance as a “change of mind.” But at times, when analyzing the Greek term for repentance, Mr. B shares a similar definition of repentance with Mr. D. Mr. B writes:
So the best translation of metanoia [repentance] would be a change of heart. It refers to a person’s inner change of attitude and moral direction (emphasis added).xxv
In this quote, repentance is translated by Mr. B as a “change of heart” that requires an “inner change of attitude and moral direction.”
So, for Mr. D or Mr. B, repentance required for salvation includes an “inner change of attitude and moral direction,” a “desire to be different,” “want[ing] a new way of life which includes moral change,” and a “desire for a new way of life.” These requirements are all works.
I see no essential difference between Mr. B’s and Mr. D’s views on repentance and the Lordship Salvation view of repentance. Mr. B, Mr. D, and lordship salvationists all view repentance as a requirement for salvation, and such repentance includes a willingness for moral change. With their views of repentance, the saving message in John 6:47 may be misunderstood as follows:
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me and repents by willing to make moral change has everlasting life (added text in bold).
VI. OTHER THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE TWO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES (ETERNAL LIFE AND ASSURANCE)
A. Meaning of Savior
Focused Free Grace understands the term Savior to mean Jesus as the One who gives every believer in Jesus an unconditional, guaranteed, and everlasting salvation from the lake of fire. For Focused Free Grace, to believe in Jesus as Savior is to believe that Jesus has provided this unconditional, guaranteed, and everlasting salvation. A person is not believing in Jesus as Savior if he or she believes he or she needs to work either to be saved, to prove his or her salvation, or to stay saved.
Many Flexible Free Grace people typically summarize their gospel message as believing in Jesus as God and Savior. But one should ask, “What do they mean by Savior?”
In Flexible Free Grace, a person is still believing in Jesus as Savior if he or she believes in a Savior who provides a salvation that is conditioned on works, perseverance, or a salvation that may be lost. Many Flexible Free Gracers teach that one should believe in Jesus as “my” Savior or “my personal” Savior. However, the qualifiers of “my” or “my personal” to Savior are unnecessary, if assurance of everlasting life is optional for saving faith. If I am unsure of my salvation, then how am I believing that Jesus is “my” Savior or “my personal” Savior? If assurance is optional for saving faith, then there is no need for the words “my” or “my personal.”
To get eternal life under Flexible Free Grace, a person just needs to believe that Jesus is the Savior of those for whom He died, which does not have to include oneself.
B. Are There Multiple Saving Messages?
Focused Free Grace has a single saving message: “Believe in the Jesus of the New Testament for everlasting life.” However, is Jesus’ deity, death, and resurrection the exclusive saving message of Flexible Free Grace? No.
Some Flexible Free Grace proponents support multiple saving messages. At my previous home church, a Flexible Free Grace teacher brought up the fact that he did not always mention eternal life when evangelizing. He explained his view that a person can receive eternal life unknowingly by believing any of the following messages:
- Jesus is sent by God.
- Jesus died on the cross for sins and rose again.
- Jesus is coming again.
This Flexible Free Grace teacher stressed multiple times that if a person believes Jesus has been sent by God, but knows nothing about eternal life, that person still gets eternal life.
In these quotes, Mr. B advocates for a similar saving message: “Jesus has been sent by God:”
The claim that John’s text and Jesus’ words demand belief in eternal security is a myopic view of salvation in this Gospel where salvation is addressed in its many aspects. From the overwhelming frequency of passages where Jesus’ identity must be accepted or believed, one could argue that who Jesus is is the focus of the saving message in John—He is the One sent from God (emphasis added).xxvi
and,
In John 5:24 the object of belief is “Him who sent Me” and the result is “eternal life” (emphasis added).xxvii
According to Mr. B, the focus of the saving message in the Gospel of John is that “Jesus is the One sent by God,” that John 5:24 teaches that the object of one’s belief is “God who sent Jesus,” and that the result of believing this truth is “eternal life.” In his view, eternal life is not the object or focus of belief, but simply a result that may be unknown to someone who believes Jesus is sent from God.
However, believing only that Jesus has been sent from God does not result in one being born again. Recall Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, where––although Nicodemus recognizes Jesus as a teacher who comes from God (John 3:2)––he still needs to be born again (John 3:7) and to believe in Jesus for everlasting life as Jesus says in John 3:16.7
If the saving message is simply believing that Jesus has been sent by God, then John 5:24 may be misunderstood in this manner:
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me, unknowingly has everlasting life, and unknowingly shall not come into judgment, but unknowingly has passed from death into life (added text in bold).
Mr. A also criticizes what he considers the narrowness of those who limit the gospel to a message of eternal security and assurance of eternal life as the essence of saving faith. He writes in his 2008 article:
The case for assurance being of the essence of saving faith is not exactly airtight, and the equation between assurance of salvation and eternal security suffers from failure to launch. It seems to me that when we define the limits of the gospel so narrowly, we are in danger of limiting God Himself. What are we going to do with the gospel of Revelation 14:6 [sic 14:6-7], which mentions neither eternal life nor Christ, yet it is called the “everlasting gospel”? What are we going to do with the sinner who was “justified” (perfect tense) in Luke 18 when he merely cried out for God to be merciful to him?xxviii
In this quote, the reader is challenged with the claim that something must be done about the “everlasting gospel” in Rev 14:6-7 and the sinner who was justified in Luke 18:13.
What is the “everlasting gospel” in Rev 14:7?
Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water (Rev 14:7, NKJV).
How was the sinner justified in Luke 18:13? By pleading:
“God, be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13, NKJV).
The messages in Rev 14:7 and Luke 18:13 are different from the saving message of “Believe in Jesus for eternal life.” Mr. A recognizes these as different messages, so he concludes his 2008 article with the following:
To be sure, the message of eternal security brings the point of Christ’s finished work home, and there are many who have come to initial saving faith through that wonderful message. Coming back to where we began, I truly believe that the best way to present the gospel is with the issue of assurance. But is it the only way? There are too many unprovable assumptions and arguments from silence to persuade me that belief in eternal security is a sine qua non [essential condition] of justification (emphasis added).xxix
Although Mr. A may believe that the best way to present the gospel includes eternal security and assurance, he does not believe that is the only way and the only gospel. Revelation 14:6-7 and Luke 18:13 are potential evangelistic passages and alternative messages for salvation.
For some Flexible Free Grace teachers, multiple saving messages are a possibility. According to them, a person can––without believing in Jesus for eternal life––unknowingly receive eternal life as the result of believing any of the following messages or performing any of the following actions:
- Jesus is God, died on the cross, and rose again.
- Jesus has been sent by God.
- Fear God, give glory to Him, and worship Him.
- Ask God for mercy as a sinner.
C. Flexible Free Grace: Church History Proves That Works Salvation Messages Are Saving Messages
A person cannot believe in Jesus for everlasting life and at the same time believe in the need to work for his or her salvation. For this reason, Focused Free Grace considers works salvation messages and Lordship Salvation messages to be non-saving messages. A person cannot believe a works salvation message or a Lordship Salvation message and at the same time believe in Jesus for everlasting life.
When a person does not believe in eternal security, then he or she is not believing in Jesus for eternal life. It is apparent when you speak with individuals who reject or doubt eternal security that works are a condition for their receiving eternal life. In their minds, works are necessary either to become saved, to prove their salvation, or to stay saved. However, if eternal security is an unnecessary addition to the gospel, as Flexible Free Grace teaches, then works salvation messages become acceptable saving messages.
Mr. A views the works salvation messages recorded in church history from AD 100 to AD 1500 as saving messages, since church history during that period has no record of individuals believing in Jesus for eternal life and the assurance that comes from believing that message. Mr. A writes in his 2008 article:
It seems that the postapostolic church saw water baptism as the laver of regeneration that covered all sins leading up to water baptism. Postbaptismal sins were another question. They were to be handled by confession, contrition, and penance. Improper dealing with postbaptismal sins led to loss of salvation (emphasis added).xxx
After describing the views of the postapostolic church that required works for salvation (baptism, confession, contrition, and penance), Mr. A provides his conclusion that these individuals who believed works salvation messages were saved individuals:
If God is building His church and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, then there had to be a witness from A.D. 100 to A.D. 1500. In other words, there had to be genuine born-again people living throughout this era. But we have no written record of anyone teaching forgiveness of postbaptismal sins once and for all at the point of faith in Christ. Hence, no one taught eternal security or assurance of salvation (emphasis added).xxxi
Mr. A argues that works salvation messages involving baptism, confession, contrition, and penance are saving messages because, based on church history, these were the only gospels being taught from AD 100–1500. Since there are always believers in every age, then according to Mr. A, these works salvation messages are saving because no message of “believe in Jesus for everlasting life” was being proclaimed.
Mr. C agrees with Mr. A regarding this view of church history and the proclamation solely of works-salvation messages during this period:
[Mr. A] astutely pointed out that without this forensic justification (developed about 1530), no person could have ever believed in eternal security before 1530. The GES heresy requires faith in eternal security for justification. Therefore, according to the GES heresy, not a single Christian existed from AD 100 to about 1530 (emphasis added).xxxii
Mr. C also wrote the following regarding contemporary works salvation messages:
But where does Scripture state adding good works (that God produces in us) negates faith in who Jesus is for salvation? It is wrong, but it does not negate faith in Jesus Christ as God and Savior for justification.
In my opinion, this is a typical evangelical error: it is not limited to Wilkin and his GES. Evangelicals want to oust some Christians as “true Christians” because they add works for final salvation. Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Ariminians and other Protestants all add works (emphasis added).xxxiii
Later, on the same page, Mr. C continues with:
Therefore, if all Roman Catholics are non-Christians, then so are all other Protestants (except those few believing in eternal security without works). That is the problem with “faith alone in Christ alone” as a requirement for justification. I believe “faith alone in Christ alone” to be a true statement. But it does not mean that any addition of works nullifies a person’s faith in Jesus Christ as God and Savior from sin for justification (emphasis added).xxxiv
For Mr. C, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Ariminians, and other Protestants who believe that works are required for salvation still believe the gospel since they all believe that Jesus is God and Savior. However, these groups do not teach that one must believe in Jesus for everlasting life. It is impossible to believe in Jesus for everlasting life and at the same time believe that one needs to work for salvation or to prove or maintain one’s salvation.
To justify dropping eternal security from the gospel, both Messrs. A and C cite church history as proof that no one believed in Jesus for eternal security from AD 100–1500. Mr. A and Mr. C conveniently ignore the fact that the message in the Gospel of John would have been heard during this period of church history,8 and that anyone who––at any time during his life––hears and believes the saving message of Jesus has everlasting life. God knows and never forgets who has believed, even when there is no record of it in church history.
D. Role of the Gospel of John in Evangelism
Since the Gospel of John makes it very clear that one needs to believe in Jesus for the gift of eternal life, Messrs. A, B, and C downplay the role of the Gospel of John in evangelism. In this quote, Mr. A claims that other books of the Bible were also written to unbelievers:
Thus, it is tenuous at best to declare categorically that the Gospel of John is the only New Testament book written for unbelievers and therefore the final word in the New Testament on evangelism (emphasis added).xxxv
Mr. B concurs with Mr. A by calling it an “unprovable assumption” that the Gospel of John is the sole book written to unbelievers. At times he even questions whether the Gospel of John has an evangelistic purpose. He writes the following:
The assumption is made that John is the only Bible book written to tell us how to be saved, and eternal life is the exclusive focus of that message… If John writes only to unbelievers about how to be saved, then chapters 13–17 would not fit that purpose…
We would expect John to express his purpose in the introduction to the book, as he does in 1 John 1:3-4. If so, then John 1:4-5 tells us that he is writing to present Jesus Christ as the light and life of men…
While John’s Gospel certainly has a purpose of bringing people to salvation, it is an unprovable assumption that he wrote the only book that contains an evangelistic purpose (emphasis added).xxxvi
Mr. C agrees with Mr. B and questions John’s stated purpose of evangelism by arguing that John chapters 13–17 (Jesus’ final discourse) do not fit with an evangelistic purpose.9 He writes:
Why is John 13–17 present if the purpose of John’s gospel is evangelism?xxxvii
Messrs. A and B question whether other books of the Bible were written for evangelism and whether the entire book of John is for evangelism. However, these quotations from Messrs. A, B, and C directly contradict the clearly stated purpose of the Gospel of John in John 20:30-31:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (emphasis added).
Notice that the apostle John has chosen the signs written in his book—not just portions of his book, but the entire book, even the signs in John 13–17––to lead people to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Based on John 11:25-27, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is to believe that Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him for it.
No other book in the Bible has a stated purpose of evangelism. Shockingly, those who profess to be Free Grace would seek to downplay the Gospel of John’s role in evangelism. The Gospel of John is simply our best tool for making the saving message clear to unbelievers because that is God’s intended purpose for the Gospel of John.
VII. CONCLUSION
There are two essentially different views of Free Grace. For Focused Free Grace: (1) Believing in Jesus for everlasting life is an essential component of the saving message; and (2) One who is believing in Jesus for everlasting life knows for sure that he has everlasting life (in other words, assurance is of the essence of saving faith). These are the two pillars—the foundational elements—of Focused Free Grace Theology. These are what set Focused Free Grace Theology apart from any other system of theology that claim to be Free Grace. Without (1) belief in Jesus for everlasting life and (2) the assurance of everlasting life as the essence of saving faith, you no longer have a theology that is Focused Free Grace.
In contrast, for Flexible Free Grace: (1) Believing in Jesus for everlasting life is an unnecessary addition to the saving message; and (2) A person can believe in Jesus without knowing for sure that he or she has everlasting life (in other words assurance is optional for saving faith).
A word of caution is needed. While the offer of eternal life and assurance are optional for Flexible Free Grace proponents, that does not mean they will never present eternal life or include assurance in their gospel presentations. Flexible Free Grace will at times sound just like Focused Free Grace in its teaching. Flexible Free Grace may include eternal life when the audience is receptive but leave out eternal life and assurance when such teachings become stumbling blocks to having one believe in Jesus’ deity, death, and resurrection or in pressing for an act of the will or a “decision for Jesus.”
From these essential differences in (1) the content of the saving message and (2) assurance, we have two vastly different systems of Free Grace Theology. They are summarized in the chart below:
| Focused Free Grace | Flexible Free Grace | |
| Eternal Life (Eternal Security) in the Gospel Message | Essential | Optional |
| Eternal Security and Evangelism | Salvation issue | Discipleship issue |
| Assurance of Eternal Life | Of the essence of saving faith | Optional for saving faith |
| Eternal Life | Object (content) and result of saving faith | Result of saving faith; not necessarily the object (content) of saving faith |
| Definition of Faith / Believe | Persuasion or conviction of truth | For some, includes an act of the will or a decision |
| Repentance as Desire for Moral Reform | Never required for salvation | For some, required for salvation |
| Jesus as Savior | Eternal and irrevocable salvation for me | Temporary or probationary salvation for someone (not necessarily me) |
| Number of Saving Messages | One: “Believe in Jesus for everlasting life” | For some, multiple |
| Works Salvation / Lordship Salvation messages | Non-Saving | Saving |
| Gospel of John for Evangelism | Exclusive book | Non-exclusive book |
For both believers and unbelievers, the differences between Focused Free Grace and Flexible Free Grace are vast, and the Bible issues a warning about denying Jesus’ saving message (Jesus’ guarantee of everlasting life to all who believe in Him). In 1 John 2:22, the apostle John writes: Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
Recall from John 11:25-27 that to believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that Jesus guarantees everlasting life to every believer in Him. The apostle John identifies those who deny the saving message that Jesus is the Christ as “liars” and “antichrists,” so a departure from this message is serious and grave.
There have been increasing calls for unity within the Free Grace movement despite theological differences regarding the saving message of Jesus. Those who call for unity typically cite the doctrinal differences described in this article as minor, mere details, or inconsequential. Given the theological differences described, is Flexible Free Grace compatible with continuing joint ministry with a Focused Free Grace ministry like GES?
For that answer, please consider the verse from Amos 3:3.10 Although the context is the Lord and the nation of Israel, this author believes it is applicable to the deep theological differences between Focused and Flexible Free Grace:
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”
Endnotes
i Mr. A = David Anderson; Mr. B = Charlie Bing; Mr. C = Ken Wilson; and Mr. D = Joseph Dillow.
ii David Anderson, “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification?” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 13 (Spring 2008): 54.
iii Ibid., 56.
iv David R. Anderson, “The Faith that Saves,” A Defense of Free Grace Theology, ed. Fred Chay (Grace Theology Press, 2017), 81-82.
v Ibid., 82.
vi Charlie Bing, “Does John’s Gospel Demand Belief in Eternal Security for Salvation?” GraceNotes No. 79 (2018). Accessed May 15, 2023. See https:// www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=79&lang=eng
vii Ibid.
viii Kenneth Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society: Become a Christian without Faith in Jesus as God and Savior (Montgomery, TX: Regula Fidei Press, 2020), Kindle edition, 58.
ix Ibid.
x Ibid., 71.
xi David Anderson, Amazon review of Wilson’s “Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society,” 5 stars – Oxford Scholar Confronts the Gospel of the Grace Evangelical Society, September 22, 2021. Accessed May 15, 2023, See https://www.amazon. com/Heresy-Grace-Evangelical-Society-Christian/dp/B08RRDTFFH.
xii Joseph C. Dillow, Amazon review of Wilson’s “Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society,” 5 stars – Some reviews of Dr. Wilson’s book are inaccurate, September 17, 2021. Accessed May 16, 2023, See https://www.amazon.com/ Heresy-Grace-Evangelical-Society-Christian/dp/B08RRDTFFH.
xiii Joseph Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings (Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2018), Kindle edition, 627.
xiv Anderson, “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification?” 59.
xv Bing, “Does John’s Gospel Demand Belief in Eternal Security for Salvation?”
xvi Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, 18.
xvii Ibid., 118.
xviii Dillow, Final Destiny, 470.
xix David Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, (Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2018), Kindle edition, 178.
xx David Anderson, “2021 FGA Conference – Sandra Glahn,” Free Grace Alliance.Video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbEMO4AzwWM, 0:0:37-0:1:20, 0:1:45-0:2:02. Accessed May 15, 2023.
xxi Charlie Bing, “Answering Common Objections to Free Grace, Part 2,” GraceNotes No. 91 (2021). Accessed May 15, 2023. See https://www.gracelife. org/resources/gracenotes/?id=91&lang=eng
xxii Dillow, Final Destiny, 699.
xxiii Dillow, Amazon review of Wilson’s “Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society.”
xxiv Dillow, Final Destiny, 54.
xxv Charlie Bing, “Repentance: What’s in a Word,” GraceNotes No. 22 (2004). Accessed May 15, 2023. See https://www.gracelife.org/resources/ gracenotes/?id=22&lang=eng.
xxvi Bing, “Does John’s Gospel Demand Belief in Eternal Security for Salvation?”
xxvii Ibid.
xxviii Anderson, “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification,” 59.
xxix Ibid.
xxx Ibid., 48.
xxxi Ibid., 49.
xxxii Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, 126.
xxxiii Ibid., 102.
xxxiv Ibid.
xxxv Anderson, “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification?,” 51.
xxxvi Bing, “Does John’s Gospel Demand Belief in Eternal Security for Salvation?”
xxxvii Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, 78.
1 Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ – Part 2,” Dreiher2. February 11, 2009. Video, 10:20:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u-fyysKh2Q&list=PLsku6QkQPewN0 NOd7xOU_Bpisy2opE5EM&index=2., Accessed February 6, 2024.
2 The author wants to credit Diane Boring with using the term bullseye in terms of the essential elements of the Focused Free Grace gospel.
3 Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ – Part 2.”
4 For more on Mr. A’s views on the meaning of believe or faith, please see the subsection on “The Nature of the ‘Faith’ that Saves.”
5 “Affirmations of Belief.” FaithAlone.Org. Grace Evangelical Society, Accessed May 15, 2023. https://faithalone.org/beliefs.
6 See Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton, IL: SP Publications, 1989), 89-100, for the traditional Free Grace “change of mind” view of repentance.
7 The author wants to credit Phillippe Sterling with providing this insight regarding Nicodemus.
8 For evidence that the Gospel of John was heard during AD 100–1500, see John H. Niemelä, “Pre-Reformation Belief in Eternal Security: The Word of Faith We Preach Is Near (Romans 10:8),” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 28 (Spring 2015): 63-80; and John H. Niemelä, “Was the Gospel Lost Until the Reformation?” Grace in Focus, July 1, 2015. See https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/gospel-lost-until-reformation/. Accessed Jul 25, 2023.
9 For the purpose of John 13–17, see Zane Hodges, “Introducing John’s Gospel: In the Upper Room with Jesus the Christ, Part 1 of 2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 40 (Spring 2008): 29-44; and Zane Hodges, “Introducing John’s Gospel: Miraculous Signs and Literary Structure, Part 2 of 2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 41 (Autumn 2008): 15-27.
10 This author wants to credit Bob Bryant with the application of this verse in the context of joint ministry.
