Author: Wayne Grudem
Publisher: Crossway
Originally Published: 2016
ISBN: 978-1-4335-5114-7

While perusing through a book catalog sometime back, I ran across a title I didn’t expect: “Free Grace” Theology – 5 Ways it Diminishes the Gospel. Written by Wayne Grudem and endorsed by some prominent Calvinists, I was intrigued to say the least. I assumed that many proponents of “justification by faith alone” would claim to have a “free grace” theology, but after reading this book I realize that I was incorrect. This book was an interesting read, and helped me understand more clearly some of the views taken by various “faith only” advocates and Calvinists.

Grudem starts by defining the difference between his view and “free grace” theology. Grudem makes it clear he is a proponent of justification by faith alone but maintains that “free grace” advocates hold a differing view of what ”alone” means. Grudem claims to believe that repentance must accompany saving faith, and further that saving faith will result in good works and faith in God will continue. Free grace proponents, however, argue that repentance is not essential, and neither should anyone necessarily expect someone to change their life or do good works because they come to faith in Jesus. Essentially, the “free grace” movement takes the idea of “saved by faith alone” to an extreme level where quite literally, nothing aside from a personal belief in Jesus at some point in one’s life is needed for salvation. Grudem takes issue with this view for five reasons, to each of which he dedicates a chapter.

The first problem Grudem has with the “free grace” philosophy is that it departs from the doctrine of “faith alone” as taught by the reformation leaders. Grudem defends a phrase made popular during the reformation that goes, “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.” This phrase is nearly identical to one written by John Calvin, is echoed by many reformation leaders, and as Grudem points out, some variant of this idea is found in many church creeds including the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, and several others. Chapter one displays two foundational problems for Grudem in my mind. First, he relies as much or more on the reformation leaders as he does the Scriptures. Grudem’s first issue with the “free grace” movement shouldn’t be that it doesn’t jive with the reformation leaders; his first concern should be that the movement doesn’t align with the New Testament! Grudem spends nearly all of chapter one quoting from reformers and denominational creeds. Only a handful of Bible verses are used, and most of those are embedded in the creeds, not Grudem’s arguments. But therein is Grudem’s second flaw – he must rely heavily on the reformation fathers, because his theology doesn’t coincide with New Testament teaching either. Grudem is absolutely correct in stating that the “free grace” theology is contrary to New Testament teaching on salvation. The problem is, so is his position. The teaching of “justification by faith alone” is not a New Testament idea. Grudem clings to the mantra “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone” but that is from John Calvin, not the Bible. Even if Grudem and others believe that true saving faith must be accompanied by repentance and followed by a changed life, to cry out and cling to “justification by faith alone” is to depart from the Scriptures. For as much as the phrase “faith alone” is used by the reformation leaders, Grudem, and most religious people today, you would expect to find the phrase throughout the New Testament. And yet, the phrase “faith alone” or “faith only” is only found once in the New Testament; “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). What we see is that leaders of the “free grace” theology have simply followed the logical conclusion of a movement that cries out, “Faith alone!” While the reformation leaders, Grudem, and many others might view “faith alone” as necessarily involving repentance and good works, the free grace advocates have made faith alone just that— nothing more than faith! That is the result of not using Biblical language. That is the result of using man-made creeds and catch-phrases instead of speaking as the oracles of God.

Grudem’s second problem with “free grace” theology, is that it avoids any call to repentance. Grudem points out that “free grace” proponents define repentance simply as a “change of mind” and claim that no actual turning away from sin or living a changed life is required for salvation. Grudem does a very good job in chapter two of showing what the New Testament teaches about repentance. He makes a great case that the word ”repentance” has a much bigger meaning than to simply “change one’s mind,” and he also argues effectively from the New Testament that true repentance is clearly a necessary part of saving faith. Chapter two is a great chapter, until the end, unfortunately. After making such a strong case for repentance, Grudem undoes nearly all his work with a final clarification that saving faith does not include obedience. He says;

“While I believe that repentance from sin is a necessary part of saving faith, and while I believe that repentance must include a sincere resolve to turn from one’s sins and begin to obey Christ, I do not think it is accurate to say that saving faith therefore must include obedience to Christ. I believe that saving faith will result in obedience, and saving faith will include a sincere resolve to turn from sin and to begin a new pattern of obedience, but a resolve to turn from sin and begin obedience is not the same as obedience itself. And we must guard jealously the fact that faith alone is what saves us, not faith plus obedience.” (Italics original to Grudem).

Interestingly, after using multiple New Testament passages to show repentance is necessary for salvation, Grudem doesn’t use a single passage from the Bible to defend his claim that obedience is not required for salvation. Instead, he quotes from men and creeds citing the Westminster Confession of Faith, several texts on systematic theology including works by Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, Millard Erickson, Michael Horton, J.I. Packer, John Frame, and even his own publication on Systematic Theology. As scholarly as that list might be, none of those men are inspired writers of God’s Word. Jesus and the inspired writers of the New Testament had a much different viewpoint on obedience than Grudem and his quoted scholars: Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). That is not a suggestion or a byproduct, that is a command. Paul said to the Thessalonians that when Jesus comes back, He will, “…take vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That seems clear enough—the Lord will punish those who are not obedient. In 1 Peter 2:6-8, Peter equates disobedience with disbelief. The New Testament is quite clear: faith without obedience is not saving faith. To say that obedience is necessary for salvation does not nullify the grace of God in salvation, nor does it undermine the importance of faith. Obedience is not a work that merits favor or salvation—obedience is an essential element of faith, and the two cannot be separated.

Grudem spends the third chapter of his book arguing that “free grace” theology gives false assurance to people that might not actually be saved. Grudem is very right to be concerned by this. When lost souls are assured they are saved and thus do nothing to remedy their lost condition, that is truly tragic. The reason for false assurance is rooted in the errors of the “free grace” movement. Proponents of such a view argue that if at some point in a person’s life they believe they are a sinner and need Jesus to forgive them, then they are saved. Amazingly, some will even argue that if such a person later in life disavows their faith in Christ, they are still saved! Grudem is rightly concerned that such people might not actually be saved. Once again, though, all that the “free grace” proponents have done is take a Calvinistic doctrine to its logical conclusion. They have taken the idea of “perseverance of the saints” or “once saved always saved” to mean just that—once a person is “saved” there is nothing they can ever do to lose their salvation. It is clear Grudem subscribes to the doctrine of “perseverance of the saints” as well, but since he believes works will accompany a true believer (even though they are not required for salvation) he must explain the situation of a “believer” that no longer lives like a Christian. To support his viewpoint, Grudem argues that if a person that was “saved” never bears any fruit or even falls away into a life void of Christian characteristics, then they likely were not “born again” in the first place—they were never actually saved. Once again, the problem is that the doctrine of “once saved always saved” is simply unbiblical, and thus leads to the confusion we see between Grudem and “free grace” advocates. To Grudem’s credit, he does use many Bible verses in chapter three, and does not rely as heavily on reformation leaders as in previous chapters. Some of his use of scripture is misguided however. For instance, one passage he uses is 1 Peter 1:10: “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble…”

Does this verse teach that someone who doesn’t “do these things” (add virtue, knowledge, self-control, etc. from verses five and six) that an individual was not truly born again? If so, then why in verse nine did Peter say, “For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.”

Peter is not talking about someone that never truly believed and thus was not actually born-again and saved. Peter says they were washed of their sins! How could they have been washed of their sins had they not truly believed? Clearly, Peter is warning Christians that had obtained salvation to be diligent to continue living right before God so they don’t regress to sinful living and forfeit their salvation.

Grudem makes many good points in chapter three, and argues convincingly that an individual living a life void of Christian characteristics should never be assured they are eternally safe. Unfortunately, Grudem’s own theology also falls short of the Biblical pattern, and in promising “once saved always saved” he can also be guilty of giving false assurance.

In the final two chapters of his book, Grudem addresses his final concerns with “free grace” theology. He argues in these chapters that such a theology underemphasizes trust in the person of Christ, and he points out that “free grace” advocates have been given to outlandish and peculiar interpretations of scripture to make their theology work. Grudem points out that there are differences of opinion even amongst “free grace” advocates, but nearly all, “deemphasize the element of heartfelt trust in the living person of Christ” (pg. 105). Instead, most teach that simply a mental ascent to facts about Jesus (Jesus was a real person, Jesus died for sins) is enough to constitute ‘saving faith.’ Chapter five tackles several passages that ‘free grace’ advocates seek to explain away in regards to repentance and works. Grudem is definitely correct that interpretations offered by Zane Hodges and others are far off the mark, but once again, Grudem makes the same mistake himself a few times. For example, regarding Romans 10:13 Grudem has this to say: “Zane Hodges says that in this passage, calling on the name of the Lord to be saved (v. 13) does not mean calling out to gain eternal salvation but calling out “to obtain His aid and deliverance in daily life.”

Grudem is absolutely correct that Romans 9 is dealing with eternal salvation, not aid and deliverance in daily, physical, earthly life (a common argument by “free grace” advocates). Notice, however, that Grudem defines to “call on the name of the Lord” as to simply “call out.” But how does one call out? The definition is given to us in Acts 22:16, where Saul of Tarsus was instructed by Ananias to, “…Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” It seems that Ananias (the first person to teach Paul about calling on the name of the Lord) equated such an action with baptism.

Grudem also tackles misinterpretations of James 2:14-17 and James 2:26. Grudem states that these verses, “…pose a significant challenge to the Free Grace position, because they seem to be saying that genuine faith will always result in good works” (pg. 132). Again, Grudem is correct: these verses pose such a significant challenge to “free grace” advocates that they only get around them by misinterpreting the text. As is pointed out in the book, these verses are explained as dealing with “…destructive consequences of living a sinful life in this world” (pg. 132), which Grudem rightly points out is very inaccurate. In the letter, James is discussing eternal salvation or damnation, not physical consequences for sinful living. But once again, Grudem’s view (the “faith alone” view of the reformation) is also challenged by this passage, and requires peculiar interpretation to make this verse fit such a view. Grudem states that these verses are not directed at most of his readers, but a potential “someone” who must not actually be a part of the brothers, because they have a dead faith. He must take a view like this in order to uphold his belief in the perseverance of the saints. Grudem also tries to argue that when James states “faith without works is dead” he isn’t saying that faith in such a person was once alive. (Again, a necessary interpretation to support Calvinism). In this Grudem is just as guilty of forcing an interpretation to fit his theology as Zane Hodges and other “free grace” advocates are. The straightforward, simple interpretation of James 2:14-26 is that James is warning Christians (yes, Christians that have been saved or “born again”) that they must continue in good works, not simply claim to have faith if they wish to be saved. When James talks of a dead faith, he is referring to a faith that is no longer productive and is useless, but that doesn’t mean that faith never existed for such a person. James is teaching that even though one obtain salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), that faith can die when a person chooses to not strive for the good works for which he was created anew (Eph. 2:10).

Concluding Remarks
Overall, I enjoyed reading Wayne Grudem’s book, and I found it helpful in a few ways. Reading the work helped me understand more accurately the way in which many Calvinists view salvation and the doctrine of faith alone. It was helpful to learn more about the “free grace” position, and learn about the difference between such a view and the typical Reformation viewpoint. In my opinion, Grudem is a good writer who was easy to follow. He laid out his arguments in a straightforward way that would be easy for nearly anyone to understand. The work is a short work of 146 pages, making for a quick read. A word of warning however—Grudem is definitely Calvinistic and that shows through in his arguments. As pointed out in the review, while Grudem is frequently correct in his disagreement with the “free grace” theology, his own theology is often at odds with Scripture.

By: Nate Bibens / natebibens@gmail.com