A Review of Philip L. Simpson's "Response to the Free Grace Movement" (My Initial Thoughts)

I received an email from a friend of mine yesterday asking if I could "give a good refutation" to Philip L. Simpson's article titled: "Response to the Free Grace Movement". It must have been the Lord's perfect timing, because actually, writing a response to Simpson's article has been on my mind lately, even before my friend inquired about it. I asked my friend if I could post his question because I thought it was helpful to show the true nature of Lordship Salvation. My friend gave me permission to post his question, of which the following statements are excerpted:

Jon this scares me. can you look at it? https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html 

I replied by saying:

I've looked at the article. Why does it scare you?

My friend wrote back:

It seems to be proof Free Grace is false. Can you give a good refutation? It's my only hope. No, really. If Lordship Salvation is true, there's no hope for me!

In reply I sent my friend an email with some of my initial thoughts about Phillip L. Simpson's article which I will share in just a minute, but first I want to share what I wrote back to my friend in regards to when he said: "If Lordship Salvation is true, there's no hope for me!" I replied:

I like what you said about if Lordship Salvation is true then there's no hope for you, because it highlights how Lordship Salvation is law, not grace. I think people need to realize that Lordship Salvation is a works-based system of bondage where God's "grace" is only doled out to those who measure up to and maintain some standard of good works. So in essence, Lordship Salvation is a "pay to play" system of salvation reserved only for those who are willing to pay the ultimate price of full submission and total commitment to Christ's Lordship.

Now I'd like to share some of my initial thoughts about Simpson's article.  This is basically what I emailed back to my friend except that I have expanded on some thoughts for the sake of clarity:

I guess if I agreed with Bob Wilkin's version of Free Grace theology then Phillip L. Simpson's article might concern me. But I don't agree with Wilkin's version of Free Grace theology. Notice the subtitle of Simpson's article: "A Biblical Response to the Teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and the Grace Evangelical Society [founded by Bob Wilkin]". Those three men cited by Simpson don't hold to the traditional Free Grace position on a number of theological issues, such as: the gospel, the definition of repentance [although Dillow says his views on repentance are "similar" to those of Charles Ryrie], repentance as a requirement for salvation, the definition of faith, the inevitability of spiritual fruit in the Christian's life [although Hodges believed that "there will be good works in the life of every believer in Christ"], eschatology (i.e. the definition of the overcomer, inheriting the kingdom, ruling and reigning with Christ, outer darkness), etc. So Phillip L. Simpson's article is really a response to non-traditional Free Grace Theology. Since I also (along with Simpson) disagree with the non-traditional Free Grace theology as espoused by Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and Bob Wilkin, I agree with many of the points Simpson makes in his article. 

But there is of course much that I disagree with in Simpson's article. I've read over his article a few times and I've noticed that it has a serious lack of exegesis. It's basically a gloss.[1] A more critical reviewer might call Simpson's article nothing more than proof-texting because he basically recites his Lordship Salvation theology and then lists a bunch of Bible verses without much, if any, explanation. I want to borrow a statement from the well-known Free Grace advocate Charlie Bing when he says something in reference to Wayne Grudem's book, but I want to also apply Bing's statements to Phillip L. Simpson's article because what Bing says is applicable to both. Dr. Bing writes, "there are a lot of biblical references. But biblical references do not an argument make (A concordance is also 'biblically saturated'). We call the use of biblical references without explanation, exposition, or exegesis in context 'proof-texting.' And that is what we find throughout most of the book."[2] This is also what I found when I read Simpson's article, but it's important to remember that proof-texting is not exegesis.

Also, may I say to anyone out there who may be doubtful or "on the fence" about Free Grace theology, I would ask that everyone (and this is very important): please recognize that there are at least two or three distinct variations of Free Grace theology being promoted today, namely: traditional Free Grace theology (such as that promoted by Charles Ryrie and Charlie Bing), and non-traditional Free Grace theology (such as that promoted by Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society). 

 

References:

[1] I use the word gloss with the meaning: "a deceptively attractive appearance" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). 

[2] Charles C. Bing, A Review of Wayne Grudem's "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, October 2016.