Dispensationalism and Free Grace: Intimately Linked, by Grant Hawley. Taos, NM: Dispensational Publishing House, 2017. 74 pp. $12.95.
In this brief book, Grant Hawley attempts to demonstrate that the literal interpretation of dispensationalism gives rise to free grace theology (chapter 1). Conversely, he argues that non-literal interpretation is to blame for Lordship salvation, legalism, covenant theology, and non-dispensational views of the millennium (chapter 2). Finally, he sets forth that dispensationalism and free grace are linked historically and theologically (chapter 3).
Hawley gives a brief history of dispensationalism and attempts to show that it was responsible for the revival of grace as over against the legalistic gloom that was cast over the historical reformed faith (47). This happened as a result of dispensationalism’s literalism, no-works view of assurance, and its separation of justification and sanctification, thus making full assurance possible.
Hawley does well to remind the reader that there is a lot of confusion as to the use of theological terms (1), and that there are writers who confuse the conditions of salvation by including works (30–31, 33). Another salutary reminder has to do with the impact of non-literal interpretation upon the interpreter’s entire theological system: “Because Bible interpretation is systematic, non-literal interpretation in one area necessarily affects other areas as well” (38).
Hawley’s thesis is significantly weakened by several factors. First, although he twice supplies a list of the main points of dispensationalism (6, 23), he never defines free grace theology (FGT). Evidently it is assumed that the reader knows what free grace theology is. But the nuances of FGT need to be made explicit. It should be made clear to the reader that FGT has a specific definition of faith, that it disconnects salvation from discipleship, and that it does not include repentance from sin as part of the saving response of faith to the gospel, but instead defines repentance in a very narrow way. The definition of FGT should further clarify that it requires a particular view of assurance (non-introspective, “essence of faith”). In addition, it would be helpful if Hawley would give some more definition to his view of perseverance. From his negative descriptions of perseverance—that “every true believer will produce some good works” (8, and also 5, 19, 40)—it appears possible for a true believer to evidence no change in lifestyle, despite the miracles of regeneration and Spirit indwelling that occur at the moment of salvation. Such believers, the definition should explain, may enjoy eternal life, but will not inherit the kingdom.
The second weakness in Hawley’s thesis has to do with how he uses quotes from John MacArthur, John Gerstner, and Arthur Pink. These interpreters heavily criticize dispensationalism and FGT. Hawley uses quotes from MacArthur, for example, to say that because MacArthur attacks both FGT and dispensationalism, therefore the two doctrines must be related, which is a key support of Hawley’s thesis (12). But Hawley also quotes MacArthur as stating that it is only “‘one arm of the dispensationalist movement’ that promotes the free grace message” (11). Hawley is guilty of making too much of the quotes of these Bible teachers. It is not that FGT inevitably arises from general dispensationalism. Rather, FGT inevitably arises from a particular variety of dispensationalism. I argue that FGT arises from a form of hyper-dispensational theology, one which is based on over-worked distinctions between justification and discipleship and between law and grace. As such, MacArthur does not reject normative dispensationalism (25). Instead, it is a form of hyper-dispensationalism that he rejects. This severely undercuts Hawley’s argument.
A third weakness is Hawley’s isolated literal interpretation principle. Although he recognizes the analogy of faith (24), this principle is not carried into his practice of hermeneutics. A prime example is introduced on the opening page where the author says that he was amazed to learn that believe means “believe” (1) when he learned FGT. What he does not say is that Scripture is often concerned with a true definition of belief as over against a false one. Demons “believe,” but are not saved (Jas 2:19). Belief does not, therefore, simply mean “cognitive assent to a fact.” True belief has more nuance that must be explained from the whole context of Scripture, not just from isolated uses of the term.
A fourth weakness in Hawley’s argument is his novel approach (at least to this reader) to the idea of authorial intent. His striking example is the gospel of John—“the only book of the New Testament that was written to unbelievers” (30; see also 34). Hawley essentially claims that we cannot find calls to salvation in the other books of the New Testament, because they were written to people who were already believers. He later demurs by saying that “Biblical writers can…discuss the way to eternal life in books written to believers,” but that these are not calls to salvation but rather “reminders and foundations for other doctrines” (34).
A fifth weakness in Hawley’s argument is his regression to the confusion of an earlier era of dispensationalism regarding salvation in the Law. He writes, “Everything in the Mosaic Law is conditioned upon works of obedience. This is plainly declared in Leviticus 18:5…‘which if a man does, he shall live by them’” (52). It appears that he is suggesting that, under the Law, salvation (part of everything) was conditioned upon works. A far better interpretation, which he does not mention, is that the living has to do with living long in the land of promise. It is not talking about justification and eternal life on the basis of keeping the Law. In making such a hard distinction between law and grace, he loses the unity of the one way of salvation in all ages. It is clear from Scripture that a circumcised heart—regeneration—could not be obtained by works of obedience. It was a matter of faith in God (Deut 10:16, 30:6, Jer 4:4).
Finally, some quotations used by Hawley are not supportive of the point they are intended to support. On page 48, he quotes Chafer to support his point that “assurance is the foundation of a holy walk.” But the quotation refers to the difference between holy living in response to salvation as opposed to holy living in order to obtain salvation. On page 16, Hawley quotes Pink’s answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” The answer—belief—is common to both sides of the debate; Pink’s answer does not make clear that he was a believer in FGT at the time of his writing.
Hawley’s book does explain a number of facets of FGT thinking, but errs in that it does not define FGT, and has a number of weak areas of argumentation. It does not convince this reviewer that FGT necessarily arises out of dispensationalism. If anything, it convinces me that FGT arises out of a system of hyper-distinctions that cannot be sustained with a systematic, grammatical, literal interpretive principle.
