We did not eat sugary breakfast cereal when I was a kid, so I never acquired a taste for the oh-so-healthy bowl of fancy shapes known as Lucky Charms.
In college, I began to play roller hockey and was introduced to the fanaticism that some hockey players have for a different sort of lucky charm. Some professional hockey players have been known to have pre-game rituals bordering on a religion: they always put the left pad on first, then the right pad, left skate first, then the right; they might give up shaving during playoffs and always eat the same meal before a game. An article that discusses this phenomenon makes the point that rituals and superstitions are attempts to make the uncertain certain, to control the uncontrollable.
I have never known anyone to take it seriously, but most of us are aware of the tradition of the lucky rabbit’s foot: if you carry the hind foot of a rabbit, it will supposedly bring you good luck. (Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the original owner of said foot doesn’t seem to have been so lucky!)
Rabbit’s foot aside, there are people who take charms and fetishes very seriously. Our church recently hosted a visiting missionary who works in tribal areas where animism and witch doctors are the norm. Animistic cultures often have rituals and superstitions that can range from the intriguing to the tragic. For example, in some cultures, mothers who give birth to their first-born child never touch it, but rather birth it into a shallow grave and bury it alive. There are deeply held fears and beliefs that make it hard to persuade new moms in such a culture to break with this terrible tradition and to receive their firstborn as fully human.
The missionary was not speaking specifically about issues of grace versus legalism. Rather, he wanted to make a point that believers in general may not be so far above tribal animism as they think. He said something like, “when you think about it, if I make an extra effort to pray or do my devotions on a given day hoping that God will reward me with an extra blessing or a special answer to prayer, I am basically doing the same thing: I am performing a good-luck ritual hoping to gain supernatural favor.”
In his book Transforming Grace, Jerry Bridges quotes from another author: “Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit…. Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit…. [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”
Bridges adds his comment: “Note that [this description] of God’s grace cuts both ways: It can neither be earned by your merit nor forfeited by your demerit. If you sometimes feel you deserve an answer to prayer or a particular blessing from God because of your hard work or sacrifice, you are living by works, not by grace. But it is just as true that if you sometimes despair of experiencing God’s blessing because of your demerits — the “oughts” you should have done but didn’t, or the “don’ts” you shouldn’t have done but did — you are also casting aside the grace of God.”
The jarring ramification of this is that if we let our devotions, quiet times, times of prayer, acts of service to God, or our attention to obeying certain principles become like rabbit’s feet, that is, lucky charms which we hope will enhance our chances of God blessing us, then we are “casting aside the grace of God.” Ouch!
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.
Hey Matthew, how about you step on everyone's toes this morning? lol.. good article!
Great article Matthew! It is sobering to think that in many ways we can act no different from tribal people who do not know Christ. The excerpts you shared from Jerry Bridges book were also ones that struck me as I have been reading that book. I thought it was cool that you ended with Rock of Ages. That song (particularly the part you quoted) has been running through my mind for some time now. I still have so much to learn about God's grace.
After this was written I ran across a piece with some related ideas: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/01/15/rabbits-foot-religion-2/
Hello, Matt :-) I am sincerely curious what you do with verses like the following in the context of "Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit". It may be in the semantics, so perhaps there is no disagreement. I am going to plunk "unmerited favor" into each place where the Bible reads "grace":
"Whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from unmerited favor." (Galatians 5:4) Falling from favor . . . you were "on" it, but now you are not? To me "falling off" means it no longer influences, helps me. How do you understand that?
"Looking diligently lest any man fail("come short") of the unmerited favor of God" (Hebrews 12:15) Diligent focus sounds like work, right? Diligence is a character quality - the opposite of carelessness. That sounds like, "Be a better man/woman, or you will miss it".
"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of unmerited favor, that we may obtain mercy, and find unmerited favor to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:16) We get favor if we come boldly, with the implication that we won't if we don't? What is not coming boldly? Indifference, fear, carelessness? That sounds like a character issue.
"God resisteth the proud, but giveth unmerited favor unto the humble." (James 4:6) The next verse tells us that - because of this - we should "humble ourselves". Humble yourself and get favor. Humble yourself and take favor? I am OK with that, except that it says that "God GIVES favor to the humble". No way to Greek our way around this. In another thread I was warned against seeing this as a "this for that" statement. As though saying that makes it read differently. That almost sounds like twisting Scripture that bugs us around so it stops bugging us.
A complete doctrine will take in all the statements of Scripture. I believe that grace is never earned the way we earn a wage by work performed. A debt. But these Scriptures need to be integral to a complete understanding of grace. And by "integral" I mean "they fit". If "humility" and "diligence" represent a "work" to you, then you have a problem with these Scriptures. I don't believe they do.
Alfred, I'll be happy to engage a conversation with you if you will show me the courtesy of answering my question here https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/#comment-11082 and repeated here https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/#comment-11106
I have honestly tried to engage conversation with you, in order to understand more about how you are thinking and to try to find common ground. I have found that I can invest a lot of energy in answering your questions but when I ask a question you dodge and weave and throw personal jabs back at me in response. It's more like a game of words with a defense lawyer than like a conversation. It is hard for me to shake the feeling that that is how you are behaving - not as a seeker of truth but as a defense lawyer. I will spend some time thinking about your question here, but the discouraging thing for engaging conversation with you is that after I give you an honest answer, I can expect you to disappear for days or weeks, then come back with more evasion, more dodging and weaving, more personal attacks. We are all busy so I fully understand taking some days to respond, but using that as a tactic to try to control and change the conversation gets old.
Just so you know, I prefer to be called Matthew rather than Matt. I know it's petty and plenty of people in real life say Matt, but I do prefer my real name.
Read a bit further down, Matt in the tornadoes . . . I did answer you. [as he plays the sympathy card] My wife is just now pulling out of a week and a half of recuperation after surgery, so wasn't commenting much on anything.
"PLEASE stop accusing me of dodging and weaving", he said, irritatedly. I do anything but that. I do the opposite of that. As I said in my response earlier today, you are hard to answer because of these mega blasts with multiple points. If we can keep it bite sized for busy people, we will all work it out.
oh, please. Stemming from your quote, I asked, "Alfred, do you think that Scripture is written at this level of accuracy, or do you believe that Scripture is written to a higher standard of accuracy than this?"
You answered: "The rhetorical question :-) But . . . let me ask you this, what does this verse mean?"
I re-asked the question (after answering some of the new questions you raised). You did not respond to that.
Later down, you said: "You don't need to instruct me on how truthful God or the Scriptures are. That is my 'rhetorical question' comment. "
You also said "Your use of absolute whites to condemn everything else as black makes no sense." say what?
Conversation with you is like nailing jello to a tree. You change the subject, you make accusations, you brag about your connections to Gothard, but you do not give straight answers.
My irritation with you notwithstanding, I don't know your wife but I truly wish her and you well. Surgery is no fun for the person or the family. My best wishes to your kids as well; if I recall correctly, you have some kids still at home. I hope your wife soon recovers and that your cooking doesn't kill anyone! (just kidding)
My son will actually be in Chicago early next year for some surgery. They are going to actually cut the leg bone right under the hip, and twist the leg around so that it grows back straight. No WAY I would be able to watch that!
Why take me down pathways like that, Matthew (I hate “Al” as much as you hate “Matt” – sorry)? Of course it is written . . . to the highest standard, "purified 7 times". You knew me well enough to know how I would answer, so it is rhetoric.
The obvious next step is, "Then, why doesn't Mr. Gothard hold to that standard?" To which all manner of answers may be given. Including (as I did):
o He is not perfect . . . neither am I. In fact, no human can ever come to the standard of Scripture in speech or writing. Ironically, even the Apostle Paul had a personal misstatement or two in "Holy Writ" (One of which I pointed out, 1 Cor. 1:14,16) The key is whether he genuinely loves the truth and loves Jesus.
o I challenged you on how you relate the events of life to your children vs., say, your wife. Please read and respond to that. Faith in God causes us to ignore apparent "realities" and believe in things "not seen as yet". I laugh at proven scientific "facts" that contradict God's word. Faith causes a person to find a good reason for a bad thing, or miracles in "ordinary" things . . . ignoring things right in front of their nose. If he is guilty of praising the Lord too much, of seeming indifferent to suffering because he really believes God is working a great good out of it, well, I am not sure what to say. Somehow I believe the Lord will reward that childish faith.
So, you see, I did answer you. If I missed where you were going, forgive me, and put me back on track. Give me credit for enough intelligence to skip a step or two where appropriate.
And I will offer this retraction. I will dodge and weave as much as Jesus did. That includes refusing to answer certain “loaded” questions until equally “loaded” questions are entertained in the opposite direction. That is how the hypocrisy of the heart is revealed, if any.
I see lengthy responses below. I can't answer each point. I have tried in the past, and it ends in a morass or a meltdown. If you were ever on the “Metochoi” forum when I was, you will understand.
May the Lord bless you and your son, and supply all your need. Sounds like quite a challenge – my heart goes out to you. We have been blessed with meals brought by others . . . and we have a number of young adults in the house who cook . . . so no need to fear for my wife :-)
If you have time, look me up. I live in the suburbs. Email me privately for the details (or friend me on Facebook). If there is an opportunity to meet, let's do it.
Thanks for this. I have responded back over on the thread about the tornado. https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/#comment-11306
In all your freedom you sure are a judgemental soul toward Alfred. So touchy, like a cornered animal afraid and snarling. You will be glad to engage with him "IF". You folk who boast in your freedom are so bound by your intellect and your own interpretation that you are just like those you condemn and accuse of being legalistic. Your efforts to be free have bound you back to the flesh.
Well, if that wasn't a snarl, right there! Just sayin'...
Jerry, curious, what is your background with Gothard? I'm afraid I'm not sure where you are coming from.
I've been following the conversation loosely, and I really feel Matthew has been quite longsuffering with Alfred, if not a bit exasperated at times. I'm sorry, but I have to say I see, overall, a real graciousness in Matthew's responses.
Perhaps it would help to facilitate discussion, if you could be more specific about your complaints? Which comment(s) specifically bother you, and why? Your complaint was rather vague, at best.
Also, bear in mind that Alfred has been engaging in discussion on these pages, for quite some time. And yes, it can be hard to pin him down, at times. The engagement does get frustrating.
(And yes Alfred, I know you can see this... Just so you don't feel I am talking about you behind your back ;)
Alfred,
I'm not Matt either, obviously. Neither am I a theologian. But I'd like to attempt to talk about your questions, not really answer them because I'm not equipped, mostly to work it out in my own mind.
I'm sure you know the preceding verses to Gal. 5:4, but to help with clarity, I will include them: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burned again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to lbey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
To me, this sounds like someone is rejecting grace and choosing works in order to be justified. You have "fallen away" because you are trusting in yourself, not Christ. So is this a demerit, a flaw in character? Honestly, I'm not sure. Is it an action, a work, to stop trusting in Christ and begin trusting in works? I think you basically asked this question in another thread and I'm not sure it's answerable. Perhaps, as you suggested, it's just semantics.
As for Heb. 12:15, when I read it, it sounds like he's talking to a group of people. I don't understand why you think it's a personal admonition: "be a better man/woman." If so, the diligence is in reference to looking after your fellow Christians and helping one another, not in seeking grace. For example, if you see someone beginning to trust in their works instead of in Christ, remind them where grace comes from.
Heb. 4:16 is the easy one. I don't think there's an implication that you won't get grace if you don't come boldly. You put it in a form of a question, but is that really what you meant? In becoming a Christian, we begin to realize the enormity of our sin and, therefore, it is easily understood that we may feel nervous (scared out of our minds) about coming before a just God. Is this not just an encouragement? For instance, when my little daughters cry "Daddy" and run to him for hugs when he comes home from work, there is no question in their minds that he will greet them with open arms. However, if one of them for some reason felt shy about going to him, that doesn't necessarily mean he will not still greet her with open arms. He will walk to her and pick her up if she continues to stay in the background and give her the hug he's been wanting to give her all day. I understand the "come boldly" part as a reassurance, especially since verse 15 talks about Jesus sympathizing with our weakness.
I confess James is the most difficult for me. What does it mean to humble yourself? In ATI, I remember being given steps. Perhaps they were only meant to be good ideas, but I don't think they were. Good ideas, that is. The problem I have with steps or a checklist is that they turn my focus on myself. And self-centeredness is akin to pride, if not the same thing, which defeats the purpose of the humility checklist in the first place. As in, I did everything on this list, therefore I must be humble when all the time I'm still proud. This is a genuine question. How do you humble yourself? Is it merely realizing and confessing my utter helplessness and need for God? Recognizing the wickedness of my heart? And, again, should that be considered a work? Since James also tells us to grieve, mourn, and wail in this passage, I think I may be on the right track. (You can't do those things insincerely.) But it also says to resist the devil, wash my hands, and purify my heart. Figures of speech or actual works?
I agree that these verses speak about grace and so it is important to understand them and include them in our understanding of grace as a whole. So I appreciate your questions. And forgive me if I misunderstood them. I may have only rephrased them and be asking the same thing you're asking. I understand if you want to wait until Matt answers since your questions were directed at him. Like I said, I am only entering the conversation in order to think out loud. I'll be following the interchange.
A thought that might help with the verse in James: Proud people don't think they need grace, because they think they have it all together. If grace were offered to them, they wouldn't see the need to take it; that's the reason they won't receive it. Thus "humble yourself" simply means "Be in a position where you recognize your need for grace" Then you'll get it, because God's offering it already.
This is also the meaning of "fall from grace" in Galatians. The Galatians were not in danger of "falling away from [receiving the gift of] God's unmerited favor" but "falling away from [the concept of believing that they needed] God's unmerited favor" -- the result not of sin but of legalistic doctrine. Grace is not needful for perfect people, and thus it won't be seen as needful by people who think they are perfect because they keep the law.
In short, the verses Alfred quotes, understood in context with the rest of Scripture, are cautions not in favor of works but against legalism.
I appreciate the comments.
Heb. 12:5 says "any man" failing of God's grace, so not sure where the group comes in. Read the context: The implication is that Esau is an example of a person who does that. Jacob took grace, Esau failed of it.
I really don't understand the admonition in Heb. 4 if He doesn't mean "come and ask so you may receive". Forget grace for a moment . . . do we all get the same mercy, regardless? Or, when a person comes and asks for mercy, God grants something he might not otherwise?
I don't understand the nuance being presented for Galatians. One good way to test an explanation is to see if there are more obvious ways that concept would be presented if that was what was meant.
One point most here have been in agreement on is that obvious explanations should trump things that require you to put your brain through multiple twists of logic.
The focus of the verbs in Hebrews 12 is plural: "Looking earnestly" (present participle -- plural) "lest any" (indefinite pronoun -- singular)... i.e., The group plural should look out for the singular person. All for one. See http://interlinearbible.org/hebrews/12-15.htm
Of course "Come and ask that you may receive" is what Hebrews 4 says. But you're committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent: assuming "If X then Y, therefore if not X then not Y." In addition to being not logical, the text simply doesn't say that!
As Sherlock Holmes said, "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." Sometimes the explanation that looks right on the surface is wrong. If I said "My heart is breaking," mightn't the most "obvious" thing to do be to rush me to a cardiologist? Not what was meant in the context, though! (And try explaining it to someone who doesn't understand English figures of speech... "multiple twists of logic," perhaps?)
btw, in case anyone isn't familiar with Jerry Bridges, he has served with the Navigators for over 50 years. He has been a faithful servant for a long time and has earned a hearing with a large audience of believers. My parents knew him when they were in the Navigators with him over 40 years ago, and then as now, he continues to serve faithfully. His life shows the fruit of one who has a real relationship with the Lord. He was a guest speaker at our school a while back and it was a joy to hear him, though convicting. He was talking about his book "Respectable Sins." An interview with him here: http://www.navigators.org/us/staff/bridges/items/interview
The statement, "Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit" was something Bridges had read and repeats in his own book with approval. I know that some people have an immediate "yes, but" approach to the unmerited stuff about God's grace but I wanted to point out that this isn't my statement, nor is it a new statement. It comes from sources that deserve a hearing.
well, I guess got a little redundant there with the "faithful servant" idea, LOL
Alfred,
I hope you don't mind others jumping in and also answering your question. First I wanted to reply to your implication that the following statement is false: "Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit." I believe Scripture clearly teaches that grace is given not on the basis of human merit, nor withheld on the basis of human demerit, but that grace rests on the basis of Christ. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" Ephesians 2:4-7). Wow! I am amazed and in awe of God's grace towards me - freely given to me on the basis of Christ's sacrifice.
Your question based on Galatians 5:4 was a bit confusing to me. Let me quote the whole verse to make it more clear: "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." In the larger context of the verse we see that those who are trying to earn grace by the law don't have grace at all. Grace only comes by faith in Christ. "For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love" Galatians 5:5-6. So we see again, grace is not on human merit, not on the law, not on what we do, but only through Christ, through faith in Christ which is shown through our love.
The next verse, "See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God" (Heb 12:15a) I believe is referring to not receiving God's grace, but rejecting it, and choosing to live in the flesh rather than in the Spirit.
In your quotation and explanation of Hebrews 4:16, you seemed to have overlooked the very important word "therefore". As one of my pastors said, whenever you see therefore in a verse, you must see what it is there for! So lets begin with what comes before to see what it is there for. :) For we do not have a high priest [Jesus] who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Coming boldly or with confidence to the throne of God is not a condition required to receive grace. Confidence or boldness is a result of knowing that I am coming to God on the basis of Christ. Wow! That is so awesome I can come and run into my Daddy's Heavenly throne-room, into the Holy of Holies because of Christ with any request! No longer do I have to wait for an earthly high priest to enter the Holy of Holies with fear and trembling only once a year. All I have to do is ask, and because of Christ, God freely gives me mercy and grace! Hallelujah!
Now for the last verse, beginning with verse 5 "Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: 'He jealousy desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us'? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" James 4:5-6. These verses remind me of what Christ said to His disciples in Luke 18:15-27 comparing the faith of children with the works of the rich man. We cannot receive grace on the basis of our own works, but only on the basis of faith in Christ. We must come as little children. As it says in James "He gives a greater grace." The question is, am I willing to receive it? If I am proud like the rich young ruler in Luke I will not receive God's grace. God resists those who are proud, who try to come to Him on their own merits. It takes humility to admit my need for God and accept His free gift of grace through Christ. Once again, it is nothing I do, it is simply recognizing that I come before Him on the merits of Christ. That is true humility, recognizing that nothing I do or can do will earn God's grace, and simply coming to Him as a little child (as mentioned in the Luke 18 passage).
I agree with you that humility and diligence in these verses are not a work. I believe these verses further point and refer to the greatest truth of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Grace is given freely by God, not on the basis of what I do or don't do, but on the basis of what Christ has already done for me! That is the Good News of the Gospel!
I was refreshed and encouraged just looking at these verses again and being reminded of my position with Christ in God and God's free gifts of salvation, grace, and mercy. Thank you for bringing up these verses.
I am going to try to zero in on a salient point . . . and thank your for your reply.
I want to combine "Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit" with "those who are trying to earn grace by the law don't have grace at all."
Those statements are contradictory. IF grace comes without merit on my part, then I will receive it - God will not withdraw it - regardless of anything . . . including trying to earn my way to heaven via the law. I really am not being stupid here . . . but I need to to clarify your understanding of statement one in the light of that.
If you are a hardcore Calvinist then that is exactly what you mean (statement one), that grace comes without request and without faith, changes me, and BECAUSE of that I trust Christ. You would say that statement two will never happen by definition, because God uses that "irresistible grace" to make me not do that. Is that where you are coming from?
Grace cannot be received if you are depending on the law to give it to you... but that doesn't mean it isn't still there.
The statements aren't contradictory but explanatory.
A. Grace is not compelled to withdraw for any reason.
B. I cannot receive it if I am trying to earn it, instead of seeing that He wants to give it to me freely.
OK, Wendy . . . "grace is not compelled to withdraw for any reason". I presume that means that the opportunity to receive it is endless? A person can get saved any time they want, their choice?
Or are you differentiating between God being "compelled to" and "choosing to"?
Is "receiving grace" an expression of merit, as opposed to trying to earn it? Wiser people humble themselves and take grace, foolish people pridefully refuse . . .
You see my problem. If better/wiser/more alert people take grace, I am really at a loss to understand the attempt to divorce any shred of merit. In fact, the only way to do that is if grace gets applied unilaterally, irresistibly. Otherwise some positive character quality causes one person to take it, while another rejects it.
I'm not Matt, but the Word says that if it's meritted, it's not grace.
I do not believe that humility, the way the Bible teaches it, is a "work," but the way Gothard teaches it is. He gave us, his students, specific steps to humble ourselves. He made it a formula. It's not.
Whatever Scripture says is all true. So the verses that say it is not earned are no more true than the ones above that say that we can "fall from grace" or "fail of grace" or "pride our way away from grace". I am asking for an explanation. For the moment I don't care what Mr. G says or doesn't say. Heresy is "truth out of balance" . . . I am looking for the balance.
Perhaps in the translation from the Greek into English, there was more than one meaning for grace. Like the word love has several meanings in the bible according to the Greek it could mean brotherly, sexual or God's love.
Esbee, here is a quick response to that - the word in secular Greek had the basic meaning of a gift and of being favored, much like graceful, gracious, and gift mean to us today. The early church began to use the word indicate how God has responded to us in reaching out to give us his love, favor, forgiveness, and help. We could probably look in some books like Swindoll's "Grace awakening" or Yancey's "What's so amazing about grace?" to see some discussion on this. The seminary library here has some good scholarly critical commentaries as well as some good Bible encyclopedias, I'll try to see in the near future if I can get some helpful info there for us.
Short version: The point here (in Galatians 5:4) is that if you are looking to something you do, including circumcision, to improve your standing with God, you are actually betraying that you are not approaching God in faith, entirely dependent upon Christ alone. You have a choice to make: choose God's grace as opposed to your own efforts.
Loooong Version:
This article is mostly not my original thoughts. I was mostly repeating thoughts from a visiting missionary at our church and from a Jerry Bridges book I am currently reading. It closes with a line from a hymn. Three respectable sources that deserve much more of a hearing than I have ever earned, and would still deserve a hearing if I were totally removed from the picture.
There is a predictable "yes, but" pushback to the truths about grace.
Alfred has raised a few verses for consideration. Here is what Dr. Constable's notes say about Gal 5:4 (available at https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Galatians+5):
I think Paul is drawing the line, telling them to make a choice: either accept God's favor 100% not deserving and not of your own efforts, or else don't. But the option of partially earning some of God's grace is not on the table.
Taking a look at the context:
Gal 5:1 You were set free to be free, so don't submit to slavery
Gal 5:2 Make choice: either approach God via Christ or via circumcision. You can't have it both ways. If you choose the circumcision route, Christ will be of "no benefit" to you.
Gal 5:3 You can't pick and choose which parts of the Law to keep or not keep. If you choose the circumcision route, you are obligating yourself to the entire Law of Moses (by which we all know we all fail).
Gal 5:4 Some of you are trying to improve on Christ's righteousness by adding Law-keeping to it, thus having "Christ-plus". This doesn't work - in fact, it is pushing you away from Christ. By choosing the law, you are rejecting God's grace.
Gal 5:5 Our righteousness and justification is about the Holy Spirit and faith
Gal 5:6 I'll quote Constable again: God does not care if a Christian has a circumcised body or not. What does matter is that we trust God because we love Him. Paul united the three basic Christian virtues in these verses: faith, hope, and love. The Holy Spirit makes all three possible. (https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Galatians+5)
If you look ahead to verse 11, what is the "offense of the cross" and who is persecuting Paul? Paul was being persecuted by those who were preaching circumcision plus Christ. These are the legalists, not the libertines. Paul's persecution here is not coming from "the world" in the sense of those who reject God, but from the religious legalists. The folks who were persecuting Paul were closer to the Gothardites of the day than the Hollywood stars of the day, to paraphrase loosely.
I would say the choice between our works versus Christ alone is well summed up in the quote: “Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit…. Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit…. [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”
Or, the line from the hymn: Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling...
OK . . . let me start where you end.
"Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling... "
That was written by Augustus Toplady, a very strong Calvinist. Here is some more:
Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Savior, or I die.
Mr. Toplady believed that grace was "irresitible", that it comes on you, you didn't ask for it, it saves you, THEN suddenly you have a desire and the power to trust Christ. Is this what you believe?
If not . . . note the operative words in this hymn verse:
"I cling" . . . "come to Thee" . . . "look to thee" . . . "I fly"\
Back to your statement:
Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit
IF Mr. Toplady had not "Clung", "Come", "Looked", or "Flown", would grace have saved him anyway?
It is my understanding that salvation is like a gate, over which are the words "Whosoever Will, Come." On the other side of eternity, when we look back at the gate, we'll see "Chosen From the Foundation of the World."
Ultimately, it is a waste of energy to argue whether Mr. Toplady (or anyone) "clings", "comes", "looks", and "flys" as a reaction to grace -- for even those actions, yes, even the very act of breathing and thinking and reasoning and seeing and hearing and believing -- ALL is a result of God's amazing grace.
If Mr. Toplady, you, or I reject the grace of God, then "Christ will be of no value" to us at all. When the storm comes, I can choose to face the storm down myself, or I can hide behind the Rock of Ages, trusting entirely the rock and not myself.
There is a choice to be made. We can accept or reject. Paul said he was an ambassador, attempting to persuade people to be reconciled to God. Here in Gal 5, Paul is saying that if we approach God saying that we accept his grace, but we are also bringing something else in our hand to add to it, then we are not improving on God's grace, rather, we are demonstrating that we have never actually truly accepted it.
The point of someone saying "nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling" is not "See, you have to DO something after all - you have to cling", rather it is, "I am clinging with both hands, bringing nothing of my own to add to it." (this is very basic gospel truth)
But you had cited 4 verses, the first of which was Gal 5:4. This was my reply to that. The words of this hymn are a new issue being raised, but honestly, I feel like the hymn has a pretty obvious meaning.
Matthew: is not "trusting entirely in the rock" by definition the act of a wiser, more humble man than the one who does otherwise? There has to be some point where you acknowledge that something other than blind chance causes one to cling, while another rejects . . .
Well, there is 1) the work of the HS in a life to encourage acceptance or not, and there is 2) human choice. Do I think there is a profile of an acceptor? No, not really. I believe it hinges on those two factors. The work of the HS may make the choice easier. It may grant a proud man enough humility to accept. But do I believe the acceptor had this merit, in and of himself, the humility/wisdom to accept, or whatever? Not necessarily. Do I believe that humble or wise men are more likely to accept? Not really.
If a man is hanging off a cliff, about to fall to his death, and a strong man runs up to give him his hand, rescuing him, would you say the doomed man had any merit that saved himself? No, you would say that it was lucky for him that the strong stranger happened to be passing by. The man, himself, was doomed and without hope, in and of himself. Now, if he withdrew his hand, you would say that he was a fool and deserved the consequences. But otherwise, most would not say that the man had any special merit that saved him.
Forgive my lack of engagement here recently. I have some thoughts to throw out there in this conversation though.
The position held by Bridges and subsequently by Matthew here are historically reformed positions. There really are no two ways around that. Now, whether or not Matthew and Bridges are promoting true "Calvinist" thought or not is beyond me to say. I don't know either of them well enough to comment further on their behalf.
However, from a historically reformed/Augustine/Pauline/Calvinist/Lutheran perspective, grace is explicitly given irresistibly by God of His own sovereign will and intention, regardless of any "merit" attempted by mankind.
The Arminian position holds an opposite perspective, namely that there is inherent capability in mankind to influence God to move toward him in grace.
Both of these statements are a high level summary and it seems that these are the levels at which this article is being argued…no intent here at slamming either contender. You're both brilliant and intelligent people.
It is important to recognize that we're ultimately dealing with several theological layers in these different verses. To approach them at the surface in which Afred has suggested is somewhat irrational.
It seems to me that Matthew's article and quotation of Bridges regarding grace is the foundational thought for all of Christianity and is the emphasis taken by the Scriptures regarding our salvation. Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians all specifically emphasize the apparent "irresistible" work of God in the lives of individuals and emphasize our dead inability to affect any individual effort to influence God toward providing grace to us. The historic reformed position is that we are literally dead spiritual beings, incapable of "good" and unable to reach for God even for salvation.
From this perspective, the truest essence of grace is therefore revealed, and that is what this article emphasizes: the primary, foundational aspect of grace is that God gives it without merit. Scripture makes the scandalous claim that is extended in the midst of our wicked, abominational state of utter rebellion toward God in our deadness. This is the work of salvation in grace.
Scripture also makes an equally scandalous claim that salvation cannot be lost, particularly through the grace that God keeps us in. Sin inflicts us with a total inability to reach toward God independent of our own attempts. Subsequently, a person holding a historically reformed perspective understands that the grace he received at salvation is the same grace that maintains and secures his salvation, regardless of his continued inability to reach toward God in his own inherently sinful works.
(This does not mean that the Christian is incapable of "good" through the work of the Spirit. Humor the distinction I'm making here though.)
Here is where Bridges' statement of grace comes into play: "Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit…. Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit…"
Foundationally, salvation is founded in grace that is not earned, merited, or maintained by human intention. Rather, it is given and secured by God in His sovereign will and working toward His children.
To address the circular reasoning issues surrounding Galatians 5:4 and Hebrews 4 and 12, and Toplady's hymn:
There is also an understanding in historically reformed/Augustine/Pauline/Calvinist/Lutheran thought that people are accountable for their position before God and ultimately responsible for their actions. This seems to fly in direct contradiction to the perspective of the sovereign will and workings of God that are simultaneously held and are often the point of contention from the Arminian/Wesleyian/Keswick camp. However, both understandings (God's sovereignty and mankind's accountability/responsibility) are found clearly in Scripture. This is where it seems we've come to a head in this discussion. Ultimately, what is the responsibility of the Christian after salvation in influencing or affecting the continued pouring out of grace from God?
I'll not address Galatians again as Matthew handled this quite nicely.
To pick up on Alred's analytical "works" approach toward Toplady's hymn:
The hymn exposes a Christian's response toward grace. That's what a Christian does. We cling, we come, we look, we fly…all to God. All to His grace. Why? Because we recognize that apart from God's grace, our own sinful inability would prevent us from doing so. Because of the grace bestowed on us regardless of merit, we sincerely look to God and praise him.
Taking another perspective from the reformed position: What is the purpose of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Is this not what a Christian who is clinging to God, flying to God, looking to God is doing? This Christian is being intentional about his relationship with God in understanding that he can only "do" these things within the grace given to him by God. It is a response of the overflow of the joy and utter dependence one finds in the grace of God as the immenseness of the work of God's grace is revealed more fully to their mind. This is the human's grateful and worshipful response to God for his grace.
It is NOT however, an attempt at working to earn continued grace. THAT is a primary difference between reformed thought and Arminian thought.
Hebrews is generally a difficult book to understand contextually because it deals with so many elements. The section that 12:15 comes from though is clearly speaking to Christians, particularly in reference to a Christian group (perhaps a church?). The undertone clearly recognizes the accountability Christians have before God, but it doesn't negate the foundational understanding of grace as a sovereign work of God. Rather, it emphasizes human accountability in our response toward God. This is an area where the human element is emphasized over the sovereign element. Are they contradictory? Hardly. They both run parallel tracks that focus (1) on God's sovereign perspective and (2) on human's perspective of accountability.
Hebrews 4:16 is simple also. For the Christian, grace is recognizable and freely given. All that is being emphasized here is yet again an understanding that as a child of God, we have access to this grace. We can intentionally seek it and find it in time of need. Come boldly. God has promised it. He hasn't promised what our human outcome will always be, but He does promise that it will be for our "good". Does He promise that we earn it? No. It's not about earning grace. It's about God's fatherly embrace extending it to His children when they recognize implicit need for it.
Lastly, James 4:6. Of course God resists the proud. Pride in itself is one of the primary responses of a spiritually dead and unregenerate heart. It disregards God and His workings in grace and His goodness toward mankind (Romans 1). But what true Christian in his right mind is going to approach the God who freely gave him grace for salvation in a prideful manner? The Christian recognizes that it was freely given apart from any merit earned by him. The attitude of the Christian is one of grateful dependence and humility. James is simply stating summarized truth: God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.
So ultimately, let me summarize some primary differences here:
The foundational position taken by the article assumes a freely given, unmerited grace that is maintained by God completely independent of the attempts to gain or maintain it by mankind.
Afred to approaches grace as though it can be merited in some way by using Scriptures written to Christians that seem to imply that it can be intentionally earned, when in reality these verses have nothing to do with earning grace. Rather, they are a summarization of our human experience with grace.
It seems to me that in Afred's case, the foundational unmerited basis of grace is misunderstood. This is in addition to the fact that a Christian who understands the truly gracious position he is in before God is going to intentionally seek after and worship God for His grace. This sometimes appears like a "maintaining work" from our human perspective, but the truth is that it is a simple response to God in understanding the immensity of the grace bestowed on us. And rarely does a Christian in this position even THINK about the "work" he is engaging in. He is ultimately just glorifying God and seeking enjoy Him forever.
The biggest difference being argued here is how a Christian appropriates that grace. Afred would (wrongly) argue that it can be further appropriated through the work of man as dictated by what we intentionally do. The position of this article understands that it is appropriated entirely independent of what we "do". By extension, I would state that some of the things we "do" are sovereignly orchestrated by God to provide further unmerited grace simply because God has designed our hearts to be enraptured in the glory of His workings for us.
I'm not even going to delve into Gothard's errant perspective on these things, but I think you can figure out my sense toward it all at this point.
And now that I have fully disclosed my historically reformed perspective, let the sparks fly. ;)
Thank you for your direct and honest response, Josh!
"However, from a historically reformed/Augustine/Pauline/Calvinist/Lutheran perspective, grace is explicitly given irresistibly by God of His own sovereign will and intention, regardless of any "merit" attempted by mankind."
My point precisely. To make grace unmerited in the Jerry Bridges sense you have NO choice but to be "reformed" or "Calvinist". Grace comes, grace works . . . in the wake of that we have the irresistible desire and power to do certain things, including trust Christ and never stop clinging to Him. There is no merit, because we are not doing it.
I simply want to point this out to those who may be uncomfortable with those positions. For my part I emphatically do not hold to a number of Calvinistic tenants, including the irresistability of salvation. [Which leads to Universalism far more quickly than Calvinism, if true. My thoughts: http://www.corduan.com/human_destiny.htm and http://www.corduan.com/calvin_poem.html ]
Grace is extended at God's will, and its supply is provided by the work of Christ without thought or effort on our part. But we must still receive it, as a beggar receives a free meal. THAT we are fully accountable for, ant is not predetermined by God.
Once we receive it it works in us to will and to do His good pleasure. Again, without merit on our part, like wind in the sails.
Our job is to keep to the wind of grace - the wind does the work of getting us where God wants us.
To make grace unmerited in the Jerry Bridges sense you have NO choice but to be “reformed” or “Calvinist”.
I could be wrong, but I actually don't think this is true. I lean Calvinistic but I'm in the muddled middle, a "Calminian." I'm not a high Calvinist, YRR, etc.
An example of a well-known Arminian blogger is Ben Witherington. It would be interesting if someone were to see if they could present someone like Witherington with Gothard's basic teachings on grace and get a response. I think that careful Calvinists and Arminians both will reject Gothardism. There are certainly key differences between the two systems but there are some major points of agreement as well. I don't think Arminians emphasize earning grace in any way, rather I think they emphasize human free will and choice more than the Calvinists. There are issues of predestination, etc. But as far as grace being merited or unmerited, I think most careful Protestants would agree with grace being completely unmerited.
The divide between Catholicism and Protestantism seems to me a better analogy, where Catholics tend to have an idea of salvation being free and unmerited but then people work in cooperation with God to earn their justification; Protestants in general believe that the same unmerited grace which saves is the same unmerited grace which sanctifies. I'm speaking loosely, and those who are Orthodox or Catholic might not completely agree with my thumbnail sketch.
I care less for Arminian or Calvinistic position than I care about getting God's Word right. I care even less about how many line up on one side or the other. The majority has been wrong most of history.
So . . . back to the bottom line. Which I keep asking and - other than Josh - get muddled answers on:
Does a person have a role to play in receiving or rejecting grace?
If so, what is that role?
Are the ones that receive grace by definition wiser or more humble for doing so than those that do not?
In the spirit of directness, Alfred, I believe the holy spirit pursues us by his grace. There comes a point at which we must choose to receive, or not... The point of salvation. I.e., responding to grace. From where I see it, those who respond and those who don't, have only that distinction between them, that of acceptance. Does it require humility to accept? Probably so, at least in that instance. Would they get more grace if they had an exaggerated sense of humility? No, I don't believe so. You can't get more or less of Christ. You either have him, or you don't. Are they wiser for having accepted? They've probably had some sort of revelation from God in order to accept, or else they wouldn't. If you want to call that wisdom, sure. I don't think this means the person is wiser in other areas of life. They've just seen the light on the one issue.
In short, no, overall I don't believe there to necessarily be actual differences in the person who accepts vs the person who doesn't, other than the acceptance, itself.
Now it is my turn to thank you, Hannah, for one of the most direct answers I have gotten.
I don't have a basic problem with anything you said. If so, I believe you and I would agree on this (correct me):
Proud people will NEVER get saved, not as proud people. Humility at some level is required before a person will accept the gift.
Is that "merit" or a work? Not in the sense that Paul presents the basics of grace. You don't get more grace by being more humble . . . you don't do penance to have the appearance of humility. You just admit what is true, that you are not worthy, but Jesus is.
Practical grace is the same as saving grace. It is provided the the believer for daily living as manna was provided, free, without cost. As needed. "Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds" Proud people don't take it, so they suffer the consequences.
Obviously I turned this whole discussion toward Calvinism vs. Arminianism. My apologies about that. I'll make a few points and back out:
Afred, to address a few things you stated and asked:
"Grace is extended at God's will, and its supply is provided by the work of Christ without thought or effort on our part."
OK - I agree here.
"But we must still receive it, as a beggar receives a free meal. THAT we are fully accountable for, ant is not predetermined by God."
This is where I disagree. Granted, this is because of reformed leanings. With this, you provide merit to humanity simply by the action of "receiving". To illustrate this: what do you do with common grace that all mankind receives? While I recognize different elements of grace (as I discuss some below), do you necessitate reception of common grace on behalf of the atheist who does not recognize God? Ultimately, God doesn't differentiate between the two and the Bible defines our spiritual position as "dead". You can't get around that. The unregenerate person who has a sensitivity to seek God for salvation is just as spiritually dead as the unregenerate atheist. What is the differentiator? God's grace being given.
"Once we receive it it works in us to will and to do His good pleasure. Again, without merit on our part, like wind in the sails."
Ultimately, either God gives it without our influence, or He doesn't. I realize this presents a whole slew of logical (or apparently illogical) issues and arguments that are very difficult and uncomfortable to come to terms with surrounding the issues of irresistibility, but you can't have both.
"Our job is to keep to the wind of grace - the wind does the work of getting us where God wants us."
Yet again you define a "job" that we are to do…another apparent "if" statement that determines merit on our part.
While I'm being hard with your "if" statements, I think that I'm primarily reacting to this sense of "we have to do something" to achieve grace. In all my reading of Scripture, I concur with the baseline teaching of grace that was used in the article here. What I will concede to however, is that there is a constant interaction with God within the realm of grace that sometimes appears (and is sometimes apparently presented in Scripture) to be humanly merited, but still falls within the confines of God's unmerited grace toward us. In that sense, we have a desire to "do" in the Christian life, and subsequently I understand and concur with "our job is to keep to the wind of grace". I agree tangentially, but not as a basis for how my Christian life came into being or how it is maintained, kept, or necessarily grown.
One more note before moving forward. I think one of the biggest issues that RG goes to bat against is that of Gothard's legalistic philosophy that he teaches should be carried out after salvation is initiated. This is where I will depart very quickly from any agreement. No where in Scripture does it require or necessitate the Christian to follow "principles" or any layer of "law". This is where the entire book of Galatians is so valuable as it clearly defines that we cannot build on our salvation by any external holding to the law or a checklist of principles as Gothard teaches. God does not require legal adherence to these things in order to necessitate and merit grace or blessing.
Are there things the Bible says are not good for a Christian? Sure. But are they a standardized set of rules that can be propagated by an individual or analyzed into principles? I think that's dangerously close to the position the Galatians found themselves in. And Paul damned their perspective.
Ultimately, the Bible seems very clear that grace (all elements thereof) are not appropriated via human intention or merit. None of it. However, there are elements of grace that are discovered through human interaction with God. The perspective to approach it though is never that I'm producing further grace (which is what Gothard teaches). Rather, the perspective is that all of God's grace is given all in spite of ourselves.
How does that interact with human will? Well, that's a whole other topic of probable contention. =)
I'll now make an attempt at answering your questions from my perspective. I'll be quick to state that this isn't necessarily the perspective held by anyone else commenting here.
Does a person have a role to play in receiving or rejecting grace?
I'm going to try not to "muddle" the answer….
First of all, I think people err when they try to qualify "grace" as a single component that is universally applied and responded to via a single method. Scripture qualifies the experiences of different aspects of grace in different ways.
Scripture reads clearly to me that I have nothing to do with God's grace being extended to me for salvation. Without this grace extended to me individually for salvation, there is nothing I can do to get this grace. Subsequently, there is an element of God's grace as revealed in Scripture that is applied regardless of human interaction. My personal belief is that salvific grace leading to the human decision for salvation is applied in this manner.
Obviously, at the point of salvation, there is a human decision made. I think there is a lot of confusion about this process and what it looks like from a human perspective. Often it seems like the individual is the one requesting and forcing God to provision it, even at the point of decision. However, I have yet to find any Christian who doesn't acknowledge that God "was working" in his life all the way to the point of salvation.
Therefore, I state that the decision in and of itself is an element of God's grace also, and that our response in "accepting" grace is an actual gift of grace in and of itself. But that's going to lead us into a very deep discussion on irresistibility that we're going to argue until eternity.
So if you put a gun to my head for a yes/no answer, I would say "no", we have no role. But I don't see it as simply as that due to the complications of how human will and decisions relate to the sovereignty of God.
If so, what is that role?
Answered above, albeit "muddled".
Are the ones that receive grace by definition wiser or more humble for doing so than those that do not?
Using human perspective, language, and logic, the Bible makes statements such that it is understood that individuals who receive grace are wiser and more humble.
Using (what I find) to be God's sovereign perspective, the Bible also makes statements such that it is understood that wisdom and humility are not a part of our inherent character and any evidences of them are only brought forth by the unmerited grace of God in our lives.
Lastly - I recognize that I'm off-topic with the article and I don't mean to derail further. Alfred, if you want to continue this tangent offline, my email address is webmaster at iblpdetox dot com.
Ultimately, the Bible seems very clear that grace (all elements thereof) are not appropriated via human intention or merit. None of it. However, there are elements of grace that are discovered through human interaction with God. The perspective to approach it though is never that I’m producing further grace (which is what Gothard teaches). Rather, the perspective is that all of God’s grace is given all in spite of ourselves.
First of all, I think people err when they try to qualify “grace” as a single component that is universally applied and responded to via a single method. Scripture qualifies the experiences of different aspects of grace in different ways.
Well said, Joshua. I linked in another comment to the online ISBE entry for grace (http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/grace.html)
I pasted the summary statement of the entry in a different comment but will repeat it here. I believe it agrees with your comments that I quoted.
There is some tension among teachers and scholars on how exactly to present grace. For example, Tullian Tchividjian emphasizes grace first and foremost, Scot McKnight pushes back somewhat with a need for the call to discipleship. There other issues involved of course, but in spite of the tensions that appear, it is by definition true that grace that results from our works or merit is no longer grace.
Yes, you are very bad, because you know there will never be an end. :-)
"the Bible defines our spiritual position as "dead". You can't get around that."
Dead people can't sin either (Romans 6:7) . . . that analogy is quite flawed out of its scriptural place.
Romans 6:7 speaks of death in an entirely different context. You know that dude.
Email me if you want to continue.
Short version: Heb 12:15 is a warning not to turn away from faith in Christ; this warning does not imply a formula for gaining or losing grace.
Longer version:
Alfred cited four verses; the second verse was Heb 12:15, "Looking diligently lest any man fail("come short") of the grace of God". Alfred says, “Diligent focus sounds like work, right? Diligence is a character quality - the opposite of carelessness. That sounds like, "Be a better man/woman, or you will miss it".
If Scripture enjoins us to “see to it that no one falls short of the grace of God” then is it possible that this would be a case where grace is withdrawn in the presence of human demerit, thus invalidating the statement, ““Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit.... Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit.... [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”?
First, entire careers are spent on Hebrews and on its warning passages. No serious reader can make it through Hebrews unscathed. Any doctrine drawn from Hebrews calls for considering the book as a whole. When dealing with verses in isolation we probably need to be even more careful in Hebrews than usual.
Having said that, what does this verse mean?
Hebrews 12:15 alludes to Deut 29:18, “Beware that the heart of no man,woman, clan, or tribe among you turns away from the Lord our God today to pursue and serve the gods of those nations;beware that there is among you no root producing poisonous and bitter fruit.” The “bitter root” is a person whose heart is turning people away, and perhaps as a result they are turning others away from the one true God.
One author says,
Another,
Another says that “grace” in this verse is being used as “almost synonymous with the Christian faith.” This is a good point, that “grace” can have a very broad meaning. It has to do with God’s favor on us, so one minute an author might be using it in a broad sense to mean the overall plan of salvation, while another minute, an author might be more specifically drawing out grace with reference to faith, law, works, forgiveness, etc.
One of the key words of Hebrews is "better." Christ is better than the angels, better than Moses, a better priest and a better sacrifice. There will always be some draw away from Christ that we must resist, because Christ is better.
There is a lot of vexation and questioning about Hebrews, but the overall message presented by the warning passages seems to be a call to remain faithful and not to turn away from Jesus. There is not 100% agreement out there as to whether this turning away would mean apostatizing or returning to Judaism or just what, but what is clear is that there is a fervent warning being sounded throughout the letter to not slip away, turn away, trample the Son of God underfoot.
The fact that we are able to exercise our choice to turn away from God and his grace, does not imply that there is something we can do to earn more or less of it. We do have a choice to make, and we can choose against it. A choice for or against is entirely different from a formula to get more or less.
In the Gal 5:4 passage above, we see Paul saying that a choice of Law + Grace is really a choice for law and against grace. Here in Hebrews (as in Jude) we are reminded that God’s judgement exists and that it matters that we make a choice for him, which means a choice to accept his grace.
As one programmer to another: the binary value of our choice for or against does not imply an analog value of more or less grace that we can either win or lose.
Beware lest any many come short of God's unmerited favor, which is the cause of a bitter root springing up. You argue that God is not withholding grace, it is just being rejected? And that the "root" is a person, not a part of my being? And that grace is a "quantum", on or off? :-) I can live with that. [Although I believe that practical grace is given for specific purposes, again received or not received]
Same result, rejected grace = bad fruit. And an unavoidable bad end.
Still with God's favor shining on the individual? I don't know. With all the unstoppable favor, where does God's judgment and wrath start? If God never withdraws His grace because people are bad, then I presume people can get saved after they die? Even in hell? I have had long, long debates with dear friends who have become "Universalists" . . . no eternal hell for anybody.
If you disagree with that, then you have to accept that grace is withdrawn, i.e. "the door shut" at some point in response to a person's indifference.
"Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit"
Again . . . when the sun sets, you can only stand with Mr. Bridges if you are a Calvinist. That is the ONLY way grace, once extended, is never withdrawn . . . because it is only extended to "the elect", and they have to get saved.
No, no. This is not an issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, nor an issue of Universalism. Calvinists and Arminians alike agree that God's grace is a free gift given based on Christ, not on human merit.
If God were to withdraw grace in the presence of human demerit, he would have to withdraw it from us all. If God were to increase grace in the presence of human merit, it would not be grace. Romans 11:6 says that grace isn't grace if it is based on works.
Yes, we have a choice. Yes, we can choose to reject God's grace. No, this does not make God's grace payment in kind, nor does it give us a method to leverage more or less grace based on our behavior, 'universal, non-optional principles' and 'higher standards' included.
I know it makes legalists break out into hives when we say it, but grace is free and unmerited. That is basic Gospel 101.
Matt, I enjoyed this article, and keying off the Transforming Grace quote, I searched out the original author. Sam Storms wrote that quote here
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/grace-part-i/
Sam's article follows well on the heals of this one.
Thanks for taking the time to get this critical idea out there.
I cannot even wade through all the comments. All I can say is, Some people try to make grace too difficult and complicated. Glad to not be living there, anymore. For myself, there was a specific point in time when God removed the blinders from my eyes, and allowed me to see grace for what it was. I pray the same God-given revelation for everyone else who interacts on these pages.
I agree, Hannah. Here is a quote I love that helped me rediscover grace:
"There is nothing I can possibly do that that could make God love me more, and nothing I could possibly do could make God love me less. That's grace."
In other words, when God looks at me, He sees Christ and His righteousness, not mine.
It's easy for me to focus on myself. What I want with all my heart is to see Christ.
I love mottos . . . but . . . there still are those verses that I presented above. About "falling from grace" and God "giving grace" to the humble, while resisting the proud.
And one needs to take that statement and line it up with the some of the meaner sections:
"There is nothing I can possibly do that that could make God love me more, and nothing I could possibly do could make God love me less. That's grace."
vs.
"Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thess 1:6-9)
I want to know how the two reconcile. Are the ones being taken vengeance on still loved as much as the ones he is writing to, the ones He is avenging? Where is grace for them? Are we in agreement that stateless, unmerited, unconditional grace becomes moot for those who reject it, who "obey not the Gospel"?
Yes, I personally believe they are loved, just the same. God so loved the world, not just the ones who would receive his gift. The grace of God has appeared to all men, it is available to all, but not all will choose to receive. Now, Romans 9 comes in and confuses us... Does God actively work in all lives to bring us to Christ, and some just refuse, or does he actually work to discourage some from coming to Christ? And at this point, I will let you take it up with Paul. In any case, I don't believe that we are ever without a choice in the matter.
"In any case, I don't believe that we are ever without a choice in the matter."
I agree . . . completely. Other than the choice comes at the time and the manner of God's choosing, i.e. His choice first, enables us to choose, then we must choose. I differ from the Calvinists in that I know it is extended at one point or another to every man.
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be ALL taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45)
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to ALL men” (Titus 2:11)
Romans 9 - "fitted for destruction" is in the Greek middle (reflexive) voice, i.e. "fitted themselves for destruction" (Vines Expository Dictionary).
And to see what Paul really understood ("take it up with Paul"), just see what he did. He prayed, for everyone (next chapter, vs. 1). And in his final words he told us that God wants all men to be saved (2 Tim. 2:4).
I really do not mean to irritate the reformed folk, but the fundamental grace definition that is being put forward is theirs. I want everyone to understand that.
I was referring to, Shall the thing that is made, say to it's creator, "Why have you made me this way?"
Among other things :)
Hi, Alfred!
I appreciate your comments on my post, perhaps a bit less your labels, but I understand that some folks are fans of labels. The one label that interests me is "Biblical." After that, it doesn't really matter to me how many others get slapped on. I gather from your posts you're interested in the same thing: Biblical, and I can also understand if we come to that understanding differently. After all, we're human, and our understanding of divine things is human, not infallible!
What's important to me is that we share one thing, or rather one person: Christ. If He is central in both our lives, we have something in common far more important that any differences.
You mentioned 2 Thess 1:6-9 and wanted to know where grace is in that passage and how I explain it. Umm... I could be wrong, but I didn't see grace referred to at all in that passage, so yes, that would be very hard to explain. I was referring to God's grace toward believers, that passage is about God's judgment on those who persecute believers. How do I "reconcile" that? Honestly, I don't see what there is to reconcile. God is just, and that justice is meted out on those who persecute His children. It seems the Bible clearly teaches that. Do we have a disagreement?
Frankly, I think you summed up a couple of posts later our main source of confusion: What does grace MEAN ?
This question goes back to your original post as well, so it seemed to me worth looking up the Greek.
Grace (charis): "grace, favor, to have the favor of, gift of God, as a favor, giving thanks (in the sense of saying grace), thankfulness, goodwill, kindness."
A related word, charisma, means: "gift, charisma."
If "grace" is unclear in the passages you cited, then it perhaps "gift" or "favor" can help us translate it in our minds. It seems the idea of "saying grace, thankfulness, etc." is a slightly different sense that would be clear from the context.
Does that help you? I hear you arguing that we can't fall from a gift, or from favor, but I can't help you there. I didn't invent this definition of grace, and I don't pretend to be able to explain it to my or your satisfaction in its every context. But I know it's not by accident that God uses it. "Charis" is the only Greek word used in the NT for "grace" as it regards our relationship with Him, so He must have had a reason for putting a word that has the sense of "favor" and "gift" in the passages you cited. There's no other possible Greek word or meaning that could be construed.
Perhaps it's the addition of the word "unmerited" that concerns you. True, I didn't find that word in the Greek definition. However, the sense of "favor" and "gift" logically excludes something that is "earned" or "merited." There are other words for a "gift" or "favor" that clearly denotes it is earned or merited, either through something done beforehand, or something done after receiving: salary, wages, bribe, etc. It's interesting that the Bible does use those words in other arguments, but not to describe grace. So why does God use "charis"? Why is the notion of a "gift" or "favor" so important in these contexts? I don't have all the answers.
Of course I looked up "favor," "gift," and "grace" in English to see what the standard relevant definitions are. "Favor" and "gift" are what you would expect and didn't surprise me, but "grace" quite frankly shocked me.
Favor: Friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior. A gracious kindness, also an act of such kindness.
Gift: Something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation.
Grace: Unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification.
What shocked me is that Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 12th edition (a reliable source, used by editors in the publishing world) is simply not Christian, let alone all the other labels one might use.
So in short, Alfred, in looking up the actual definitions, and I fail to see support for your assertion, either from Greek or English, that "unmerited favor" is an unreliable definition of grace, either biblically or linguistically.
That said, I think we can all agree on the Biblical Greek definition of grace as a gift, favor, etc., even if we don't fully understand it. Can we agree there?
Good stuff, Stéphanie. It's cool to see the Christian definition of grace being so clearly articulated in a matter of fact way in the MW dictionary.
There is a very good discussion of grace here:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/grace.html
Further down it says something about the word being "elastic", a fitting description.
They make some good points. It begins with:
The discussion goes on to both "grace as power" and "grace in justification".
The summary statement is good, and perhaps something we can improve on in our discussion here:
I was reading from Millard Erickson last night, and would like to copy part of his discussion as well at some point. Grace is not some sort of spiritual liquid, poured out and measured by the spiritual cupfull. It's a name we use for God's disposition toward and treatment of sinners. It's not a mystical substance that can be measured or packaged up.
Grace is the name that we put to "the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ."
I see that the author freely acknowledges that "A rigid definition is hardly possible", and that his concept is "present in almost every case". The "almost" may make this helpful, but kills this as a definition.
"He giveth more grace" (James 4:6). There IS a more and a less to grace, Matthew. In Romans 5:20 we have an "abounding" of grace in a mathematical proportion. I know you like other notions, but attempts to explain away clear Scriptures just make others - OK me - turn away. I demand honesty, if I am to follow you.
Such definitions have the same problem as "unmerited favor". Grace may be "unmerited favor", but many things that are NOT grace are also "unmerited favor". The superset that contains the set. "Mercy" is emphatically a subset of "unmerited favor". "Unmerited favor" includes earthly kindness that God shows to rebels - including sun and rain and food. "Unmerited favor" is helpful, but in no way a definition. Your statement above actually proves it, seeing as it says nothing about "unmerited", and is not embarrassed to do so.
For the record, as Christ holds the universe together, every creature depending on him, every angel can claim that statement as well, as well as every animal and inanimate thing. We see that in Eph. 1:10. You will have mighty problems if you try to start claiming "Grace" for them . . . especially the "unmerited" part, reserved for sinners.
HOWEVER . . . I am cheered by this concluding statement:
" . . . those who look to their Father in loving confidence for every benefit, whether it be for the pardon so freely given, or for the strength that comes from Him who works in them both to will and to do."
A wise man sees that grace is encompassed in both the concept of "pardon" and in the concept of "power", working a "will" and "to do" . . . desire and power! THAT is exactly where Mr. G gets his definition.
You see, "pardon" has no "greater" and no "abounding" . . . but "will and to do" do. We know all about the pardon of grace . . . we need to learn more about the power of grace.
"I demand honesty, if I am to follow you."
umm... not from BG you don't
^ sorry, that was snarky and ungracious.
Honest question: More grace than what?
James 4:6 μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν
About the most woodenly literal translation you can do of that is: But he gives greater grace. Greater than what? One commentator says, God has set a high standard of wholehearted love and devotion for His people, but He gives grace that is greater than His rigorous demand.
How do you translate "μείζονα (megas, mezona) grace", Alfred?
What are some passages that talk about less grace?
I think you keep referring to James 4:6 thinking that it implies a formula that more humility = more grace, and less humility therefore = less grace. Sort of like humility is the handle on the valve and however wide we want to open it is how humble we need to be. But I can't find any way to beat that interpretation out of this verse, but perhaps I'm missing something?
Romans 5:20 says that more sin was met with more grace...
If you are trying to establish a formula for getting more grace, how would this verse fit into that?
The "almost" may make this helpful, but kills this as a definition.
You note that a rigid definition is not possible, then you fault a definition that is not rigid. Illogical, Captain.
"In the English New Testament the word "grace" is always a translation of (charis), a word that occurs in the Greek text something over 170 times (the reading is uncertain in places). In secular Greek of all periods it is also a very common word, and in both Biblical and secular Greek it is used with far more meanings than can be represented by any one term in English..."
This word which appears over 170 times, in various settings with various emphases, is not easily contained in any one rigid statement. This statement is pretty good: Grace is the name that we put to "the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ."
Which completely accords with the statement which you (Alfred) are unable to accept: “Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit…. Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit…. [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”
May I suggest that the "power" of grace, is in resting? Christ's finished work, nothing I bring. My heart has come home, and I am finally at peace. Done with strivings, done with self-effort. Done. Grace is a powerful concept, but not the kind of "power" you were thinking of.
Ok. Mercy can take place in the absence of favor. True, the two often go together. But if I am a judge, I can give a criminal an undeserved pardon, even if I don't like the guy.
And at this point, I'm just spewing forth bullet points... So... Good night :)
Lots to try to respond to :-)
"More grace than what? . . . What are some passages that talk about less grace?"
I know the Greek, Matthew. "Greater" is still a comparison.
As to less . . . the item on the right of the > is less than the left . . . but more importantly, it appears that Grace is a quantum [forgive the term, but you started it with your "binary" comments :-) ] - it is a "packet", a specific "gift" given to meet a specific need, either to overcome sin ("sin abounds, grace abounds") or to enable a gift for the church ("charisma"). Some packets are bigger than others, depending on the purpose. You take it . . . or you don't. Once you receive it, God works through it in us "will and to do" of His good pleasure.
"If you are trying to establish a formula for getting more grace, how would this verse fit into that?"
Haha! That was precisely Paul's point. Because this is so (more sin -> more grace to meet it) some might say (next verse), "Shall we sin, that grace may abound?" If you want a formula, I suppose that is it.
"Sinning" to get grace is sort of like a man of God "trying out the world" so he can now say with authority, "It doesn't work". We all know that people who have a "rough past" tend to go further faster after salvation than some of us from "sheltered backgrounds". Point is: Be happy for them. "The last shall be first".
No, God gives grace as and when He chooses. There is no formula, other than WHEN He gives it, we better humble ourselves to take it, or it will do us no good.
Thanks for your comments, Stephanie. Yes, Jesus is my all-in-all . . . He stays, everything else drops. You and I are siblings.
Labels . . . a "name" . . . a name tells us a history, a position, a heritage. "Grace is unmerited" means something completely different to a Calvinist than a non-Calvinist. Once I know their perspective, then I won't waste time on discussion points that they have rejected long ago for completely different reasons. It also explains how two people who love Jesus can disagree so violently on such basic things. The light dawns when you discover they are - in fact - talking about completely different concepts.
"God is just, and that justice is meted out on those who persecute His children. It seems the Bible clearly teaches that. Do we have a disagreement?"
Nope. Unless you believe that
"Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit"
or
"There is nothing I can possibly do that that could make God love me more, and nothing I could possibly do could make God love me less. That's grace."
I see sinners who are loved of God and offered God's grace. I see those same people under God's wrath, and then flung into eternal hell. The two prior statements CANNOT be true if what I just stated is true. Unless you believe that God flaming devotion is expressed in His flaming wrath. You see my problem.
*I* think He withraws His love and favor in the presence of human demerit, whereupon He casts them into hell.
It may be a matter of semantics. Please respond to that before I proceed further.
The Lord bless you.
Well, I have heard that argument before, that God's love cannot be reconciled with his wrath. Never from a Christian, though; I've only heard this from atheists. I personally don't believe there is a conflict between the two. I don't pretend to completely understand it, but since I find evidence of both in the Bible, I'm willing to accept both as true. Similar to the way I believe in predesti-will-of-man. Meaning I believe both in the concepts of predestination, and free will of man. I believe one does not preclude the other. Since I see both in Scripture, they must both fit together somehow, even if Ibdon't completely understand it. Since I don't believe God's love to be fickle, I don't believe he loved the world at one point, then quit. I also don't find love incompatible with a person receiving the consequences of their choices, having been duly warned. As a parent, allowing consequences of bad decisions, and not interfering to stop those consequences (obviously this will vary based on the age and independence level of that child), doesn't change the fact of my love for my child.
Reminds me of something that I think this was a helpful contribution of the postmodern wave, that they helped illustrate that there is truth in tension and it is sometimes good and necessary to accept paradox.
We BETTER understand it! Jesus commands us to both love and hate our families. Since we are commanded to do it, we better resolve it. Whatever we discover as we resolve it teaches us how God can do the same thing.
Alfred, are you saying we can comprehend, with our finite human minds, all there is to know about God? I just think God so far exceeds our human understanding, that it isn't possible. That's where trust comes in... trusting God that he knows best, even when I don't understand it all. If we humans could perfectly explain all of God, there would never be an atheist. Heck, there wouldn't even be a million different denominations!
Also, there is the simple matter of a clear distinction between human merit, vs human acceptance of a gift. No one gets to heaven on their own merit, but only on the acceptance of Christ's merit, in place of their own. Therefore, it would be completely true that grace is not withdrawn in the face of human demerit, but only in the face of human refusal to accept.
Thank you! Please accept that a whole ton of people do not believe what you just said. It is a pretty significant point.
Re-reading this several times, I really think you are confusing grace and mercy. Mercy means we don't receive the consequences of our actions. Grace is simply unmerited favor. Someone has found delight in you. Grace does not have to change the consequences you receive for poor decisions. Sometimes grace IS coupled with mercy to absolve us of consequences, as in the case of salvation, no denying that. But that isn't what grace is, at it's core.
In your way of thinking, Grace is a superset of mercy, then? Since mercy is clearly also "unmerited favor". A release, a favor the object has not earned.
No, I am saying they are two separate concepts, independent of each other. Mercy involves removal of consequences. It is undeserved, but it doesn't have to involve any actual favor or relationship. Grace involves relationship. "Favor" implies that the person has taken a shine to you, for lack of a better term.
Alfred cited four verses as a "yes, but" to this article. The third of four is:
You are really stretching here, my friend.
Check out how The Message says it:
We are Mephibosheth at the King's table. Undeserving, yet invited to come in boldly. The appropriate response is not "oh no, another work I have to do, if I don't come boldly in just the right way I will miss out", rather (to adapt from a preacher I recently heard) the response is supposed to be more like, "Well, DANG! That's crazy awesome!"
The invitation to come boldly is so meaningful when I realize how unworthy and how deeply stained with sin I am outside of Christ. But God doesn't look at me with dim eyes, like "well, this one more time I will let you enter". He invites me in, and invites me to come boldly. Wow, wow, wow. It's the best invitation ever. I saw a picture of someone's invitation - they were one of the ones invited to attend the royal wedding of Will and Kate. It was fancy, and anyone would be pleased to have one to show off. It's not a threat, it's an invitation.
And what of my merit is the invitation based on? Nada. It is still true that if grace is based on works, it ceases to be grace, and that:
“Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit…. Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit…. [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”
Recap so far:
Gal 5:4 - if you are looking to something you do, including circumcision, to improve your standing with God, you are actually betraying that you are not approaching God in faith, entirely dependent upon Christ alone. You have a choice to make: choose God's grace instead of your own efforts.
Heb 12:15 is a warning not to turn away from faith in Christ; this warning does not imply a formula for gaining or losing grace.
Heb 4:15 is an invitation, not a threat. Nothing implied about earning or meriting grace, in fact, the whole reason we come boldly is because of our High Priest, not because of ourselves.
"An invitation, not a threat." Well said, Matthew.
Why do we try to make it so hard?
Heb 4:15 is an invitation, not a threat. Nothing implied about earning or meriting grace, in fact, the whole reason we come boldly is because of our High Priest, not because of ourselves
Who would call it a threat? It is an exhortation, "Therefore" . . . there is a reason. If you are smart, you will do it. What else can be said?
Let's look at the context:
Hebrews 4:1 "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." THAT sounds like a threat.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
THAT sounds like grace, doesn't it?
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
THAT sounds like WORK . . . to get REST?! This is the essential point . . .
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
The entire purpose of accepting and coming to our High Priest boldly is . . . to enter the rest of grace. We need to be afraid that we will miss it through unbelief and work hard to ensure that we won't. That would put some extra "english" on "boldly".
The statement Matthew cited:
"It can neither be earned by your merit nor forfeited by your demerit."
I heartily agree that it can never be earned . . . but, as Hannah is pointing out, "earning it" and "receiving it" are two different things.
Sometimes it takes some effort to "receive" it. Those that refuse to "labor to enter into rest" . . . do they miss it because of "demerit"?
If Amnesty is offered and an subject fills out the paperwork and receives the blessing, have they "earned" it?
If the subject refuses to fill out the paperwork, is that "demerit"?
We are in partial agreement here, and part of the issue is about emphasis. The emphasis is "enter into the rest" not "be afraid, be very afraid."
How do we miss out on entering into the rest? Is it for lack of trying or for lack of workign hard enough? No, rather it is for unbelief. Abraham's righteousness was *by faith* (not works) and ours is as well. Most of life is about trying harder to get more. But God's rest is about believing and accepting. Unbelief is the bad guy (rather than not working hard enough or not trying hard enough).
We know that unbelief includes rejecting God in favor of our own instincts and desires. But it can be a shock when we first read it in Paul that unbelief also includes trying harder to earn something with God. When we go the Jesus-plus route (Jesus plus my effort, Jesus plus circumcision for example), we are actually acting in unbelief.
Does this mean sitting on the couch and just doing a lot of believin'? No, James informs us that authentic faith brings results. We can fully expect a changed life, including outward activity, to result from a changed heart. But God isn't sitting back waiting for us to perform so that he can reward us based on our performance, rather, he wants to change our heart and then watch the changed life that flows out from that. The ongoing process of the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc. Our entry to God's rest is not trying harder, it is accepting in faith = belief.
we will miss it through unbelief ... That's the part I agree with: we miss it through unbelief.
That would put some extra “english” on “boldly”. And this is where you turn the invitation into a threat, though that is a nice turn of phrase :-)
Maybe a minor point . . . but . . .
Hebrews 4:1 "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."
The word is "fear" . . . "phobos" . . . you know that is EXACTLY what it means. God says, "Be afraid" of the possibility of coming short of His rest.
Did you note the "come short of"? Exact same word as "fail" in chapter 12:15, in
"Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God" (Hebrews 12:15) No accident, I think. I allege the "rest" is the "rest of grace". So it all ties together.
The word "unbelief" in vs 11 is actually "apeitheia" which is not "not believing" ("apistia") but rather "not obeying", obstinate. We should fear and "labor" to avoid missing His rest through disobedience, like the Israelites did.
I agree . . . faith demands action. So "therefore", we see, does grace . . . until we have rested in it.
To quote the familiar refrain, "I'm not Matthew, but..."
Alfred, you are correct that the word in question is "disobedience". My version translates it that way. However, in reading Hebrews 3 and 4, it is helpful to note that the words "disobedience" and "unbelief" are being used interchangeably to denote the same condition: that of failing to believe God for his promises, and thereby falling short of grace. This becomes apparent when you read the entire 2 chapters together in context. And might I suggest trying a modern translation. As you have noticed, some of the older translations are poor, especially kjv, mistranslating words such as the one pointed out. Using a more modern translation always helps me to absorb it in context, since I don't feel I am also translating the old kjv in my head, in addition to trying to understand the text.
Here is a preceding passage, a part of the same discussion, which may shed light on the interchangeability of "disobedience" and "unbelief" in this passage:
Hebrews 3:18-19 NLT
And to whom was God speaking when he took an oath that they would never enter his rest? Wasn't it the people who disobeyed him? So we see that because of their *unbelief* they were not able to enter his rest. [emphasis added]
From this passage, I construe that the primary issue at stake, is actually unbelief. Jesus tells us, "What is God's commandment for you? That you believe on the One he has sent [my paraphrase]." Belief has always been the primary issue keeping us from God's rest.
The world is going to hell in a handbasket, not for their immoral actions or lifestyle, but for their *unbelief*. This is the gospel, plain and simple.
Unbelief is a major concern of both Hebrews and Jude
Here is what I'm getting on verse 11:
Hebrews 4:11 NLT
So let us do our best to enter that rest. But if we disobey God, as the people of Israel did, we will fall.
There is not a mention of "labor" in this translation. Just on a cursory lookup, the word implies zealousness in the current occupation. If belief be the current occupation, be zealous in belief, to enter into rest. Hold fast to grace, not being entangled again with legalism, to interject a concept from Galatians.
I still believe that grace is about rest, from the beginning, middle and end, as we cease from our own strivings and enter into his finished work. I believe we enter that rest at salvation, a rest which only stands to be perfected in eternity. I believe "it is finished" means that it is here, now. Only when we have entered into his rest, do we come out the other side with fruits of our faith that have a vibrancy not our own (and incidentally, often don't look like many think they "should" ;)
I feel that you are still trying, desperately, to cling to any shred of meritoriousness that might possibly be involved in grace. On that point, I can have no agreement.
I notice that any time the discussion is on grace, there is a ton of comments. I liked the article you wrote, Matthew. I haven't even read any of the comments yet, though, since they will probly be like other times comment threads have discussed grace on Recovering Grace.
I am out... I have already wasted too much precious time reading theses circular arguments when I should be out casting the nets, fishing for men who are lost with out hope of salvation and freedom from sin. I find for myself the more time I spend with this computer the less time I spend trumpeting the Gospel. God forgive me for wasting your work on the cross. How about it guys, lets go afishing. Eye ball to eye ball, man to man, spreading the word face to face, all other ways are completely impersonal, especially this stupid computer, knowledge abounds in this tech world while we are seeing our world grow more and more immoral and further from God. True discipling takes time one with another multiplication. Lord have mercy on me/us. Adios guys and gals, I hope you can resolve your differences, but history nor time is on your side.
Thanks for dropping by, Jerry. Best wishes in your discipling work. I believe that is one of the most important things a believer can spend their time doing.
The Lord bless you, Jerry.
The apostles refused to let waiting on tables of widows derail them from their most important task, which they defined as "the Word of God". (Acts 6:2) There are lots of ways to apply that, not the least of which is "preach it to the lost and baby Christians". Could also mean "study it".
Later, when a doctrinal issue arose around the question of, "Should Christians get circumcised and keep the law to be saved", they dropped everything to meet with their fellow Apostles and hash it out. THEN they sent messages to their disciples to instruct them on what they had worked out.
There is a time to talk and discuss, and there is a time to preach and disciple. May we all find the balance that you are challenging us with.
Jerry, rescuing those who are entangled in graceless philosophies, occurs in many different arenas :)
well, 85 comments in - but I would say this: there is benefit in clarifying the points where we disagree. It helps give shape and direction to the discussion.
I think we can agree that we disagree on this statement:
I agree with this statement as it stands, and Alfred, you are not able to agree to this. Without getting into all the whys and wherefores, would you agree with me, that this is a point of disagreement, sir?
As an absolute statement, correct. The reason Mr. Bridges can even say it that way is that he is a well known Calvinist, and his grace is irresistible, I.e. the "elect" get it, they can't avoid it, and it is theirs from the foundation of the world. The part he leaves out is that the non-elect can't get it no matter what . . . The sacrifice of Christ overtly leaves them out of grace. Because sovereign God bestows grace, for thar reason it will make people get saved and there is no way He will ever withdraw it.
THAT grace, as nice as it is for the elect is equally horrible to the un-chosen lost ones. I reject that as unscriptural.
Agreed. Grace is available to all, and we all have a choice. Not knowing Bridges' work, I cannot know whether he is as extreme as you say, or whether he does indeed have that balance.
No, Alfred is painting with a broad and un-nuanced brush. It is in Alfred's interest to paint Bridges as extremist but that is far from reality. Bridges comes across a gentle thinker, without an ax to grind. You can get a small sense of that here, including his comments about being doctrinal without being doctrinaire: http://www.thespurgeonfellowship.org/Downloads/int_sp09.pdf Bridges is a Calvinist but if you are familiar with the term "cage-stage" Calvinist, he's not like that. His writings have broad appeal.
For convenience, I will paste part of it here (JB is Jerry Bridges):
There are extremists in both the Calvinist and Arminian camps but most people are closer to the middle and closer to each other that you'd think. The issue as to whether grace is unmerited or not is not so easily derailed as yelling "Calvinist!" in a crowded theater, if I might be allowed to mix my metaphors :-)
(it's late and this might sound a bit strong - if so, sorry, not trying to be rude)
LOL! Look for me to be yelling, "Calvinist!" in a crowded theatre sometime in the near future, just to see what happens ;D
Well, let's go back to the statement:
“[Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”
I did not represent his perspectives, whether graciously spoken or otherwise. Grace is divorced from merit SOLELY because God is sovereign. He picks the objects of His grace REGARDLESS of merit . . . And picks the objects of His wrath in exactly the same way. If I misrepresented his perspectives, point it out.
"infinite goodness". Statements like that make my blood start to boil. Yes, if you are selected. Not if God decides that He doesn't want you, in which case it is "infinite wrath" Again, instead of telling me what a nice man he is, show me that he does not believe exactly what I stated.
Well, let's go back to the statement:
“[Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”
I did not represent his perspectives, whether graciously spoken or otherwise. Grace is divorced from merit SOLELY because God is sovereign. He picks the objects of His grace REGARDLESS of merit . . . And picks the objects of His wrath in exactly the same way. If I misrepresented his perspectives, point it out.
"infinite goodness". Statements like that make my blood start to boil. Yes, if you are selected. Not if God decides that He doesn't want you, in which case it is "infinite wrath" Again, instead of telling me what a nice man he is, show me that he does not believe exactly what I stated.
While I appreciate the opportunity to dialog, you are being disingenuous. It would be a waste of time to try to prove that Jerry Bridges does not believe this ugly and uncharitable caricature you are presenting. How can we prove that someone out there does not believe something, anyway? As you are presenting it, that is not a fair representation of Calvinism. I personally sit somewhere in the middle, a position which is actually illogical in its own right. Both Calvinism and Arminianism, when carefully done, are internally consistent systems. Both systems have their tensions (related to divine will and human freedom, among other things); you have to pick your tensions. Regardless, Christians across a broad range accept the truth that grace denotes the favor and favors of God given to sinners, entirely based on God's generosity and not on any human merit.
The quote that I pasted removed the need for this comment. What he says is very well-spoken, I challenge anyone, Calvinist or Arminian, to do better: "Well, I just try to teach the Bible as it comes and I try to be balanced. For example, when I come to a passage on the doctrine of election I always balance it with the universal invitation of the gospel. You let the Lord reconcile the various passages. That is his business-not ours. We just teach what the Bible says."
Well, the Lord sovereignly posted my post twice. At least, that is my story. :-)
It is not possible to be "Calvinist" and not to believe that God picks some to be irresistbly saved by grace and the rest for destruction.To deny that, sir, is not honest. It would mean a lot to me if you would confirm or deny.
A google search returns a site with this statement:
"We do not believe the Bible portrays God as decreeing the fall and creating people for the sole purpose of eternal condemnation. Supralapsarianism results in the doctrine of limited atonement (Jesus died only for the elect). Supralapsarianism is typically the view of 5-point Calvinists, while infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism are usually held by 4-point / moderate Calvinists. Ultimately, though, these are issues best left up to God. Instead of worrying or arguing over when God decreed what, our concern should be on proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all who need to hear it." (http://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html)
Bridges own statement that I now paste for the 3rd time is also good: "Well, I just try to teach the Bible as it comes and I try to be balanced. For example, when I come to a passage on the doctrine of election I always balance it with the universal invitation of the gospel. You let the Lord reconcile the various passages. That is his business-not ours. We just teach what the Bible says."
There are extremists in all systems. Not all Calvinists teach something that is easily (or fairly) reduced to God being a moral monster. Not all non-Calvinists are Pelagians and open theists of the sort that believe Christ's death was optional and God is wringing his hands wondering what to try next, hoping it all pans out.
btw, if this conception of grace depended on hardcore Calvinism, then you'd have to lump Swindoll and Yancey in there with that as well.
I've not read too much of Wesley. I would imagine one could find some good quotes in his writings about the basis of grace. I see one statement which is certainly not opposed to what we are saying:
(http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/Global-Worship-and-Spiritual-Growth/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-16-The-Means-of-Grace)
I believe Wesley is here assuming the same truth that God's grace is his favor shown to us, not for any works, merits, or deservings of ours, but only through the merits of his well-beloved Son. We are accepted in the beloved.
At least one thing may be said of Calvinist extremists, as you call them - at least they are honest. I am used to murkiness in these things, staddling the fence. The secret things belong to God, but those that are revealed are ours (Deut. 29:29). Since election and predestination are "revealed", understood by Paul and apparently Moses, it is for us to understand and be able to clearly explain.
Here is the question: do the men you favor believe that God's grace can make people get saved? Is Grace "irresistible"? If no, we have no quarrel, for I exult in the fact that grace is free, paid in full by Jesus blood, and impossible to earn by keeping laws, commandments. What is unscriptural is the notion that grace acts to control the will of man. Grace must be received, there is no "bondage of the will" And God will withdraw it in the face of human rejection, just like the parable of the king and his feast, and the rejection of the ungrateful invited guests. Do you believe that?
The one question here which goes to the heart of the claims in the original post about grace is whether or not unmerited grace is at root and branch Calvinistic. I believe this statement, “Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit…. Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit…. [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.” is Scriptural and stands with both Calvinists and Arminians. For example, I see nothing in the Five Articles of Remonstrance to contradict it. If you can show from the writings of respected Arminians (not some random blogger or a fringe element) that this is not the case, then I've got some work to do. Due to the nature of the theological systems, I unmerited grace may receive more emphasis in Reformed-ish circles, but I believe that evangelical Arminians clearly differentiate themselves from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and that the same essential core beliefs about grace are necessarily present in their thinking. This is a wide open door for you to demonstrate otherwise. Extra points for using either Ben Witherington or Roger Olsen. And of course, if your response is that you don't care what any author says, you just care what your Bible says in plain English, then it would be the same thing: show from your Bible in plain English where "God is compelled to withdraw [his grace] in the presence of human demerit" and/or where it proves to be false claim that "[Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever" and the statement will be dead in the water at that point.
The discussion of what Jerry Bridges believes, no wait - what Calvinists believe, no wait - what *true* Calvinists believe, no wait - the New Perspective on Paul, no wait - what some random blogger named Andrew says about the koine Greek, no wait - what Andrew the random blogger says about Honor and Patronage in ancient Greece and Rome... these are superfluous. If the statement presented here stands for both Arminians and Calvinists, then it stands apart from that entire discussion. If the statement does not stand for Arminians, it becomes a vital concern, What do Arminians believe about grace vis-à-vis human merit and demerit?
But like I say, my participation on this comment chain at this time is coming to a close. I'm getting my priorities out of whack.
Hi, Alfred. I'm not sure what the point of all your discussion is. You didn't respond to my post with the dictionary and Greek definitions of grace, in which I asked you if you agreed. You say you don't really care what Bill Gothard teaches, but you continue to affirm, as he does, that "unmerited favor" is an insufficient, at best, definition of grace, despite the Greek and English definitions. Any of us who have had exposure to Bill Gothard have heard him say the very same thing, which is why he developed an alternative definition. The fact that you're coming to a forum and that attempts to show the man-centered nature of Bill Gothard's definition of grace, and that you're saying the exact same things he does, confuses me a bit. What are you hoping to accomplish? Get "recovering grace" to adopt a more man-centered position on grace? So many of us have been there, done that, and don't want to go there again! I just don't understand the logic here. You're looking to argue with me about the usage of grace in the Bible, but if we can't agree on the Greek and English definitions, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing the discussion. Sorry, I've spent enough time here already because I thought you were seriously interested in what grace means. I looked up all those definitions honestly expecting to find something that backs up your position more. I was shocked that I didn't. Even a standard English dictionary defines grace as "unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration." That being the case, and with the Greek defining grace as "favor, gift," it would seem that the definition Recovering Grace often uses is the standard one, and any other would be an alternate one. In your responses, I don't sense that you're truly open to grace being anything other than something man has a role in. We both love God. You're a brother in Christ. How about we just call it a fundamental disagreement and stop going round about it? After all, it'll be clear enough when we get to heaven! God bless you.
There is a good possibility that I did not see your comments . . . at least, they are not in this thread, right? Point me to them and I will do my best to respond . . . or continue the response, if I did.
"Man centered grace" - boy, I would love to have an explanation of that. From you.
Because I know what the Calvinists believe on that. For them "man centered" means believing that man must accept grace, must even strive or labor to enter into grace. And, yes, I do believe that. Calvinists - like Jerry Bridges - believe that you are "dead" and can't believe, trust, receive . . . grace makes you alive, makes you want to get saved, gives you the power to do so, whereupon you trust Christ. Grace makes you believe - you have emphatically no choice in the matter.
If "man centered" means man can demand, earn favor from God by his works, kind of like pay, then I emphatically reject that. So . . . what do you mean?
You, Alfred, are an argumentalist. No answer would be acceptable to you. :(
I get that you are saying full calvinists believe x... What I'm not getting, is proof one way or the other, of whether Bridges positively believes such a thing. From the descriptions given, I am at least partially calvinist, and partially arminian... But neither one, completely. So it doesn't work to say, "He's a calvinist, so he must believe x." I could easily say of you, "He's a gothardite, so he must believe x." No, I can't sterotype like that. I must be fair about what you actually believe as an individual. I can't lump all Gothardites into the same category. Maybe if you supplied a link in Bridges' own words, stating what he believes, that would give a point of discussion? Because it's no proof to say, "Well he's calvinist, so he must believe x."
I don't understand the statement that, We must strive or labor to enter into grace, yet insisting that you don't believe grace can be earned from God by our works. Which of the two is it?
Wendy, I'm coming to the conclusion you're right. Alfred, see this thread, November 6 for the Greek & English definitions of grace. Rather than going round and round about the usage of grace and its theological implications (which, as you astutely pointed out, vary significantly depending on one's theology), I'm seeking common ground on a biblical definition of grace. Once that is established, I prefer to let the Bible speak for itself, whether I agree with the theological ramifications or not.
I agree with Hannah that's it's too simplistic to say, "This person follows THIS theology, therefore he believes X." It was a respected senior IBLP staff member who first pointed out to me that Bill Gothard's definition of grace is "too man-centered." There was no further clarification forthcoming, and it took me years to discover for myself the subtle difference in living as though my sanctification depends somehow partly on me... the guilt, the pressure, the self-condemnation, the inability to REST... and then the freedom and joy of discovering that God loves me apart from anything I might do, whether good or bad. Rather than giving you a pat answer, I highly commend to you--to anyone--this journey, difficult though it may be, as there are no easy answers, and God may explode any of the boxes we may try to put Him in. But in the end, the sheer joy of discovering more of HIM and the height and depth and width and breadth of His love is AWESOME!!! May God bless you with more of Himself as you explore His Word more deeply.
And FYI, the IBLP staff person who told me that is neither Calvinistic nor Reformed.
Grace is divorced from merit SOLELY because God is sovereign. He picks the objects of His grace REGARDLESS of merit . . . And picks the objects of His wrath in exactly the same way. If I misrepresented his perspectives, point it out.
In re-reading, this jumped out and grabbed my face.
I'm glad you said this, because it might help highlight an important issue. I think you are saying that if grace is neither given nor withdrawn in the presence of human merit or demerit, it must be because God sits as the divine "claw" (like in Toy Story) and picks this one, then this one, not that one, not those, now this one...
This is a big deal. That is not the basis of God's grace! God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. God has done his part through the Messiah to reconcile people to himself. He has paid the debt, he offers out a hand. People can choose to try to work off the debt themselves (they will fail) or they can accept Christ's generous and undeserved offer (which has already been accepted by God).
You said:"Grace is divorced from merit SOLELY because God is sovereign."
No, thank God! Grace is divorced from merit because of the person and work of Christ. A gift is a gift. How do you accept his gift? By faith. Abraham was declared righteous through faith, not through works. His works could never measure up, but his faith was the avenue God provided. Moses offered us the whole Law, right from the finger of God. And by that Law, not one single person was ever justified. But through faith, just like Abraham, we are justified.
This is the same idea as what the ISBE entry says,
The same as:
The same as:
and
The reason grace is not based on merit is NOT because picks and chooses whom he will, regardless of their merit. No, rather, God, though Christ, completely paid the debt. Outside of Christ, we stink. In Christ, we are beautiful. So where do you choose to stand: outside of Christ or in Christ? That's the deal with grace: it's God's full favor made available, made possible entirely by Christ.
That's why Paul was so gobsmacked with the Galatians: "I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" and, "does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? So also Abraham 'believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'"
Col 2 says that in Christ we are "spiritually circumcised" (meaning we are in the club), in Christ, we are buried, in Christ we are raised to new life, in Christ we are forgiven, in Christ there is no more debt, in Christ we are no longer condemned. Our life is IN CHRIST, which is why "touch not, taste not, handle not" is such a waste of time - those things can never change our hearts, but in Christ we have hearts that are a new creation.
“ I think you are saying that if grace is neither given nor withdrawn in the presence of human merit or demerit, it must be because God sits as the divine "claw" (like in Toy Story) and picks this one, then this one, not that one, not those, now this one...”
I am saying that is exactly what Brother Bridges means. That is why he zeroed in on the “sovereign will” of God. You must know that the phrase “sovereign will of God” to a Calvinist means “God decides who will be saved (you don’t).”
“Abraham was declared righteous through faith, not through works.”
I have spent enough mind-numbing discussions with Calvinists to know that they believe that FAITH is a work, a merit. That grace forces itself on you and MAKES you believe. I know that R. C. Sproul believes this (see http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm for a quote). Again, brother, you apparently don’t know the world that Brother Bridges lives in. I would love for real reformed folk – the ones who like R. C. Sproul – to confirm or deny.
So . . . I don’t disagree with you, in fact, I heartily agree! I am just saying that the quote you plucked out is an absolute statement that CANNOT be sustained outside of Calvinistic thinking. How many of our 100 posts (or whatever it is) have been twirling around whether this or that is “merit”. You and I agree that we have a clear responsibility to act, or grace does us no good. Jesus said, “Strive to enter in at the straight gate” . . . Greek “strive” is literally “agonize”. Hebrews says, “Labor to enter into rest”. Make sure it is yours, give no rest until you rest in Jesus.
Calvinists find those statements revolting - Theirs is the “divorce”. They say, “You can’t want or take grace, each of which involves merit – it is bestowed outside your choice”. What non-Calvinists would say is, “Grace is paid in full by Jesus and offered to all. Receive it and it is yours . . . reject it, and the offer will be removed.” Which I am in full agreement with. It puts a responsibility in the hand of the sinner.
Anyway, I really liked your post.
This is probably a good point for me to take a step back and focus on some other things. Thank you for the interaction. I'm sure there will be other conversations but I think this one, like visiting relatives and fish from the market, has an expiration date :-)
hmm, in reading this again, that could sound really rude; it was meant as a silly joke. To clarify - I was only meaning to refer to my own participation, not to anyone else's.
I am replying to Stéphanie . . . I figured to lodge it here at the bottom to give more space to replies. Matthew, I will get back to you :-)
Stéphanie – Your accent messed me up :-) (I did a search on the page) Yes, I recall your statements, although I focused not other things.
Long post, my apologies . . .
What shocked me is that Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 12th edition (a reliable source, used by editors in the publishing world) is simply not Christian, let alone all the other labels one might use.
No shock here. Webster takes the meaning that Christians give it and presents it. It is nothing more than “common understanding” among Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, etc. It says nothing about how the Greek reads or even more importantly what the writers meant. Since English meanings change, it doesn’t even tell us what the translators meant by “grace” when they translated “charis” that way back when the first translations were created.
So . . . Better would be the Greek, which you presented as:
Grace (charis): "grace, favor, to have the favor of, gift of God, as a favor, giving thanks (in the sense of saying grace), thankfulness, goodwill, kindness."
A related word, charisma, means: "gift, charisma."
You will find I have highlighted both of those aspects repeatedly. This is why “favor” and “gift” is central to the typical definition of grace.
There is more to this word, however. It is most helpful to consider what ordinary non-Christians understood “charis” to mean in Bible times. Greek-English lexicons exist for that purpose. What we find when we do this is that the English term “favor” has morphed some over the years . . . at the very least it has a couple of meanings, and we have picked the wrong one to describe grace.
Here is what one blogger wrote about “charis” in ordinary Koine Greek:
“Amongst Classics scholars there is no debate as to what this word means. Surviving documents from the ancient world contain hundreds of passages that give us great clarity about their understanding of charis and the role this word and its concepts played in their society. Charis was the key-word in what scholars call "the reciprocity system". This system operated according to time-delay exchanges where goods were given and then at a later time goods of relatively equal value were returned to the giver. These goods could be tangible (money, material goods) or intangible (public acclaim, authority). An obligation existed to repay favors owed, they were not 'free' in the sense we would understand it - it is just like when a bank gives you a loan the money is not 'free'. (It is due to this reciprocal nature of the transactions that scholars label it the Reciprocity System.) Essentially the system was an informal system of economics. The word charis itself is best translated with the English "favor" in the sense of talking about favors given and favors repaid. Greek makes no linguistic distinction between the first favor given and the second favor to repay it, calling each a charis. Greek also uses charis to refer to a positive attitude toward someone - we would speak in English of this as "regarding them favorably" or "having their favor". “ http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/02/grace-mistranslated-word-and.html [bolding mine]
I have confirmed this “reciprocity” idea from other sources . . . you are free to check for yourself, or make me support it better.
SO . . . “Favor” does NOT necessarily mean “I like you”, although it normally would. It means “I give you something of value”. Fitting this definition would be:
• A bribe
• A political “favor” to an opponent that you wish to control
• The classic “white elephant” given to you by an Indian prince who wishes to bankrupt you with its care, because he knows that religious and cultural protocol will never allow you to get rid of it – THAT is also “charis”.
The point is that it is really “a thing” . . . a gift, a favor . . . unmerited when used in Scripture . . . but never just “an attitude”.
The biggest point is that the WHAT of charis is not implicitly defined. And that is where the classic generic “unmerited favor” definition fails. WHAT does God give me when He gives me grace?
I believe the “what” is “the desire and the ability to do God’s will”. It is a wind, the force of God’s Holy Spirit.
Picture small sailboats in water far outside of a safe harbor, with a current flowing out – and no wind. Some want to get to the harbor, some don’t, some don’t even care it is there, some are trying to get away.
The ones that appreciate the harbor “work” with the oars with all their might to make it into the harbor . . . but it is just too far and the current is too strong.
Now comes a wind, blowing into the harbor. Several things happen:
1) Some people realize the futility of rowing and gladly hoist their sails to catch the wind and sail home.
2) Some have big muscles and impressed girlfriends, and not wishing to look helpless, they leave the sails down and row harder.
3) Some wake up because of the wind, see the harbor and gladly catch the power to get there, never having rowed at all.
4) Some find the wind a nuisance because they are trying to get away from the harbor, find the fastest part of the current and row away.
Grace is "the wind". We do not earn it . . . maybe we can get “more” of it by hoisting more sails, but there is no boasting, not like the rowers comparing how hard they have worked and how far they have come.
What do the “Calvinists” mean by “grace” in “irresistible grace”? They understand clearly that God sends out power – the desire to get saved and the ability to trust Christ - to lost, helpless, “dead” sinners to “blow them home”. They believe that God also hoists the sails for the mariners, or maybe blows the boat without sails, where our disagreement comes . . . regardless, God moves sinners to “trust Christ”.
A couple more comments from others:
“Against a still common view it must be stated that in Paul χαρις [the Greek word for grace - ed.] does not mean primarily a divine attribute (Wobbe, Charis-Gedanke, 32). It does not mean, in good Greek fashion, God’s graciousness, nor concetely his free love (Taylor). It almost always means the power of salvation which finds expression in specific gifts, acts, and spheres and which is even individualized in the charismata.” —Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 14.
“In Paul … χαρις is never merely an attitude or disposition of God (God’s character as gracious); consistently it denotes something much more dynamic—the wholly generous act of God. Like ‘Spirit,’ with which it overlaps in meaning (cf., e.g., [Rom] 6:14 and Gal 5:18), it denotes effective divine power in the experience of men.” —James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 17.
Get the point? The Greek simple does not support “gracious disposition” as a definition. The power of salvation is the focus in Scripture.
I believe the "what" that we get, is a relationship with God himself. We get Christ. We don't get a "thing", we get a Person. The greatest thing one can give: oneself. That's what we receive from God: himself.
I don't for a moment believe that the word, "charis" denotes anything more than a gift, in and of itself. When Paul talks about it, it becomes an unmerited gift, in the sense that it is completely undeserved and is received apart from any work of our own. Once again, you have taken a simple concept, "gift", and made it complicated, even changing the meaning of the word beyond all recognition. But congrats on having found a blogger who agrees with you.
And if the idea of grace requiring reciprocation beyond mere acceptance, even payback, is not about the most heretical idea I've ever heard...
Working backwards:
Reciprocation is a normal aspect of secular use of "charis" in literature of the time. It obviously does NOT force that on Scripture, where grace is unilateral. The fundamental aspect is not "reciprocation" but rather "a thing of value given". It is not just a "gracious attitude".
If "gift" were the definition, we would not be getting all manner of other definitions here. What happened to "favor"? Both are characteristics, but not definitions. Which still does not tell us WHAT the gift is.
We get Jesus - He is everything, and we get all of Him. This being so, why are we told to "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"? We have Jesus, but we still need "Grace, Mercy, and Peace" . . . the constant prayer of Paul for us. Obviously the gift of grace is something believers still need.
Alfred, I am really tired of arguing with you. The basic word is gift, this does not mean it doesn't take on different connotations in different contexts. If you don't know the Scriptures indicating that God has had abundant favor on us, try doing a study on it, to determine whether God actually has favor on us, or whether he only gives gifts. God's emotional love for us is not divorced from his gift of salvation, but try to make it so, if you can get people to buy it. There is certainly more scriptural evidence of favor than there is of grace merely being a medium by which we prove ourselves by good works. If you haven't believed all the logic presented to date, I doubt you will be convinced by anything further that I say.
Your idea of "grace" is frightening to me. It is works salvation in another guise. It is conditional love.
The ONLY reciprocity that I see in Scripture is "we love Him because He first loved us."
And that reciprocity is very different from a reciprocity that says "Because Jesus saved me, I can no longer wear pants, cut my hair short, go to the movies, listen to rock music, drink beer, dance ...."
The one is pure, innocent, child-like love. The other is legalism. I have lived both. And I know which brings me closer to the God I love. The other drove me so far from Him that I thought I might never find Him again.
Alfred,
This discussion is just too much for for my little bunny brain to fully comprehend. I prefer to be told what to think without having to think through things on my own. (Which is why I am so attracted to Bill Gothard.)
I am however, in awe of your superior logic and ability to keep these unbelievers from going unchallenged. I can only echo the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8knJCbZAwU4
Wow. What DO I have to say to convince you that I KNOW that reciprocity is NOT part of God's grace? . We started this sub thread with a series of definitions of grace - I think the normal, ordinary use of the word in Greek culture should also shed some light, don't you? And ordinary Greeks used it heavily in discussing things like business transactions. This "charis" for that "charis". The only reason for pointing that out is to note that "charis" involves "things", not attitudes. Obviously we have nothing to give God in exchange for His Grace.
And you, Bunny J, I know you to be a lot smarter than that :-)
Well, I think you have said plenty of things that appear to be grasping for at least a shred of merit inherent in grace. Maybe if you hadn't said all those things, I would be more convinced.
Again, gifts can come in many forms. A favorable disposition or a restored relationship can be a gift, every bit as much as your so-called "desire and power". Why does your intangible concept fit the bill, but ours does not? A gift does not always have to be a "thing", and obviously was not always used that way in koine Greek, as Paul didn't use it that way. Even if you say that Paul was only talking about Salvation, this is, again, an intangible concept, not a "thing". You are tying to pit two intangible concepts against each other, and insist that our intangible is a concept, whereas your intangible is a "thing". No, they are both concepts. You are arbitrarily limiting the definition of the word in attempt to discredit our concept while upholding yours.
It's all this reaching and maddening word play, that convinces me otherwise about your beliefs on grace. But really, what does it matter what I think? I am neither here nor there to you. I wish you the best.
"Grace is divorced from merit SOLELY because God is sovereign. He picks the objects of His grace REGARDLESS of merit . . . And picks the objects of His wrath in exactly the same way. If I misrepresented his perspectives, point it out. "
Wow. A better understanding of the physics behind time have made the free will vs predestination, or calvinist vs armenian argument pointless.
Since this has come up...
Time is a physical property. This has been proven, we can warp time ever so slightly in various ways, hence proving its a physical property. In order for God to give valid prophecies in the Bible(which most Christians believe anyway) we are excepting that God exists in a much higher space/time dimension, and exists entirely outside of our "time".
So the answer to the argument "Free-will vs Predestination" is simply both. There is amply biblical evidence for both, open minded theologians have brought this exact point up long before physics proved time is a physical property attached to this dimension.
We do have free will to make decisions, God simply knows what decision we will choose because he sees all of time, past and future at once.
This is important because the statement I quoted is the very deepest heresy, it portrays an utterly evil and unjust God that goes against every fiber of what we instinctually know as good or just. And that's what you get if focus on predestination without keeping in mind the fact of free-will first and foremost.
How could a God possibly get more evil and unjust then just arbitrarily picking random names out of a hat and assigning this one to eternal torment, and this one to eternal bliss? Wow.
Steve:
1) Why do we have BOTH "Foreknowledge" and "Predestination" in Romans 8? If He knows, He does not pick. If He picks, He already knows. It is simply pointless.
2) Time is a dimension, but it also has a stream, the one dimensional stream of our consciousness. "I think, therefore I am". THAT cannot be explained by physics. I know they try . . . endless numbers of "parallel universes" and the like. Good theoretical constructs . . . but the reality, which every child knows, is that there is a "now", a now in which we must choose, and then that choice is gone from us for ever.
3) Eternity is outside of time . . . yet "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men" (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Jesus quoted Psalms 82:6 in John 10:34 when He said - to (sinful) people: "Ye are gods". That means not only that we are created in His image, but - unlike the deterministic creation which all events may be predicted - our hearts sit outside of that. We believers have eternal life now, we live in both arenas at once. We DO have a choice in the universe, we change the flow of events with those choices.
4) "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) Quite a statement . . . especially since the Lord God is speaking. You would expect Him to immediately say, "I the LORD know it". What He does say is "I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." (vs. 10) There are times the Lord deliberately backs off . . . and lets us choose. Whatever the interplay of time and eternity, it does NOT remove that from us.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you. I don't have time.
But I am going to say that I don't think that you really understand the Cogito Ergo Sum argument that you refer to in your second point. It has nothing to do with the "stream of consciousness" and the flow of time. It was Descartes's "firm and immovable point" from which he constructed his entire philosophy. And while it is unclear whether Descartes was, or was not, a Christian person (Pascal thought he was an atheist), what is clear is that he was a humanist and a rationalist. There are many who feel that Cartesian philosophy is antithetical to a Christian world view.
I am not competent to judge Descartes's theology, but I do know that Cartesian philosophy has nothing at all to do with the "one dimensional stream of our consciousness."
It has everything to do with consciousness! Consciousness proves existence, so says Decartes (duh - amazing reality that any child could have told him). Decartes also specifically focused on thoughts " in order " . . . A flow, in time.
And the one DIRECTIONAL (typo) flow of consciousness stands against decreeing time to be solely a "dimension" . . . Three space dimensions have no direction. Stephan sees time without motion -it already happened, that is why God - or anyone else in eternity - knows who will be saved. Which is fundamentally outside the question of whether grace arrives to MAKE the select get saved.
Read this post about grace today. http://www.aholyexperience.com/2012/11/what-we-all-need-to-really-breathe/
Thought it was a beautiful addition to the discussion here. I particularly loved these statements Ann made: "Christianity isn’t about growing good — it’s about growing grace-filled. The grace we’ve received from the heart of God is the grace that extends our arms to the world.
Why in the world did I keep telling the boys to be more Christ-like as if He was a ladder to ascend, to progressively strive to be more sanctified — when being Christ-like is about being grace-filled, not about ladders but about laying down and reaching wide?"
There's much more about Grace and the meaning of the Gospel in her post - I found it very encouraging.
That is wonderful. But not balanced. What do you, for example, tell your boys about this section?
2 Peter 1:5-10
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.
"Give all diligence" sounds like a focus that is pretty intense . . . And this IS presented as a ladder. I . . . Really . . . Want balance.
I will just post the passage in question without commenting on it. But really, if you read it in this translation, it kinda clarifies the points of confusion above, and you can see that the passage actually says nothing of securing either salvation or grace by our own works.
Again, if you want balance, I highly recommend reading through the bible in a modern translation, several times, in fact. There is a lot of deprogramming to get past, that poor translations allow for.
2 Peter 1:5-10 NLT
Again, I will not be back to argue the specific nuances of the passage with you, nor the specific meanings of words. Try to take it at face value, if you can :)
In view of all this, make every effort to respond to God's promises. Supplement your faith with a generous provision of moral excellence, and moral excellence with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with patient endurance, and patient endurance with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love for everyone.
The more you grow like this, the more productive and useful you will be in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But those who fail to develop in this way are shortsighted or blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their old sins.
So, dear brothers and sisters, work hard to prove that you really are among those God has called and chosen. Do these things, and you will never fall away.
I see "make every effort" there where "diligence" was used, so same thought.
"Supplement" means "add" . . . the Greek makes it a clear progression, a "ladder".
In the end it says "work hard".
You see my point . . . your translation or mine, this is the opposite of "rest and relax" . . . right?
That is the balance that I want to see to the comments that would have the author tell her sons to NOT worry about "progressively striv[ing] to be more sanctified". Peter tells us that God tells us to "Be [Greek "become", with motion] ye holy, as I am holy" (1 Peter 1:17) "Holy" and "Sanctified" are the same Greek word.
Rest in Christ, soak up His grace, which gives us the energy to "work hard" to be more like Him. They are both there.
On translations, I will post a citation from R. C. Sproul's website on the "New Living Translation" that you are citing [my bolds](http://www.ligonier.org/reformation-study-bible/about/why-esv/ ):
"Dynamic Equivalence Translation
In the middle of the twentieth century another philosophy of translation rose to prominence, a philosophy commonly referred to as "dynamic equivalence." Dynamic equivalence emphasizes the reader rather than the words of the original text. If something in the original text may be too difficult or obscure for the modern reader, the original text is translated with words or phrases intended to communicate the same general concept --- a dynamic equivalent. Sometimes this is described as thought-for-thought translation as opposed to an essentially literal word-for-word type of translation. Most recent English Bible translations use dynamic equivalence. A list of these popular translations would include the Good News Bible (1976), the New International Version (1978), the Revised English Bible (1989), the New Living Translation (1996), and Today's New International Version (2005).
One of the fundamental disadvantages of dynamic equivalence translation is that it blurs the line between translation and commentary."
"The Living Bible", of which the NTL is a revision, was a good man putting Scripture into his own words for the benefit of his children. As such it adds creativity, explanations . . . a lot of things shaped by the perspectives of the paraphraser. This explains what some people think a passage means, or should means, without telling us what it actually says. Which is not to say it can't help.
Sproul's ministry has standardized on the ESV, "English Standard Version", released at the same time as the NLT, but being a scholarly "literal translation". Here is the passage from there, not much difference:
"For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."
Actually, any good interpreter knows you must translate the entire thought, not merely the words. There are pros and cons to both methods, but at least with the dynamic equivalence, there is more of an overall sense being communicated, vs people getting hung up on individual words that don't seem to make sense in the context, a common fallacy of word-for-word translations. But I'm not here to argue translations with you, only to suggest that a modern translation may have benefit for easier understanding of a passage. Unless you are fluent in ancient Greek, then I suppose you wouldn't need to rely on a translation.
The point of the above passage, is that the attributes encouraged, are not for the purpose of meriting grace. It becomes more apparent in the NLT wording.
And by the way, the Living Bible is a paraphrase. The NLT is a translation from the original languages.
The NLT was translated by an entire team of well- qualified scholars ;D It was certainly not a lay-person putting down his thoughts for his children, not even CLOSE, as you are trying to suggest. Your mischaracterization, is humorous, at best.
I see the value of "dynamic equivalence". But, as a speaker of two languages natively, I see the dangers. The problem is with the proverbial " ax to grind", some point we need to make sure is conveyed. If you trust the translators, you go with "thought translation". If it is end of the world vital that you completely and clearly understand what the author actually said, you go with a literal translation with helps.
Ans, again, I actually saw little difference in NLT to KJV or ESV in the point I was reaching for. Should not have brought up the other issues . . . Other than to cringe at the notion of "modern" making NLT superior.
If it is completely vital to understand, you don't rely on a translation ;) You go back to the original languages, or ask someone knowledgeable in them ;) All translations are imperfect, some more than others. The purpose of a modern translation is understandability, not accuracy. Although many of the newer translations have even that over the old kjv.
But as you know, even prominent scholars will disagree with the meaning, even then. Partly why I was going with the most commonly understood meanings of words, not some remote blogger's definition.
Clarification: my purpose for recommending a modern translation for one struggling to understand certain biblical concepts, is for easy understandability. And I recommend nothing more than reading it, the first few times. No word studies, no looking up in another translation, just reading through one translation at a time, the first few times. The purpose of this is to help one absorb the overall picture of the love of God, without getting hung up and confused on individual words. I find the focus on individual words to be equivalent to the blind man who only felt the elephant's tail, and was so focused on that, that he missed the overall picture of the whole big elephant.
Word studies are all well and good, but not to the point that they keep you from seeing the overall big picture.
All of the helps and definitions are helpful. The key is if we are willing to stop when we find the meaning we favor, or if we really, truly have to know what God meant. That is a challenge we perhaps all fail of.
I probably gave too much focus on the blogger comments, but the use of charis in ordinary Greek is still helpful. A piece in the puzzle.
That's my point. That seeing all of the big picture without filtering it through various manmade commentaries, may help us to get a better feel for what God actually meant. Because Scripture is not a bunch of isolated little ideas, it is one big picture which must fit together for consistency. By that token, another thing that helps in my prescribed reading philosophy, is to read large chunks at one time.
It's a matter of feeling satisfied when I find a meaning that offers cohesiveness, less than about stopping once I find a definition that I like. I find grace as unmerited favor to offer cohesiveness to the entire Bible story.
And I'm not saying that just reading through without commentary or study is all you'll ever do with the Bible. I'm talking about setting aside a season of time to refocus.
Also, chronological reading helped me with "big picture" understandability. You should be able to find chronological Bible reading schedules online or in your local Christian bookstore.
I like that. That is the basis of effective Bible study.
I have no problem with " unmerited favor". Except the it tells only part of the story. Found this at
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/topical.show/rtd/cgg/id/518/charis.htm . . . Citation From The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
"It may be added that in later Greek charis also had the sense of force or power. It could be a spell, or demonic force, affecting human life with supernatural influences. In Euripides, it was a power from the underworld that could convey the virtues of a dead hero to his living family or followers. This sense, too, though set in a new context, was used in the NT: grace became the power of God to enable Christians to live the new life in Christ. ("Grace," vol. 2, p. 548)"
It is favor that is also a real force.
I absolutely believe that grace is powerful.
The account is touching. One or her comments, which appears close to the central point she is making, is: "The grace we’ve received from the heart of God is the grace that extends our arms to the world."
Which brings us back to a point being pondered above, whether what we know of God's grace causes us to instinctively show that same grace to others. As the world knows that we are Christians by our love, so we prove the work of grace in our heart by how we deal with the sins of others, especially those that have deeply hurt us.
If God's grace needs to be "proved" it isn't grace. Grace is God's favor poured out on us with
1)nothing required from us
2)nothing withheld
3)no picking and choosing.
God made us, God loves us. period! And this love has poured on us lavishly.
We show that grace to others because of our overwhelming gratitude for His great love and because it is humbling that someone loves us so fully with NO strings attached.
We don't have to prove anything, it just is.
OK, strike "prove" and substitute "show". That was the idea I was after. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20).
Just a comment . . . Having researched a bit more on Ann Voskamp, the author of the citations Hope provided, and read more of her blogs, I am convinced she is for real. So while I think the isolated moments are not balanced, i believe she is going the right place. Good stuff.
I agree. She shares beautifully about her personal walk with God, and most of her writings are a challenge to stop and thank God for His blessings.
Have you read the "Prison to Praise" books? Those were big "in my day". While one may not follow every detail or doctrinal component, the basic principle is powerful. When we thank God, even for the things we dislike but He has sovereignly allows, it unleashed His power to do amazing things. And . . . isn't interesting that "saying grace", being thankful, is a part of the formal definition of charis in the way the ancient world used it?
I remember this at work in the life of Catherine Marshall, wife of the famous preacher Peter Marshall and author of the "Christy" books and others. When she was sick with tuberculosis, she was confined to her bed like a prison for several years. It was a terrible hardship on her family let alone herself. While visiting her parents for a vacation, one night she was lead in some way (I forget the details) to finally surrender her will to the Lord in this matter. She accepted it, humbled herself, basically (literally? Can't remember) thanked Him for knowing what was best. The way it came to her was, "So, what's so bad about tuberculosis?!" She knew God would bless her though it.
Instantly, she said, something happened . . . she knew herself healed. The next doctor's visit revealed a substantial improvement, where there had been nothing for years (3?) . . . ultimately she was completely clear.
That was God's grace at work - it came in the wind of thankfulness.
I think Ann is right.
Great story about Catherine Marshall! Thanks for sharing! Yes, I have read the book Prison to Praise - it was one that was recommended reading to go along with one of the Wisdom Booklets. I think we read it together as a family. I re-read it again a few years ago - there are lots of great insights in Prison to Praise.
Hmm... That's a great story, and I am really glad for the physical healing that took place. But somehow, I am struggling with your conclusion, that the healing itself was "the grace of God at work".
Why wasn't it God's grace when she was ill? Why only when she was healed? Why wasn't God's grace present with her in the pain, in every day of pain, when it wasn't a fabulous, miraculous story?
And now I'm going to descend into the psyche of the depressed... Why shouldn't God be an everyday God, with us in all the suffering? Or does he only show up when we've done some heroic feat to "humble ourselves"? What about all the dark times prior to that, when we needed him the most?
See, Alfred, THIS is the God that Gothard denied us. The relational God; the God who cares more for the mundane suffering of ours than the miraculous mountaintops.
I say God's grace was there all along. Physical healing took place at a point in time, but the grace was always there.
Because grace is God's unmerited favor, and it is about relationship. And we don't get God to "like" us more by a show of humility, whether genuine or not. His love for us is constant, as is his favor on those who belong to him.
As humans, we do love the stories of instant healing. But don't confuse miraculous healing with grace. The grace was always there.
After reading Hannah's comment, I was reminded of the story of Frances Ridley Havergal. She was ill most of her life, yet wrote many beautiful hymns of praise to God, including "Take My Life and Let it Be". Her whole life is a picture of God's grace. He never healed her, and in fact she died at age 42 of pneumonia. But God's grace is so evident in her life - she had a journal of mercies where every day she would write down a blessing God had given her. Even in her death she was still rejoicing in God and in her soon approach to heaven.
In response to Alfred's comment about God's grace at work coming in the wind of thankfulness, I see that in this story too. But in Frances' life God's grace did not result in healing. As Hannah said, God's grace is evident in the midst of our suffering, He is a relational God, present and comforting us in our pain. He never leaves us even when we are struggling or ungrateful or angry in the midst of our pain. Even then, He draws near in love to His hurting child, understanding and caring. He has done this for me many times in the midst of my pain and anger - coming gently, tenderly, and quietly with His love breaking through and healing the pain.
I think we got it then. :)
All of this going back and forth on what a certain scripture really says has got me dizzeeee!!!! I think it is really what God is specifically saying to you personally in any particular scripture. If one has a relationship with God, then I am sure the Holy Spirit will lead that person in what verse or part of any verse that God is trying to get through to that believer. We are all in the same race but not in the same place. I think I am waaaaay back in the pack, mostly walking or sitting watching the other believers go by as they grow in strength, knowledge and grace and I am still learning to walk by learning to lean on Jesus.
[Your paintings are cool, clicked on your name to your website :-)]
There is a lot of truth in what you say.
"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Matthew 11:25)
Thanks for your comments on my art. All the things you and the others say have been food for thought. That is why I am so dizzeeee!
Alfred, no one is debating that "the desire and power to do God's will" is an aspect, or a manifestation of grace. I, and I am quite sure most people here, do not have a problem with that terminology. The problem is, that Gothard translates that into "we must work harder to perfect ourselves," and then teaches that it must be earned. In then comes his rules and regulations, on sex, abstinence, fasting, finances, dressing, and standards. If Gothard couldn't define grace the way he does, then all his rules and regulations are for naught.
In reference to your comment above, here's a link that gives a good illustration of the term "charis." http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/charis.html. As you can see, grace is not defined solely as "desire and power to do God's will," but is only one among several aspects.
Actually, if you look up a few posts you will see I cited exactly the same source :-) Really excellent, BTW.
You are right . . . Grace is big, no doubt about it. Can we at least say that "unmerited favor" is limited as a definition? Thank you for your balance.
As to rules and regulations . . . I am tired, so I am not sure I am ready for another round :-) There is real truth in what you say. But, when I read sections like 2 Peter 1 and - as I was reading last night - Romans 13, end of the chapter, I get the overwhelming understanding that God is very concerned that once we have "rested" in Christ, we work really, really hard to make sure we don't miss real, practical character targets. I don't know of any other way to interpret "Give all diligence" (to be virtuous, knowledgeable, self-controlled, persevering, godly, kind, loving) and "Awake!" and "Cast off the unfruitful works of darkness". And "Be[come] ye holy, as I am holy" (Greek Imperative). And "Pay your debt by loving others because that fulfills the law" (back to Romans 13) To ignore all that is wrong. To turn that into the defining principle for Christian living is wrong too.
Again . . . balance, balance. Maybe one reason we have not "gone under" in ATI ("Yet", he said meekly) is that we have learned/are learning to use all that practical energy from IBLP to help us where we need it . . . and hide from it at other times. Not every exhortation from Mr. G is a home run . . . believe and try to implement everything and the individual and family will explode. But in moderation - like fertilizer - things start to really grow.
Oops . . . same website, different resource: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/topical.show/rtd/cgg/id/518/charis.htm If you haven't read this, you really do. Citations from a number of scholarly commentaries on "charis"
I thought grace was something you said before mealtime
Haha!
Except . . . they actually cite that in the source mentioned:
"Another use of charis was as thanks for favors bestowed; this has survived in English as the term used of the prayer of thanksgiving before a meal: grace."
A blessing . . . of grace . . . "Grace to you" . . . "Bless the Lord" . . . "Grace the Lord"?
Alfred, I think you would have to admit that "the desire and power to do God's will" is limited as a definition too, wouldn't you?
Of course. But it captures one of the most essential and overlooked aspects, that of "force".
Far from just a "favorable attitude", it involves a practical power for change. It is a real "something" that you get the benefit of if you are humble, and not if you don't. That aspect, largely ignored in discussions and books on grace, does not change it's "unmerited" or "un-earnable" aspect. It does change the discussion from "its all yours, can't be taken away no matter what you do".
The Grace for Christian living is real . . . and failure to have it in our lives is disastrous. While its presence or possibility is permanent, we have a real responsibility to not "fail of it", very much the same idea as "quench not the Spirit".
As long as we agree on that, the rest falls into place. Some would say, "Rest in Jesus" to get that power . . . and . . . I agree wholeheartedly. Provided it really means "trust in Him" and not just "feel good about yourself because He feels good about you", that becomes exactly the same as "humbling yourself".
I would agree that God empowering us to live a holy life is an act of grace. But, I don't think it's the entire definition of grace.
Also, I don't depend on a "force" to live this life, I depend on God Himself. I don't understand the need to tell everyone how to get "more grace" instead of teaching them to walk in the Spirit and depend on Him for that power.
That is the point, that it represent a part - albeit a significant part - of the understanding of grace.
As to getting "more grace", Scripture does take that as a focus, with believers instructed to get it, and give it:
"Grace to you" - Paul's constant salutation, along with "mercy" and "peace"
"But covet earnestly the best gifts (charis-ma - grace gifts)" (1 Corinthians 12:31)
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister (supply) grace unto the hearers. " (Ephesians 4:29)
"But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." (James 4:6)
"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor. 12:9)
The Word of God makes a large point of valuing grace, getting it.
Like manna it is free, but it does have to be "gathered". Manna was "unmerited favor". Some need more, some less. As to depending on God . . . God put the supply of manna out there . . . the Israelite that depended on Him would go out very early every morning to pick it up, the one's that didn't stayed home.
There is a big differene between saying, "God giving us the power to live a holy life is an act of grace" and saying that grace is the desire and power to do God's will. I still don't get what Gothard and apparently you have against leaning on the Holy Spirit to walk the Christian life. Why must we always say it's "grace" and never refer to the 3rd person of the Trinity. Sure, He's the Spirit of Grace, but He's the Spirit of Truth, too. Why must we insist of a "force" (that sounds very, very much like I'm talking to a JW) and not actually deal with a person of the Trinity?
And because the word Grace actually means "gift," I still hold to "unmerited favor" as the definition. Divine influence *is* unmerite favor and is so very much more than just the desire and power to do God's will.
And Scripture says that God, not grace, works in us to will and do His pleasure. Again, why must we depersonalize God Himself?
"God's unmerited favor" is limited as a definition, in the sense that all definitions of a given word are limited. Each is an attempt to explain the word in a nutshell, without taking up entire tomes to detail every aspect of the given concept. "Desire and power" is one possible result of grace, of which there are many. Defining grace as "God's unmerited favor" seeks to express the core of grace in the simplest possible terms, and takes the focus off of man and his work, and places it back on God, where it should be. As has been hilighted before, "desire and power" is a result of grace, rather than grace itself. It is the result of the Holy Spirit working in a life.
No one is denying that grace is powerful. It is the power of God to save. However, as we have seen firsthand, those of us who have come out of ATI, we become crippled when we focus on one result of grace, and try to make that result define grace, in and of itself. In the case of the " desire and power" definition, we take it upon ourselves to make it appear to others that we have it, instead of resting in the power thereof. It is a focus that is out of balance, and leads to futility.
Ok, I see what you're saying. As Hannah said, any word can have a range of different definitions.
The problem I have with the definition of "the desire and power to do God's will" is that some Christian teachers (Gothard included) make this solely what grace is about. If we do that, then we make grace all about we do vs. what God does. Therefore, we then make grace all about works.
I agree, that as Christians, we have the desire to become more like Christ. But that isn't even part of grace. It's a result of God's grace being extended to us.
Grace is never about what we do. Grace is more of staying out of God's way . . . or of seeking to be get more "on His way".
Faith is taking God at His word . . . if we do, it does not make His word any more sure, but it DOES affect how much of a role we get to play in the working out of that Will. The heroes of Hebrews 11 were ordinary people who dared to believe God . . . and God made them look like heroes. That is better than the alternative.
I see our interaction with God's grace in exactly the same way. All He asks is that we ask . . . and humble ourselves to accept His Gifts. We look rich through no merit of our own . . . that is way better than the alternative.
These are quotes from John Calvin's "Institutes" (highlights are mine). This is to shore up my contention that any definitions of "grace" provided by open "Calvinists" such as Jerry Bridges need to be understood - and in some cases rejected - in the light of what they really understand about the nature of salvation:
"...salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it." Bk 3, Ch 21, s. 5
"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." Bk 3, ch 21, s. 5
"The very inequality of his grace proves that it is free." Bk 3, ch 21, s 6
Once again, this world view undergirds the "hyper-unmerited" perspective of Bridges and other Calvinists. This is NOT the grace I know. Grace is God's Gift . . . and it is sovereignly given. But it is close to blasphemy to declare that it - by definition - excludes some. It is offered to all, and all may receive it. The act of humbling oneself to receive it IS a personal responsibility, and for that we will give account. To whatever extent that is "merit", we need to modify our definition of "unmerited" to exclude it.