The Gravity of Grace
Outline
Introductory Matters
The Gravity of Different Definitions
of Grace
Additional Introductory
Observations
The Descriptive Task: Explaining
the Methods Behind These Conflicting Definitions
Unmerited Favor Means Grace is
Unearned Because No Command Has Been Obeyed As A Prerequisite
to Receiving God's Gift (Definition #1)
Unmerited Favor Means Grace is Unearned, But
This Does Not Nullify My Necessity To Respond In Order To
Receive God's Gift (Definition #2)
The Evaluative Task: Which
Method(s) is/are adequate?
Definition #1 of Unmerited
Favor:
Is it Valid to Define Grace In
Contradistinction To A Particular Definition of
Works?
Is it Valid to Define Grace In
Contradistinction To A Particular Definition of
Law?
Are Grace and Law Mutually
Exclusive?
Definition #2 of Unmerited Favor:
Limiting the Text's Message to the
Specific Context of the Text
Steps Toward Forging A Biblical
Understanding of Grace
Conclusions
Introductory Matters
The Gravity of Different
Definitions
If scripture is God's unchanging message to us,
then it becomes
imperative to understand the message God intended to communicate
to us. Whether I derive comfort from my
interpretation or even if I have gained a coherent understanding
from the text is actually irrelevant, if my understanding differs
from what God intended me to understand.
Whatever a person understands scripture to
teach about grace has enormous repercussions on the formation of
his doctrine and practice. New definitions of grace can and
have lead to a whole new theology of grace.(1) Such new
theologies of grace can reshape Christian doctrine and practice.
This might be for the better or it could be dangerous.
Typically today, grace is defined as "unmerited
favor." However, even this phaseology is ambiguous because it
embraces two significantly different understandings of grace. It
appears that a difference of opinion over what causes something
to be "unmerited" seems to be the source of divergent
understandings between two camps within the Restoration Movement.
The result has been to create very different theologies
and practices.
Definition #1
Unmerited favor can be understood to mean
that God grants someone favor without reference to any
response of the individual. Typically, those who hold to
this definition claim that if some response is required then
the favor has been earned and thus it can not be unmerited. To
put this another way, part of their beliefs include the claim
that favor is always bestowed independently from the necessity
of obeying a command. What this would mean is that there can be
no command which must be obeyed in order to receive
grace. Within Christendom, some have taken this to its logical
conclusion by insisting that grace means God arbitrarily
bestows favor based upon His election since our human response
is irrelevant.
This viewpoint's perspective on Paul's usage
of grace verses law: They typically understand Paul's
references to being freed from law so that we are now under
grace to mean that we have been freed from all
law-principle. In their perspective there are no commands
which if left undone could condemn us.
Definition #2
On the other hand, unmerited favor can be
understood to mean that what is received is undeserved, even
though a particular response might be required in order to
receive it. Those who hold to this perspective point out
that not all obedient responses fall within the category of
"earning" and thus meriting the gift. For example, they claim
that to be saved by grace means that God calls a person to rely
upon Jesus in a particular manner and when a person does
faithfully respond, God grants salvation. They will insist that
this act of faithfully responding to the gospel is an act of
faith (not a work demonstrating my righteousness which earns
salvation). According to them, the gift of salvation remains
unmerited favor.
This viewpoint's perspective on Paul's usage
of grace verses law: They typically view Paul's references to
being freed from law thus placing a person under grace to mean
that we have been freed from the Mosaical Law. In their
perspective there are still commands which must be obeyed in
order to enter grace. Some of those holding to this
understanding will teach that once grace has been entered there
are no more commands. Others of this group will claim that
there are still commands and guidelines to be obeyed, but these
are not the ground of our salvation.
As might be expected, those holding to the
first definition pejoratively view the latter understanding of
grace as being a form of legalism and "God's response to human
effort"(2). In response to this charge, those ascribing to the
second view may point out that to mislabel the obedience of faith
required by the gospel as "human effort" or legalistic entails
lawyer antics not honest Biblical study.
So what? What
difference does it make how grace is defined?
1) One consequence has been the undermining of
the traditional hermeneutic among Churches of Christ whereby the
goal of following the same faith, doctrine and practice of the New
Testament churches has been downgraded by some from being
the pattern of faithfulness to simply becoming the
incidental manner in which the first century church
happened to respond to the message. Thus under the banner of
grace, the traditional Church of Christ goal of restoring the New
Testament church is understood to be a misdirected and unnecessary
goal. Loosened from these original moorings, those who embrace the
new theology of grace declare themselves free to explore new
organizational structures, new expressions and modes of worship,
and possibly even new doctrinal frameworks.
2) A second consequence is that each of these
two different definitions of grace provides a framework which will
be used for determining whether or not someone will believe that
God requires baptism before granting salvation.
Some of those who insist that grace means
freedom from all law principle will therefore claim that a person
can not be condemned for failing to obey any specific
command or guideline. If this is true, then salvation by grace
would mean that a person is set free from his sin and declared
righteous in Christ Jesus independent of any form of obedience
to Jesus. From this perspective, if there was even one
prescribed response demanded in order to be saved, then this
command would establish the principle that law still exists.
According to some who hold to this view that all law principle
(i.e. every command) has been abolished, baptism therefore can not
be necessary for salvation.
Additional Introductory
Observations
1) Scripture is not determining what is being
understood, rather a set of definitions which are assumed to be
true are driving doctrine and practice. Although this statement
must be true for at least one of the two sets of definitions
above, theoretically, it might even be true for both.
2) As will be seen, these two different
definitions of grace (unmerited favor) are achieved by two
different methodologies.
3) If either of these definitions accurately
conveys God's message to us, then so be it and nobody who remains
with a different understanding of grace would be following
biblical doctrine. Regardless of how comfortable I am with my
definition, or how it might make me feel, or which well-known
preacher might have taught it, or how useful I might consider it
to be in a postmodern America, if my definition is different than
what scripture was intended to teach us, I need to reject my old
definition in order to embrace God's message to us. But how can I
know whether the old or the new wine is actually what God intended
to communicate through scripture?
A Descriptive Task: Explaining the Methods
Behind These Conflicting Definitions
#1 - Unmerited Favor Means Grace is
Unearned Because No Command Has Been Obeyed
As A Condition to Receive God's Gift
Methodologically, two steps are usually used to
conclude that grace is given independent of any form of obedience to
a command. First, a definition for another key concept is proposed
and then grace is defined as being wholly different from the other
concept.
For example, this viewpoint sometimes assumes that
within the New Testament "works" signify any form of "action" or even
"human initiative." Since unmerited is the opposite of merit (works)
and since salvation does not come by works but through grace, then
unmerited favor it is argued must mean that there can be no necessary
action (or as Calvinists argue - no human initiative) leading to
salvation. This is an example of defining grace in contradistinction
to a preset definition of works. From this method the conclusion is
either drawn that grace must therefore mean that no human activity is
required for salvation or that salvation by God's grace is bestowed
independent of any human initiative.
This same basic method has also been used in
contrasting law and grace. For example, first Paul's usage of law is
defined as including all law principle (i.e. all commands or any
system in which being just is predicated upon obeying a command(s)).
The specific examples where Paul refers to the Mosaical Law are taken
to be representative of all systems with commands.
Jack Cottrell argues, "Here the word
'law' is not limited to the Law of Moses, ... It refers to law in
any form: the Mosaic Law as it applied to Jews under the Old
Covenant; the total body of commandments that make up the
prescriptive will of God for all of us in the New Covenant era,
including Christians; and the law written on the heart, for those
who have general revelation only. The point is that Christians, or
believers in any age are not under law (whatever its applicable
form) as a way of salvation. A person has only two choices. Either
he is under law, or under grace."3 "We must keep emphasizing that
'law' here is not just the Law of Moses, but whatever law applies
to any given person."4
K.C. Moser wrote, "Of course, the apostle was
dealing immediately with the law of Moses, but what was true of
the Jewish system is true also of any legal system. ... All legal
systems administer justice, not mercy. Hence Paul wrote, "ye are
not under law."5
Second, grace is then defined as being mutually
exclusive of any law. Accordingly, God's grace is perceived as
liberating an individual from the necessity to obey any
command or specifically prescribed manner. Thus there can be no
condemnation for failure to comply to a specific standard. To put it
another way, since the law principle administers justice and condemns
those who have failed to comply and since grace is wholly different
from law, therefore grace must mean there is no divinely prescribed
standard or command to which we must conform.
An example of this reasoning is: "Law
administers justice, while the cross introduced the principle of
mercy. Law and grace mutually annul each other."6 "This epistle
cannot be understood unless the inherent distinction
between law and grace is recognized."7
Where does this path of
theologizing lead?
From the citadel of this theological structure,
the prejorative label of legalism or legalistic is catapulted upon
any attempt to insist that the New Testament teaches a normative
standard/ pattern or commands which must be obeyed. It is claimed
that the freedom provided by grace reveals God intended Christians to
be liberated from normative commnds and standards. This impacts
matters of worship, church organization, and so forth.
Today many of this viewpoint will insist the
absence of normative commands must also govern any teachings about
baptism. Others, wishing to embrace the conclusion about freedom from
commands without affirming baptism is not essential, will try to
insist that baptism is still necessary for salvation (K. C. Moser,
The Gist of Romans, p. viii-ix; ). However, if this is
what scripture means by grace, then the grounds for demanding baptism
as still being necessary for salvation remains a mystery, because the
necessity of obedience for salvation has already been rejected. While
"this generation" may hold on to the necessity of baptism, surely
"the next generation" will reject their parents inconsistency and
draw the logical conclusion.
#2 - Unmerited Favor Means Grace is
Unearned, But This Does Not Nullify My Necessity To
Respond
In contradistinction to the previous method where
the definition of God's grace is based upon its being the opposite of
some other concept, this perspective defines grace by how the Bible
uses this word. But there are also other differences between these
two perspectives on grace.With this second perspective, both works
and law are defined by and limited to their Biblical usage as well.
Thus Paul's references to the Mosaical Law are typically understood
as being references only to that Law system. Furthermore, works are
not defined broadly as either human initiative or activity, but
rather as attempts at self-reliance.
Where does this path of
theologizing lead?
Grace is understood to be an undeserved gift which
can not be earned even by obeying God's perfect and Holy Law given at
Sinai. Humanity is incapable of deserving salvation because no one
can attain the level of perfection described by the Law. This
perspective understands that through Christ, God extends grace to
those who respond to Jesus. Salvation is the gift of grace given to
those who rely upon Jesus for salvation.
Proponents of this viewpoint may further argue
that after God saves people God expects His people to confrom to the
revealed doctrinal matters of worship, church organization, etc. Thus
the teachings within the New Testament directed to Christians can
arise to become a universally prescriptive standard to be
followed.
From the citadel of this theological structure,
any attempt to alter or expand the original message/ standard is met
with a volley of criticism claiming that God's intentions have been
corrupted. The theological structure of the New Testament's message
is understood as being normative.
The Evaluative Task: Which Method(s) is/are
Appropriate For Understanding God's Message?
Definition #1 of Unmerited
Favor
Is it Valid to Define Grace In
Contradistinction To A Particular Definition of
Works?
Many people assume that works signify doing
something or even human initiative. Since grace is contrasted with
works (Ephesians 2:8-9), grace is then understood as releasing a
person from the necessity of doing something or obeying. Is this an
adequate method for defining grace?
A careful study of the text does not support this
conclusion. When works are used in a negative sense (such as: not
saved by works), the context is describing a human's attempt to earn
righteousness based upon his or her own goodness to do good. Romans
4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:15-16; 3:10-12; Philippians 3:9;
Titus 3:4-8. It is
not describing the larger arena of human initiative or even human
activity, but simply an attempt at
self-reliance. Thus the definition of
"doing something" is too broad and does not accurately represent a
biblical definition of works. Accordingly, if the goal is to
understand what the intended message within scripture, this
definition of works should not be used to support definition #1 for
what causes favor to be unmerited.
Is it Valid to Define Grace In
Contradistinction To A Particular Definition of
Law?
The important questions are: first, what did Paul
mean by "law"? Second, does it matter whether or not his specific
usage of law is viewed as illustrating a greater truth regarding all
law principle?
1) Paul's usage of law
Since grace are law are common themes in the
letter to the Romans and since texts such as Romans 7:6 and 8:1 tend
to be central to this discussion, let's consider Romans as a case
study for what Paul meant by law.
In Romans 2:17 and then later in Romans
2:25-29, Paul used "law" and then "written code" to specifically
refer to the Mosaical Law. In the latter case, this is evident
because neither all law-principle nor all of God's bodies of
commandments have demanded circumcision.
As he developed his argument, Paul described
his quote from the Old Testament contained in Romans 3:9-18
as, "whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the
law." Romans 3:19 In these instances he again used "law" to refer
to the Mosaical Law system. We are further told that the law makes
a person conscious of sin. Romans 3:20
There is no indication that Paul has changed
his usage of law until we arrive at the first occurrence of law in
Romans 3:27 where he seems to use it synonymously with the idea of
"principle," such as the "law" of gravity. But the flow of his
argument immediately reveals that he is concerned about the
Mosaical Law as he reiterates the inadequacy of observing the Law
for justification, a concept he has already introduced in Romans
3:20 and where the context has direct reference to the Mosaical
Law.
Romans 4:13-16 contains the natural progression
of ideas which Paul has already introduced such as the
consciousness of sin through the Law (Romans 3:20). Furthermore,
his usage of law in Romans 4:16 again clearly refers to those
under the Law of Moses. There is no textual reason to insist that
Paul has changed his usage of law in any of these
verses.
In Romans 5 we encounter "before law was given,
sin was in the world." Romans 5:12 This can not be a reference to
the general principle of law nor to the general principle of God's
Law, because God's command regarding the forbidden fruit preceded
the existence of sin. Hence, law principle existed before
there was sin. Accordingly Paul's reference to law in Romans 5:12
can not refer to all law principle but must once again refer to
the Mosaical Law. This observation is further supported by his
reference to Moses in Romans 5:13. From this context we learn that
Paul was referring to that time which existed before the Mosaical
Law.
Romans 5:20 then builds upon the context of
Romans 5:12 as well as repeats the idea of Romans 3:20 which we
have already seen are references to the Mosaical Law.
Paul's argument and usage of law quite
naturally flow directly into Romans 6:14. There is no contextual
need to demand a change in the object of his
discussion.
Romans 7:1-3 may provide a different usage of
law to illustrate a truth that Paul is advancing about the
Mosaical Law. Even if it does, Romans 7:4 is a return to his
previous usage of law. This is certain because Romans 7:5-6
includes an amalgamation and elaboration of principles already
attributed to the Mosaical Law (Romans 3:20; 5:20-21; 6:14-18). If
this were not enough, Paul then immediately defines what law he
was writing about by quoting from it, "you shall not covet."
Romans 7:7-8 Hence, there are no compelling reasons within this
context text for understanding that "written code" in Romans 7:6
means all law-principle and hence every command given by God. See
also Romans 2:25-29 for where Paul had already used "written code"
in this letter to refer to the Mosaical Law. There is no valid
reason for insisting that Paul has broadened his definition
here.
While this has been a brief survey, it suggests
that Paul was engaged in contrasting the characteristics and
implications of seeking to obtain righteousness through observing the
Mosaical Law system as opposed to being justified by faith. As such,
Paul's usage of law in Romans 6-8 does not establish the principle
that all obedience has been abolished (someone might
falsely assume
faith means "just believe." But even belief is an obedient
response!).
What about Romans 8:1? Although the word grace is
not found anywhere in the immediate textual context, the idea of
grace seems to be stamped all over this verse. If there is no
condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, then does it matter how
Christians might worship, how church functioning is structured, or
what adjustments are made to new cultural contexts? But to argue
along these lines is to rip a phrase out of context ignoring the
development of the message within the context.
Biblically, already Paul has claimed that the
commandments of the Mosaical Law were responsible for condemning him
because they produced and worked death in him. Romans 7:7-11 As had
already been claimed earlier (Romans 7:5-6), Paul now reiterates and
expands upon the idea that Jesus releases a person from this Law
which produces death. Romans 8:1-4 Accordingly, Romans 8:1 is
proclaiming Christ sets people free from sin - that is, Christ brings
forgiveness. What wonderful news.
To assert that you can be released from the Law
and forgiven in Christ does not provide in any way a license to do
whatever you want. Accordingly, it would be wrong for anyone to use
Romans 7:6 or any other verse within this context to assert that
Christ has freed us from the necessity of obeying all commands and
then turn around to condemn as "legalism" someone's insistence that
obedience to the gospel is necessary.
While the idea of grace does seem to be in Romans
8:1, it is important to remember that this proof text for a
progressive view of grace does not even mention grace.
2) The validity of using Paul's references to
Law as a paradigm to embrace all law principle
It may be that all of the ink spilled about what
law Paul was describing is irrelevant because as Cottrell and Moser
argue, this was merely a specific example of greater principles which
are at work. Therefore it is appropriate to examine whether or not it
is reasonable to conclude that Paul's usage of Law simply reflects
greater and more encompassing principles regarding all law
principle.
Many examples can be cited to show that if an
author has not specifically indicated he is addressing a larger scope
than the particular example he is using, it is not valid to conclude
that the principle he is describing holds true for a larger scope
just because one element of his example might also appear to be true
of the larger category. For example, "All birds are organic creatures
and have two legs." Although someone might claim that since all
animals are organic that the author is only using the specific
example of birds to describe all animals. Naturally, this could lead
that person to erroneously conclude that all animals have two legs.
Obviously, no one would actually make this argument because we know
that all animals do not have two legs. But what if the author had
merely said "all birds are organic" and then stated another principle
whose relationship to all animals is unknown? Would someone then make
this faulty argument?
Similarly, just because all law principle does
share some commonality with the Mosaical law does not demand that
Paul was writing about all commands. If Paul, within his letter to
the Romans, never provides any indication by way of reference or
example that the law he is describing (from which Christians have
been set free) is anything other than the Mosaical Law, then to claim
that Paul taught that Christians are free from all law principle
would be just as invalid as the previous reasoning about "all
animals."
While it is possible that Paul's references to law
in Romans were intended to include all law, to be able to make this
determination requires some evidence other than the fact that the
Mosaical Law happens to share a common characteristic with other
principles of law. If someone values understanding the Biblical
message, then some evidence within the text is needed to warrant the
conclusion that Paul intended to teach that Christ has annulled the
necessity of all forms of obedience.
Are Grace and Law Mutually
Exclusive?
Is God's grace mutually exclusive of all law
principle? In other words, is gospel devoid of commands which must be
obeyed before grace can be received? Put still another way, does God
extend grace independently of whether someone has obeyed? Still
further, once a person is in Christ does grace mean that there are no
prescribed standards to which God's people must adhere?
While it may be that there is no common ground
between grace and law, the words do not demand this. In fact, I will
argue that just as faith and works have common ground since both
require trusting and sometimes both will demand action,** so too both
law and God's grace can require the common ground of obedience. While
the righteousness which comes by Law refers to earning that status by
my obedient deeds of goodness and forsaking of evil, grace describes
the state of being declared righteous based upon being included in
Christ. This incorporation into Christ necessitates the obedience of
faith to the message of Christ. Romans 1:5; 22:16; 2 Thessalonians
1:8; Hebrews 5:9 Obeying the gospel does not demonstrate my goodness
but it is a confession of my dependence upon Christ in order to be
counted righteous.
Within scripture it is clear that grace and Law
represent two different paths for approaching God, one is based upon
a righteousness which comes through self-achievement, the other
depends upon Christ's righteousness being freely given to a sinner.
But both share common ground, both can require obedience. On the one
hand, my obedience is the ground of my own salvation, on the other
hand, my obedience is involved in accepting the salvation grounded
upon Christ.
**With works a person trusts in himself,
while faith describes trusting in someone or something. Thus works
and faith share the common ground of trust but the object of trust
is different. Similarly, both can share the common graound of
activity. With works a person engages in activity (& refrains
from sin!) to show himself righteous. Similarly, to have faith in
someone can
require a person to do something! Noah
was justified by faith by building an ark (Hebrews 11:7), in this
case, God's message called Noah to rely upon him by performing
an activity. Similarly, faith in Christ requires whatever the
gospel context demands of a person in order for that person to
rely upon Christ and become his disciple / a child of God. See
Galatians 3:26-27; Matthew 28:19-20 The point is, works and
faith are two different systems which someone may rely upon for
salvation, but they are not mutually exclusive concepts by
definition. Just because two concepts might initially appear
to have no common ground does not necessarily make it true.
Definition #2 of Unmerited Favor: Limiting
the Text's Message to the Specific Context of the
Text
Instead of defining words in opposition to some
other previously defined word or by expanding a word's meaning beyond
its specific usage in scripture, this methodology simply uses
biblical words within the parameters of biblical usage. It is a
straightforward approach. The biblical evidence for defining grace is
supplied below.
Steps Toward a Biblical Forged
Understanding
A) Use An Appropriate Method for
Defining Key Terms
1) Reject the temptation to define
terms based upon either:
a) Pragmatism (this will produce
the results I want) or
b) What some may have done who held to a
particular definition (Just because a Christian acts poorly
does not mean that he represents Christianity)
2) Since Romans (and often his other letters
as well) present the context of a continuous fabric of thought,
it would be appropriate to allow Paul to define his own terms
and then allow him to develop his own argument.
3) It is appropriate to refuse to change his
definition of any particular word, unless he clearly indicates
another usage. For example, the mere possibility that a
characteristic of the law he is discussing can be
applied to a larger concept of law does not justify altering
his definition. To justify such a shift in thought requires
some clear indication by Paul
B) Allow Scripture to Define Grace and Its
Implications
Grace is not earned by how good we
are, rather it is described as being a gift and hence
undeserved and unmerited. Romans 3:24; 5:15, 17; Ephesians 2:8;
3:7; 4:7
Grace is given to those who enter Christ.
Ephesians 1:6-7; Romans 3:24
Grace is not a license to do whatever we
want; what was sinful remains sinful and must be rejected. Jude
4, Romans 6:1-3
Since grace does not transform what was
sinful and unacceptable into being acceptable, grace teaches us
that we should embrace the godly parameters which were already
established while rejecting all ungodliness. Titus
2:11-15
Endnotes
1Richard Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith:
The Story of Churches of Christ in America, (Eerdmans: 1996), pp.
364-366.
2Ibid.
3Jack Cottrell, Romans Vol. 1, (College
Press, 1996), p. 406.
4 Cottrell, pp. 424-425.
5 K.C. Moser, The Gist of Romans, revised
edition (Gospel Light: 1958), p. 75.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 2002
Other Resources Which Might Be Of
Interest
Similar Stories About
Grace. Very Different Messages
Grace Dictates
Boundries. It Does Not Empower Endless Freedom
Grace on Wooden
Beams
A Child of God by
Faith