grace II
Dr. Sam
Storms
Enjoying God Ministries
Grace is more than an attitude or disposition in the divine nature. It is
surely that, but an examination of the usage of this word in Scripture reveals
that grace, if thought of only as an abstract and static principle, is deprived
of its deeper implications.
The grace of God, for example, is the power of God's Spirit converting the soul.
It is the activity or movement of God whereby He saves and justifies the
individual through faith (see esp. Rom. 3:24; 5:15,17). Therefore, grace is not
something in which we merely believe; it is something we experience as well.
Grace, however, is not only the divine act by which God initiates our spiritual
life, but also the very power by which we are sustained in, nourished, and
proceed through that life. The energizing and sanctifying work of the indwelling
Spirit is the grace of God. After Paul had prayed three times for God to deliver
him from his thorn in the flesh, he received this answer: "My grace is
sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9).
Although Paul undoubtedly derived encouragement and strength to face his daily
trials by reflecting on the magnificence of God's unmerited favor, in this text
he appears to speak rather of an experiential reality of a more dynamic nature.
It is the operative power of the indwelling Spirit to which Paul refers. That is
the grace of God.
We should also consider in this regard the many references to the grace of God
in Paul's opening greetings and concluding benedictions (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2
Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess.1:1; 2 These. 1:2;
Titus 1:4; 2 Cor. 13:14). This no mere literary formality, but an earnest and
constant wish of Paul that his converts may continue to experience grace, that
they may know afresh the gracious power of God moving in their lives, that they
may find in that grace the spiritual resources by which to live in a way
pleasing to Him.
It is interesting to observe that without exception the blessing at the
beginning of each of Paul's letters says, "Grace [be] to you," while the
blessing at the end of each letter says, "Grace [be] with you." Why? Piper
suggests that "at the beginning of his letters Paul has in mind that the letter
is a channel of God's grace to the readers. Grace is about to flow 'from God'
through Paul's writing to the Christians. So he says, 'Grace to you’” (66).
But what becomes of this grace after his readers are done with his letter? The
answer is that grace is now to be with you. "With you as you put the letter away
and leave the church. With you as you go home to deal with a sick child and an
unaffectionate spouse. With you as you go to work and face the temptations of
anger and dishonesty and lust. With you as you muster courage to speak up for
Christ over lunch” (Future Grace, 66-67). Thus we learn that "grace is ready to
flow to us every time we take up the inspired Scriptures to read them. And we
learn that grace will abide with us when we lay the Bible down and go about our
daily living” (67).
Besides the general soteriological usage of the word with which everyone is
familiar, grace can also denote the particular acts of God whereby He grants
enablement for some service or authorization for a specific duty or mission (Rom.
12:3; 15:15-18; 1 Cor. 3:10). It is not without significance that the word grace
and its derivatives are used in the description of what we call "spiritual gifts."
We read in Romans 12:6: "We have different gifts [charismata], according to the
grace [charin] given us."
Finally, the word grace is used in a variety of ways in the course of Paul's
discussion of Christian stewardship (2 Cor. 8-9). It is used with reference to
the supernatural enablement bestowed by God, as a result of which one gives
despite poverty (2 Cor. 8:1,9). It refers to the ministry of giving (2 Cor. 8:6,
7, 19), the privilege of giving (2 Cor. 8:4) and even to the gift itself (1 Cor.
16:3).
So, how is all this relevant to the subject of divine election? It is relevant
in that it would seem that only the doctrine of unconditional election preserves
the integrity of divine grace. According to the notion of conditional election,
God graciously makes possible, but not certain, the election of all people by
restoring to each that power and freedom of will of which they had been deprived
by Adam’s fall into sin. Whether or not God elects any person is therefore
dependent on the way in which he or she makes use of this ability. By
establishing the condition for election as faith, God is thereby obligated to
elect all those who, by means of their now purportedly free wills, believe in
the gospel of Christ. But surely, then, election itself can be neither of grace
nor according to God’s good pleasure.
I suppose one might say that it was gracious of God to restore in all people
sufficient ability to believe and that it was gracious of God to impose the
condition of faith in Christ (by which one qualifies for election). But it is
certainly not possible to say that election is itself gracious. To choose men
because they believe is an obligation to which God is bound; it is a debt he
must pay.
If it would be unjust of God, having made faith the condition of election, not
to elect those who believe, then election is a matter of giving man his due.
Election would be the divine response to what a person deserves. He deserves
being chosen because by a free act of will he has fulfilled the condition
(faith) on which election was suspended
But grace is, by definition, treating a person without any regard whatsoever to
his or her merits or demerits. How can election be gracious if it is something
God must do because justice requires it? Election is gracious precisely because
it is the bestowal of life on those who deserve only death.
The same may be said of election as an act according to the divine “good
pleasure” (See Matt. 11:25-30; Rom. 9:11,16,18; Eph. 1:3-11; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). If
election is conditional, if it is an act required of God in response to man’s
free will faith, then it cannot be according to God’s “good pleasure.” Why?
Because it is impossible that God might have willed not to elect such a man. In
other words, if it is conditional, election cannot be a matter of God willing or
not willing the salvation of a man in accordance with his (that is, God’s)
desires. An election that occurs only and always in response to a fulfilled
condition is a matter of law, of debt, of obligation. If election is conditional
God cannot will either to elect or not to elect. If the condition is met, that
is to say, if there is faith, God must elect.
Of course, it is true that even in the Calvinistic understanding of election God
must save if a person believes in Christ. But there is an eternally significant
difference. According to Calvinism, the faith of a person in response to which
God saves is itself the gracious gift of God. Simply put, saving faith is the
effect, not the cause, of God’s sovereign good pleasure in election. Paul Jewett
explains:
“If those in the Reformed [Calvinistic] tradition insist on the ‘divine
condition’ of salvation, as obviously they do, why, it might be asked, do they
speak of ‘unconditional election’? The answer has been given that election is
not conditioned on any foreseen merit in the sinner – that is, faith is not the
condition but the gift of grace. The grace of salvation secures – if we might so
speak – the condition of salvation” (Paul K. Jewett, Election and Predestination
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], p. 112, n. 87).
Let me now apply all this to our hypothetical twin brothers, Jerry and Ed.
Arminians who believe in the doctrine of total moral depravity insist that
although both Jerry and Ed are by nature unable to come to Christ, the Holy
Spirit graciously restores in them the power they need to act in faith by their
own free will. I will forego making much of the fact that there is no clear and
unequivocal text of Scripture which affirms the idea, a point that I will take
up in more detail in a subsequent lesson. I will assume merely for the sake of
argument (but against Scripture, in my opinion), that it is true.
Our situation, then, is this. Both Jerry and Ed (like every other human being,
says the Arminian), have been endowed from on high with equal ability to believe
the gospel. Neither has an advantage over the other. If Jerry acts and improves
upon this power of will so as to repent and believe the gospel, but Ed does not,
to whom or to what do attribute the difference between them? It seems clear
enough to me that if Jerry avails himself of the opportunity, but Ed does not,
the reason or cause must be something in Jerry that is not in Ed. It cannot be
because of something the Holy Spirit graciously did in and for Jerry that he
refused to do in and for Ed. The Arminian insists that if God, according to his
sovereign good pleasure, does for one (Jerry) what he declines to do for another
(Ed), he is guilty of partiality and injustice. To restore a greater and more
effective power of will in Jerry than in Ed is unfair, says the Arminian.
Justice demands that God must do the same for both.
Therefore, the fact that Jerry believes and Ed does not can be explained only by
what Jerry is and does in himself, as over against his twin brother. That Jerry
should suddenly be sorrowful for his sin and repent can be due only to Jerry.
That Jerry should suddenly understand the gospel, humbly repudiate all reliance
upon self, and embrace by faith the redemptive merits of Jesus Christ can be due
only to Jerry. It cannot ultimately be because of God the Holy Spirit; otherwise
Ed and every other human being would repent and believe in like manner, since
they have received from God as much help as Jerry has.
It would appear that, if the Arminian scenario is correct, in answer to the
apostle’s question, “Who maketh thee to differ?” (1 Cor. 4:7a, KJV), Jerry can
justifiably (and with pride of heart?) say, “I did!” It will not do to say that
were it not for the Holy Spirit no one at all, neither Jerry nor Ed, would have
been able to believe in Christ. For if it is not the Holy Spirit who guarantees
and secures Jerry’s belief in Christ, he has eternal life because of what he,
not God, has done.
At best, the Arminian may say that the opportunity to be saved is of grace. At
best, he may insist that the possibility for Jerry and Ed to get to heaven is of
grace. But he simply cannot say that salvation itself is wholly of grace. In the
Arminian scheme, God has said all that he can say and has done all that he can
do once he has restored in all people an equal ability to believe. From that
point on, the reason one person believes and another does not is a human reason.
To that degree, salvation is not of the Lord, but of man, and we could with
sincerity no longer sing:
“Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder!
Ask, ‘Oh, why such love to me?’
Grace hath put me in the number
Of the Saviour’s family:
Hallelujah!
Thanks, eternal thanks, to Thee!”