Most Christian theologies or systems of doctrine would like to be known for taking scripture at its word, but clearly not all of them can be right. In an attempt to compare competing views, it is often useful to focus on one issue (or one issue at a time) and see how it plays out in each. Of the most immediate importance and instructional value is the doctrine of justification (how we are saved) and its practical application.
Scripture teaches that God loves the world and everyone in it. It also teaches that we cannot save ourselves, but that God in his mercy has saved us despite our efforts and intentions. It would seem that these are both merely stating the obvious ... until we ask the one question that causes so many to abandon the Gospel: If grace is universal and we are saved by grace alone as a free gift, why isn't everyone saved? It is at this point that what the Bible teaches has sometimes been called a single-sided coin - The statements are true, but logical conclusions are not.
To begin, consider a few passages from scripture:
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Here we are not only told that God loved the world, Jesus goes on to say that "whoever believes" will not be condemned but saved. That grace is given freely to all who would have it -- to all who believe.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15 - "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." Let's hear that again: "And he died for all, that those who live ..." Paul makes it clear that, though Christ died for all, not all lived. Grace is universal: Eternal life is not.
Romans 5:18 - Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." In a sense this passage really forces the issue. Those on the fence, as well as those fallen off either side, would all readily agree that Adam's fall brought condemnation to each and every human that ever lived (except Jesus, of course). How then can anyone justify the assertion that the bringing of life to "all men" refers only to a subset of humans?
1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." In this passage, John specifically refers to the elect as distinct from "the world," and he clearly states that Jesus' atonement was not limited to "our sins" but included the sins of "the whole world."
Scripture seems pretty clear on this point - God's grace is offered freely to all men. His grace is universal - Christ died for the sins of the whole world. The Christian, the pastor, and the evangelist can say to every single person, "Christ died for you."
Some climb off on the Calvinist side of the fence, declaring their conviction that all doesn't really mean all, and "the whole world" doesn't include everyone. Instead, they adopt the teaching more formally known as "particular atonement" (the P in TULIP), in which Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, denying universal grace.
Calvinists frequently cite Romans 9 to support their teaching of particular atonement. While this seems to make sense on the surface, a deeper look at the passages in context tells a more complex story.
If someone were to summarize Romans 9 in one sentence, it might go like this: Israel may be Abraham's biological children, but the REAL children of God are those who believe and trust solely in Jesus Christ.
Imagine a father making his will. He has three sons, the first two biological, and the third adopted. The oldest, despite the father's constant and persevering attempts to reach him with love and affection, has disowned his father, and they have been estranged for many years. The father leaves his estate to his younger two sons, one biological and one adopted, and leaves nothing to the one who has rejected a relationship with his father these many years. Does the father not have that right? Could you blame him?
If we asked why the estranged son didn't inherit, few people would blame it on the father. The child estranged themselves - they ought to expect nothing.
On the other hand, can the younger two take credit for their inheritance? The father could have easily left his estate to a friend, a charity, even a puppy. The father is under no obligation to include any of his children in his will, but he does so, not because they have earned it in some way, but out of a deep and abiding love he has had for his sons since they arrived, tiny and helpless.
So it is with God. As illogical as it might seem, if we don't inherit eternal life it is because we have estranged ourselves from God due to our lack of faith, and if we do, it is purely out of God's love and mercy and not because we have done anything to deserve it. If we are condemned, it is because of a unilateral estrangement on our part, and if we are saved, it is thanks only to a unilateral love and mercy on God's part. Rather than denying universal grace (or grace alone), Romans 9 shows how both are true and necessary.
Rather than turn to Calvinism, others climb off on the synergistic side of the fence, reasoning that if one is saved and another is damned, justice dictates that there must be some difference between the two by which one merited, accessed, or obtained grace and mercy and the other did not. Rather than discarding universal grace, they instead discard grace alone, turning faith into a human work. Among the synergists you will find both Catholics and so-called "American Evangelicals" - the Council of Trent alongside the Four Spiritual Laws. However, if universal grace is undeniable, grace alone is even more so.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Here Paul says that it is by grace, but lest anyone misunderstand, he goes even further. He says that we were dead (and therefore helpless to do anything for ourselves), and then we were "made alive" -- a specifically passive role. Then, lest we still cling to our egos, he emphasizes that this is not something for which we can take any credit. It is not of ourselves.
Romans 3:21-28 - "But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short if the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ... Where then is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. In the same breath Paul again makes clear both universal grace and grace alone, and then makes a point of saying that faith is not a work of the law either. Especially when considered alongside Hebrews 12:2, which asserts that it is not us but Jesus who creates and perfects our faith, we can only conclude that faith cannot be something for which we can take credit or by which we bring ourselves into the kingdom.
Romans 11:5-6 - "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." Here Paul states what should be obvious: If it is by works, it cannot be by grace. If we mix even a drop of Law into the Gospel we have hopelessly polluted it, because then grace is no longer grace and Christ's work on the cross is declared insufficient.
Galatians 2:15-3:14 - "I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Paul says those who think observing the law gets them anywhere are foolish, and does not even leave room for us to claim cooperation in our salvation farther down the road. This book is perhaps Paul's most emphatic denunciation of synergism, where he later goes on to say of those who would demand that Christians be circumcised that he wishes they would go the whole way and cut it all off!
Scripture also seems pretty clear on this point. We are saved by grace alone. Christ died for us while we were still sinners, and, while we were still his enemies, reconciled us to God. This reconciliation is a gift, given as to a corpse, for which the corpse can take no credit. There is no work, no action, no step we can take to obtain that for ourselves.
Walther speaks eloquently to this error. "However, people imagine that, after Christ has done His share, man must still do his, and man is not reconciled to God until both efforts meet. The sects picture reconciliation as consisting in this, that the Savior made God willing to save men, provided men would be willing on their part to be reconciled. But that is the reverse of the Gospel. God is reconciled. ... (L&G, p 136).
In another place, Walther writes, "By ascribing to man some share in his own salvation, we rob Christ of all His glory. God has created us without our cooperation, and He wants to save us the same way. We are to thank Him for having created us with a hope of life everlasting. Even so He alone wants to save us. Woe to him who says that he must contribute something towards his own salvation! He deprives Christ of His entire merit. For Jesus is called the Savior, not a helper towards salvation, such as preachers are. Jesus has achieved our entire salvation. (L&G p 40)"
"Faith is demanded of us, not in order that there might be at least some little work that we are to do, as otherwise there would be no difference between those who go to hell and those who go to heaven. No; righteousness is of faith in order that it may be of grace. Both statements are identical. When I say: 'A person becomes righteous in the sight of God by faith,' I mean to say: 'He becomes righteous gratuitously, by grace, by God's making righteousness a gift to him.' Nothing is demanded of the person; he is only told: 'Stretch out your hand, and you have it.' Just that is what faith is -- reaching out the hand. (L&G p 79)"
"Moreover, in the postils and devotional writings of all modern theologians you may find the doctrine that man is made righteous in the sight of God and saved by faith. But by faith they understand nothing but what man himself achieves and produces. Their faith is a product of human energy and resolution. Such teaching, however, subverts the entire Gospel. ... What God's Word really means when it says that man is justified and saved by faith alone is nothing else than this: Man is not saved by his own acts, but solely by the doing and dying of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the whole world. Over against this teaching modern theologians assert that in the salvation of man two kinds of activity must be noted: in the first place, there is something that God must do. His part is the most difficult, for He must accomplish the task of redeeming men. But in the second place, something is required that man must do ... he has to believe. This teaching overthrows the Gospel completely. ... Faith is not an achievement of man. ... Believing the Gospel would be, in truth, and immeasurably great and difficult task for us if God were not to accomplish it in us. (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, pgs 268-270)"
In another place, Walther writes, "By ascribing to man some share in his own salvation, we rob Christ of all His glory. God has created us without our cooperation, and He wants to save us the same way. We are to thank Him for having created us with a hope of life everlasting. Even so He alone wants to save us. Woe to him who says that he must contribute something towards his own salvation! He deprives Christ of His entire merit. For Jesus is called the Savior, not a helper towards salvation, such as preachers are. Jesus has achieved our entire salvation. (L&G p 40)"
"Faith is demanded of us, not in order that there might be at least some little work that we are to do, as otherwise there would be no difference between those who go to hell and those who go to heaven. No; righteousness is of faith in order that it may be of grace. Both statements are identical. When I say: 'A person becomes righteous in the sight of God by faith,' I mean to say: 'He becomes righteous gratuitously, by grace, by God's making righteousness a gift to him.' Nothing is demanded of the person; he is only told: 'Stretch out your hand, and you have it.' Just that is what faith is -- reaching out the hand. (L&G p 79)"
"Moreover, in the postils and devotional writings of all modern theologians you may find the doctrine that man is made righteous in the sight of God and saved by faith. But by faith they understand nothing but what man himself achieves and produces. Their faith is a product of human energy and resolution. Such teaching, however, subverts the entire Gospel. ... What God's Word really means when it says that man is justified and saved by faith alone is nothing else than this: Man is not saved by his own acts, but solely by the doing and dying of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the whole world. Over against this teaching modern theologians assert that in the salvation of man two kinds of activity must be noted: in the first place, there is something that God must do. His part is the most difficult, for He must accomplish the task of redeeming men. But in the second place, something is required that man must do ... he has to believe. This teaching overthrows the Gospel completely. ... Faith is not an achievement of man. ... Believing the Gospel would be, in truth, and immeasurably great and difficult task for us if God were not to accomplish it in us. (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, pgs 268-270)"
Holding both truths - grace alone and universal grace - in the face of this question is a difficult position to take. Standing on the word of God in this case isn't just sitting on the fence, it's sitting on a picket fence. It makes for uncomfortable seating, to be sure, but if we are really to trust in God's word over human reason, that is where we must stay, pointy ends and all. This ends up being a stumbling block (1Cor. 1:23) and a rock of offense (Rom. 9:32-33), and it is the point at which most Christians part company with the word of God. Sadly, whichever side of the fence they fall on, in the end, all that matters is that they have fallen. In the final analysis, neither Calvinists nor synergists are left standing on the word of God.
How, then, can someone address this simple question of how to reconcile these two scriptural teachings with the fact that some will not be saved? Perhaps we can't. Not only do we not have perfect understanding (1 Cor. 13:12), even perfect understanding might well surpass human reason. As it is, the best we can do is to lay out what scripture says, interpret it on its own terms, and apply it to the best of our ability.
Numerous passages testify to God's love for all the world, though it often goes unrequited, and to the fact that we can do nothing to save ourselves. It requires no cherry-picking of passages or out-of-context proof-texting to support the notions of universal grace or grace alone. So, along with Paul we must confess that there is no difference. All are equally helpless in their sins, and all are equally atoned-for.
As soon as we start passing judgment on God's word, we have replaced the living God with the idol of our own reason. It may be uncomfortable, but in the end, the only secure place to stand is on the word of God.
2 Timothy 3:14-4:5
No comments:
Post a Comment