Universal Grace and Grace Alone
Nathanael Szobody on Calvinist doctrine teaches that the doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (sola gratia ) and the doctrine of Universal Grace (universalis gratia) contradict each other. They say this because, since humans are saved by the grace of God alone, then it must follow that if God’s grace is for all, then all must be saved. Though clearly all are not saved.Their conclusion, then, is that grace must not be universal, it must only be for the elect. First we must say that Scripture advocates both doctrines and so they must both be believed, even if our reason is not satisfied on all points.
Secondly one may observe that scripture approaches doctrines from two perspectives; one is that of humans and the manner in which human nature interacts with God, and the second is the immutable nature of God and his eternal will for the fullness of time, revealed in Christ. These two perspectives are presented in various places in scripture for their respective pastoral purposes. The immutable will of God that all should be saved is revealed to us to impress upon our hearts the character of God which is love and to bring us to glorify Jesus’ death and resurrection as supremely sufficient for the salvation of all people, hence the term ‘second Adam’. Whereas the perspective of sola gratia is a teaching that is spoken to us in a position of those who have been saved and so it moves our hearts to glorify God and his son Jesus for his unilateral and unconditional gift of salvation to us apart from our merit. So sola gratia and gratia universalis find their proper exposition not in the grid of a systematic but when spoken appropriately to the heart.
Comments ( 35 )
Are we puppets on strings that God just moves around, some to heaven and some to hell? Or are we free beings, who make choices for our salvation or our eternal damnation?
There are problems with both these positions. With the first, God decides everything ahead of time, he decides who is saved and who is not, and humans play no part. But if this is true then the gospel is lost, because according to the gospel salvation is a gift (Rom 3:24). If God just predestines everything and we are his robots, then grace is not really free; it's predestined and we are obligated to be saved!
With the second position God's will has no power. If our salvation depends on our choice, then we could take credit for the fact that we are saved; and that's not the gospel either. The gospel is that God saves us while we were still lost and running from him!
So here's the key to understanding predestination: we can only explain it according to gospel--that is, gift. We are given passages like Ephesians 1 (I would encourage you to read it!) to encourage us in our faith, and to worship God for the free gift he has given us! When I give a gift to someone it is I who 'predestined' that this person should have a gift. This does not mean that I force it on them; they can refuse if they want to! It is the same with the gospel. God chooses us to receive his gift that he has prepare in Christ, the role of the human will is to choose not to harden our hearts against him but to willingly submit to his graciousness.
You said "This does not mean that I force it on them; they can refuse if they want to! It is the same with the gospel." - so how do you align this statement with Irresistable Grace?
The understanding that God predetermines the choices of men in order to effect his divine purpose is consistent and logical. However it seems to be more an attempt by man to resolve a mystery rather than an exposition of scripture; so I would refrain from endorsing it. I would say the same concerning Irresistible Grace ("Grace" in Greek is "xaris" which is the same word as "gift". To call a gift irresistible is to misunderstand the nature of a gift. We should guard against allowing our very limited understanding of how God's sovereignty works in time to contradict what is clearly revealed in the gospel--namely, that it is a gift).
Rather - that the more I grow in understanding of my God's Sovereignty the sweeter the gift and the more I savor it. Such a gift is "irresistable" in the sense that it is of such a magnitude of excellence greater than anything I could possibly concieve that once I become aware of it - it is virtually impossible for me (or anyone else for that manner) to refuse such a worthwhile thing.
Yet confession plays a very important role when coming to Christ. We confess because we believe (or have faith). Thus, confession is a result of our being saved. It is a response to God's grace and we are told to confess our sins continually, but it should not be confused with faith. Confession is a part of living out of obedience to Christ, but we can only live out of obedience to Christ (and not to the law) if we are covered by Christ's blood.
To explain 'irresistible grace' as the expression of personal piety in such a way is a very good use of the term; I would fully embrace it. Note: that "it is of such a magnitude of excellence greater than anything I could possibly conceive" is a truth to which, unfortunately, sin blinds many people. Thus, it's infinite worth does not necessitate its irresistibility.
Samuel,
It may be helpful to avoid figuring out the 'moment' when faith is given; it doesn't seem to be of much concern in scripture. When the apostle Paul speaks of the time when we were saved he points to baptism (Rom 6, Col 2). If one wants to speak of when one was saved, then they are speaking of when God gave them the gift. God makes it easy on us: he doesn't leave us to try to figure out the status of a heart before God at a given moment in time, trying to understand when God 'zaps' a soul into salvation; instead he gives us baptism. This is the cool thing about Grace; God gives it at physical places he has preordained so that in thinking on them, we may be sure of his gift. God's gifts always come through means. This puts the emphasis back on God's work and not on when we respond. It causes us to rely only on grace. Then when we read Ephesians 1 that talks about predestination "in Christ" we may be sure that it all applies to us; for we were baptized into Christ.
When you read Ephesians 2:8-10 and you see "it is the gift of God", what do you believe (in the Greek) that "it" is referring to - and why?
Whereas the doctrine of universal grace is the gospel proclaimed to all people, believers and non-believers alike, that God has graciously sent his son to die for the sin of the world, i.e. everyone.
And when you use the term "Salvation by Faith Alone" - may I rightfully interpret tyhat ast being the same as "Efficient Grace"?
It is sufficient in that nothing need or can be added to God's grace in Christ for our salvation by way of human effort; so it is only faith in the sufficient grace of God in Jesus that saves. It is efficient in that God's grace, extended in his promises in Christ can be trusted for salvation; it alone and always is efficient to save us from death when embraced in faith.
To speak of God's grace in Jesus as universal is to say that this grace in Christ (that is sufficient and efficient) is offered to all people. Not only that Christ's death and resurrection is capable of saving all (sufficient) but that it was accomplished for the purpose of saving all people--it is offered to all.
Those very terms Sufficient Grace and Efficient Grace are terms that Calvinists came up with to explain why Christ died "for all", yet not all are saved; the very issue I was addressing in this post. So I do not find much need for these terms unless we are simply making a point of the magnitude of God's grace.
Armineanism and Calvinism are just two poor attempts at explaining the salvation process. Armineans compromise the sovereignty of God while Calvinism compromises the Justice of God. Anyone wanna take me on :)
Let us not turn the things which God has given for the humble application to the heart into play things for the mind.
I think that we all agree that Armineanism does not take into account God's Sovereignty; however, God's Justice is completely compromised in the Calvinistic model. Rom 2.16 says that we shall be judged according to the gospel. Rom 3.26 states that God would not be just if He did not send Jesus Christ because there would be no choice for mankind. Rev 20.15 states that our judgement is whether or not we are in the "Book of Life". So, the basis of God's judgment is whether we are in the "Book of Life". If that is the basis, then the only way God could be just, is sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross as the propitiatory sacrifice to give us a choice between life and death. Thus we are held responsible on what we do with the gospel. Therefore, if the judgment of God is based on whether or not we have received the gospel, it would be entirely unjust to hold us responsible for a choice we could not make as stated in Calvinism.
I do agree that if any be saved, in order to maintain His Justice while demonstrating His Grace the sacrifice of Christ be necessary. But not necessary in the sense that we be provided a choice, necessary in the sense that it would be unjust for God to save anyone without due recompense for the sin that separated them from Him.
So then, we agree "If that is the basis, then the only way God could be just, is sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross as the propitiatory sacrifice" - but I would submit that you have failed to demonstrate how "to give us a choice between life and death" is part of the requirement.
I would agree with this statement wholeheartedly - but I do not believe that either the true Arminean - nor the true Calvinist intend it to be a "play thing for the mind" and hope that you do not believe it is so for me.
I share the sentiments of Jonathan Edwards who said in the Preface to his great book on THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL, "I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught."
Yet, as I study God's word, understanding the Doctrines of Grace are a great and mighty benifit to me - (See: Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism -http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/105/) not "merely a play thing for the mind".
Please do not so charge us as approaching the topic thus - for I am in blood earnest in seeking to understand the Doctrines of Grace and in grasping how you view them.
If you choose wisely, and I choose poorly - does that demonstrate your salvation rest squarely on the fact that you are wiser and I more foolish? Such that wise and\or educated men have an advantage over the foolish and\or uneducated?
And again, how do you propose to demonstrate that the Justice of God depends on this choice? The choice seems to me to have little to do with the actual compromising or upholding the Justice of God - while it might have everything to do with how God goes about dispensing that Justice.
A simple "yes" or "no" will allow me to contine.
It seems to me that the basis for being cast into the lake of fire is when someone is not found written in the Book of Life.
Am I wrong?
1. A judicial decision given by the Triune God, Condemned or Justified - the Sentencing.
2. The punishment applied upon being condemned by the Triune God - the execution of Judgement.
I have been working on the assumption that we are using the first. But perhaps you have been using the second?
Allow me to lay out my understanding of this text then - the Judgement Before the Great White Throne. We are shown the court of God with Jesus sitting as Judge (John 5:22-27). There is absolutely no hiding from this throne. No one can escape the judgment that it represents. It is demonstrated that all men what had died are gathered into this court. Records of deeds are brought out and opened, to include a record of those who have been claimed by Christ. All of these people are then judged "according to what they had done" (v12c). Here, we use the term judge in the first sense, a judicial decision - all will be sentenced.
I would clarify at this point that I believe ALL will appear before this throne, while I am cognizant that many - even most - Bible scholars believe that Christians will never appear before this throne - but will stand before another, the judgement seat of Christ.
I believe that as Christ goes about sentencing here, both the Christian and the Non-Christian will find that based on his own works, he stands condemned (Romans 3:9-20, Romans 3:23). Such that all are condemned and God's justice will require satisfaction for each and every one, Christian or Non-Christian.
So then, the sentencing is complete, and we move into the execution of the judgement in verses 14-15. At this point, the court records are again reviewed, and it is determined that those whose names are in the book of life have already satisfied the courts judgements through the person and work of Jesus Christ imputed to them - however, those who are not in the book of life are required to satisfy God's Justice by being "thrown into the lake of fire".
As such, the basis for being thrown into the lake of fire is that man's sin against a Holy God - not his lack of being written in the book of life. The book of life is no basis for Judgement - neither the sentencing nor the execution - it is a court reference.
In the same way, the basis for a man being condemned to life in prison is the man's actions. The fact that he is actually dragged off to said prison doesn't find it's basis in court recorder writing it in the transcript - the transcript is simply a reference.
I perceive that you are perhaps using the word formality in the sense of something done merely or mainly for form's sake; a requirement of custom or etiquette. In this sense I would affirm that final judgment is not a "formality" - as I do not see any cause to believe that God ordains anything merely for form's sake - rather He uses form to effect His purpose.
As a side note, I believe many who do not hold a Calvinistic understanding would attempt to play the two off against each other. Such that they would claim that if it really is the place wherein man is held responsible of his actions then it can not be a formality in the second sense. Then they would go on to propose that if God did indeed know, to the detail, exactly how the Day of Judgment would play out - prior to His creation of the world - then it must indeed be a formality in the second sense.
I can sense here two extremes - the "Armenian" left and the "hyper-Calvinistic" right. The Doctrines of Grace, as I understand and subscribe to them, do not allow conflict between these two.
A thorough understanding of God's sovereignty requires a biblically driven acknowledgement that He does indeed know what will and has happened, and has so ordered history, present, and future such that His purpose (namely, that of Glorifying Himself) will be realized.
A thorough understanding of Man's responsibility requires a biblically driven acknowledgement that man does indeed take full responsibility for his own actions, that man is finite and can only imperfectly know the past, struggles with present, and is virtually blind to the future.
True Calvinism would teach (IMHO) not that man's responsibility is in contention with God's sovereignty (within the bounds of our current discourse) but that the two work together with such a unity of purpose (that purpose being such as to Glorify God) that we, whom you call Calvinists, can say with great passion that both are true, fully taught in scripture, and that they do not contradict each other.
To this end, I can look at the Day of Judgment and make the following observations:
As such, God will use this formality (in the first sense) as a means to reveal to all mankind, powers, principalities, etc. what He already knows from before time. However, since we will be acquiring new knowledge via this form, from our perspective it will be a "new" thing. Hence, we have truth and experience meeting. Truth being God's foreknowledge and predestination of all things, experience being the revelation of that truth to us. Therefore, experience being closest to us, we will have a tendency to approach the truth through expression of our experience - which doesn't negate the truth, but allows for the possibility of mishandling that truth.
To wit, we speak of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. That is our experience, and thus the terminology we use to express our experience of a truth. However, the greater truth is that the sun neither "rises" nor "sets". The earth spins such that the sun "appears" to rise, set, and move through the sky from our experience of it, yet in all actuality - we are the ones moving in reference to the sun which a relatively fixed point.
Famous quote: "Choose you this day whom you will serve...."
It would seem to me this statement and others like it throughout Scripture that man has a responsibility to respond to God.
Does he not?
I would also agree that the majority of people get to this point and do not or can not see how to move past it.
Yet, I affirm Christ's statements, as well as the Apostle Pauls clear teaching that God is sovereign over the choice while man os responsible for the choice - and I no longer see a need for the two to be in conflict.
Romans 9:18 - So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
To which Paul knows you will raise the objection found in verse 19: You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" or - to put it another way "If God predestined my election, then I don't get how He can hold me responsible for my choices, so I conisder God to be unjust if this be the way it works out". Which brings us full circle back to Romans 9:14 - 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Perhaps while I'm in Chicago we can make a few moments to discuss this in person? I have yet to articulate in writing the connection between the two such that it isn't a problem for me - although I can, given time, articulate it verbally.
I'm sure that isn't a satisfactory answer, and I intend very shortly to document my position on my wiki, but it is the best I can do today.
I also agree that Paul does not articulate either here in Romans 9, nor anywhwere else, how to bring these two teachings into harmony - here in Romans 9 he effectively stops short and throws it back into the readers face that they need to "learn thier place" - if I may paraphrase Romans 9:20.
I'm very eager to share my thoughts with you though, as I percieve you might ask questions and challenge my position in ways that I haven't yet considered. In such a way you will sharpen me, either by forcing me to rethink my convictions or by helping me to find ways to better articulate them.