Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Join the discipleship group

Romans 6:1 is the Litmus Test for Grace

In two previous posts (Grace 1 and Grace 2) I have tried to emphasize that grace is absolutely free.

The objection that is always raised when I write about grace this way is this: Won’t people take advantage of this kind of grace?

The answer to that is “Of course they will!”

But grace that comes with restrictions to avoid being abused is no longer grace.

Romans 6:1 and Grace

Romans 6:1Inevitably, whenever I speak or write about grace this way, someone objects that I am contradicting Paul who said in Romans 6:1 that we should not continue in sin so that grace may abound.

Whenever someone asks this question, I am always pleased, because it shows that they are finally beginning to understand grace.

In Romans 4–5, Paul has been writing about the radical, scandalous, outrageous grace that I have been presenting here as well. Note that Romans 6:1 is an objection to Paul’s teaching about grace. It is only because of what Paul has written that someone raises the objection that if what Paul is saying is true, why can’t people sin all they want?

Paul goes on to explain why people should not, but he never says they cannot. And nowhere does Paul say that if people continue to live in sin, they will come to the end of God’s grace, or will prove that they were never truly justified in the first place. No, Paul argues that if a person truly understands the love and grace of God, and what God has done for them in Jesus Christ, this knowledge will lead them to live free from sin, not to live in sin even more.

This is why I like to say that Romans 6:1 is actually the litmus test for anybody’s teaching on grace.

The Romans 6:1 Objection is the Natural Objection to Grace

If someone is teaching about the grace of God, and after they are done, nobody raises the objection that is raised in Romans 6:1, then the teaching on grace was not truly teaching grace.

A biblical explanation of grace will always lead people who have been paying attention to say, “But wait! If what you are saying is true, then why can’t I just go out and sin all I want?”

If you are teaching or writing about grace and you get this question, rejoice, for you have helped someone see the shocking, scandalous, and outrageous nature of God’s grace.

The Gospel According to ScriptureWant to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , ,

Advertisement

Outrageous Scandalous Grace – the only kind there is

Grace is the key to everything.

And I am not referring to the week-kneed, limp, powerless, feeble grace that you find in most Christian theology today, but the shocking, outrageous, scandalous, indiscriminate, senseless, irrational, unfair, irreligious, ridiculous, absurd, offensive, infinite grace which Jesus exhibited during His life.

scandalous grace

The only people who really object to this kind of grace are the religious people who think that their behavior merits them some sort of special privilege or position with God and are offended that the so-called “sinners” are put on equal footing with them before God. But that is exactly what God’s grace does.

By grace, God loves all, forgives all, and accepts all, with no conditions, no strings attached, no fine print, no qualifications, no limits, and no ongoing requirements.

The grace of God is so outlandish and foreign to every human way of thinking and living, I believe that it is absolutely impossible for any human being to place too much emphasis on grace.

But what is grace?

grace vs religionGrace is often defined as God’s unmerited favor, or, in everyday terminology, God giving us something good that we do not deserve.

Grace is different from mercy, which could be defined as God not giving us something bad that we do deserve.

I do not think that there is too much disagreement in many Christian circles on the definition of grace, and so I do not want to spend too much time trying to defend a specific definition of grace.

What we do see, however, is that certain groups try to limit, restrict, or modify grace so that it is not as shocking or scandalous as it first appears.

The Crucifixion was not a Condition of Grace

One way that many use to limit the extent and effectiveness of grace is to connect it with the crucifixion of Jesus. It is not uncommon to hear sermons or read books where it is claimed that it is only because Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world that God can now show grace toward people.

If Jesus had not died, we are told, then God could not have extended His grace toward sinners.

But once again, such an idea strips grace of all its meaning and power.

Grace, by definition, is unmerited.

There is nothing that can be done (or not done) to earn or merit or deserve grace. If God could not extend grace unless someone died (whether it was us or Jesus), then God’s grace is not grace at all, but is a transaction.

The extension of God’s grace toward humanity was not preconditioned upon the death of Jesus on the cross. Grace does not demand payment in any way, shape, or form. Grace is not the act of God paying the debt of sin by sacrificing His own Son on the cross as our substitute. Grace has always been extended by God simply on the basis of His love.

Grace would still be extended even if Jesus never died on the cross.

The death of Jesus on the cross was because of God’s grace; not the grounds for it.

It is this fundamental flaw in modern theology’s understanding of grace that has caused so much trouble in many other areas of theology as well. But once we see that God gives grace for no other reason than because God is gracious, it is only then that we begin to understand the true nature of grace.

So don’t limit God’s grace by thinking that God could only extend it by sacrificing Jesus to pay the debt of our sin. That’s not grace.

The Gospel According to ScriptureWant to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: , , , ,

Advertisement

What the New Testament Authors Really Cared About is Calvinism?

What the New Testament Authors Really Cared AboutIn exchanged for a review, Kregel sent me a review copy of What the New Testament Authors Really Cared About. I read and reviewed the companion volume on the Old Testament last year.

Overall, this volume was much better. It provides a decent survey of the New Testament. Each chapter focuses on a particular book of the New Testament and provides a basic overview of the book with some of the prominent themes within it.

However, as with the Old Testament companion, this volume shared some of the same oddities. For example, both volumes consider the books out of order as they are found in the Bible. They explain why they do this, but I think most readers will find it confusing.

Most seriously of all, however, this volume on the New Testament, like its Old Testament companion, emphasizes Calvinistic themes and ideas. This is especially the concepts that good works must follow and accompany faith in order for the faith to be considered genuine, the understanding of repentance as turning away from sin and as necessary for assurance and “final salvation,” of the Kingdom of God referring to God’s final salvation for the redeemed and punitive judgment for the wicked, and God’s punishment of Jesus for the sins of the whole world to satisfy His wrath.

While most of the contributors to this volume were somewhat neutral regarding Calvinistic interpretations, the chapters on The Letters of John and The Letter of James were the most blatant.

So my primary criticism of the Old Testament volume was that according to the book contributors, what the Old Testament authors really cared about was apparently Calvinism, I have the same criticism about this book.

If you are a Calvinist, you will find yourself agreeing wholeheartedly with the Calvinistic bent of each chapter. If you are not a Calvinist, you can still benefit from the other elements of this book, even though you will have to filter out much of the Calvinistic interpretations and themes.

If, however, you do not know what Calvinism is, and do not know if you are a Calvinist or not, do yourself a big favor and do not read this book. The impression you will get from the book is that the authors are simply teaching what Jesus, Paul, and John really thought and cared about, when in reality, what you will be getting is a strong Calvinistic interpretation of the New Testament.

God is Redeeming Books Bible & Theology Topics: , ,

Advertisement

“The Re-Justification of God” is now on iTunes, B&N, Google

I know that many of you have already purchased my newest eBook from Amazon, but if you don’t have Kindle (or the Kindle app for a different device), I am happy to announce that The Re-Justification of God is now available on the following platforms:

So if you haven’t bought The Re-Justification of God already, but want to get it for your Apple or Android device (or whatever else you have) feel free to get it from one of the platforms above.

And hey, if you have already bought and read the book, would you mind leaving a review of it on Amazon? Go here to leave a review. Even 2-3 sentences would work. Thanks!

God is Redeeming Books Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , , , ,

Advertisement

Understanding the Potter and the Clay in Romans 9

potter and the clayWestern theology has committed a terrible disservice to this imagery of a potter and clay by making it seem as if God is a deterministic puppet master up in heaven pulling the strings of people and nations down here on earth.

This is exactly the opposite of what Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul meant by using this terminology.

The Potter and the Clay in Jeremiah 18

In Jeremiah 18, for example, while God is equated with the potter, God calls upon Israel to turn from her wicked ways and obey His voice so that they, as the pot which God is fashioning, will not be marred (cf. Jer 18:8-11).

God calls upon Israel to come into conformity to the work of His hands. If they do not, they will become marred, and He will have to reform the clay again into another vessel (Jer 18:4). He does not destroy or discard the clay; He simply forms it into another pot which will be used for a different purpose.

A similar understanding is seen in Isaiah 54 and Romans 9.

The Potter and the Clay is not teaching Determinism

There is no deterministic message in the image of the potter and the clay in Isaiah 54, Jeremiah 18, or Romans 9. If we accept the deterministic perspective of these texts, just imagine for a moment what sort of God is being portrayed. H. H. Rowley sums it up best:

Neither Jeremiah nor Paul had in mind an aimless dilettante, working in a casual and haphazard way, turning out vessels according to the chance whim of the moment … To suppose that a crazy potter, who made vessels with no other thought than that he would afterwards knock them to pieces, is the type and figure of God, is supremely dishonoring to God. The vessel of dishonor which the potter makes is still something that he wants, and that has a definite use … The instruments of wrath … were what the New Testament calls ‘vessels of dishonor,’ serving God indeed, but with no exalted service. They were not puppets in His hand, compelled to do His will without moral responsibility for their deed, but chosen because He saw that the very iniquity of their heart would lead them to the course that He could use (Rowley, Doctrine of Election, p. 40-41)

potter and the clay

Neither Isaiah, nor Jeremiah, nor Paul had in mind a potter who purposefully created pots just so that He could smash them. No potter would do that, then or now. Instead, God is the wise potter who works with the clay to form useful tools. The vessels of “dishonor” are not vessels which are destroyed, but vessels which will be used in “ignoble” ways. They still serve important purposes and help with vital tasks, but they are not vessels of honor.

Typically, vessels of dishonor do end up being destroyed (which is not necessarily hell!), but this is not because the potter made them for such a purpose, but because unclean vessels, when they have served their purpose, are usually not useful for anything else.

potter and the clayAnd what makes one vessel clean or unclean? As H. H. Rowley pointed out above, God allows humans to determine what kind of vessel they will be, and then He uses those who have made themselves vessels of dishonor.

A careful reading of Romans 9:22 reveals this very point. W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says that the word “destruction” is used “metaphorically of men persistent in evil (Rom 9:22), where ‘fitted’ is in the middle voice, indicating that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction” (Vine’s Expository  Dictionary, 2:165)

None of this Relates to  Person’s Eternal Destiny

Again, none of this has anything to do with whether or not a person goes to heaven or hell after death. The way a vessel is used refers primarily to how God uses individuals, kings, and nations in this life. Marston and Forster add this:

The basic lump that forms a nation will either be built up or broken down by the Lord, depending on their own moral response. If a nation does repent and God builds them up, then it is for him alone to decide how the finished vessel will fit into his plan … God alone determines the special features / privileges / responsibilities of a particular nation (Forster & Marston, God’s Strategy, 74).

To read more on Romans 9, get my book The Re-Justification of God.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

Send this to a friend