One way that some people limit grace is when they try to differentiate between “cheap grace” and “costly grace,” or start trying to limit the application of God’s grace by using theological terms like “prevenient grace” or “efficacious grace.”
The truth is that grace ceases to be grace whenever we seek to modify or limit its application, extent, or effectiveness. You cannot cheapen grace; but you can misunderstand it.
Similarly, grace is always costly to the one who extends it, but absolutely free to the one who receives it. There is no other kind of grace.
If one must ask for it, work to deserve it, obey to keep it, or live in a way that proves they are worthy of it, then it is not grace. Grace is extended freely to all, with no strings attached before, during, or after the reception of grace.
Since we can do nothing to earn grace, we can do nothing to lose it.
Grace, when it is truly given, expects nothing in return and demands nothing by way of thanks.
Below, as only he can say such thigns, are some quotes from Robert Farrar Capon’s excellent book about grace, The Mystery of Christ … & Why We Don’t Get It. (If you haven’t read this book, you need to.)
… the mysterious, reconciling grace that was revealed in Jesus is not something that got its act in gear for the first time in Jesus; rather, it is a feature of the very constitution of the universe—a feature that was there all along, for everybody and everything.
[Our] promises to God … are not capable of getting us either accepted by God or damned by God. Acceptance, according to the Gospel, is a free gift bestowed on a world full of four flushers. And it’s given to them despite their four flushing, right in the midst of their four flushing. It is not a reward for hotshot behavior in the promise-keeping department. And damnation is not a punishment for breaking promises to God—or even for breaking the commandments of God himself; it’s a consequence of stupidly throwing away the free gift of acceptance.
God’s love and forgiveness toward us knows no bounds. He loves us completely, infinitely, and without restriction. It is extravagant, outrageous grace which shocks all sense of propriety. God is shameless in His love for us, so that even when we say and do things that would chase off any human being, God sticks with us and by us.
As soon as we seek to limit God’s grace or restrict to a holy few, we have stopped believing in grace, and have plunged headlong into the hell of religion. Grace is free! Absolutely free.
Grace has no limits, borders, restrictions, or conditions. Grace is freely given and freely received, and as such, can never be rescinded or revoked.
But the Galatians fell from grace by submitting to circumcision. Doesn’t this mean that there is something we can do to lose grace?
‘Fallen from Grace’ does not mean the same in the KJV as we mean it these days. Nowadays we think of it as fallen out of favour with someone, become persona non grata. But all it means is that if you submit to the Law – in your example, circumcision – you have fallen from the higher state of ‘Grace’ , to the lower state of being under Law again. It’s like saying you’ve ‘come down in the world’. It’s nothing a bit of repentance won’t cure!
I dont think so because grace had nothing to do with them and everything to do with God. Probably best thought as they turned from grace and began earning or trying to earn grace. They put themselves into this equation when really it was grace plus nothing.
…and having done this they lost grace?
Yes and no. Gods grace is/was unchanged. They chose something other than Gods grace. Kind of like someone can an extend a free gift but you chose to take it or not. Likewise you chose to keep it or not. If you set it down it is still always there for you to pick it up again. This does not apply to salvation. Probably poorly explained but how I see this.
Yes. But it is the premise of the blog that you can not do anything to lose grace. I am saying that you can lose grace if you fail to remain within the covenant of grace established by Messiah Jesus. The Galatians were going back to the old Mosaic covenant by submitting to circumcision and as result fell from the grace of Messiah Jesus.
AMEN!
Jeremy,
When I get on here and comment, it is often regarding the nature and role of ‘faith as the basis for relationship’.
This post is another where I think your position is confused and confusing.
Grace is a gift, certainly, but it is conveyed and enjoyed on the basis of faith. The gift is extended to, and enjoyed by, those who trust our Dad. If we trust God, we are in relationship to him through Jesus, and we have access to grace.
I don’t know (you can point me in the right direction) exactly how you define grace. Certainly it is a gift, but more particularly (I think), it is the power of God to enable us to walk with him and enjoy him.
I agree that God does not take away grace, because grace is through Jesus. I do see that we can loose out on grace if we depart from God (which we can certainly do). Our basic stance in life can be one of trusting in God (in which case we enjoy in all things related to Jesus), or in trusting in ourselves (in which case we miss out on all things related to Jesus). We can choose to trust God, or not, and we can change that position over time.
Grace is always there, always free, and always available in Jesus. Given the choice of trusting in your own resources and wisdom, or God’s, I’d always recommend trusting God…
well expressed
DanH,
I am not exactly sure what you are disagreeing with… I suppose I could be clearer on my definition of grace, but as I read over your comment, I find little in it that I would state differently.
Thanks for replying Jeremy. My statements were in response to things like this:
“Grace is extended freely to all, with no strings attached before, during, or after the reception of grace.
Since we can do nothing to earn grace, we can do nothing to lose it.”
Without the clear context of a trusting relationship, I don’t know what you mean. Grace is extended freely, but it is rejectable. There are no strings attached – no tit-for-tat do this and I’ll give you that, but there has to be a trusting relationship for it to be available. You can’t earn it, but you can miss out on it or reject it.
What I guess I don’t hear you saying clearly, is that for any of what God is doing to make sense, we have to understand it in the context of a trusting relationship.
Not that we believe some certain list of things (how do we know we know everything we’re supposed to know?), or do some certain list of things (how do we know that we’ve done (or not done) everything correctly?), but that we look at God and say, ‘I don’t understand much, but I know that you are and that you love me. What’s next?’
Ah, I see. I suppose in my mind, there is grace that justifies and grace that sanctifies. They are both the same “grace” from God, but they accomplish different things. The grace that justifies is absolutely free, and cannot be lost. The grace that sanctifies, however, can be rejected and stifled. It does not automatically lead to sanctification, but is energized by our ongoing faith.
This the way I currently understand it, but even as I write this, I recognize that what I am writing is from a belief system I held about a decade ago, and maybe I need to revisit some of those beliefs again.
According to the blog grace has no conditions. But what then do we make of 1 Peter 5.5 ‘God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble’. If God’s grace is unconditional why doesnt God give his grace unconditionally to the proud? Why does he resist the proud? Why does he make a distinction between the humble and the proud?
Sound the alarm! Call the authorities. Check the lexicon. Where’s Clinton’s Commentary when you need it?
You know there will be a reply —and you’d never guess it in a month of Sunday’s.
Good question.
Brian,
To understand what Peter is saying, we first need to understand what he is not saying.
Do you honestly think he is saying that grace is only given to the humble? In other words, “in order to receive the grace of God, we must become humble”? If so, who of us can receive grace!?
Make that a year of Sundays.
Brian, Peter is not saying what he is saying. Proceed from there.
Jeremy.
It is clear that there is a grace from God which is unconditional. God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son….’ God loved the world unconditionally and gave Jesus. But also from Scripture there appears to a grace that is conditional e.g 1 Pet 5.5. Your blog seems to be saying that grace is inherently unconditional; if there are conditions then it is not grace. I think Scripture challenges this idea. Of course 1 Peter 5.6 goes on to say ‘humble your self under the almighty hand of God’. Now this grace to humble is surely unconditional and is given to the proud not because they are good but because they are bad. But in order for the proud to receive what Peter calls grace they must respond to this humbling. Clearly Peter did not believe that grace is inherently unconditional so why should we?
The little bout of confusion portrayed above shows once more the danger of looking at single verses and not within the whole context and even wider. Peter is writing about the integrity of the elders and also the relationship between and among the younger men (in Hebrew culture 40 years and younger). Utley concludes that Peter then uses the term “grace” in its OT sense of “favor.”
I checked OT usage of a number of versions [the Tanakh (1917),1933 Afrikaans version and Holmans Christian Standard BIble] and they all seem to use favor, and not grace like the KJV.
All this made me think, Jeremy, is the grace that sanctifies according to your view not better served by the OT meaning of favor? It would certainly alleviate the confusion (and then I hasten to add that I don’t think it is artificial manipulation to suit what you are trying to convey). Pride will not rob you of the grace of justification, but it will most certainly have consequences (Pro 3:34; James 4:6 – which also speaks of greater grace). The word ‘charis’ used by both Peter and James includes being defined by Strong as graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): – acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).
Hi Gerrie
The word that Peter uses is of course just charis. Can we really say that charis has an old testament and a new testament meaning? If Peter really saw a distinction he does not make it clear. In translating charis as favour in 1 Pet 5.5 arent we just forcing our systematic theology onto the text. We conclude that ‘grace’ is unconditional then we find that Peter is talking about a charis that is conditional so then we conclude that he cant be talking about grace so translate charis as favour. But we only do so because of our premise about grace. I am arguing that 1 Peter 5.5 undermines the premise that grace is inherently unconditional. This is not to say that grace is never unconditional just that sometimes in comes with conditions e.g. ‘Repent and…be baptized….for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’. Here we have the grace of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit but both are conditional on repentance and submission to baptism.
Gerrie,
Interesting. You may be on to something here. I like the direction you are taking this. Thanks!
Hello Brian. I agree with the principle your comment undergirds, viz. that we can run the danger of forcing our theology into the text. This is a lesson I have learned over the past ten tears especially and I would never want to do that. In my doctoral thesis I came to this reality regarding the biblical view of the human soul, for example. Here I found that the word nephesh, which is often translated soul, is also translated in the KJV by some 25 other words, including death. Consequently I habitually consult a number of Bible versions to try as best I can to understand what the original recipients would have understood. This is what I did here as well. But, because I search the truth and not just a comfortable answer, I will not stop here and continue to study the topic/question at hand.
I googled ‘unconditional grace’ and found an article by John Piper entitled ‘Unmeritted, conditional grace’. Isnt this the point that although grace is always unmeritted (we do nothing to earn it) it is sometimes conditional, i.e we must do something to be in line for it. Thus for instance we must humble ourselves under God’s hand to receive grace but we are not earning or meritting grace by doing this. You seem to be saying that if we need do something to be in line for God’s charis then this is his favour. Why is favour different from grace. Maybe it because grace comes with a lot of theological baggage that you make the distinction.
No Brian, I’m just trying to show the importance for context to be carefully considered in each individual case. Wrong interpretation in one instance may give easy answers (e.g. trichotomy), but it inevitably leads to problems elsewhere.
OK, but what is the difference between grace and favour?
Hi Brian, I am once more confronted by the reality that we (the Westerners) miss so much because we were not raised in the languages and culture of biblical times. I quickly scanned a few word studies and they show that there are varying nuances of meaning involved in the word charis. If I can try to give a simple answer at this time , I would say I understand the grace of God to be His loving action of justification in/through Christ. This is the unconditional grace. Coming to favour, however, it is the holy influence God has on the believer’s life through Christ – assisting and strengthening the humble to bear their troubles; as well as the effect on their lives in interpersonal relations, giving them care in their hearts for others, and different spiritual gifts that cause the ecclesia to function together (Mounce). In the process these would find ‘favour’ (value, respect, etc.) in the eyes of others – see Acts 2:47, for example.
It makes sense, seeing that the proud and arrogant would hardly have that, if at all.
My problem with your reply is that you define what grace is and what favour is and then you decide that ‘charis’ in 1 Peter 5.5 should be translated favour rather than grace. Arent you just imposing a preconceived theology onto the translation? (I know you deny this!!) If, however, we just straightforwardly accept that charis means grace then we get our understanding of God’s grace changed. I maintain that ‘God giving grace to the humble’ is a principle found throughout the Bible. On the day of Pentecost in order to receive the Holy Spirit, Peter said ‘Repent and be baptised’. In repentance and baptism we are humbling ourselves under the hand of God so that we might receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thus justification (coming into God’s family) is also contingent upon humbling ourselves (but always of course by Gods grace and not by our own effort).
Brian, I appreciate your concerns. My problem again with what you say is that just accepting this or that is exactly one of the contributing factors to the doctrinal chaos in the institutional church at large. I am not stating that I have all ducks in a row on the grace/favour issue. What is so, is that Jeremy’s post has given me something to think about and pursue deeper, even if I have to try and consult a variety of Hebrew and Greek scholars the real persons, not books, although I will dig into books as well.
And as I pointed out, the various Bible versions have different bias towards the two words in their translations. If we use the one word, grace, only, we are in trouble, because then we fall into the conditional/unconditional confusion. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I won’t be happy with a comfortable answer in the end, I want the truth as it would have been understood by the original recipients, no less.
As an afterthought Brian, 1 Pe 5:5 quotes Pro 3:34. The Strongs Dictionary states the following in this regard: chên
khane
From H2603; graciousness, that is, subjectively (kindness, favor) or objectively (beauty): – favour, grace (-ious), pleasant, precious, [well-] favoured.
My concern about the blog is the way Jeremy talks about grace as a monolithic concept, and rejects any idea of different kinds of grace. Now there is grace given to all that makes the rain to fall on all irrespective of their righteousness. This must be unconditional. Then there is a grace that seeks the lost. Now if you are a calvinist this is conditional on the individual’s election but if you are Arminian it is given to all and is unconditional. Then there is the grace of justification, i.e coming into God’s family. But this is conditional on the the individual accepting this grace, humbling himself and submitting to baptism. Baptism is ultimately equivalent to repentance; it is where we die to our old life and are raised to a new one. If we talk about grace as a monolithic concept we end up saying it is always unconditional which I think is very confusing. If it was always unconditional everybody would be saved.
Brian,
Though I would hold to unconditional grace (in a way), I do not believe in unconditional eternal life. Eternal life is free, of course, but it must be freely received. Eternal life isn’t just by grace alone; eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I expect therefore that any differences we have are relatively small. You seem to be separating out grace and eternal life into two distinct categories, one unconditional the other conditional. But others would not do this so we might end up at cross purposes. Thus we could say that to receive the grace of eternal we must humble ourselves under the almighty hand of God. But another might say that first we receive the grace of God (unconditionally) which then allows us to fulfil the conditions which lead to eternal life. If you hold to the second position I can see you might have a problem with idea that to receive God’s grace we must humble ourselves. Having said this I dont think that Bible distinguishes grace and eternal life in this way given that the charisma of God is eternal life (Rom 6.23). If I can be content that charisma is conditional (and how can a gift graciously given be conditional?) I am also happy that charis is sometimes conditional.
Personally I think the blog has stimulated valuable interest in the topic and affords the sharing of understanding to get to the truth (even if you and I would disagree with Jeremy). What I have gained from it is an accentuation of the non negotiability of context. Every word study I’ve looked at discusses or lists various nuances (I looked up Thayer, Mounce, Strong, Vine, Zodhiates, Utley, Vincent, Robertson). My reference above to Pro 3:34 and the meanings given by just Strong as example, strengthens the contextual need, as does your reference to Calvinist vs Armenian views. I am searching for the biblical truth and not the “truths” of whatever -ism. Therefore I have hardly begun to study the topic.
I too am interested in biblical truth and not in isms.I am also not at all interested in theology that arises in reaction against isms. But it is so hard not to be influenced by isms, and even our careful word study might be influenced by them. When we come across a verse that confirms our personal ism (we may not even be aware that we have this ism) we may just take it at face value. But when we come across a verse that challenges our ism we find a host of reasons (maybe a word study) for rejecting this verse. We accept the evidence that confirms our preconceived beliefs and reject the evidence that contradicts them. This process is well known to psychologists. Rom 2.7 is a good example of this effect. ”(God renders) eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory honour and immortality’ For the reformers this verse posed a problem since here in the book of Romans that should be all about faith and not works as the basis for salvation we find a verse that says that those who do good will gain eternal life. They solved the problem by saying that this group is hypothetical, and that God would give them eternal life if they existed but they don’t so he cant. This is a highly unsatisfactory exegesis in my opinion.
From what you say theology will always be a bit fuzzy around the edges and we are deceived if we think that the can derive the absolute TRUTH from the Bible. Much of the disagreement is about the fuzz at the edges. I suppose I get upset when people start saying there is no fuzz but only sharp lines that they are defining.
Of course you’re right Brian. It is hard not be influenced – not only by -isms, but by the power of our denominational traditions. But that is exactly why I cannot just accept. Let me give an important example from my own experience. For years on end I accepted the teaching of trichotomy. In writing my doctoral research I started providing a definition of man as being spirit, having a soul and living in a body. Then I read and read and eventually ended up with a 50 page chapter on this topic (which later grew into a book). “Soul” is usually the word “nephesh” and “spirit” is usually “ruach”. Some translations render Pro 20:27 as “spirit”, while others have “soul” or “breath”. Then I found it is a different word altogether, namely “neshamah”, which more Hebraic sources translate “soul”, understanding it as the highest part of the soul, the part being closest to God. “Spirit” is used in various nuances, including “attitude”. I no longer accept trichotomy as biblically accurate.
Your example from Rom is important. Therefore, I have become context cautious like never before and will have the same focus with the concept of grace. I have already pointed out previously that various Bible versions differ in various places, e.g. favour vs grace. If digging deep into the very context of a specific portion of Scripture is seen as a stumbling block and we simply have to sit back and accept, then I suppose my next question can only be: Which version?
Biblical Hebrew had some 10 000 words, Greek 200 000 and English some 1 million. Luther is reported to have cried out in anguish as he was translating the Bible into German, stating it was almost impossible to say so much in so few words than was done in Hebrew. And that brings me back to the NB of context. If we do not heed this we are in trouble. This is exactly the problem with some predestination doctrines. A 1912 Lutheran Synod declared that the question of election was a mystery that should not be resolved as it would constitute action that would both deprive God of His glory as only Saviour, and weaken man’s sense of responsibility in relation to the acceptance or rejection of grace. Wow, what an excuse for failing to rightly divide the Word of Truth! The Calvinists declare God predestined some to salvation and some to damnation before the foundation of the word. The Universalists again declare God is all-loving and would want to have all saved. And so we can go on.
Let me ask a simple question based on what you wrote: “Since we can do nothing to earn grace, we can do nothing to lose it.”
So if I understand you right you can be saved by grace and THEN:
1) Stand up and have little children brought to you one at a time while you cut their throats with your left hand watching them each bleed to death,
2) Then have a gun in your right hand in which you shoot 1,000 disabled persons all one at a time while they die a horrible death.
3) And finally with your mouth you curse God blaspheme him with every word that comes out of your mouth saying you HATE HIM, NO LONGER WANT TO SERVE HIM, THAT YOU LOVE THE DEVIL and other such statements.
THEN according to your statement: “Since we can do nothing to earn grace, we can do nothing to lose it.” we are STILL on our way to Heaven when we die and with God in Heaven everything is alright. In fact because of grace we will be sitting in Heaven with Billy Graham, Martin Luther, John Knox, and other such great men…
If I am wrong please let me know how I have misapplied the statement: “Since we can do nothing to earn grace, we can do nothing to lose it.”
Hello 😊 I’m a Christian and I’m really struggling with smoking mariguana. I feel so so guilty about it. I feel like I’m willfully sining 🥺😢. When I go to smoke, I feel like I’m throwing it in His face 😭. Im reminded where Paul says the very thing he doesn’t want to do, he does.
I dont want to but I do. I know without a doubt with God I can lay it down and walk away, but my flesh dont want to. Ive been in so much conflict with this. Id rather be conflicted knowing that what I’m doing is wrong. AM I CONVICTED OR CONFLICTED 😓?When we sin, there is no peace. So as long as I’m smoking mariquana there will be no peace because I’m willfully sinning right? Im 50 years old and learning alot that I never knew about a relationship with Jesus Christ. I want a relationship with Him. I was saved when I was 7, Ive always believed but through the years Ive made some bad choices. Not serving God the way I should. I wanna be all in and I want to grow in Him. I dont want to speak these things over me but its the truth. Iam a procrastinator, undisciplined, unmotivated Christian and I dont like it 🥺. I didnt plan on writing this much but I reckon I needed to get it out. I do have scrupolosity, would that be a cause of the such condemnation when smoking mariguana? I feel like I need to do something for God because I want to praise Him and thank Him for what He has done for me but then when I dont, I feel like I must not believe which I know is a lie. Thank you so much for listening ❤