When we went to the U.K. a few years ago, I took with me a little summary of Bible teaching that I had drawn up, and submitted it for comment to several brethren whose opinion I valued. One brother in the South of England had this to say: “You have managed to do exactly as the B.A.S.F. does — you omit all reference to the grace of God”. “But,” I protested, “the B.A.S.F. refers to God’s kindness, and my draft mentions both his love and his mercy. It is only the word ‘grace’ that doesn’t appear”. “I wonder,” he mused, “whether the absence of the word could reflect an absence of serious study of the doctrine of grace within our community.” During the years since that conversation, I have come more and more to a feeling of the truth of his criticism — and its seriousness.
I think the problem stems partly — only partly — from the varied usages of the Hebrew word chen and the Greek word charis which are translated “grace”. At other times they are rendered “favour”. Often they seem to carry no implication as to the reason why favour is shown; or the context may indicate that it was because of some act or attitude on the part of the one favoured, which earned this response. This would leave the way open for interpretations of the type: “Sure, God shows grace to sinners — provided they first declare their repentance”; or “God’s grace is shown in the promises he makes to those who show themselves deserving of it, by their belief and baptism”. But what then of the dictionary definition of grace as “the undeserved mercy of God”? Is this or is it not a Scriptural definition?
Is it your definition? Try a little experiment. Get a group of your brethren and sisters — or, better still, yourself — to write answers to these questions:
- Do I stand in a special relation to God, having access to His throne?
- (If the answer was ‘yes’) Why? On what basis?
Now check how many of the answers start with “I”: “I have learned the Truth”; “I have renounced my former way’s”; “I have been baptized”. How do these answers fit in with the definition we have just quoted? As far as I can make out, they are incompatible with it.
If you find this a startling thought, consider the New Testament teaching on the relation between God and the Christian, with special attention to one point: which is initiation, and which is response? We all know the pithy wording of 1 John 4:19, “We love, because he first loved us”; but have we followed through the theological implications of that simple declaration?
When Is A Gift Not A Gift?
I became more vividly aware of those implications recently when studying Paul’s letter to the Romans. Try these passages as a sample: Chap. 3:23 f, “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”.
Chap. 4 (40, “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his
due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Chap. 5(17), “If, because of one man’s tres- pass, death reigned through that one ‘man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness , reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
Now something that is a free gift is not something that can be earned. I had been brought up to see the error of the Pharisees, who thought to attain God’s favour by their , keeping of the Law. But I had not seen how closely this bears on the question of assurance.
In “The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross” (p.267), Dr. Leon Morris notes that “the Judaism of that time took it as an axiom that man is able to acquire merit in God’s eyes, the only question being how it was done”. But he goes on to say, “Certain consequences follow from the Jewish system. One of them is that there is no place for assurance. No matter how well a man may have lived, it is possible for him to slip into some bad sin which will outweigh all his merits”. This makes me wonder: in rejecting salvation via the Law of Moses, have we substituted some other list of “good works” by which we try to secure our own salvation? And if so, how do we measure up? And does this account fOr that sad lack of assurance which I see in so many of my brethren?
“The Truth Will Make You Free”
There are several variations of this same theme. Brethren have said to me: “I am under no illusions about my righteousness. 11 I depended on my works, I would be beyond hope. I am just so grateful that I have the Truth”. They didn’t say it in so many words, but on I questioning I found that they meant by this: “I am not saved by doing the right things; but I am saved (or will be saved — some have a purely futurist understanding of salvation) by believing the right set of doctrines”. When will we realize that this comes under exactly the same condemnation as salvation by works? Are we saved by our doctrines, or by the blood of Christ?
Of course, we will try to argue the question out of existence. “We are saved’ by the blood of Christ,” we’ll say, “but it is still necessary to have the right set of doctrines.” This is a verbal device based on the hope that no one will ask too closely what we mean by ‘necessary’. Necessary for salvation? Necessary to win God’s favour? Or necessary by way of demon stration that we really have grasped the salvation offered by God, and that Christ has become a reality in our lives?
If God’s favour, or our confidence of God’s favour, rested on obedience, it would have to be perfect obedience, and we would be found wanting. If it rested on faith in the sense of acceptance of a set of propositions, then we would be found equally wanting. For who can claim a perfect grasp of spiritual truth? “None is righteous, no, not one” would apply as surely as to the works of the Law. Apart from this, if any set of propositions were intended by the Almighty to play so critical a part in the salvation of mankind, we may be sure it would be clearly formulated in the God-breathed word — which it is not.
Raised To Newness Of Life
What of that question so often posed as a lecture title: “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” We see that very similar considerations apply. If the question is taken to mean, Is it my place to decide whether or not I ought to be baptized, and whether it is a matter of some significance?”, then the answer is clearly, “No; baptism is a divinely-appointed token of the putting on of Jesus as the covering for my sins”. But if it means “Is it by baptism that I stake my claim to salvation?”, then the question has quite a different flavour.
Since salvation or eternal life, is offered by God as a gift, I may grasp it, welcome it, respond to it in loving service; but I can never take the initiative in making it possible. Nor does this apply only because I happen to have been born after Jesus lived and died for me. It would be equally true if I were in the position of needing redemption “from the transgressions under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15).
The Baby And The Bath Water
It is time to make a few explanations as to what I am not saying. I am not saying that it does not matter whether we are righteous or not, whether we try to do God’s will or not. Paul saw precisely the way in which perverse minds might read such an idea into his exposition of grace; hence Rom. 6:11, “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” Good behaviour is very important — but it is not the grounds of our assurance. Having our understanding of Bible teaching as perfect as we can achieve — with the promise of help in Jas. 1:5 well to the fore — is very important — but it does not confer a passport to God’s kingdom. Baptism is a very important step in the life of the newborn child of God — but it carries no guarantee of life in the hereafter.
Language does sometimes need to be used quite carefully. We do need to distinguish quite carefully between something that is important (in that it is a response that ought to be shown to God’s loving call) ‘and something that constitutes the grounds of our assurance. Only thus will we be able to comprehend the quite deliberate tension in Eph. 2:8-10, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God … For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Reflections on the Potter and the Clay