Grace

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Ned,
Our discussion has digressed from the topic it started on. If you would be so kind, let’s continue it here:

felix dakat wrote:
What is unmerited favour but a synonym for unconditional love?

OK, Ned, then what are the conditions? I maintain that there are none. If others impose conditions for accepting God’s grace, it does not follow that God does. If God elects only a few, what are the conditions for his election? I suspect that you don’t know because none have been specified. Why? Because there are none. Complicated? Borrowing a salty line from Paul of Tarsus, Ned, have you been seduced from the simplicity that is in Christ?

Neither does the word “trinity” yet that term has been found theologically useful. The words “unconditional love” apply to the gospel of salvation by grace through faith because that gospel contains profound psychological truth.

Here you are in error. The mere fact that anyone exists bespeaks of God’s love. A being ceases to exist in the instant that God withdraws his sustaining power.

Here you have nullified the truth of the gospel. You have turned it on its head. From what you say it follows that grace is no longer a free gift. The message of Christ is no longer good news. You have replaced contrition—repentance —metanoia –a change of mind –with attrition—a fear of eternal punishment. Luther compared a message like your with the threat of the gallows.

I am aware of the love slobbism rampant in Xianity today. My position, that salvation is a free gift by grace through faith, is informed by and consistent with that of Jesus, Paul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo, and Martin Luther.

Agape is not conditional. It is love “in spite of.”
God has accepted us all even though by the standard of the law we are unacceptable. That my friend is the gospel.

The problem of predestination and free will is a paradox when viewed from the human perspective. I will not surrender the truth of the gospel for the comfort of a false “solution” to it.

2

Sure Felix!

I agree. I’m just pointing out that it will require a little more justification. Since neither Jesus or Paul are quoted as saying “unconditional love” it will require a great deal of biblical support to make your case.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If salvation requires “faith”, then surely you’ve placed a condition on it? No?

The mere fact that we exist is certainly something we can thank God together for, I wont argue with you there. But does our existence mean that God loves us? Does Satan exist? And does God love him? Did Esau exist and did God love him? Why does the bible tell us that God hates certain people including Esau, if in fact he loves everyone? These are some of the issues you’ll have to answer in order to make your case more coherent and biblical.

You can dislike my view all you like, but you’ll need to provide biblical justification if you want to prove it’s wrong. Irrespective of your view of hell (which I think is probably unbiblical), it seems that you agree that repentance is required for salvation. Why would this be so, if God loves everyone? What is gained by repentance? And doesn’t repentance seem like something of a condition to you?

I didn’t say anything about salvation being earned. I merely said that there are requirements or conditions to salvation, repentance and faith. I could also add water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit if I wanted to be picky about it. The fact remains that becoming a child of God requires something, and therefore it logically follows that not everyone is a child of God. The bible is full of statements about the children of God being fundamentally different from the people of the world, and the process of becoming a child being exactly that, a process. How do you explain this?

1 John 3
1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

John 1:11-13
11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 8
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Philippians 2:14-16
14Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16as you hold out[ the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing.

True, I’m not elevating the human condition or preaching a gospel of works. I’m just arguing that the love of Father God to his children requires that the recipient actually BE a child of God. And this requires repentance and faith as clearly described in the bible.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

I’m well aware of that. But you seem to be deliberately confusing the issue. I agree that salvation is undeserved and come by grace. But that same salvation also requires faith and repentance. If you ignore the requirement of faith and repentance then you’ve turned the gospel into a sentimental coke commercial where all the world holds hands and is saved simply by being alive. The bible clearly teaches against such universalism.

Matthew 7:13-14
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Actually, there is very little comfort to be had in the realization that God requires faith and repentance to be saved, and faithfulness to remain saved. I’d argue that your sentimental view of “unconditional love” is considerably more comforting. But, unfortunately it’s also unbiblical.

3

Grace means never having to say you’re sorry?

I think one of the problems in this discussion is that you both seem to be looking at Salvation as a switch that is flipped- God either puts you in the ‘saved’ collumn or He doesn’t. Well, salvation isn’t like that. Nobody here is in the ‘saved’ collumn because none of us have met the pre-requisites. None of us have died. If you are alive, you aren’t saved, in the way that you guys seem to mean it.
Also, salvation is not Jesus interceding to save us all from an Angry God. God does indeed love us all unconditionally, however, we can not look on His face and live, because of our fallen state. Salvation is medicinal. It is something we work out, through fear and trembling as it were. Jesus beat death and sanctified the world, and His life, sacrifice, and Ressurection makes it possible for us to live His life, and allows for even death to be holy, perhaps.
To my mind, you’re both saying the same thing- God saves who He saves by fiat. Ned thinks it’s who He likes, felix seems to think it’s everybody, but both views have the same problem- it makes Jesus’ Incarnation, death, and Ressurection completely unnecessary. If Jesus saves us, then it’s because there’s something wrong with us. We can choose to remain dead in our sins.

4

Ned–Jesus of Nazareth was the embodiment of grace.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

There is nothing to do we have all received grace already.

And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
John 1:16

The Old Testment folks did not have the full revelation of God’s grace. Jesus as the Christ IS that revelation.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17

On God’s side all the work necessary for salvation is done.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

John 19:30

There is nothing to do. Simply accept that we have been accepted by God. That is all that is required to receive eternal life.

5

Uccisore–

I disagree. I am in the saved column and so are you and Ned as far as I can tell. When we have received grace so freely we should not put obstacles in the way of others. Eternal life is a free gift. According to the NT, there are three kinds of salvation, salvation of the spirit. [I Corinthians 5:5.], salvation of the soul [Matthew 16 24-28], and salvation of the body [Romans 8:23]. Salvation of the spirit we received when by grace we first believed. Salvation of the soul is contingent upon us denying our selves taking up our cross, and following Jesus. Salvation of the spirit is for the present. Salvation of the soul and the body are future events.

6

You have provided biblical references but they do not support you positions.

I agree with you that Jesus was full of grace, is God’s revelation, and that he finished his work on the cross.

However, I disagree that we have all received grace and there is nothing we have to do to receive salvation. None of the references you provided actually address these topics directly. In fact there are numerous biblical references that refute these positions.

If your purpose was to demonstrate that your theological views are unbiblical, but that you don’t mind, then I think you’ve accomplished the task. Otherwise, you’ll have to find some biblical support.

7

Then you misunderstood my position. I believe I am currently being saved, and agree that I wont actually be saved until I die. However, there is clearly a starting point to the biblical process of being saved, and that starting point includes repentance and faith. Felix seems to believe that there is nothing to start, since all are loved and all are saved. That’s where we disagree.

I agree that it’s not just that, but it certainly includes that. The bible clearly teaches about God’s wrath for mankind in the OT and NT. One aspect of the cross is Jesus interceding to prevent this wrath falling on those who believe. But there are other aspects to understanding the work of the cross. I’m just defending this particular one as I think it’s biblical.

I wonder if you could prove this point from the bible?

Again, agreed. This is another, more positive, way to understand the redemptive work of the cross and it’s also biblically justified. But it doesn’t mean that Jesus rescuing sinners from an angry God is not also justified biblically. Both are true.

No, I think Felix is stating a more universalist position and I think it’s totally unjustified biblically. The problem with the “unconditional love” idea is that it naturally leads to the theological position that Felix is stating. In many ways Felix is simply being consistent. Most US Christians are inconsistent. They claim that not all will be saved BUT that God loves everyone unconditionally. I think this is illogical. It’s especially confusing for non-Christians. The Christian says to them, “God loves you and he loves everyone unconditionally” and then follows up by demanding that they “repent and believe in order to go to heaven”. This makes absolutely no sense at all and the non-Christian is quite right to say “Huh!?”.

8

Finally, a topic I can understand!

Ahem… I’ll try and give my own answers to the questions posed in this discussion.

First, does God love everyone?

I would answer that yes, God does love everyone and everything He has made, although not equally.

“The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Psalm 145:9).

“You love all things that are, and hate none of the things which you have made” (Wisdom 11:25).

“God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above that God’s will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Q. 20, art. 2).

As for Satan and Esau, St. Thomas said that God can love them under one aspect (they have some “goodness” because they exist) and simultaneously hate them under another aspect (e.g. God hating that Satain tried to rebel against Him).

God’s free offer of salvation through the redemptive death of His Son shows that He loves mankind. I think, however, that ‘love’ and ‘salvation’ are being confused here. Just because God loves everyone does not mean that everyone will be saved. The reason for this is that God gave man free will.

“God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel” (Ecclesiasticus 15:14).

With free will, man is able to accept – prompted by God’s grace – or reject the gift of salvation that He has given to him. It is true that some people will, out of their own free choice, go to Hell, but it is also true that God does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

We become children of God through adoption, as we are not naturally His children. Only Jesus Christ is naturally the Son of the Father. Being a “child of God” in the New Testament sense means being a Christian, a disciple of Jesus. As I said before, God loves all, but He does not love all equally. God then has preference for those who do His will. As for those who are not God’s children – through adoption – it is no less true that He loves them and wills them to seek Him.

As for the argument over the process of salvation, I may get into that in a future post. I agree with some things that felix dakat is saying and I also agree with some of what Ned Flanders is saying, but again, I think you guys may be confusing God’s love with salvation. God will still love, at least in some way, those who have chosen Hell over Him (because He created them, and in so far as they have existence, they are “good” in some way). But He will love those who have chosen Him even more.

9

With regards to angels, the current trend is that angels only practiced their free will once. Since they work on intuition rather than intellect, they cannot undo their choice when it is done. So the devils who were sent down from heaven, made their eternal choice.

With regards to man we work on intellect and rather very finite. So we always fail and recover from these failure.

Salvation is available for everyone but not chosen by everyone. Especially those who are arrogant enough to turn back from God’s agape.

It is not God who moves away. It is his creatures, by the virtue of free will, who moves away from God’s offer of salvation.

10

Ned Flanders

I think I’m closer to your position in that respect to his.

 Well, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  Us wicked humans are spared the wrath of God because we tortured His son to death?  I can see God sending His Son to teach how not to be jerks, and to offer us a way to salvation through emulating Him.  That makes sense.  But if God was mad at us [i]before[/i] we crucified Christ....?  Also, this take sounds a little more polytheist than trinitarian.

Well, if we agree that Jesus was God, and that He loved as He taught us too, then it should be fairly elementary.

Yes, he is. But a revealed faith isn’t just about consistancy, it’s about having all the information. For felix to be even more consistent and complete the picture, all he needs to do is deny the Fall of Man- the only thing simpler than everybody being saved by fiat is realizing that if it were that simple, there was no need to save them from anything in the first place.

  It's illogical purely from the perspective of measuring God's qualities against each other, and against ours.  But, the real story is that mankind is fallen, and somehow that I don't understand, the rest of nature is fallen with us.  One of the key interpretations by the Church Fathers (John Crysostom, maybe?) that I read some time ago that really shed some light on this was Jesus' baptism in the Jordan.  Ever think about why Jesus would need to be baptised?  What was it He said, "to fulfill all righteousness"?  Anyways, He sanctified the act of Baptism by being baptised, and He even sanctified the waters.  It's similar to what Xunzian would say about a perfectly moral person sending out a resonation that would fix the world (though he would say that's how we know there's never been such a person).  Christ sanctified every aspect of the human experience by living it, including His death.

Anyways, to bring us back to the point here, the world is all poisoned and screwed up (there is death in it), and so if we don’t follow in Christ’s footsteps, we’ll be destroyed because we can’t look on the face of God and live, and sooner or later, God and us is all that’s going to be left. So, God loves us all equally, but we won’t be saved if, in our free will, we choose to remain dead in our sins. It is the idea of God tossing us into hell, instead of hell being the natural result of our corrupt selves, that makes things seem inconsistant.

11

God Love is unconditional, but his promises are conditional. God loves everyone both Good and evil but to recieve his provision you have to meet His conditions.

12

Ned,

You have asserted that I have not supported my positions, but you have not supported your assertion.

Good.

John 1:16 says “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace upon grace.”
John 1:16

There is nothing that we have to do to receive grace. The seed has already been sown. The seed of grace will produce faith that issues in salvation unless we stop it from rooting or allow the cares of the world or the deceitfulness of riches to prevent it. Mark 4:17-19

13

SouthpawLink,

Thank you for your post. I enjoyed the quotations you shared.

Yes and Amen.

How pleasant to contemplate.

Again I say Amen!

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

True that.

That’s what I’m talking about!

14

What is conditional is coercive. What is coercive denies free will. The only ethical sense of grace I can imagine is serendipity.

15

Well at least you and St. Thomas are acknowledging the problem that Felix is simply ignoring.

If you want to agrue that God loves and hates at the same time, then I think this position is certainly an option that would retain connection to scripture. My problem with this position is that it’s unecessarily complicated. The only reason to argue the “love” of God in the face of clear biblical evidence of God’s hatred, is to maintain the notion of “God’s unconditional love” that we have become used to hearing. But I find this idea poorly supported in scripture.

I agree with you. But this is the only “act” of love that God extends to ALL people. Aside from the cross, the bible is either silent about God’s affection for sinners/wicked or it suggests his hatred/wrath towards them. Therefore, it’s tough to make the case that God loves everyone, except through the ONE act of Jesus on the cross. If people choose to reject this act of love, I don’t think there is much left.

I agree with you. Not only are love and salvation being confused, but I think we all have a slightly different definition of “love”. If God condemns a human being to hell, does he still love him? By Felix’s very broad defintion, the act of God making this person shows love towards the individual. But I think it’s overly sentimental to call this love.

Exactly right.

So, you at least see my point here. We agree on the love of God’s children (the “higher” love in your view). What we disagree over is the “lower love” of those God sends to hell. I would argue it’s confusing and illogical to call it love. But as long as we recognize that it is fundementally different to the “higher” love then it’s not a major disagreement.

16

Oh, so I’m supposed to carefully respond to your scripture quotes while you ignore mine? Is that how it works?

Who is John writing to here? Christians or non Christians? Christians have received grace. Non-Christians have not.

So, if I chose to stop it rooting or allow the cares of the world in, then what? Then God’s seed produces nothing? Doesn’t this argue directly against your point that “there is nothing we have to do to receive grace”?

17

Ned–If I have ignored verses you have quoted , I did not do so intentionally. I did feel that I needed to lay out my position concerning grace first. Grace is, I believe, a fundamental NT principle. The Romans 11 problem you raised, is in part due to the paradox of viewing free choices historically when they have become accomplished facts. Paul refers to it as “a mystery” in the passage itself.

The issue of Esau and Jacob is another. The story shows that God works in ways that defy conventional wisdom and expectations. But the OT vision of the character of God is superceded by the full NT realization of God in Jesus as the Christ. Christ as the divine logos, the word of God brought grace to the world, in that sense, the world has received grace. Jesus the Christ, the Lamb of God, has taken away the sin of the world.

On an individual level, “grace comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” So whenever the gospel is preached, we are receiving grace.

In the parable of the sower even the seed that fell among the rocks produced joy, so that is not nothing. I take that to be the joy of eternal salvation, in an individual who, nonetheless, due to some hardness of heart, doesn’t get very far as a disciple.

My main point is that any condition is on our side, our choice. On God’s side there is no condition. If we are open like children, grace will issue in faith. Grace is a free gift.

18

Ned Flanders wrote,
“If you want to agrue that God loves and hates at the same time, then I think this position is certainly an option that would retain connection to scripture. My problem with this position is that it’s unecessarily complicated. The only reason to argue the “love” of God in the face of clear biblical evidence of God’s hatred, is to maintain the notion of “God’s unconditional love” that we have become used to hearing. But I find this idea poorly supported in scripture.”

Once again, there is biblical support that God loves all of creation: “You love all things that are, and hate none of the things which you have made” (Wisdom 11:25).

The argument that I am trying to make is primarily philosophical. I am arguing that God cannot will evil. He cannot will evil because He only wills what is good. In fact, “goodness is what all desire” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, 1). For God to will what is evil would mean that He mistakenly thinks it is a good, and thus would be in error. But God cannot err, because He is Truth (Cf. Romans 3:4). So God only wills what is good. Now to will good towards something is to love it, while to will evil towards it is to hate it (Aristotle, Rhetoric, II, 4). It therefore follows that God hates nothing. When Scripture speaks of God hating things, it is of a figurative nature. St. Thomas explains:

Some things however God is said, to hate figuratively (similitudinarie), and that in two ways. The first way is this, that God, in loving things and willing their good to be, wills their evil not to be: hence He is said to have hatred of evils, for the things we wish not to be we are said to hate. So it is said: Think no evil in your hearts every one of you against his friend, and love no lying oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord (Zach. viii, 17). But none of these things are effects of creation: they are not as subsistent things, to which hatred or love properly attaches. The other way is by God’s wishing some greater good, which cannot be without the privation of a lesser good; and thus He is said to hate, whereas it is more properly love. Thus inasmuch as He wills the good of justice, or of the order of the universe, which cannot be without the punishment or perishing of some, He is said to hate those beings whose punishment or perishing He wills, according to the text, Esau I have hated (Malach. i, 3); and, Thou hatest all who work Iniquity, thou wilt destroy all who utter falsehood: the man of blood and deceit the Lord shall abominate (Ps. v, 7). - Summa Contra Gentiles, I, 96.

Ned wrote,
“I agree with you. But this is the only “act” of love that God extends to ALL people. Aside from the cross, the bible is either silent about God’s affection for sinners/wicked or it suggests his hatred/wrath towards them. Therefore, it’s tough to make the case that God loves everyone, except through the ONE act of Jesus on the cross. If people choose to reject this act of love, I don’t think there is much left.”

God has hatred for the sins that the wicked have committed, and it is because He is just that the wicked are punished. What He hates is that they have not loved, as He loves. The righteous have loved and have done good to others, and so are in some way like the Father (Cf. Matthew 5:48). Conversely, the wicked are very much unlike the Father. He loves the righteous with the love of friendship (the righteous are able to return His love), and He loves the wicked with a different type of love, because they are no longer able to return His love, since they have chosen sin over Him.

Ned wrote,
“I agree with you. Not only are love and salvation being confused, but I think we all have a slightly different definition of “love”. If God condemns a human being to hell, does he still love him? By Felix’s very broad defintion, the act of God making this person shows love towards the individual. But I think it’s overly sentimental to call this love.”

To love is to will good to someone. God wills good towards everyone because he cannot will evil. As for the damned, they have chosen hell over God through their own free will. God’s justice demands that the good are rewarded and the wicked are punished (Cf. Matthew 25:31-46). As I’ve said, He loves the wicked, but with a different type of love than the love He has for the just.

Ned wrote,
“So, you at least see my point here. We agree on the love of God’s children (the “higher” love in your view). What we disagree over is the “lower love” of those God sends to hell. I would argue it’s confusing and illogical to call it love. But as long as we recognize that it is fundementally different to the “higher” love then it’s not a major disagreement.”

Simply put, the continued existence of the damned shows that God still loves them. Nothing can exist without it being willed by God, and we already know that God wills nothing but good (for Him to will evil would be an error in His judgment, and that is not possible). Again, for God to will good towards the damned (i.e. their continued existence) means that He loves them in some way.

19

According to the NT, Hades is the temporary abode of the dead. In Revelation it states that after the last judgement death and hell are cast into the “lake of fire”. This is called “the second death”. Could that represent annihilation or cessation of being? Or is there still the possibility of purgation by fire and deliverance to holy city?

20

To get back to the topic of grace, it seems to me to have been something that must have been observable in the attititude and actions of Jesus that witnesses had never seen before. I think it was his deep acceptance of people. At his baptism he had a vision of being absolutely accepted by God. “It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” (Mark 1:9-11)

This experience affected Jesus so profoundly that he was able to communicate to others that he accepted them and that his acceptance of them was God’s acceptance. Acceptance was the essence of his healing power. He was willing to touch the untouchable lepers and to eat with outcasts, whores and sinners. No one was unclean to him. All were acceptable because he had been accepted. When Paul and others reflected on Jesus’ life, they realized that he had demonstrated that God was different then anyone previously believed. He did not die to appease an angry God. He lived and died believing that he was accepted by God and communicating that acceptance to others. Something like that is what I think is the experiential basis for New Testament grace.

Reflecting on the attitude, character and actions of Jesus, NT writers like Paul and John concluded that in his person, God’s grace had come to the world. That is, grace had come to everyone not just to a select few. Everyone is accepted. New Testament faith is accepting that one is accepted. The “choosing” or “election” aspect only enters the picture because, mysteriously, not everyone accepts that they are accepted. Jesus covered the causes of their rejection of God’s acceptance in the parable of the sower. They include hardening oneself, the cares of life, and the deceitfulness of riches. “Hardness” may mean that one are too proud to accept that one needs acceptance.