The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Proper definition of ‘GRACE’ compels belief in UR

Of late I’ve been thinking about the shocking implications of Romans 5:20 which makes the astonishing assertion that where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.

-or- But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound (KJV)
-or- But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (NIV)

The idea seems pretty straightforward doesn’t it? Grace trumps sin. End of story. Now the “classic” definition of grace says something along the lines of “unmerited favor” – the idea being that God gives us what we don’t “deserve”. Thus somehow our being sin, or being in sin, renders us undeserving; a condition we ourselves then are unable to remedy thus necessitating this greater rescue force of grace. Or something along those lines.

But the bulk of Christianity, it seems to me, veers away from this in at least a couple of ways and, in so veering away neuters the true meaning and grandeur of this text – which can easily (and perhaps should be!) read as a promise!

– First, there is the subtle suggestion that there actually is a sin which cannot be trumped by grace, thus denying the very words of the text. Here we encounter the idea that we can “choose” against God. Thus by an “act” of our own will, we can nullify or counter grace. Explicitly what the text denies.

– Second, there arises the notion that by proper behavior, one can move from a state of undeserving to one of somehow being less undeserving. And of course some go further in this legalistic trend. So again, by an act of our own “will” to behave, be good, whatever, we can transport ourselves over into the “savable” category. This conveniently forgets, at least temporarily, another central tenant of scripture; that ALL have been and are sinners.

(Don’t we also hear – loudly! – Paul’s insistent protest against this notion in Romans 9:16?? “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”)

Thus, it seems to me that the idea of one being forever lost (ie the denial of UR) leads one to MISread the obvious meaning of this text. And this misreading holds to the subtle idea that grace really can somehow be “merited” if we just try hard enough. That we might, by our own actions, increase the likelihood that God extend His Grace towards us… Again, not at all what the text claims.

Why not then consider a definition of Grace that, it seems to me at least, is closer to the reality of the bible and salvation and God’s nature etc etc.

[size=150]GRACE = that force or quality of God which counters and destroys sin.
[/size]SIN can likewise be defined as that force which pulls one away from God.

It is my growing conviction that the entire argument of the non UR believing Christian rests on the incredibly slender and fragile thread that human will can successfully and permanently resist the will of God. Via what is held to be his “choice”. But a point of this post is that we can recognize and affirm that there really is such a thing as a choice against God; it’s just that this choice fits in the category of that force which pulls one away from God. And thus is always countered by the stronger force of Grace!

This must mean then that every single thing that God allows or does is part of that stronger force which simply will not, now or ever, be defeated! Of course it would be the height of foolishness (and cravenness and stupidity etc etc) to increase ones resistance to God (sin; in all it’s manifestations) for it guarantees that the forces of Grace will increase to counter that resistance. And this makes it clear why some experience Grace as hardship; the harder one pulls against God, the harder He pulls back.

The implications of this are staggering. For one, I think this definition of Grace finds a proper tone for a credible theodicy; deepening evil in the world, and in men, simply reflects doomed attempts to increase in forces that pull us from God and demands, no guarantees, a greater counterforce. That counterforce is Grace. Perhaps initially that’s counterintuitive; one might think at first that as Grace abounds things will get better. But as sin and evil abound more, we can rest assured it’s counterforce, Grace, is even now ramping up more. Didn’t Jesus talk about this dynamic in the last days and remind us that this hardship and struggle was to be a sign of hope; for redemption was nigh! Thus the Christian ramps UP his praise even when the night gets darker! The worse it gets, the closer we are to God’s ultimate Victory!

Pretty stunning really.

In closing, I came across this translation of Romans 5:20 and it’s exactly what I’m trying to share here! It’s Petersons THE MESSAGE

…But sin didn’t, and doesn’t, have a chance in competition with the aggressive forgiveness we call grace. When it’s sin versus grace, grace wins hands down. All sin can do is threaten us with death, and that’s the end of it. Grace, because God is putting everything together again through the Messiah, invites us into life—a life that goes on and on and on, world without end. (The MESSAGE)

Blessings,
TotalVictory
Bobx3

PS – I hope not to embarrass my wonderful friend buddyb4 but his wonderful testimony from Nov 1 is a very poignant fulfillment of how stunning it can be when one takes hold of the reality of Grace and it’s ultimate Victory. Even in the face of despair and severe pain and mourning impending death he radiates a confidence and trust in God’s Grace that is marvelous. Very powerful witness to me…

Please read it here:

Hi TotalVictory! How ya been?

Just one quick comment:

TV: Why not then consider a definition of Grace that, it seems to me at least, is closer to the reality of the bible and salvation and God’s nature etc etc.: GRACE = that force or quality of God which counters and destroys sin.

Tom: I think you’re a fan of Eastern Orthodoxy too, so let me suggest that this may be a good time to consider the East’s view of grace. Your definition seems like a typical “Western” understanding of divine grace, that is, grace is something God does to fix sinful persons and that’s it. The “Eastern” view is quite different and I think a better one. In the East, grace is basically “God himself at work,” period. You could reduce this to God’s “presence,” period. But the idea is that grace isn’t something God does now and then but not always.

If God IS love (with all that a trinitarian metaphysics can contribute to our understanding of God’s BEING love), then that means that all that God does is love’s doing, all God actions are the actions of love, not just some. So grace becomes a word we use to describe this singular love at work. It LOOKS a certain way when it’s dealing with sin, yeah, but it doesn’t require sin to BE grace. In the East, creation is a grace, time is a grace, marriage is a grace–all God’s acts toward us (whatever our state) are an underserved grace-gift. Human beings required grace prior to and independently of their being sinful.

And this view of grace DID lead some in the East to conclude that eventually all are reconciled, for reasons that eventually convinced me. If God is love, and creation a free and unnecessary act, and THIS God is present to us on every level of our existence sustaining that exstence, then our existence IS a single, uninterrupted invitation to become what we’re created to be. We can never foreclose on the possibility of Godward becoming since the logoi of created things remain as constant as the nature of the Logos in whom they coinhere. Grace is the East’s word for describing the unnecessary nature of contingent beings and the undeserved nature of the gift of God’s presence in all things.

If grace is just “God fighting sin” then you don’t have the guarantee of UR you want. You have to further posit something about God that leads us to conclude God would continue to fight sin and not consign it to either an eternal hell or to annihilation. But if grace just IS the mode of God’s-being-in-relation-to-Creation, period, THEN you’ve have reason to believe that whatever God is in relation to remains redeemable by virtue of the creator-creature relation We cannever fall into hopelessness since grace is equivalent to God’s sustaining presence in things.

Tom

Hey Tom!
Those (the entire post) are beautiful words indeed! Much much better by far than I was able to convey. Since sin is the thing that is so worrisome to so many traditional Christians, I focused on that aspect of Grace which is seen to be it’s counter; but it is FAR FAR more than just sin’s counterforce. And you emphasized that bigger picture wonderfully well!

Grace is all that is imaginable about God – and much more. Thus “sin” is not at all the insurmountable problem that most Christians imply that it is in their theology’s of hell or annihilation. The vastness of God trumps and transcends it all!

Thanks Tom!

TotalVictory
Bobx3

(PS – doing well my friend!)

TV: Grace is all that is imaginable about God – and much more.

Tom: Poetry!

;o)

Bob ~

that’s some pretty amazing, hard-hitting reasoning there. grace is powerful. there is no sin it can’t cancel out, pardon, or triumph over. Christ Himself says of salvation “with men this is impossible, but not with God. for with God, all things are possible” (Mark 10:27).

if we could save ourselves, by any of our efforts, we would not need to be saved, or need God’s grace through faith in Christ. even a person who does little or no active evil (hypothetically) is still in a state of spiritual seperation from God by way of sin, and needs to be reconciled. what is impossible when left to any of us is possible with God. the mass-murderer, adulterer, theif, blasphemer, persecuter of Christians, insolent, fornicator, etc. no more or less deserves God’s grace than any one else. and to my ears, that is very good news.

If I may add a bit to Tom’s (TGB’s) quite excellent way to put it, while answering Bob (TV)'s question about “why not go with a Biblical definition of grace”…

get this: in Greek (and the same is roughly true in Hebrew, too), the word we translate ‘grace’ is always ‘joy’, or some compound word or cognate thereof.

This is why I often recommend as an exegetical exercise reading the word ‘grace’ as ‘freely given joy’. It’s also why I routinely translated the term that way when I did my Gospel harmonization study (linked to in my sigs).

As Tom suggests, the truncated view of grace common (although not universally prevalent) in Western Christianity simply fails when presented in context of the Trinity. Do the Persons show grace to one another? Or not? If so, then grace is (as Tom rightly says) simply God’s love in action. If not, then we have the spectacle of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being nongracious to each other!!

(Much the same can be said about ‘justice’, too. When thought of in terms of non-universalistic apologetics, ‘justice’ is something that the Persons would never do in regard to one another!–which is ridiculous.)

PS: obviously I’m busy posting up a vastly huge series elsewhere every day (and will be until Easter or thereabouts, God willing).

So would anyone else want to find a thorough concordance and look up all uses of the term {char-} and its cognates in the NT, doing a series on what happens if we translate those words in terms of ‘joy’?

I did that exercise back when I first became a universalist. And wow… Let’s just say I would VERY much like to write a devotional book on the results. http://www.wargamer.com/forums/upfiles/smiley/bow.gif

(Also a devotional book on the exegetical exercise of translating all uses of {dikaiosune} as “fair-togetherness”, which is what it literally means, instead of “righteousness”.)