Letters of Grace: 1–7

Walt Henrichsen March 12, 2015

Part One

The afternoon of February 14 my mother passed into the presence of God. She was 83 years old. You may remember that my father died the Thursday before last Easter.

As I reflect back over my years under their leader­ship, I realize how blessed I am. In all of the years that I knew them, not once did I ever hear them argue or raise their voices to one another in anger. Mom sub­mitted to Dad’s headship, and Dad treated Mom with honor and respect.

In a way this is quite extraordinary in that both Mom and Dad came from broken homes. I never knew either of my grandfathers. A few years before Dad died, we were looking at some old photos at their house and I ran across one of a man I didn’t recognize. I asked Dad who it was, and he said he didn’t know. When I asked Mom, she said it was my paternal grandfather. Evidently the hostility Dad felt for his father was so great that he refused to even recognize his picture.

My brother, two sisters and I were raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, a lovely home in a lovely area. The folks built a summer home in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and as children we spent each summer in these idyllic surroundings. They were wonderful years.

Probably because my parents were so well ordered in their lives, they never communicated much interest in the spiritual. If you would have asked them, they would have told you that they were Christians. But prayer, Bible reading and church never played a role in our family. They were heavily involved in the Masonic Lodge, and Dad once commented that this was his religion. He was a good man, and he lived a good life.

I remember when my son Walter died, I had the one and only extensive opportunity to share my faith in Christ with Dad. Before and since he would never allow me to discuss it with him. On this occasion, after I had related my testimony of how I had found the Saviour, he said, “Son, if I were as bad as you, I would probably need a Saviour, too.” That was the end of the conver­sation. In one sense he was right. He was a better man than I. His relative goodness, however, blinded him of his need of the Lord.

When I came to Christ at age 19, my parents saw it as a rejection of the way they had raised me. My accep­tance of Christ communicated that I felt their training of me was inadequate. Our relationship after this was never the same. Mom and Dad were never the kind to be effusive in expressions of love, nor were they prone to express confidence and pride in us. But from the time of my conversion until they died, there continued an under­current of hostility. The only softening that I saw was in their love for my children.

I honor my father and mother and thank God for the privilege of being their son. It wasn’t a perfect home, and I wasn’t a perfect son. I hear so much about dys­functional people from dysfunctional homes. In one degree or another we are all dysfunctional. It is the product of being fallen people in a fallen world. That is what the Cross is all about. I was raised in what I feel was a better than average environment. If it and I were perfect, I would have no need for Jesus. My rela­tionship with Him more than compensates for all the sin and imperfection of life. Our Heavenly Father would have it no other way.

This is the introduction to a new series on the Grace of God. Grace is the arch stone of our relation­ship with Him. It is the basis of the Cross and our perpetual acceptance in His sight. A lot of what will constitute these next issues will be review for you, but hopefully a worthy reminder of how great our God is!

GRACE

Throughout history all men have had in common that they hate the grace of God. For the Christian, this may sound like heresy, but even for those of us who have experienced the grace of God in the salvation offered by His Son, we only appreciate it in those areas in which it has touched our lives.

Therefore, as we begin this series on the grace of God, it may be good to explore exactly why people have always had an antipathy towards His grace.

EGALITARIANISM

Grace can be defined as the favor of God bestowed upon the undeserving without reference to reciprocity. We will probe and dissect this definition in the coming months, but note that there is nothing in the object of God’s grace that warrants His favor.

We see from this that our Lord’s grace is bestowed upon people as a choice made wholly from within the counsel of His own will. Some receive it, and some do not. There is no explanation for this other than it is what God wants. To the degree that you conclude that there was something in the object of His grace that caused God to be drawn towards that person, it is no longer grace.

Man’s response to this is that it is intrinsically unfair; for man, in his fallen state, concludes that “fair” and “equal” are for all practical purposes syno­nyms. For example, when a child’s mother gives each of the siblings one cookie, but for no reason singles out one of them as special and gives that one two cookies, the others resent it, feeling that it is unfair.

This is the main reason the ten Sons of Jacob hated their brother Joseph. We tend to fault Jacob for showing favoritism to Joseph, but that is what grace is all about. The reason the Christian goes to heaven is God has singled him out from others and shown favoritism towards him.

ISRAEL

Probably the outstanding example of God’s grace in history is His choice of Israel as His people. There is no logical explanation for God selecting the Jewish people. He Himself, calls them a nation of whores.

I remember a prominent Christian leader saying in my presence, “I went to Israel and watched how they treat the Arabs, and I can tell you, they are not the chosen people of God. God’s people simply do not act that way!” Many Christians would agree with this leader.

One of the amazing things about the Jewish people is their almost universal dislike by the rest of the human race. Few, if any other groups have been so thoroughly loathed and persecuted. It is easy to see why most of the church has concluded that Israel has been replaced in the affections of God by the church.

GIFTS AND ABILITIES

The easiest area in which to see the arbitrariness of God in the way He handles people is in His dis­tribution of gifts, abilities and circumstances. Why does God make some people minorities? Why does He make some brilliant and others dull witted? Why do some prosper and others suffer poverty? Why are some healthy and others filled with pain? Why, why, why?

The non-Christian answers by saying that it is the fickle finger of fate, but the believer is also at a loss as to why, other than to say that for reasons known only to God this is how He wanted it.

Because such things are outside of human control, we tend to view them from a fatalistic perspective. “It is just the way things are.” The Christian feels fortunate if his temporal circumstances are to his liking and is quick to attribute them to the grace of God. Those less fortunate are left wondering why God has not been gra­cious to them.

It is interesting to note, however, that God pro­mises the believer that, although he may not understand why his condition appears to be unfortunate, he can be assured that it will all work out to his ultimate bene­fit. For example, Paul says in Romans 8:28:

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.

Thus God promises him that if he will but respond properly to whatever the condition in which he finds himself, he will be rewarded, if not in this life, cer­tainly in the life to come. As a matter of fact, al­though salvation is by grace, reward in heaven is not. The believer’s reward is based on how he stewards the gifts, abilities and circumstances God gives him.

The Christian tends to believe, however, that his temporal blessings are the product of his own work, and the rewards of heaven are the product of grace. In other words, he reverses the divine order.

Part Two

I am a little embarrassed when I realize that ‘Grace, Part 1” was written last March. Let’s briefly review before beginning “Grace, Part 2” this month. Grace is bestowing favor on the undeserving without reference to reciprocity. In order for grace to be truly Biblical, nothing in the object of God’s grace warrants His favor. Or, to state it in another way, when I say that something I have done has caused God to be gracious to me, I have contradicted the definition of God’s grace.

For this reason, from a human perspective, grace appears to be intrinsically unfair. If neither Joe nor I deserve heaven and God gives heaven to me and not to Joe, even though I did nothing to deserve the gift, then it can be concluded that God is partial rather than impartial. He shows favoritism.

This fact causes many sensitive Christians to modify the Biblical definition of grace it is too stark and unfair. There is no greater example of this unfairness than God’s selection of Israel as His own. As God Himself said to Israel in:

Deuteronomy 7:7-9

The LORD did not set His love upon ye, nor choose you, became ye more in number than any people; for ye were fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved ye., and because He would keep the oath which Ho had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the land of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

It wasn’t because Israel was nicer, more holy or more powerful than other nations that God chose her. Rather, it was simply because He wanted to.

THE UNIQUENESS OF GRACE

Grace is a concept foreign to the unregenerate mind. Nothing in all of human experience can cause a person to understand grace. People do not relate to one another on the basis of grace. All understand that in inter-personal relationships reciprocity is essential.

For example, if in my relationship with my wife I am consistently abusive, to her, committing adultery, beating her, failing to provide for her and the children, abandoning her for months on end, no one would expect her to maintain her commitment to me. Even the Bible, allows for her to separate from me under such circumstances. There has to be a mutual commitment.

The Judeo-Christian religion is the only religion in the world that is the product of REVELATION and therefore teaches grace. You wilt not find grace present in any other religion in the world. Only in Jesus Christ does a person not have to worry about his or her relationship with God being jeopardized by performance.

Only in my relationship with the Lord Jesus do I learn anything at all about grace. Before I became His, I knew something of love. My parents loved me and I knew what it was like to love others. It may have been an imperfect love, but when I was introduced to the love of Christ, it was not a foreign concept.

So also faith was a concept I was familiar with before meeting God. Like everyone else, I knew what it was like to commit before seeing the results. Risk taking is an essential element in life for believer and non-believer alike.

The same can be said for mercy. Before Christ, when a person said, “Have mercy,” I knew what that meant. But grace is different. In human experience, it is unique to the household of faith, and even we have difficulty keeping it in focus.

GRACE AND ELECTION

The Bible links grace and election. Romans 9 is a great chapter on election. In demonstrating election, Paul uses the following four examples: Not all the seed of Abraham go to heaven (verses 6-9); of the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca, only Jacob was elect (verses 10-13); God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (verses 15-18); the potter, from the same lump of clay, makes one honorable vessel and one dishonorable vessel (verses 19-24). The word “grace” is absent in Romans 9.

It doesn’t appear again in Romans until chapter 11, verses 5-8:

Even so than at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace then it is no more of works: otherwise is no more grace. But if it is of works, than it is no more, otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According an it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

In this passage Paul demonstrates that even during Israel’s darkest hour of apostasy, them, was a remnant of saved people. In Romans 9:14 he uses Elijah’s despair over his isolation and God’s answer to him in I Kings 19:18, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”

In essence, Paul is saying. You can always count on a remnant of faithful believers, no matter how bleak the circumstances, because the remnant is the product of grace.”

As he develops his argument in Romans 11, Paul says that this is the reason there Is a future for the nation of Israel “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall came out of Sion, the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For them my covenant unto them, who. I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers sakes” (verses 26.28).

Grace and election sine the head and tail of the same coin. You cannot have grace without election. If my relationship with God is not based on my performance, if it has nothing to do with how good or bad I am, then why do I go to heaven and not Joe? Paul says in Romans 11:5, “It is the election of grace

This may seem stark, harsh and even unfair. This is why people have an antipathy towards grace. One Christian leader said in my presence, “I have been to Israel and watched how they treat the Arabs, and I can report, they are not the chosen of God.” Another famous Christian writer said to me, “Grace has its limits.”

If these statements are true, then grace is no longer grace, but works. If my performance enters the picture of my relationship with God, then ultimately it is what I do or don’t do that determines whether I have a relationship with Him.

Election means that God chose me for reasons all His own: This is what makes the illustration of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9~10-13 so hard to accept: “ And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Iran have I hated.” It is verse 11 (in parentheses) In particular that makes the doctrine of election seem so unpalatable.

But you cannot have grace without election. If my relationship with God is based on my performance, then that relationship is in perpetual jeopardy and I can have no assurance of salvation. Election makes grace the beautiful thing that it is.

It may be helpful to point out that the relationship between grace and election is a “one-way street.” That is, it is not possible to have grace without election (as already seen), but it is possible to have election without grace. It is possible God could have decided to elect all of the human race to hell. Election would be present; grace would be absent.

HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY

When grace and election are established so emphatically, and they must be in order to understand our relationship with God, it is easy to all into question the role of human responsibility. If is all of God and none of man, then how can man be held accountable for his eternal destiny, especially if that destiny is alienation from God?

We must remember that as limited creatures we are forced to think sequentially. It is impossible to think of two events without putting them in their proper order. This is not true of God. As the “Alpha and the Omega” He is able to see able to see all as a single event. A billion years ago and a billion years hence are but the same moment in His mind.

Thus, when we think of the sovereign election of grace and the personal responsibility of man, we want to put them in their proper sequence. Which comes first? With God, this is a non-issue. In His mind they blend perfectly.

This forces us to live with the tension of believing both without asking for the proper sequence. Because we think sequentially, our tendency is to sacrifice or modify one truth to accommodate the other. Failure to maintain this tension will cause you to lose sight of what it means to be a recipient of His grace.

Grateful for His grace.

Part Three

Last time we explored the relationship between grace and election and found them to be inextricably linked. You cannot have grace without election, for the election of God makes possible a relationship with Him that is not based on reciprocity.

In Romans 9-11 we see how grace, election and the security of Jews and Gentiles are all tied together. God’s grace towards the Jews, based on His election, is what gives them the assurance that His promises, made through the Old Testament prophets, will have their fulfillment. This same grace, based on election, gives the Gentiles their security.

This time let’s explore the relationship between grace, love and faith. To begin, we will look at grace and faith.

GRACE and FAITH

As already seen, grace is God’s commitment to the sinner without reference to reciprocity. Nothing in the object of God’s grace warrants such a commitment.

In order for God to be gracious towards the sinner, He has to have perfect knowledge. This is what the theologian calls omniscience. It means that we will never surprise God. There will obviously be times when we will disappoint Him, but we will never surprise Him.

It also means that God never walks by faith, for faith is “commitment without knowing the outcome.” God, because of His omniscience, never commits without knowing the outcome. The believer walks by faith as an expression of dependence upon God. Actually, all people, irrespective of their race, religion or station in life, must walk by faith. All must commit before knowing, whether this means hoarding a boat to cross the lake or taking medication prescribed by a physician.

Because grace requires perfect knowledge, the believer is never called upon to emulate God’s grace. “Grace,” like so many words, has more than one meaning. Thus we are to be gracious to one another, as Paul exhorts in Ephesians 4:29:

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

This does not mean, however, that we are expected to practice -the grace of God in our inter-personal relationships. God does not walk by faith; we do. We do not practice Biblical grace; God does.

GRACE and LOVE

Biblical grace is different than love. Not only is the definition different; so also is the fact that I am to emulate God’s love, even though I am not expected to emulate His grace. As Jesus Himself said in John 13:34:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

When we confuse love and grace, making the two synonyms, it is easy to conclude that God does not love all people, for it is certain that He does not bestow grace upon all people. Again, Jesus said in John 3:16, that verse so familiar to us all:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, hut have everlasting life.

This “agape” love that God has for the world is not the same as His grace. All who are the object of His grace are saved, and God does not save the world.

DISCIPLINE

Failure to distinguish between love and grace results in confusion on how to exercise discipline in the church. For example, in I Corinthians 5 a professing believer was living in incest with his father’s wife. Paul called for his expulsion from the fellowship. Two reasons were given:

1. His own spiritual well being. “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (I Corinthians 5:5).

2. To maintain purity in the fellowship. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (I Corinthians5:7)

Thus in verse 11 Paul calls for his excommunication from the fellowship:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one do not eat.

It is apparent from this passage that one who professes faith in Christ, while at the same time living in unconfessed sin, is not to be accepted by the believing community unconditionally and without reciprocity. Such a person may be saved, but he is to be treated as a “heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17). He is actually to be treated more harshly than the non-Christian in that as Paul says in I Corinthians 5:11, ‘With such an one do not eat.”

This does not mean, however, that the believing community rescinds its love. Quite the contrary. It is out of love that the unrepentant sinner is disciplined.

Because none of us can see “the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10), we cannot commit ourselves unconditionally to others. For example, there are things that I could do which would force my wife to leave me. She may still love me, (as a matter of fact she is commanded to love me), but this is not the same as unconditional acceptance.

Further evidence of this distinction between love and grace is seen in Jesus’ command in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:44:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which dcspitefully use you, and persecute you.

The word for “love” in this verse is ~ It is Christ-like to love my enemies, whether they are believers or not. It does not follow, however, that the grace that God shows to those in Christ is to be shown by the believer towards his enemies.

IMPLICATION

If this is not clearly understood, the conscientious Christian will have difficulty determining what disciplining unrepentant sinners in the fellowship is supposed to look like. I believe this is one of the reasons why there is so little in the way of discipline, as outlined by I Corinthians 5, in the church today.

As a hypothetical example, let’s take Joe, who is an elder in his church. He has an affair with one of the women in the choir. They decide to divorce their spouses and marry one another. Their friends in the church plead with them to repent, but they refuse. After the divorce and remarriage, Joe and his new bride return to the church and expect to be reinstated. There is no remorse and no repentance.

The church is divided in its opinion regarding what should be done. Some call for discipline as outlined in Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5. But others counter that Joe and his wife are to be treated as God treats all of us, with grace. Grace, after all, is unconditional acceptance without reference to performance. Those calling for discipline appear unloving.

In reality disciplining them is the most loving thing that can be done for Joe and his accomplice. Only then can they be assured that their “Souls will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (I Corinthians 5:5). The failure to discipline is one of the most unloving things we can do.

If love, grace and unconditional acceptance are blurred and made to appear as one, then Biblical discipline becomes impossible. When I view grace and love as synonyms and seek to apply it to all people, I destroy any form of temporal accountability. The sinner is free to continue in his unrepentant state, assured that he has complete love and acceptance. This, clearly, is not the teaching of Scripture.

CONCLUSION

Discipline is never pleasant. Most of us hate confrontation. Yet, without it, people are deceived into believing that there is no accountability for sin, when in reality there is. If they do not learn it here on earth in the “school of obedience” they will pay a terrible price when they stand in judgment before God’s tribunal.

Understanding the difference between grace, love and faith may not guarantee the practice of church discipline, but failure to understand will most surely confuse the process.

Part Four

Throughout this series we have defined grace as God’s commitment to the sinner without reference to reciprocity. We have seen the relationship of grace to election, faith and love. In this issue let’s explore the relationship between grace and man’s depravity.

Without the depravity of man, grace would be unnecessary. Grace is God’s commitment to the sinner. Jesus said in Luke 5:3 1, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.” If a person is not spiritually sick he has no need of the Great Physician.

HOSEA AND GOMER

Probably no narrative in Scripture depicts the contrast between the grace of God and the depravity of man quite as graphically as that of Hosea and Gomer. In Hosea 1:2 the prophet is commanded by God to enter into a marriage which is nonsensical in the eyes of man:

The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, “LORD.” Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of wboredoms: for the land bath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.”

We see that this marriage to Gomer is not only dishonoring to the husband but is against custom, legal sense and reason. He woos to himself a worthless woman and yokes himself to her in marriage.

The purpose of the marriage is to depict to the nation of Israel how God views His relationship with her. Israel is a whore who lusts after other gods and sells herself to a never-ending string of lovers. Still, God selects Israel to be His bride.

No reason for such love can be given other than to say that it serves His purpose; it is according to His own good pleasure. As John says in Revelation 4:11, “Thou art worthy, 0 Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Again, the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians 1:5, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will.”

There is nothing in the object of God’s grace that prompts His love. Love among people is awakened by something in the beloved that is attractive. A helpless cooing child evokes the desire to reach out and take the little one in their arms.

Nothing in man evokes such a response from God. There is nothing sweet or attractive in man that causes God to reach out and accept him. Objectively he merits only condemnation and banishment from His presence.

Note God’s commitment to His faithless wife, Israel, in Hosea 2:19-20:

And I will betroth thee unto me forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.

The One who stands over the whole miserable situation knows her wretched plight better than she herself. Still He takes her under His legal protection forever. Only then does she know Him in the full sense. This is the Divine initiative called grace.

By making Israel the object of His grace, God voluntarily bound up His own final happiness with her. As we see in Hosea 11:8-9, Divine love is unaffected by the emotions and doubts which threaten it:

How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned with me; my repentings are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

No matter how exasperated God becomes with His people, He will never abandon them: “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him” (Hosea 14:4).

This is the grace of God in action!

GRACE AND DEPRAVITY

Someone once said, “Good people don’t go to heaven.” This is true in the sense that it is when I understand my sin and unworthiness that I call on the Lord’s saving mercy and plead His grace. To the degree that I am good, I have no need of grace.

One of the things for which I have prayed fervently through the years is that my children will understand their intrinsic and utter depravity. Leette and I have worked hard at protecting them from the negative influences of the world. They attended church and Christian schools and lived in a home with a reasonably strong environment of commitment to the Lord.

It is easy in such an environment to be faced with an inadequate awareness of sinfulness. They were not saved out of a life of debauchery and profligacy. This is why most enthusiastic, vibrant Christians come from non-Christian homes. Those who have been raised in a protected environment have not been faced with the depth of their evil; they are tempted with a lack of appreciation for what God has done for them in His grace.

Thank God, it is possible for them to grasp their capacity for depravity without personally experiencing decadence. All they need is to be a student of history and their own motives, sensing their constant drift toward selfishness and self-justification.

Without a full and proper understanding of my depravity I will denigrate the grace of God. Only when I understand that I am Gomer the whore who lusts after sin, will I begin to comprehend the grace of God in the Cross of Christ. Truly, the magnificent diamond called grace can only be properly seen against the backdrop of my blackness and sin.

I believe that it was Goethe who said, “With the slightest change in my character, there is not a crime I am incapable of committing.” I do not know if Goethe was a believer, but he certainly understood the depravity of man, or at least the depravity of his own heart.

THE MEANING OF DEPRAVITY

By “depravity” I do not mean that people are as evil as they can be. Few stoop to the absolute capacity of sin. Total depravity, in theological parlance, means that manes mind and character have been so influenced by sin as to render him unable to reason his way to the place where he understands his lostness and alienation from God. God must initiate the relationship.

A wealth of Scripture substantiates this. For example, Paul says in I Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

This is what ties election to grace. It takes a supernatural work of God to bring the sinner to the place where he even begins to understand his need for the grace of God in Christ. The hymn writer expresses it well:

‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,

And grace my fear relieved.”

The first indication of God doing a work of grace in a person’s heart is when that person becomes aware of his depravity.

APPLICATION

Much of evangelical Christianity is characterized by a depreciation of sin. To talk of man’s depravity is to be negative. The church must be upbeat and relevant to its generation. Positive thinking, human potential, self-realization and actualization – these are what stir the souls of men.

Such a generation, however, ends up deficient in its understanding of God’s grace. To be constantly reminded of my sin and depravity is not an unhealthy exercise, unless it is divorced from the grace of God. Rather, it is essential that I remain constantly aware of my sinfulness.

People who feel that they are good are more prone to break the commandments of God than those who have a Biblical understanding of how much like Gomer they are. The more I am aware of my utter depravity, the closer I cling to God and His grace. There are at least two reasons for this:

1) If I believe I am good, I will conclude that my deeds are good. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” I have an almost unlimited ability to justify my behavior, making wrong appear right in my own eyes. Thus, when I sin against another, I focus on his weakness and the degree, be it ever so slight, that he is responsible. In self-justification I conclude that the fault is his, not mine.

2) I stand a better chance of living a life of holiness if I believe, like Goethe, that “there is not a sin I am incapable of committing.” For it is from such a posture that I feel the most dependent upon God and His grace!

Part Five

In the last issue of this little periodical we examined the relationship between grace and man’s depravity. God’s command that His servant Hosea marry the whore Gomer graphically depicts the contrast between the depravity of man and the grace of God.

The person who does not appreciate his propensity to sin will, in all probability, have an inadequate grasp of the grace of God. Man wants to evaluate his worth in the economy of God on the basis of his production. Often this is more true for the Christian than the non-Christian. God evaluates us on the basis of our dependence upon Him. The former emphasizes works, the latter grace. It is childlike dependence that delights the heart of God.

A person said to me, “Christianity is a religion of guilt. It is constantly making me feel The Bible says we feel guilty because we are guilty. Jesus didn’t come to make people feel guilty. He came to forgive the guilty.

It is true that only those who acknowledge their guilt come to Jesus for forgiveness, but Jesus wasn’t the one who made them feel guilty. Their sins did that! Jesus is the Great Physician, and it is no more logical to say that He made a person feel guilty than to argue that the physician makes the patient feel sick.

The grace of God is reserved for those who understand that they are depraved, but Christianity doesn’t make people depraved. Rather, Jesus Christ, by grace, rescues people from the consequences of their depravity.

Grace is not solely a New Testament idea, as already seen in Hosea. All of God’s “greats” understood His grace and related to Him on the basis of it. In this issue we will briefly explore the understanding of grace in the lives of a few of the Old Testament saints.

MOSES

Exodus 32 finds Moses on Mt. Sinai receiving the Law from God. The Lord informs Moses of the idolatry and immorality of Israel. Because of His anger God says to Moses, “I will consume them, and I will make of you a great nation” (verse 10). Notice Moses’ response to this rather attractive offer in verses 11-14:

And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? (12) Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. (13) Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. (14) And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Moses declines God’s offer for two reasons: (1) God’s reputation would suffer if, having committed Himself to Israel, He changed His mind (verses 11-12). (2) God established an unconditional covenant of grace with their father Abraham, a covenant not based on reciprocity (verse 13). In verse 14 God agrees with Moses.

It is important to note that Moses did not appeal to the Law that God had just given to him. He understood that looking to God’s Law as the basis of their relationship meant that they could never have a relationship. Any conditional covenant with God has within it the seeds of death. Moses knew that man is incapable of keeping conditions established by God.

Moses, the Law-giver, refused to relate to God on the basis of Law! He understood that if he could not relate to God on the basis of grace, there would be no relationship and he was as good as damned. Moses understood the grace of God.

DAVID

One of the most memorable events in the life of King David was his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah. It is a perfect illustration of a man who understood the grace of God.

In Romans 4, Paul illustrates justification by faith with the life of Abraham. In verses 6-8 he switches from Abraham to David:

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God inputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Beginning with verse 9 Paul switches back to Abraham. We are left wondering why Paul inserted David in his illustration. The answer is seen in the fact that if Abraham is an illustration of God’s graciously imputing righteousness to man, there is nothing in the narrative of Genesis to indicate that God ever charged Abraham with wrong. This isn’t to say that Abraham never sinned. Rather, he isn’t charged with sin in Genesis.

When Paul wanted to illustrate grace by God’s NOT imputing sin; Abraham was an inadequate example. So he used David and his being charged with the crime of adultery and murder. “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” This, of course, is a quote from David’s Psalm 32.

Psalm 51 is the penitential Psalm of David “when Nathan the prophet came to him after he had gone in to Bathsheba.” Psalm 51:34 says:

For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be dear when thou judgest.

It is remarkable that man would acknowledge such a crime before the only Tribunal that really counts! In numerous places the Bible reminds us that “the wages of sin is death.” If I knew that I had to forfeit my life for a crime I committed, I would do all in my power to convince the court that there were extenuating circumstances. “The victim provoked me to anger. It was his fault.” “I was temporarily insane. I didn’t know what I was doing.” It wasn’t really murder; the Animonites killed Uriah.” I would do anything to try to get the court to overlook my guilt—–

Unless, of course, I knew that my sin would be forgiven. David voted against himself and in favor of the justice of God, before God’s judgment seat, because he understood the grace of God. He knew that, by God’s grace, God would not impute his sin to him. David understood the grace of God.

JONAH

Jonah is an interesting study of one who understood the grace of God. Jonah is commissioned by God to preach repentance or judgment to the city of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. Assyria was the Nazi Germany of that day. It would be like asking Shamir to preach repentance to the Nuremberg Trials.

As we all know, Jonah rebelled at the thought and went in the opposite direction. God intervened by sending a storm and a large fish. The storm resulted in Jonah’s being thrown to the fish, and the fish was used to return Jonah to his God-given task.

Reluctantly Jonah obeyed God and preached to the people of Nineveh, “In forty days Nineveh will be overthrown.” The city believed Jonah and repented in sackcloth.

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:10)

The last chapter is devoted to Jonah’s negative reaction to God’s forgiving Israel’s arch­enemy.

But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, 0 LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. (Jonah 4:1-2)

The passage tells us that Jonah understood God was gracious. His problem was he didn’t like what God did with His grace. Jonah is an illustration of the truth outlined in the first issue of this series on grace: Men have a love/hate relationship with the Grace of God. They love it when it touches their lives and hate it when God uses it contrary to their approval. We all want to control God’s application of His grace.

Jonah was mad at God, not because he failed to understand grace, but because he knew that God was gracious and, if Assyria repented, God would be gracious to them. Jonah resented God including Assyria as an object of His grace.

The sins of envy and covetousness are also expressions of resenting God’s application of His grace. Often we don’t like God’s generosity directed toward others. Anger over not being able to control the grace of God is a sin easily committed by the believer. Jonah understood the grace of God. We do well to learn from his mistake.

DANIEL

Daniel served God most of his life in a hostile environment without the various institutional aids God’s chosen people felt were necessary in order to follow Him. We catch a glimpse of his heart in Daniel 9. He just finished his devotions in the book of Jeremiah and was reminded that the Babylonian captivity was to last seventy years. According to his calculations, the seventy years had transpired.

Daniel 9:3-19 is his prayer to God in which he acknowledges the justice of God in sending Israel into captivity. In essence he says, “I wish that in these seventy years we had improved in our behavior. Unfortunately, we are as bad today as when You brought judgment upon us. Nevertheless, You promised that in seventy years we could return.” He closes with the following two verses:

0 my God, incline tbine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. 0 Lord, hear; 0 Lord, forgive; 0 Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, 0 my God; for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.”

Daniel understood that if Israel was to have a relationship with God, it would be because of “Thy great mercies.” “Not because of our performance, but solely by Your grace do we hope to be accepted by You!” Daniel understood the grace of God.

CONCLUSION

Three applications from the lives of the great men of God:

1. Don’t deceive myself into believing that my relationship with God is based on what I

do. It is easy to err in thinking that I am more deserving of fellowship with God when I

am “good” than when I sin.

2. The path to God is brokenness and dependence. Self-justification is an impediment in my relationship with Him. I am well served when I follow David’s example and vote against myself in favor of God.

3. I must resist the temptation of getting angry with God or arguing with Him over how He dispenses His grace. It is easy to try to be “protective” of God and seek to guard Him from an unwise use of His grace.

Part Six

Grace invites presumption.

For example, a starving man asks you for food and you feed him. He is exceedingly grateful and profuse in his expressions of gratitude. So you offer him the opportunity to eat regularly at your table. He is incredulous that you would be so generous. Later you offer him the chance to become part of your family. Delirious with appreciation he accepts. Within three months be is telling you how to run your family.

This is the nature of man, and so it is in our relationship with God. We are overwhelmed with gratitude to God for His sa1vation, but not long into our new relationship with Him we begin to tell him how to run His business.

We take exception with certain of His commands, suggesting they were relevant and applicable for the day in which the Bible was written but certainly not for today. We seek to protect Him from the irresponsible way in which He dispenses His grace. In short, we are a highly presumptuous people!

For this reason I want to take the next three issues on grace and elaborate more fully on the problem of presumption and how it influences our lives. Because I have done a great deal of thinking on the issue of relativism, you will see an overlapping between grace, presumption and relativism. It seems to me that one of the symptoms of presumption is to appeal to reason when questioning revelation and thus to consider God’s commands relative. When the Christian does this, he presumes on God’s grace.

Another possibly more frequent manifestation of presumption is the assumption that grace means a life free from restraint. Since grace means I don’t pay for my sin, then restraint may be nice, but not essential, in my relationship with God.

Freedom from sin is not license but slavery to Christ. In salvation we didn’t experience autonomy but a change of masters. The life of grace is a life of self-denial. If gratitude is the believer’s first line of defense against presumption, self-denial is a close second.

SELF-DENIAL AND THE GRACE OF GOD

Let’s begin by exploring self-denial in the life of one whom is the object of God’s grace. Paul cautions the Corinthians in I Corinthians 6:12,

“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

This statement is obviously limited by what the Bible calls wrong. This Paul makes clear in verses 9-10. It is wrong to break the specific commands of God.

So also, Paul warns in verse 13, it is wrong to be enslaved to any appetite. If this is so, what does he mean when he says that “all things are lawful”? Is Paul not taking back with his left hand the grace that was offered by his right hand?

Deciding the difference between what is “lawful” and what is “expedient” is what self-denial is about. Self-denial is not specifically called for in the Old Testament, because the people were under the law. Jesus introduces the idea of self-denial in the Gospels. For example, Jesus says in Luke 9:23, “And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”

The rest of the New Testament writers in general and Paul in particular (in passages such as I Corinthians 6) argue that grace does not mean license. Freedom in Christ does not lead to a life of prolifacy. The believer is to live a life of restraint. But in what areas of his life? What does this look like? This is the difference between law and grace.

When under the law the limits of man’s personal action were determined by God. Under grace the believer is free to determine his own limits, with the exception of the few commands contained in the New Testament, as already indicated. Both law and grace restrict the behavior of the believer.

Self-denial is a common duty, but it differs from law in that it is free to express its application according to one’s own convictions. An exact standard of self-denial is the same as being under the law.

For example, if you say that I must deny myself by eating one meal a day, never owning an auto and memorizing 100 verses each week, you put me under the law. But if I say that I will deny myself by doing these very same things, this is not law but self-denial. Both law and self-denial are obligatory, but law originates from a source outside of self while self-denial originates from within one’s own convictions.

BODY AND SOUL

In I Corinthians 6 Paul further develops his argument of self-denial by noting that we belong to Christ, body and soul. Although both body and soul belong to Christ, and both are eternal (we believe in the resurrection of the body), nevertheless body and soul are different.

So also, mind is different than matter, ideas are different than action, and thought is different than deed. But all meet in the body and soul. This is why self-denial is so important.

For example, a baby does not reason with its appetites. When hungry, he cries for food. With the urge, he defecates. With maturity, the bodily appetites cease to be mere animal instincts. The mind controls matter, thought controls deed, and ideas control action. In other words, the soul controls the body. This is maturity.

The marriage of the soul and body is eternal, and this is why self-discipline is necessary. We are best prepared for heaven by disciplining our bodies to do what our souls know they ought to do. In this we see the need for restraint and self-denial even while living under grace. It is in our own best interest! I do not allow my body to rule my soul, but rather the soul the body.

CIRCUMSTANCES

In seeking to define self-denial in general terms let us note that there are, broadly speaking, two kinds of circumstances: (1) Those over which you have no control, and (2) those you control, i.e. you can say “yes” or “no” to them.

You return from the office after a day’s work and meet your wife who tells you that she has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. This is a circumstance over which you have no control.

You return from the office after an-exhausting day’s work and meet your children who want your time. You feel like taking your shoes off and reading the paper in some quiet corner and have to decide whether you will do this or give the children the time they want. This is a circumstance over which you do have control.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each kind of circumstance. In the first kind the disadvantage is the fact that, more often than not, such circumstances are hurtful. That is, they are contrary to how you would naturally want things to happen. The advantage is, you are not asked by God to vote on them. There is no self-denial in that, like the law, it is forced upon you from without. Therefore, the only decision you must make is how you are going to respond to the circumstance.

The disadvantage to the second kind of circumstance is seen in the fact that you must decide whether you will vote against yourself in an expression of self-denial and meet the needs of those asking, or whether you will listen to your flesh and read the paper. The advantage is, you, in the grace of self-denial, get to decide. The decision is not forced upon you from some external source.

When called upon to deny yourself, you wrestle with the question, “Does this call come from God or does it come from some other source?” To what degree do you allow these calls to be viewed in the same way as circumstances over which you have no control, i.e. providence?

Or possibly more importantly, if you do not respond in self-denial to circumstances over which you do have control, will God force self-denial on you through circumstances over which you have no control? This is the “downside” to the self-denial of grace. It is the reason law is so attractive. With law there is no ambiguity, no uncertainty. Everything is clear, straightforward and easily understood.

LOSING ONE’S LIFE

In Matthew 10:39 Jesus said: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” Again, our Saviour said in John 12:24-25:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.”

This is the theme of Paul in Romans 6-8. Romans 8:6-8 is merely illustrative;

“For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

To be carnally minded, to live after the flesh, is to seek to save one’s life rather than lose it. It is allowing the body to control the soul rather than vice versa.

What does living after the Spirit, losing one’s life, and living in self-denial look like? It can be defined in general terms, but any attempt towards specificity is to leave grace for law. Law is specific and has a source outside of self. Self-denial, the fruit of grace, is not specifically defined in the Bible and has as its source the Holy Spirit living within self.

STEWARDSHIP

Most people think of self-denial in terms of stewardship. “If I am a good steward of the temporal possessions entrusted to my care, I will deny myself by giving liberally of them to others.” We tend to see self-denial in terms of sacrificial financial giving.

Knowing that life is hard on most people, e.g. famine, natural disasters, disease, etc., does self-denial for the financially privileged play a special role? Most would answer with an unequivocal “yes.”

Accepting this answer, we are still faced with the question of how much. Assuming that God does not want us to live on either extreme of giving everything and giving nothing, where is the balance? This again is the difference between law and self-denial. The answer must come from within one’s own conscience.

JEREMIAH 45:5

As important as the sacrificial giving of our physical possessions is, I suggest that it is only part of a much broader picture. It seems to me that a more profound expression of self-denial is found in death to self, the willingness to view my life in its totality as a resource in the hands of God for the meeting of people’s needs.

When comparing the difference between how the world and God perceive greatness, Jesus said in Matthew 20:26-28,

“But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Jesus came to give His life in exchange for the needs of others and suggests that His disciples should do the same.

This is the same theme found in Jeremiah 45:5 where God says to his servant,

“And seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek them not: for, behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD: but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest.”

There is a lot of confusion regarding this verse because of the word prey.” It is the thing hunted and devoured by the hunter. Greatness, as the world defines greatness, is not the route to go, warns the Lord. For He will destroy all the works of man’s hand. But God’s servant can have the privilege of giving his life as Jesus gave His — as a prey in meeting the needs of others.

Blending this with the “two kinds of circumstances,” to be a prey means to vote against self in meeting the needs of others when you have legitimate reason to say no. For example, you return from an exhausting trip, having suffered from sleep deprivation. At 11 p.m. you are awakened from a sound sleep by someone who is emotionally hemorrhaging and needs your help. You suggest tomorrow, and he insists that he needs you tonight. It is at times like this you have opportunity to decide the degree to which you want people to “devour” you.

This is the life of self-denial. This is what it means to say no to the flesh and die to self. It may be argued that financial self-denial was of central importance in the ministry of Jesus, but finances are merely illustrative of a larger issue.

Most see finances as the means to control circumstances. Financial independence is first and foremost independence from God. It is symptomatic of an unbiblical value system. The question is not, “Am I willing to drive a Chevrolet rather than a BMW?” Rather, the question is, “Am I willing to live for a cause greater than I, and am I willing to allow God to choose that cause for me?”

It is for this reason that God links self-denial to grace. It is gracious of God to allow us to live for something other than temporal mediocrity. That God gives us the opportunity to exchange our lives for the same thing for which He gave His life is grace.

The beautiful thing about the grace of self-denial is, although it is not optional, it is also not forced upon us. It is a decision that we make of our own volition. Not only so, it is unlike law in that we get to decide what it looks like in our own lives.

“All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient.” You are free to live for self, but the expedient thing is to die to self.

“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” (Jim Elliott)