Why Do People Not Want Grace?
Why do people not want God’s grace? This was the question I asked a friend of mine a few weeks ago. God’s grace is amazing, wonderful, rich, free and endless. And most people don’t want it. My friend answered that the reason people did not want grace was because they wanted to earn salvation. People want to work for salvation rather than receive it freely; thus, the old works versus faith.
However, the longer I thought about it, the more I disagree. I don’t usually see people welcoming the idea of earning salvation. I certainly would be content to get salvation as a gift rather than have to work for it.
Even in the Bible I don’t see a strong desire on the part of people to prefer to earn their salvation rather than receive it freely. Sometimes the Pharisee in Luke 18, in contrast to the tax collector, is used as an example of someone who is trying to earn his salvation by works. However, I am not sure that religious pride is necessarily a sign that someone is trying to earn their salvation by works.
I think the real reason that people don’t want grace is that the method of grace is transformation rather rescue. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:7-9a –
To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."Most of the time, God does not rescue us out of difficult situations. Rather he wants to transform us within difficult situations. The fruit of the Spirit is not health, wealth, happiness, and success, but love, joy, peace, and patience. And in the transformation process God requires our active participation. The obedience of faith responds to God’s grace in our hearts and produces salvation (look at the verb katergazomai in Philippians 2:12 and how it is used in other passages).
So when we are offering God’s grace to people, we are not offering them rescue from their problems. We are offering them a cross to carry. And most people don’t want it. But they are certainly not sitting there thinking, “No thanks, I would rather earn my salvation.” They may feel that they are somehow already worthy, like the Pharisee. And getting them to see their sin and need for salvation is always a work of God’s illumination.
The message of Christmas is not simply that God saves, but how God saves. Jesus grew up in obscurity and grew in obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8-9). And the message of saving grace is “Take up your cross and follow me.”
posted by Donna at 11:43 PM
7 Comments:
Very good points! In America I do not see many evangelists present the Gospel in this way. However, I suspect that most people know when they hear the Gospel (even when it is presented as a "magic bullet" or "Get out of Hell free" card) that it will cost them everything to follow Christ.
I would only add that many people don't want salvation because they do not think they need to be saved.
I once met a Muslim lady on a plane. As we spoke about our beliefs she said to me, "The problem is that you think I need salvation. But, I am not a sinner. I do not sin. Therefore I do not need your Jesus to save me." The grace of God was offensive to this woman because she felt that she did not need grace.
Dear Mark,
I am posting under another topic than the one I wish to; which is imputation. I agree that I have not sinned in the exact way that Adam sinned, as you say from Romans 5: "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam," It seems to me the teaching of the passage of Romans5:12-14 is that sin in not even imputed to the account of people when there is no law (before Moses), and they have not sinned like Adam sinned; however death reigned over these pre-law people. I understand the phrase "death reigned" to mean that they went to hell. The only way for this to be is that they are judged guilty for bearing Adam's sin or tendency to sin. i.e. that engine in us that pushes us toward sin. Possession of the engine makes us guilty. The death of Christ acquits us from the guilt of possession of the engine.
Yours in Christ, Naz
Nazianzus,
Thank you so much for your interaction to the post. Feedback helps me in my pursuit of truth. Romans 5:12-14 is surely one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. Some of the confusion, it seems to me, arises from how we define our terms. I have appreciated the work of James Dunn and N. T. Wright, and I feel like they have a good understanding of the law in Paul and especially in Romans. The law in Romans always refers specifically the law of Moses given at Sinai. Now, when Paul says that sin is not reckoned where there is no law, we must understand that he is saying that sin is not reckoned where the law of Moses does not exist. This was the condition before Moses. However, we know that people were held accountable for their sins. Sin was reckoned or imputed to them. Paul had not forgotten the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah or Egypt. Paul must be using these terms a little differently than he often did. And we can understand better when we realize that one of the major roles of the law of Moses was to distinguish the people of God from the pagans. Sin and death existed before the law of Moses defined more specifically who was a Jew and who was not. But according to Romans 2:14-15, a few chapters earlier, there are people, the pagans, who do not have God’s law. What happens to them? They will be judged according to the basic ideas of the law which God has written on their hearts in their consciences. Thus, in accordance with my original post I believe that they will be judged for violating the laws that God has written in their hearts, not for the sin that Adam committed.
OK Guys, lets keep the comments on the right post. :)
I think I am agreeing with Mark on this to a great degree. This is also why there are no innocent people in the world simply because they have not "heard" the Gospel, or had a "chance" to accept Jesus. I expect that all people of the world know that fornication, adultry, robbery, killing, etc. are wrong, yet all men stand guilty. Even the pagans around Sodom thought that Sodom was a "bad" place. God then judges pre-Moses law and ignorant man according to the law that was written on man's heart.
I also think Naz has a good point that the "sin engine" was clearly at work since the time of Eden. Sin came into the world through one man, Adam. Now we stand condemed because we are decendants of Adam. So, maybe it is better to say that, "as decendants of Adam we have inherited (rather than having it imputed) the sin nature, and therefore stand guilty as scripture proclaims that there are 'none righteous' for 'all have sinned'."
One thing I did question was the idea that "death reigned" means that people went to Hell. Would it not be more correct to simply say that death is the wages of sin, that we must all pay. So, the sin that was committed brought physical death (Sheoul or the Grave) from the time of Eden. Doesn't being cast into Hell occur after the Judgement? So, there were "saved" believers who died and "lost" non-believers who died even though the Law was not yet given. At the resurrection the sheep will be divided from the goats, the former receiving everlasting life (or Heaven/Paradise) and the latter death (Hell).
With this being the case we can say that Jesus decended to the Dead (Sheoul), but He was not cast into the Lake of Fire (Hell). Which I know is another topic alltogether.
I am enjoying the interaction; sand Patrick if you want to move all of this over to the other post that is fine with me. I just want to comment on your statement of agreement with Naz, Patrick. A big part of my point is that there is a distinction between having a sin nature and being guilty of sin. You yourself say, "we have inherited . . . the sin nature, and therefore stand guilty as scripture proclaims that there are 'none righteous' for 'all have sinned.'" Well, which is it? Are we guilty because we have a sin nature, or are we guilty because we all have sinned? It seems to me that having a sin nature gives me a disposition toward sin and a likely potential for sin. But I do not understand how I can be guilty of sin until I actually sin.
FROM NAZ
In response to the previous couple of blogs, I do agree that the Law in Romans 5 is the Law of Moses. However, in response to Patrick when Paul uses the phrase "nevertheless death reigned," if physical death only is meant, it seems that Paul is using some kind of theological overkill in this difficult passage simply to say that men die. We know this already; so I think, that Paul must be placing more baggage on this passage than simply physical death.
Brother Mark, I am simply uncomfortable with your statement that when Paul says that "sin is not imputed when there is no law (of Moses), that nevertheless God must have imputed their sins to them. Now, I know that in my theology I am forced to say some things such as; "the text really doesn't mean that." I try to do that as little as possible (as we all do). Here you are saying that the text doesn't mean what it plainly says---that sin is not imputed when there is no law.
We are in dilemmas all over the place.
Yours in Christ,
Nazianzus
Naz,
I did not mean to imply that only physical death came to all before the law, rather I am questioning the idea that people go directly to Hell before the judgement.
However, I am reminded that the rich man (from the Lazarus story) that Luke says was in Hell (or torment) and "far off from Abraham". Or was this example a future scenario?
SO, my question now is - If Hell is where the soul of unbelievers go at death, what happens at judgement? Obviously from Matthew 25 we see that the unredeemed go to everlasting torment of fire. But, are these one and the same?
Maybe chasing rabbits here, sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home