Sustaining Grace, How Sweet The Sound!

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:4-8, emphasis mine)

I read this passage last night and I just love the message here. I know I sometimes breeze through Paul's introductions to his epistles and I do so wrongly because his introductions have as much theology as a year of sermons from a lot of pulpits. If only I were a fraction as thankful as Paul for my fellow believers. When was the last time you gave thanks to God for your brothers and sisters in Christ? If you are like me it has been far too long. But what I wanted to look at was verse 8 where Paul speaks of what I call sustaining grace. From verse 7 into 8 we see the critical portion:

....our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The NIV renders what the ESV translates as "sustains" like this "keep you firm to the end". Both the NASB and the KJV translates it as "confirm". The imagery Paul uses is of preserving something, keeping it safe, affirming finally. That is not Greek scholarship, just what I glean from what Paul says here and elsewhere and how it is rendered by actual scholars. What is just as important is not merely the word "sustain" itself but what we are being sustained for. The ESV speaks of being sustained to the end as "guiltless", or as "blameless" in a lot of other translations (NKJV, KJV, NIV, NASB, etc.). That is chock full of New Covenant imagery which has as the ultimate promise: For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Hebrews 8:12). That is what grace is all about, mercy for our iniquities and a forgiveness of sins. So putting that together, Jesus sustains us to the end and in the end we are guiltless of our sins. That promise is inextricably linked to any understanding of grace.

We typically have a schizophrenic view of grace. When it comes to saving us, it is all powerful to save us but when it comes to keeping us, it is extremely limited. On the other hand, in some groups like most Baptists grace is subservient to our "free will" when it comes to saving us but "once saved, always saved" when it comes to sustaining us. Neither view makes much sense but they both come from creating a division between "grace that saves" and "grace that sustains". Why would God make it impossibly hard to be saved when we are dead in our tresspasses and sins on the one hand but then promise to keep us saved once we save ourselves via our "free will"? Or why would God make it as easy as walkin' an aisle or raisin' a hand or putting your name on a card to get saved but then leave it up to our own strength to stay saved? It is very important to keep in mind here that Paul makes this claim and this promise to the church in Corinth which was perhaps the most messed up of the churches he wrote to. If it is true for Corinth, it is true for your church too!

If grace is not powerful enough to sustain the believer, the same believer who was incapable of saving himself in the first place, it isn't grace at all and is anything but amazing. Believer know this if you know anything. The same grace that can pardon and cleanse will sustain you until the end when you will stand guiltless before God. That is the sort of grace you can sing about!

We have no right to sit in judgment of God

I haven't blogged about Reformed theology in a long time. I kind of beat it to death. That doesn't mean I don't pay attention to stuff. I was checking out the blog from Peter Kirk, a Brit that wrote an interesting guest post for Alan Knox. He linked on his blog to a different post by Roger Olson wherein Roger seems ambivalent about whether universalism is really a heresy or at least if it is a heresy, it is kind of a mild one (i.e. that every single person is saved, in direct contrast to some of the most explicit Biblical langauage on a topic on can find on any topic) but Roger is sure that Calvinism is a heresy, at least if one actually believes it. Here is part of what he wrote...

Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct. I had to say no. Sheer power is not worthy of worship. Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.

Well, that sounds dandy. No Scripture to back it up mind you, but lovely to our ears. What about sheer power coupled with love? What Olson is promoting is "love" that is divorced from power. God is either impotent to save whosoever He wishes or doesn't care enough to do so for fear of being labelled "unfair" or worse being referred to as "monstrous" by one of His creatures. That is so grotesquely inaccurate a portrayal of Calvinism that it hardly deserves notice.

Peter wrote a response, in a head scratchingly titled post: Better a universalist than a Calvinist

Indeed. Universalism born from optimistic hope may be unrealistic but it is not a serious heresy. Believing in a God who condemns most people to everlasting torment without offering to them the grace they would need to be saved is a serious heresy because it turns the God of love into a monster. Like Olson, I could never worship a God like that.

So universalism which directly contradicts the overall teaching of the Bible and the explicit teaching of Christ, a heresy that has been universally condemned by the church for 2000 years, is preferable to Calvinism, which has been held by Christians in some form for centuries and which has ample Biblical support? Which is more "monstrous", that God elected a certain people out of the mass of humanity lost in sin to effectually save and passed over the rest? Or that He really, really wants to save everyone but leaves the eternal fate of billions of people in the hands of sinful humans, knowing full well that billions of people will live and die and never hear the Gospel and be lost all in the name of "free will" and fairness? How is that just?

Both Peter and Roger make the same categorical error. We don't worship God because we find Him acceptable to our sensibilities. Our worship of God is a result of who He is, based on His acceptance of us in His Son, not on His acceptability to our sinful and limited notions of fairness. That any human, and especially a born again Christian, would stand in front of God and dictate the terms of our worship to Him makes me shudder.

Did God sit on the shore of the Red Sea hoping His people would decide to flee Egypt and that the Pharaoh wouldn't pursue them?

Did God sit around hoping Saul would have a change of heart and stop persecuting Christians?

I am not going to spend a lot more time extolling Calvinism. I think there are more important things to worry about and I am uninterested in convincing people of it. I do however question those who both misrepresent Calvinism and make it an issue of heresy, thus painting people like me and millions of other brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics.

Lest I be misunderstood

I think maybe I left the wrong impression in my previous post, Reformed Rhetoric. Let me clarify….

I love studying Reformed theology! I am looking forward to Together for the Gospel 2010 like I can’t even tell you. I am looking forward to the first meeting of the Mid-Michigan Reformation Society in August and having Dr. Beeke come speak to us in November. I love reading articles on monergism.com and I love reading (most) Reformed bloggers! I don’t find myself less convinced of the tenets of Reformed theology, I am actually finding myself more drawn to these great truths and the exaltation of a holy and sovereign God who loves His elect so much that He sent His Son to make propitiation for them on a cross. I certainly am not having a bonfire and burning my Calvin’s commentaries and Sproul books!

What I find less appealing is the subculture of being Reformed that has grown up around those who hold to some flavor of Reformed theology.

I don’t like the “us versus them” mentality, a school of thought that I have been a part of for a long time. I don’t like the smarminess and condescension we sometimes exhibit and that has been raised to the level of an art form by some. I really dislike the pomposity of some people who espouse their flavor of Reformed theology and denigrate others. I am very concerned about the hero worship of Reformed pastors/preachers/authors past and present. I don’t care for the blurring of the lines between actual Reformed theology and “Reformed” church practice as championed by certain bloggers (most notably one with the initials RSC). I am concerned most of all when we elevate being a “Reformed Christian” over being a non-Reformed Christian.

There are plenty of things that concern me about the Reformed subcultures we have developed, whether of the “old skool Dutch” Reformed traditions we see in bastions like Grand Rapids or in the more recent “young, restless, reformed” subculture. None of those concerns is a fault inherent in Reformed theology. All of them are the result of pride, something I am a bona fide expert on. There is nothing inherently incompatible with seeking a Biblical ecclesiology and holding to Reformed theology. Now if I can just convince my Reformed brethren of that….

Great resource!

Intended for Greg but good for anyone, the Ten Effects of Believing in Calvinism by John Piper. Good stuff!