Saved by GRACE ... but -Qualifying Grace (SAL)

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Well, perhaps. But, I guess as I read it, it seems as if the article is written from a bias wishing to demonstrate that the bible teaches us that grace comes without conditions and that a believer has no responsibility to live a godly life without sin after he is given said grace. As Paul would say, "God forbid".

Actually, did Paul qualify grace, or qualify the actions of the believer?

And his qualifications were only necessary because of the immensity of the nature of grace that he preached (and of course appeasing the fresh-from-legalism curiosity of his audience).

In other words, Paul didn't qualify that Grace was not effective if we didn't behave as such-and-such. He said it in such a way that he had to follow-up: "Does this mean (what I just told you) that we should keep sinning?" The only reason why one would jump to that conclusion is because a) Grace came regardless of our deserving works and b) the implications of that message probably overwhelmed those familiar with controlling and earning their own way.

So the author would be correct. Grace came without pre-conditions.

Grace radically changes the sinner. When we abort from Grace and turn to moralism and self-righteousness, we find people trying to sleuth there way through it all, hypocrisy, etc... But when a man realizes his full debt and is relieved for no reason except love, the response is usually equally gracious. This is why I call sanctification "gracious living."

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Actually, did Paul qualify grace, or qualify the actions of the believer?

And his qualifications were only necessary because of the immensity of the nature of grace that he preached (and of course appeasing the fresh-from-legalism curiosity of his audience).

In other words, Paul didn't qualify that Grace was not effective if we didn't behave as such-and-such. He said it in such a way that he had to follow-up: "Does this mean (what I just told you) that we should keep sinning?" The only reason why one would jump to that conclusion is because a) Grace came regardless of our deserving works and b) the implications of that message probably overwhelmed those familiar with controlling and earning their own way.

So the author would be correct. Grace came without pre-conditions.

Grace radically changes the sinner. When we abort from Grace and turn to moralism and self-righteousness, we find people trying to sleuth there way through it all, hypocrisy, etc... But when a man realizes his full debt and is relieved for no reason except love, the response is usually equally gracious. This is why I call sanctification "gracious living."

Bingo. Great post.

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Actually, did Paul qualify grace, or qualify the actions of the believer?

And his qualifications were only necessary because of the immensity of the nature of grace that he preached (and of course appeasing the fresh-from-legalism curiosity of his audience).

In other words, Paul didn't qualify that Grace was not effective if we didn't behave as such-and-such. He said it in such a way that he had to follow-up: "Does this mean (what I just told you) that we should keep sinning?" The only reason why one would jump to that conclusion is because a) Grace came regardless of our deserving works and b) the implications of that message probably overwhelmed those familiar with controlling and earning their own way.

So the author would be correct. Grace came without pre-conditions.

Grace radically changes the sinner. When we abort from Grace and turn to moralism and self-righteousness, we find people trying to sleuth there way through it all, hypocrisy, etc... But when a man realizes his full debt and is relieved for no reason except love, the response is usually equally gracious. This is why I call sanctification "gracious living."

So, we agree that certain behaviours should accompany all belivers. Yes, grace comes free and without conditions. But, walking in grace does require some things. It most certainly doesn't require legalism and I am not suggesting that, but it does require that we follow after righteousness as written in the next chapter. Thus, my view that the article falls short.

Edit: I don't wish to give the impression that I can do better, or that I don't like it or disagree. It's a good topic and good discussion.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

So, we agree that certain behaviours should accompany all belivers. Yes, grace comes free and without conditions. But, walking in grace does require some things. It most certainly doesn't require legalism and I am not suggesting that, but it does require that we follow after righteousness as written in the next chapter. Thus, my view that the article falls short.

It's not so much that grace requires as much as grace freely enables.

We are given life, so we live.

Grace comes without a barter. It comes without a trade or exchange. It's not a side-room deal. It's a free gift.

We think too hard about those who will turn to license and "get away with something." Have they truly found grace? Do they fully realize the depravity of their condition?

Gracious living is a byproduct, not a requisite of Grace.

[drummerboy_dave]

Isn't it a downplay of a critical measure to say we got grace, that's all we need to focus on, when there's more to it than that? Paul didn't stop there. He went on to say if there's sin in our life we need to get rid of it.