All Grace is of God, God is Grace.
Grace does not require belief. Grace does not require submission. Grace does not require confession.
The origin of Grace is Love.
Grace does require acceptance.
The only sin Grace will not erase is the rejection of Grace, either for
one's self or for another.
by William of Occam
Found this recently and thought I'd post it here. Sweet, huh?
Or am I wrong about that...?
15 comments:
Hmmm,
Interesting, I need to ponder this one some more!
I would say though, that from a New Testament perspective, once accepted, grace "AlWAYS" expects something in return. It is never simply "free." If God gives you grace, He expects you to do something in return, namely: Good works!
In a patronage society and culture (as the New Testament world was) this was the understanding of grace; it was a financial term. See my post: http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2007/07/understanding-grace-new-testament.html"On Patronage & Grace: The New Testament Perspective"
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
But that makes Grace the result of a bargain, a quid pro quo. Which makes it not Grace.
Good works naturally flow from one who receives Grace. Spreading Grace to others is part and parcel of accepting Grace -- whether from God or other people.
That's what Grace is: an INFECTION that we can't help but pass along.
I'm all for good works, but I'm thinking that is another thing altogether. Grace, though, could be more like sunshine. Isn't that the idea behind "common grace?" The sunshine and the rain, the springtime and the growing plants, and the shade at high noon. God's giving to us all.
Mr. Halcomb is right that 'grace' (charis) began as a financial term in the NT world (so did "redemption," for that matter), but he fails to see how the NT redefined it. Paul uses the term "free grace" in a way that would shock hearers. Likewise, Luke's Gospel shows sinners being forgiven BEFORE they repent and promise to lead new lives (except for Zachaeus, who starts this big speech before Jesus can say anything--but Jesus pronounces his new works not payment, but EVIDENCE that salvation has already come to Zachaeus).
Grace is always free--but never cheap as Bonhoeffer taught us.
BTW, don't kids grow up fast! Sarah Grace is now a pre-teen, but that picture seems like yesterday!
M. Westmoreland,
Actually, Paul did not redefine grace; I think you misunderstand there. In fact, what he did was take the entire concept and simply implant it into Christianity. Every single NT writer understands that grace must ALWAYS be met with grace; that's just the way it is!
That doesn't make "grace the result of a bargain." Grace is the initial move in a social relationship--not the "result" of a bargain. What this does is to raise grace to an incredible standard.
The way I hear grace being defined here is that it is simply "free" with no expectations. No NT writer would have ever said this, not a single one! Grace always expects gratitude and what this means is that when grace is offered and then accepted, we are called to be partners in a relationship. Again, even from a financial understanding, that makes sense! Yes, good works flow from grace - but that does not mean that they are not expected; especially if, as Paul says, that's why we were created!!!!
Where does Paul specifically say that grace is free, with no expectations? There is no such place! And while you cited no specific examples from Luke, I ask you to. I bet you can't find any. Every time Jesus initiates something, He always expects something in return.
What we have done is watered down grace so much, we just love in our society to say that it is free (in our consumeristic culture we all love free stuff!!!!) but an early believer would never have thought or uttered such words. What we need to do is recover the NT understanding of grace that has "expectation" attached to it. When we teach this, we will see less and less people coming to Christ and then turning or slipping away.
Grace isn't cheap, as Bonhoeffer noted! Neither is it absolutely free. And if you don't believe that, just remember that a heavy price was paid. We, as believers, are called to live lives of grace -lives of good works - lives of gratitude and obedience.
Again, it's not about a bargain; it's about a relationship built on grace for grace; that's the NT teaching.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
Halcomb, I am extremely skeptical of your "scholarship," because you aren't even observant enough to get my name right. If you cannot be bothered enough to note that my last name is Westmoreland-White, not simply, Westmoreland, then it explains why you are equally sloppy in your treatment of other written documents, including the biblical texts.
I happen to know much about patronage economies and their application to the New Testament. I have an entire shelf of books which apply socio-economic studies to the NT. So, I don't think I am wrong. I read your linked article and believe that it shows amateurish fumbling. I was more polite in my last post, before you talked down to me while bungling my name. Now, I'm just dismissing your opinion as uninformed.
Now, Michael (WW), T Michael quotes Ched Myers over at his site, so he can't be all bad. Be nice.
I'll agree that grace may never be described as free in the Bible, but neither is it described as a bargain and, at least for me, I find that approach a bit creepy.
God's love, God's realm is free for all who accept it and want to be part of it. THAT is where I find the "good works" plugging in. If you agree with the notions of God's Realm and want to be part of it, you start living like you're part of it.
If you disagree with God's realm, then you won't live like you want to be part of it and are, perhaps, even rejecting it.
I like Art Gish's comment in Living in Christian Community, that says something to the effect of, "If we truly want to go to heaven where there are no rich and no poor, where there is freedom and love for all, where there is no greed or war, then why wouldn't we start living thusly now?"
Dan,
Well said my friend.
Okay, Michael Westmoreland-White, I find your attitude quite disconcerting here and your direct put downs, well, I feel the same way about those. Just so you know, your name is incredibly long to type out and so, I just thought I'd use part of it. When my friends call me "halc" (short for Halcomb) I don't think they are idiots, morons or stupid because of that. Now that that's out of the way...
You have taken my initial response wrongly here. I did not talk down to you, I simply disagreed with you (as you did with me). I will not resort to name calling here or elsewhere. I never said that you had no knowledge of the NT setting from a social standpoint (and by the way, just because someone owns books does not mean they read them; nor does it mean that the books they own are right). I'm glad that you do and already understood that when you made your comments on the term "charis". What I see happening here is you being incredibly defensive. I asked for proof from the NT and you did not and have not given it. Instead, you simply tried to disprove my scholarship by name calling. Hmmmmm. If that's how you work, more power to you. Again, I will not.
As for being amateurish and fumbling, I take issue with you here too. Again, I ask for proof. Quit putting down and name calling and start proving. That's all I'm asking for. And do you know why I am asking? Because if I'm wrong, I want to be corrected. If I'm right, then I'll be affirmed.
I've not had anyone (and I mean anyone) who has acted this way. I want to maintain civil conversation and sometimes that contains blatant disagreement. That is the nature of a blog post that attempts to raise discussion through debate. My philosophy is that iron sharpens iron, not iron cuts the neck of your brother or sister in Christ.
As for dismissing my opinion, feel free but is it because you are upset or because I am right and again, you haven't given me any proof? It could be either.
And to get back to the whole name thing, I wasn't aware that you were so sensitive about it. Many of the people on blogs have a shortened version of their name or a nickname. I don't think Erudite Redneck would be upset if I called him erudite or redneck, one or the other. But, if it really bothered you that much (and to repeat myself, I was simply doing that because it is a long name to type), I apologize for that.
As for my scholarship, I don't apologize for that. And if you have as many socio-economic books on the NT as you say, you would know that I share their understanding of charis. And why would you own so many of these types of books (your statement implies a lot) and keep buying them if you found them so offensive? Just curious!
As for my name, you can call me Michael, TMW Halcomb, Halcomb - any of those will do just fine. What I don't appreciate is your resorting to name calling. In the end, I think that says more about how you do scholarship than I do.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
Man, this got personal way fast. Sheesh. Mr. Westmoreland-White, I think you overreacted to a perceived slight.
And, Halc, call me ER. :-)
ER, will do my friend.
Well?
I'm not trying to be snarky or personal with this, but for what it's worth, all these lonely initials and hyphens and long-as-my-leg monikers and alphabetized credentials and whatnot strike me as a bit pompous. My opinion is that the blog forum is supposed to be about the exchange of ideas without all the baggage and bluster. Particularly amongst the Christians; I was under the impression they were to be no respecters of persons? Get a nickname and use it, and get yourself out of the way.
What the?!
This is a weird comment thread.
Anyway, I have heard some people say that they use their full names as a way of being honest in their posts. Personally, I don't mind the full names of people. I just happen to be a more private person than others.
And as far as you know, t michael may not like his first name. It could be something like 'Tosama' or "Tadolph'.
Concering the OP, I would say that belief is a step towards acceptance. But there is a difference between intellectual belief and belief of the heart.
This sounds familiar somehow. Suppose y'all are too young to remember:
Comedian Bill Saluga had a bit that he did on TV variety shows. If you watched television in the late 70s you'll remember it. A zoot-suited character named Raymond J. Johnson Jr. would appear. If you called him "Johnson," he launched into a tirade:
Ahh, ya doesn't has to call me Johnson! You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnny or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me RayJay, or you can call me RJ... but ya doesn't hafta call me Johnson
..the inanity of it stuck in my cerebellum. Thanks for the opportunity to divest of it. :)
"Buf if ya call me Frances -- I'll kill ya."
Name it!
Stripes.
Post a Comment