GRACE: What It Is and How It Has Been Understood by the Church

By Ronald E. Diprose

Ron Diprose is a commended missionary from the assemblies in New Zealand and has been the Academic Dean at the Instituto Biblico Evangelico in Rome since 1987. His doctoral dissertation in the field of Historical Theology was entitled Israel in the History of Christian Theology.

Introduction

When I am living by grace, all I am and all I do is based on another’s merit and on qualities that have been conferred upon me. Despite the fact that the Christian gospel is essentially a message of grace, surprisingly grace has not been a popular concept during most of Church history. In fact, beginning with the attempt of the Judaizers to discredit the gospel preached by Paul, there have been repeated attacks on grace. Consequently many of those who have called themselves “Christians” have lived more like slaves than like sons of God. At the same time large sectors of Christendom have tried to earn salvation by doing penance without ever reaching certainty that enough has been done to appease a righteous God. For their part, Evangelicals have fallen into the trap of legalism by giving the impression that full acceptance by God is based on personal performance rather than being based entirely on His grace.

In the first part of this article I seek to define grace by considering some key New Testament passages on the subject and by offering a simple definition of the word itself. This serves to establish the following paradigm: In the New Testament saving grace and the transforming effects of grace appear together. In the main body of the article I survey how grace has been understood during subsequent centuries in the light of this New Testament paradigm. We will see that from the fourth century on grace has been discussed primarily with reference to how salvation is applied and in relation to the question of whether saving grace is potentially available to all people or only to a limited number. Not until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was this matched by an emphasis on the life-changing dimension of grace. This emphasis has been much in the fore during the past two decades. [1] This is a healthy trend as the apostles urged believers “to continue in the grace of God” and to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (Acts 13:43; 2 Pet. 3:18).

What Grace Is

The best way to define grace is by observing how key New Testament passages describe its manifestation and effects. In the Prologue to his Gospel, John makes an important statement concerning grace:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us and we have observed his glory, the glory of the One who dwells with the Father, full of grace and truth…. From the fullness of his grace we have all received, and one administration of grace has replaced another. For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, the one and only, himself God, who dwells in the Father’s bosom, has made him known (John 1:14, 16–18, trans. mine).

The incarnation of God the Son brought an end to one administration of grace—the covenant of law given through Moses—replacing it with another. The new administration of grace referred to in this passage came through Jesus Christ, and its main characteristics are grace and truth. In other words, while all of God’s work with mankind may be considered an expression of grace (see Gen. 6:8; Ex. 33:12–13; 34:8–9), grace and truth are supremely evident in the life and work of Jesus. Similarly, with the first advent of Christ, God’s self-disclosure has progressed from an indirect to a personal mode of revelation (John 1:18). [2] Thus we can learn a lot about the grace of God by observing the life and work of Christ as described in the four Gospels. This revelation of grace is summed up beautifully by the apostle Paul, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9, NIV, NASB).

The following statement, like the prologue of John’s Gospel, links the unique manifestation of grace in the life and work of Jesus with a strong statement concerning His Deity. [3] As part of Paul’s briefing to Titus concerning how to establish the young churches on the Island of Crete, the apostle draws attention to what grace has accomplished and how it teaches and empowers us to live transformed lives:

For the grace of God bringing salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, zealous in doing good works (Titus 2:11–14, trans. mine).

This passage teaches that grace “brings salvation” in order that those who experience it might become “zealous in doing good works” (cf. Eph. 2:8–10).

A pivotal passage in Romans explains how the grace of God, operating in Christ, has made salvation possible:

All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. God foreordained him as an atoning sacrifice, by faith in his blood (3:23–25a, trans. mine).

In other words, grace which operates through Christ’s finished work is the effectual cause of justification while faith in His atoning sacrifice is its instrumental cause (cf. Rom. 5:15–16).

In all there are over fifty passages in the New Testament in which the word grace describes some aspect of God’s work. The apostle Peter draws attention to the strong link which exists between grace and the divine nature, “The God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast” (1 Pet. 5:10, NIV). “Furthermore grace, flowing from God and from the exalted Christ, was recognized to be an essential ingredient in Christian ministry in the apostolic era (Acts 6:8; 11:23; 14:26; 15:40; 18:27).” [4] Those who experienced saving grace by believing the gospel were thus introduced to a life of grace (cf. 20:24). It follows that the lives of those who are touched by saving grace should give visible evidence of this grace. What it means to “continue in grace” is illustrated in passages like Ephesians 4:32 and Colossians 3:13, where believers are exhorted to forgive one another just as they have been forgiven by God. In both passages the verb translated “forgive” is χαρίζομαι (charizomai), meaning to “show favor or kindness, to be gracious to or forgive someone.” In a similar way the special endowments which permit all members of the body of Christ to contribute to the edification of the whole body are described as “grace gifts” (χαρίσματα, charismata, Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 1:7; 12:4, 9, 28–31; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Pet. 4:10). It might surprise some to know that God even endows His children with a specific grace gift to enable them to live honorably either in marriage or as singles (1 Cor. 7:7, 25).

Before describing some of the ways in which grace has been understood during the course of Christian history, we need to notice the precise meaning of the term. Words deriving from the Greek root char, from which we get the terms χάρις (charis, “grace”), χάρισμα (charisma, “a gift or product of grace”) and χαρά (chara, “joy”), indicate something which produces well-being. [5] The term has been used, and continues to be used, with reference to a great variety of different things. However, while the actions of men can be the cause of some degree of well-being, lasting well-being is possible only through the activity of God. Thus the term grace takes on a special meaning, as we have seen, when used to describe divine action.

“Grace” in the History of the Church

The Early Christian Centuries

The scarcity of references to grace in early Christian writings makes it difficult to know whether there was a doctrine of grace during the centuries immediately following the apostolic era. On the whole writings from this period give the impression that the Christian gospel was understood more as a new law than as a system based on grace. Jaroslav Pelikan observes that “the doctrine of grace as justification and forgiveness developed slowly and unsteadily”.6 Of course the apostolic writings, containing the classical formulations of this doctrine, were being read ever more widely. There is no doubt that the grace of God, as the effectual cause of salvation, was at work during these centuries. The fruits of such work are evident in a remarkable description of the transformed lives of Christians, written by an unknown author probably during the first half of the second century.

The Christians are not distinguished from other men by country, by language, nor by civil institutions. For they neither dwell in cities by themselves, nor use a peculiar tongue, nor lead a singular mode of life. They dwell in the Grecian or barbarian cities, as the case may be; they follow the usage of the country in dress, food, and the other affairs of life. Yet they present a wonderful and confessedly paradoxical conduct. They dwell in their own native lands, but as strangers. They take part in all things, as citizens; and they suffer all things, as foreigners. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every native land is a foreign. They marry, like all others; they have children; but they do not cast away their offspring. They have the table in common, but not wives. They are in the flesh, but do not live after the flesh. They live upon the earth, but are citizens of heaven. They obey the existing laws, and excel the laws by their lives. They love all, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown, and yet they are condemned. They are killed and are made alive. They are poor and make many rich. They lack all things, and in all things abound. They are reproached, and glory in their reproaches. They are calumniated, and are justified. They are cursed, and they bless. They receive scorn, and they give honor. They do good, and are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice, as being made alive. By the Jews they are attacked as aliens, and by the Greeks persecuted; and the cause of the enmity their enemies cannot tell. In short, what the soul is in the body, the Christians are in the world. [7]

Although the word grace does not appear in this passage, who would doubt that this unique race of people were empowered by the grace of God.

In this early period the main development in the doctrine of grace, understood as justification and forgiveness, was the emphasis put on the means of grace. This terminology came to be used with reference to the Church and its priestly services. [8] Unfortunately the Church increasingly neglected the New Testament concept of Christian ministry, choosing to model its ministry on the prerogatives of the Levitical priesthood, particularly that of offering sacrifices. Around the year ad 140 Justin Martyr wrote the following in his Dialogue with Trypho:

We are the true high priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well-pleasing and pure. Now God receives sacrifices from no one, except through His priests. [9]

This emphasis on sacrifices made the celebration of the Eucharist, understood in terms of sacrifice, a central aspect of Christian ministry. [10] At the same time the Church largely lost sight of the fact that the apostolic requirement for the appropriation of saving grace had been the response of faith to the preaching of the gospel. Meanwhile, the presumed efficacy of baptism, when administered by duly ordained priests, [11] and the Eucharist, by virtue of the “invocation of God,” came to be seen as the standard means of grace. [12]

The dispensing of divine grace through an ordained priesthood was closely associated with the presumed holy status of the Church. [13] Eventually a particular theory of holiness came to be considered the cornerstone of Ecclesiastical unity. Only where the apostolic succession of the bishops could be traced was holiness thought to be possible. Thus only where local priests were ordained by bishops who could claim such apostolic succession were the so-called “sacraments” of baptism and of the Eucharist thought to be efficacious. [14] According to Cyprian, no one outside of this line of apostolic succession has access to divine grace, the administration of which is essential for the remission of sins and the hope of eternal salvation.

Augustine and Pelagius

Augustine and Pelagius represent two polar opposites in the debate concerning the accessibility and function of saving grace, with Augustine holding to the absolute sovereignty of God as the controlling principle and Pelagius propounding the freedom of man’s will. The background of this polarization is instructive. Jaroslav Pelikan offers this helpful insight:

The course taken by the development of the augustinian tradition has been affected by the loss of contact with Jewish thought, whose refusal to polarize the free sovereignty of God and the free will of man has frequently been labeled Pelagian. [15]

This is not the place to go into the question of how the Church lost contact with Jewish thought. [16] It is sufficient to bear in mind the link between the increasing use of Greek philosophical categories by the so-called “Church Fathers” and the polarization of the issue of “the free sovereignty of God and the free will of man.”

Pelagius

Because much of Augustine’s writing on grace and free will was a response to the challenge posed by the teaching of Pelagius, it is convenient to begin with the latter. Pelagius was a British monk who came to Rome in 409 and composed a brief commentary on the Epistles of Paul. He gained notoriety through one of his disciples, Celestius, whom he led to conversion at Rome. Celestius was interrogated in 412 at a council presided over by bishop Aurelius of Carthage.

Pelagius himself was tried and absolved at a diocesan synod presided over by bishop John of Jerusalem in 414. [17] At this synod Pelagius was accused of promoting the belief that “all men are ruled by their own will.” He replied: “This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.” [18]

Pelagius believed that the moral aim of life was sinless perfection and seems to have believed that such perfection could be reached without the aid of special or added grace. The logic he used was that biblical injunctions such as, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), imply “the ability on the part of the hearer to obey the commandment.” Moreover, Pelagius taught that sinners die for their own sin, not for the sin of Adam. The only remedy for sinners is justification by faith. [19] Concerning the origin of right action, Pelagius had this to say:

We distinguish three things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first place “ability;” in the second, “volition;” and in the third, “actuality.” The “ability” we place in our nature, the “volition” in our will, and the “actuality” in the effect. The first, that is, the “ability,” properly belongs to God, who has bestowed it on His creature; the other two, that is, the “volition” and the “actuality,” must be referred to man, because they flow forth from the fountain of the will. For his willing, therefore, and doing a good work, the praise belongs to man; or rather both to man, and to God who has bestowed on him the “capacity” for his will and work, and who evermore by the help of His grace assists even this capacity. [20]

From this and other statements made by Pelagius, particularly in his commentary on Romans, his general doctrine of man, sin, and salvation is clear: All a person needs in order to attain perfection is the kind of divine help usually described as “common grace.” The bishops of Palestine found it possible to absolve the elderly Pelagius, perhaps influenced by his saintly conduct. Thus there was a need for someone to bring the authority of Scripture to bear on his teachings, reaffirming the biblical doctrine of universal sin [21] and the absolute need of saving grace for sinners in order for them to experience justification.

Augustine

Augustine, more than anyone else, made it his business to address the issues raised by Pelagius. In his work, On the Predestination of the Saints, Augustine insists that the unregenerated human will can play no part in the appropriation of grace. Despite the many biblical imperatives exhorting mankind to repent and believe the gospel, he asserts that even the beginning of “the faith by which we are Christians is the gift of God.” [22] This gift is bestowed “by divine grace and predestination,” the latter being “the preparation for grace.” [23] Augustine reasons that faith, should it originate in man himself, would be meritorious. Despite the fact that “faith” and “works” stand in an antithetical relationship in the writings of Paul (Rom. 3:27–28; 4:4–5; Gal. 3:5–14), Augustine insists that faith is a work because Jesus replied to the Jews’ question, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” by saying, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:28–29). [24] So the experience of grace is seen to depend entirely on divine predestination with the result that faith is bestowed as a free gift of grace only on those who have been predestined. Thus, according to Augustine, both the effectual cause of justification (grace) and the instrumental cause (faith) are products of the free grace of God.

To sustain the position that even the beginning of saving faith is a divine gift and outside of man’s own capacity to will or to exercise, Augustine makes frequent use of Ephesians 2:8–10. His reasoning is well summed up in the following quotation taken from his On Grace and Free Will:

He [Paul] does not say, “I obtained mercy because I was faithful,” but “in order that I might be faithful,” thus showing that even faith itself cannot be had without God’s mercy, and that it is the gift of God. This he very expressly teaches us when he says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” [Eph. ii. 8]. They might possibly say, “We received grace because we believed;” as if they would attribute the faith to themselves, and the grace to God. Therefore, the apostle having said, “Ye are saved through faith,” added, “And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God.” And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, “Not of works, lest any man should boast” [Eph. ii. 9]. Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that God renders to every man according to his works [Rom. ii. 6]; but because works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself, concerning which it is written, “The just shall live by faith [Habak. ii. 4].” [25]

According to Augustine, Ephesians 2:8–10 teaches that if a sinner could respond by faith to the preaching of the gospel without receiving the “gift” of faith, he or she could boast of having obtained salvation partly by personal achievement. However before concluding that the “gift” of which Paul speaks in verse 8b is “faith,” we must consider carefully the parallel statements: “and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8b–9, lit. trans.). In order to decide what “this” refers to we must begin by noting that this demonstrative pronoun (Gk. του̑το) is neuter, whereas the word “faith” is a feminine noun in Greek (πίστις, pistis). Thus the word “this” cannot be referred directly to “faith.” This does not favor Augustine’s understanding of the passage. S. D. F. Salmond, who follows the Greek text closely, writes,

Salvation is the main idea in the preceding statement, and it seems best to understand the καὶ του̑το as referring to that salvation in its entire compass, and not merely to the one element in it, its instrumental cause, appended by way of explanation. [26]

This interpretation finds confirmation in the second of the parallel statements, “not by works, so that no one can boast” (v. 9). It is unquestionably salvation that is not of works, the effectual cause of which is grace. The passage also makes it clear that faith, the instrumental cause of salvation, is not to be confused with works or human achievement.

This leaves open the question of the origin of saving faith. This question is addressed elsewhere in Scripture. Both Peter and James name the Word of God as the means of regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23; Jas 1:18) while Paul states explicitly that “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; cf. Gal. 3:3).

Augustine’s conviction that all faith which leads to salvation is a gift of God and that the distribution of this gift depends upon predestination which is “the preparation for grace,” does not harmonize well with earlier Christian tradition concerning the means of grace, according to which the sacrament of baptism determines the forgiveness of sins and regeneration. [27] If we take our cue from Augustine’s understanding of predestination and grace, not all who receive baptism can hope to be finally saved. This paradox, which Augustine himself was never able to resolve satisfactorily, should caution us from feeling bound to accept as normative any traditional formulation of the matter. The Old Catholic Church, including Augustine, taught that the sacraments are necessary means of grace. Augustine added to this teaching the notion that grace is a polar opposite of free will. The use of such absolutist either/or categories introduces into the discussion on grace a dimension not present in the New Testament writings. The dual emphasis in the apostolic writings is rather on mankind’s complete lack of merit before God and on the universal offer of salvation by grace to all who believe.

Grace in the Sixteenth Century

In order to appreciate the reasoning of both Luther and Calvin it is important to remember that their prevailing concern was to show that, contrary to what the Church of Rome had been teaching, salvation is entirely a product of divine grace; works, whether understood as penitence or as kindness to one’s neighbor, contribute nothing to it. In his Refutation of Scholastic Theology Luther writes, “Nothing precedes grace except ill-will and even rebellion against grace.” [28] This view was best articulated in his reply to Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was famous, among other things, for producing the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. In his treatise On Free Will, published in September 1524, Erasmus stated that he was unconvinced by the opinions of the ancients and of Luther on this matter. [29] Schaff describes Erasmus’ own position as “semi-Pelagian theory…in the mildest form.” [30] Erasmus summarizes as follows what he believes the Holy Scriptures reveal on the subject:

If we are in the path of true religion, let us go on swiftly to better things, forgetful of the things which are behind, or if we are entangled in sins, let us strive with all our might and have recourse to the remedy of penitence that by all means we may entreat the mercy of the Lord without which no human will or endeavor is effective; and what is evil in us, let us impute to ourselves, and what is good, let us ascribe wholly to divine benevolence, to which we owe our very being, and for the rest, whatever befalls us in this life, whether it be joyful or sad, let us believe it to be sent by him for our salvation, and that no harm can come to us from a God who is by nature just, even if some things happen that seem to us amiss, for none ought to despair of the pardon of a God who is by nature most merciful. This, I say, was in my judgment sufficient for Christian godliness, nor should we through irreverent inquisitiveness rush into those things which are hidden, not to say superfluous: whether God foreknows anything contingently; whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to eternal salvation; whether it simply suffers the action of grace; whether what we do, be it of good or ill, we do by necessity or rather suffer to be done to us. [31]

Luther had good reasons for reacting negatively to this treatise. He had spent many years trying to merit his own salvation, only to feel the increasing weight of his sins and subsequently to discover salvation by sola gratia through sola fide. Moreover in the course of writing his treatise, On Free Will, Erasmus had made it clear that he did not intend adhering to the Lutheran Reformation. Thus Luther was concerned to make the point that human merit contributes nothing to salvation. It was perhaps also logical that he make his point by reiterating an aspect of Augustine’s teaching which had been neglected by the Roman Church. This he did in a treatise entitled On the Bondage of the Will. Building on the premise that only God can be properly said to have “free will,” [32] Luther taught double predestination. According to this notion, some people are predestined to eternal salvation while others, for no reason other than that God wills it, are predestined to eternal damnation. [33]

Luther believed that “what is being sought by means of ‘freewill’ is that merit may have its place.” [34] He may well have been right in this. In order to appreciate the reasoning of both Luther and Calvin, we must remember that they had to correct some serious distortions of the gospel patronized by the papacy, an overarching religious force reinforced by political power. This may explain some of the harshness evident in the written works of these great reformers and may even provide a rationale for their reluctance to countenance other dissenting minorities like the Anabaptists and the Jews. One such distortion was the sale of indulgences linked with the presumed authority to forgive sins. Hence any doctrine which did not attribute to God total control in all matters might well have seemed a concession to man’s craving for glory and an attempt to obtain salvation by works.

Whether or not Erasmus was driven by a concern to reserve a place for human merit, as Luther believed, we must ask, in the light of the biblical evidence, whether absolute predestination and merit are the only options. The least that can be said is that in the Pauline writings, faith as a means of appropriating saving grace is featured as antithetical to human merit and human works. [35]

Many of the themes treated by Luther, often in the heat of battle, were later systematized by John Calvin (1509–1564) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Here is one of his fine statements concerning what he calls “the promise of grace:”

Thus, surely, we shall more closely approach the nature of faith; for it is after we have learned that our salvation rests with God that we are attracted to seek him. This fact is confirmed for us when he declares that our salvation is his care and concern. Accordingly, we need the promise of grace, which can testify to us that the Father is merciful; since we can approach him in no other way, and upon grace alone the heart of man can rest. [36]

Yet there seems to be some tension between Calvin’s concept of divine providence, according to which everything, including every event, flows from God who wills all things and accomplishes all He wills, and some of Paul’s statement concerning the wideness of God’s mercy. “God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom. 11:32). Calvin writes:

We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death. [37]

However we evaluate what Calvin calls “God’s eternal decree,” it is hard to reconcile his statement concerning double predestination with Romans 11:32 where the same value must be given to “them all” with reference to the wideness of God’s mercy as is attributed to “all men” with reference to their disobedience (cf. John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:3–4). We must be careful not to allow theological argument to empty Scripture of its primary meaning. [38]

After the Reformation

Divine grace was very evident in the life of the Puritans. The life and ministry of William Perkins (1558–1602) was a good example of this. Benjamin Brook writes of Perkins:

After he was called by divine grace, and become [sic.] a preacher of the gospel, he laid open the workings of sin and vanity in others, exercised a spirit of sympathy over perishing sinners, and upon their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, led them to the enjoyment of substantial comfort. [39]

In his writings, too, Perkins emphasized the process of salvation as including growth in sanctification. [40]

Two centuries later grace became a key concept in the teaching of John Wesley (1703–1791). The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology describes his theology in the following terms:

In essence, Wesley’s theology, so akin to the Reformation, affirms God’s sovereign will to reverse our “sinful, devilish nature,” by the work of his Holy Spirit, a process he called prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace (grace being nearly synonymous with the work of the Holy Spirit). [41]

Wesley affirmed the universality of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who initiates the relationship between God and people and guarantees their freedom to say yes. Following the Spirit’s work in the lives of all who place their faith in Jesus Christ, described as “justifying grace,” the Holy Spirit administers “sanctifying grace,” leading the believer to do good works and grow towards perfection. One of the best-known of Wesley’s works is his A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. Among his introductory remarks, Wesley writes the following concerning the possibility of an instant change in the life of a believer in the direction of the kind of perfection he defines later in his Plain Account:

Constant experience shows the more earnestly they expect this the more swiftly and steadily does the gradual work of God go on in their souls; the more careful are they to grow in grace; the more zealous of good works, and the more punctual in their attendance on all the ordinances of God. [42]

According to Wesley, a Christian in whom the sanctifying grace of God is not constantly increasing the degree of Christian maturity, which he preferred to call “perfection,” is a contradiction in terms.

Thus with Wesley the emphasis moves from theological discussion concerning the reception of grace and the origin of faith to focusing on the transforming power of grace. Addressing the second General Conference of what was to become known as Methodism on August 1, 1745, Wesley posed the question, “When does inward sanctification begin?” To this he gave the following answer:

In the moment a man is justified. Yet sin remains in him, yea, the seed of sin, till he is sanctified throughout. From that time a believer gradually dies to sin, and grows in grace. [43]

According to apostolic teaching, perfection, understood as “freedom from sin,” remains an unattained goal throughout the entire life of the believer (1 John 1:8–2:2; Phil. 3:12–16; 2 Pet. 3:18). Although it is necessary to correct Wesley’s teaching by excluding the possibility of sinless perfection, the founder of Methodism is surely right when he insists that those who have been saved by God’s grace must allow grace to reign in their lives (cf. Rom. 6:11–14).

A contribution in many ways analogous to that of Wesley was made by Jonathan Edwards on the other side of the Atlantic in his A Treatise on Religious Affections which was published in 1746. [44] Edwards insists that being part of the elect can be determined by ascertaining that our religious emotions, producing Christian graces and good works, have their origin in God. Since Wesley and Edwards there have been many further attempts to define the transforming power of grace in the life of Christians. [45] All such treatments must have as their point of departure the truth concerning the objective work of divine grace in salvation. Otherwise there is a real risk of confusing purely subjective emotions and works with the working of divine grace.

Conclusion

Whatever we receive by grace is by definition undeserved. Far from being limited to securing salvation from sin’s penalty, the grace of which the New Testament speaks has a transforming power and produces exquisite beauty in lives which are thus touched by God. All who have believed the gospel of grace will agree with C. S. Lewis when he affirms that it is grace which sets Christianity apart from all other religions. [46] Christians know that grace, and grace alone, is the effectual cause of their salvation. Furthermore, they experience the work of the Holy Spirit whereby grace is displayed in their lifestyle and in their way of relating to other people, both inside and outside the Church.

It is unfortunate that throughout much of Christian history the gospel of grace has been distorted by the notion that there are ways of receiving grace other than by faith in Christ and has been submerged by discussions concerning the extent of its availability. Both of these factors have caused many to forget that the normal Christian life is the fruit of divine grace and is marked by growth in grace. [47]

Notes

1. The following books are representative of this emphasis: Charles R. Swindoll, The Grace Awakening (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990); Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1991); Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing about Amazing Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997).
2. The words χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (John 1:16) can be translated, “one grace replacing another.” For a fuller exposition of these verses which follows the same general approach, see D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 131–136.
3. See Murray J. Harris, “Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ,” in Pauline Studies, Essays presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday, ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980), 262–277.
4. H. H. Esser, “Grace,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 3 vols (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–78), 2:119.
5. H. H. Esser, “Grace,” NIDNT, 2:115.
6. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 155.
7. The Epistle to Diognetus, v-vi, quoted by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed., 8 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 2:9–10.
8. This development had its roots in what is now known as replacement theology, expressions of which refer to the Church’s self-understanding as the true “Israel.” The first clear instance of this is found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, CXXXV, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (hereafter ANF), eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 10 vols, (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1994 [= 1885]), 1:267.
9. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, cxvi (ANF, 1:257).
10. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, iv.17–18 (ANF, 1:482–486).
11. In his book Against Marcion, i.28 (ANF, 3:293), Tertullian infers that the following four gifts are granted through baptism: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit; cf. On Baptism, especially chs. vii, viii, xvii (ANF, 3:672–673, 677).
12. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, cxvii (ANF, 1:257); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV.xvii.5; xviii.5 (ANF, 1:484, 486).
13. See Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 67 (ANF, 5:369–372); cf. Tertullian’s protest, in his On Exhortation to Chastity (ANF, 4:50–58), that the official church lived far below this ideal.
14. See Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, especially para. 17, 18, 19 (ANF, 5:421–429).
15. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1:22.
16. See my ISRAEL in the development of Christian Thought, (Rome: IBEI Edizioni, 2000), 73–101.
17. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:790–797.
18. Cited in Augustine, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 5, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (hereafter NPNF), First series, ed. Philip Schaff, 14 vols, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1987 [= 1886–1889), 5:185.
19. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1:313–314.
20. Cited in Augustine, A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, ch. 5 “Pelagius’ own account of the Faculties, quoted” (NPNF, 5:219).
21. The key tenets of Pelagius’ doctrine of sin are summed up by Celestius: “The sin of Adam injured only him, not the human race” and “the law leads to the kingdom [of heaven], just as the gospel does” (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1:314–316).
22. Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, i.3 (NPNF 5:499).
23. Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, i.19 (NPNF, 5:507).
24. Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, i.12 (NPNF, 5:504).
25. Augustine, A Treatise on Grace and Free Will, ch. 17 (NPNF, 5:450–451).
26. S. D. F. Salmond, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols, (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 3:289. Francis Foulkes, who also prefers this interpretation, makes the following observation: In order to make του̑το refer to faith “we would need to regard the second part of verse 8 as a parenthesis, since verse 9 must refer to salvation and not to faith.” Francis Foulkes, The Letter of Paul to the Ephesians; Revised ed., TNTC, ed. Leon Morris (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), 84.
27. Cf. Augustine, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, ch. 23 (NPNF, 5:23–24); cf. Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. lxi, (ANF, 1:183); Tertullian, On Baptism, ch. ii (ANF, 3:669–670).
28. Martin Luther, Disputation against Scholastic Theology, thesis 30, in Luther’s Works, vols, 31–55, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1957–1986), 31:11.
29. Erasmus, On the Freedom of the Will, in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, The Library of Christian Classics, trans. and ed. E. Gordon Rupp, in collaboration with A. N. Marlow (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), 37.
30. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 7:428.
31. Erasmus, On the Freedom of the Will, LCC, 39.
32. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, II. ix, in Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Westword, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), 105.
33. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, VII, xix (pp. 314–318).
34. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, VII, vi (p. 292).
35. Besides the passages already referred to see Rom. 11:6, 20.
36. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, vols. xx + xxi (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), III.ii.7 [1:550].
37. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xxi.5 [2:926].
38. For the later controversy within the Reformed communion concerning Calvin’s doctrine of decrees, which drew forth contributions from Jacob Arminius and Simon Episcopius, and contrasting statements, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 4:232–244.
39. Benjamin Brook, The Lives of the Puritans, 3 vols. (London: James Black, 1813; reprint ed., Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), 1:129.
40. See in particular his A Golden Chaine (1590) which was published in several European languages and went through numerous editions.
41. R. G. Tuttle, Jr., “Wesley, John,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1164.
42. John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (Louisville, KN: Pentecostal Publishing Company, n.d.), 1.
43. John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 9.
44. Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise on Religious Affections, in The Works of Johathan Edwards, vol. 2, ed. John E. Smith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959).
45. For a list of some recent works, see n. 1.
46. C. S. Lewis is quoted by Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing about Amazing Grace?, 45.
47. Cf. Acts 13:43. Pelikan (The Christian Tradition, 5:149) writes, “Like the corollary doctrine of justification, the doctrine of regeneration and perfection had had [previous to the time of Wesley] a surprisingly uneven career in Christian history, often having been taken for granted rather than explicitly worked out in a full theological exposition.”