Sola Gratia: Submit Your Objections!

After many Google searches, I was unable to find any objections to the doctrine of Sola Gratia! Apparently, the Catholics affirmed Sola Gratia during the Council of Orange around 530.

So our biggest supplier of anti-Sola arguments, the Catholics, really have nothing to say on the issue. I couldn't find arguments from anyone else, so I'm afraid I have no material for my usual "Common arguments against..." post.

...Unless YOU have an argument against Sola Gratia! If you have a question about, objection to, or argument against Sola Gratia, the doctrine of Grace Alone, then please share it! Otherwise, I'll just move right on to Solus Christus.

Well? Anyone? It doesn't matter whether the objection is one you've heard from someone else or if you believe it yourself, any argument will do! Leave it in the comments and I'll do my best to address it!

Sola Gratia, part 1

 Getting back on track, we'll now take a look at Sola Gratia, the third of the Five Solas of the Reformation.

Sola Gratia means simply "Grace Alone," and the doctrine teaches that we are saved by God's Grace (alone), and not by anything we do. Grace, by definition, is unearned.

This is where some confusion might arise, specifically between Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. "Wait a minute" you might say. "I thought we were saved by our faith, and isn't faith something we do?"
The answer is in Ephesians 2:8-9, one of the most popular proof-texts for Sola Gratia:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast"

As we see in the passage, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Faith has been described as the pipes or conduits through which God's Grace flows into us. In this way, Sola Fide and Sola Gratia work together, in harmony.

But that still leaves the question: "Isn't faith something we do?" because if it is, then we should get some of the credit for salvation, since faith was on our part. Right? Well, looking back at the previous passage, we see that this saving faith (along with the Grace preceding it)  is "not of ourselves; it is the gift of God." Yes, faith is something we do, but the ability to have that faith is given to us by God as part of the salvation process. So we see that every aspect of our salvation, including faith, is a gift of God's grace.

Why is it this way? Why don't we contribute to our own salvation? Because we couldn't even if we wanted to. Sola Gratia goes hand in hand with Total Depravity: if we are dead in our sins and trespasses, and enslaved to sin, and don't seek God, then clearly we are unable to save ourselves, much less worthy of being saved. Thus, it is not only logical, but necessary that God do all the work of salvation in us.

Now the question is: what does the scripture say? Does scripture support the doctrine of Sola Gratia? The answer is yes.

Ephesians 2:1-10 says:

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,  even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

This passage shows clearly how we, before salvation, were unable to save ourselves or to contribute to our salvation in any way, and therefore, that salvation is by Grace. This will be repeated over and over as we look at the following passages.

Acts 15:11 says:

"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Acts 18:27 says:

"And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace;"

Romans 3:23-24 says:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"

  Romans 5 verses 15 & 21 say:

"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many... so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 Romans 11:6 says:

"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."

Ephesians 1:7 says:

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace"

2 Thessalonians 2:16 says:

"Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace,"

2 Timothy 1:9 says:

"who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,"

Titus 2:11 says:

"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,"

Titus 3:7 says:

"that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

These are just a few of the many verses which tell us that salvation is a gift of God's grace, and of His grace alone. It should be clear by now that Sola Gratia is a doctrine founded firmly in scripture, and one which no Christian could reasonably object to. However, as we will find out in part two of this post, there are objections to Sola Gratia, and we'll see what we can do to deal with them.

Until then, God's Grace be with you!

Noah vs. Calvin: The Flood, the Ark, and Reformed Theology

Artist's rendition of the replica ark that's being built. Honestly, I liked the boxy one better than this new curvy one.

I had the privilege of visiting the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio this past Thursday. While at the museum, I was exposed to a lot of information about the Flood, Ark, and Noah. I already knew most of what I read there, but I got to thinking: How does the flood and the ark fit with reformed theology?

Noah's faithfulness in building the Ark to be saved from the flood is often pointed to as a metaphor for Christian salvation, and I think we can all agree that it is a good one. However, different denominations have different views of how salvation works, and as such, they have different ways of applying those views to the flood account.

How does Calvinism (which, BTW, technically isn't a denomination) hold up in comparison? Today I wanted to look at two objections involving the flood which are raised against Reformed Theology, one by Catholics and one by Arminians.

We'll start with the Catholic one first.

Like with Abraham, Catholics like to use Noah's example to try to refute the doctrine of Sola Fide, which we covered recently. Noah had to work to build the ark to be saved, and so the Catholics say that we too must work to be saved. This seems reasonable at first. Noah and his family would not have survived if they hadn't built the ark, and so it seems that their salvation would not have been possible without their works... right?

My position on Noah is the same as my position on Abraham. Noah's faith, like Abraham's, is what saved him, and his works, also like Abraham's, were the evidence of that faith. Indeed, Just like Abraham, Noah is listed in the "faith hall of fame" in Hebrews 11.

"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."

Though Noah's works did play an important part, we must remember that his works are not what saved him, and that those works were a result of his faith. This same faithfulness to God was the whole reason God had chosen to save Noah in the first place!

Consider: If Noah had works, but not faith, would he have been saved? Nope. He would've been a goner. But could Noah have been saved if he had faith, but not works? Well, if he didn't obey God and work to build the ark, it would be clear that he didn't have any faith at all. However, Noah was saved because if his faith, which produced works.

Now, let's move on to the Arminian objection.

The Arminians try to make the case that Salvation hinges upon man's "free will" because those who perished in the flood did so because they chose, of their own free will, not to get on the ark. This of course flies in the face of election. The Arminians add that, according to recent evidence, there even would've been extra room for these sinners on the ark! But the question is... How much room? Enough to fit every single living human on the ark? This is the glaring problem with this argument. The ark was not big enough to save every single human being, but was only intended to hold a select number, regardless of any "extra room." If the flood account truly is an example of how salvation works, then the Ark serves to bolster rather than refute the doctrines of Election and especilly Limited Atonement. And as we're about to see, God intended for these ungodly to be destroyed, regardless of their "free will."

Arminians will, as is their custom, quote the 2 Peter verse that says God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), to say that God wanted the pre-flood sinners to be saved, but God's will was thwarted by their free will. However, it's clear that this verse does not apply, and for two reasons.
The first is that it contradicts with the flood account in Genesis 6, which says this:

"So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created'" (Verse 7)

"So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.'" (Verse 13)

It's clear. God's intention was to judge the wicked for their sins. He didn't say "I'm gonna send a flood, and any humans that don't get on the ark will die." His purpose was to destroy mankind for their sins. Noah was an exception, and God made a provision for him and his family, but the rest of the world had been condemned, like a global version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The second reason the 2 Peter verse doesn't apply is that "any" doesn't really mean "any," which should be clear in light of the previous point. So what is meant by "any" in the verse? The answer is in the first part of the verse. Let's look at what it says:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

The keywords are "promise" and "us." "Us" refers to the elect, to whom this "Promise" is directed at. If you read the whole chapter, you'll see that the promise being referred to is the promise of Christ's second coming, and of the "day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (verse 7)

Peter is basically saying that the reason it seems like God is taking long to fulfill the promise of his second coming is because all of the elect haven't been brought in yet, and until they are, He's holding off his destruction because He doesn't want them to be included in it. He's not willing that any of the elect should perish, but the ungodly, on the other hand, He intends to destroy (according to verse 7).

Once again, this strengthens Calvinism rather than weakening it. It's clear in the case of God's first as well as second judgement of the world, that God has condemned mankind because of their sins, and that He chose his elect (in the case of the first judgement, Noah and his family) for salvation.

In conclusion, neither argument puts a dent in the tough, biblical, armor of Reformed theology. Both miss the true meaning of the texts they're based out of, texts which actually support a reformed, Calvinistic view of salvation.

Do you think I did justice to these objections? Do you have anything you would add to any of the arguments made in this post? If so, I'd love it if you left a comment!