Let us unpack our first definition of grace. Grace, as an attitude in the heart of God, is his unmerited favor to hell-deserving sinners. This aspect of grace is synonymous with the concept of sovereign election. Although we insist that grace is a word with broad meanings, when we consider the word in connection with how a holy God relates himself to sinful creatures in salvation, we must define the word narrowly. In such a setting, grace can only mean “that attitude in God’s heart which sovereignly purposes to choose and save a multitude of ungodly sinners without any help whatsoever from those sinners.” I remind you of what I said previously. This is the aspect of grace that the Reformers saw so clearly and the Roman Catholics missed.

Rome insisted that God infused his grace into the sinner’s heart, thus enabling the sinner to do good works. God rewarded those good works with forgiveness and salvation. Since the grace to perform the good works was infused by God, the sinner was therefore saved by grace. The Reformers saw this for exactly what it was—a back door justification by human works. Neither law nor works furnish any ground for justification. Rome was right in seeing that one aspect of grace was God’s putting spiritual power into human hearts. They were wrong in connecting this with the grounds of justification. To refute Rome, Luther used Paul’s emphatic statements about the antithesis between salvation by obeying the law versus salvation by grace. Paul insists that the law is not of faith, but is the exact opposite. It is impossible to be under the law, in the sense that Paul is using the word law, without also being under its curse. Any relationship with the law requires a perfect, continual obedience to all things in the law.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them (Gal. 3:10-12, KJV). 

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work (Rom. 11:5-6, KJV).

For Paul, justification requires complete separation of law and grace. Theoretically, it could be one or the other, but it cannot be a mixture of the two, even in the slightest degree. If works are in any way involved in conversion, except as an essential consequence, then Paul contends that salvation is not by grace. He concludes that given the circumstances of human failure to keep the law, salvation apart from grace is impossible.

Luther saw Paul’s point and called Romans 4:4, 5 the death knell to all work mongers. Indeed, it is just that. 

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (KJV).

Apart from the work of Christ on the cross, these words would be the highest form of wicked heresy. Little wonder that Paul’s doctrine of grace scandalized his contemporary Jews. Imagine declaring that the holy God of Israel received and blessed those who had not worked to deserve that benefit. Worse, those whom God has received and blessed were ungodly sinners who deserved to go to hell. Worse yet, God bestowed these benefits apart from any obedience to the law from the sinner and in spite of his or her willful disobedience.

Paul states that Christ believers were justified in God’s sight before they had done any good works at all. God forgave them of every sin, without their performance of any works of the law. God accepted them purely on the grounds of his gift of grace. He gave them this grace before they were born and apart from any foreknown merit on their part. 

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (2 Tim. 1:9, KJV).

Grace, as it functions here, is the same as sovereign election.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones suggests that when we want to explain the gospel to unbelievers, we should use Romans 4:4, 5. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Then, we should ask people the following questions.

First, “How does a person get to heaven, and do you think you are going heaven?” Different people will answer in different ways, but in almost every case, they will answer something like this. “You have to work, sincerely and earnestly, at becoming a Christian. I admit I am not yet perfect and I still commit some small sins, but I am seriously working at improving. I believe God will accept my sincere efforts.” At this point, we respond, “I can assure you that you will never make it to heaven. I can also tell you that you do not have the slightest idea about what a Christian is or how a person becomes a Christian. The first mark of a true Christian is that he or she has quit working to become a Christian and has started believing. A Christian has traded works for faith in Christ. The text says, ‘to him that worketh not, but believeth…’ This does not mean to the person who is not concerned at all about obeying God, but to the person who realizes that he or she can never earn, by his or her own works, the favor of God.”

Paul’s point in his argument is that we must divorce faith and grace from works and debt. And that of course means rejecting the idea that grace includes the idea of earning merit with God. That in turn entails rejecting obedience to the Mosaic law (or any law) as a means of earning merit. Merit simply does not figure in this picture of grace, so the question of how I might earn merit not only is irrelevant, it confuses the issue. If I work and earn something (Romans 4:4), then the individual who pays me does so because he or she owes me. According to Paul, we cannot construe that as grace. I cannot possibly look at that as my receiving a gift. If I agree to work for $10.00 an hour, the employer for whom I am working owes me $400 after I have worked forty hours. When that employer gives me a $400 check, they are paying a debt. In no sense can we call this action gracious, because I earned and deserved the $400, which the employer then paid to me. However, if I did no work at all and earned absolutely nothing, the employer owes me nothing.

Now add another ingredient to Paul’s concept of grace. Suppose that not only did I do no work, but I also deliberately broke the windshield in my employer’s truck, slashed all its tires, and poured sand in the gas tank. In such a case, my employer would owe me punishment. Not only have I not earned $400 in wages, but also, I have earned jail time. I deserve to go to jail. If my employer, under those circumstances, decided to forget about the windshield, the gas tank, and the tires, and, in spite of the fact I did not work a single hour, still gave me $400, he would be most gracious. Then I would indeed receive a blessing that I never earned and I would escape the punishment that I did earn. Until a sinner sees that they must come to God with nothing in their hands but personal sin and guilt, and totally gives up trying to work his or her way to heaven, that sinner cannot be saved, by grace or otherwise.

The second question Dr. Lloyd-Jones suggests we ask our hypothetical unbeliever is this. “What kind of people does God accept as his children, and do you think that you fit that description?” Again, the person may reply many different ways, but at some point, they will usually say something like this: “I am not an angel with wings, but I am basically a good person. I am honest and a good parent. I do not go to church as often as you do, but I do go occasionally. I always try to follow the golden rule. I believe God will accept me because I am basically a good person.” Again, we must tell this person that they will never make it to heaven. Romans 4:5 describes not only the first mark of a Christian as “him that worketh not,” but it goes on to say that the second mark is that he “believe[s] in him who justifies the ungodly.” God forgives only ungodly sinners. God forgives only ungodly sinners. He has never forgiven one single good person, simply because no such person exists.

I like to shock people into thinking. When anyone starts talking about being good enough to go to heaven, I will say, “Didn’t anyone ever tell you that good people go to hell and bad people go to heaven? I know for sure I am going to heaven, and I am going there because I am bad, and not because I am good.” I then explain that I am so bad that I cannot pay my debt to God; I cannot work my way into earning his favor. Because I am so bad, I am without strength or hope. I must trust solely in the blood and righteousness of Christ. The person to whom I am speaking may not get converted, but I guarantee they will, at least for one moment, think about why Christ died.

In the matter of justification, it is essential to see that law and works are antithetical to grace. This is the only way to avoid pointing sinners to themselves instead of to the risen Christ. There is no need of preparationism if salvation is completely by grace. If, however, we allow the work of obedience to the law to play any part in justification, we open the door to a works mentality and we deny the grace of God as Paul conceives of it in Romans 4:4, 5. God receives us and forgives us only because of the unmerited favor of his electing grace. When we consider justification, we must see that it rests entirely on faith as opposed to resting on works, and it comes completely by grace as opposed to by law. Justification is an either/or proposition (cf. Romans 11:4-6). This is the first aspect of grace. Grace, in this first sense, is indeed an attitude in the heart of God that shows undeserved favor to hell-deserving sinners. In this sense, grace is the one and only reason that anyone is saved. Grace, in this first sense is almost identical to sovereign election. 

On the surface, evangelicals seem to demonstrate little disagreement on this point. No evangelical will say, “You must obey the law to be saved.” Likewise, no evangelical denies that sinners must be confronted with both the character of God and the sinner’s responsibility to love God with all of their heart. In other words, sinners must be convicted of sin and totally convinced that they are lost and cannot save themselves. However, there is great disagreement among evangelicals concerning the content of the message presented to sinners to effect that necessary conviction. Should we (1) begin our evangelism by presenting only the law and not even mention the cross until we see credible evidence that the person realizes that he is a sinner? Or, should we (2) immediately present Christ and his atonement and say, “Only believe and you will be saved”?

A friend of mine recently took management responsibility for a Rescue Mission. He immediately began to preach election by sovereign grace. His worst opposition came from some of the most hardened drug addicts. They would say, “You are forgetting that we must do our part in salvation.” My friend replied, “If your hope depends on you doing anything at all, then you do not have a ghost of a chance and you know it. You need God’s grace even to make you honestly want to be helped. If sovereign electing grace is not true, then a three-time losing addict like you does not have a prayer.” When that truth enlightened their understanding and penetrated their hearts, their attitude began to change. The results were amazing.

About a year later, one of the men working for the Mission came to my friend and said, “You and I are far apart in our method of helping these addicts. You are making a terrible mistake in your preaching. You must stand these men under Mount Sinai until they weep. Then, and not until then, do you give them the message of grace. And even then, don’t give them too much. That is dangerous. These people cannot be trusted with pure grace.”^[1] My friend said, “You are right. You and I are miles apart from each other in our understanding of what the gospel of grace is all about. I will accept your resignation right now.”

The problem highlighted in this anecdote arises when we think of grace as nothing more than an attitude in the heart of God. It is correct to use God’s attitude as part of our definition, but incorrect to let that serve as the entire definition. If we do so, we will develop a wrong emphasis on law. Remember, our goal is to see grace in the same way that the biblical writers saw it: as having three facets.

1. an attitude in the heart of God

2. a power flowing from the throne of God

3. a result effected in and through redeemed sinners

If we settle for the first facet as fully explaining grace, we will enervate the power of grace. Grace, in and of itself, will lose any power to teach and to guide a believer. We then must turn to the law for power and motivation to produce holiness. Is this in keeping with the biblical writers’ understanding of the relationship between law and grace? Our next chapter examines the second aspect of grace: a power flowing from the throne of God.

---