Thoughts in the Night on God’s Grace and Our Response – by Brad Jersak

Please follow and like us:
Tweet
Jet-lag woke me up again last night, but happily, instead of assaulting me with half-asleep worries or false epiphanies, the night-owl left me with a few follow-up thoughts to my article on Free Will, the NousĀ and Divine Judgment. For me, at least, they felt like clarifications on ye olde grace vs free will double-bind.
Briefly, classic Calvinism creates a double-bind re:Ā theĀ will. If grace is a unilaterally gift givenĀ by the willĀ of God to the elect (Calvin’s irresistible grace), thenĀ humanĀ responseĀ can seem either pre-determined or unnecessary. This seems wrong to me, since clearly, the Gospel is an authentic invitation calling for a necessary response.
But, in objecting to Calvin’s apparent determinism, we may run aground if we believe we are saved or damned byĀ our own free willĀ decision. Even though God graciously offers us a salvation he alone can provide, we might imagine a situation where salvation is still reallyĀ up to us (conditional grace? self-made salvation earned through right response?). Something about this seems wrong to me too, in that grace-alone (God alone) and faith-alone (my response alone) appear contradictory.
I know there are standard textbook answers to both these objections. Either side of the double bind knows what to say … leaning strongly either to the sovereign will of God or the free willĀ of man, then finally opting for some form of paradox, some mysterious, inaccessible formula for the co-existence of God’s will and ours in the work of salvation.
But as I propose in the aforesaid article, in Jesus, John and Paul,Ā willĀ is not primary. Neither God’s will nor ours. God’sĀ love is primary and this love elicits a loveĀ responseĀ …Ā but this responseĀ comes from the heart, rather than the will. That is, when the blinders are finally off and we truly encounter God’s love, our hearts will be touched by that love, healed through that love, and inspired to love.
Now here is the point that I think breaks the double-bind:Ā respondingĀ to GodĀ IS necessary, but aĀ responseĀ is not identical to aĀ choice.Ā ByĀ grace alone, aĀ heartĀ response to Christ’s loveĀ becomes possible and most natural. And it isĀ theĀ heartĀ that governs theĀ will.Ā My heart response will determine my choices (just as God’s heart of love determines his choices).
What I’m positing is thatĀ when, by grace,Ā we areĀ givenĀ a revelation of Jesus (when God says, “Let there be light in your hearts” – 1 Cor. 14) — i.e. when our hearts are enlightened or when we are given new hearts,Ā THENĀ weĀ will respond,Ā not by ‘free will’ but by a ‘freed heart,’ a heart freed to love … freed to respond. And in responding,Ā THENĀ our hearts will engage our will toĀ choose to follow.Ā 
Ā 
In this model, the grace-given revelation precedes and enables the heart response … but the heart response is both natural and at the same time necessary. This approach transcends the Calvinist-Arminian debates altogether, so bound up as they were in the role of the Will (God’s versus ours). This plays out beautifully in the language of John 1. We are saved,Ā not by the will of man, and yet, weĀ must receive him.Ā Or in my language,Ā God’sĀ revelationĀ and ourĀ response, which because our hearts are made to reflect God’s heart, are virtually simultaneous and indivisible, though the saving journey originates in God’s grace, established by grace and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit.