Grace

This paper defines grace and how it is wrong.

In a paper about grace, one must define what grace is. The dictionary defines grace (noun) as: (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

So, in basic principle, grace is unmerited forgiveness of sins.

Stepping away from grace, let us look at sin. Sin can be seen as an action, a noun (as in it being ideas or thoughts, or as a state of being.

In the Bible, it states in Romans 5:20 : Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

If this is true, and it is considering we believe the Bible is the true word of God, and if we accept the definition of grace (unmerited forgiveness), then that then means there is no requirement to be forgiven of sin.

Follow me here:

Unmerited means undeserving. Sin is self explanatory. Forgiveness of that sin is conditional, in most beliefs. However, since grace abounds more than sin, that then means that unmerited forgiveness abounds more than sin. This means that unconditional forgiveness will apply to sin infinitely with no strings attached.

This obviously proposes a problem, as it is stated that there are requirements for the forgiveness of sin. Those requirements are obvious. However, applying restrictions to something deemed unconditional is wrong and cannot be done. This forms a discrepancy, which must be answered, yet cannot be answered.

In order to answer the question, you must answer all possibilities. There are three:

1. Forgiveness is conditional (upon repentance)

2. Forgiveness is unconditional

3. Christianity is a lie and cannot be accepted as a valid religion as the basis of slavation is flawed.

Considering option three wasted our time, as it cannot be proven without exhausting option one and two, we must begin there.

In logical order, let us start with option number one: forgiveness is conditional. If forgiveness is conditional, then grace cannot abound more than sin if sin was in an infinite state, but only abound more than those that the condition applied to.

However, if grace means unconditional, it must then apply to everyone, or it is not grace we are dealing with.

However, if sin is not infinite, grace can still abound more in sum than sin. The problem arises when sin becomes infinite.

To answer when sin is infinite, we must look at what sin is. As we defined it earlier, let us look at the action portion:

If the action of sin warrants an eternal punishment, and that action is finite, then an eternal punishment is not just for that finite sin. This then creates an imbalance in punishment, and any forgiveness irrelevant, as the punishment is overly severe and should be lessened as it is.

The forgiveness, though, could forgive in a finite state, and then remove the eternal punishment, making grace extend infinitely. The problem is, that if the punishment is infinite, and the atonement is infinite, then grace did not abound more, but abounded equally. Since you cannot add anything to infinity, then grace can only account for the infinite punishment which makes that particular verse wrong (which cannot be).

The noun of sin does not pertain to grace.

The state of sin, does pertain to grace, though.

In the Bible, it says in Romans 5:12 : Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

When Adam sinned, and sin entered the world, that gave Adam a state of sin. This state of sin was passed to all of mankind.

This means that there was no choice, aside form Adam, to have a state of sin.

This state of sin which, while unforgiven, gives eternal punishment. As being in a state of sin is an ongoing problem, infinite punishment is warranted. However, the punishment is still not just.

Since that person had no choice in their sin state, that then means they cannot be held accountable and punished for that sin state (they can be punished for actions of sin they committed, which refers to the prior point). Since we are punished for being in a sin state without forgiveness, with that punishment being unjust, then that means forgiveness should not be necessary.

Since the forgiveness is made necessary, then there is an imbalance between punishment and forgiveness. If there is no choice in the state of sin (which demands punishment), then there should be no choice in the forgiveness or atonement of that sin. The only way to apply it to a creature with free will without giving a choice, is by making it automatically atone for all.

Since that is not the case, then grace does not abound infinitely, whereas the state of sin does. This then causes a discrepancy with Romans 5:20.

Going to option two: forgiveness is unconditional.

If this stance is supported, then all requirements of scripture are filled except those that say you must believe on God to be forgiven. If a part of scripture is denied in the process of supporting scripture, then there is a discrepancy in the Bible.

Since the basis of forgiveness itself is flawed, then grace itself is flawed. Grace cannot exist if it is conditional, and can only abound more than sin if it is unconditional.

If forgiveness is flawed, salvation is flawed. This means that those who are saved, are saved unjustly, and those who are condemned are condemned unjustly.

If the salvation and condemnation judgements are unjust, this then means that the judge is unjust.

If the judge is unjust, and God is the judge, this then means God is unjust.

If God is unjust, then He has no basis to give guidelines on what sin is, as any rules can be considered arbitrary. If He loses this ability, then He is not omniscient, as He would lack the power to set rules and order.

If He loses His omnipotence, he ceases to be God. If God ceases to be God, then option three becomes correct. 

Author's Note

I have disproven this paper recently, and have yet to make a formal reply. If you want to know my way around it, feel free to reply and ask (or mail me).