“For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23)
The definition of “grace” evolved over time, changing from an active, reciprocal covenant idea in the ancient world to a more passive, unconditional one in later Christian thought, a shift that contrasts with the Book of Mormon’s view. The Book of Mormon, however, reaffirms the original understanding, emphasizing that grace is the enabling power that allows humans to enter into and maintain a relationship with God through active choices and covenant keeping.
Brent Schmidt, author of Relational Grace, recalled: “As a graduate student, I often read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek and I noticed that if the ancient classical Greeks used this word charis to mean a gift that has reciprocal and relational nuances, why wouldn’t Biblical scholars and translators not render charis that way in the New Testament to reflect its first-century context? I eventually got enough courage to approach the professor of this Thucydides seminar, and I asked her (Susan Prince) in her office whether Thucydides was correctly using the word charis in his Histories. Thucydides certainly did not use charis as a freebie or a no-strings-attached gift like most Protestants render it today in the Bible. My instructor began to laugh, and I became a little bit nervous about what she might say. She remarked, “you figured it out.” And I said, “Well, what did I figure out,” and she said, ‘Grace is never a freebie in any ancient Greek text. People in Christian history just made up that doctrine to make themselves feel better.’ I was completely shocked! Today I’ll show you her statement is true by taking you through dozens of Greek texts and explaining why grace becomes changed by late Roman times because of neo-Platonic philosophy. Because of neo-Platonic philosophy, grace begins to have these freebie, no-strings-attached and mystical connotations that have perverted the truth that God-given gifts should create relationships and obligate us to make and keep covenants that enable us to become more than we are now. This relational grace process ultimately enables us to become like our Heavenly Father” (BYU New Testament Commentary Conference, 2019).
Ancient and Biblical Understanding of Grace (Charis)
Dr. Brent Schmidt points out that in the ancient Mediterranean, including Old and New Testament contexts, grace (Greek charis) referred mainly to a gift or favor that created reciprocal covenantal obligations. For example, when someone received charis, they were expected to give something in return, such as favors, service, gratitude, honor, or obedience. This exchange was a fundamental building block between people of unequal status, like a king and a commoner, or a patron and a client. While the recipient could never fully repay the giver for a significant gift, they were still bound by ties of loyalty and expected to demonstrate their appreciation.
Greek Definition: Active Force, Not Passive Feeling
Charis was not just a passive feeling of appreciation but had an active force, triggering a return. Disasters, like those described in Homer’s Iliad regarding Achilles and Agamemnon, resulted when charis was not reciprocated, showing the severe consequences of violating their covenant.
Biblical Examples:
The Old Testament concept of hesed (mercy) and chen (favor) also aligned with reciprocal covenant obligations, as seen in the Joseph stories in Genesis or the Hebrew word chen in Exodus 33:13, where God showing His plan is a reciprocal covenantal act. In the New Testament, his Gentile audience understood the Apostle Paul’s teachings on grace to establish vibrant and faithful relationships, with Jesus’s atoning gift acted as the ultimate charis, inspiring covenant keeping and devoted discipleship.
Augustine’s Transformation of Grace
The understanding of grace changed significantly in late antiquity, influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy.
Neo-Platonism and Christianity: Plotinus (AD 204–70), the leading pagan Neo-Plantonist philosopher, influenced Saint Augustine (AD 354–430), an important Catholic Church figure. Plotinus opposed the conventional active idea of grace. He saw “the One” as abstract and unable to have reciprocal covenantal connections with people. Plotinus thought “the One” encompassed everything, with humans as minor consequences merely subject to its influence, unable to reciprocate.
Severing Reciprocity and Covenantal Obligation: Augustine saw Christian ideas, like grace, through this Neo-Platonic perspective, thinking of grace as unconditional and irresistible. Basically, he argued that grace freed Christians from obligations like good deeds and loyalty. Essentially, he believed God’s grace is unavoidable; only God acts, and we only get what He wants us to have. It made salvation something that required little from those receiving it. Augustine’s interpretation effectively “severed the link of covenants, reciprocity, and obligations” from grace, shifting it from an active, relational, covenantal concept to an undefined passive mysticism. Grace became “free in the sense that you don’t have to do anything to be saved”.
Impact on Human Agency: By seeing grace as something humans could not resist, Augustine’s views negated human agency, teaching that “the human will cannot resist the will of God”. Augustine’s limited knowledge of Greek and ancient nuances of charis influenced his misinterpretation of these key principles.
Opposition to Pelagius: Augustine politically outmaneuvered his contemporary, Pelagius, a learned British monk who understood grace in harmony with classical meanings, emphasizing moral agency and the expectation of discipleship. Pelagius was condemned as a heretic, marking a “terrible apostasy related to salvation doctrines” in the early fifth century AD.
Doctrinal Errors: This distortion of grace led to other doctrinal errors, such as determinism and original sin, implying that God alone determines who receives grace, leading to concepts like “unconditional election”.
Exclusion of Works: Modern interpretations often create a “dangerous dichotomy” between grace and works, seeing them as “mutually exclusive, polar-opposite positions”. This leads some to conclude that works are unnecessary for salvation, in contrast to scriptural teachings that emphasize the importance of personal action and obedience.
Focus on Being “Saved” Over Being “Changed”: Some modern Christians become so excited about being saved by grace that they may not sufficiently consider the transformational aspect of grace—that it is meant to change individuals to become more like Christ. They might not fully consider why the debt of sin existed in the first place, beyond simply having it paid.
Further Distortions: Luther, Calvin, and “Cheap Grace”
Augustine’s conclusions profoundly influenced later Christian theology, notably during the Reformation.
Martin Luther (1483–1546), an Augustinian monk, further promoted the notion of grace as a “freebie” and “invincible,” believing salvation depended solely on God’s choice and grace, not human works.
John Calvin (1509–64) and his followers summarized these teachings in the TULIP acronym (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints), where “irresistible grace” implies automatic salvation without resistance or active participation. This Calvinistic view is seen as “very unscriptural when one understands its first-century reciprocal context” (Schmidt).
This evolved, distorted understanding of grace is what is referred to as “cheap grace”.
“Cheap Grace” Defined: The Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, contrasts “cheap grace” with “costly grace,” which emphasizes the radical discipleship and transformation required of Jesus’ followers. Bonhoeffer asserted that “cheap grace wasn’t what Christ intended”. Bonhoeffer maintains that “cheap grace” describes a distorted understanding of God’s grace, portraying it as a free, unconditional, and passive gift that requires little or no effort, repentance, or obedience from the recipient. It’s viewed as a “freebie” or “no-strings-attached” gift, implying salvation requires “little or nothing of recipients”. This interpretation can lead to the belief that one can “justify any disobedience to God by claiming that Christ’s Sacrifice has already paid the price for our sins,” leading people to believe they can “eat, drink, and be merry” without consequences. It dismisses personal responsibility to become more like the Savior.
The Book of Mormon’s Restoration of Covenantal Grace
The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, presents an understanding of grace that differs from these later historical ideas, but resonates with the ancient, biblical understanding. In ancient contexts (Greek, Roman, Jewish) and in the Book of Mormon, “grace” (charis or hesed/chen) was interpreted as an obligating gift or favor that established and maintained reciprocal relationships. Receiving such a gift created an expectation of return favors, service, gratitude, honor, and obedience.
Relational and Covenantal: The Book of Mormon consistently teaches that grace is regularly associated with reciprocal obligations and covenant relationships. It emphasizes that grace, or coming to God, is not available outside a reciprocal relationship with God and humanity.
Enabling Power and Human Agency: Grace is an enabling power through Christ’s Atonement that makes salvation possible. However, it requires human choice, effort, repentance, obedience, and enduring to the end. The famous phrase “saved by grace, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23) is understood not as grace coming after human effort chronologically, but that grace is the saving power, and “all we can do” is to be reconciled to God, which involves repentance and entering into covenants.
Condemnation of “Free Grace’: The Book of Mormon explicitly condemns the doctrine of “free grace” or “unconditional salvation” taught by dissenters like Nehor and Korihor, who promoted the idea that “all mankind should be saved at the last day” regardless of their actions, or that success comes solely from one’s own efforts without divine help.
Grace Can Be Lost: Unlike the idea of “irresistible grace,” the Book of Mormon shows that grace can be lost if individuals or societies turn from their covenants and refuse to repent, leading to a “day of grace” passing for them.
Summary
In essence, grace’s meaning changed from a reciprocal, covenantal relationship where God’s gift started human responsibility and enabled growth, to a unilateral, irresistible divine act that passively saved individuals, independent of their ongoing active participation. The Book of Mormon, however, reaffirms the original understanding, emphasizing that grace is the enabling power that allows humans to enter into and maintain a relationship with God through active choices and covenant keeping. The recipient’s “effort” isn’t payment for the gift, but their part in the conversation—a heartfelt “thank you” expressed through loyalty, obedience, and active participation in the relationship, which unlocks further blessings and transforms them to become more like the Giver.
