Quid Pro Quo?
No, NO! NO!!
By John Gavazzoni

Quid Pro Quo, a Latin phrase meaning to give something in return for something. Parties involved in a quid pro quo relationship, could also be described as agreeing to "make a deal," each party intending to benefit from the transaction, and if each is of noble ethical character, the exchange would hopefully result in a "win-win" situation for both parties.

In a capitalist society, ideologically, the freedom to engage in such exchanges is considered to be fundamental to the successful out-working of that economic system. Whether regarded, on the left, as a root of all evil, or on the right, as intrinsic to individual human freedom, wherever and whenever individuals interact with others in a way to mutually benefit both parties, quid pro quo, in some measure, has always been a fundamentally-operative element.

Giving something to receive something in return has always been an intrinsic factor within "the kingdom of this world." It's always present as at least one factor in what "makes the world go round." It need not always, or necessarily, be about goods and services, as conventionally understood. One might give an artistic performance to receive, in return, the adulation of the audience, for instance. Folks often talk of feeling good about themselves as a result of some kind of charitable gift or act. That could qualify as giving to receive something in return.

Switch now to "the kingdom of our God, and of His Christ," within which God's relationship to mankind is implied, and quid pro quo is a no, no, no--an alien concept; alien to the nature of God, and really alien to true human nature which is ours in union with the Son of Man. In God's kingdom; in His administration of His household, God makes no deals. When He arranges for men to see Him as IF He does, it's only so that when He appears as He is, the effect will be a deeper penetration, a deeper reception, of "the light that lighteth every man coming into the world." God has never changed from relating to His creation in love, freely given as grace.

That period when God gave the Mosaic Law (or "The Instructions," as a Jewish Rabbi would prefer) was, according to Paul, an interjection to make sin exceedingly sinful. The law was, in fact, added that sin may abound. God, in that interjectory period, simply provided an externally-imposed standard to match what was already in the heart of mankind since Adam chose to join Eve in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Law confronted man objectively with what was his actual subjective state.

By that complex of legality, sin rather than being even somewhat curtailed was instead empowered. Paul made that most clear declaring that "the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law." What is clear from an enlightened reading of the history of God's dealings with mankind is that, from the time of man's first sin and even through the period of the Law, God's grace-posture toward man never changed, and the thread of grace can be seen always overruling the effects of law. In this regard, the notion of dispensationalists that God dealt with men differently in different "dispensations" is patently false. God is who He is: "I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." God has always been the God, in every age, who is determined to "dispense" Himself, in all His fullness, by that grace which all law eventually leads us to.

As Harry Robert Fox observed: in all of God's dealings in that period of history recorded in what we call the Old Testament, whenever God spoke harshly to Israel through His prophets with warnings of the consequence of their sin, the context in which such warnings were set, always, without exception, included God's "nevertheless." He declared Himself, nevertheless, to be their Savior who had assumed the responsibility to bring them to that destiny that He, Himself, had purposed and designed. The interjection of law would not interfere with the unbroken continuance of His grace. In our teaching about the contrast between law and grace, we must never be so antinomian as to presume that grace was not present all through the period of objective law-imposition. [As an aside, to understand the place of the law in the plan of God, it must be kept in mind that the law was given specifically to Israel, and not generally to the nations/the Gentiles. The Mosaic law provided the basic structure for the Israelite people as a theocratic nation. That which would establish them in a grace-constituted relationship with God was found in the law only dimly in types and shadows]

The thread of God's graciousness, in the face of man's sin, runs through the whole tapestry of His plan in and for the ages. The person unskilled in the understanding of scripture lacks the eye to see that thread "hidden in plain sight." Examined carefully, conventional Christian theology presents a god who comes to relationships with a "let's make a deal" position. In this respect, Christian orthodoxy has a perverse element to it. That perversity shows up time and time again, misrepresenting the way of God with men. There is, with HIS way, no quid pro quo. No, "let's make a deal: "You give me obedience, and in return I'll give you blessing." God's way is to bless out of a heart of pure goodness, not to get something in return that originates out of us as our contribution to a quid pro quo deal. Consequently, "we love Him, because He first loved us." It's His love, returned to Him, in the persons of His children who have been transformed by, and having become, that very same love.

The contrast between conventional theology's "quid pro quo/let's make a deal" supposed way that God relates to us, and the Reality, is seen most starkly in how certain "salvation texts" are read and misunderstood. Possibly the best example is the text that is often used to "lead a person to Christ," which back in my days as an evangelist in the system was known as "the Romans Road." I'm referring to Romans 10: 9 and 10: "For if thou shalt confess with the mouth, Jesus as Lord, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

It was not my favorite salvation text to lead a person to an assurance of salvation, but it was used by many "soul winners." In the case of a person who has responded to the invitation to come forward to receive Christ at the end of an evangelistic appeal, that one was assisted at an "altar of repentance," or taken to an "inquiry room" to ground THEIR decision for Christ solidly in scripture. I capitalized "THEIR" since salvation, within the religious system, is misunderstood to be, in the end, a man's decision to "get saved." I have to wonder what would have been the reaction of one counselor overhearing another counselor saying to "the inquirer" he was dealing with, "by you coming forward, it is evident to me that GOD HAS DECIDED this is your hour of salvation."

The misunderstanding of Rom. 10: 9 and 10 lies in what one understands to be the operative element that Paul had in mind. Paul was not at all saying that if one will do what is required to be saved, God will save them. It is misunderstood that confessing with your mouth, and believing in your heart is what God requires of one in order to receive in return (quid pro quo) salvation. What is operative, in Paul's understanding, is the already salvifically operative Word of God in the heart that finds expression in heart-belief and mouth-confession. It is not a matter of God and man reaching a quid pro quo kind of agreement. It's about the entrance of God's saving Word (Christ, Himself) into the heart doing what God sent It/Him to do: Share Himself with us as our Risen Lord and Savior.