In this environ it might be expected that a discussion of grace will proceed into a lengthy discussion of sola fide, sola grace, and the other reformation distinctives which separate protestantism from the church in Rome. One might also anticipate that an historical discussion could make a distinction that views protestantism as just Augustinian Christianity while Rome and Constantinople took an alternative direction. There are many here who are far more capable than I at exploring these historical and theological intricacies and nuances. I will leave that to them.
My studies leave me with grace first as a relational characteristic. Grace is a relational attribute. That is where I see the old church as failing first and foremost. When grace becomes a manageable entity then control comes into play. But grace is, and must be treated with the adjective, unmerited or it is ceases to exist. Mercy may have conditions, but not grace. For those who saw Will Smith’s movie Seven Pounds, there was an example of merited mercy. He sought people deserving of his gift. Grace was missing.
Grace is also treated contextually. The grace of God is a phrase common in the New Testament. It seems that the church early-on misread this and though that it could manage this grace as though it was something which proceeded from God. What was missed, or at least lost its significance, was that grace is the context in which God has chosen to operate. Grace is the ribbon around the wrapping paper of mercy that packages the gift of salvation.
This is one of those things which distinguishes historic Protestantism from Rome and Constantinople. It is the feature of the Christian faith that I cannot part with. This is what it means, as I read theology, to be an evangelical. Real grace is the best news of all.
October 19th, 2009 | 3:19 pm | #1
“Grace is a relational attribute.”
That means that without other beings, there is no grace? If so, then grace is not intrinsic to God’s nature. Thus, if grace is a relational attribute, then God’s sovereignty is diminished, since it would mean that grace would be a contingent attribute.
You write: “There are many here who are far more capable than I at exploring these historical and theological intricacies and nuances. I will leave that to them.” And then you claim,
“The grace of God is a phrase common in the New Testament. It seems that the church early-on misread this and though that it could manage this grace as though it was something which proceeded from God.”
So, you’re going to leave the historical stuff to others, but then you make the historical claim that the church got grace wrong at its very genesis. How did you do that?
October 19th, 2009 | 3:42 pm | #2
Thus, if grace is a relational attribute, then God’s sovereignty is diminished, since it would mean that grace would be a contingent attribute.
Doesn’t grace presuppose sin? Or some other flaw that it means to remedy/forgive?
If we’re going to think chronologically, wouldn’t this mean that grace is not an intrinsic attribute of God?
God’s intrinsic attribute is love. Which manifests itself in grace after the fall.
Of course, in the economy of eternity this is probably all simultaneous. But if grace presupposes something that needs it, I’m guessing that there was a “time” it did not exist because there was a time only God existed.
I don’t see how if grace is a relational attribute that it diminishes the sovereignty of God. That’s like saying God answering our prayers diminishes his sovereignty because it means his response is contingent upon our petitions. But the intrinsic quality is that he is a revealing God, a God who speaks. His answering of prayer is a manifestation of his non-silence.
October 19th, 2009 | 3:43 pm | #3
Collin:
Since the dust is going to be kicked up here, here’s a phrase I’d like us to consider –
“God is inherently gracious, which is manifest to us as His acts of Grace.”
Dr. Beckwith is a little antsy over what you said here because it seems to indicate that somehow the “church” is in no way a manifestation of God’s grace — something I think all of us would deny.
So that said, what do you think of my restatement? Is that what you mean by grace being inherently “relational”, or did you mean something else?
October 19th, 2009 | 3:47 pm | #4
I also want to point out to Dr. beckwith that “the church” got a lot of things wrong “at it’s very genesis.” For example, Paul had to write 2 letters to Corinth and a letter to the Galatians, and John received visions of Christ himself rebuking the churches in Asia in Revelation because of clear and profound error.
So the myth of a golden age of the life of the church is biblically dispelled. The question, then, is in what do we actually have faith?
October 19th, 2009 | 4:12 pm | #5
Looks like I’m playing with the big boys now. A little bit of both ;-) and :-( to go around.
That means that without other beings, there is no grace? If so, then grace is not intrinsic to God’s nature. Thus, if grace is a relational attribute, then God’s sovereignty is diminished, since it would mean that grace would be a contingent attribute.
No. It would mean that grace may not be evident to us if we are not present to observe it. It is we who are contingent. Grace wraps up God’s works, which, following DDS, makes it an intrinsic quality. Grace can also be a relational attribute within the trinity just as agape can be a relational attribute, identifying how the members of the trinity treat each other.
I think it’s justifiable to maintain that position on the treatment of grace, given how Rome manages it, as though it can be managed. If the church can accomplish this with grace, then I think we’ve identified a problem. Though not from the very genesis of the church, certainly not too long in its life when it began this tendency.
October 19th, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #6
Grace can also be a relational attribute within the trinity
Hmm. Please define grace.
I always believed it was favor in spite of something, in particular “in spite of not deserving it.” Surely the persons of the Trinity all deserve favor. Wouldn’t love (even if manifested as submission or servanthood) be a better descriptor for the Trinitarian relationality?
Or am I mis-defining grace?
October 19th, 2009 | 5:30 pm | #7
Jared,
In my primitive approach, I would appeal to undeserved, unmerited, and unearned mercy as the core of grace. We are not good enough for it (that’s where fundamentalists usually stop — undeserved), we are not able to become good enough to earn it (unmerited), and we are not able to earn it (unearned). But God is all of those — and Revelation uses the term “worthy” over and over for good reason. The contrast might be that we are ultimately “unworthy” in all senses. In this I see agape and charis as mutually reflecting the give-give relationship within the Trinity. I’m not yet certain, but perhaps even charis is wraps itself around agape, at least in some sense.
October 19th, 2009 | 5:38 pm | #8
Collin, I’m fairly certain I tracked with your original post. Your clarification is what tingled my Spidey sense.
To clarify further: are you saying the Triune God is merciful within itself?
I’m with you on agape. With you on “worthy.” Still not seeing how “charis” makes sense within the Trinity unless there is some deficiency of character somewhere in there to be the object of it.
We do not deserve God’s love, have not earned it, and cannot merit it, and that is why the love given to us from God’s very being — God’s very being given to us in the incarnate crucified and risen Christ — is grace.
To say there is “give-give(-give?)” within the Trinity is not the same as saying the “give” is grace, is it?
Is there a biblical precedent for this idea?
Forgive my density.
October 19th, 2009 | 6:00 pm | #9
Hmmmm. Good question.
I see what you mean with the question of a potential deficiency. That would not be productive direction to take. Perhaps, on the giver side, grace might be thought of as “deference” to the other party. That would reflect a grace-ness in the relationship.
Likewise, we might have some similar problem with agape *if we push it too far*. Agape is, after all, concerned about the best interest of the other party. But we know that no member of the Trinity is in need or has a lack, an interest, to be fulfilled. Still, we see the charity of agape as driving the relationships in the Trinity. The deference of charis might be seen in similar light.
October 19th, 2009 | 7:08 pm | #10
“Dr. Beckwith is a little antsy over what you said here because it seems to indicate that somehow the `church’ is in no way a manifestation of God’s grace — something I think all of us would deny.”
Frank Turk is an amateur clairvoyant who jealously guards the theology he doesn’t believe in. :-)
In the first section of my comments I was bringing up an issue about God’s essential nature and what in fact follows if one maintains that God’s graciousness is an accidental rather than essential property. In the second section I was alluding to the issue of whether grace is a divine quality rather than a mere relational attribute. Consider this illustration. If I say that Jones stands to the left of Bob, I am saying Jones has the relational, and thus accidental, property of “being to the left of Bob.” That is, he can lose that property and not cease to be Jones. But unlike height, weight, or virtue, “to the left of” is not a property that alters the material or spiritual constitution of Jones’s being.
On the other hand, if I say that Jones has the property of “rational animal,” then literally if Jones loses that property he in fact ceases to be Jones. He undergoes substantial change.
Don’t mean to get all medieval on you. But I do get a little put off when Evangelicals blithely discard nearly 1500 years of church history without seeming to grasp that virtually every important idea they embrace developed during those millennia.
Remember: even if you claim to be born again, you need at least one prior paternity.
October 19th, 2009 | 7:53 pm | #11
Don’t mean to get all medieval on you. But I do get a little put off when Evangelicals blithely discard nearly 1500 years of church history without seeming to grasp that virtually every important idea they embrace developed during those millennia.
Well, as long as you don’t pull a sword on me, I think we can get on quite nicely. ;-)
A few months ago I listened to an interaction between Irwin Lutzer and Richard Land. Land, from his Baptist heritage, stated that he used to understand church history as ending with the apostles and restarting with the Anabaptist movment. Lutzer, with is background in philosophy, showed a greater exposure to theological history. The discussion was enlightening.
I come with a bit of Conservative Baptist in me, along with some Mennonite Brethren. That has left me with the typical primitives that identify a great deal of evangelical theology. But at age 53, and 1/3 of the way through my TEDS (extension) program, the study of historical theology has been enlightening. (I’ve been enjoying Aquinas this past few months, and before that read a little Chesterton. Most of my time, though has been spent in philosophy of science.)
Needless to say, it has come to my attention that the revival era has left many churches without the necessary education in theology. And that’s why I am (along with a partner) teaching a systematic theology class in our Adult S.S. program.
So, I do appreciate our theological history but cannot escape the lure of certain primitive theology.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact