I have been reading R. Preus' Justification and Rome. I came to his chapter on Grace and this awakened some of my brain cells. Preus observes that the RC theologians tackle grace after Christology with the result that grace has been severed from God's act of redemption or reconciliation and has become more associated with the HS work in sanctification.
This separation of grace from the Cross is something I have observed as a tendency not only in RC teaching, but in some Calvinistic (perhaps in Puritan/Revivalist streams) and Arminian sections of Evangelicalism.
Firstly, I say such separating of grace from the Cross is present in Calvinism because of its view of God's Sovereignty. God is seen as a "despota" that distributes his grace to whom he wills. They talk of grace in the area of "gifting". This is also the way the Arminians speak of grace. Granted that in some astute Calvinistic positions, they do not believe in "infused" grace, but in the way that they speak of grace, they do not distinguish grace from the "gifting of graces" provided by God. The Arminian, in compartive terms, looks at God's grace as enabling you to do certain virtuous things.
Let me give an example, if I was born from a wealthy home, both RC/Evangelicals (Calvinistic/Arminian) will consider it God's grace that I was well provided for by my parents.
This is where the Lutheran view of grace comes in and is unique or rather if not unique, maverick (I am trying to be impassionate -but I really think it is Christological). The Lutheran view of God's grace is connected to the Cross in so much so that you can almost consider this grace as trumping any other perceived graciousness of God. Hence, this is the ultimate grace and hence, stands above other graces/gifts of God. It is the fountain and the only thing that really matters at the end of the day. To them, God's grace is specific, it is seen in God's action of sending His Son as the atonement for our sins. In this position, all giftings of God - i.e. charis of whatever sort do not get first class attention. Such graces sink in the truth of that Grace at the Cross.
Frankly this is quite Biblical ...
Mark 8:36
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?
4 comments:
As I was taking a break from my apologetics for closet popism, I tuned in to Jimmy Swaggart, and Brother Donnie just nailed I Samuel 16! Most of it was the personal "Sauls" we hang on to mourning while God is planning something else, but he also mentioned those who hang on to emblems and denominations the Lord has abandoned because they have abandoned the Cross, and went on to mention an Episcopal priest who said he could no longer put his ordination paper on the wall since it meant nothing if not connected to the Cross. Pretty soon the whole place was rocking to fill the horn with oil and go!
Next hour there will an ELCA pastoress conducting a by the book LBW service fully vested.
Fill the horn with oil and go! Does somebody hear it?
P.E.
If some people would take sometime listening to the Lutheran Fathers we would not get this confusion of a Crossless Christ, and Crossless Grace. Nobody is taking time to listening, they may have something to say that is profitable to our time.
LPC
Donnie didn't leave out either side -- he said too, I don't care if they prophecy, or speak in tongues, if they've abandoned the Cross, etc.
Good on Donnie, P.E.
Was it Bo Giertz who said "The Cross is our theology"?
The point is that one can preach Christ without his cross and that would not be Gospel...
St. Paul says - we preach Christ and him crucified.
LPC
Post a Comment