T(r)oy's Marbles
how God atones (second appendix)
More questions have arisen, primarily as a result of a presentation of the Latin theory regarding Christ's atonement for sin. This necessitated a clarification of Anselm's stance (see yesterday's post for that) and some personal reflections regarding the merits of Anselm's thought (and to that we now turn).
--Troy
Salvation by grace alone?
This is a “touchy” subject nowadays, as to suggest that mankind’s efforts have any kind of bearing on salvation is to risk being labeled a “heretic” by many within “evangelical Protestant” circles.
There seems to be some disagreement as to the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding grace and works. Personally, I think it could be nothing more than a misunderstanding of the kind of “salvation” that is being discussed. I’ll explain:
I find it helpful to distinguish between three types of salvation (of which two I will mention here), in thinking through this issue clearly.
The first is a salvation from sin’s penalty (or, at the very least, sin’s natural result, as you put it above): death. The theological term for this “type” of salvation is “justification” and it carries the idea that, through the work of Christ on our behalf (that is, through His death in our place), the penalty of death has been paid and we are therefore declared “not guilty” by the Father. This declaration of innocence is called “justification” and it is a once and for all kind of declaration. You can see that the way I’ve presented this “type” of salvation is more in keeping with the Latin theory (that is, there’s a sense of God dealing with mankind justly—in that a penalty is actually paid. And there’s a sense of God dealing with mankind mercifully—in that Jesus pays the penalty for us. It is this balance of justice and mercy that Anselm is attempting to get at…).
The second “type”, however, is a salvation from sin’s power in our present life. The theological term for this is “sanctification”, and it carries the idea that we are to become more Christlike, more holy in this life (before we die!). Now, here’s where it gets interesting: firstly, let it be noted that this “type” of salvation finds its origin primarily in God in at least two respects:
A. The ability to resist sin’s power in our life comes from the liberating work of Christ in defeating sin, death and the devil (in releasing us from bondage to the devil). There’s a power struggle going on here, and Christ wins. It’s a war, if you will. You can see here that the “classic” idea affirms this. But, also it should be noted that…
B. The ability to resist sin’s power comes from the Holy Spirit, presently active. Our liberation from sin is not merely a past event completed by Christ, but is a continual potentiality active in the present through the Spirit’s work in our lives.
Now, in light of that, it should be noted that there is also a dimension to this type of salvation that requires human effort. And this is where Peter Abelard is right. To the extent that we exercise our will in imitating Christ, we will be sanctified; and to that extent we will be more like God and closer to God. And, in that sense, we are truly “reconciled” to God. This idea has biblical merit: we are told in the Scriptures to “work out” our salvation, to “strive”, to “labor”. There is clearly a synergism at work here, a “working together” with the power of God to resist the devil and embrace holiness (or wholeness).
And this is where, I think, things have gone awry in the “debate”.
On the one hand, there seems to be (generally speaking, though perhaps not in recent times) a “justification by grace and works” doctrine active throughout history in the Roman Catholic church.
On the other hand, there seems to be (generally speaking, though it is being talked about much in recent times) a “sanctification by grace alone” doctrine active throughout the history of the Protestant or, at the very least, the modern evangelical church.
Both positions are, in my opinion, flawed and biblically without warrant.
What’s needed is a distinction between the kinds of “salvation” we’re talking about when we’re trying to ascertain the relation between grace and faith and works. Personally, I find it confuses the issue when Christians talk about “salvation by grace alone.” It begs the question, “What kind of salvation are you talking about? Justification—salvation from sin’s penalty? Or are you talking about sanctification—salvation from sin’s power?” Perhaps it would be more helpful to say that we are “justified by grace through faith” and “sanctified by grace through faith expressing itself in works”.
In light of that, I’ll ask another “can of worms” sort of question, even though I realize that this question will likely muddy the waters even more! ;-) (I want to pose it, however, because I believe that somehow it can help us engage with the mystery a little bit more. And mystery, in my opinion, is a good thing.) The question is this: Is it possible to be saved from sin’s penalty, if we are not being saved from sin’s power? I mean, if sin continues to have power in our life, doesn’t it produce its own kind of death (as you suggest in your thoughts above)? How specifically is sin’s power related to sin’s penalty?
And now I’m going to be really cheeky and not attempt an answer to that question here. Maybe it’s just something with which we need to struggle. For now, I’d like to address a few other matters in your response to the Latin theory. Specifically, I’d like to address whether human actions are “finite” or whether they are "infinite".
We'll look at that tomorrow, and close with those thoughts.
Until then,
Troy
teachings | Comments (0) | March 20, 2006