Grace, Rome and new perspective/federal vision

[arapahoepark]

I have been rereading some works on the new perspective, federal visionists etc. and their respective critiques/refutations and I have noticed commonalities that seem to unite most of the former (though perhaps I am late to game). Perhaps it is due to the Sanders' influence, but I see many who are enamored with the new perspective emphasize God's grace in everything. God was gracious with Adam before the fall and little changed since; God is gracious at Sinai (not in the CoG administration view way), God was gracious to Jesus due to his faithfulness, Abraham was faithful hence the declaration, etc. Many also promote two justifications (though depending on who they have very different definitions) all the while basically saying that were justified by faithfulness (not faith as in bare trust as a receiving instrument) and that this is so obviously gracious, presumably because circumcision isn't involved and pork is allowed (though many claim monergism too). Grace seems to obviously be reinterpreted in a more Roman Catholic way where in Barclay's words grace's efficacy is emphasized at the expense of it's incongruity and priority.
So I can't help but wonder if the axe at the root of the tree might just the philosophical idea of grace perfecting nature (Rome) vs grace renewing nature. Thoughts?

 

[RamistThomist]

I have been rereading some works on the new perspective, federal visionists etc. and their respective critiques/refutations and I have noticed commonalities that seem to unite most of the former (though perhaps I am late to game). Perhaps it is due to the Sanders' influence, but I see many who are enamored with the new perspective emphasize God's grace in everything. God was gracious with Adam before the fall and little changed since; God is gracious at Sinai (not in the CoG administration view way), God was gracious to Jesus due to his faithfulness, Abraham was faithful hence the declaration, etc. Many also promote two justifications (though depending on who they have very different definitions) all the while basically saying that were justified by faithfulness (not faith as in bare trust as a receiving instrument) and that this is so obviously gracious, presumably because circumcision isn't involved and pork is allowed (though many claim monergism too). Grace seems to obviously be reinterpreted in a more Roman Catholic way where in Barclay's words grace's efficacy is emphasized at the expense of it's incongruity and priority.
So I can't help but wonder if the axe at the root of the tree might just the philosophical idea of grace perfecting nature (Rome) vs grace renewing nature. Thoughts?

Basically. Most FV guys are not metaphysically astute enough to say "grace perfecting nature." Although I cannot make an airtight case at the moment, when everything is "grace," faith tends to become faithfulness. In which case, I can never really know if I have done enough.

 

[Theoretical]

I have been rereading some works on the new perspective, federal visionists etc. and their respective critiques/refutations and I have noticed commonalities that seem to unite most of the former (though perhaps I am late to game). Perhaps it is due to the Sanders' influence, but I see many who are enamored with the new perspective emphasize God's grace in everything. God was gracious with Adam before the fall and little changed since; God is gracious at Sinai (not in the CoG administration view way), God was gracious to Jesus due to his faithfulness, Abraham was faithful hence the declaration, etc. Many also promote two justifications (though depending on who they have very different definitions) all the while basically saying that were justified by faithfulness (not faith as in bare trust as a receiving instrument) and that this is so obviously gracious, presumably because circumcision isn't involved and pork is allowed (though many claim monergism too). Grace seems to obviously be reinterpreted in a more Roman Catholic way where in Barclay's words grace's efficacy is emphasized at the expense of it's incongruity and priority.
So I can't help but wonder if the axe at the root of the tree might just the philosophical idea of grace perfecting nature (Rome) vs grace renewing nature. Thoughts?

As the old saying goes, if everything is grace, then nothing is. As someone who remembers a lot of the FV controversies early in my Reformed days, this is a big emphasis, which is why the definition of grace used is just as important as the presence of and existence of grace.

 

[jwright82]

I have been rereading some works on the new perspective, federal visionists etc. and their respective critiques/refutations and I have noticed commonalities that seem to unite most of the former (though perhaps I am late to game). Perhaps it is due to the Sanders' influence, but I see many who are enamored with the new perspective emphasize God's grace in everything. God was gracious with Adam before the fall and little changed since; God is gracious at Sinai (not in the CoG administration view way), God was gracious to Jesus due to his faithfulness, Abraham was faithful hence the declaration, etc. Many also promote two justifications (though depending on who they have very different definitions) all the while basically saying that were justified by faithfulness (not faith as in bare trust as a receiving instrument) and that this is so obviously gracious, presumably because circumcision isn't involved and pork is allowed (though many claim monergism too). Grace seems to obviously be reinterpreted in a more Roman Catholic way where in Barclay's words grace's efficacy is emphasized at the expense of it's incongruity and priority.
So I can't help but wonder if the axe at the root of the tree might just the philosophical idea of grace perfecting nature (Rome) vs grace renewing nature. Thoughts?

Interesting question! I never thought of it before. Could you please connect the fantastic job you did laying out the basics of NPP and FV with RCC thought behind your question on grace, I'm not quite understanding? But as far as justification goes I think you're dead on.

 

[arapahoepark]

Basically. Most FV guys are not metaphysically astute enough to say "grace perfecting nature." Although I cannot make an airtight case at the moment, when everything is "grace," faith tends to become faithfulness. In which case, I can never really know if I have done enough.

What I have been thinking. Everything is gracious because it's chalked up to 'Spirit wrought monergistic sanctity' yet when does one receive the Spirit (Gal. 3:2)?

Interesting question! I never thought of it before. Could you please connect the fantastic job you did laying out the basics of NPP and FV with RCC thought behind your question on grace, I'm not quite understanding? But as far as justification goes I think you're dead on.

I think this is what you are asking: basically, here's how I think they might be connected: with 'grace' in many new perspective proponents being all over the place in redemptive history isn't that the same as the Roman Catholic/Thomist claim that grace perfects nature? Basically, in this view, Adam was created still needing grace prior to the fall. Implicit in this premise (and many make a good deal of hullabaloo in other places) is that we don't need someone like Jesus to fulfill the Law for us and credit it to our account, the Spirit does it in us. Ergo the only good, or new, thing about the new covenant is we have a tad more help (it's so gracious!)

 

[LittleFaith]

...in this view, Adam was created still needing grace prior to the fall...

What is the traditional teaching of Reformed theology on this topic?

 

[arapahoepark]

What is the traditional teaching of Reformed theology on this topic?

Adam was given the covenant of works. I have tended to notice most monocoventalists (the PRCA being the exception) trend toward the legalism of Shepherd.

 

[LittleFaith]

Adam was given the covenant of works. I have tended to notice most monocoventalists (the PRCA being the exception) trend toward the legalism of Shepherd.

Adam was created sinless, yet able to fall away from that sinless state. Would that imply that there was something lacking or different about his state at creation as compared to our state?

I'm not asking because I consciously hold Romish views on the topic. I'm just ignorant; this whole topic, and the Reformed vs. Catholic views on it, is not something I've ever understood well.

 

[arapahoepark]

Thoughts @greenbaggins ?

 

[RamistThomist]

Adam was created sinless, yet able to fall away from that sinless state. Would that imply that there was something lacking or different about his state at creation as compared to our state?

I'm not asking because I consciously hold Romish views on the topic. I'm just ignorant; this whole topic, and the Reformed vs. Catholic views on it, is not something I've ever understood well.

We say that Adam was created mutable with concreated holiness. Rome says Adam was created imperfect (not perjoratively, but only in a sense of lack) and then was given a super-added gift of grace (donum superadditum). We do not see our mutability as a lack.

 

[jwright82]

We say that Adam was created mutable with concreated holiness. Rome says Adam was created imperfect (not perjoratively, but only in a sense of lack) and then was given a super-added gift of grace (donum superadditum). We do not see our mutability as a lack.

Yeah if you go to the Catechism of the catholic church they have a huge section on grace. But its objectively given out by the church, which is FV for sure. Also both don't agree it's completely effective in its reception (you need more of it day to day). I once had a pastor in Texas who told me the difference between Rome and Reformed was we believe (his opinion) that the Holy Spirit places us in a state of grace. So it's not a substance but a state. This was before the union with Christ debates.

 

[jwright82]

What I have been thinking. Everything is gracious because it's chalked up to 'Spirit wrought monergistic sanctity' yet when does one receive the Spirit (Gal. 3:2)?

I think this is what you are asking: basically, here's how I think they might be connected: with 'grace' in many new perspective proponents being all over the place in redemptive history isn't that the same as the Roman Catholic/Thomist claim that grace perfects nature? Basically, in this view, Adam was created still needing grace prior to the fall. Implicit in this premise (and many make a good deal of hullabaloo in other places) is that we don't need someone like Jesus to fulfill the Law for us and credit it to our account, the Spirit does it in us. Ergo the only good, or new, thing about the new covenant is we have a tad more help (it's so gracious!)

Yeah it's funny how tinkering with these doctrines always wind up with going back to the covenant of works being in some way flawed. Going back to Shepherd, as arapahoepark pointed out. But as I understand it Shepherd got this stuff from some Dutch Reformed guys? Maybe someone who knows more than me can elaborate or correct me. Apparently he studied in the Netherlands for some time.
But your point is correct, so goes the COW goes the AIO of Christ and then justification by faith is changed to faithfulness. Great insights my friend.

 

[RamistThomist]

Going back to Shepherd, as arapahoepark pointed out. But as I understand it Shepherd got this stuff from some Dutch Reformed guys? Maybe someone who knows more than me can elaborate or correct me. Apparently he studied in the Netherlands for some time.

Kind of. Klaas Schilder used sloppy language to talk about covenant membership. On the surface, it seemed that he denied the internal/external distinction of the covenant, much like Wilson explicitly did in his earlier days. Schilder, though, never tried to be clever with justification.

 

[jwright82]

Kind of. Klaas Schilder used sloppy language to talk about covenant membership. On the surface, it seemed that he denied the internal/external distinction of the covenant, much like Wilson explicitly did in his earlier days. Schilder, though, never tried to be clever with justification.

Yeah that's how Van Til tried to defend him late in his life, but he was completely wrong. Yes you witnessed it a Vantillian saying Van Til was wrong on something (hell ain't completely frozen but its getting there). He was pretty old though.

 

[greenbaggins]

What is the traditional teaching of Reformed theology on this topic?

Some say grace was present before the Fall. These will have a broader definition of grace as "unmerited favor." Others will note the WCF's word to describe the pre-Fall condition as "condescension," (WCF 7.1) and that grace is never used of Adam before the Fall, thus interpreting grace as "demerited favor." I prefer the latter approach, as it is clearer about the difference between pre-Fall and post-Fall favor from God. It had a condescension aspect before the Fall, and a redemptive aspect afterwards. Mixing up the covenant of works and covenant of grace always results in golawspel, a mixing of law and gospel.

Thoughts @greenbaggins ?

While I certainly agree that "grace perfecting nature" is at the root of the commonalities among these positions, I wouldn't say it is exclusively so. There is an attached ecumenicity that is basically "back to Rome"; there is an anti-systematic theology impulse (a sort of biblicism combined with usually Medieval exegetical methodology), an anti-Reformational stance; and a revisionist historical view, re-reading the Reformers to say what they want them to say, usually using anachronistic categories to do so (think of N.T. Wright's incessant sweeping dismissals of the Reformers without quoting the Reformers).

 

[LittleFaith]

We say that Adam was created mutable with concreated holiness. Rome says Adam was created imperfect (not perjoratively, but only in a sense of lack) and then was given a super-added gift of grace (donum superadditum). We do not see our mutability as a lack.

If, however, Adam was able to fall away in a way that we are not - does that not mean in his pre-fall state that he was lacking something?

Also, I'm not familiar with the term "concreated", so I don't really grasp what is meant by concreated holiness.

 

[RamistThomist]

If, however, Adam was able to fall away in a way that we are not - does that not mean in his pre-fall state that he was lacking something?

There wasn't anything lacking in what it means to be created in the image of God. When we say the image of God, we mean knowledge, righteousness, and holiness with dominion over the creatures. That is what concreated holiness means. Rome, by contrast, says something must be added to man to make him complete in the image.

 

[Knight]

If, however, Adam was able to fall away in a way that we are not - does that not mean in his pre-fall state that he was lacking something?

Also, I'm not familiar with the term "concreated", so I don't really grasp what is meant by concreated holiness.

To add to what Jacob said, note that Rome's theory of a donum supperadditum also did not preclude the possibility for Adam to fall away.

 

[LittleFaith]

So Rome states that man in his natural state needed something additional to fully reflect God's image?

 

[RamistThomist]

So Rome states that man in his natural state needed something additional to fully reflect God's image?

Yes

 

[LittleFaith]

Yes

And I take it that from here they build a view of nature as imperfect/flawed in some way and needing grace to perfect it.

Whereas the Reformed view believes that grace restores nature to its "perfect" (complete) pre-fall state.

Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[RamistThomist]

And I take it that from here they build a view of nature as imperfect/flawed in some way and needing grace to perfect it.

Whereas the Reformed view believes that grace restores nature to its "perfect" (complete) pre-fall state.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Mostly. The Reformed do not believe we can go back exactly to the prefall state, as we now have to deal with sin in a way that Adam did not.

 

[LittleFaith]

Mostly. The Reformed do not believe we can go back exactly to the prefall state, as we now have to deal with sin in a way that Adam did not.

Ok.

So the implications of this difference in belief are... on the Catholic side, an opportunity to assert the continual dependence on church for assurance and justification?

 

[arapahoepark]

Ok.

So the implications of this difference in belief are... on the Catholic side, an opportunity to assert the continual dependence on church for assurance and justification?

Basically. Grace is now a medicinal substance in their eyes. Their sacraments are the continual vehicles for this medicinal substance in order that one might do works, etc. to be saved.

 

[ZackF]

Mostly. The Reformed do not believe we can go back exactly to the prefall state, as we now have to deal with sin in a way that Adam did not.

Most traditional Catholics don’t believe we can go back to prefall wills.

 

[LittleFaith]

Basically. Grace is now a medicinal substance in their eyes. Their sacraments are the continual vehicles for this medicinal substance in order that one might do works, etc. to be saved.

So grace perfects nature... imperfectly.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So grace perfects nature... imperfectly.

[edit ok, I think I see you may be critiquing rome]
While still we dwell this side of the eternal, glorified state we say grace is renewing rather than perfecting.
(The thread is not unfolding exactly in a straight line).

 

[moral necessity]

And I take it that from here they build a view of nature as imperfect/flawed in some way and needing grace to perfect it.

Whereas the Reformed view believes that grace restores nature to its "perfect" (complete) pre-fall state.

Am I understanding that correctly?

The main difference also being that Rome expects to stand before God in this imparted perfection and be justified, while the protestants view our restoration as still filthy rags compared to Christ's perfection, and will wear only the imputed garments of Christ as our justification.

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" - Phil. 3:8-9

Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think I would want to divide FV, NP, and RCC rather than lump them together as kindred ideas.

The New Perspectives is older than the FV. It was born out of a movement of NT scholars who argued that the Reformation misunderstood Paul and, specifically, the Judaism he was in contention with. They argue that Second Temple Judaism was not legalistic but had a place for grace in their system. The Reformers, they argue, don't understand what Paul was getting at because they misunderstood Judaism itself. One of the big things I see is that they look at this from a semi-Pelagian lens and so the "grace" they see in some forms of Rabbinic literature from the period is similar to their own where God provides salvation to a community of the faithful and the humble and persons either respond to and are part of that community or are not "in". I think the work of Carson and others on Variegated Covenantal Nomism is the best critique of the New Perspectives. In it, articles not only demonstrate that there was more diversity to 2nd Temple Judaism than what Wright and others propose, but also that the Pharisees sort of reflected the Rabbinic consensus on how penitents got right with God. If I could summarize, Wright and others have as much problem as the Pharisees did that men are dead in their sins and trespasses. What we see is sort of an autobiographical critique of Sovereign grace in salvation and trying to use 2nd Temple Judaism as a way to argue that the Reformation got justification wrong. Wright also gets other aspects of salvation history wrong where he sees the goal of salvation as aimed at Creation. The salvation of individuals into a community of faith is aimed at the redemption of the Creation. In other words, where we see the Mediator's work to redeem a Bride for Himself as the goal of salvation history, Wright sees the broader world as the place where the Bride is working to save the world. This isn't to exclude the Reformed notion that people live their lives in the world in service to neighbor, but merely the idea that we don't believe that the aim of salvation is not the redemption of the world and its systems, etc.

I would put FV in the same vein as a form of neo-Nomianism similar to Richard Baxter and others that can arise within an otherwise seemingly Protestant context. While notionally similar to NP in the sense that what is important to the FV is the faithful community, it is still different in kind. The Reformed confessions represent a very clear Covenant theology where Christ is Mediator to the elect and all evangelical graces flow from that union. Our Sacraments clearly distinguish between sign and the graces signified where they are Sacramentally related but not in such a way that the performance of the Sacraments necessarily seals the graces. FV tends to blur this distinction and flattens out this division so that a person and Church are seen to be necessarily in Christ insofar as they remain faithful. It's not that the Reformed view has a low view of the value of Sacraments, but that it rightly keeps the sealing work of those Sacraments in the inscrutable work of the Spirit to perform. In contrast, the FV tend to have the worshipper focus on the fact that the Church is performing them and to trust that, if they received the Sacrament, then the grace signified is necessarily received. There's a big emphasis, as well, on the keeping of wisdom and commands as the way to ensure right outcomes. That is, if you raise your kids in a certain way then you pretty much guarantee their continuance in the Church and you make sure they get the Sacraments that do their work to seal grace as they continue to work toward those Godly ends.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is a good article about RCC conceptions of the image of man.

New Horizons October 2022: Robert B. Strimple on the Image of God

Robert Strimple stands out as quite likely the finest dogmatic theologian to have served the OPC in training men for pastoral ministry. As a teenager in Wilmington, Delaware, he was planning ...

opc.org

"
In a tour de force survey, Strimple argued that traditional Roman Catholic theology and modern Barthian theology share striking similarities in their doctrinal conceptions of the image of God and in their theologies of participation in the being of God. For Roman Catholic theology, Adam, as the image of God, came from God with an inherent defect that required the infusion of supernatural grace that would reproportion and elevate him above his created nature to participate in the essence of God. For modern Barthian theology, Adam (a symbol for every man) came from God as inherently sinful and in need of participation in Jesus’s own participation in the being of God in the reconciling grace of the Christ-Event in Geschichte (a supratemporal time dimension inaccessible from calendar time historie).

The Image of God in Traditional Roman Catholic Conception​

Strimple in his class expounds the Roman Catholic doctrine of the natural image of God and its teaching regarding the supernatural gift of the grace (donum superadditum) that Adam needed before the fall to enable him to desire and to attain his supernatural end of intellective participation in the essence of God. Roman Catholic theology teaches “the bestowal of the donum superadditum” by which Adam’s created nature as the image of God would be, in the words of the counter-reformation Roman Catholic theologian Bellarmine, “exalted above human nature and made participant in the nature of God.” Bellarmine followed Aquinas who taught the same doctrine–that grace was added to Adam’s nature so that he might attain an unmediated intellective participation in the essence of God in the beatific vision.



Strimple also makes explicit that the need for the supernatural gift of the donum superadditum in Roman Catholic theology rests in an inherent ethical defect in Adam’s created nature. Apart from the infusion of supernatural grace, Adam possessed a “languor” that “needed a remedy” entirely apart from sin. It was “difficult” for Adam to “do good” on account of an inherent propensity to sin—what Bellarmine termed concupiscence, the propensity to gratify lower carnal desires instead of higher intellectual desires. The donum superadditum therefore also served as an ethical supplement to make Adam desire properly his supernatural end of intellective participation in the essence of God...."