Grace: Relationship or Substance?

Dearly Bought · #1 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 09:56 AM

I was reading Guy Waters' very informative book on the Federal Vision and came across some interesting discussion of the nature of grace. In the following quote, Waters discusses Peter Leithart's view of grace:

Quote:

"Taking his cue from Van Til's doctrine of Absolute Person, Leithart argued for a doctrine of the Trinity that conceived the divine unity in fundamentally relational terms. We have seen in our chapter on justification how Leithart applied this concern to his understanding of the application of redemption to the believer. Redemption was seen as something fundamentally dynamic and relational. In conjunction with this definition a caution was raised against the so-called reification of grace, that is, conceiving grace as a 'substance.' Grace is, rather, 'shorthand for describing the Triune God's personal kindness to human beings and the gifts, especially the self-gift of the Spirit, that flow from that kindness.'"
(Guy Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, p. 171)

Later in the book, Waters demonstrates that other FV writers such as Richard Lusk share a similar conception of grace:

Quote:

"What do we mean, however, by 'grace'? Lusk maintains, with other FV proponents we have examined, that grace 'offered and received in the means of grace is relational, not substantial.' On these points, Lusk contends, we must question the phraseology of WCF 28.5: 'Grace is conferred in the sacrament,' he asserts. The reason this needs to be pressed, Lusk argues, is that 'the patristics traded in a Hebraic, relation understanding of grace for a Hellenistic, substantial understanding of grace,' a 'quasi-physical substance that was 'poured into' or 'infused into' sinners.'"
(Guy Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, p. 214)

Waters therefore summarizes the FV conception of grace as relational in opposition to ontological. Reading these passages reminded me of something I'd previously read and I was able to track down this bit from Michael Horton:

Quote:

"Furthermore, grace is not an impersonal substance, but a personal attribute. It is not a spiritual tonic that can be passed from one person to another, but is God's own attitude and action that he shows to those who deserve the very opposite. If we think in terms of a king showing favor instead of a substance being passed through a channel, much of the confusion over the sacraments can be overcome."
(Michael Horton, God of Promise, p. 164)

It would seem that on this particular issue, Michael Horton and Peter Leithart share a similar view. This view, however, is opposed by Waters with the following challenge:

Quote:

"How then are we to conceive of communication of grace, whether sacramentally or in some other setting? Is it God's self-communication to the sinner? Is it simply God's favor displayed in a nonontological sense?
The way in which we answer these questions has implications for our doctrines of regeneration and of sanctification. Is the grace of regeneration the infusion of a habitus, as Reformed theology has often argued? If not, how are we to defend regeneration against the twin charges (a) that it is a moral and not a physical change (b) that it properly and truly consists of divine possession, a la demon possession. Furthermore, how are the good works of a renewed believer that are done under the power of the Holy Spirit said properly to be his own? How do we preserve the biblical synergism of sanctification?
(Guy Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, p. 182)

Am I right to see a commonality between FV writers and Horton in this area? Is the theology of the Reformed Confessions opposed to this view? Is grace relational or ontological? Is that question problematic in itself?

**Herald** · #2 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Is grace relational or ontological?

Cannot grace be both? Grace seems to be conferred by God according to His divine mercy towards His elect (relational). It proceeds from God's nature, His very substance, but effectual in it's purpose (ontological).

***Contra_Mundum*** · #3 (**permalink**) 11-07-2009, 11:27 AM

Remember that statements by one author, spoken in one context, can be taken by others and used to defend principles the original author did not intend. Horton would probably not mean the kinds of things Leithart&Lusk are saying, using similar language.

Horton's point is probaly more akin to Bill's observation that a certain separation of concepts is undesireable. When Horton says "God's personal attribute," he is not saying (ISTM) that this personality is not "making contact", as it were. Horton is right to advise us to reject the notion of "channel and substance", as if Grace were something with properties of its own.

What Waters asks rhetorically, "Is it God's self-communication to the sinner?" he means to answer in the affirmative. IOW, what is "communicated" and "conferred" is GOD to the sinner. Leithart&Lusk so elevate the "relational" that they would appear to deny (even to rewording our Confession!) the touch of God.

Is it simply that we are now "friends" with God, and his regard of us as fellowship-worthy is how Grace may be summed up? Or is it that God's regard of us is so tender that he "contacts" us, in a mysterious and marvelous way that surpasses understanding, by the ordinary means of grace--including the sacraments--which he has instituted? The latter is the historic, Reformed understanding, which Waters seeks (I believe) to promote and defend.

The Grace that is conferred to us is no mere smiling glance, or affirmative acknowledgement that we are renewed in a covenant fellowship. It is more than a "piece of paper," like a treaty or a marriage license. It is those words of love, and the dwelling with us, and the wordless touches and unutterable self-communication that we know from our own marriage relations especially--relations which Paul thought ideal to express the relationship of Christ to his church.

Richard Tallach · #4 (**permalink**) 11-08-2009, 11:47 AM

The Federal Visionistas are once again haggling over words in a rather foolish way.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are every where present, but when the Holy Spirit is said to dwell in the hearts of believers, or is said to be poured out, etc, are we not expected to think of the Holy Spirit in His spiritual substance, dwelling in us in a special or new way, or being poured out etc.

Of course looked at from another angle, that involves a change in relationship to the Holy Spirit as the agent of the application of God's grace to Man, but the Holy Spirit would not use language about Himself in such an uncareful way throughout the Bible, if He minded believers thinking in such terms.