Cheap Grace vs. Costly Grace (Keller’s Forward to Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer)

[Five Solas]

From time-to-time, LDS on the forum unleash the charge of “cheap grace” directed at Christians of the Evangelical persuasion.  My alias (“Five Solas”) seems to be a lightning rod for this kind of thing.  No worries, the misunderstanding doesn’t personally offend.  But I would take an opportunity to clear it up.

Yesterday my oldest (age 8 ) was performing in Northwest Girlchoir in a large Lutheran Church in Seattle’s Phinney Ridge neighborhood.   We arrived early and while she was getting ready, I found myself with a few extra minutes in their library.  I’ve read some of Bonhoeffer’s work as well as a biography of his life, but wasn’t familiar with Eric Metaxas’s BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy which was prominently displayed on a shelf.  So I picked it up and scanned the first pages and discovered Tim Keller’s introduction that I’m about to share here.  Fit for purpose, as you’ll soon see.

***

I’m delighted that my friend Eric Metaxas has penned this volume on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The English-speaking public needs to know far more than it does about his thought as well as his life.  When I became a Christian in college, Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship was one of the first books I read, followed not long afterwards by Life Together. I still think the second book is perhaps the finest single volume I have ever read on the character of Christian community, but it was the first book that set me on a life-long journey to understand the meaning of grace.

I now realize how impossible it is to understand Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge without becoming acquainted with the shocking capitulation of the German church to Hitler in the 1930s. How could the “church of Luther,” that great teacher of the gospel, have come to this?  The answer was that the gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace, had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. Formalism meant going to church, hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it didn’t really matter much how you lived. Bonhoeffer’s name for this was cheap grace. On the other hand, you had legalism, or salvation by law and good works.  Legalism meant God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and lived a good, disciplined life.  Both of these impulses made it possible for Hitler to come to power.  Formalists may have seen things in Germany that bothered them, but they did not see any need to sacrifice their safety to stand up to them.  Legalists were more likely to have the Pharisaical attitudes toward other nations and races that approved of Hitler’s policies.

Germany had lost hold of the brilliant balance of the gospel that Luther so persistently expounded:  “we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.”  That is, we are saved by grace, not by anything we do, but if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live.  Much of the German church understood ‘grace’ as abstract acceptance — “God forgives; that’s his job.”  But the grace comes to us by costly sacrifice. And if God was willing to go to the cross and endure such pain and absorb such a cost in order to save us, then we must live sacrificially as we serve others.  So anyone who truly understands how God’s grace comes to us will have a changed life.  That’s the gospel, not salvation by law, or by cheap grace, but by costly grace.  Costly grace changes you from the inside out.  Neither law nor cheap grace can do that.

This lapse couldn’t happen to us, today, surely?  Certainly it could.  We still have a lot of legalism and moralism in our churches.  In reaction to that, many Christians want to talk only about God’s love and acceptance.  Many of them don’t like talking about Jesus’ death on the cross to take divine wrath and justice.  Some even call this “divine child abuse.”  All this might run the risk of falling into the belief in “cheap grace” — a non-costly love from a non-holy God who just loves and accepts us.  That will never change anyone’s life.  So it looks like we still need to listen to Bonhoeffer and others who go deep in discussing the nature of the gospel.

- See more at: http://ericmetaxas.com/writing/essays/tim-kellers-foreword-bonhoeffer-pastor-martyr-prophet-spy/#sthash.BhuAGNC9.dpuf

***

I’d be interested if any LDS would be willing to offer a critique of Keller’s introduction and/or of Bonhoeffer’s life and work.  

Yes, I realize LDS have their own hero in the German story of Nazi resistance (albeit a controversial one, since leadership excommunicated him for his opposition to the Third Reich) Helmuth Hubener.  And LDS back then were served by a president & prophet (Heber J. Grant) who wasn’t persuaded America should have gotten involved in WWII and pretty much hated everything President Franklin D. Roosevelt thought was worth pursuing.  Wrong side of history, Grant was.  Repeatedly.  And all the many LDS who sustained him.  If there's a more glaring example in the 20th century history of the LDS Church--I'm not aware of it.  But I digress... 

Going forward I’m going to link back to this thread each & every time someone here types, “cheap grace.”  So if you still think the shoe fits & you want to go there--give it your best shot right here, right now. 

;0)

--Erik

________________________________

Now, if you find yourself falling apart
Well I am sure I could steer
The great salt lake

--Band of Horses "The Great Salt Lake"

[strappinglad]

From my reading , about 100,000 LDS served in WW2 with about 5000 deaths. That is some way to support the prophet who doesn't like the US in the war. What a stab in the back.

My father buys me a car. I say " thanks,Dad. " , Then I take the car, never maintain it , throw garbage on the floor, burn off the tires and sideswipe the occasional tree. It's OK though because Dad loves me and always will repair the car like new when ever I need it , because I said " thanks " .

My father buys me a car and I say " thanks , Dad ". I then do all I can to take care of the car. I clean it regularly, I keep the oil changed, I maintain the tires etc. Occasionally I get a scratch or dent and I work to fix things as best I can. It's OK , Dad loves me.

I am more of a fan of costly grace because of the ' faith without works is dead' scripture. Also, ' if ye love me , keep my commandments ' .My costly grace and your costly grace  probably come from different places.

Edited May 22, 2017 by strappinglad

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

From time-to-time, LDS on the forum unleash the charge of “cheap grace” directed at Christians of the Evangelical persuasion.  My alias (“Five Solas”) seems to be a lightning rod for this kind of thing.  No worries, the misunderstanding doesn’t personally offend.  But I would take an opportunity to clear it up.

................................................................................

I’d be interested if any LDS would be willing to offer a critique of Keller’s introduction and/or of Bonhoeffer’s life and work.  

Yes, I realize LDS have their own hero in the German story of Nazi resistance (albeit a controversial one, since leadership excommunicated him for his opposition to the Third Reich) Helmuth Hubener.  And LDS back then were served by a president & prophet (Heber J. Grant) who wasn’t persuaded America should have gotten involved in WWII and pretty much hated everything President Franklin D. Roosevelt thought was worth pursuing.  Wrong side of history, Grant was.  Repeatedly.  And all the many LDS who sustained him.  If there's a more glaring example in the 20th century history of the LDS Church--I'm not aware of it.  But I digress... 

Going forward I’m going to link back to this thread each & every time someone here types, “cheap grace.”  So if you still think the shoe fits & you want to go there--give it your best shot right here, right now. 

;..............................................

"Cheap grace" is not an LDS charge against Protestants of any coloration, but is rather a matter of harsh dispute within Protestant denominations.   German Lutherans' failure to adequately confront Nazism is merely one example of that issue, some of which stems from the virulence of  Martin Luther's own anti-Jewish ravings.*  Such an accusation might have remained a presentist mistake had it not been for the overwhelming 20th century hatred of Jews among both Protestant and Catholic German people (a hatred also characteristic of the Polish people).  Also, Luther's contempt for the Epistle of James indicated yet another Protestant failing: Attention only to carefully selected Scriptures which support one's apriori theology -- which non-Mormon biblical scholars term "text abuse."

Some LDS were Nazis, including Helmuth Hübner's branch president, and plenty of German Mormons served in the Wermacht.  I have heard the personal testimony of Helmuth's teenage buddies, who were likewise actively anti-Nazi.  Bonhoeffer was not alone in his rejection of evil.  That Pres Heber J. Grant was an isolationist was quite a normal position for most Americans before WW II, something which bedeviled FDR, until we had no choice but to serve in an all out war with the Axis powers.  There is no reason to demand or expect that Pres Grant would be politically sophisticated in such matters.  Indeed, the Mormon American military officer in charge of creating a democratic post-War German government had been a naive admirer of Hitler's Germany in the pre-War period.  Despite his Harvard education, he could not see the forest for the trees.  Our hindsight is typically 20x20, and our critiques often founded on erroneous belief in the infallibility of religious leaders.

*  See the discussion and sources in Hans J. Hillerbrand, “Martin Luther and the Jews,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future (Crossroad, 1990), 127-150; Luther called for the burning of Jewish synagogues and for the persecution of Jews – his writings on Jews have now been formally rejected by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

From my reading , about 100,000 LDS served in WW2 with about 5000 deaths. That is some way to support the prophet who doesn't like the US in the war. What a stab in the back.

.......................................................

Many of our most recent General Authorities, including Pres Monson, served in the military during WW II.

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

From time-to-time, LDS on the forum unleash the charge of “cheap grace” directed at Christians of the Evangelical persuasion.  My alias (“Five Solas”) seems to be a lightning rod for this kind of thing.  No worries, the misunderstanding doesn’t personally offend.  But I would take an opportunity to clear it up.

Yesterday my oldest (age 8 ) was performing in Northwest Girlchoir in a large Lutheran Church in Seattle’s Phinney Ridge neighborhood.   We arrived early and while she was getting ready, I found myself with a few extra minutes in their library.  I’ve read some of Bonhoeffer’s work as well as a biography of his life, but wasn’t familiar with Eric Metaxas’s BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy which was prominently displayed on a shelf.  So I picked it up and scanned the first pages and discovered Tim Keller’s introduction that I’m about to share here.  Fit for purpose, as you’ll soon see.

***

I’m delighted that my friend Eric Metaxas has penned this volume on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The English-speaking public needs to know far more than it does about his thought as well as his life.  When I became a Christian in college, Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship was one of the first books I read, followed not long afterwards by Life Together. I still think the second book is perhaps the finest single volume I have ever read on the character of Christian community, but it was the first book that set me on a life-long journey to understand the meaning of grace.

I now realize how impossible it is to understand Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge without becoming acquainted with the shocking capitulation of the German church to Hitler in the 1930s. How could the “church of Luther,” that great teacher of the gospel, have come to this?  The answer was that the gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace, had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. Formalism meant going to church, hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it didn’t really matter much how you lived. Bonhoeffer’s name for this was cheap grace. On the other hand, you had legalism, or salvation by law and good works.  Legalism meant God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and lived a good, disciplined life.  Both of these impulses made it possible for Hitler to come to power.  Formalists may have seen things in Germany that bothered them, but they did not see any need to sacrifice their safety to stand up to them.  Legalists were more likely to have the Pharisaical attitudes toward other nations and races that approved of Hitler’s policies.

Germany had lost hold of the brilliant balance of the gospel that Luther so persistently expounded:  “we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith which is alone.”  That is, we are saved by grace, not by anything we do, but if we have truly understood and believed the gospel, it will change what we do and how we live.  Much of the German church understood ‘grace’ as abstract acceptance — “God forgives; that’s his job.”  But the grace comes to us by costly sacrifice. And if God was willing to go to the cross and endure such pain and absorb such a cost in order to save us, then we must live sacrificially as we serve others.  So anyone who truly understands how God’s grace comes to us will have a changed life.  That’s the gospel, not salvation by law, or by cheap grace, but by costly grace.  Costly grace changes you from the inside out.  Neither law nor cheap grace can do that.

This lapse couldn’t happen to us, today, surely?  Certainly it could.  We still have a lot of legalism and moralism in our churches.  In reaction to that, many Christians want to talk only about God’s love and acceptance.  Many of them don’t like talking about Jesus’ death on the cross to take divine wrath and justice.  Some even call this “divine child abuse.”  All this might run the risk of falling into the belief in “cheap grace” — a non-costly love from a non-holy God who just loves and accepts us.  That will never change anyone’s life.  So it looks like we still need to listen to Bonhoeffer and others who go deep in discussing the nature of the gospel.

- See more at: http://ericmetaxas.com/writing/essays/tim-kellers-foreword-bonhoeffer-pastor-martyr-prophet-spy/#sthash.BhuAGNC9.dpuf

***

I’d be interested if any LDS would be willing to offer a critique of Keller’s introduction and/or of Bonhoeffer’s life and work.  

Yes, I realize LDS have their own hero in the German story of Nazi resistance (albeit a controversial one, since leadership excommunicated him for his opposition to the Third Reich) Helmuth Hubener.  And LDS back then were served by a president & prophet (Heber J. Grant) who wasn’t persuaded America should have gotten involved in WWII and pretty much hated everything President Franklin D. Roosevelt thought was worth pursuing.  Wrong side of history, Grant was.  Repeatedly.  And all the many LDS who sustained him.  If there's a more glaring example in the 20th century history of the LDS Church--I'm not aware of it.  But I digress... 

Going forward I’m going to link back to this thread each & every time someone here types, “cheap grace.”  So if you still think the shoe fits & you want to go there--give it your best shot right here, right now. 

I've never used the term "cheap grace" but I have never cared for the tortured reliance of the Reform Church on a few lines in Paul to the complete disregard of so many other scriptures. I will also take this opportunity to say that my experience with Calvinists on internet forums has been less than conciliatory. Out of all the Protestant sects they seem to harbor the most disdain for LDS Christians, and typically are much less than friendly. While I can't say that of you, assuming you are the same 5 Solas I have seen on other boards over the years, I'm sure you have perhaps noticed it of others. Anyway, it would be nice to experience some of that free grace from Calvinists they believe that they receive, and seem to almost feel they are entitled to as "the elect." As a general rule as a person identifying as LDS or Mormon on these boards I seem to receive the most grace from Catholics, non-denoms, or others who do not identify too strongly with any particular sect.

P.S. - just a few of the things that bug me about the Reform Church

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

From time-to-time, LDS on the forum unleash the charge of “cheap grace” directed at Christians of the Evangelical persuasion.  

Since I assume you are referring to my bringing it up over the weekend in an other thread let me be clear that cheap grace is a heresy and the theological sophisticated Evangelical oppose it. My experience is that it is unfortunately common in the laity which is why many Evangelicals leaders speak against it regularly.

[Five Solas]

22 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Since I assume you are referring to my bringing it up over the weekend in an other thread let me be clear that cheap grace is a heresy and the theological sophisticated Evangelical oppose it. My experience is that it is unfortunately common in the laity which is why many Evangelicals leaders speak against it regularly.

All good, clarkgoble, appreciate the post. 

I am hoping rongo (who once aimed the charge at me specifically), Vance (who seemingly takes it as the 14th Article of Faith - Evangelical Christians believe & promote cheap grace), and a few others along the way might see the thread and either defend their positions or withdraw them.

:0)

--Erik

[Maidservant]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer has to be one of my favorite people to ever walk this planet.  His mind and interpretive talents were beyond compare (according to me), and yet it is the afflictions and tenderness and sense of defense within his heart that put me in the most awe; his willingness and ability to speak the thing that no one else will (not in terms of knowledge, but in terms of courage) and then to back that up with action, in his case the consequence of prison.

I agree with you that faith is to be LIVED.  Faith has consequence in the life of the faithful.  I believe that is what Paul always meant.

The fourth Article of Faith (LDS) shows that faith is the fuel for repentance i.e. faith in Jesus Christ is the way we become new creatures.  This change of heart and being comes before baptism (in the 4th article).  Obviously, it's a lifelong process; but what people often don't realize--so is baptism.  But my point is thinking deeply about the order presented in the 4th article is a way to get to a mystery of God (not only a list of 'To Do's).

I have a small bio of Bonhoeffer on my shelf that is slated to be read with my sons.  So it has been a while since I read anything in detail, so my recollection isn't at its best at the moment.  But I have absolutely nothing to say against Tim Keller's words, they seem right on.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I am hoping rongo (who once aimed the charge at me specifically), Vance (who seemingly takes it as the 14th Article of Faith - Evangelical Christians believe & promote cheap grace), and a few others along the way might see the thread and either defend their positions or withdraw them.

As I said, I've found it surprisingly common among the laity and often pushed by unscrulptuous preachers such as TV Evangelists. So I think it's worth asking why it keeps popping up given it's destructive nature. (Effectively those who come to the conclusion of cheap grace think what they do doesn't matter and that faith is just expressing an intellectual assent to Christ) While Bonhoeffer's writings are the classic on cheap grace, you find it discussed widely. Despite many Evangelical leaders preaching against cheap grace, how does it remain so common?

My guess is that on the faith vs. works issue, when works are so devalued and there being no way of discerning when one has faith, that cheap grace is a rather natural consequence. The real question, particularly for Calvinists, is to ask how you know when someone has faith. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Five Solas]

On 5/23/2017 at 8:28 AM, clarkgoble said:

As I said, I've found it surprisingly common among the laity and often pushed by unscrulptuous preachers such as TV Evangelists. So I think it's worth asking why it keeps popping up given it's destructive nature. (Effectively those who come to the conclusion of cheap grace think what they do doesn't matter and that faith is just expressing an intellectual assent to Christ) While Bonhoeffer's writings are the classic on cheap grace, you find it discussed widely. Despite many Evangelical leaders preaching against cheap grace, how does it remain so common?

My guess is that on the faith vs. works issue, when works are so devalued and there being no way of discerning when one has faith, that cheap grace is a rather natural consequence. The real question, particularly for Calvinists, is to ask how you know when someone has faith. 

And yet cheap grace is not *the* natural consequence--as Keller points out, cheap grace and legalism are two sides of the same coin--and each is equally destructive in its own way.  I submit the root cause on both sides is pride (or maybe just infidelity).  In both instances, the individual seeks to place him or herself on God's throne.  In the case of cheap grace, it's by relegating God to irrelevance in how one lives his/her life ("God forgives; that's his job").  In the case of legalism, the individual supplants God with his/her own volition and initiative to obey and follow various rules, thereby compelling God to respond affirmatively.  Joseph Smith took this to extreme with his image of a bound god (D&C 82:10).  Smith's god extended ropes for humans to pull and thereby dispense blessings.  And this gave Smith's god purpose (if not pleasure).  

Both remain common, clarkgoble.  So let me flip the coin and send the question back to you:  Why do you think legalism remains so common?   

--Erik

____________________________________

Linger by the flyposter, for a fight
It's the same story every night
I've been hurt and we've been had
You leave home, and you don't go back

--Pet Shop Boys "King's Cross" 

[Storm Rider]

On 5/22/2017 at 0:19 AM, Five Solas said:

From time-to-time, LDS on the forum unleash the charge of “cheap grace” directed at Christians of the Evangelical persuasion.  .......***

I’d be interested if any LDS would be willing to offer a critique of Keller’s introduction and/or of Bonhoeffer’s life and work.  

--Erik

________________________________

Now, if you find yourself falling apart
Well I am sure I could steer
The great salt lake

--Band of Horses "The Great Salt Lake"

Erik, I am a fan of Bonhoeffer and his writings.  I did not identify a conflict between LDS theology and Bonhoeffer's in what you wrote.  I often sense that LDS and other Christians talk past one another when it comes to grace.  We believe that the Holy Spirit changes the heart and thus one's life is changed as demonstrated by a new way of doing things i.e. living a more holy life or a righteous life.  It is by God's grace that we are saved; all that is good in us comes from him.  

If we are admitting foibles I have the least amount of trust when surrounded by Evangelicals.  Give me a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox any day of the week.  There just seems to be a higher degree association and understand in my experience.  

Peace,

Aside:  HJG was not one of my favorites if it matters and I never forget that we are all human regardless of what God calls us to do. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Storm Rider

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Joseph Smith took this to extreme with his image of a bound god (D&C 82:10).

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think the scripture just accepts that God does what he says. If you think God can deny his word that's fine. But being bound by his word is more or less just saying he's honest and all powerful.

Quote

Both remain common, clarkgoble.  So let me flip the coin and send the question back to you:  Why do you think legalism remains so common?   

Depends upon what you mean by legalism. I don't think it is common among Mormons (although it does pop up) based upon my understanding of the term. However I think that if one believes in Christ and has the spirit one will put forth effort to follow God. That's not legalism though. 

[thesometimesaint]

It would be a rather capricious God who doesn't do as he said.he would do. 

[Five Solas]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...

Depends upon what you mean by legalism. I don't think it is common among Mormons (although it does pop up) based upon my understanding of the term. However I think that if one believes in Christ and has the spirit one will put forth effort to follow God. That's not legalism though. 

Not to butter you up too much, but you're one of the more erudite participants on the forum, clarkgoble.  Of course you understand what Keller, Bonhoeffer et al., meant by cheap grace.   And no one familiar with your posts was surprised how you leveraged it into a broader charge against Evangelicals ("when works are so devalued"), etc.

But when it comes to the other side of the coin, legalism, you now tell us it "depends" on definitions.  Who really knows what Keller's talking about?  Certainly not clarkgoble!  Maybe Keller was just babbling incoherently, depending on how one "understands" this whole legalism thing.  But whatever it might be, it can't be "common" among Mormons. 

Unfortunately for your argument, you're much too good for any of this to be credible.  I don't suppose you'd like to try again?

;0)

--Erik

[USU78]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think the scripture just accepts that God does what he says. If you think God can deny his word that's fine. But being bound by his word is more or less just saying he's honest and all powerful.

Depends upon what you mean by legalism. I don't think it is common among Mormons (although it does pop up) based upon my understanding of the term. However I think that if one believes in Christ and has the spirit one will put forth effort to follow God. That's not legalism though. 

Naturally. We need only add another "all" to His resume: All Faithful.

USU "Great is Thy Faithfulness" 78

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But when it comes to the other side of the coin, legalism, you now tell us it "depends" on definitions.  Who really knows what Keller's talking about?  Certainly not clarkgoble!  Maybe Keller was just babbling incoherently, depending on how one "understands" this whole legalism thing.  But whatever it might be, it can't be "common" among Mormons. 

Unfortunately for your argument, you're much too good for any of this to be credible.  I don't suppose you'd like to try again?

I thought I was clear that I wasn't sure what you meant by legalism but by my understanding it's not a problem. The reason is that by my understanding legalism is the idea that formal rules determine behavior and it is adhering to those rules unduly that constitutes legalism as a criticized behavior. The reason I don't see it as a problem in the church is the constant emphasis of following the spirit, getting personal revelation, listening to promptings, and the recognition that the rules we have are so vague that they can only give a general direction rather than tell us what to do in any particular situation. As I said that's not to deny there are some people who adhere to rules in an unhealthy fashion - often without even being able to understand that they are following not the rules themselves but rather idiosyncratic interpretations of the rules usually tied to a particular family's practices. 

For example I had one roommate at BYU who took the Word of Wisdom extremely seriously. Since we were not to drink alcohol he also avoided anything with vanilla extract. This seemed insane to me. But it got worse. Not only did he avoid extracts and medicines with alcohol in them but he avoided anything with vinegar in it since he'd heard that vinegar often still contained some alcohol. (Vinegar is made by fermenting past the alcohol stage) This to me was unhealthy and more importantly missed the forest for the trees. It was so focused on applying the letter of the rule with no concern with diminishing returns, context, following the spirit, or looking at community interpretations and behavior. That to me is legalism. But I just rarely, rarely see it.

So for the counterexample while nearly every Mormon I know takes the Word of Wisdom seriously, most people don't particularly worry if alcohol was used in the meal at the restaurant they are eating at. (In say most chicken dishes with sauces especially in Italian cooking) Most people don't worry if the restaurant put a bit of ground coffee in that chocolate cake. They don't worry if the over the counter medicine has alcohol as the solvent for the medicine. They use vanilla extract without worry of breaking the Word of Wisdom. They may recognize they shouldn't eat as much meat as they do, but don't get too caught up in that aspect.

So they seem to be avoiding legalism - although one can always critique people who selectively apply legalism. So the one place you sometimes see the legalism charge pop up in a Mormon context is modesty where people get a bit silly with shoulders and young women (IMO). But even there I think the problem is exaggerated and while I've seen it I don't see a lot of it.

To your broader point though, people often use words differently. For any discussion to proceed usually getting everyone on the same page in terminology is extremely important. A common joke is that in any philosophical discussion 95% of the discussion is getting everyone on the same semantic page. I've brought this up before relative to people brining in dictionary definitions that usually don't track exactly how individuals are actually using the words - both because of uses that either expand or narrow the typical sense but also because they simply are using the term the way they are used to. I find that especially in religious discussions in people use the same theological and scriptural terminology yet mean radically different things. At least with philosophy once you mention a few philosophers you are influenced by one can quickly get close to the sense of terms as opposed to different terminology. With religion that's far less the case since people often equivocate quite a bit more in religious discussions. Legalism is, in my experience, one of those commonly used terms that everyone seems to mean something different with.

So whether I am credible in saying that or not, it is something I certainly think is true.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Five Solas]

On 5/26/2017 at 10:24 AM, clarkgoble said:

I thought I was clear that I wasn't sure what you meant by legalism but by my understanding it's not a problem. The reason is that by my understanding legalism is the idea that formal rules determine behavior and it is adhering to those rules unduly that constitutes legalism as a criticized behavior. The reason I don't see it as a problem in the church is the constant emphasis of following the spirit, getting personal revelation, listening to promptings, and the recognition that the rules we have are so vague that they can only give a general direction rather than tell us what to do in any particular situation. As I said that's not to deny there are some people who adhere to rules in an unhealthy fashion - often without even being able to understand that they are following not the rules themselves but rather idiosyncratic interpretations of the rules usually tied to a particular family's practices. 

For example I had one roommate at BYU who took the Word of Wisdom extremely seriously. Since we were not to drink alcohol he also avoided anything with vanilla extract. This seemed insane to me. But it got worse. Not only did he avoid extracts and medicines with alcohol in them but he avoided anything with vinegar in it since he'd heard that vinegar often still contained some alcohol. (Vinegar is made by fermenting past the alcohol stage) This to me was unhealthy and more importantly missed the forest for the trees. It was so focused on applying the letter of the rule with no concern with diminishing returns, context, following the spirit, or looking at community interpretations and behavior. That to me is legalism. But I just rarely, rarely see it.

So for the counterexample while nearly every Mormon I know takes the Word of Wisdom seriously, most people don't particularly worry if alcohol was used in the meal at the restaurant they are eating at. (In say most chicken dishes with sauces especially in Italian cooking) Most people don't worry if the restaurant put a bit of ground coffee in that chocolate cake. They don't worry if the over the counter medicine has alcohol as the solvent for the medicine. They use vanilla extract without worry of breaking the Word of Wisdom. They may recognize they shouldn't eat as much meat as they do, but don't get too caught up in that aspect.

So they seem to be avoiding legalism - although one can always critique people who selectively apply legalism. So the one place you sometimes see the legalism charge pop up in a Mormon context is modesty where people get a bit silly with shoulders and young women (IMO). But even there I think the problem is exaggerated and while I've seen it I don't see a lot of it.

To your broader point though, people often use words differently. For any discussion to proceed usually getting everyone on the same page in terminology is extremely important. A common joke is that in any philosophical discussion 95% of the discussion is getting everyone on the same semantic page. I've brought this up before relative to people brining in dictionary definitions that usually don't track exactly how individuals are actually using the words - both because of uses that either expand or narrow the typical sense but also because they simply are using the term the way they are used to. I find that especially in religious discussions in people use the same theological and scriptural terminology yet mean radically different things. At least with philosophy once you mention a few philosophers you are influenced by one can quickly get close to the sense of terms as opposed to different terminology. With religion that's far less the case since people often equivocate quite a bit more in religious discussions. Legalism is, in my experience, one of those commonly used terms that everyone seems to mean something different with.

So whether I am credible in saying that or not, it is something I certainly think is true.

I so wanted you to just own it, clarkgoble.  To acknowledge Keller's cheap grace/legalism sword you picked up to swing at Evangelicals ("when works are so devalued") was double-edged.  And then we could have had a conversation.  I would have liked that. 

Instead, you've taken your swing & now you're laboring to blunt the other side by telling us we need to discuss definitions and examples.  Funny how utterly unnecessarily this was for you when it came to cheap grace--it only applied to legalism.  Funny to me, at least.  I'm sure for some readers, your effort here will be quite satisfying.  They may even argue I'm the one being unfair.  But it certainly won't be that way for all of them. 

Think about that.  For next time.  I'll be around.

:0)

--Erik

[clarkgoble]

I'm more than willing to define cheap grace too. I took for granted in a topic referencing Bonhoeffer that we were using his definition and thus further discussion along that line wasn't necessary. I notice you didn't address the points I made. Clearly I was more than willing to provide my use when requested. I don't think my use is particularly different from Bonhoeffer's critique of german Christianity as legalistic and formalistic. Although I clearly have some differences from Bonhoeffer there. I am after all not a Lutheran.

Edited May 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[juliann]

OK, Five Solas, you have to change the OP title. Every time I see Grace before Keller I read Grace Kelly and wonder what is cheap and costly about her. 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, juliann said:

OK, Five Solas, you have to change the OP title. Every time I see Grace before Keller I read Grace Kelly and wonder what is cheap and costly about her. 

Change the title yourself, wannabe Nemesis.  

Ha, you can't!

[longview]

On 5/25/2017 at 9:54 AM, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think the scripture just accepts that God does what he says. If you think God can deny his word that's fine. But being bound by his word is more or less just saying he's honest and all powerful.

God is perfectly square in His dealings with us:

Isaiah Chapter 28
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

[Five Solas]

On 5/28/2017 at 7:01 PM, juliann said:

OK, Five Solas, you have to change the OP title. Every time I see Grace before Keller I read Grace Kelly and wonder what is cheap and costly about her. 

Of course, the forum's Gen-X membership may be forgiven if instead of 1950's cinema being called to mind--they see that name & Madonna's thumping 1990 dance hit "Vogue" starts to play in their heads.  It moved many a YSA sponsored dance floor, back in the day...

;0)

Grace Kelly, Harlow, Jean
Picture of a beauty queen
Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire
Ginger Rogers, dance on air
...
Vogue, vogue, vogue
Strike a pose, there's nothing to it

 

[Gray]

On 5/28/2017 at 9:01 PM, juliann said:

OK, Five Solas, you have to change the OP title. Every time I see Grace before Keller I read Grace Kelly and wonder what is cheap and costly about her. 

Glad I'm not the only one!