Saturday, May 03, 2008

DuBose on Salvation and Works

My thanks to virtual friend Edmund Kopietz for introducing me to American Anglican theologian William Porcher DuBose (1836-1918) and, particularly, to the following reflections on salvation.

"Christianity is not Christianity until it is applying its axe to the root of evil and the wretchedness of the world, until its business is with sin and with God's salvation from sin. It is not the Gospel or the kingdom of God nor salvation to men that they shall be made the objects only of all the mercy and the goodness of the universe. Nothing can be done merely to us or for us that will save us. To be loved, to be sympathized with and helped, to be shown mercy and forgiven, to be the objects of the most unconditional divine grace, are a very great deal. But these are the merest circumstances of human salvation, they are not salvation itself.

"No one saw more clearly than our Lord that life and blessedness is not in what is done to us, but only in what we are ourselves are and do. He did not mean the story of the Prodigal Son to be to us the beginning and end of the Gospel. At least, He did not unless we include in its teaching not only the perfect and unconditional love and goodness of the Father, but as the consequence, not the cause of that, the complete repentance and self-restoration of the son.

"The goodness of God leadeth us unto repentance. Nothing else can so lead us to repentance or can make repentance so effectual unto salvation;but it is our repentance and what comes of it in ourselves that constitutes and is our salvation. Therefore, Jesus quickly and decisively passes from the consideration of men as the mere recipients or objects of the goodness of God, of which he was the almoner, to the higher thought of them as the subjects of the divine goodness, as partakers and sharers of the divine spirit and nature and life of love and goodness.

"The creditor who owed ten thousand talents could by no possibility have discharged the debt, and his lord had compassion on him and freely forgave him all. But when the same servant showed no mercy to the fellow servant who owed him a hundred pence, what was become of the mercy and goodness that had been shown him? We can be recipients only as we are sharers and dispensers of the grace of God. And that is not an arbitrary condition upon God's part. All that God has to give is, in the nature of it, capable of being received and possessed and enjoyed only as it is used. And it can be used as God uses it only as it is used, not for ourselves, but upon all in the measure of their claim upon us. How otherwise is it possible to have and to employ and to enjoy God's spirit and nature,and life of love and grace and goodness?

"All that God has to give us is goodness, because properly understood that is all that God is Himself. And goodness is ab initio, not only what we are in ourselves and do of ourselves, but what we are and do to others than ourselves. But there is no exaggerated or impractical unselfishness or altruism in that. As we have before pointed out, goodness is our own and only good. A man's true pleasure or happiness or blessedness or good is to be found in the abundance of his life, which means in the abundance of what he is and does. And what can he be or do except in relation and interchange with others, in mutual offices of love and goodness?

"The whole tenor of our Lord's teaching and example is to the effect that res or matter of our salvation is not in what God is to us or does for us, but in the result of that upon and in ourselves. It is not the being loved, but the loving with a divine love that is our salvation. It is not the receiving but the showing of mercy, not in our being forgiven but our forgiving, that Jesus Christ is concerned about, not because God is in want of, in the sense of lacking, what we can or can't do, but because He knows that that alone is what we want or lack.

"We do not take sufficient account of the inseparable condition attached to all God's gifts of grace. We can receive freely only what we give freely, and the blessing contained and intended in the gift is to be found by us not in the freely receiving but in the freely using and giving. We need to pray to be forgiven our debts only as we forgive our debtors. For if we forgive not, neither does our heavenly Father forgive us. Blessed are they that show mercy, for they shall receive mercy."

4 comments:

Fr Matthew Kirby said...

The problem I have with all of this is the false antithesis and ambiguity. E.g., the "res or matter of our salvation is not in what God is to us or does for us, but in the result of that upon and in ourselves." No, insofar as "salvation" means the action that forgives our sins and takes us from darkness to light, it is purely a divine act or energy where God is the Subject and we are the Object. Yes, this act has an effect on us that can also be referred to as our "salvation" in a broader sense, in that we are changed interiorly and this change includes a fortaste of the final glory that is also our final salvation. But our own good actions that proceed from that change are never a proper cause of our salvation in the sense of either forgiveness or regeneration. They are a condition of remaining saved simply because to deliberately commit serious sin or omit altogether loving deeds is to reject the God who is Love.

As for "to be shown mercy and forgiven, to be the objects of the most unconditional divine grace ... these are the merest circumstances of human salvation, they are not salvation itself", this is a case of trying to make a valid point in an invalid way. Indeed, this way of expressing things is liable to greater abuse and misunderstanding than the error it seekes to correct. Salvation means both the divine action of saving us and the result of that action in us.

Another example of the false antithesis is immediately after the above quotation: "No one saw more clearly than our Lord that life and blessedness is not in what is done to us, but only in what we are ourselves are and do." Not merely in what is done to us (and in us), true, but primarily, causally and radically, eternal life is precisely in what God does to and in us. And it is never in what "we ...ourselves ... do", unless we mean that the gift of eternal life is what energises and therefore is "in" our good works. However, our eternal life is not constituted by these works.

I should note that all the statements I just made are consistent with both Anglican and Tridentine understandings of salvation.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I should note that all the statements I just made are consistent with both Anglican and Tridentine understandings of salvation.

And Patristic too.

Anonymous said...

Fr.'s Kirby and Hart.

Allow me to express my sincere ignorance here and ask something in relation to this statement:

"I should note that all the statements I just made are consistent with both Anglican and Tridentine understandings of salvation."

"And Patristic too."

Why, then is there such a thing as Sola Fide. This is clearly a terrible expression in light of scripture, ie, The Holy Sprit saying that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.-James 2:24. IOW, the Church at the time and with Trent clarifying this already had a clear understanding on Justification by Faith. Please know that I realize I'm asking two ordained men this question. I know you have answers and I'm not looking to continue a 500 year old dispute. When I as an average laymen (ie, sheep in Christ's fold) ask this question I expect nothing other than the Truth without any hope or possibility of error. Why would a christian who believes Christ is their savior expect anything else but the Truth without any error. This actually makes no sense to me as a christian. The reason I do expect this is because Jesus clearly left Shephards (John 21) to lead and feed sheep like me. IOW, when Jesus said feed and tend MY SHEEP he was entrusting His mission to certain people. His mission is the Truth. Thus, those who teach a simple sheep like me are acting in Christ's place. So, I expect the teaching to be the Truth without error because Christ indicates this. It's not my place in the Body of Christ to figure all of this theology out. It's also not my place or any other simple christians place to sort through complicated theological arguments and terminology to try and figure out which position on Justification and the nature of grace etc... is True. As ordained ministers it seems sometimes like all the so called leaders of various churches get caught up with themselves and making their own personal stands on all these matters. You guys seem to forget that the sheep in Christ's fold aren't necessarily inclined to all of this. Also, and this is most important, the sheep in Christ's fold are looking to be led and fed; trusting that what they're being taught is not just the truth but THE TRUTH which by definition has exactly zero error in it. Since Christ IS THE TRUTH, then the possibility of KNOWING Christ's TRUTH on these essential matters exists. This is not rocket surgery. So,a simple question in light of this. Who is teaching the TRUTH of the saving reality of God? Where is it located?

Thanks for allowing me to vent my frustrations. I just hope that the so called leaders in Christianity would pay more attention to how frustrating it is for the sheep of Christ's fold.

Fr Matthew Kirby said...

Anonymous,

Peter Kreeft has the best answer to the question about Sola fide. Basically, he and other RC teachers note that the term is perfectly orthodox if it refers to "living faith" or "faith informed by love", since that kind of faith accepts the grace that saves. Not only that, but the love necessary to living faith does not earn salvation or even acquire it, it is just an intrinsic part of truly contrite, salvation-accepting faith. Therefore, it is legitimate to say "salvation is by faith alone" as long as you don't mean faith that is alone (without love). And protestant theologians agree with this!

However, if by faith one means mere intellectual assent, as St James uses the term, then this is insufficient for salvation. And, again, this is agreed by all.

Similarly, St Paul and St James are not using identical senses of "justify". So, Paul, who says works don't justify (i.e., save), is telling the truth, as are all the theologians who stress this aspect. And James, who says works do justify (i.e., vindicate our faith in the sight of God and man, show it to be living, loving faith, and make us grow in righteousness), is also telling the truth, as are those who emphasise this aspect.

Finally, you ask: "Who is teaching the TRUTH of the saving reality of God? Where is it located?" Paul and James in the NT, and the Church through the ages, particularly in the Council of Trent, the Confession of Dositheus, and the Book of Common Prayer, for example, all teach the truth of salvation, especially as they are used to mutually interpret one another. All teach that salvation from sin is sola gratia, not won by works, and accepted by living faith.