“Grace restores nature, and doesn’t take us beyond nature.” Yes. For what it’s worth, I agree, as long as we see nature as something that is *becoming*—further up and further in, as you say at the end—I would say you’re unlocking something deep here. Personally, this has been what most of my work has been about (see especially my essay, “Be Perfect” and my phrase “a theology of continuity” as opposed to a “blank slate theology” in my latest piece for Mere Orthodoxy.
And just to add one more thing, I often find discussions on “grace” to be more confusing than edifying, because the word itself becomes a kind of Trojan Horse for an array of diverse and dormant presuppositions not often shared by those who enter such debates. For instance, I could agree with “grace before the fall” according to a certain definition of grace and disagree profoundly with it according to another. Anyway…on the positive side, I’ve found that John Barclay’s work on “Paul and the gift” has given me a new framework—or at least solidified my old framework—for speaking of grace as incongruent but not non-circular. Not sure if that helps with what you’re thinking about, but it has helped me a ton.
“Grace restores nature, and doesn’t take us beyond nature.” Yes. For what it’s worth, I agree, as long as we see nature as something that is *becoming*—further up and further in, as you say at the end—I would say you’re unlocking something deep here. Personally, this has been what most of my work has been about (see especially my essay, “Be Perfect” and my phrase “a theology of continuity” as opposed to a “blank slate theology” in my latest piece for Mere Orthodoxy.
And just to add one more thing, I often find discussions on “grace” to be more confusing than edifying, because the word itself becomes a kind of Trojan Horse for an array of diverse and dormant presuppositions not often shared by those who enter such debates. For instance, I could agree with “grace before the fall” according to a certain definition of grace and disagree profoundly with it according to another. Anyway…on the positive side, I’ve found that John Barclay’s work on “Paul and the gift” has given me a new framework—or at least solidified my old framework—for speaking of grace as incongruent but not non-circular. Not sure if that helps with what you’re thinking about, but it has helped me a ton.
“Grace restores nature, and doesn’t take us beyond nature.” Yes. For what it’s worth, I agree, as long as we see nature as something that is *becoming*—further up and further in, as you say at the end—I would say you’re unlocking something deep here. Personally, this has been what most of my work has been about (see especially my essay, “Be Perfect” and my phrase “a theology of continuity” as opposed to a “blank slate theology” in my latest piece for Mere Orthodoxy.
And just to add one more thing, I often find discussions on “grace” to be more confusing than edifying, because the word itself becomes a kind of Trojan Horse for an array of diverse and dormant presuppositions not often shared by those who enter such debates. For instance, I could agree with “grace before the fall” according to a certain definition of grace and disagree profoundly with it according to another. Anyway…on the positive side, I’ve found that John Barclay’s work on “Paul and the gift” has given me a new framework—or at least solidified my old framework—for speaking of grace as incongruent but not non-circular. Not sure if that helps with what you’re thinking about, but it has helped me a ton.
“Grace restores nature, and doesn’t take us beyond nature.” Yes. For what it’s worth, I agree, as long as we see nature as something that is *becoming*—further up and further in, as you say at the end—I would say you’re unlocking something deep here. Personally, this has been what most of my work has been about (see especially my essay, “Be Perfect” and my phrase “a theology of continuity” as opposed to a “blank slate theology” in my latest piece for Mere Orthodoxy.
And just to add one more thing, I often find discussions on “grace” to be more confusing than edifying, because the word itself becomes a kind of Trojan Horse for an array of diverse and dormant presuppositions not often shared by those who enter such debates. For instance, I could agree with “grace before the fall” according to a certain definition of grace and disagree profoundly with it according to another. Anyway…on the positive side, I’ve found that John Barclay’s work on “Paul and the gift” has given me a new framework—or at least solidified my old framework—for speaking of grace as incongruent but not non-circular. Not sure if that helps with what you’re thinking about, but it has helped me a ton.