Cheap Grace?

[AngelusSax]

I've heard people talk about this, but the actual definition always gets a bit fuzzy. What, pray-tell, is Cheap Grace?

My best guess is the concept of "accepting Christ's atonement on the cross for your sins, and yet continuing to live as you did before anyway".

But is there really such a thing as cheap grace? I mean, the whole point was that Christ paid the entire price for every single sin of every single person for every single day that any one or more perons would be a live and sinning on this earth. Can Grace really be cheap?

Sure, we can disrespect it, but how does that make Grace cheap? Seems to me the price was very, very steep.

 

[IowaLutheran]

The best definition is found in the first three pages of "The Cost of Discipleship" by Bonhoeffer.

- Justification of sin without justification of the sinner;
- Preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance;
- Communion and absolution without confession;
- Grace without discipleship, the cross, or Christ.

As you say, the price of grace was steep. Cheap grace is not really grace at all.

 

[RevCowboy]

IowaLutheran has given a great answer, and if I could add to it...

The notion of cheap grace points to the two ways of understanding grace or justification.

The first is that cheap grace still costs something, while the reality of it is that grace is a free gift, there is absolutely nothing we can do to obtain. It is entirely a free gift from God. Theologians like to call this Forensic Justification. We are justified forensically, or justified entirely apart from ourselves. This was the radical grace that Christ offered when the temple cult in Jerusalem was making people pay heavily for God's forgiveness. Its also the radical grace that Luther discovered in the third chapter of Romans.

Now the costly grace part of justification that Bonhoeffer is talking about is transformative character of this radical and freeing grace. Free grace is radical freedom from having to save ourselves. Costly grace is how this radical freedom changes our lives, or the Cost of Discipleship. Its not that discipleship is earning our grace, but that result of this transformative character of free grace is costly change to our very being.

I hope that fleshes it out some...

 

[Edial]

I've heard people talk about this, but the actual definition always gets a bit fuzzy. What, pray-tell, is Cheap Grace?

My best guess is the concept of "accepting Christ's atonement on the cross for your sins, and yet continuing to live as you did before anyway".

But is there really such a thing as cheap grace? I mean, the whole point was that Christ paid the entire price for every single sin of every single person for every single day that any one or more perons would be a live and sinning on this earth. Can Grace really be cheap?

Sure, we can disrespect it, but how does that make Grace cheap? Seems to me the price was very, very steep.

Good answers by Iowa and Rev (happy birthday, by the way ).

I always understood cheap grace in a context other than that of Bonhoeffer, although he coined the term.

I understand it the was you did.
And here what I think some of the possible reasons for some of us considering the grace cheap.

We do not appreciate the grace we received.
Oh, we understand the theology, we just do not understand it with our hearts.

We do not understand the love of God. We are primarily concerned about God not punishing us.

We are taught (correctly) that God decided having Christ die before the foundation of the world. And ... somehow we concluded that it was God's "duty" to have Christ die for us.

We are having a problem reconciling the God of the OT with the God of NT,without realizing that God's attitude towards the sin in the world changed after the Cross.

We are disobeying God and are getting away with it. Who needs faith then? We understand faith only when punishment is involved if we do not exercise it.

We are so selfish we do not even realize taking a responsibility for sin. And we are being quiet sincere about that.

Christ healed 10 (I think) lepers and only one came back to thank him.

Now that I am reflecting on this, there are so many ways we cheapen the grace.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I just had a good conversation on exactly this topic yesterday.

A bumper sticker way to express it: Justification without Sanctification is cheap grace.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Another good explanation from Bonhoeffer:

"Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves... the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock...

It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life."

 

[RadMan]

As many have pointed out here. It's not that we think that God's grace is cheap. It's how we cheapen it.

I know some of you don't want me posting here but I've always been interested in "cheap grace". I've heard many explain that it could lead to works righteousness, but I'm not so sure. Some say that Bonhoeffer was advocating our working out our sanctification. But then on the other hand. Why not? Isn't that what sanctification entails?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

As many have pointed out here. It's not that we think that God's grace is cheap. It's how we cheapen it.

I know some of you don't want me posting here but I've always been interested in "cheap grace". I've heard many explain that it could lead to works righteousness, but I'm not so sure. Some say that Bonhoeffer was advocating our working out our sanctification. But then on the other hand. Why not? Isn't that what sanctification entails?

As Lutherans, I think we're always chasing our tails with the three uses of the Law.

First use: the Law regulates our lives in community.

Second use: the Law convicts us of sin and drives us to repentance wherein we find grace.

Third use: having been justified by grace, we seek to live in ways pleasing to God and therefore keep the Law. This is actually a lot like the first use...and when we fail to keep the Law, it leads us again to the second use, wherein, once more, we find grace.

Sanctification is an upward spiral from grace to grace.

Cheap grace stops at justification. True grace is costly because it demands the surrender of our ego. It recognizes that we can do nothing to save ourselves...not even in the state of sanctification.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I think that true grace is demanding of a response on our part. It is not our response that justifies, for we cannot justify ourselves with works or possessions, and if salvation were dependent on how well we live the Christian life after having been justified, we would be doomed as surely as we were before. Each morning, the old Adam awakes within us and leads us astray. But, praise and service are appropriate responses to having been saved, and our responsibility as representatives and witnesses to the Gospel. Bonhoeffer lived and died in the third use of the law, and I don't think he saw it as a matter of law but of volition and responsibility- as he was saved by the grace of God when he had no chance of saving himself, so he must love and honor the Lord and serve his children. Luther discussed this, as did Melancthon- our works do not justify, but neither does the Christian life stop at justification. It is the question of "what shall I do, now that I am saved?" that costly grace is meant to address.

 

[RevCowboy]

I am always a bit wary of the third use of the law. And it is often referred to as the "Much disputed third use of the law".

Luther, like Paul in Romans, did not think that keeping the law, even once justified moved us any closer to God.
Luther said in the the first theses of the Heidelberg Disputation :
1. The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.

Luther's fear was as sanctification, good work's on our part, moved us closer to God, it diminished our need for the cross. Rather, Luther saw sanctification as the transformative power of justification. And what that looked like was us living more deeply at the foot of the cross. More deeply because as we grow in faith, the second use of the law shows us sin and our sanctification is realizing more and more our need for the cross and living more deeply at its foot.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I am always a bit wary of the third use of the law. And it is often referred to as the "Much disputed third use of the law".

You should be wary of it. It's more Calvinist that Lutheran, though Calvin was not wrong about everything.

Luther, like Paul in Romans, did not think that keeping the law, even once justified moved us any closer to God.
Luther said in the the first theses of the Heidelberg Disputation :
1. The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.

This is a wonderful Lutheran paradox. Justified, we seek to live in ways pleasing to God. We keep the Law (that salutary doctrine) not because it justifies us, but because we desire to. (Third Use) Yet, even as we keep it, it continually convicts us of our sin, puts us at the foot of the cross, drives us to repentance and makes us seek grace again.

Thus, the Third Use of the the Law (which is actually a lot like the First Use) becomes the Second Use again.

Luther's fear was as sanctification, good work's on our part, moved us closer to God, it diminished our need for the cross. Rather, Luther saw sanctification as the transformative power of justification. And what that looked like was us living more deeply at the foot of the cross. More deeply because as we grow in faith, the second use of the law shows us sin and our sanctification is realizing more and more our need for the cross and living more deeply at its foot.

Nicely stated. The danger, as I see it, in the Third Use of the Law is that it may lead to the spiritual pride of believing that we are capable of our own sanctification, which is, after all, works righteousness. But this is an overstatement of the Third Use, just as saying that costly grace is works righteousness is an overstatement.

I think that any argument you and I have is only a matter of antics with semantics.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I am always a bit wary of the third use of the law. And it is often referred to as the "Much disputed third use of the law".

The wise man is always wary! But, as RegularGuy remarks, if you are using the law to justify yourself, this is not the "third use of the law" at all, but plain ordinary works righteousness, a temptation that would exist whether Melanchthon's uses of the law stood or not. Sanctification is an effect of grace, not the cause. If one were to argue that behavior doesn't or oughtn't change as the result of grace working in our life then I would dispute this on Scriptural grounds. We may not be able to justify ourselves through the law, but we are to try to follow the commands of our Lord- Christian responsibility toward God and neighbor is no light matter, and we should all desire to follow as we are called, not for the sake of justification or fear of eternal reprisal but of a cheerful good will. Did not Jesus teach us, before he ascended into glory: "You are my disciples if you follow my commandments" and "If a man abide in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me he can do nothing." This is Bonhoeffer's discipleship, the ability through Christ to lay down our lives in love, not for the sake of justifying ourselves by our own power, but because the ultimately costly grace of God is upon us. And as though we fail over and over, we return to the foot of the cross afresh with the surety of our need for grace.

 

[AngelusSax]

These are good an informed answers. I think I might have liked the term "disrespected grace" or "ignored grace" more than "cheap grace", but oh well.

 

[RevCowboy]

I think that any argument you and I have is only a matter of antics with semantics.

I think that if any theology would be able to responsibly apply the much disputed third use of the law it would be Lutheran theology because it would have such an extreme check and balance in its radical emphasis on grace.

Its the Roman Catholic notion that we participate in our justification and the Calvinist notion that we can be justified by upholding the law that makes me nervous.