I haven’t talked about Robert Capon in a while, so here’s a visit to one of my favorite past IM posts: “Jesus = Salvation.” I say this all the time in teaching and preaching. It’s been very helpful to me and hopefully to others. Capon got me there. I love you, Fr. Robert.
If you aren’t familiar with Robert Capon and the influence he’s had on me, a search of the site will find him hiding out everywhere. This post riffs off his book The Mystery of Christ…and Why We Don’t Get It.
I wrote this while I was being denounced by the Fide-o boys over my lack of belief in the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. That’s why the post starts out as it does.
READ: Jesus = Salvation.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Capon says that God has gone out of the book-keeping business. Yes, he has many examples of counseling people doing bad things without getting tangled up. What he does is present the Gospel in outrageous ways.
I don’t want to believe everything Capon does. I just want the grace of Jesus to be that important to everything I do.
LikeLike
Michael, it’s taken a while, but I finally feel comfortable with Capon’s basic thesis- until I read Capon proposing it. Then I get all nervous, again. I’m very thankful for his writing, and like you actively search his books out. While it thrills me to see his “Athanasian†understanding of incarnation/salvation, I always feel uncomfortable with his treatment of sin. It’s not the particular examples of grace and sin that bother me. It’s his pastoral approach- half of it, anyway.
The Mystery of Christ is a good example. If I’m remembering right, he says at one point that sinful choices don’t concern him as a minister of the gospel, because they can’t get you into permanent “Dutch†with God. I appreciate what he’s saying, but I wonder if despite all his protesting against the legal/transactional perspective of the west, he isn’t assuming the same paradigm: we are saved from an angry God.
Transactionalism says that we pay him off. Capon says that forgiveness is already ours, but both assume salvation is basically wrapped up with avoiding God’s whammy. Both seem to agree on the end- God’s displeasure. Western theology tends to say that we won’t avoid the stick, Capon says that we have, and (here’s my Capon problem) that’s that.
Wouldn’t his point be stronger if along with his denial of “God as the enemyâ€, he affirmed the existence of a real enemy in his counseling- Death and Sin? Pointing out that there’s really no monster under the bed, doesn’t relieve us of warning our children about over friendly strangers
God loves us, period. There’s never a need to doubt that, but… there’s more. Because he loves us, he hates that which would harm us. Non-being, disintegration, and death ought to be avoided. Not only is God “afraid” for us on account of sin, we ought to be, too.
Affirming God’s love, affirms God’s opposition to all that is dehumanizing. Ministers who speak for God ought to be able to counsel an adulterous wife to end her affair, without getting all tangled up theologically.
Is that fair, or am I missing something?
LikeLike
I have, as well, always liked Lewis’s Great Divorce.
Thanks for the response!
LikeLike
I don’t view the “I” through the lens of the Reformed doctrine of election. In fact, I think the phrase “irresistable” is unfortunate, since, clearly, the entire Bible witnesses to human resistance. That grace ultimately triumphs is, likewise, true.
The reformed ordo salutis seems to me to be a mapping out of a process that isn’t meant to be mapped. Even if scripture looks at salvation- at times- in segments, the entirety of salvation is Jesus.
I have no idea how much resistance will be overcome, but my view of hell is much like Lewis’s: it’s not so much resistance as preference.
LikeLike
Michael,
I enjoyed reading Jesus=Salvation. And while I like the proclamations of “Jesus IS salvation” over “Jesus make salvation possible”, I do have a question to ask. As you stated you have problems with the L. My question is this; based upon the parable-esque premise of Jesus=Salvation, it would seem that you also would disagree with the I, irresistible grace. For certainly in your example, that grace is most certainly resistible, even necessary to explain the preponderance of rejection. Is that a fair assumption, or am I reading you wrong? I would like to understand you more here. I have always enjoyed reading your stuff, and it has strengthened me greatly in preparing to become a church planter. So thanks ahead of time if you have a chance to respond. (But I won’t be one of those guys who thinks you are a jerk if you don’t)
Grace to you,
Hefe
LikeLike