Has the British Church become domesticated, like 'one of those little yippy dogs trained not to pee on the carpet?'
That and related topics are dealt with in these lectures on
The Gospel and your Church
The Gospel and your Family
The Gospel and your Government
by American Pastor Doug Wilson available here for free download. I for one am looking forward to listening to them.
Showing posts with label Gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gospel. Show all posts
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Gospel for all of Life 2
Here are some notes from two seminars I did here last weekend for various leaders of various ministries. The overall title was 'Far-reaching Discipleship: The Gospel for all of life' and the sessions had the very simple aim of trying to expand everyone's concept of what being and making disciples involves. Session 1 had argued that the gospel is centred upon Jesus' Lordship.
Session 2: Because Jesus is Lord, discipleship is deep and wide
Matthew 28:18-20
The logic of the great commission - because Jesus has all authority, go and disciple. The job of making disciples is to be as all-encompassing as Jesus’ Lordship is (all authority - all nations - all that Jesus commanded). All-encompassing Lordship mean all-encompassing discipleship.
1. Discipleship is wide
A. Every Nation
The bible speaks expansively of the number of the redeemed. Jesus’ kingdom will be the biggest the world has ever known.
B. Every Person
As long as someone denies that Jesus is Lord the work of making disciples continues.
2. Discipleship is deep
A. The Whole Person
2 Corinthians 10:5 & Deuteronomy 6:4-5. No part of us is off-limits to the gospel.
B. The Whole of Life
No sacred-secular divide. No neutral zone. No closet Christianity
Examples of areas we usually don't think of in this way: Politics, Culture/Art/Music, Work.
The gospel of Jesus’ Lordship should shape how we think about and how we do everything.
This changes the way we read the bible/ the questions we ask. What does the bible tells us about architecture, psychology, medical biology, greengrocery, chewing gum, fashion, beer, the environment, weather, dentistry, playing the oboe, fishing, parenting? We should expect the bible to speak to all of these areas.
Everything belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ and until everything is organised and ordered under him and his ways, then it is not ordered correctly.
3. Conclusion and Expectations
The gospel is moral, cultural, global. So, therefore, is discipleship.
Progress is real. Therefore expect it, pray for it, plan for it.
Progress is progressive. Therefore be patient (God is).
Session 2: Because Jesus is Lord, discipleship is deep and wide
Matthew 28:18-20
The logic of the great commission - because Jesus has all authority, go and disciple. The job of making disciples is to be as all-encompassing as Jesus’ Lordship is (all authority - all nations - all that Jesus commanded). All-encompassing Lordship mean all-encompassing discipleship.
1. Discipleship is wide
A. Every Nation
The bible speaks expansively of the number of the redeemed. Jesus’ kingdom will be the biggest the world has ever known.
B. Every Person
As long as someone denies that Jesus is Lord the work of making disciples continues.
2. Discipleship is deep
A. The Whole Person
2 Corinthians 10:5 & Deuteronomy 6:4-5. No part of us is off-limits to the gospel.
B. The Whole of Life
No sacred-secular divide. No neutral zone. No closet Christianity
Examples of areas we usually don't think of in this way: Politics, Culture/Art/Music, Work.
The gospel of Jesus’ Lordship should shape how we think about and how we do everything.
This changes the way we read the bible/ the questions we ask. What does the bible tells us about architecture, psychology, medical biology, greengrocery, chewing gum, fashion, beer, the environment, weather, dentistry, playing the oboe, fishing, parenting? We should expect the bible to speak to all of these areas.
Everything belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ and until everything is organised and ordered under him and his ways, then it is not ordered correctly.
3. Conclusion and Expectations
The gospel is moral, cultural, global. So, therefore, is discipleship.
Progress is real. Therefore expect it, pray for it, plan for it.
Progress is progressive. Therefore be patient (God is).
The Gospel for all of Life 1
Here are some notes from two seminars I did here last weekend for various leaders of various ministries. The overall title was 'Far-reaching Discipleship: The Gospel for all of life' and the sessions had the very simple aim of trying to expand everyone's concept of what being and making disciples involves.
Session 1: The gospel is about the Lordship/rule of Jesus Christ.
1. How Jesus summarised the Gospel – The Kingdom of God
The gospel is about the kingdom of God. In and through Jesus, God is ruling in such a way as to sort out creation, defeat death, save his people, destroy his enemies
Mark 1:15
Isa 52:7
Colossians 1:14-23
1 Corinthians 15:22-26
2. Ηow the NT authors summarised the Gospel - ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’
Romans 1:1-4. Jesus is the Christ and Son of God from Psalm 2. He has inherited the rebellious nations of the world and rules over them. “Jesus Christ our Lord” is Paul’s summary, which is repeated throughout the NT (e.g. Mark 1:1, John 20:31, Acts 2:36, Acts 16:31, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 2 Corinthians 4:3-5, 2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 10:9 and Philippians 2:11).
In the gospel God is saying to the world “Jesus Christ is Lord”
3. Key events of the Gospel
NT authors also highlight some key events in their gospel summaries. Jesus' Lordship is never far in the background.
Cross = establishing his reign, populating his kingdom. Revelation 5: 9-10
Resurrection = declaration of Jesus’ Lordship/Sonship. Romans 1:4
Ascension = installation as ruler of the universe. 1 Peter 3:22, Ephesians 1:20-23
4. Summary
The Gospel is a declaration of regime change.
The gospel is God’s declaration to the world that Jesus Christ owns this world and everything and everyone in it. This is good news because his Lordship involves sorting creation out by defeating sin, saving his people, destroying death, crushing his enemies.
5. Brief implications
So what does all this mean? Some starters:
Faith involves personal allegiance
If the gospel that we’re asking people to believe that 'Jesus is Lord' then faith involves a change of allegiance, swapping sides, yielding to Jesus the Lord.
Therefore…
Faith results in obedience
We can’t really believe the gospel message that says ‘Jesus is Lord’ and go on as if he’s not.
Therefore…
We must say no to pitting 'mission' against 'maturity'
The same gospel that says Jesus Christ is Lord drives us out into the world and compels us to deep ever deeper roots into Christ.
Session 1: The gospel is about the Lordship/rule of Jesus Christ.
1. How Jesus summarised the Gospel – The Kingdom of God
The gospel is about the kingdom of God. In and through Jesus, God is ruling in such a way as to sort out creation, defeat death, save his people, destroy his enemies
Mark 1:15
Isa 52:7
Colossians 1:14-23
1 Corinthians 15:22-26
2. Ηow the NT authors summarised the Gospel - ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’
Romans 1:1-4. Jesus is the Christ and Son of God from Psalm 2. He has inherited the rebellious nations of the world and rules over them. “Jesus Christ our Lord” is Paul’s summary, which is repeated throughout the NT (e.g. Mark 1:1, John 20:31, Acts 2:36, Acts 16:31, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 2 Corinthians 4:3-5, 2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 10:9 and Philippians 2:11).
In the gospel God is saying to the world “Jesus Christ is Lord”
3. Key events of the Gospel
NT authors also highlight some key events in their gospel summaries. Jesus' Lordship is never far in the background.
Cross = establishing his reign, populating his kingdom. Revelation 5: 9-10
Resurrection = declaration of Jesus’ Lordship/Sonship. Romans 1:4
Ascension = installation as ruler of the universe. 1 Peter 3:22, Ephesians 1:20-23
4. Summary
The Gospel is a declaration of regime change.
The gospel is God’s declaration to the world that Jesus Christ owns this world and everything and everyone in it. This is good news because his Lordship involves sorting creation out by defeating sin, saving his people, destroying death, crushing his enemies.
5. Brief implications
So what does all this mean? Some starters:
Faith involves personal allegiance
If the gospel that we’re asking people to believe that 'Jesus is Lord' then faith involves a change of allegiance, swapping sides, yielding to Jesus the Lord.
Therefore…
Faith results in obedience
We can’t really believe the gospel message that says ‘Jesus is Lord’ and go on as if he’s not.
Therefore…
We must say no to pitting 'mission' against 'maturity'
The same gospel that says Jesus Christ is Lord drives us out into the world and compels us to deep ever deeper roots into Christ.
Friday, January 25, 2008
10 on the Law
One of THE single most important theological and pastoral issues is the relationship between Christian living and the law.
Here's ten words giving some of my reasons why I reject an absolute antithesis between law and gospel and some sort of summary of how I think we should relate to the OT law.
1. The law was never intended as a system of meriting salvation. In fact, the sacrificial system and priesthood at the centre of the law were about grace, forgiveness, propitiation.
2. One way of summarising the gospel is 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' This means immediately that the concept of 'law' (i.e. commands you really must obey) is included within the gospel itself. I can't say I believe that Jesus is Lord and then totally willfully persistently ignore everything the Lord wants me to do. It just doesn't make sense.
3. Then, add to 2. the fact that obedience to Jesus Christ is often described using commands from the Old Testament law (yes, modified and transformed by the salvation-history context)...
4. ...then add to 2. and 3. the fact that the Christian's love-response to Jesus Christ is described as fulfilling the law...
5. ....then add to 2., 3. and 4. the fact that Christ himself thought he was fulfilling the law in his life and in his teaching....
6. ...and what do you get? I think you get the idea that the Christian is, although not under the law (i.e. we don't live under the Mosaic administration of the covenant, we are not living between Sinai and the cross, but between the cross and eternity), under Christ, but, that being under Christ means being under someone whose commands are the fulfillment of the law.
7. In other words Christians should relate to the Mosaic law in the same basic way that we relate to all of the Old Testament - through Christ. The law comes to us, not in exactly the same way it did to the Israelites as they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, but transformed, renewed, changed, by the fact that the law has found its climax in the life and work and revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord. The law is for us because it speaks of Christ, by showing us our need of him by exposing sin, by helping us fill out the content of what obedience to Christ looks like, etc. The law is there to instruct and train us in righteous living.
8. Point 7. will look quite different depending (in part) on the law in question. The way I approach the food laws of Leviticus will look quite different to the way I approach 'do not murder' but in neither case can I write off the law as irrelevant to Christian living, nor can I simply lift the law straight out of the Old Testament without reflection on the fact that Christ has brought things to a climax.
9. 'Spirit vs. law' is ultimately a non-starter too, since the Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
10. Were the writers of psalm 19 and psalm 119 simply off their heads, or were they the worst sort of pharisaical legalists? Or could it be that for the living-by-grace Christian the law is a great friend since it communicates the wise requirements of our loving and holy King?
Here's ten words giving some of my reasons why I reject an absolute antithesis between law and gospel and some sort of summary of how I think we should relate to the OT law.
1. The law was never intended as a system of meriting salvation. In fact, the sacrificial system and priesthood at the centre of the law were about grace, forgiveness, propitiation.
2. One way of summarising the gospel is 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' This means immediately that the concept of 'law' (i.e. commands you really must obey) is included within the gospel itself. I can't say I believe that Jesus is Lord and then totally willfully persistently ignore everything the Lord wants me to do. It just doesn't make sense.
3. Then, add to 2. the fact that obedience to Jesus Christ is often described using commands from the Old Testament law (yes, modified and transformed by the salvation-history context)...
4. ...then add to 2. and 3. the fact that the Christian's love-response to Jesus Christ is described as fulfilling the law...
5. ....then add to 2., 3. and 4. the fact that Christ himself thought he was fulfilling the law in his life and in his teaching....
6. ...and what do you get? I think you get the idea that the Christian is, although not under the law (i.e. we don't live under the Mosaic administration of the covenant, we are not living between Sinai and the cross, but between the cross and eternity), under Christ, but, that being under Christ means being under someone whose commands are the fulfillment of the law.
7. In other words Christians should relate to the Mosaic law in the same basic way that we relate to all of the Old Testament - through Christ. The law comes to us, not in exactly the same way it did to the Israelites as they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, but transformed, renewed, changed, by the fact that the law has found its climax in the life and work and revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord. The law is for us because it speaks of Christ, by showing us our need of him by exposing sin, by helping us fill out the content of what obedience to Christ looks like, etc. The law is there to instruct and train us in righteous living.
8. Point 7. will look quite different depending (in part) on the law in question. The way I approach the food laws of Leviticus will look quite different to the way I approach 'do not murder' but in neither case can I write off the law as irrelevant to Christian living, nor can I simply lift the law straight out of the Old Testament without reflection on the fact that Christ has brought things to a climax.
9. 'Spirit vs. law' is ultimately a non-starter too, since the Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
10. Were the writers of psalm 19 and psalm 119 simply off their heads, or were they the worst sort of pharisaical legalists? Or could it be that for the living-by-grace Christian the law is a great friend since it communicates the wise requirements of our loving and holy King?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Gospel Optimism 5: Syncretism and Sectarianism
I am currently enjoying reading Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle - a book about trying to engage with culture without losing the (gospel) plot. Driscoll's big passion for the world and for the Lord Jesus is on every page. Moreover, his chapter on the twin pitfalls of syncretism (when the Church becomes too much like the world) and sectarianism (when the Church hides away from the world) reveals strong convictions about the scope of the gospel's power.
The problem with both syncretism and sectarianism is that they deny the clear teaching of the Scriptures that the power of God unleashed through the gospel of Jesus Christ can transform anyone. Sectarians do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that evil hearts and sinful actions and worldly social structures are more powerful than God, unable to be redeemed, and therefore are a waste of our energies because they are destined to be meat on God's grill anyway, so why bother? Likewise, syncretists do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that the hearts of people aren't that bad, their actions aren't that sinful, and since people are doing the best they can, we can't expect any sort of radical transformation, and so we should simply bless them with a sentimental love.
What he says at the end of the chapter is pure gospel optimism rooted in a reformed model of culture.
Here's what I'd like you to remember from this chapter: reformission is not about abstention; it is about redemption. We must throw ourselves into the culture so that all that God made good is taken back and used in a way that glorifies him. Our goal is not to avoid drinking, singing, working, playing, eating, love-making, and the like. Instead, our goal must be to redeem those things through the power of the gospel so that they are used rightly according to Scripture, bringing God glory and his people a satisfied joy.
[Previous posts on Gospel Optimism HERE]
The problem with both syncretism and sectarianism is that they deny the clear teaching of the Scriptures that the power of God unleashed through the gospel of Jesus Christ can transform anyone. Sectarians do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that evil hearts and sinful actions and worldly social structures are more powerful than God, unable to be redeemed, and therefore are a waste of our energies because they are destined to be meat on God's grill anyway, so why bother? Likewise, syncretists do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that the hearts of people aren't that bad, their actions aren't that sinful, and since people are doing the best they can, we can't expect any sort of radical transformation, and so we should simply bless them with a sentimental love.
What he says at the end of the chapter is pure gospel optimism rooted in a reformed model of culture.
Here's what I'd like you to remember from this chapter: reformission is not about abstention; it is about redemption. We must throw ourselves into the culture so that all that God made good is taken back and used in a way that glorifies him. Our goal is not to avoid drinking, singing, working, playing, eating, love-making, and the like. Instead, our goal must be to redeem those things through the power of the gospel so that they are used rightly according to Scripture, bringing God glory and his people a satisfied joy.
[Previous posts on Gospel Optimism HERE]
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Anyone any good at drawing stick men?
I love the 2 ways to live gospel outline for so many reasons. It roots sin in creation, it (sort of) attempts to incorporate elements systematic and redemptive-historical theology, and yet...
Having read (and chatted about) this post I've been reminded of something I have been thinking about for a while now on and off.
I think we need another (maybe more than one more) gospel outline in our armoury for use in evangelism and in tracts etc. One that (for example)
a. Does not assume pagans that someone's initial interest in the gospel stems from a feeling that he/she 'needs to be right with God'.
b. But perhaps (for e.g.) starts from the big concerns and worries and hopes and dreams people do have (the environment, relationships, hedonism, and so on) and gets to the big themes of creation-sin-wrath-cross/resurrection etc. from there.
c. Even more than 2ways2live (which is probably the best on the market for this type of thing) marries biblical with systematic theology (story and proposition).
d. Incorporates the communal/corporate aspects of the gospel (and of what the gospel creates i.e. Church) with the appropriate challenge to the individual.
I imagine getting c. right is a key to the others.
After all the gospel is rich and the links between it and people's needs, concerns, questions, failings, fears, dreams etc. are multiple. A big understanding of the gospel and its application more than appropriately equips us for engaging with postmoderns/goths/new-agers/Hindus/political extremists/hedonists/every other sub-group and 'tribe' in out culture.
So, if anyone wants to help me devise one (and especially if you are good at drawing)...
Having read (and chatted about) this post I've been reminded of something I have been thinking about for a while now on and off.
I think we need another (maybe more than one more) gospel outline in our armoury for use in evangelism and in tracts etc. One that (for example)
a. Does not assume pagans that someone's initial interest in the gospel stems from a feeling that he/she 'needs to be right with God'.
b. But perhaps (for e.g.) starts from the big concerns and worries and hopes and dreams people do have (the environment, relationships, hedonism, and so on) and gets to the big themes of creation-sin-wrath-cross/resurrection etc. from there.
c. Even more than 2ways2live (which is probably the best on the market for this type of thing) marries biblical with systematic theology (story and proposition).
d. Incorporates the communal/corporate aspects of the gospel (and of what the gospel creates i.e. Church) with the appropriate challenge to the individual.
I imagine getting c. right is a key to the others.
After all the gospel is rich and the links between it and people's needs, concerns, questions, failings, fears, dreams etc. are multiple. A big understanding of the gospel and its application more than appropriately equips us for engaging with postmoderns/goths/new-agers/Hindus/political extremists/hedonists/every other sub-group and 'tribe' in out culture.
So, if anyone wants to help me devise one (and especially if you are good at drawing)...
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Gospel Optimism 4: Against Defeatism
The reason gospel optimism is neither wishful folly nor empty-headed positive-thinking is because of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. Seen as it's ascension day today, have a look at David Field's thoughts on ascension and evangelical defeatism in public life HERE.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Word Alive and Well
Anyone wondering about the reason for Word Alive and Spring Harvest parting company could do worse than to have a look at this blog entry. It boils down to a sad, necessary, gospel-affirming, Christ-exalting stance taken by the Word Alive people on the cross.
Also, the Bluefish has helpfully blogged about current blogosphere activity on all this.
Did Jesus take our penalty on the cross? Does God justify and forgive sinners whilst establishing and magnifying his own justice and righteous wrath against sin? Is this penalty-bearing element of the cross worth struggling and contending for? These are the questions which, when answered with a joyful 'yes', have made this sad parting of the ways necessary.
I don't really have anything to contribute by way of new insights into the doctrine or what this says about the poverty of current UK evangelicalism. But I for one am extremely glad for the stance UCCF and others have taken over this issue. I am equally disappointed, angry, frustrated, confused and saddened by the lack of clarity and passion for this central plank in God's salvation amongst loads of evangelicals.
All that aside, New Word Alive looks like a great new alternative.
Also, the Bluefish has helpfully blogged about current blogosphere activity on all this.
Did Jesus take our penalty on the cross? Does God justify and forgive sinners whilst establishing and magnifying his own justice and righteous wrath against sin? Is this penalty-bearing element of the cross worth struggling and contending for? These are the questions which, when answered with a joyful 'yes', have made this sad parting of the ways necessary.
I don't really have anything to contribute by way of new insights into the doctrine or what this says about the poverty of current UK evangelicalism. But I for one am extremely glad for the stance UCCF and others have taken over this issue. I am equally disappointed, angry, frustrated, confused and saddened by the lack of clarity and passion for this central plank in God's salvation amongst loads of evangelicals.
All that aside, New Word Alive looks like a great new alternative.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Gospel according to the UN
One of the places we visited in the US was the UN building. Of the touristy stuff we did it was probably the most interesting part of the trip. As a Christian it was especially interesting for a number of reasons.In particular two murals struck me as interesting, almost startling.
The first one (outside the Security Council Chamber) pictures the story of human history from early 20th century confusion, death, plague in a war-torn fractured world followed by something of a recreation of humanity through the UN (which emerges from the chaos of the 'old' world) into a world of peace etc.
The second one (inside the Security Council Chamber) tells a similar story, similar imagery of re-birth and unification is used, though this time the UN is pictured as a pheonix rising from the ashes and death of the old world order.
So...
- Both of these murals picture 'gospels' - they tell the story of human history as a story of re-birth, decreation, new creation, death-resurrection of humanity/the world.
- In both of these 'gospels' the Messianic saviour/redeemer/peacemaker/re-creator of the world is the UN.
- Both of these murals display therefore a false hope, false gospel, false saviour, all based on secular humanism and religious pluralism (the UN was big on that too - another chamber sported another mural with the slogan 'do unto others...' etc. We were told that the mural was intended to represent the core message of all religions. Elsewhere we were treated to a view of some construction containing Buddha's remains, added in deference to the unique contribution Buddhism has made to the world).
- Even though it might do some good, the UN, when it sees itself in the same vein as in these murals, is an idol, an antichrist even, and therefore destined to failure.
- Only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ really offers what the UN seeks to achieve. This obviously is best seen if we have a creation-affirming understanding of the gospel that sees Christ's Lordship as extending to political/economic & social structures, as a Lordship that re-creates and reconciles creation as well as individuals, as a Lordship that directly rivals secular humanism's claim to provide the path to true human life and experience in God's world. A society/city/world-building gospel (which fitted really well with what we'd been reading/seeing/hearing from the Redeemer Presbyterian people).
'May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. May desert tribes bow before him and his enemies lick the dust. May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastland render him tribute...May people be blessed in him, all nations call him blessed'
'Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins. The wolf shall lie down with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat'
Monday, February 26, 2007
The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all...
Click here for details of a new and important book (released next month by IVP) on the cross. The book has been written by a couple of Oak Hill students (Steve Jeffrey and Andrew Sach) and the Oak Hill Principal-Elect (Mike Ovey) in the wake of current confusion, error and division amongst evangelicals over the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA).
Some readers of this blog might not be familiar with the terminology, but you will probably have come across the idea - PSA is found all over the scriptures in various ways and has filled sermons, been explained in tracts, and inspired Christian song-writers for centuries.
J. I. Packer says it with style when he says
The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory (source here, emphasis and italics mine).
As a sinner, I am really glad about this doctrine. As a sinner training to be a minister I don't want the Church to lose, neglect, or muddle this doctrine.
Some readers of this blog might not be familiar with the terminology, but you will probably have come across the idea - PSA is found all over the scriptures in various ways and has filled sermons, been explained in tracts, and inspired Christian song-writers for centuries.
J. I. Packer says it with style when he says
The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory (source here, emphasis and italics mine).
As a sinner, I am really glad about this doctrine. As a sinner training to be a minister I don't want the Church to lose, neglect, or muddle this doctrine.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Essay on Paul and Justification
Here's an essay (slightly edited for clarity) from last semester on the place of justification in Paul's theology. I'd love to receive comments from those who've thought about this issue themselves, whether they agree or disagree with my own conclusions, and of course I'd love to read essays from other who did the same question.
Assess the view that justification by faith is at the heart of Paul’s theology.
This essay deals with what is largely recognised to be one of four major questions in Pauline scholarship – what (if anything) is the heart of Paul’s theology?[1] More specifically it deals with the question of whether or not it can be claimed that the doctrine of justification is at the heart of Paul’s theology. It is the contention of this essay that justification is central to Paul’s theology in the sense that it is a prominent and essential element of his gospel. However, justification by faith is not the heart of Paul’s theology if this is taken to mean that everything else is logically or historically derivative of it. This in no way undermines the importance of justification by faith, but rather seeks to place it appropriately within Paul’s thought.[2]
Ernst Käsemann suggests (consistent with a generally Lutheran tradition) that justification is in fact at the heart of Paul’s theology.[3] For Käsemann, justification is central to the major Pauline theme of God’s victory over the world where hubristic human effort could only fail. In this sense Käsemann disagrees strongly with those for whom justification by faith is merely a polemic for dealing with Jew-Gentile relations in the Church rather than a developed aspect of Paul’s theology.[4] However, Martin has demonstrated that Käsemann’s dealing with the reconciliation theme within Paul is coloured by his prior assumption of justification’s centrality.[5] Martin accords with Käsemann in disagreeing with those who would relegate justification to the position of a mere polemic against the Judaisers.[6] However, he understands justification to be a relational term, entailing “the entire process of the rectification of man’s relationship to God”, as well as a forensic term. It is this relational sense which for Martin suggests the connection between justification and reconciliation. In particular Martin points to the parallel statements of Romans 5:9-10 and suggests that the two terms are almost interchangeable.[7] Justification however often refers to the negative side of the reconciliatory process as part of how Paul stresses that “all impediments to reconciliation are removed and a new status is conferred”.[8] By contrast, “reconciliation is the concomitant of justification, but it is a larger term” encompassing adoption, and restored relational life with God by the Spirit.[9]
Perhaps the strongest critique of this sort of approach, exemplified in both Martin and Käsemann, is that their conclusions do not quite match the approach of various key texts which appear to have a “summarising or synoptic function”.[10] Gaffin, for example, examines a series of such texts, namely 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 10:9-10,1 Corinthians 1:18-3:22, Galatians 6:14, 2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 4:25 and especially 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. among other things this leads him to the conclusion that “the center of Paul’s gospel-theology is not one or other applied benefit of Christ’s work…but that work itself” which Gaffin argues amounts to the cross and resurrection, that is “messianic suffering and glory.”[11] However, we should note that both Martin and Käsemann challenged the notion that justification was for Paul an unimportant and temporary polemic, even if we cannot necessarily adopt all of their conclusions.[12]
Tom Wright’s work on Pauline theology offers a different approach, suggesting that in actual fact it is Paul’s gospel which is the heart of his theology. As such Wright not so much emphasises one particular element of Paul’s teaching but seeks to encompass multiple elements in his four-fold gospel definition.[13] The heart of Paul’s theology for Wright is a declaration of Jesus’ Christ-ship (as the Messianic-representative of Israel) and universal Lordship, his victory “over all the powers of evil” in his cross and his inauguration of the exile-ending New Age in his resurrection.[14] As such the Pauline gospel is not so much about the personal salvation of individuals as it is a “royal announcement”.[15] This immediately has implications for the place of justification within Paul’s thought. For Wright, when Paul refers to the gospel he is not talking about justification by faith; the centre of Paul’s theology is “the person of Jesus himself”.[16] This re-positioning of justification is further confirmed by Wright’s definition of the idea. Wright argues that justification is the announcement in the present of God’s last day declaration of who is a member of his vindicated covenant people. This “covenantal vindication” has a “forensic dimension” (namely justification), which declares someone to be acquitted and righteous in the covenant law-court. This present anticipation of an eschatological verdict is made when faith-response to the gospel occurs.[17] As such then, “justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian” or a “‘member of the covenant family.’”[18] The enemy of justification by faith in the first century (against which Paul wrote) was therefore not a form of pelagianism or moralism but rather a form of Jewish nationalism which ignored or denied the fulfilment of Israel’s hopes in Jesus Christ and the consequence that membership of the covenant was marked by faith rather than by works of the law such as circumcision.[19] This understanding of justification leads Wright to declare it “the ecumenical doctrine” since it declares that for Christian fellowship “what matters is believing in Jesus” rather than “detailed agreement on justification.”[20] Justification by faith is thus “not so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology.”[21]
Positively, Wright’s formulation of justification and its place within Pauline thought is extremely helpful in avoiding some traditional pitfalls and false antitheses. This is especially true as regards the common “dichotomy of the law-court” or “‘juristic’” notions with “‘participationist’ categories”[22] which was often used to deny or relegate the forensic.[23] Wright argues that once we read Paul in a covenantal context the integration of these two supposed opposites is apparent.[24] Additionally, from the perspective of biblical theology, Wright’s covenantal framework for justification is extremely attractive since it allows us to place Paul within the plotline of the whole canon. In a similar fashion, Wright admirably seeks to place Paul in his 1st century context.[25] Also, his definition of the relationship between the gospel (as the centre of Paul’s thought) and justification does seem to account for at least some of the key Pauline texts mentioned above. Of particular importance to Wright is Romans 1:1-5.[26]
However, on the negative side it can be claimed that in some respects Wright’s placement and definition of justification are inadequate and potentially confusing. Whilst there is undoubtedly some truth in the basic presupposition of Wright regarding the meaning of ‘works of the law’ (as Torah-derived “badges of membership” in the covenant), it is yet to be proven exegetically.[27] Problems for this interpretation would seem to arise when one considers the explanation of justification and works implied by the illustration of wage and gift in Romans 4:4-5.[28] It seems overall that Wright goes too far in his revision of traditional views on justification and, whilst he does not deny the relevance of forgiveness of sins and escape from wrath he underplays the significance of these concepts for the doctrine.[29] His insistence that justification relates to ecclesiology rather than soteriology, to recognition of covenant members and not entering the covenant, at least potentially amounts to a demotion of the significance doctrine.[30] This soteriology-ecclesiology distinction can at times seem like hair-splitting, for, even within Wright's framework there is room for justification to be soteriological and/or connected to entering the covenant. Similarly, Wright does not seem to acknowledge that justification-related concepts can be found elsewhere in Paul’s writing where the terminology is different.[31] For example, Seifrid, having established the relationship between justification and themes such as salvation from wrath and the resurrection, is able to recognise “the basic elements” of justification in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 and Ephesians 2:8-10.[32] Likewise, the “conceptual elements of justification” can be found dispersed throughout Colossians and Ephesians, especially seen in relation to themes of forgiveness, victory and the denial of grounds for human boasting.[33] Of particular significance is Ephesians 2:8-9 where Paul writes of salvation in language which echoes that used of justification elsewhere.[34]
With regard to the fundamental question of the relationship between the centre of Paul’s theology and justification, it is worth noting that Wright’s formulations (and especially his applications of them) do not fully account for the potency of passages such as Galatians 1:6-9 where Paul quite clearly links justification to the gospel in such a way as to denote that error over this doctrine amounts to the erecting of a false gospel. When Wright does allude to this text he does not do adequate justice to the importance of justification in Paul’s understanding of the gospel and the consequences for Christian fellowship as implied in Galatians.[35] There is a logical inconsistency here since justification for Wright is actually in some sense entailed by the gospel. Wright recoils from relegating justification to a position of unimportance, even stating that it is an implication of the gospel which “cannot be detached without pulling part of the very heart of Paul away with it” since “it is organically and integrally linked” to his gospel. Perhaps he has Galatians in mind when he writes “a church that does not grasp it and teach it is heading for trouble.”[36] We conclude therefore that Wright’s own formulation of justification itself suggests a greater significance for the doctrine in Paul’s thoughts than he himself seems to allow. On this basis alone it seems we must at the very least alter Wright’s definition of justification and nuance his positioning of it within Paul’s theology.
This brings us back to the work of Gaffin on this subject. As hinted above, Gaffin comes to similar conclusions to Wright as regards the centre of Paul’s theology being a declaration about Christ (though his focus is more clearly on the work of Christ in his death and resurrection). However he does in a way which manages to avoid Wright’s over-statements and more clearly brings out the relation between Paul’s gospel and issues of personal salvation.[37] He too sees Paul as a covenantal theologian and roots this in a discussion of Christ as Adamic covenantal representative (Romans 5:12-19). Present union with Christ means “sharing with him in all he has accomplished and now is by virtue of his death and resurrection.” For Gaffin then the centre of Paul’s theology is his gospel, which in turn has at its centre union with Christ, “the key soteriological reality comprising all others.”[38] It is in relation to union with Christ that justification finds its place as the forensic facet of “the salvation appropriated in union with Christ.” Additonally, Gaffin appeals to Titus 3:5-7, 2 Timothy 1:9 and Ephesians 2:8-9 to establish the soteriological significance of justification.[39]
This account of justification and Paul’s theology accounts for various key texts in the Pauline corpus, in particular the move from forensic language to union language in Romans 4-5. Gaffin does this whilst retaining the Christ-centredness necessary to any account of Paul’s theology. Similarly the soteriological nature of justification as evidenced in Romans 1:16-17 (which must surely be a key text for understanding that entire book’s exposition of the doctrine) is retained without compromising the importance of Romans 1:1-6 as a gospel-summary statement.[40]
From these varied alternatives two things emerge. Firstly, justification by faith is not the heart of Paul’s theology from which all other elements are derived. This is most clearly seen in that it is itself a doctrine which depends upon others, as well as in its absence from several key summary passages and some entire epistles. However, the negative significance of these facts should not be overestimated. Rather they uphold and establish what we may term the essential importance of justification for Paul. Justification is bound up with the very centre of Paul’s soteriology, and the conceptual elements of the doctrine are to be found spread throughout Paul’s epistles. Therefore, and secondly, our examination of alternative suggestions for the heart of his thought has demonstrated that justification cannot be removed from a prominent and essential place in Paul's theology.[41]
[1] Tom. Wright, What St Paul Really Said, (Oxford: Lion, 1997) 14.
[2] Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68. Leicester: Leiden: Brill, 1992) 270. Also Richard B. Gaffin Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006) 24 & 43.
[3] Wright, St Paul, 17-18.
[4] Wright, St Paul, 13. Also R. P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology, (rev. ed. Eugene, Oregon.: Wipf and Stock, 1997), 76.
[5] In stating such, Martin undoubtedly is coloured by his own favouring of the theme of reconciliation as that crucial “interpretive key to Paul’s theology.” Martin, Reconciliation, 5 & 75.
[6] Martin, Reconciliation, 32-33, 75-76. Also Wright, St Paul, 13.
[7] Martin, Reconciliation, 32-37.
[8] Martin, Reconciliation, 150-1.
[9] Martin, Reconciliation, 151-3.
[10] Gaffin, By Faith, 21.
[11] Gaffin, By Faith, 21-24. The significance of Gaffin for the question posed in this essay was suggested by Steve Jeffrey, personal communication.
[12] In particular note how, even should Martin be correct, the fact that he has related justification to reconciliation could be seen as support for its importance rather than its relegation.
[13] Wright, St Paul, 46-62.
[14] Wright, St Paul, 60.
[15] Wright, St Paul, 40-1, 125-6.
[16] Wright, St Paul, 114-5, 132.
[17] Wright, St Paul, 131.
[18] Wright, St Paul, 122 & 125. author’s italics.
[19] Wright, St Paul, 120-22, 124, 127-130.
[20] Wright, St Paul, 158-9.
[21] Wright, St Paul, 119.
[22] Wright, St Paul, 119-120.
[23] Gaffin, By Faith, 40-41.
[24] Wright, St Paul, 119-120, 132.
[25] E.g. Wright, St Paul, 18-20, 23, 25-29.
[26] Wright, St Paul, 45.
[27] E.g.Wright, St Paul, 132.
[28] Stephen. Walton, “A Gross Miscarriage of Justice? Justification, N.T. Wright, and Romans 4” (BA (Hons) diss. Oak Hill College, 2001) 1, 13, 16-18.
[29] Cf. Mark A. Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness: Paul’s theology of justification, (NSBT 9. Leicester: Apollos, 2000) 65-66 & 92.
[30] Wright may well stress that this is not his intention. See footnote 36 below.
[31] Seifrid, Christ, 171.
[32] This has been well established by Seifrid who writes from a position closer to Kasemann’s than Wright. Seifrid, Christ, 65-66, 70-71, 76-79 & 91. Also Seifrid, Justification, 249.
[33] Seifrid specifically lists Ephesians 1:19-23, 2:2 & 9, 6:10-17 and Colossians 2:15. Seifrid, Christ, 92-3.
[34] Gaffin, By Faith, 44-45.
[35] Wright, St Paul, 60, 159. Also Gaffin, By Faith, 44-45.
[36] Wright, St Paul, 114-5, 132-33.
[37] Gaffin, By Faith, 24.
[38] Gaffin, By Faith, 35-40.
[39] Gaffin, By Faith, 24, 40-41, 44-46.
[40] Wright, St Paul, 125-126.
[41] Gaffin, By Faith, 43. Also Seifrid, Justification, 270.
Assess the view that justification by faith is at the heart of Paul’s theology.
This essay deals with what is largely recognised to be one of four major questions in Pauline scholarship – what (if anything) is the heart of Paul’s theology?[1] More specifically it deals with the question of whether or not it can be claimed that the doctrine of justification is at the heart of Paul’s theology. It is the contention of this essay that justification is central to Paul’s theology in the sense that it is a prominent and essential element of his gospel. However, justification by faith is not the heart of Paul’s theology if this is taken to mean that everything else is logically or historically derivative of it. This in no way undermines the importance of justification by faith, but rather seeks to place it appropriately within Paul’s thought.[2]
Ernst Käsemann suggests (consistent with a generally Lutheran tradition) that justification is in fact at the heart of Paul’s theology.[3] For Käsemann, justification is central to the major Pauline theme of God’s victory over the world where hubristic human effort could only fail. In this sense Käsemann disagrees strongly with those for whom justification by faith is merely a polemic for dealing with Jew-Gentile relations in the Church rather than a developed aspect of Paul’s theology.[4] However, Martin has demonstrated that Käsemann’s dealing with the reconciliation theme within Paul is coloured by his prior assumption of justification’s centrality.[5] Martin accords with Käsemann in disagreeing with those who would relegate justification to the position of a mere polemic against the Judaisers.[6] However, he understands justification to be a relational term, entailing “the entire process of the rectification of man’s relationship to God”, as well as a forensic term. It is this relational sense which for Martin suggests the connection between justification and reconciliation. In particular Martin points to the parallel statements of Romans 5:9-10 and suggests that the two terms are almost interchangeable.[7] Justification however often refers to the negative side of the reconciliatory process as part of how Paul stresses that “all impediments to reconciliation are removed and a new status is conferred”.[8] By contrast, “reconciliation is the concomitant of justification, but it is a larger term” encompassing adoption, and restored relational life with God by the Spirit.[9]
Perhaps the strongest critique of this sort of approach, exemplified in both Martin and Käsemann, is that their conclusions do not quite match the approach of various key texts which appear to have a “summarising or synoptic function”.[10] Gaffin, for example, examines a series of such texts, namely 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 10:9-10,1 Corinthians 1:18-3:22, Galatians 6:14, 2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 4:25 and especially 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. among other things this leads him to the conclusion that “the center of Paul’s gospel-theology is not one or other applied benefit of Christ’s work…but that work itself” which Gaffin argues amounts to the cross and resurrection, that is “messianic suffering and glory.”[11] However, we should note that both Martin and Käsemann challenged the notion that justification was for Paul an unimportant and temporary polemic, even if we cannot necessarily adopt all of their conclusions.[12]
Tom Wright’s work on Pauline theology offers a different approach, suggesting that in actual fact it is Paul’s gospel which is the heart of his theology. As such Wright not so much emphasises one particular element of Paul’s teaching but seeks to encompass multiple elements in his four-fold gospel definition.[13] The heart of Paul’s theology for Wright is a declaration of Jesus’ Christ-ship (as the Messianic-representative of Israel) and universal Lordship, his victory “over all the powers of evil” in his cross and his inauguration of the exile-ending New Age in his resurrection.[14] As such the Pauline gospel is not so much about the personal salvation of individuals as it is a “royal announcement”.[15] This immediately has implications for the place of justification within Paul’s thought. For Wright, when Paul refers to the gospel he is not talking about justification by faith; the centre of Paul’s theology is “the person of Jesus himself”.[16] This re-positioning of justification is further confirmed by Wright’s definition of the idea. Wright argues that justification is the announcement in the present of God’s last day declaration of who is a member of his vindicated covenant people. This “covenantal vindication” has a “forensic dimension” (namely justification), which declares someone to be acquitted and righteous in the covenant law-court. This present anticipation of an eschatological verdict is made when faith-response to the gospel occurs.[17] As such then, “justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian” or a “‘member of the covenant family.’”[18] The enemy of justification by faith in the first century (against which Paul wrote) was therefore not a form of pelagianism or moralism but rather a form of Jewish nationalism which ignored or denied the fulfilment of Israel’s hopes in Jesus Christ and the consequence that membership of the covenant was marked by faith rather than by works of the law such as circumcision.[19] This understanding of justification leads Wright to declare it “the ecumenical doctrine” since it declares that for Christian fellowship “what matters is believing in Jesus” rather than “detailed agreement on justification.”[20] Justification by faith is thus “not so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology.”[21]
Positively, Wright’s formulation of justification and its place within Pauline thought is extremely helpful in avoiding some traditional pitfalls and false antitheses. This is especially true as regards the common “dichotomy of the law-court” or “‘juristic’” notions with “‘participationist’ categories”[22] which was often used to deny or relegate the forensic.[23] Wright argues that once we read Paul in a covenantal context the integration of these two supposed opposites is apparent.[24] Additionally, from the perspective of biblical theology, Wright’s covenantal framework for justification is extremely attractive since it allows us to place Paul within the plotline of the whole canon. In a similar fashion, Wright admirably seeks to place Paul in his 1st century context.[25] Also, his definition of the relationship between the gospel (as the centre of Paul’s thought) and justification does seem to account for at least some of the key Pauline texts mentioned above. Of particular importance to Wright is Romans 1:1-5.[26]
However, on the negative side it can be claimed that in some respects Wright’s placement and definition of justification are inadequate and potentially confusing. Whilst there is undoubtedly some truth in the basic presupposition of Wright regarding the meaning of ‘works of the law’ (as Torah-derived “badges of membership” in the covenant), it is yet to be proven exegetically.[27] Problems for this interpretation would seem to arise when one considers the explanation of justification and works implied by the illustration of wage and gift in Romans 4:4-5.[28] It seems overall that Wright goes too far in his revision of traditional views on justification and, whilst he does not deny the relevance of forgiveness of sins and escape from wrath he underplays the significance of these concepts for the doctrine.[29] His insistence that justification relates to ecclesiology rather than soteriology, to recognition of covenant members and not entering the covenant, at least potentially amounts to a demotion of the significance doctrine.[30] This soteriology-ecclesiology distinction can at times seem like hair-splitting, for, even within Wright's framework there is room for justification to be soteriological and/or connected to entering the covenant. Similarly, Wright does not seem to acknowledge that justification-related concepts can be found elsewhere in Paul’s writing where the terminology is different.[31] For example, Seifrid, having established the relationship between justification and themes such as salvation from wrath and the resurrection, is able to recognise “the basic elements” of justification in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 and Ephesians 2:8-10.[32] Likewise, the “conceptual elements of justification” can be found dispersed throughout Colossians and Ephesians, especially seen in relation to themes of forgiveness, victory and the denial of grounds for human boasting.[33] Of particular significance is Ephesians 2:8-9 where Paul writes of salvation in language which echoes that used of justification elsewhere.[34]
With regard to the fundamental question of the relationship between the centre of Paul’s theology and justification, it is worth noting that Wright’s formulations (and especially his applications of them) do not fully account for the potency of passages such as Galatians 1:6-9 where Paul quite clearly links justification to the gospel in such a way as to denote that error over this doctrine amounts to the erecting of a false gospel. When Wright does allude to this text he does not do adequate justice to the importance of justification in Paul’s understanding of the gospel and the consequences for Christian fellowship as implied in Galatians.[35] There is a logical inconsistency here since justification for Wright is actually in some sense entailed by the gospel. Wright recoils from relegating justification to a position of unimportance, even stating that it is an implication of the gospel which “cannot be detached without pulling part of the very heart of Paul away with it” since “it is organically and integrally linked” to his gospel. Perhaps he has Galatians in mind when he writes “a church that does not grasp it and teach it is heading for trouble.”[36] We conclude therefore that Wright’s own formulation of justification itself suggests a greater significance for the doctrine in Paul’s thoughts than he himself seems to allow. On this basis alone it seems we must at the very least alter Wright’s definition of justification and nuance his positioning of it within Paul’s theology.
This brings us back to the work of Gaffin on this subject. As hinted above, Gaffin comes to similar conclusions to Wright as regards the centre of Paul’s theology being a declaration about Christ (though his focus is more clearly on the work of Christ in his death and resurrection). However he does in a way which manages to avoid Wright’s over-statements and more clearly brings out the relation between Paul’s gospel and issues of personal salvation.[37] He too sees Paul as a covenantal theologian and roots this in a discussion of Christ as Adamic covenantal representative (Romans 5:12-19). Present union with Christ means “sharing with him in all he has accomplished and now is by virtue of his death and resurrection.” For Gaffin then the centre of Paul’s theology is his gospel, which in turn has at its centre union with Christ, “the key soteriological reality comprising all others.”[38] It is in relation to union with Christ that justification finds its place as the forensic facet of “the salvation appropriated in union with Christ.” Additonally, Gaffin appeals to Titus 3:5-7, 2 Timothy 1:9 and Ephesians 2:8-9 to establish the soteriological significance of justification.[39]
This account of justification and Paul’s theology accounts for various key texts in the Pauline corpus, in particular the move from forensic language to union language in Romans 4-5. Gaffin does this whilst retaining the Christ-centredness necessary to any account of Paul’s theology. Similarly the soteriological nature of justification as evidenced in Romans 1:16-17 (which must surely be a key text for understanding that entire book’s exposition of the doctrine) is retained without compromising the importance of Romans 1:1-6 as a gospel-summary statement.[40]
From these varied alternatives two things emerge. Firstly, justification by faith is not the heart of Paul’s theology from which all other elements are derived. This is most clearly seen in that it is itself a doctrine which depends upon others, as well as in its absence from several key summary passages and some entire epistles. However, the negative significance of these facts should not be overestimated. Rather they uphold and establish what we may term the essential importance of justification for Paul. Justification is bound up with the very centre of Paul’s soteriology, and the conceptual elements of the doctrine are to be found spread throughout Paul’s epistles. Therefore, and secondly, our examination of alternative suggestions for the heart of his thought has demonstrated that justification cannot be removed from a prominent and essential place in Paul's theology.[41]
[1] Tom. Wright, What St Paul Really Said, (Oxford: Lion, 1997) 14.
[2] Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68. Leicester: Leiden: Brill, 1992) 270. Also Richard B. Gaffin Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006) 24 & 43.
[3] Wright, St Paul, 17-18.
[4] Wright, St Paul, 13. Also R. P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology, (rev. ed. Eugene, Oregon.: Wipf and Stock, 1997), 76.
[5] In stating such, Martin undoubtedly is coloured by his own favouring of the theme of reconciliation as that crucial “interpretive key to Paul’s theology.” Martin, Reconciliation, 5 & 75.
[6] Martin, Reconciliation, 32-33, 75-76. Also Wright, St Paul, 13.
[7] Martin, Reconciliation, 32-37.
[8] Martin, Reconciliation, 150-1.
[9] Martin, Reconciliation, 151-3.
[10] Gaffin, By Faith, 21.
[11] Gaffin, By Faith, 21-24. The significance of Gaffin for the question posed in this essay was suggested by Steve Jeffrey, personal communication.
[12] In particular note how, even should Martin be correct, the fact that he has related justification to reconciliation could be seen as support for its importance rather than its relegation.
[13] Wright, St Paul, 46-62.
[14] Wright, St Paul, 60.
[15] Wright, St Paul, 40-1, 125-6.
[16] Wright, St Paul, 114-5, 132.
[17] Wright, St Paul, 131.
[18] Wright, St Paul, 122 & 125. author’s italics.
[19] Wright, St Paul, 120-22, 124, 127-130.
[20] Wright, St Paul, 158-9.
[21] Wright, St Paul, 119.
[22] Wright, St Paul, 119-120.
[23] Gaffin, By Faith, 40-41.
[24] Wright, St Paul, 119-120, 132.
[25] E.g. Wright, St Paul, 18-20, 23, 25-29.
[26] Wright, St Paul, 45.
[27] E.g.Wright, St Paul, 132.
[28] Stephen. Walton, “A Gross Miscarriage of Justice? Justification, N.T. Wright, and Romans 4” (BA (Hons) diss. Oak Hill College, 2001) 1, 13, 16-18.
[29] Cf. Mark A. Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness: Paul’s theology of justification, (NSBT 9. Leicester: Apollos, 2000) 65-66 & 92.
[30] Wright may well stress that this is not his intention. See footnote 36 below.
[31] Seifrid, Christ, 171.
[32] This has been well established by Seifrid who writes from a position closer to Kasemann’s than Wright. Seifrid, Christ, 65-66, 70-71, 76-79 & 91. Also Seifrid, Justification, 249.
[33] Seifrid specifically lists Ephesians 1:19-23, 2:2 & 9, 6:10-17 and Colossians 2:15. Seifrid, Christ, 92-3.
[34] Gaffin, By Faith, 44-45.
[35] Wright, St Paul, 60, 159. Also Gaffin, By Faith, 44-45.
[36] Wright, St Paul, 114-5, 132-33.
[37] Gaffin, By Faith, 24.
[38] Gaffin, By Faith, 35-40.
[39] Gaffin, By Faith, 24, 40-41, 44-46.
[40] Wright, St Paul, 125-126.
[41] Gaffin, By Faith, 43. Also Seifrid, Justification, 270.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Gospel
Here is a short selection of verses about the gospel. It is always an interesting exercise to compare your 'gospel' with the bible's, to see what is missing, what is underplayed, what is over-emphasised perhaps in your own attempts to present the gospel. This list is by no means comprehensive (and of course, simply listing the verses that mention 'gospel' is not the best way to give a full definition of what the gospel is anyway), but still should provide some food for thought and a little taste of the dazzling, multi-faceted unity of God's gospel.
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mar 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Act 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
Rom 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rom 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
1Co 15:1-8 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Gal 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 3:6-7 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power.
Eph 6:15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.
Phi 4:15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only.
Col 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel,
1Ti 1:11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
2Ti 1:10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
2Ti 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel,
Rev 14:6-7 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water."
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mar 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Act 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
Rom 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rom 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
1Co 15:1-8 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Gal 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 3:6-7 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power.
Eph 6:15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.
Phi 4:15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only.
Col 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel,
1Ti 1:11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
2Ti 1:10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
2Ti 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel,
Rev 14:6-7 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water."
Friday, November 24, 2006
Justification by faith & the gospel
In blogging on this subject I am aware that I enter into a debate in which I am no expert - a debate which seems to be increasingly 'charged'. Therefore, some caveats are necessary. This blog is not intended as
a. a definitive answer or discussion of these issues
b. an anathematisation of those I might be disgreeing with (or even an engagement with a definitive statement of what they believe)
c. an exegetical work on the relevant passages
It is, however, some of my current thoughts on the place of justification by faith in the gospel.
A couple of quotes from Tom Wright to kick us off. Please read them in context HERE or (PDF) HERE (for the first two, which are actually one quotation) and HERE (for the third statement). And please remember that they are not meant to be somehow definitive of his position.
‘If we are thinking Paul’s thoughts after him, we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith.’
‘We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.’
‘Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine.’
I want to affirm the second statement and deny the first and third. Hence the question is:-
Is ‘justification by grace through faith’ the gospel?
A distinction must be made. There are two ways of saying something ‘is’ the gospel. One way would be to use ‘is’ to mean that something truly is a part of the gospel, though not, of course, the sum total of the it. Hence you’re in a conversation with someone who says ‘tell me the gospel’ (as people do). You give him/her your best and clearest gospel outline. You have told them the gospel (i.e. you haven’t told them another gospel or a false gospel) even though you haven’t told them the entirety of the gospel.
The other use of ‘is’ equates it with an 'equals' sign in the sense of 1 on 1 mapping. 'x is the gospel' thus means 'x = gospel', i.e. the gospel in its entirety.
In relation to ‘justification by faith’ then I want to say that this doctrine is the gospel in the first sense of that phrase. That is, explain justification by faith to someone and you have told them the gospel. Of course if you’d also talked to them about union with Christ, or resurrection, or of the kingdom of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or explained penal substitution to them, then you would still have told them the gospel. What you haven’t done is told them the entirety of the gospel. And depending on how you’ve explained it to them you might not have told them the heart of the gospel (I take it that justification and any other doctrine must be taught Christocentrically to qualify as telling the heart of the gospel. Wright is surely correct to say that the heart of the gospel is the declaration that 'Jesus is Lord', though he also affirms that this definition does not exclude the doctrine of justification). Of course in one sense they will spend the rest of their lives learning the entirety of the gospel, and in another sense, even in an evangelistic context you would want to explain more than justification to them pretty soon (a Christian who only knows this doctrine is going to be pretty unbalanced).
In all of this we need to consider Galatians 1: 6-8, where the context is false teaching about justification.
Gal 1:6-8 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (ESV)
Implication 1: If you deny justification by faith, you are denying the gospel.
Implication 2: Justification by faith was (at least part of) the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians.
Some concluding thoughts:
We can and should preach justification by faith evangelistically. I think we do get justification by faith by believing in justification by faith (preached properly).
However, since preaching justification by faith is not the entirety of the gospel, someone can be ‘justified by faith’ without knowing/understanding this doctrine at the point of initial gospel call and God-generated response. However, so central is the concept, that justification ideas are never very far away when the gospel is faithfully presented, as I would suggest is even the case in places like Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (think cross, resurrection or forgiveness of sins and you're not far away from justification by faith sort of concepts). Some might argue that Wright would not necessarily disagree with this.
Justification is not a second-order issue, since to deny it is to deny the gospel (it is even to desert the one who called us by the gospel).
We should not over-emphasise justification by faith, nor be reductionist in our gospel presentations, to the extent that we neglect other aspects of the gospel that are as essential.
Similarly, we must explain justification by faith (and indeed all the other aspects of the gospel) in a way that is Christocentric not anthropocentric, that is, in a way that declares the fact that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ and not just as a ‘need-solution’ formula. Integrating it into our understanding of kingdom and/or covenant and/or union with Christ and/or resurrection etc. will help massively with this.
a. a definitive answer or discussion of these issues
b. an anathematisation of those I might be disgreeing with (or even an engagement with a definitive statement of what they believe)
c. an exegetical work on the relevant passages
It is, however, some of my current thoughts on the place of justification by faith in the gospel.
A couple of quotes from Tom Wright to kick us off. Please read them in context HERE or (PDF) HERE (for the first two, which are actually one quotation) and HERE (for the third statement). And please remember that they are not meant to be somehow definitive of his position.
‘If we are thinking Paul’s thoughts after him, we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith.’
‘We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.’
‘Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine.’
I want to affirm the second statement and deny the first and third. Hence the question is:-
Is ‘justification by grace through faith’ the gospel?
A distinction must be made. There are two ways of saying something ‘is’ the gospel. One way would be to use ‘is’ to mean that something truly is a part of the gospel, though not, of course, the sum total of the it. Hence you’re in a conversation with someone who says ‘tell me the gospel’ (as people do). You give him/her your best and clearest gospel outline. You have told them the gospel (i.e. you haven’t told them another gospel or a false gospel) even though you haven’t told them the entirety of the gospel.
The other use of ‘is’ equates it with an 'equals' sign in the sense of 1 on 1 mapping. 'x is the gospel' thus means 'x = gospel', i.e. the gospel in its entirety.
In relation to ‘justification by faith’ then I want to say that this doctrine is the gospel in the first sense of that phrase. That is, explain justification by faith to someone and you have told them the gospel. Of course if you’d also talked to them about union with Christ, or resurrection, or of the kingdom of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or explained penal substitution to them, then you would still have told them the gospel. What you haven’t done is told them the entirety of the gospel. And depending on how you’ve explained it to them you might not have told them the heart of the gospel (I take it that justification and any other doctrine must be taught Christocentrically to qualify as telling the heart of the gospel. Wright is surely correct to say that the heart of the gospel is the declaration that 'Jesus is Lord', though he also affirms that this definition does not exclude the doctrine of justification). Of course in one sense they will spend the rest of their lives learning the entirety of the gospel, and in another sense, even in an evangelistic context you would want to explain more than justification to them pretty soon (a Christian who only knows this doctrine is going to be pretty unbalanced).
In all of this we need to consider Galatians 1: 6-8, where the context is false teaching about justification.
Gal 1:6-8 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (ESV)
Implication 1: If you deny justification by faith, you are denying the gospel.
Implication 2: Justification by faith was (at least part of) the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians.
Some concluding thoughts:
We can and should preach justification by faith evangelistically. I think we do get justification by faith by believing in justification by faith (preached properly).
However, since preaching justification by faith is not the entirety of the gospel, someone can be ‘justified by faith’ without knowing/understanding this doctrine at the point of initial gospel call and God-generated response. However, so central is the concept, that justification ideas are never very far away when the gospel is faithfully presented, as I would suggest is even the case in places like Peter's sermon in Acts 2 (think cross, resurrection or forgiveness of sins and you're not far away from justification by faith sort of concepts). Some might argue that Wright would not necessarily disagree with this.
Justification is not a second-order issue, since to deny it is to deny the gospel (it is even to desert the one who called us by the gospel).
We should not over-emphasise justification by faith, nor be reductionist in our gospel presentations, to the extent that we neglect other aspects of the gospel that are as essential.
Similarly, we must explain justification by faith (and indeed all the other aspects of the gospel) in a way that is Christocentric not anthropocentric, that is, in a way that declares the fact that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ and not just as a ‘need-solution’ formula. Integrating it into our understanding of kingdom and/or covenant and/or union with Christ and/or resurrection etc. will help massively with this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
