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.
Showing posts with label Justification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justification. Show all posts
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Friday, December 01, 2006
Pilgrim's Progress and Justification
This is a great little excerpt from Pilgrim's Progress which is my current loo-reading of choice. Christian and Hopeful are in conversation with Ignorance about where he stands with God. Ignorance has recently denied that his heart is bad.
IGNORANCE: Why, to be short, I think I must believe in Christ for justification.
CHRISTIAN: How! think thou must believe in Christ, when thou seest not thy need of him! Thou neither seest thy original nor actual infirmities; but hast such an opinion of thyself, and of what thou doest, as plainly renders thee to be one that did never see the necessity of Christ’s personal righteousness to justify thee before God. How, then, dost thou say, I believe in Christ?
IGNORANCE: I believe well enough, for all that.
CHRISTIAN: How dost thou believe?
IGNORANCE: I believe that Christ died for sinners; and that I shall be justified before God from the curse, through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his laws. Or thus, Christ makes my duties, that are religious, acceptable to his Father by virtue of his merits, and so shall I be justified.
CHRISTIAN: Let me give an answer to this confession of thy faith.
1. Thou believest with a fantastical faith; for this faith is nowhere described in the word.
2. Thou believest with a false faith; because it taketh justification from the personal righteousness of Christ, and applies it to thy own.
3. This faith maketh not Christ a justifier of thy person, but of thy actions; and of thy person for thy action’s sake, which is false.
4. Therefore this faith is deceitful, even such as will leave thee under wrath in the day of God Almighty: for true justifying faith puts the soul, as sensible of its lost condition by the law, upon flying for refuge unto Christ’s righteousness; (which righteousness of his is not an act of grace by which he maketh, for justification, thy obedience accepted with God, but his personal obedience to the law, in doing and suffering for us what that required at our hands;) this righteousness, I say, true faith accepteth; under the skirt of which the soul being shrouded, and by it presented as spotless before God, it is accepted, and acquitted from condemnation.
IGNORANCE: Why, to be short, I think I must believe in Christ for justification.
CHRISTIAN: How! think thou must believe in Christ, when thou seest not thy need of him! Thou neither seest thy original nor actual infirmities; but hast such an opinion of thyself, and of what thou doest, as plainly renders thee to be one that did never see the necessity of Christ’s personal righteousness to justify thee before God. How, then, dost thou say, I believe in Christ?
IGNORANCE: I believe well enough, for all that.
CHRISTIAN: How dost thou believe?
IGNORANCE: I believe that Christ died for sinners; and that I shall be justified before God from the curse, through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his laws. Or thus, Christ makes my duties, that are religious, acceptable to his Father by virtue of his merits, and so shall I be justified.
CHRISTIAN: Let me give an answer to this confession of thy faith.
1. Thou believest with a fantastical faith; for this faith is nowhere described in the word.
2. Thou believest with a false faith; because it taketh justification from the personal righteousness of Christ, and applies it to thy own.
3. This faith maketh not Christ a justifier of thy person, but of thy actions; and of thy person for thy action’s sake, which is false.
4. Therefore this faith is deceitful, even such as will leave thee under wrath in the day of God Almighty: for true justifying faith puts the soul, as sensible of its lost condition by the law, upon flying for refuge unto Christ’s righteousness; (which righteousness of his is not an act of grace by which he maketh, for justification, thy obedience accepted with God, but his personal obedience to the law, in doing and suffering for us what that required at our hands;) this righteousness, I say, true faith accepteth; under the skirt of which the soul being shrouded, and by it presented as spotless before God, it is accepted, and acquitted from condemnation.
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)
