Join My Community!
-
Google+ Join My Circle of Friends
Category Archive: In Christ
Subcategories: Justification Righteousness of God
Wright is Wrong says Schreiner; Schreiner is Wrong says Me! (Part 2)
Thomas Schreiner
As I said in part 1, the word on the street was that Thomas Schreiner had got Tom Wright to change his mind during their debate on Justification (a greatly exaggerated word to be sure). At best Wright opted to use a different phrasology on a particular (and by comparision, a rather minor) point in order to clarify himself, but nothing of substance has changed.
When I came across Schreiner’s article, Wright is Wrong on Imputation, I had assumed that perhaps Schreiner got Wright to admit he was wrong on this central issue within the Justification debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. But not knowing that, I read Schreiner’s article expecting to read something convincing and devastating to Wright’s theology of the doctrine of Justification. This was not to be the case. It was in fact a rehashing of the same old (and unconvincing) points. I suppose the article was written to reaffirm “Imputation” among those who already hold to it, for surely it could not have been written to convince those who have been persuaded by Wright’s arguments!
Schreiner is Wrong on Imputation
In the article Schreiner summarizes Wright’s views and then launches on the offensive claiming “Wright’s interpretation is wrong and confusing on several levels”. I hear this all the time from Wright’s critics; that his interpretation is “confusing”. Well yeah, it would be to you because you disagree with him. But his view’s are not confusing to me because 1) I understand what he is saying and 2) I see it’s biblical foundation.
In any case, let’s look at Schreiner’s main points of contention one at a time:
1. Justification is a Legal Declaration
Schreiner writes:
Wright leads us astray when he says that justification is a legal declaration and hence it is not based on one’s moral character.
First Schreiner admits Wright’s point that justification is not based on our moral character quoting Romans 4:5 which says
To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
But Schreiner believes that because Wright separates “moral character” entirely from the court-room metaphor, he fails to see the “role that Christ’s righteousness plays in imputation.” He quotes Deuteronomy 25:1 to back up (what he believes to be) the fact that in the Old Testament law court a judge rendered a verdict based on a persons moral character, otherwise the judge would be unjust (since he would be acquitting a guilty person). But the passage in Deuteronomy does not say that a person is acquited because he is morally righteous, but because he has been found “innocent” by the judge. This is an important distinction to be made because to be found “innocent” in a particular trial and having a righteous character are not the same thing.
For example, if a person is on trial for murder and the judge has found that person “innocent” or “not guity” it does not mean that the person on trial is righteous in his moral character in every aspect of his life. It only means that when all of the evidence is brought in, the judge has weighed it and has declared the man justified on that basis of that evidence in that particular case. The man may be found innocent of murder which the trial was about, but that does not mean the man is not a liar or a thief; it does not mean that the man – in order to be declared innocent in the murder trial – is a perfect and righteous man. It only means that the evidence found that he did not murder. The judge does not judge based on the man’s moral character, but on whether or not he committed the crime. And this brings me to my first contention to what I believe is missing in Schreiner’s interpretation of Justification:
The evidence that the Righteous Judge is looking for in the divine law court is not that a person has a righteous moral character, but that the person has faith in Jesus the Messiah.
I find it astounding that Schreiner (Piper, Sproul and the others) would miss the key role that faith plays in the Justification debate. All are guilty, no one is righteous (“no, not one!” – Romans 3:10). God’s not looking for righteous people because there are no righteous people. God is looking for unrighteous people (the only kind of people there is) who have faith in Jesus the Messiah, as Schreiner pointed out:
To the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. – Romans 4:5
The evidence which the Righteous Judge is looking for is faith.
2. The Unrighteous Are Clothed, Not Imputed
Next Schreiner correctly points out the rub of the issue: how God can declare sinners to be righteous? Wouldn’t that make God an unjust Judge?:
So how can God be righteous in declaring the wicked to be righteous? The answer of Scripture is that the Father, because of His great love, sent His Son, who willingly and gladly gave Himself for sinners, so that the wrath that sinners deserved was poured out upon the Son (Rom 3:24-26).
For Schreiner, it is clear that a persons moral character plays a “vital role in Justification”. So far so good because now we have come – at least in part – to the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ. But we need to remember that we have rejected Schreiner’s previous premise. God’s not looking for a righteous person, he’s looking for an unrighteous person who’ll have faith in the righteous Messiah. Christ paid the price for humanity (beyond a scriptural doubt) and God the Righteous Judge is looking for the evidence of “faith” by which he can declare a person justified or guilty. We should remember then that the vital point in the passage of Romans 3:24-26 is the role which faith plays in Justification, as the text makes abundantly clear: “As to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus”. God is just not by justifying the wicked or by justifying the righteous but by justifying those who have faith in the faithful Messiah.
The point Schreiner is drawing out is the substitutionary death of Jesus by quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
And again in Philippians 3:9:
[That I may gain Christ] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
Now let’s put these two verses in the context of Schreiner’s overall argument. Schreiner opens up his post by stating that Wright believes that the doctrine of
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer [is] an artificial construct, an idea from systematic theology that does not truly come from the Bible.
The entire article has been written to prove that the doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness does in fact truly come from the Bible. Now we have come to the end of the article and I am still asking, Schreiner, where is it? Schreiner has assumed that if God declares a person righteous who is wicked that he must impute Christ’s righteousness on to that person, but that is an assumption, an “artificial construct, an idea from systematic theology”, but where is it in the Bible?
Schreiner rests his case on the two passages just listed, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9. And this brings me to my second contention to what I believe is missing in Schreiner’s interpretation of Justification:
Those who are declared righteous are done so because they are found “in Christ” by faith. When a person has faith they “clothe” themselves with Christ or “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27; Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:3) so that when God sees them, he sees not them, but his righteous Son. It is not by “imputation” but by “participation”.
Again I find it absolutly astonishing that such revered biblical scholars as Schreiner, Sproul and Piper would cling so desperately to the theological construct of “imputation” rather then to reach for the precise biblical categories which Paul himself reaches for: the doctrine of “in Christ”.
In case you have any doubt, read 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9 again. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes that God made him who knew no sin to be sin so that “in Him” he might become the righteousness of God. In case you missed in: “IN HIM“. It’s that little phrase which all of Wright’s critics just keep on ignoring as they continue to reach for the sub-biblical category of “imputation”. In other words, Paul only becomes the righteousness of God when he is in Christ, the Righteous One. When Paul is in Christ God does not see Paul, He sees Christ because Paul has put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).
I’m afraid Philippians 3:9 fairs no better for Schreiner, Sproul or Piper because that nagging little biblical category is found there too: Paul writes that he might gain Christ and “be found in him” not having a righteousness of his own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
If Schreiner, Sproul, Piper and others in the Reformed tradition would begin to put the Scriptures first and reach for biblical categories rather then theological constructs of their tradition; if they would understand the vital role faith and participation share in the doctrine of Justification, they just may begin to get things right.
As Wright correctly points out:
For Paul, “justification” was something that happened “in the Messiah.” The status the Christian possesses is possessed because of that belongingness, that incorporation. This is the great Pauline truth to which the sub-Pauline idea of “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” is truely pointing. – Justification p.142
[If you liked this article you'll love N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul and the Scarecrow]
Tagged N.T. Wright, Thomas Schreiner
Wright is Wrong says Schreiner; Schreiner is Wrong says Me! (Part 1)
Thomas Schreiner
Back in November of 2010 N.T. Wright and Tom Schreiner debated the subject of Justification at the Evangelical Theological Society conference. I’ve been too busy to do much hunting on the happenings at the debate and the fallout afterwards.
But I remember a lot of buzz flying around about how Schreiner got Wright to admit he was wrong and change his views. I have since discovered that said buzz was greatly exaggerated. I have not seen official papers from the conference, but the word on the street has it that Wright adopted the phrase “according to our works” rather then “on the basis of our works” when discussion future justification. Fine. But his critics have been so over zealous to cheer victory that they failed to notice that this terminology played so far in the background of the debate as to hardly be recognized in any discussion that had gone before. If anything it testifies to Wright’s humility as I witnessed it first hand at Wheaton after listening to Kevin Vanhoozer give his fantastic talk (watch here).
But again, Wright’s critics ought not cheer too quickly. For as Marc Coretz opens a post titled “NT Wright at ETS (part 1)“:
Free advice: If you ever have the opportunity to debate N.T. Wright, don’t. He’s probably smarter than you and he’s almost certainly funnier than you.
Marc also observed from the conference (in a comment in the same post):
In case I forget to comment on this later, Wright spoke very highly of the paper Vanhoozer delivered at the Wheaton conference a while back. He basically said that Vanhoozer’s comments were spot on.
I remember watching Wright’s expressions with great intrigue as he took in Vanhoozer’s suggestion of “adopotion” as perhaps the missing link in Wright’s understanding of Justification. I too was blow away by that part Vanhoozer’s paper.
In any case, from reports I’ve read – aside from those anti-Wright bloggers who got themselves hung up on the “according to our works” phrase – nothing significant of Wright’s view of Justification has altered. If anything, with each debate we find Wright better articulating his views; simplifying his terms and explaining their definitions and usage with greater ease.
Perhaps it can be argued (and I think this is absolutely the central issue) that the central issue of the debate is over Wright’s rejection of the theological construct of “Imputation”. It is this – more than anything else – that has caused so many in the Reformed camp (Sproul, Piper, Schreiner et cetera) to rise up and set Wright straight. That was the cause which the ETS conference occasioned.
Is Justification about getting saved or about being saved (soteriology or ecclesiology)? Is it about a persons moral character or a judicial declaration? Are we imputed God’s righteousness (or Christ’s righteousness) or is it through Union with Christ that we are declared Justified?
An article by Thomas Schreiner has come to my attention titled “Wright Is Wrong on Imputation“. In it Schreiner seeks answers these central questions about Justification to show where Wright is wrong. I’ll respond to that article to show were Schreiner is wrong.
Tagged N.T. Wright, Thomas Schreiner
Reading the Book of Job Like Never Before
I have heard many sermons on the Book of Job, come across many books and sourced many articles over the years. In the following two posts I will be taking an approach to Job which is unique to them all. Most work done on the Book of Job seems to treat it in an abstract way which broadly addresses the question of “Theodicy”: If God is all powerful and all good, how can there be evil in the world? Or why does evil befall the righteous?
But I think a key element to understanding the point(s) of Job are to try and ascertain when it was written, why it was written and to whom it was written. These are big questions which no one agrees on. I have a working hypothesis though which both excites me (for its “Christocentric” possibilities) and discomforts me (because I can’t find any biblical scholars who might make a similar suggestion). For what it’s worth, I’ll pitch it to you – the reader.
Working Thesis: Exile and Restoration
I believe Job was probably a real person who lived in the same era as the patriarchs (but I can’t be sure). Still, I’m inclined to accept the general view among scholars that “the Book of Job” was written sometime during or after the Babylonian exile[1]. If both of these points are true it would account for a few things:
1. The story of Job (found in the prologue and epilogue) was deeply embedded in Israel’s oral tradition so that Ezekiel could simply make passing reference to Job – along with Daniel and Noah – without explanation [Ezekiel 14:14, 20].
2. It would help answer the question of why the book shifts from prose to poetry and back to prose. The “prose” of the book reflects the oral tradition well known and embedded in Israel’s culture.
What might we say about the authority of the book then? Someone in Israel’s scribal elite used the well known (oral tradition) story of Job, wrote it down, and added dialogue in order to address some specific situation which the Israelites found themselves in (the [post] exile?). This is not too dissimilar as to say that Moses wrote Genesis – by divine inspiration, but that a later unknown scribe[s] touched it up (also by divine inspiration?). Thus Job is still divinely inspired in the same way.
If this suggestion is true (big “if” I admit) then perhaps we ought to read Israel’s exile as the backdrop to the Book of Job. And since I believe that Israel’s exile did not end until Christ’s crucifixion (I’m a “Covenantalist”) we might suggest that the “restoration” of Job could have some very Christocentric implications.
If all of this is true then the question(s) to which Job is seeking to answer is not too dissimilar to the question Paul takes up in Romans, namely “How can God be “Righteous” if he has turned his back on his covenant people” (Israel = Job)? The answer Paul gives is straightforward, God has not turned his back because “not all Israel are Israel” meaning true Israel will be vindicated (and for Paul that means whoever is “in Israel” which actually means “in Christ”). In Job, as in Paul, the answer is the same: God has not abandoned Israel, for Israel (Job) will be restored (42:12-17). In this view there is a striking similarity between Job 38:1-5 and Romans 9:19-21.
Of course there are some pretty large problems with my (working) hypothesis of Job. For example, the author presents Job, not as an Israelite but as a non-Israelite from the land of Uz (an Edomite). But this might not be a huge problem because I believe if the exile proved anything, it proved that Israel was (sinking) in the same boat as the rest of humanity. Thus Job could be the embodiment of all of humanity (Israel included) needing a savior. Perhaps this is why he is depicted as proto-Israel (as the story takes place at the time of Abraham before there was any Israelite). But this introduces my second and larger difficulty: Job is presented and emphasized as being “blameless” and “upright”. But this neither describes humanity nor Israel (cf. Romans 3:9-18).
In any case, with a broad stroke, I believe Job is aiming at two things: God’s people must be faithful in the midst of trial (a la Book of Hebrews) and God is Righteous (a la Book of Romans).
Perhaps I totally grossly misrepresented the whole Book of Job. Like I said, my views are quite undetermined and convoluted. But I want to try and understand Job in light of the Narrative of Israel (since it was an Israelite who wrote it, and one has to wonder “why?”).
So over the next two days of reflecting on Job (via my “through the bible in 90 Days” challenge) I’m going to attempt to read Job with Israel’s exile as a backdrop and seek to ask questions like, “why was Job written down at this period?”, “what did the story mean to an Israelite newly restored to their homeland?” and “why is Job depicted as a gentile?”.
If anyone has read or knows of an author who approaches the book from an “exile-restoration” angle, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me know so I can see what they have to say.
[1] Katharine J. Dell, Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible, p.337
Tagged Book of Job
Imputation Confusion Part 1
I really struggle with the idea that we Christians have been “MADE” righteous by God through the process of having been “Imputed” Christ’ righteousness. There seems to be loads of confusion swirling around this subject. For example; how do we define “righteous”? Is “righteous” a reference to someone’s moral standing, as in “perfect”? Or should we define “righteous” as someone’s relative moral standing, as in a “righteous character with occasional flaws”? Or is “righteous” a word we use to describe someones temporal moral standing, as in being righteous until one sins and then repenting in order to be righteous again? Or is “righteous” to be understood in a more contextual manner, that someone is righteous regarding a specific thing? Are there various stages to being “righteous” so that it could be said that one person is more righteous then another person?
Next we have to deal with the issue of confusion revolving around the word “justification” as it relates to “righteousness”. Do these two words communicate the same thing? Or is there a notable difference between these two words?
And finally we need to deal with the word “imputation” itself. What does “impute” mean? Is imputation a “physical or spiritual transfer of something from one person onto another”? Or does it mean to “declare”, “consider” or “reckon” something onto someone? In other words, to put this question in some sort of context, does “impute” mean that every person has actually received or committed Adam’s original sin so that you and I are actually guilty of committing Adam’s sin apart from any sin we might commit? In light of Romans 5, are you and I then “imputed” Christ’s rightesousness in light of his faithful obedience to God on the cross, dying in our place? If this is the case, is “righteous” then defined as a faithful obedience to God in the context of dying on the cross so that it could be said, Christ died on the cross and I received his righteousness in that act so that any sins or disobedient lifestyles I choose to live today are irrevelent? In this way I have been “MADE” (i.e. imputed) righteous, regardless of a sinful lifestyle. Is this what imputated righteousness (i.e. the doctrine of “Imputation”) boils down too?
How can we be “made righteous” (a moral reality) when in actual reality we are not living righteous lives (actual moral reality)?
These and other questions I’ll be exploring over the next few weeks.
Wright and Piper Go Face to Face (Nope: Piper Backs Out)
As is well known to casual readers of Covenant of Love, I am a fan of N.T. Wright and I do not appreciate John Piper very much. (I was a not a fan of John Piper long before these two came to clash.) At the Evangelical Theological Society’s 62nd Annual Meeting, the topic is Justification by Faith and both N.T. Wright and John Piper were invited to be plenary speakers for this event. Taking the position I do, the “dialogue” would have essentially amounted to Wright embarrising John Piper in my opinion. Even fans of Piper usually acknowledge that simply put, him and Wright are in completely separate leagues (Tom being in the Big Leagues and Piper in the Minors).
Still, I am amazed that some bloggers holdout underdog hopes with a great deal of misguided confidence that John Piper is more then up to the task, that he would somehow be able to sweep Wright aside, that it would somehow amount to little more than a walk in the park of Piper. I have no clever response to that, I simply stand in awe that someone could reasonably think such a thing.
But I saw Wright at the Wheaton Conferences. His respectability, his humility, his willingness to engage other perspectives, to think through reasonable critiques of his work by his opponents, and sometimes to consider their suggestions for further dialogue. I think the question of “who would win” or “who would lose” in a debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is, from Wright’s perspective and probably from the perspective of Wrightians, irrelevant.
John Piper has written against Tom Wright (The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright), and Tom has written a response (Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision). I think it would have been beneficial, even crucial, for these two men to have met and to get to know each other’s personalities. Who knows, maybe an unlikely friendship is lurking right around the corner.
Alas we may never know. For reasons which are unclear to me, the ETS announced:
We had previously announced that Pastor John Piper would be one of our plenary speakers at the November meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta addressing the theme of “Justification By Faith.” Unfortunately, Pastor Piper has had to withdraw from his involvement in this meeting in conjunction with an eight-month leave of absence that he will be taking from his ministry assignments. (Here)
The last time I am aware that Piper took a leave of absence from his ministry responsibilities, it was to write a book against N.T. Wright (Future of Justification, p.10). Is it possible that he has chosen to forgo an opportunity to meet the good Bishop so that he might rather write another book against him? Nah, pure conjecture. I wish to attempt to give Piper the benefit of the doubt (however difficult that may be) and believe that he has not backed out of this engagement for fear of the humble Bishop or intimidation of the Bishops godly presence and vast knowledge.
In any case, Piper has been substituted by Thomas R. Schreiner, an expert in Pauline scholarship and (by all accounts) a better match with Tom Wright. Tom and Tom will share a discussion panel and engage each other on the subject of Justification by Faith. It is my hope that this discussion panel and lectures of Tom W and Tom S will be made available via on-line in the same way that the Wheaton Conference lectures were. The ETS meeting will be held in Atlanta GA on November 17-19, 2010. Praying for a good and fruitful engagement!
Tagged ETS, John Piper, N.T. Wright, Thomas R. Schreiner
Imputed, Imparted, Bequeathed or Passed Gas?
Here’s another controversal quote by N.T. Wright. Background: the subject of “the Rightousness of God” or “God’s Rightousness” must be seen as God the Judge who judges rightly. Therefore “God’s Rightousness” is his own, so to speak…
“it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Rightousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.” – What Saint Paul Really Said, p.98
I cannot see where the bible says that we have been “imputed” God’s rightousness. At least that is not the language which is used. I also don’t see anywhere where the bible says that everyone has been “imputed” Adam’s sin.
When it comes to God’s own Righteousness, he does not pass gas.
Tagged Impart, Impute, N.T. Wright
More on Justification (Faith and Works)
If what I said in the last post is correct, can it be that by the doctrine of sola fide we have created a false dichotomy between “faith and works” in regards to Justification? Here is Galatians 2:15-16:
We ourselves are Jews by birth, and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by doing what the law requires, but rather by the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. We, too, have believed in the Messiah Jesus so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah and not by doing what the law requires, for no human being will be justified by doing what the law requires. – Galatians 2:15-16 ISV
For starters, the phrase “law requires” is not the same as “good works”. There are a lot of people in the world today who think that they are “good” enough to “get into heaven”. But Paul is not writing to them, he is writing to “we who are Jews by birth”. For a Jew, the “law” was a reference to the covenant charter of Israel – specifically Deuteronomy 28. If they remained obedient to the law (i.e. God) they would remain in the covenant (vs. 1-14), but if they rejected the law they would be removed from the covenant (vs. 15ff.). So his readers would have understood his statement as: No person can be justified by obeying the Torah – remember the Exile? – but there is One who has been faithful to the covenant of God, and by his faithfulness (or obedience – Philippians 2:8) we are justified!
Notice the key point which Paul is making here: no one is justified by their obedience but we are justified by Christ’s obedience. Now notice the key point which Paul is not making here: he is not saying that one is justified by faith and not by works. This is one of those important implications in this debate which is bubbling under many Reformers skins.
The closer we get to comprehending this distinction the closer we come to happily embracing other often neglected passages about justification:
You observe that a person is justified through actions and not through faith alone. – James 2:24 (Luther had a good mind to reject James all together because of sola fide)
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. – Romans 2:13
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. – Matthew 12:37 (a passage about bearing fruit in your life in keeping with repentance)
We are saved by grace through faith – there is nothing we can do to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9), and when this happens we join the body of Christ and are therefore justified! All of this is possible because of Christ’s faithfulness to God on the cross (Philippians 2:5-11).
Justification: Identity Crisis
The appropriate place to begin if one is interested in understanding what N.T. Wright believes regarding Justification is to properly distinguish between the “biblical concept” of Justification, and the later church doctrine of Justification (sola fide). To this effect, Wright quotes Alister McGrath who is said to be arguably the world’s foremost scholar on the subject of the history of the doctrine of Justification:
“The concept of justification and the doctrine of justification must be carefully distinguished. The concept of justification is one of many employed within the Old and New Testament, particularly the Pauline corpus, to describe God’s saving action toward his people. It cannot lay claim to exhaust, nor adequately characterize in itself, the richness of the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ.” – Quoted in Wrights Justification: God’s Plan Paul’s Vision, p.79
I’ll break here as Wright does just to highlight the obvious of what McGrath is getting at. The idea (or notion or thought) of Justification in the scriptures is that it is one (and only one) aspect of the salvation process. Justification is not synonymous with salvation (Justification ≠ Soteriology). McGrath continues…
“The doctrine of justification has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man’s relationship to God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of the reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of Justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament. The ‘doctrine of Justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins.” – ibid, p.80
What McGrath seems to be saying is that we have a case of mistaken identity of which I am as guilty as anyone for perpetuating. I thought: “Justified by Faith” = “Saved by Faith”. And I was not alone. This case of mistaken identity is perpetuated almost every time the subject comes up in conversation. In chart format, the doctrine of Justification – if I understand McGrath correctly – is usually thought of like this:
| Galatians 2:16 | Ephesians 2:8 |
| [We] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ… (NIV) | For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourself… [NIV] |
So that just as we are “justified” by “faith in Jesus Christ” and not by observing the law in Galatians, we are “saved through faith” and “not from yourself” (or, “by our works”) in Ephesians. The doctrine of sola fide is thought of in such a way that Galatians 2:16 and Ephesians 2:8 are two different ways of saying the same thing and the terms used are interchangeable.
| Galatians 2:16 | Ephesians 2:8 |
| “Justified” | “Saved” |
| “Faith in Jesus Christ” | “By Grace… through Faith” |
| “Not… by observing the Law” | “Not from yourself” |
So does this biblical support for sola fide (the doctrine of Justification) dislodge McGrath’s analyses? Does it support the view that the doctrine of sola fide accurately depicts the biblical concept of Justification despite McGrath? Well that depends on how Galatians 2:16 (and Romans 3:22) translates the phrase pistis Christou? (Yes, the old “pistis Christou” debate.) Here are your options:
| Galatians 2:16 NIV | Galatians 2:16 ISV |
| [We] know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. | Yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. |
The difference between the New International Version and the International Standard Version in translating this passage is not something which someone can simply shrug their shoulders at. The difference is drastic and the message could not be more different. The NIV is teaching that we are justified by BELIEVING in Jesus Christ whereas the ISV is teaching that we are justified because of Jesus’ own FAITHFULNESS (i.e. “obedience” or “works”). The first (NIV) is teaching that we are not justified by works but by faith. (There is a dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) The second (ISV) is teaching that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’ works. (There is no dichotomy between “works and faith” in Justification.) You can already see that there is more at stake here then just “justification”. Regardless, N.T. Wright affirms the ISV’s rendering over the NIV here:
“This theme makes it very likely, in my view, that when Paul speaks in Galatians and Romans of pistis Christou, he normally intends to denote the faithfulness of the Messiah to the purposes of God rather than the faith by which Jew and Gentile alike believe the gospel and so are marked out as God’s renewed people.” – Wright, Paul: In Perspective, p.47
So now a paradigm shift has taken place. Rather than viewing Galatians 2:16 as simply another way of saying the same thing as Ephesians 2:8, the two are no longer a match. The one (Galatians) teaches that you are Justified because of what Christ did for you on the cross (i.e. his “faithfulness” or “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) whereas the other (Ephesians) is teaching that you are saved by grace through faith (or “believing the gospel”). The chart format reflecting this new paradigm which confirms McGrath’s analysis and Wright’s understanding of Justification is this:
| Galatians 2:16 ISV | Philippians 2:5-8 ESV |
| Yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
(Also, Romans 3:22 ISV God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction.) |
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. |
So what is the point? The point is that church doctrine has raised Justification up to be the center of Paul’s theology. It’s a categorical mistake with important implications. As Wright says:
“We find that [Justification], though it is indeed related closely to the whole theme of human salvation by God’s mercy and grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, does not denote that entire sequences of thought—so that to force it to do that is necessarily to invent all kinds of extra bells and whistles of which Paul was innocent—but rather denotes one specific aspect of or moment within that sequence of thought.” – Justification, p.87
In other words, the biblical concept of Justification is not central to Paul’s theology (as the church doctrine of sola fide has made it) and it is not synonymous with salvation. Rather the biblical concept of Justification nestles itself nicely within the broader Pauline category we have termed “Participation” or “Union with Christ” or simply: “in Christ”.
Tagged Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright
R.C. Sproul, N.T. Wright and the Scarecrow
Wright: "Aren't we on the same team?" Sproul: "It depends, define 'sola fide' and then define 'Gospel'."
A few years back I must have been the only person oblivious to the horrendous massacre of the Munich Olympics of 1972. When in conversation a friend mentioned the movie, Munich (2006), I asked what it was about, and in shock he said “Don’t you know? It’s when Muslim terrorists murdered Jewish athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.” But we were both caught off guard when another friend my mine, a Muslim, overheard our conversation and roared out through clenched teeth the way a father might chastise his children: “THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS! IT WAS WAR! THOSE JEWISH ATHLETES WERE SOLDIERS WHO WOULD HAVE KILLED MUSLIMS AFTER THE OLYMPICS!” Then, as if nothing happened, he just walked away, leaving us staring at each other in perplexed silence.
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of peace. Everyone knows that. But for those Muslim terrorists, there is no such thing as “truce”. The context never changes. Time never goes by. “Kill the infidel!”
If this short-sighted mentality frustrates you as much as it does me, then you may be able to glimpse the frustration I have when leaders who are hailed as defenders of Reformed orthodoxy write and lecture as though the volatile age of the 16th century were alive and well. (“Anathema the Catholic!”) It is a mentality which needs to be crushed under the full weight of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the glory of Christ and the union of his Body: the Church invisible and visible.
These men – I believe – need to undergo a “gestalt switch”, nothing less then a complete paradigm shift.
In the book Justification in Perspective, N.T. Wright was invited to contribute to the last essay-chapter titled “New Perspectives” where he makes this comment which some have called “The King Kong of straw man fallacies”. Here’s what Wright wrote which “defenders of Reformed orthodoxy” find so offensive:
“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.” Wright, “New Perspectives” (Under the heading “5: Justification” in the essay.)
I cheer Wright for this bold statement. It was about time someone called the Reformers out on the carpet and exposed much of their rhetoric for what it is. What Wright is saying is that Catholic and Orthodox believers are as much a member of the family of God, the living Church, as are Protestants if (and the “if” goes for Protestants as well) they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ: “that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead”.
Well of course the charge is an offensive one. In one fell swoop N.T. Wright has accused the Reformation Tradition (of which he is a part of, it is important to note) of raising 16th century “doctrine” above scripture, above the faith and above the Gospel. This is a deadly blow to the Reformers ego, and like any blow dealt to an ego, there was a backlash reaction. And so R.C. Sproul (who one blogger refers to as being “at the top end of the heavyweights” when it comes to Reformed theology) pushes back:
“To intimate that Protestant orthodoxy believes that we are justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith is the king of all straw men. It is the Goliath of scarecrow, the King Kong of straw man fallacies. In other words, it is a whopper. I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformation tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a pure and simple distortion of the Reformed tradition.” (Here)
But is that true? We have to look no further for our answer then to Mr. Heavyweight himself (in case you missed it, that’s a reference to R.C. Sproul) in a little tract called Justification by Faith Alone. In it he writes this:
“Since the Reformation the doctrine of sola fide has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. It has functioned as a normative doctrine because it has been understood as essential to the gospel itself. Without [the doctrine] sola fide one does not have the gospel; and without the gospel one does not have the Christian faith. When an ecclesiastical communion rejects [the doctrine] sola fide, as Rome did at the Council of Trent, it ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters.” – Justification by Faith Alone, p.12 (2010)
There is so much to say and so little time.
1) The doctrine of sola fide has NOT “been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity”. The defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity is sola scriptura (it is a sad day when we have to remind any Protestant of this fact). Pick up any book on Evangelical Christianity and you will not find a treaty there on sola fide (at least not in any central or defining way). You will find other points such as “missional” or “conversionism”, and centrally always “sola scriptura” (no matter how it is defined) but not sola fide:
“[Francis] Schaeffer said that an orthodox view of the Bible is the ‘Watershed of the Evangelical World’. In other words, it is a defining position, such that our view of Scripture determines whether or not we are truly evangelical. It seems to me that he was correct in this assessment.” A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage, p. 11
2) It is NOT true that without the doctrine of sola fide one does not have the Gospel. Nowhere in scripture is the Gospel defined as “sola fide”. But Paul explicitly defines the Gospel as believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) – as N.T. Wright correctly points out in his quote above. (This constitutes one of the fundamental areas of confusion among the traditionalists: confusing the terms “gospel” “justification” and “soteriology“.)
3) It is NOT true that by rejecting the doctrine of sola fide an ecclesial commune “ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters”. This last point is a very dangerous move on Sproul’s part because now he has explicitly raised up the Reformed doctrine of sola fide above the core belief of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! He subjugates this core orthodox belief (the True Gospel) to the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide. Was there no “true church” before Luther? Sproul places the true Gosple of Jesus Christ (by which he “is being saved” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) under the subcategory of “other matters” (as if you could tuck the Gospel away somewhere under the rubric of “other matters“?). God help him!:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gosple – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7, emphasis mine)
Sproul has distorted the Gosple by confusing the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide with the Gosple Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and which he declares to be the true Gospel being distorted here in Galatians 1:6-9. A blogger named Cameron whom I have been in dialogue with states that God is not the author of confusion, “but maybe N.T. Wright is a good candidate“. N.T. Wright has offensively reminded the Reformers what the true Gospel is: belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this truth has confused my friend Cameron, this should not reflect either God who wrote the Word or Wright who has been dragging the Reformers (kicking and screaming) back to the Word. I am not surprised that my friend Cameron has been confused by Wrights comment. If he has always believed an error, and someone writes to correct his error, before he capitulates to the truth his mind will be confused. This only reflects that he is either resisting the truth or about to overcome the presuppositions of his mind!
In any case this entire quote from R.C. Sproul, an influential leader in the Protestant church and author of such books as “Defending the Faith” and “The Consequences of Ideas”, is very scary. In the quote above Sproul writes: “I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformed tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith.” Perhaps he should have a good look in the mirror.
If N.T. Wright’s argument is a straw man, then R.C. Sproul is the scarecrow who is caught up in the time loop of 16th century polemics. Even the Catholic Church has moved on since then, acknowledging that other forms of orthodox Christianity are a part of the true church, while Sproul (like my Muslim friend) vehemently contends that because Trent (1559-1563) rejected the Reformed doctrine of sola fide, our Catholic brothers and sisters who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. the Gospel, are not “a true church”.
But of course we now know that Wright’s comment is nothing at all like a “straw man argument”. It is verified right here in Sproul’s own words as the “heavyweight” speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Tagged Justification, N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul
Kevin Vanhoozer: Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation
It is this bloggers opinion that Kevin Vanhoozer was the most entertaining and illuminating lecturer at the Wheaton Conference (aside, perhaps, from Wright himself). It is for this reason, and also because I have received complaints about the lag time it takes to load and watch the videos, that I decided to directly re-post them here.
If you have read Wright at all you will find this video enjoyable and also challenging as Vanhoozer attempts suggest a way for Wright to improve his paradigm and find a middle road between “new perspectives” and “old reformers”.
Kevin Vanhoozer: Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation from Derek Ouellette on Vimeo.
(I was given permission via email from Wheaton College to re-post this video here so long as I link back to Wheaton’s site. To watch the original postings click here. Because of the volume of people watching from Wheaton’s site the lag time to download and watch this may be great.)
Tagged Kevin Vanhoozer, N.T. Wright, Wheaton Conference
