When I get the chance I'd like to listen to the rest of this lecture on What Paul Might Say Back to Tom on Justification given at Wheaton College, from the perspective of a systematic theologian. HT: Revd Dr Michael Jensen.
Dr Vanhoozer encourages peace talks between New Perspectives and Protestants. The legacy of the Reformation is at stake: is the Reformation something we must recover or something that we must recover from? Wright claims to be upholding the Reformation, of course.
Showing posts with label justification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justification. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Monday, June 23, 2008
Faith & Works
Someday I might plagarise Rev'd John Cheeseman's outline on James 2 regarding the relationship between faith and works.
Despite Rm 3:28 and James 2:24, James is not contradicting Paul. Since Romans and James are the Word of God and God doesn't make mistakes or lie, context must allow us to reconcile the apparent, superficial verbal contradiction.
James is saying that "such" empty intellectual in-word-only-and-not-in-deed hearing-and-not-doing faith cannot save.
We must distinguish and ask in what sense Paul and James are speaking of faith and justification.
If James and Paul had a chat, they would agree that faith alone saves and that faith which is alone does not save, since it is not true faith. They would agree that we can neither in any way merit salvation or contribute our good works to it, nor say we believe in Jesus and wilfully indulge in a sinful lifestyle. Romans 6 shows that Paul could be just as strong as James in combating antinomianism. Faith is the cause, basis or grounds of justification. Good works are the proof or fruit of justification.
James then gives 4 illustrations about faith and works. The first 2 are examples of conterfeit faith and the final 2 are examples of real faith.
A: (1) vv15-17. The case of the armchair do-gooder
(2) vv18-20. The case of the "believing" demons
B: (3) vv21-24. Abraham's unbelievable faith in God's promise and power
(4) vv25-26. Rahab the Harlot's risky faith
Despite Rm 3:28 and James 2:24, James is not contradicting Paul. Since Romans and James are the Word of God and God doesn't make mistakes or lie, context must allow us to reconcile the apparent, superficial verbal contradiction.
James is saying that "such" empty intellectual in-word-only-and-not-in-deed hearing-and-not-doing faith cannot save.
We must distinguish and ask in what sense Paul and James are speaking of faith and justification.
If James and Paul had a chat, they would agree that faith alone saves and that faith which is alone does not save, since it is not true faith. They would agree that we can neither in any way merit salvation or contribute our good works to it, nor say we believe in Jesus and wilfully indulge in a sinful lifestyle. Romans 6 shows that Paul could be just as strong as James in combating antinomianism. Faith is the cause, basis or grounds of justification. Good works are the proof or fruit of justification.
James then gives 4 illustrations about faith and works. The first 2 are examples of conterfeit faith and the final 2 are examples of real faith.
A: (1) vv15-17. The case of the armchair do-gooder
(2) vv18-20. The case of the "believing" demons
B: (3) vv21-24. Abraham's unbelievable faith in God's promise and power
(4) vv25-26. Rahab the Harlot's risky faith
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Why The Reformation?
I'm very excited. God willing, on the Lord's Day morning Rev'd John Cheeseman will preach at Holy Trinity, Eastbourne on "Why The Reformation?" from Galatians 1:1-9.
I assume that's the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, but I don't know. Maybe John will speak about the "reformation" in Judaism with the coming of Christ or the need for another Reformation today, especially in our own church and nation, or all three.
But really I bet John has in mind the events which, more than anything else, where sparked by Rev'd Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg on 31st October 1517. The theses mainly protested against the Roman Catholic practices of penance and indulgences on the basis of Luther's growing understanding that the Word of God clearly states that believers are justified (declared in the right) before God in Christ by grace alone through faith alone and not be works (doing good things, or the mediation of priests though the Mass or penance).
An English translation of Luther's Theses can be found at:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/theses/theses_e.asc
By the way, why not arrange a Reformation Day Party as an alternative to Halloween this year? Maybe its something we should do as a church, for the adults and the kids?
I assume that's the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, but I don't know. Maybe John will speak about the "reformation" in Judaism with the coming of Christ or the need for another Reformation today, especially in our own church and nation, or all three.
But really I bet John has in mind the events which, more than anything else, where sparked by Rev'd Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg on 31st October 1517. The theses mainly protested against the Roman Catholic practices of penance and indulgences on the basis of Luther's growing understanding that the Word of God clearly states that believers are justified (declared in the right) before God in Christ by grace alone through faith alone and not be works (doing good things, or the mediation of priests though the Mass or penance).
An English translation of Luther's Theses can be found at:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/theses/theses_e.asc
By the way, why not arrange a Reformation Day Party as an alternative to Halloween this year? Maybe its something we should do as a church, for the adults and the kids?
Thursday, March 01, 2007
RC views of justification (updated!?)
Dr Williams argued today that we must never get bored of making the distinction that our works are the non-meritorious (evidential) grounds of our future justification or we will find ourselves in Ratzinger's lap through ennui.
Apparently our RC non-brothers really do officially believe that we merit our salvation (in part ? and through God's grace ? or something blah, blah). This must be a different gospel and damnable heresy (depending on the relationship between nature, creation, and grace and the type of merit) and we must say that the Reformation was worth it after all. If Justification is the article by which the church stands or falls (as Luther argued) then we would have to say that the Roman Catholic church is not a Church although many of it members may be converted and it has the form of Christian Baptism. The sacraments alone cannot make a church: there must be the Word of the gospel of the Bible.
The RC church has apparently explicitly repudiated the work of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and has made no fully official authoritative statements on justification since The Canons and Decrees of the Council Trent except the Joint Declaration on Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ).
The official (presented by the Pope to the Church, though I think not infalible ex cathedra?) teaching of the present day Roman Catholic church can be found in its Catechism.
The Catechism, by the way, is dedicated "To The Immaculate"!:
Apparently our RC non-brothers really do officially believe that we merit our salvation (in part ? and through God's grace ? or something blah, blah). This must be a different gospel and damnable heresy (depending on the relationship between nature, creation, and grace and the type of merit) and we must say that the Reformation was worth it after all. If Justification is the article by which the church stands or falls (as Luther argued) then we would have to say that the Roman Catholic church is not a Church although many of it members may be converted and it has the form of Christian Baptism. The sacraments alone cannot make a church: there must be the Word of the gospel of the Bible.
The RC church has apparently explicitly repudiated the work of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and has made no fully official authoritative statements on justification since The Canons and Decrees of the Council Trent except the Joint Declaration on Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ).
The official (presented by the Pope to the Church, though I think not infalible ex cathedra?) teaching of the present day Roman Catholic church can be found in its Catechism.
The Catechism, by the way, is dedicated "To The Immaculate"!:
At the conclusion of this document presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level, at this time when she is called to a new effort of evangelization. May the light of the true faith free humanity from the ignorance and slavery of sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name (cf. Jn 8:32): that of life in Jesus Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, here below and in the Kingdom of heaven, in the fullness of the blessed vision of God face to face (cf. I Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6-8)!
27 Theses on law, faith, works, obedience, covenants etc.
(v6) Updated: 5/3/07 - Nos 33 - new today
Fascinating discussion in post-graduate seminar today of some of these issues.
28. It seems historically doubtful that the law of Moses was every strictly applied "as is" or that it was ever intended to be so. It is not statute law or even quite case law in our modern sense. Much of it is story. It embodies principles which need to be applied in differing contexts in different ways. Some of the stipulations are culture specific, though easily transferable: we need not fence our roofs but we might fence our swimmin pools.
29. The law of Moses probably give maximum penalties.
30. We must destinguish crimes with legal and/or divine covenantal sanctions from sins, which may result in loss of blessing but not criminal or civil disabilities or the status of covenant breaker. The law gives the floor (minimum requirements for life in the covenant, e.g. no murder) and ceiling of full perfection (love the Lord your God with all your heart etc. and love your neighbour as yourself).
31. The law is a present standard and a future aspiration (e.g. there shall be no poor among you...)
32. The law is given for an imperfect sinful context to tell you what to do in the situation of sin and in reaction to it (e.g. sacrificial system, crimial codes esp. e.g. rape laws). The law does not always lay out an ideal but takes account of hardness of heart (e.g. write her a certificate of divorce).
33. Under both old and new covenants, those professing faith and having duly recieved the sacrament of initiation into the covenant (circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New) must be treated as members of the covenant in a full, objective, real, legal way, unless they are covenant breakers under legal church discipline. They enjoy all the genuine rights and privileges of outward membership of the covenant including participation in the sacraments though they may not be believers and may be damned at last.
34. Under both Old and New Covevants, any child of a believer is entitled to covenant membership and to the sacraments and is to be treated as a believer, unless they prove to be a covenant breaker.
35. Under both Old and New Covenants the sacraments have a real objective significance and affect those who participate in them, though they are always to be recieved with faith if benifit rather than condemnation is to be recieved.
36. It is never possible to tell with certainty whether or not someone is a believer and it is not our business to judge the servants of the Lord in that way. We must proceed on the basis of a person's profession and his visible legal status with regard to the covenant. If someone commits covenant breaking crimes, he should be subject to a public legal process of church discipline.
Fascinating discussion in post-graduate seminar today of some of these issues.
See also Tuesday, February 06, 2007 and Monday, Feb 26th: Law, Faith, Works, Obedience & Justification (versions 1 & 2); (v5) Updated: 2/3/07 - Nos 28- new today
1. No one has ever been or will ever be justified by what they do on the basis of merit (with the possible exception of the Lord Jesus Christ, though even in his case we may distinguish).
2. Justification is only ever in union with Christ alone, in the Spirit, through faith alone.
3. The Old Testament law could be kept in the sense that one could be a faithful covenant keeping member of the people of God and blameless because of the grace of God and forgiveness of sin under the terms of the covenant (sacrifice etc).
4. The Old Testament law could never be kept by human sinners in the sense that once could attain sinless perfection and merit salvation.
5. The Old Testament law always had 3 purposes:
(a) Mirror / sword - to reveal sin and condemn
(b) Telescope / signpost - to point to salvation by the sacrifice of Christ
(c) Light / blueprint - to show God's people how to live
and continues to fulfil each of those functions today.
6. Present justification is God's verdict of the future announced in the present on the basis of trust in Christ; future justification will be according to works as a genuine (evidential) non-meritorious ground on the basis of a whole life fundamentally lived on God's side.
7. The Old Testament law is not abolished or abrogated by Christ but fulfilled, transformed and renewed.
8. The (propitiatory) sacrificial and Aaronic priesthood ends with Christ (and AD70) in the sense that it is not to be set up again today in the Jerusalem temple.
9. The Mosaic administration is ended and the Covenant is now in its (re)newed administration.
10. All God's laws have lasting force but must be applied according to local circumstances and in a manner appropriate to the stage of salvation history.
11. Attempting to be justified by supposedly meritorious human works legalistic righteousness was always and is an abuse of the law.
12. Christians are not under the Mosaic law in the same sense that Mosaic believers where; Christians are under the law of Christ which is the Mosaic law renewed.
13. Christian believers keep the law / terms of the new covenant by a faithful life empowered by the Spirit.
14. Mosaic saints were marked out by visible obedience to the law (e.g. circumcision); New Testament believers are defined and marked out more obviously by baptism and allegiance to Jesus as the badge of New Covenant membership.
15. The active and explicit command to the all nations to repent and trust in Jesus is a new element of the New Covenant since the risen Jesus is now enthroned as king of the world in a new way, though this is anticipated in the Old Covenant.
16. Under the Old covenant everyone of all nations ought to have attached themselves as much as they could to God and his people. People could participate e.g. in the Davidic covenant without being fully under the Mosaic law as full Israelites.
17. Being grounded in the nature and will of God, the Torah is a manifestation of God’s Law which applies more generally, a particular instance from which we may generalise.
18. “Being under the law” (of Moses) can be a particular technical term for having the law of Moses promulgated to you at Sinai.
19. “Law” in the Bible almost always means something like Torah, God’s Fatherly instruction to his people, especially as in the law of Moses of the Pentateuch.
20. Faith is true covenant loyalty, submissive obedience. All real faith is obedient faithfulness which perseveres in good works.
21. Good works function as evidence of faith(fullness) for God in a rather different way than they would for a finite human judge, but part of their character is as public legal vindication of God’s accurate assessment that these are his people who are in the right and should be declared so.
22. Deuteronomy is primarily concerned with the national life of Israel and prophesies the inevitable death of the nation as covenant breakers.
23. The covenants should be understood in both individual and corporate terms: a corporate view tends to include individuals and individuals tend to make up a body.
24. Inability to keep a law does not show a law to be deficient in itself. Israel’s inability to keep the covenant does not mean that the New Israel cannot keep the covenant since the Spirit is now poured out in a new way to ensure that it is kept by God’s elect.
25. Christ keeps the law perfectly for his people but they also keep it truly in him and adequately though not perfectly in their own experience, through the strength that he gives.
26. We may distinguish civil, ceremonial and moral aspects of the law and of many individual laws but the Law does not easily divide up in this way.
28. It seems historically doubtful that the law of Moses was every strictly applied "as is" or that it was ever intended to be so. It is not statute law or even quite case law in our modern sense. Much of it is story. It embodies principles which need to be applied in differing contexts in different ways. Some of the stipulations are culture specific, though easily transferable: we need not fence our roofs but we might fence our swimmin pools.
29. The law of Moses probably give maximum penalties.
30. We must destinguish crimes with legal and/or divine covenantal sanctions from sins, which may result in loss of blessing but not criminal or civil disabilities or the status of covenant breaker. The law gives the floor (minimum requirements for life in the covenant, e.g. no murder) and ceiling of full perfection (love the Lord your God with all your heart etc. and love your neighbour as yourself).
31. The law is a present standard and a future aspiration (e.g. there shall be no poor among you...)
32. The law is given for an imperfect sinful context to tell you what to do in the situation of sin and in reaction to it (e.g. sacrificial system, crimial codes esp. e.g. rape laws). The law does not always lay out an ideal but takes account of hardness of heart (e.g. write her a certificate of divorce).
33. Under both old and new covenants, those professing faith and having duly recieved the sacrament of initiation into the covenant (circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New) must be treated as members of the covenant in a full, objective, real, legal way, unless they are covenant breakers under legal church discipline. They enjoy all the genuine rights and privileges of outward membership of the covenant including participation in the sacraments though they may not be believers and may be damned at last.
34. Under both Old and New Covevants, any child of a believer is entitled to covenant membership and to the sacraments and is to be treated as a believer, unless they prove to be a covenant breaker.
35. Under both Old and New Covenants the sacraments have a real objective significance and affect those who participate in them, though they are always to be recieved with faith if benifit rather than condemnation is to be recieved.
36. It is never possible to tell with certainty whether or not someone is a believer and it is not our business to judge the servants of the Lord in that way. We must proceed on the basis of a person's profession and his visible legal status with regard to the covenant. If someone commits covenant breaking crimes, he should be subject to a public legal process of church discipline.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Theses on faith, law, works, justification etc. (v3)
See also Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Somewhat repetiously, perhaps, and in no great order:
1. No one has ever been or will every be justified by what they do on the basis of merit (with the possible exception of the Lord Jesus Christ, though even in his case we may distinguish).
2. Justification is only ever in union with Christ alone, in the Spirit, through faith alone.
3. The Old Testament law could be kept in the sense that one could be a faithful covenant keeping member of the people of God and blameless because of the grace of God and forgiveness of sin under the terms of the covenant (sacrifice etc).
4. The Old Testament law could never be kept by human sinners in the sense that once could attain sinless perfection and merit salvation.
5. The Old Testament law always had 3 purposes:
(a) Mirror / sword - to reveal sin and condemn
(b) Telescope / signpost - to point to salvation by the sacrifice of Christ
(c) Light / blueprint - to show God's people how to live
and continues to fulfill each of those functions today.
6. Present justification is God's verdict of the future announced in the present on the basis of trust in Christ; future justification will be according to works as a genuine (evidential) non-meritorious ground on the basis of a whole life fundamentally lived on God's side.
7. The Old Testament law is not abolished or abrogated by Christ but fulfilled, transformed and renewed.
8. The (propitiatory) sacrificial and Aaronic priesthood ends with Christ (and AD70) in the sense that it is not to be set up again today in the Jerusalem temple.
9. The Mosaic administration is ended and the Covenant is now in its (re)newed administration.
10. All God's laws have lasting force but must be applied according to local circumstances and in a manner appropriate to the stage of salvation history.
11. Attempting to be justified by supposedly meritorious human works legalistic righteousness was always and is an abuse of the law.
12. Christians are not under the Mosaic law in the same sense that Mosaic believers where; Christians are under the law of Christ which is the Mosaic law renewed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
