I’d like to do just that, which I assure you is no small task. I continue to find myself torn between the absolute necessity to write research papers and finish projects for my graduate work on the one hand and my passion and love for debating theological issues on the other. Right now, to be sure, I should be stretching sentences across my laptop that have something to do with ‘vocabulary acquisition,’ but that paper only has to be five pages, APA format (which means double-spaced!), and only a couple of references (and I have already completed my reference page which contains at least 8 different books, journal articles, and web pages).
Clearly, then, the importance of theological conversation is outweighing the need to stay in control of a 4.0 in graduate school. But I digress.
It is true that we have been through this over and over and over again concerning justification, but it is equally true that we always end up back in a similar position: stalemate. That is wholly unsatisfying. As was recently pointed out in another thread, sometimes these conversations become mere places for a ‘monthly colonic,’ which, however disturbing that may be, assures us that some people are merely full of it when it comes to these conversations. I find these conversations satisfying and stimulating.
I am also happy we can provide a sufficient cleansing ground for the angst of others.
So here’s another avenue in the discussion of justification. NT Wright, anathema to the cultured despisers among us, begins chapter four of his book Justification by pointing to the work of Alistair McGrath. I have not read McGrath’s work at any level so I am quoting here only as far as Wright does, but the quote is so potent, so theologically powerful, that it is worth even a secondhand quote. Thus,
The concept of justification and the doctrine of justification must be carefully distinguished. The concept of justification is one of many employed with the Old and New Testaments, particularly the Pauline corpus, to describe God’s saving action toward his people. It cannot lay claim to exhaust, nor adequately characterise in itself, the richness of the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ. (McGrath, as quoted by Wright, page 80, his emphasis.)
Now Wright interprets this for us in the very next paragraph:
This is highly significant. McGrath is creating hermeneutical space in which one might say: there are many equally biblical ways of talking about how God saves people through Jesus Christ, and justification is but one of them. This (for instance) enables us at once to not that the four Gospels, where the term ‘justification’ is scarce, are not for that reason to be treated as merely ancillary to, or perhaps preparatory for, the message of Paul–as has sometimes happened, at least de facto, in the Western church. (Wright, 80)
Then the coup de grace comes where Wright finishes McGrath’s quote and knocks the ball out of the park:
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 with dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins. (McGrath, as quoted by Wright, page 80, his emphasis)
Wright goes on to point out that it is this statement, and statements like it, that set the ‘guardians of truth’ back on their heels. And I agree.
Someone asked me the other day what I meant when I wrote something to the effect that ‘we don’t know much about the Gospel.’ Well, these quotes move in the direction of what I was getting at. Of course Wright also notes that he is putting for a hypothesis based upon the available evidence, but from where I sit it is a mighty powerful hypothesis. What if what we have been taught, what we have believed, what we have taught is not entirely, wholly, all that needs to be said? What if we in the Western church place far, way too much emphasis on the ‘I take Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior’ bit?
What is there is more?
Shouldn’t there be more?
What is wrong if there is more? And if there is, is it not incumbent upon all preachers and teachers and disciples of Jesus Christ to preach the entire Gospel? What if American individualism has so influenced the Gospel that it has corrupted the clear biblical message that God means to fix the world through the Sons and daughters of Abraham? What if God means to do more for the world than merely save those who are able to repent, confess, believe, and be baptized?
I read this by Wright, I see the carefully reasoned exegesis, and I apply what I have already preached about and believed and I see that this makes far more biblical sense than mere hypothesis would suggest. What if there is ‘grace enough for us and the whole human race’ and God means to bring that grace to the world through the sons and daughters of Abraham?
I’m thinking through this with you, so I’m not making any definitive suggestions one way or the other. I’m just inviting you to think through the possibility that there is more to the Gospel than, “Thank God, I am saved!”
51 Comments(+Add)
What if…what if? I do not mean to demean your obviously sincere approach to the most important subject of all. But after 2000 years we still are playing “what if” as it pertains to eternal life and how a sinner is justified (gets saved) before God than our religion is the most nebulous of all.
The gospel isn’t all that hard to understand, it’s just hard to believe. And men have made these doctrinal discussions an intellectual labrynth instead of the clear “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”.
And I cannot understand those who eschew an over emphasis on systematic theology in so many areas, find the nano-examination of justification by faith to be so interesting. It will always remain simple:
A sinner gets saved by believing on/in Jesus the Christ and His death and resurrection. Much of the verbal sparring is nothing more than doctrinal entertainment for westerners like me with too much time on our hands and to satisfy an insatiable need for overeducated people to exercise their debate muscles.
What if I am right?
Jerry, I’m going to channel Ed Itor here for a moment and focus on one very small, insignificant part of your post. (Though, unlike Ed Itor, I’m planning on coming back later to interact with the rest of it.)
Can one reason for a “stalemate” be that neither party’s brain is big enough to handle the issue at hand?
Someone please tell me in terms I can understand exactly what is this “stalemate”. I am an old man and I get confused.
I see three metaphors used by Paul in his letter to the Romans as he tries to illustrate salvation and the restored relationship between God and man.
I say try and illustrate it because defining it is nigh impossible, and maybe that has been the biggest error of the modernist theologian.
It is kinda like “love” – impossible to define, best to be illustrated, but everyone knows when they are in it.
Oh… and the three metaphors are; Justification, Propitiation, and Redemption.
One is a judicial example.
One is a cultic example.
One is a commercial example.
Each taken on their own is insufficient
Any taken without the others leads to false views of salvation (e.g. Ransom to Satan view)
The three together form a wonderful spectrum of what Jesus accomplished.
The more I read of Wright, the more I’m struck that what he’s proposing is really just elegant in it’s simplicity. His basic point is that Paul sees Christ as in the narrative of God’s plan of salvation that began with Abraham, continued through Moses, and climaxed with the death and resurrection of Christ. So justification is not primarily a question of how an individual gets saved, but more importantly, it’s how God proves Himself faithful to His promises.
So what Wright is doing is wrestling the term “justification” from an Enlightenment view that says my private experience is the most important thing back into the proper context which says the most important is God’s perspective and plan. The ironic thing, of course, is that those who are in opposition to him are the ones who claim that God’s glory is somehow at stake. The way I see it, Wright’s articulation of the issue gives God all the glory and makes me stand back in awe at the wondrous faithfulness of the Creator even more than I ever have. In other words, Reformed folks should not be scared of what Wright is proposing. If anything, they should thank him.
Justification is just one small part of salvation. It is the judicial aspect; it is the portion of salvation where man can say I AM SAVED. That is, the price has been paid.
There is also reconciliation, that it, being brought into agreement with God by confession of sin, repentance from said, and repentance towards God. In that sense we can say I HAVE BEEN SAVED.
There is also sanctification, the process by which we are pruned and developed into Christ-likeness both in a moment and over our life time. It is where Peter and Paul and I can say “I am BEING SAVED”.
Lastly, there is the focus that NT Wright does, in my view, focuses on a little improperly- Glorification. I WILL BE SAVED! in other words, when I enter glory because I have been saved, he will make me like Christ.
Justification is only the starting point, really, in the whole process of salvation or regeneration (which includes justification, reconciliation, sanctification, and glorification)
* Rob Bell or Shane Hipps were not mentioned in this comment (I know someone is counting)
PB,
Oddly enough, what you described there is pretty much in line with what Wright would say, and you actually point out the problem with most of his critics. They equate justification with salvation.
#8 – I appreciate erudtion, however I also appreciate intervals of simplistic gospel verbiage that reassures me that we are on the same theological page.
I will admit I am splitting grammatical hairs, but technically I disagree.
Justification is one small part of salvation – yes.
I disagree that it is the part that allows me to say “I am saved.” In so doing, you fall back into justification=salvation. it is the part that allows us to say “I have been justified.”
And the question of a price being paid is not justification – but redemption.
Neil,
That’s a good point.
The judicial aspect of justification as Wright presents it does not allow us to say “I am saved”, but rather it means that God can look at humanity and declare us “not guilty”. In other words, it paves the way for us to enter into the covenant family.
By the way, the “not guilty” verdict is not the same as God saying that we are somehow morally pure in His sight. When a judge pronounces a “not guilty” verdict, it does not mean the person being judged is completely in the right. It just mean that he is not guilty in respect to what he is being judged for. In the case of justification, it is in respect to the terms of the Covenant.
To summarize, I believe Wright would say that justification is more about a change in God’s perspective than a subjective change in us. Justification happened once and for all at the Cross, and it’s not something that happens when a person says a prayer or gets baptized. Humanity is justified by the death and resurrection of Christ. Whether or not a person enters into this covenant relationship is another question altogether.
Guys, can I interrupt this programming and say, “What in the world did Zaccheus, the notorious tax collector, need to understand about all these terms?”
The man received Christ and repented of his old ways. Jesus said, “Today is salvation come to this house.”
Why are we complicating this beyond measure?
I guess I’m trying to understand what in the world a missionary, perhaps in some remote area in China, needs to know about all these terms when he’s speaking to a man on a bicycle taking his ducks to the local market?
To me, the big difference is that it changes God’s “default” position towards us from the old Reformed position where God holds us in wrath and is holding us over the fiery pit by a thread, to a position that says God’s looks at humanity through the Cross. We are not guilty before Him, and we need not fear entering a relationship with Him. He is faithful to His word, and He has not and will abandon His creation to decay.
It changes salvation from a story about me to a story about God. And I don’t know about you, but a story about God is much more compelling to me than one about me.
Whatever justification is, it comes only by faith. Everyone is potentially justified at the cross, but before a sinner believes he is still dead in his sins.
We are guilty before Him if we are not in Christ, unless you are a universalist.
#14: But Phil, we do stand guilty before Him in the sense that the world, by nature of the fall, is condemned or separated from God. That is our state as revealed in scripture.
We are dead in trespasses and sin before we step into the light of Christ through the gospel.
You are right that he has not abandoned his creation to decay – that’s why he sent Christ. Creation is groaning and unraveling under the weight of sin that will never get better, but Christ promises a new heaven and earth, and communion with God through repentance.
Until the light of the gospel shines in our hearts, we sit in darkness.
I just discovered that Wright co-authored a book with Marcus Borg. I need not know anything else.
That’s the thing though. We are not. Humanity is not guilty, at least in terms of the Covenant. Justification is not about the old medieval ideas of guilt and innocence as if these are inherent qualities within a human being. It’s about God’s stance towards us.
God essentially sees Christ’s work on the Cross as making the way for the human race to become the humanity He planned at creation. So just like Adam had a choice to live in the parameters God set forth at the original creation, we have a choice to live in the parameters God put in place for the new creation. We can worship God, or we can worship idols. And humans will become like what they worship. So when a person worships an idol, it’s not that they are damned by God anymore. They are damned by their own refusal to worship their creator.
He was arguing against Borg in this book.
He does consider Borg a friend, but he also very clearly states that he believes Borg is dead wrong about the resurrection.
RE: #18
The book you are referring to is a DEBATE between Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. As in, they disagree fundamentally about several key doctrines.
Sigh.
Phil, I think you are fundamentally wrong about the nature and state of man. Before Christ is received, we sit in darkness, we are dead in sin, we are blind to the glory of God.
Look at Paul’s commission as outlined in Acts 26 (Amplified):
Or look at Ephesians 2:
We were “by nature” the objects of wrath… It’s pretty clear.
I read your comment in 19 and see that it is not scriptural, it’s philosophical.
But because of the Cross and the Resurrection, the effects of the Fall have been overturned. The old creation is dying, and the new creation is breaking forth. So yes, in one sense, men can choose to live in the old creation, but they walk in darkness out of choice, not out of necessity. All the work that needed to be done for salvation was done on the Cross.
When Paul says we are a new creation in Christ, he meant it. When we enter into Covenant relationship with Christ, we are taking place in the restoration of the cosmos. We are part of the grand re-Creation, if you will.
I think it’s simple. Again, think of Zaccheus.
A man is dead in his sins, without hope. But God, who is rich in mercy, sends Christ so that all who receive Him are adopted into the family of God, freed from the bondage of sin to live for the glory of the one who saved him.
Actually, Paul, when you look at Ephesians 2:1-10 as a whole, you see that what Paul is talking about is not primarily our individual states, but our participation in the new creation through Christ.
Notice, specifically, that Paul says we were “made alive with Christ when we were dead in our trespasses”. In other words, the being “made alive” part happened when Christ was resurrected. Our salvation happens because we take part in what Christ has already done through faith.
So I’m not arguing for some type of universalism (and neither does Wright). I’m just saying that it was at Christ’s resurrection that the New Creation started breaking into the Cosmos, and because we are in Christ, we are taking part in this.
Phil, what you are saying does sound like universalism in a sense. At least, that’s what I’m hearing.
Paul is writing an epistle to a church that is made up of redeemed individuals. He is not writing a dissertation in the state of man, like someone might do in seminary. He’s showing how they were translated from darkness to light. From objects of wrath to children of God.
A man is “made alive” when, and only when, he receives Christ individually. Again – look at Zaccheus as a perfect example. Salvation came to his house, so to speak, when he repented and came to Christ.
I guess if it were as simple as Zacheus, then Paul need not have wasted so much time writing all those letters explaining what God had done, was doing, and is still doing.
Paul, with love, it’s not that easy precisely because we think in that terminology: “salvation has come to this house.” Yet the bulk of the Scripture is not dedicated to individual salvation at any level, but to the overarching plan that God covenanted with Abraham and brought to consummation in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.
I started seeing glimpses of this when I preached a series I called ‘90 Days with the Scripture’ and traced this from beginning to end. What Wright has done is systematize it for me, fill in some blanks, and otherwise order in my head what was merely an idea.
Rick, if you haven’t read Wright then to make such an assessment (18) is out of bounds. There is, probably, no greater defender of historical, literal resurrection than NT Wright–even the Reformed guys hold up his work in this area as exemplary and worthy of notice and study.
Paul,
I’m not saying that something doesn’t happen subjectively when a person by faith enters into a relationship with Christ. They are made alive, and they are partaking the first resurrection. But, it is not as if Christ is raised over and over again when this happens. A person is made alive because they are in Christ, and His resurrection has happened once and for all.
So it gets back to my point about salvation being a story about God rather than story about us. I do believe that salvation is universal in its scope, meaning the entire cosmos will be redeemed. But, I do not believe that all individuals will take part in this.
#26
It’s not universalism because while from God’s perspective, humanity is justified and forgive, it still requires human action for reconciliation to be complete. Not everyone is going to be with God for eternity, but that choice is entirely theirs because God has completed the work of justification for humanity through Jesus work on the cross.
#29
FAIL
We are not all justified. We can be justified, that is, made right with God, declared not guilty. We are guilty in our trespasses and sins UNTIL we receive the justification by faith. God does not justify us in a vacumn, and He does not justify us no matter what sail we build. He justifies those who acknowledge their guilt (confess) turn from it (repent) and place trust in Christ alone, who by his death paid the penalty (condemnation/death) for our sins.
Its that whole penal substitutionary atonement thingy again.
*Rob Bell was not (again) mentioned in this post
#29
In other words, we must become guilty before God (courtroom analogy) before we know we face a penalty (death) for our rebellion (sin) against God. God does not force justification on us.
PB,
I officially rescind my earlier comment about you agreeing with Wright. You obviously are in pretty sharp contrast to him.
The problem with the view you’re putting forth is that it makes my salvation entirely dependent on my repentance, and it basically makes God one moody guy who’s stance toward one person is different from another.
Now I’m very, very confused. Without repentance, how can a person be saved? Can you show me an example from scripture?
That’s the wrong question, in my opinion. The question really should be, can a person who has experienced resurrection life in Christ not repent from his old life? Repentance is a result of, not a precursor to salvation. Salvation is through faith alone, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. So we can choose to respond to the Holy Spirit or not.
Meaningless semantics and nano-parsing of things pertaing to salvation that if not believed in simplicity, they become distortions. How does any of this become relevant to the average 16 year old sinner? Or a Russian unbeliever? Or any sinner?
It’s all so doctrinally erudite and mostly affluent and/or educated westerners are mesmerized by such linguistic triangulation.
#35: I completely agree. This “new” gospel (I’ve never heard it before; but it reminds of Chad’s “You are saved, therefore repent” confusion).
#34: Phil, your comment flies in the face of scripture. Can you imagine the day of Pentecost if it went your way? It adds a layer of complexity that scripture does not (which is why, I assume, you avoid my question to provide me a biblical example of your theory).
This is not the gospel of the early church or of Christ.
I honestly don’t know how anything I’ve said could be construed as complicated. It may be different than what has been taught in Evangelical circles, and I can see that it requires a certain paradigm change, but when it comes down to it, it’s pretty simply.
Through the Cross, Christ has fulfilled the covenant, reversed the effects of the Fall, and made a way for humanity to partake in the Resurrection life in Him. This has been God’s great plan since the dawn of Creation, and we are invited to partake in it.
What is so complicated about that?
I will admit it doesn’t involve the ten commandments or bananas, so maybe that’s why it’s confusing some people.
And many of these new teachers explain things that make them sound clearly like universalists, and then they say they are not. So aside from all the language fog, are they saying they believe that a sinner must believ on Christ before they can be saved?
If so, what’s the point about the rest of the doctrinal micromanaging?
Your loss.
Complaining about the complexity of theological discourse, especially as if it’s done at the expense of practical ministry, is kind of like complaining that physics is hard right as you board an airplane.
Ideas matter. Period. Regardless of whether one is able to grasp them or not.
#40 – A more accurate simile would be if you were boarding a flying saucer, capable of warp speed, and it was here to save you from a coming asteroid. No one can truly understand its complexity and the deeper you think you go in understanding only results in exposing how little you really know.
Simple – Get on the vehicle and believe it can save you.
Rick – to use your metaphor – when you got on the vehicle, you were – at some level – making a statement of belief in its ability to save you.
To go to Phil’s point (I believe) – this is not something linear (believe and then repent and then be saved), but rather an interconnected/parallel process – when you begin to believe, you have already begun to repent and you have begun to be saved.
Well, I don’t know what all of you’re experiences are in Evangelical churches, but my experiences have shown that years of telling people that the Gospel is all about them has produced the expected results. We have produced narcissists who treat God like a cosmic Santa Claus, and act like Jesus is something they add to their life.
Only by situating the Gospel in its proper narrative context – the story of what God has , is doing, and will do – will we start to remedy the situation. So our salvation is more a matter of us joining with what God is doing than Him doing something personally and privately for us.
Wright has made very clear and definitive statements against universalism. I do not necessarily agree with his description of Hell – but it is false to say he is unclear about it.
On the one hand the Gospel is simple.
On the other, because we are talking about God, it’s depths never exhausted.
I, personally, enjoy parsing the nuances of God even if it goes beyond the comprehension of a 16 year old or the simple faith of Zacheus.
As you and I both have… but why must you complain if others of us wish to discuss the physics involved?
Exactly. If it were a matter of pure simplicity, than I don’t think Paul would have written nearly as much as he did. Obviously, there was some room for misunderstanding, and there were people who had gotten things wrong even within less than 40 years from Christ’s resurrection.
So why should we be surprised that we haven’t gotten some things wrong as well living 2000 years from that event in a country on the other side of the globe?
#32
nope…not your repentance. Your repentance will only be a work, and thus, imperfect.
God must grant you repentance. Salvation, in all of its parts, is a gift of God. He grants us repentance, faith, grace, etc. So that we can be justified, reconciled, regenerated, sanctified, and glorified.
This is because he foreknew, chose, and predestined us…to be made into the image of His Son.
*Rob Bell was not mentioned in this comment.
#32
Repentance, therefore, is a result of a regenerative process begun by God in you, effectively drawing you to Himself. Justification, therefore, is another step in that process of God drawing you, as you become able to repent, you are able to receive the justification of God.
*Rob Bell was not mentioned in this comment.
#47 – You must not get salvation by personal faith in Christ alone wrong or everything else is worthless. On that Paul is abundantly clear.
I must agree with Wright when he mentions, as have I, that justification by faith is sacrce in the gospels, and in fact, there are many sections that seem project works salvation.
Brendt,
No, I don’t think it is too big for us to handle. I think Wright does an excellent job of explaining it to his readers. The next quote that I put up from his book will show just that.
I think we have the minds to work it out and understand it (with however much fear and trembling is required of us). The problem, as with so many things, is that we do not want to abandon whatever power structures we have erected with the gospel to insulate ourselves from God’s ever present and helping Spirit.
This is the problem I have had. I thought I had God all figured out one day. Then I woke up. Then I read a book by Eugene Peterson. Then one by David Wells. Then one by God. Then I knew I had it all figured out.
Then I woke up. Then I started blogging.
We are not too small minded to grasp at it. Rather, God keeps pouring into us more and more and more through his Spirit and His Word.
It’s terrifically beautiful. Wake up o Sleeper said someone. I wake up each day to new mercies and I can’t get enough.