Understanding Islam

http://tgcreviews.com/reviews/allah-a-christian-response/

Allah: A Christian Response

by Miroslav Volf
March 27, 2011 Review by Joel S

Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (HarperOne, 2011), 336 pp., $25.99.

“Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Does the answer to that question have significant implications for how Christians and Muslims engage each other in the world today?”

It was in answer to those two questions that Miroslav Volf wrote Allah: A Christian Response. It was not written to answer whether or not Muslims are saved; that is, his goal is to discuss a political theology, not soteriology. My review will focus on two areas: (1) stimulating practical points and (2) points of theological and biblical concern.

Stimulating Points

Volf writes as one who has seen the bitter hostilities between Muslims and Christians and wishes to see those hostilities cease. Accordingly, he makes several points that provide excellent stimulation for Christians who are considering how to think about and engage with adherents of Islam.

First, Volf helpfully summarizes key similarities and differences between normative Islam and normative Christianity. This is not to say that the conclusions he draws from them are necessarily correct, but he highlights...

six areas of formal similarity between the two faiths:

1. “There is only one God, the one and only divine being.”

2. “God created everything that is not God.”

3. “God is radically different from everything that is not God.”

4. “God is good.”

5. “God commands that we love God with our whole being.”

6. “God commands that we love our neighbors as ourselves.” (110)

Citing both Christian and Muslim sources, he makes a clear case for each of these elements within both religions. He goes on to cite...


four more areas of agreement:

1. God loves. (158)

2. God is just. (158)

3. God’s love encompasses God’s justice. (158)

4. Human beings should love their neighbors as themselves. (159)


In all 10 areas, Volf acknowledges differences. In particular, on the issue of love, he highlights some significant ones:

1. Christians affirm that God is love. (182)

2. “Most Christians say that God’s eternal love includes love of the other, the divine other

within the triune godhead and, derivatively, a creaturely other.” (182)

3. Christians affirm that God loves “the ungodly,” and that this love cannot be earned (182).

4. Christians must love even their enemies. (183)

Volf’s patient engagement on these issues shows that while he openly desires to focus on the similarities for the sake of the common good, he still recognizes significant differences. Christians ought to listen to how he works through the similarities and differences on these points. I am not yet evaluating the conclusion that he draws from all of this—that Muslims and Christians refer to the same God when they speak of God. Rather, I simply note that his look at each of these areas is helpful, as he does truly attempt to lay out what Muslims and Christians believe on these crucial issues.

Second, Volf presents a careful model of engagement with both Muslim and Christian theology on one of the most contentious issues between the two communities. He puts a great deal of effort into clarifying exactly what the Qur’an affirms about God’s unity and what it denies about the Trinity.

A list of five [Islamic] objections to the doctrine of the Trinity in the Qur’an:

1. God cannot beget a Son. (133)

2. God cannot have an associate. (134)

3. God is not one of three divine beings. (134)

4. God cannot be Christ, because then the sovereign Creator would be contained in a creature. (134)

5. “Christians worship persons they associate with God in denigration of the one true God” (134).

He explains how each of these denials refers to a misunderstanding of the Trinity, basing his views on classic orthodox formulations of the doctrine (136).

Additionally, Volf explains several elements that indicate that Qur’anic teaching on the unity of God does not deny orthodox Trinitarianism.

• First, he argues that Christians do not divide God’s one essence in the doctrine of the Trinity (136-139), demonstrating this biblical and theologically.

• Secondly, he argues that the terms we use to describe God, including the numbers one and three, cannot fully express the reality about God (139-142).

Volf clearly wants to accurately understand Islam, and he also wants Muslims to accurately understand what Christians believe about the Trinity. Such engagement, contrasted with the prejudice he later criticizes, models how Christians ought to approach Islamic views.

Third, Volf articulates clearly what many Christians (and Muslims) have sadly missed in the history of Christian-Muslim relations: We must apply the Golden Rule to mission. He applies it in several ways. First, we must witness only if we allow others to witness to us (211). Second, we should witness how we wish others would witness to us, that is, without coercion, bribery, seduction, or unfairly comparing the worst of one religion with the best of another (211-212). While the first rule has generally been violated more by Muslims than Christians, the second has been the domain of both parties. Volf strongly urges Christians that if they are to love their neighbors, they must do it in how they witness.

Fourth, Volf provides much food for thought in how we lose our prejudices and exercise our rights concerning issues of blasphemy. He suggests that when we apply love of neighbor to trying to understand those of another religion, we will actively try to compare our self-perception with how others might perceive us. This “double vision,” Volf says, “is a way of coming to know the other truthfully, an application of the command to love the neighbor to how we seek knowledge of the neighbor” (205). Much prejudice, misunderstanding, and conflict can be avoided by following this simple process.

Arising from this concern to see through another’s eyes, we can come to see that having the right to speak in a certain way of another religion does not mean that such a way is a responsible exercise of the right (250). He applies this to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that sparked riots and uproar among Muslims globally, arguing that while many Muslims responded inappropriately, Christians must consider both the safety of others (250) and civility (251) in how they approach things that they have the right to say. His reminder to express ideas with respect—even on questions of significant difference—is timely in a volatile atmosphere such as we have today.

Points of Concern

Notwithstanding those positive aspects of the book, there are some areas that are at a minimum, a cause for concern, and at a maximum, a cause for serious disagreement.

First, Volf’s entire argument for the God of Muslims and the God of Christians being the same depends on his understanding of “sufficient similarity.” He argues repeatedly that identical sameness is not needed, since even Christians—Calvinists and Arminians, for example—disagree about some aspects of the nature of God (90), though he admits that Muslim and Christian descriptions of God should not be “radically different” (90-91). Accordingly, as noted above, he patiently examines several major areas of agreement and notes a few areas of difference.

What is concerning in this approach though is that crucial word, sufficient. On what basis can sufficient similarity be determined? As Christians, we ought to go to Scripture in order to receive guidance on how to approach establish criteria for the sufficiency of our similarities. Instead of doing this, Volf quickly (pages 97-102) notes four areas of similarity (which are helpful, as noted above), and then claims to have presented a “tight and persuasive” argument that Christians and Muslims refer to the same God (102).

But in order to determine whether there is sufficient similarity, it seems that it would be helpful to develop a set of criteria that would, if not show clearly, at least indicate where one crosses from an inadequate understanding of God to a different God altogether. In other words, what constitutes a “radical difference”? Volf later admits, “If we have misidentified God—say by subscribing to a seriously erroneous description of God—we are talking about the wrong God (which for all monotheists means that we are not talking about God at all)” (113). So, again, I ask, how does one determine a “seriously erroneous description”?

One might rightly object that since we do not have any list for determining sufficient similarity, Volf has done the only thing that can be done: comparing major descriptions about God to see if they are similar or not. And certainly, Volf makes a clear case for (1) that on the issues he mentions, Christians and Muslims hold similar beliefs, and (2) that the issues he mentions are necessary similarities for claiming that both refer to the same God. Necessary does not equal sufficient, and the following considerations should at least make us pause to consider whether or Volf has proven the former but not the latter.

While he acknowledges the essential Christian teaching of Jesus as the self-revelation of God (147), he does not interact at length with any biblical texts that discuss Jesus’ necessity. One of the only texts that he does mention is John 14:7-9, which says:

“If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

These verses follow on the heels of John 14:6, which famously proclaims that Jesus is the only way to the Father. About them Volf says,

"Certainly, John’s Gospel affirms that Jesus is the self-revelation of God. If you know Jesus as the incarnate Word, you know God, and you know God truly (though not exhaustively!). And yet, according to that same Gospel, if you reject Jesus, you can still be worshiping the God whom Jesus truthfully revealed. (92)"

The connection between Volf’s last statement and the text in question is not apparent. Particularly given the connection to verse six, it seems more natural to take the text as saying that from then on, because they knew who Jesus was, they would know the Father—not that after they rejected Jesus, they would still know the Father. These verses, on the surface at least, seem to suggest the opposite of what Volf proposes.

More importantly, there is one other thing to note about his use of Scripture. Volf refers to precious few other Scripture passages to determine sufficient similarity. While this does not mean that he is mistaken, as there may very well be no passages that illustrate the error of his view, I find it curious that a book written to convince Christians does not include more biblical interaction. Indeed, one can’t help but wonder about passages such as 1 John 4:2-3 and 5:20:

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already."

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

I am quite sure that Volf would have a response to these, but nevertheless, given the clarity with which Scripture teaches on the nature of the true God (and the incarnation), and 1 John’s descriptions of those who deny these things (“liar” in chapter 2 and “antichrist” in chapter four), it seems reasonable to expect that Volf should have dealt with the Scriptures in a more coherent fashion on this topic.

Second, even if we grant that Muslims and Christians have the same God as their referent, further questions remain about actual worship of that divine Being. Can we legitimately claim that they both worship, love, and give their allegiance to that same God? Can we say that right actions (love of neighbor, for example) can please God if they exist without right beliefs? [sic, re Jesus, pointedly – sh]

Volf answers these questions in the affirmative; indeed, he bases his vision for joint Muslim-Christian effort for the common good on an affirmative response to these questions. In his own words, “From a Christian standpoint, might it be that some Muslims (and some Christians!) who have a deficient view of God’s nature and God’s commandments nonetheless worship the one true God by means of their godly lives? I think so” (119-120).

To clarify, Volf is not arguing that Muslims therefore have salvific standing before God, but rather that they do “everyday acts that honor God” (120). Citing the often-noble example of Saladin during the crusades, he concludes, “To the extent that people love their neighbors, they worship the one true God, even if their understanding of God is inadequate and their worship is seriously lacking in other regards” (122).

Indeed, he goes on to suggest that fear of the one and common God—the God who loves and commands love of neighbor—would make a difference. Fear of that God will nudge Muslims and Christians to emulate God and therefore to pursue the common good, for, by definition, the common God to whom they are accountable is the God of both as well as the one Lord of their common world. (247)

In other words, Volf suggests (without stating it in quite this way):

1. that Muslims can love, honor, and fear God apart from Christ;

2. that this love, fear, and honor can form a common basis on which they can work with Christians for the common good.

Summary

Biblically and theologically, those statements are concerting, despite their obvious practical pull. The following considerations illustrate my concerns:

First, this is not simply a question of inadequate propositions, but broken relationship. Scripture teaches that sin has broken the relationship between God and man such that man can do nothing to please God. Isaiah 64:6 shows that even the best deeds done by man outside of a state of salvation are as filthy rags before God. This renders suspect Volf’s insistence that one can honor God or please God with inadequate beliefs.

Further, given that this book is written to persuade Christians, one wonders how at this point Volf can think that the message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19) is not a central means of loving neighbor for Christians. That is, if we take Scripture’s words about the broken relationship between God and man seriously, it seems patently unloving to encourage Muslims who deny Jesus’ true identity to see their deeds as pleasing to God apart from Christ.

Second, while Muslims and Christians may very well agree that God commands that people love him, Christians cannot be faithful to the Scriptures and to Christ if they accept that Muslims, apart from Christ, do indeed love God. John 5:37-42 shows that those who reject Jesus as Savior do not love God:

"And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, this form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you."

His words are clear: if one does not accept Jesus for who he actually is, he does not have the love of God in him. Put differently, no amount of right action—of which many first century Jews had plenty—can offset wrong belief about Jesus when it comes to love for God. The painful conclusion is that Muslims do not love God, and that to appeal to them on the basis of their love for God to work for the common good is to deceive them about their true status before God.

Third, Volf’s claim that one can be a practicing Muslim and 100 percent Christian lightly dances around a crucial issue separating the two communities: the person of Muhammad. As the front cover and publisher’s blurb note, Volf believes, “A person can be both a practicing Muslim and 100 percent Christian without denying core convictions of belief and practice.” Volf cites two examples of this, an Episcopal priest who claimed to also have become a Muslim (195) and a Muslim-background believer who claimed his new faith in Jesus was compatible with valid interpretations of Islam (196).

This is not the place to fully enter into the debate over C-5 contextualization and other related issues. Nevertheless, in all of Volf’s discussion over this “hybrid religiosity” (200), he only once mentions in passing the question of the person of Muhammad (with relevance to this particular issue). He argues that if people are baptized, confess that Jesus is Lord, and receive the divine gift of new life through Christ, “and believe that Muhammad was a prophet (not ‘the Seal of the Prophets,’ but a prophet in the way in which we might designate Martin Luther King Jr. ‘a prophet’),” then they “would still be 100 percent Christian” (199).

[Though an Islamic prophet of God, Muhammad never declared salvation through Jesus, simply that Jesus was a prophet like himself. This view then would consider Jesus not Incarnate Savior but simply an empowered human prophet or would unnecessarily lift Muhammad up to that of a God-like status. Both views would be untendable biblically. Today, to the non-Islamic outsider's view, Muhammad is little better than a cultural Islamic icon for nationalism; further, he is not a Christian icon for Jesus like the NT apostles were. – sh]

The problem is that the shahada, the Islamic confession, does not mean that Muhammad was simply a prophetic voice like Martin Luther King, and the rest of the Qur’an does not allow for such an interpretation. Christians can certainly approach Muhammad respectfully. But ultimately, the question of his prophethood is far more central than Volf makes it seem to be. Any proposed union between two faiths that so lightly jumps over such an integral question makes the conclusion, at least in my mind, ring hollow.

Fourth, Volf’s claim that having a common God is necessary to avoiding conflict seems unproven. Given that this is a book for Christians, the simple command to love God and neighbor ought to be enough for Christians to approach Muslims with love. Certainly, Christians will fail, but Christians do not need for Muslims to look to or worship the same God for Christians to treat them as they would wish to be treated. If indeed unconditional love is a hallmark of Christian teaching, then whether one is Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Baha’i, or atheist, Christians ought to follow Volf’s helpful material on how to view life from the perspective of others, participate in dialogue, and love their neighbors as themselves.

Joel S is a student at Reformed Theological Seminary and is under care in the Presbyterian Church of America. His ministry focus is the Arabic-speaking world, and he writes at http://joelws.com.

A Christian View of Submission

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog

Humility, Not Hierarchy: How Submission Works for Us

by Rachel Held Evan
April 13, 2011

People are often surprised to find out that I submit to my husband…or at least I try to.

They are surprised because, as a self-described “liberated woman” who champions women in church leadership and an egalitarian interpretation of Scripture, I don’t fit the perceived mold for the submissive wife. The word “submission” has become synonymous with “subordination” and so it is assumed that only conservative complementarian wives submit to their husbands.

It’s too bad because I’m pretty sure that submission—a willingness to yield to another person’s ideas and desires—is almost as important to a relationship as a shared sense of humor.

I know it is for us.

What has emerged in our eight years of marriage, (perhaps accidentally), is a pattern of submission that is a) mutual and b) characterized by humility rather than hierarchy. It’s not a perfect marriage…I still forget to put new toilet paper on the roll…but it’s a happy and healthy one.

I can’t tell you what will work in your marriage, but I can tell you what has worked in ours.

The problem with hierarchy

The contrast between hierarchy and humility has become more clear to me this year as I’ve been altering some of my behavior for my year of biblical womanhood. As I’ve tried to apply passages like Ephesians 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:6 hyper-literally (even going so far as to call Dan “master” for a week!), we’ve both noticed how awkward it is to try and institute hierarchal gender roles into our daily routine when, really, we’ve never found such roles to be practical. For us, it’s just always worked better to let the person most suited for a specific task or venture take the lead.

A lot of Christians appeal to Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Peter 3, (the “wives submit to your husbands” passages) to suggest that every husband is the God-ordained head of his household and that every wife is to be submissive to his leadership. But relying on the letters of Peter and Paul is problematic because in nearly every case, the admonition for wives to submit to their husbands is either preceded or followed by the admonition for slaves to obey their masters. In fact, phrases like “likewise” or “in the same way” are used to link the two. So to say that the hierarchal structures presented in these passages are divinely instituted and inherently holy, raises some troubling questions about God’s view of slavery.

What if it isn’t the structure that is sacred, but the attitude? What if submission can both inhabit and transcend culturally constructed hierarchal categories?

After all, didn’t Paul instruct Christians to submit to one another?

I don’t submit to Dan because he is a man and I am a woman. I submit to him because I love him, because I deeply respect him, and because I made a promise to put his needs before my own. I would hope that he would find that more meaningful than if I submitted to him simply because it was my “place.”

That said, I know plenty of couples who find that identifying an official leader of the family helps them make decisions faster, stay on the same page better, and move through life with more harmony and peace. If such an arrangement works better for you, GO FOR IT! This post is not an indictment against hierarchal marriages. I am convinced that God can work in both complementarian and egalitarian relationships and that both have the potential to be happy, healthy, and Christ-honoring.

Hierarchy may work for some people. I just don’t think it is biblically mandated.

The challenge of humility

I suspect that both egalitarians and complementarians would agree that an attitude of humility is necessary for true, heartfelt submission. We are to imitate Christ, who “although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant…” (Philippians 2).

The essence of submission, then, is not the absence of power but the voluntary relinquishing of it.

It’s not about sticking to a prescribed hierarchy; it’s about walking in humility.

Dan and I are equals. But for our marriage to thrive, we both have to relinquish our power now and then. Sometimes I submit to Dan, sometimes he submits to me. Sometimes submission is easy, sometimes it’s hard.

But I can only be responsible for my actions. It’s not my job to try and force “mutual submission;” it’s my job to humbly submit.…which may mean watching “Mad Max” instead of “Persepolis” on Netflix Instant Play (not that I’m holding any grudges about that one).

A note on “spiritual leadership”

Back in college, my friends and I were constantly fretting over how to find a guy who exhibited enough “spiritual leadership” to qualify as a potential husband. I remember flipping through the college directory—affectionately dubbed the “ugly book”—and rating the guys based not on looks, but on spiritual aptitude.

Once, when we were dating, I even questioned whether Dan was a good enough “spiritual leader” for me because he knew less about theology than I did. I figured I should either dumb myself down a bit or find a guy who like reading C.S. Lewis.

It sounds silly now, but in talking with campus ministers, I’ve found that this whole “spiritual leader” thing is alive and well on Christian college campuses today. Perhaps because “submission” has been understood in terms of hierarchy, young women assume they must marry men who are more assertive, driven, and knowledgeable than they.

I wish I could send out mass email to college girls everywhere reminding them that if Christ is our example of leadership, then what they should be looking for are men who are servants. It matters not whether a guy likes to take charge or work behind the scenes or whether his prayer time lasts longer than yours. What matters is that he is willing to put other people’s needs before his own.

What matters is that he too is willing to submit.

I'm so glad I found that kind of guy.

***

What comes to your mind when you hear the word “submission”? How does submission work in your relationships?

McKnight - A Critique of Love Wins 6

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/13/exploring-love-wins-6/

Exploring Love Wins 6

by Scot McKnight
April 13, 2011
Filed under: Universalism

Today’s topic, from Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, is the one of the big ones — is Rob a univeralist? — and our post begins with a prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:

O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:

Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,

which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,

without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.

Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,

now and for ever. Amen.†

Rob Bell is not a universalist, and he can’t be if he is as committed to freedom as he says. Now to explain…

What “category” do you think Rob fits into when it comes to his view of how [one] gets in and how many [will] get into The Age to Come? Do you think there’s biblical grounds for “second chances”? What texts would you use in this discussion? Do you think it is right and good to hope for the salvation of all?

I will say this again: what Rob is asking in this question one of the most important questions being asked today. Will God’s grace and love eventually compel all to turn to him or not?

The chapter is titled and it begins with this question: Does God get what God wants? Of course, this all depends on what “wants” means, and Rob narrows God’s “wants” to his desire, found in 1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

Others might define God’s “wants” in ways that permit other factors, but this is Rob’s book and this is what he focuses on. He asks some almost facetious questions – like “How great is God?” – meaning is God great if he doesn’t get what he wants and what he wants is the salvation of all. By Rob’s own logic, though, and this needs to be listened to, as this chp unfolds God doesn’t necessarily get what he “wants”. [this is a theological paradox posed by Rob that cannot be answered – sh].

Bell opens up the universalism question here, which means that all humans — every last one of them in the past, present and future — will in the end be saved. He quotes passages in the Bible that have both “gospel going to all people” and reconciliation of all themes. The verses can’t be denied. Colossians 1 can’t be ignored: “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” But that’s not the end for Rob Bell in this chp.

Yes, he has some “Is history tragic?” questions and some “Will God shrug God-size shoulders?” And then discusses various options beside the universalism option.

1. We have one life and one life only to decide, and then eternity is settled. It’s rooted in freedom and God won’t override human freedom. That’s standard exclusivism.

2. Another view can be called diminishment to the point of dissolution.

3. Others believe after death people will get a second chance, and he misuses Luther here but that’s been pointed out by others already. Some, not many, do believe in second chances. (The Roman Catholic view of purgatory, though, is not about second chances.)

4. He offers yet another option: endless opportunities to choose. Endless second chances. And given enough time, everyone will choose. This is a kind of compatibilist universalism with God’s grace being just too good to resist eternally.

Bell then trots out some theologians who have been more or less universalist, including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Eusebius, … and observes that others (like classic Reformed theologians of the 19th and 20th Century) think many if not most will be saved, like Jerome and Basil, and Augustine said at his time many thought this way. [I've not seen this in Augustine but would appreciate a reference if someone knows it.]

This leads Bell to three observations:

1. There is diversity in the church on this one. He’s right, but I’d appreciate it if he’d say very few have been universalist and many of them got into hot, hot water for it. It’s not as simple as variety. Exclusivism has ruled, with other options but they are minority with various degrees of trouble for proponents.

2. A theoretical point, one not often seen as theoretical by Bell’s readers, is his view that the story of some going to hell forever is not as a good a story as everyone going to heaven.

3. Whatever view you have, it is “fitting, proper and Christian to long for” the better story. [I recently talked with a significant Christian evangelical leader in the USA who said this to me: "If you don't long for that, you need to spend more time with God." And he was most decidedly not a universalist.]

This leads him to Revelation, and it is here that I will engage him a bit:

First, “But the letter does not end with blood and violence” (112). Well, I’m unconvinced because Revelation 20 is part of the end of this book and it is “violence” if you consider being thrown into the Lake of Fire violence. So there are two ends in Revelation: the Lake of Fire end and the New Heavens/New Earth end. But it is true that the final ending in Revelation is the New Heavens and New Earth.

Second, the new creation of Revelation 21 eliminates murder, destruction and deceit. He goes back to his freedom theme here, and I can’t tell if he’s ignoring the elimination of those who reject God in Rev 20 or leaving open the option for those in the new creation to choose against God. It appears to me he’s assuming the validity of the endless second chance theory. (Without arguing for it.) But he asks here how someone could not leave the old ways … and suggests some will/can choose that option.

Third, this is where I believe Bell overtly denies universalism: “So will those who have said no to God’s love in this life continue to say no in the next?” [Again, he seems to avoid what happened in Rev 20.] He goes on: “Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that [to say no to God] possibility. People take that option now, and we can assume it will be taken in the future.” This is non universalist. Universalist is an option for Bell, but it’s up to humans. And since they have freedom, one can’t know for sure.

Fourth, the gates of the new heavens and new earth — the new Jerusalem — are open. He sees choice in these open gates, but I disagree: the gates were for protection, and open gates means there is no need for protection. Why? Because the New Heavens and New Earth are Shalom, everywhere, forever. Again, leaving the gates open is caused by Rev 20, the elimination of those who reject God and do evil. But Rob wonders if people can be banished — he doesn’t say where but perhaps he means in the Lake of Fire (it’s not clear) — and at the same time there can be gates open for them to return. He goes on…

Fifth, and here we have another non universalist position: Rob Bell says we can’t know. “Will everybody be saved…? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for freedom that love requires” (115). Love wins. This is definitely not universalism. Bell is open to it, he hopes for it, but it’s up to humans to decide. If you can’t know, you can’t be universalist because universalism knows.

Sixth, and I like this one: the new heavens and the new earth are full of endless possibilities and potentialities for God. It will be new and keep on being new.

Finally… he answers does God get what God wants? This is the universalism question. His answer: the question is not Does God get what God wants but “Do we get what we want?” The answer to that is “a resounding, affirming, sure and positive yes” (116). We get what we want.

This is not universalism. It is pure emphasis on libertarian free will. In the heart of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Justification - An Overview Part 2

In the past decade or two I have come across very sincere Christians wishing to "improve" or further "enlighten" their faith by reverting back to Judaism or Judaistic cultural practices and customs. From one perspective I can applaud their sensitivity to the NT's forefounders found in Deuteronomic Jewish practice, but from another perspective - from that of the Apostle Paul of the NT (who tends to mis-apporpriated, denied, detracted from and generally disregarded by our sincere brethren) - we find time and again his statements of faith and faith alone. Without observation or practice of past/present Jewish customs and culture. Without renewed observance of Deuteronomic laws in kosher foods, calendar dates, dress or worship styles.

How many times did Paul have to reprove/rebuke Peter that to truly follow Christ was through faith and faith alone apart from any renewed religious practices or Old Covenantal zeal? That Peter was unnecessarily adding "laws" to the Christian faith that were not necessary under the New Covenant. That the New Covenant abandoned all Jewish practices and did not renew them in Christ. For remember, Paul was a former rabbi (or, rabbi-of-the-rabbis by his own declarations) and zealot for the Jewish faith (sic, he persecuted Christians and had Stephen stoned) in his pre-Christ days.

Thus, as born-again Christians, it is not necessary to become Jewish Christians proselytizing other Gentile Christians from their Gentile faith in Christ to a "higher plane" of Judaistic Christianity, which then makes two bodies out of the one body of Christ. It is not necessary to "Judaize" the brotherhood with zeal and fervor to all things Jewish, highlighting Jesus as our new Rabbi while excluding Paul from any New Covenant statement and admonishing Jewish practices over our dead, heathen cultural practices.

But it is necessary for all of us, whether Jew or Gentile, to become "Messianic Christians" who reverantly understand the OT Jewish customs given of God to his remnant community under the Old Covenant, will respecting Christ's removal of the Old Covenant constrictions upon non-Jewish people (and Jewish I might add) in justifying all men through faith. Whose obedience is then seen not by renewed Jewish practice but by extending New Covenant import and principles throughout the body and humanity of mankind from age to age. To converted Buddhistic Chritians to converted Islamic Christians to converted American Christians. That we are to find in Christ one table, one presence, one body, one feast, one dress and calendar, one food in the new bread and wine who is our Lord.

So then, as I understand NT Wright and others, he is addressing Paul's "justification by faith understanding" in the "one new man" sense of Christ (sic, Ephesians) eschatologically (trans-culturally, trans-nationally, trans-temporally) and ecclesiologically ("one body in Christ") as versus the correct, but older understanding of Paul's law v. grace statements in Romans and elsewhere (soteriological) personal-justification statements.

To this statements here, I'll make further admendation/elucidation down below as necessary.

Peace.

skinhead
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html

What Did Paul Really Mean?

'New perspective' scholars argue that we need, well, a new perspective on justification by faith.

Simon Gathercole

posted 8/10/2007

Pick up any recent Bible commentary or theology textbook, and you will read about something called the "new perspective on Paul." Seminaries have buzzed for decades about how they might apply to Paul the new light shed on Judaism. Some advocates of the new perspective conclude that the Reformers have led Protestants to misunderstand the all-important doctrine of justification.

As a result, the new perspective has stirred more than a little controversy. Ligon Duncan, former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), said new perspective theology "undercuts the certainty of believers regarding the substance of the gospel message." In June, the PCA General Assembly said advocates of the new perspective should report themselves to presbytery courts, because their teaching does not accord with the Westminster Standards.

Leading new perspective theologian N. T. Wright has repeatedly responded to his critics. Talking in 2004 with James D. G. Dunn, who named the new perspective, Wright faulted his critics for producing websites that "are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith."

So is this merely a squabble among Reformed theologians? Certainly not—some new perspective scholars also teach that Martin Luther's preoccupation with the Roman Catholic Church has led all Protestants astray. Do we now need to reframe our preaching and teaching to be truly biblical? British scholar Simon Gathercole takes on that question in this article.—CT Editors

***

For nearly 30 years, a number of theologians have argued for a "new perspective" on the apostle Paul and his doctrine of justification. Advocates of this approach believe that many cherished concerns of the Protestant Reformation were either wrong or ill-directed. Those concerns include justification, which Martin Luther described as nothing less than the "key article of Christian doctrine." Yet some evangelicals have found in the writing of new perspective theologians—particularly James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright—a key to unlocking Paul's original intent. So what's all the fuss about?

What's So New About Paul?

One point that needs to be clear at the outset is that the new perspective on Paul is not really what it might sound like. For one thing, no secret society meets to promote this new school of thought. Advocates do not even offer a united front: Scholars generally associated with the new perspective argue with each other just as much as traditionalists do. The new perspective is, rather, a convenient umbrella for a current trend in Pauline scholarship with quite a limited agenda.

This leads to a second point. The new perspective does not propose to reevaluate all of Paul's thought. It says nothing new, for example, about the person of Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Christian life. It is focused narrowly on what Paul says about justification, and even more specifically on what Paul opposes when he talks about justification by faith. In particular, the new perspective investigates the problem Paul has with "works" or "works of the law."

The difference between old and new perspectives can be summed up briefly. In the old perspective, works of the law are human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God. In the new perspective, works of the law are elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations.

Two vital ingredients go into the new perspective. The first is actually more a new perspective on Judaism than on Paul. It reacts against the traditional idea that Jews in Paul's day believed they could accumulate merit before God by their deeds. In place of seeing Paul's contemporaries as legalistic, the new perspective says the concern in early Judaism was to maintain the identity of the Jewish nation, especially through observing the Sabbath, circumcising their newborns, and eating kosher. These boundary markers or badges of identity for the Jewish nation distinguished them as belonging to God's covenant people.

[So then, Paul is saying that there is one new man in Christ and that being Jewish is no longer necessary in a kingdom eschatological and ecclesiological sense as versus a (soteriological) justification sense of no longer performing distinctively cultural Jewish practices. And thus, we’ve misunderstood and misapplied the Law v. Grace debates of Romans. – sh]

Second, this understanding of first-century Judaism is then applied to Paul. According to the new perspective, Paul is only focusing on these aspects of Jewish life (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws, [and calendar observations]) when he mentions "works of the law." His problem isn't legalistic self-righteousness in general. Rather, for Jews these works of the law highlighted God's election of the Jewish nation, excluding Gentiles. Called by God to reach the Gentiles, Paul recognizes that Jews wrongly restricted God's covenant to themselves.

Paul extends these insights to church relations. Just as Jews wrongly restricted God's covenant, so also Jewish Christians wrongly insisted that Gentile Christians needed to observe the law to be full-fledged disciples. This led to the challenge that Paul issued to Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). How could Peter withdraw from table fellowship with the Gentiles there? Surely such an action was inconsistent with the truth of the gospel.

These two points are the product of a flurry of literature in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The new perspective on Judaism was argued for largely by E. P. Sanders in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). Sanders was particularly concerned about anti-Jewish tendencies in the old perspective and its portrayal of Judaism as inferior to Christianity. Sanders's aim was to present a cleaned-up picture of early Judaism, untainted by Christian prejudice. He argued that both pre-Christian Judaism and its successor, rabbinic Judaism, had just as strong an emphasis on grace as Pauline Christianity did. Election was central to Judaism, as was God's redemption of his people from Egypt. Observing the law merely kept Jews in the covenant established by God.

Scholars received Sanders's work as a major contribution to Jewish studies. But it fell rather flat when applied to Pauline scholarship. So N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn, along with Sanders, attempted to integrate this new view of Judaism more successfully with a new view of Paul. They focused on "exclusivism," the sense of national righteousness maintained by practices such as Sabbath-observance, circumcision, and keeping kosher. Paul, the new perspective argued, dedicated himself to warning against exclusivist national righteousness. God was bringing people from all nations to believe in the Messiah.

Happy Beginning, Sad Ending

Almost all scholars, new and old, agree that Paul answers the problem of "works of the law" with "faith." But if the new perspective has shifted how we understand works of the law, then the meaning of faith—or at least the emphasis of it—needs to shift as well. In the old perspective, faith means trust in God's mercy alone, not in human acts of righteousness. In the new perspective, faith is a badge, or identity marker, which can be shared by all, Jew and Gentile.

The new perspective does not necessarily deny the traditional meaning of faith, but rather finds its focus elsewhere. Faith remains central to Paul's doctrine of justification, because it means that Gentiles do not need to become Israelites when they become Christians. According to the new perspective, Paul accentuates this point in the early chapters of his letter to the Romans.

Galatians makes the same point in a different setting. Here, Paul finds the problem inside the church. Galatians 2 breaks the rules of good storytelling with a happy beginning and a sad ending. Initially, Peter and Paul agree at their meeting in Jerusalem about law-observance not being necessary for Gentiles (Gal. 2:1-10). Later, in Antioch, Peter rebuilds the barrier between Jews and Greeks. Nervous about his reputation as a traditional Jew, he withdraws from table fellowship with the Gentiles (2:11-14). Paul considers this move a disaster. So he castigates Peter and reminds him how faith and faith alone—not works of the law—mark people out as belonging to God's covenant (2:15-16). Faith means that Jew and Gentile must eat together.

Following this pattern, justification by faith and not by works of the law focuses on God's acceptance not only of Jews but also of Gentiles. Some have argued that Paul makes this point most clearly in Romans 3:28-30: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law [literally, "apart from works of the law"]. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith." Advocates of the new perspective tend to read this passage as a statement about God welcoming Gentiles, who then need not observe Jewish practices, such as Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, and a kosher diet. This interpretation would then be confirmed by what follows: a focus again on the fact that God is not the God merely of a single nation, but of Jew and Gentile alike (verses 29-30).

The New Perspective Assessed

The new perspective cannot merely be written off as a disaster from start to finish, as some critics would have us believe. One of the most important benefits of the new perspective on Paul is that it accentuates the worldwide focus of God's dealings in Christ. Paul uses justification to highlight how all Christians, Jewish and Gentile, come to God on the same basis—that of faith.

The new perspective also elevates our historical awareness of Paul's situation. There are certainly important ways in which Paul's debate with his Jewish contemporaries anticipates later controversies—between Augustine and Pelagius, for instance, and to a lesser extent between Luther and his opponents. But we must not read Paul merely with our favorite debate from church history in mind. E. P. Sanders rightly detects in much of the traditional Protestant description of Judaism an anxiety about Roman Catholic works-righteousness crouching at the door. This leads us to Sanders's concern with portraying Judaism in a fair and unprejudiced light. This is also an important contribution: There can be no place in the church for cheap caricatures of Judaism. Sanders has encouraged scholars to look seriously at Jewish sources around the time of Paul to understand what they really say.

[Thus, we are show a sensitivity and correctness towards understanding OT Jewish culture wrapped around the OT covenant AND have the same attitude towards the NT Jewish apprehension of the NT covenant in Christ by renewing their cultural commitments from the OT. But realize that these practices were not necessary to be a Christian according to Paul. That Jewish practice can alienate and divide the one new man however much a Gentile Christian wishes to show appreciation of the bible’s Jewish heritage. That the new covenant says through Paul that Jewish customs may be abandoned because it is faith in Christ that binds all now – not human religious practices of any kind. – sh]


Nevertheless, other scholars have shown that Sanders himself presents a one-sided view in his reaction against the one-sided traditional view of Judaism. So the close examination of these sources is still an important area of scholarly research. We also need to be careful in how we talk about Judaism from the pulpit and in our conversations about Scripture. Christians must avoid cheap caricatures as well as a politically correct anxiety about saying that Jews need to hear the gospel.

Similarly, when pastors preach on the Gospels and Acts, they must distinguish between criticism delivered by Jesus and Paul against their contemporaries, on the one hand, and their high regard for the law of Moses on the other. Some Jews in the first century clearly did interpret the law in a way that imposed strictures foreign to the Torah. But we must not criticize the law itself, as if it were a body of petty rules and regulations. To do so would be to criticize God himself. His law is "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12).

Six Tendencies

On the other side, there are a few points at which the new perspective is, in my judgment, at fault.

1. We need to go back to E. P. Sanders and his insistence that Judaism in Paul's day did not think in terms of salvation as something earned or gained by obedience to the law. Now it is certainly the case that Protestant scholarship had previously exaggerated this fact, but it is not wrong either. Documents from around the time of Paul state that some Jews believed obedience to the law was rewarded on the final day with salvation: "The one who does righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord" (Psalms of Solomon, c. 50 B.C.). "Miracles, however, will appear at their own time to those who are saved by their works" (2 Baruch, c. A.D. 100). There are a number of examples like this. Paul's understanding of justification makes sense, then, as a criticism of law observance as the means to eternal life (see Rom. 3:20). Many of Paul's contemporaries seem to have believed that obedience was possible without a radical inbreaking of God.

For Paul on the other hand, salvation was impossible without the earth-shattering events of the Cross, Resurrection, and Pentecost. I mentioned previously that for Sanders, observance of the law was merely how people stayed in the covenant that God had already established. But obedience for Paul was no mere formality. It took mighty acts of God to make it possible.

2. Does Paul think primarily of circumcision, Sabbath observance, and food laws when he uses the phrase "works of the law"? My own view, and that of a number of other scholars, is that Paul focuses on observance of the law as a whole. Works of the law simply means doing the law—the law in its entirety. So the issue at stake with works of the law is not so much Jewish identity as the ability of Israelites as human beings to obey the entire law. We shall return to this point later.

3. Criticism of "individualistic" readings of Paul can throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some new perspective scholars want to guard against individualistic understandings of justification. Seeing faith to be transcultural, available to both Jew and Gentile, these scholars shift the emphasis from personal conversion toward the larger canvas of God's dealings in salvation history. But we cannot escape the dimensions of conversion and personal faith in Paul. These are vitally important: The church is not a lump of humanity, but an assembly of individuals. Faith according to Paul is exercised by individuals (e.g. Rom. 4:5; 12:3; Gal. 2:20), and is also a feature of churches (e.g. Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:4). Individual and corporate faith are not at odds with one another.

[Meaning, we personally show faith in Christ and participate in this faith with other believing assemblies of all colors, races and practices – from buddhaistically converted Gentiles to Islamically-converted Gentiles. In Christ we have become one new race, a remnant of God, elected to share his love to all men without cultural prejudice or nationalistic flare and zeal. And that we are no more, no less, Christians if Jewish or observing Jewish customs. We are not two bodies of Chris, but one. – sh]


4. A further tendency of the new perspective is to confuse the content of justification with its applications. It is true to say that justification by faith is about including Gentiles into the people of God. But it is essential to see that the core meaning of justification by faith is about how believers, despite their sin, can be reckoned as righteous before God. Then we can speak of the scope of justification, which is for all who believe, from every tongue, tribe, and nation. Unfortunately, in some hands, the emphasis on inclusion as a primary component of justification can have two further effects.

5. Seeing justification as primarily addressing how Gentiles can be incorporated into the people of God can lead to a downplaying of sin. This approach to justification can lose sight of Paul's vital concern for how sinners can be made righteous. One leading New Testament scholar has described his view of justification as God building an extra room in his house for Gentiles. But this view neglects the fact that Israelites as well as Gentiles are sinners and need to be justified [through Christ from sin's penalty and through the Spirit from sin's legacy and hold on our life - sh].

6. Since the emphasis in some discussions of justification is on inclusion, tolerance, and ecumenism, there can be a tendency to downplay the importance of doctrinal clarity. One recent commentary on Romans emphasizes mutual acceptance as the key to the book. It is revealing that the commentator then regards Romans 16:17-20 as a later interpolation, because the passage emphasizes teaching doctrine and staying away from heretics. Paul insists, however, that unity and doctrine are not mutually exclusive. True unity comes not at the expense of doctrine, but precisely around the central truths of the gospel.

Once again, it needs to be remembered that the new perspective does not put forward a single, united front. As a result, these criticisms will not all apply to one person at the same time. They are, however, tendencies to keep an eye out for when studying the new perspective.

Hard Hearts Need Justification

It's not enough, though, to interact with scholarship about Paul. We also need to understand what the Bible teaches about justification.

"God is the justifier!" (Rom. 8:33). The triune God, out of his great love, sent his Son to die as a substitute. On this basis, he justifies believers (Rom. 5:1-11). But what happens in the event of justification? The word itself has been interpreted in a number of different ways, so it's helpful to turn to biblical passages that define it. The apostle Paul derives his definition from the Old Testament—specifically, Genesis 15:6: "What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3, quoting Gen. 15:6).

In the Old Testament, "righteousness" is the status that an Israelite received when he or she fully observed the requirements of the law: "And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness" (Deut. 6:25). The tragedy of the covenant, however, is that despite God's glorious provision of redemption and of his Torah, the Israelites often behaved just like Gentiles. Stiff-necked and hard-hearted, they rebelled against God. They never attained the status of righteousness, which they would have possessed had they lived up to the ideal in Deuteronomy.

But this status of righteousness is precisely what is granted to those who have faith in Christ. Although these former idolaters traded in the glory of God and disobediently suppressed the truth, God now declares them righteous—declares them to have fulfilled everything in his presence that he has commanded. This "in his presence" (or "before the Lord our God" in Deut. 6:25) is important. Justification, in which righteousness is reckoned to us, is both a legal declaration of our status and a statement about our relationship with God. People who are sinners are declared by God to have done all that he has commanded.

This justification, made possible through the cross of Christ, means we don't need to be anxious before God. There is nothing that can come between the justified person and the everlasting blessing of life with God on the other side of Judgment Day. The phrase from Romans 8:33, "God is the justifier," is Paul's answer to the question of whether it is possible for anyone to bring a charge against God's elect. Of course not! Paul is almost certainly alluding here to Isaiah's great testimony about the Lord:

He who vindicates me is near.

Who then will bring charges against me?

Let us face each other!

Who is my accuser?

Let him confront me!

It is the Sovereign Lord who helps me.

Who is he that will condemn me?

They will all wear out like a garment;

the moths will eat them up

(Isa. 50:8-9).

Justification by Faith

Faith is another term that Paul helpfully defines. (Paul isn't always as difficult to understand as he is cracked up to be!) He returns to the Genesis narrative and Abraham's response to God's promise, offering this clear description of faith: "Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, 'So shall your offspring be.' Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why 'it was credited to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:18-22).

We can see from this passage three particularly important aspects of faith (or believing—they are forms of the same word in Greek).

1. Abraham recognized the futility of his own future without God and God's help. God promised that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the stars, yet humanly speaking this was impossible: Abraham "faced the fact that his body was as good as dead," and when he did trust God, it was "against all hope." So trusting God is not something we simply add on to our life. Christian faith requires a complete reorientation of our whole attitude.

2. But faith is not merely an attitude—it is also the response to God's specific promises. In Abraham's case, his faith answers the divine word, "So shall your offspring be." Faith is not content-less humility that places our hope in a higher power. No, in faith we answer the divine word and its specific verbal content. God speaks, and we believe in him in response to his word. God made particular promises to Abraham, and in Romans 4, Paul goes on to say that God promises justification to those who trust in him as the one who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 4:23-25; see also Rom. 10:9).

3. Faith focuses not only on what God has said but also on his character. Abraham trusted that "God had power to do what he had promised." Biblical faith mirrors God, the object of that faith. In everyday life, we generally have different kinds of faith in different people, according to the nature of the relationship. We have a certain kind of faith in a spouse, another kind in a doctor, and a different sort in relation to a pastor or a friend. By telling us who God is, the Bible defines what kind of faith we must place in him: He is the God who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), who creates out of nothing (4:17), and who raised Jesus from the dead (4:24). Utterly all-powerful, he wields that power to bring righteousness where there was none, creation where there was none, and life where there was none. That's the God we believe in.

Not by Works of the Law

So what is wrong with works of the law? They are associated with the flesh, Paul answers. (The NASB helpfully preserves the old-fashioned sounding flesh, for a more literal translation of the key passages.) "Works of the law" means obedience to the law done outside of Christ, without the new-creating power of the Holy Spirit. In this condition, it is clearly impossible to observe the law, "because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20, NASB). Paul has seen this borne out in Israel's history. Even this nation "entrusted with the very oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), given a law that was "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12), could not please God.

The flesh is powerless to obey. "For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did" (Rom. 8:3, NASB). Trying to obey the law through the flesh is like trying to climb a sheer rock face with no foothold or handhold, without equipment. It can't be done.

In fact, the problem runs deeper than the flesh's weakness. The flesh even wars with God: "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so" (Rom. 8:7, NASB). Do revolutionaries follow the law? No—they seek to overthrow it. We sometimes present sin as people's failure in varying degrees to reach God's standards. But Romans 8:7 shows that we do not even start to please God. The problem with works of the law, according to Paul, is that stiff-necked human beings, left to their own devices, cannot get anywhere near pleasing God.

Paul makes it clear to the Romans that God reckons righteousness purely by grace. He stresses that God is the sole operator in salvation. There is no place for the program offered by the law, that "if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness" (Deut. 6:25). As we have seen, it is not that we have accomplished some successful law-observance that needs to be topped off by God to make a full quota. No, we have not left the starting blocks as far as righteousness is concerned. God acts so that it is obvious to all that he alone does the whole saving work. "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Rom. 11:6).

At its core, the doctrine of justification says that sinners can be miraculously reckoned righteous before God. This happens for all who believe and has nothing to do with observance of the law, which for sinners is impossible. With this foundation in place, we can move on to see how Paul uses the doctrine of justification by faith. The new perspective rightly observes that Paul uses justification to argue that Gentile Christians need not take on the yoke of the law (Galatians) and that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians should live together in harmony (Romans 14-15). While we must not neglect these demands, we should not allow the tail to wag the dog.

Simon Gathercole is senior lecturer in New Testament at the University of Aberdeen. He was recently appointed a lecturer at the University of Cambridge, starting in October.

Justification - Piper v. NT Wright

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html

The Justification Debate: A Primer
Two of the world's most prominent pastor-theologians on justification—and what difference it makes.

John Piper and N.T. Wright, compiled by Trevin Wax
posted 6/26/2009

Since Christianity Today's August 2007 cover story, "What Did Paul Really Mean?" Piper and Wright have taken the debate on justification from the academy to the masses. Here is where the two evangelicals differ.

(Download a PDF of this article from the link above).

John Piper: Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. Author of The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright.

N.T. Wright: Bishop of Durham, Church of England. Author of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.

The Problem

Piper: God created a good world that was subjected to futility because of the sinful, treasonous choice of the first human beings. Because of this offense against the glory of God, humans are alienated from their Creator and deserve his just condemnation for their sins.

Wright: God created a good world, designed to be looked after and brought to its intended purpose through his image-bearing human beings. This purpose was thwarted by the sinful choice of the first human beings. Because of human sinfulness, the world needs to be put to rights again and its original purpose taken forward to completion. God's purpose in putting humans "right" is that through them, the world can be put to rights.

The Law

Piper: God revealed himself through the Law, which pointed to Christ as its end and goal, commanded the obedience that comes from faith, increased transgressions, and shut the mouths of all humans because no one has performed the righteousness of the Law so as not to need a substitute.

Wright: God made a covenant with Abraham in order to set in motion his plan to rescue his world through Abraham's family. God gave his people the Torah, his holy Law, as a pedagogue—a way to keep Israel, God's wayward people, from going totally off track until the coming of the Messiah. Israel was supposed to embody the law and thus be a light to the nations. But Israel has failed at this task.

God's Righteousness

Piper: The essence of God's righteousness is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name in all he does. No single action, like covenant keeping, is God's righteousness. For all his acts are done in righteousness. The essence of human righteousness is the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God in all we do. The problem is that we all fall short of this glory; that is, no one is righteous.

Wright: God's righteousness refers to his own faithfulness to the covenant he made with Abraham. Israel has been unfaithful to this commission. What is now required, if the world's sin is to be dealt with and a worldwide family created for Abraham, is a faithful Israelite who can be faithful to the covenant in Israel's stead.

First-Century Judaism

Piper: Many Jews in Jesus' day (like the Pharisees described in the Gospels) did not see the need for a substitute in order to be right with God, but sought to establish their own righteousness through "works of the Law." Whether keeping Sabbath or not committing adultery, these works became the basis of one's right standing with God. The inclination to rely on one's own ceremonial and moral acts is universal, apart from divine grace.

Wright: Jews in Jesus' day believed that the Law was given to them as people who were already in covenant with God. Therefore, the Law was not viewed as a way to earn God's favor, but as a sign that one was already in covenant with God. The "works of the Law" are not ways to earn favor with God, but badges of covenant identity by which one determines who is in the covenant and who is not. Many Jews in Paul's day were clinging to these identity markers (Sabbath, circumcision) in a way that made their Jewish identity exclusive. Therefore, their exclusivism was keeping the promise of God from flowing to the nations.

The Gospel

Piper: The heart of the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. What makes this good news is that Christ's death accomplished a perfect righteousness before God and suffered a perfect condemnation from God, both of which are counted as ours through faith alone, so that we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth.

Wright: The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.

How This Happens

Piper: By faith we are united with Christ Jesus so that in union with him, his perfect righteousness and punishment are counted as ours (imputed to us). In this way, perfection is provided, sin is forgiven, wrath is removed, and God is totally for us. Thus, Christ alone is the basis of our justification, and the faith that unites us to him is the means or instrument of our justification. Trusting in Christ as Savior, Lord, and Supreme Treasure of our lives produces the fruit of love, or it is dead.

Wright: God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ (the faithful Israelite), has come, allowing the continuation of his plan to rescue human beings, and, through them, the world. The Messiah represents his people, standing in for them, taking upon himself the death that they deserved. God justifies (declares righteous) all those who are "in Christ," so that the vindication of Jesus upon his resurrection becomes the vindication of all those who trust in him. Justification refers to God's declaration of who is in the covenant (this worldwide family of Abraham through whom God's purposes can now be extended into the wider world) and is made on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the "works of the Law" (i.e., badges of ethnic identity that once kept Jews and Gentiles apart).

Future Justification

Piper: Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.

Wright: Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.

Justification - An Emergent Perspective

To be honest, I was born and bred in Inauguration Eschatology and Rachel's article below shows the demands that the Kingdom of God places upon us as his faithful remnant.  It's neither Piper nor Wright, neither traditional evangelicalism's message nor the newer, more complete emergent message, its both. Both combined. Together. One expression in complete duality.

So that the "soteriological atonement" aspect of our faith is as important as it's practical-other seen through our "faith-works" in/by/of/for Christ."  And, of course, choosing a church fellowship focuses our behavioral-practices within that fellowship's specific positional distinctives of "faith" and "works" as they are highlighted within that fellowship's local/global ministries and message.  It is a false claim to say "I follow truth" or "I follow love" when in actuality we should be striving for both - with an overweight to the side of love (aka the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor.13.1-13... "the greatest of these is love").

Which answers for me the appeal that emergent Christianity holds for me... it completes my bias of seeing the Kingdom of God beginning to work itself out within the tension of the church age in the "here-but-not-yet" (or, "here-but-not-fully"). And like Christ (sic, 2 Peter), we suffer like our Lord Jesus, we die like our Lord Jesus, and we'll rise like our Lord Jesus, until Jesus comes for his church and ushers in his further kingdom. His "kingdom example" is our "kingdom example" for as long as it takes for the church age to cycle towards the completion of God's purposes. Amen and Amen.

skinhead

-------------------------------------------------------

http://rachelheldevans.com/gospelrelative

Is the Gospel Relative?

by Rachel Held Evans
October 7, 2009

As you may know, one of the most talked-about debates between the traditional church and the emerging church has to do with the gospel. Traditionalists claim that emergers have reduced the gospel to social justice to the neglect of atonement soteriology and personal salvation, while emergers claim that traditionalists have reduced the gospel to personal fire insurance to the neglect of Jesus’ teachings regarding the Kingdom of God.

It’s a topic that Jim Belcher recently explored in Deep Church, and it’s a topic that has led to some theological hair-splitting over the past few years, as NT Wright and John Piper debate the meaning justification. (For a comprehensive discussion of Deep Church, check out Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. For a nice overview of the justification debate, check out this article from Christianity Today - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html.)

I always get a little nervous when I encounter a bunch of theologians arguing over the meaning of the gospel, each armed with his own sophisticated definition of it. I suppose that it’s the recovering fundamentalist in me that wants to ask, “Shouldn’t the gospel be simpler than this?” “Shouldn’t it be easy to understand and explain?” “Shouldn’t we all be on the same page on something this important?”

Having grown up in the conservative evangelical subculture that cast salvation as little more than a ticket out of hell that you cash in on Judgment Day, I’ve personally been enthralled and challenged by the emerging church’s perspective on the Kingdom of God. It has inspired me to reconnect to the life and teachings of Jesus, as opposed to only focusing on his death. And it has encouraged me to think of salvation in terms of God’s plan to restore and repair the whole world, as opposed to thinking of it in terms of individualistic escapism. With the help of NT Wright, I feel that this perspective has complemented, not replaced, my belief in atonement. In fact, discovering the gospel of the kingdom has been a bit like being born again…again. It’s like encountering, dare I say it, GOOD NEWS for the first time!

It seems to me that both the emerging and traditional perspectives on the gospel are important, and that perhaps the novelty of one appeals the most to those who started with the other. In other words, folks who grew up with the social gospel might need a dose of substitutionary atonement to save them from pride, while folks who grew up with the fire insurance gospel need a dose of the kingdom perspective to save them from self-focused individualism. In this case, it seems to me that the gospel, or the “good news,” is a bit relative—because the part of it that is news is relative to the person receiving it.

In fact, I think we could resolve some of the current conflict by acknowledging that there is no one set definition for the gospel, that everyone experiences Jesus a little differently.

Matthew responded to the good news that Jesus did not come to call the righteous but the sinners. The bleeding woman responded to the good news that her simple act of faith in touching Jesus’ clothes had made her well. The Samaritan by the well responded to the good news that everyone who drinks of the water of life will not thirst again, no matter how sinful their past. The Apostle Paul responded to the good news that Jesus loved his enemies enough to transform and use them. The Athenians responded to the good news that God does not dwell in temples made with hands.

For years I just assumed that the Gospels were incomplete, that we only caught a glimpse of Jesus’ interaction with these people. I figured that some time after the initial meeting, he must have sat down and walked his new converts through the Romans Road, just to make sure they really understood the gospel in all of its soteriological glory. In fact, it used to frustrate me that the story of Jesus contained no one-size-fits-all method of evangelism. But now I find it quite beautiful.

It seems to me that what makes the gospel good and what makes the gospel news is relative to the person receiving it.

For the legalist trying to earn God’s favor through good behavior, the bad news is that works of righteousness are not enough impress a holy God; the good news is that salvation is a gift. For the victim of war struggling to connect with a God who allows so much evil in the world, the bad news is that mankind’s rebellion has turned the planet into battlefield; the good news is that God loves the world and has a plan to ultimately heal, restore, and redeem all of creation.

For the child of fundamentalism whose self-loathing and guilt keep her from experiencing God’s peace, the bad news is that God is angered by sin; the good news is that her sins were atoned for on the cross. For the child of rape who struggles to forgive, the bad news is that she suffered a terrible injustice; the good news is that Jesus did too and he wants to fellowship with her in her suffering. For the elderly facing death, the bad news is that everyone dies; the good news is that Jesus rose. For the relief worker who strives for decades to help bring peace into the world, the bad news is that his work is not done; the good news is that God will complete it.

Some discover the good news in the story of the incarnation. Some discover the good news in the Sermon on the Mount. Some discover it in the cross. Some discover it in the resurrection. Some discover it in the kingdom to come. And some rediscover it every day in all kinds of surprising places.

While the gospel always includes themes of sin and redemption, brokenness and setting things right, we cannot be so arrogant as to expect everyone’s experience with it to look just like ours.