On today's program I was joined by Dr. Joel Biermann, associateprofessor of systematic theology at Concordia Theological Seminary inSt. Louis. We discussed the controversy surrounding "two kinds ofrighteousness" and its place in Lutheran theology.
Showing posts with label Justification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justification. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
An Explanation of the Luther Chapter in my Book
Since the recent discussion has erupted over my book, some have attempted to see my Luther chapter as somehow an attempt to give an extensive treatment of Luther's doctrine of justification. This relies on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the book. I will explain the reasons why this chapter was written, and exactly what argument is being made.
The book is on the New Perspective on Paul's claims regarding historical theology. The two areas I am addressing are 1. The NPP view of Luther as a purely forensic theologian whose sole concern is the distinction between law and gospel, and 2. The claim that Augustine changed the church's reading on Paul as if the pre-Augustinian church was not concerned about individual salvation.
The first chapter in this volume is not intended to be an extensive treatment of Luther's theology, nor of his doctrine of justification. Rather, it is an attempt to argue that Luther held to a more multifaceted soteriology than he is often given credit for. Yes, Luther held to forensic justification, the imputation of righteousness, etc. However, that is not central to the argument of this chapter because that is a given. I am not asking if Luther's view is forensic, but if Luther's view is only forensic. I use Mannermaa to argue that there is an element of union with Christ inherent in Luther's theology of justification as expounded upon in his Galatians commentary. I do not consider myself as part of the New Finnish School of Luther interpretation, because I think they downplay the forensicism inherent in Luther's theology, and they tend not to make a careful enough distinction between the early and late Luther. I make the point in this chapter that the early Luther can often speak of justification as a process, and that he sometimes conflates justification and sanctification; the later Luther is more careful, as forensic language becomes more predominant in his thought. However, whatever issues the Finnish school has, they have brought an element of Luther's thought to the forefront which has often been neglected: union with Christ. For Luther, Christ is present in faith itself, and Christ is in a vital personal union with one who believes. Though this union is not identical to justification for Luther, they are intimately related concepts which should not be severed from one another.
There has been a long debate in Pauline studies over whether the apostle's soteriology is forensic or participationist. Is it based on imputation of Christ's righteousness, or mystical participation in Christ? I am trying to show that in both Luther, and the fathers, this is a false dichotomy. For Luther, salvation includes legal terminology, imputed righteousness, etc. It also includes participation in Christ, and union with God. The legal aspects of Paul's soteriology are then shown to have been prominent in both Clement of Rome and the Epistle to Diognetus. The participationist motifs are prominent in both Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.
The whole argument is that the manner in which the NPP has interpreted Paul is not in line with the earliest interpreters; the way in which Luther has interpreted Paul, however, is consistent with Patristic exegesis. Though one would be wrong to label the fathers consistent Lutherans, the reading Luther has of Paul is more thoroughly grounded in Patristic exegesis and theology than is the NPP.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Response to Donavan Riley's "Review" of my Book
A review of my book was recently posted on Blogia by pastor Donavan Riley. It can be found here. Normally such a scathing and dishonest review would not be worth responding to, but due to the fact that the word about this seems to have gotten around, I have chosen to do so.
Riley accuses me of "pietism and radical spiritualism" in the second paragraph of his review, but fails to define either of those terms or cite an instance in my work where that is indeed the case. In fact, there are no citations of my book in the review at all. Riley chose to focus on one specific chapter of the book, rather than the entirety of my argument, and consequently attacks my view as somehow connected with Schwenkfeld.
The heart of Riley's argument is that: "Leaning on the Finns for his critique of the New Perspective on Paul, Cooper ends up launching a similar attack on forensic justification. He argues for an essential form of justification, an ontological change in believers."
This was certainly a surprise to me, as I hadn't realized myself to be one who disagrees with forensic justification! The purpose of my discussion of forensic/participationist soteriological motifs in Luther's theology was not to negate the historic Lutheran understanding of justification as forensic, but to argue that in Luther's theology, forensic and participationist categories are not mutually exclusive. I write in the book: "Mannermaa's contention that ontological union is part of what Luther means when discussing the concept of justification seems to be contradicted by several statements of Luther. Though they are connected concepts, Luther often distinguishes between ontological union and justification" (P.61). Justification is a forensic declaration which includes the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
What I argue in the book is that for Luther, ontological union precedes justification. That does not mean that ontological union is justification. This statement may be controversial, as the general ordo salutis in Lutheranism has placed mystical union after justification rather than vice versa. However, I am not alone in arguing this point, as Kurt Marquart argues the same way in his article, "Luther and Theosis." There is also some precedent for this in the Lutheran dogmaticians, as David Hollaz argues that union can in some sense be said to be prior to justification. Schmid writes:
"According to another mode of considering it, it can be said that union precedes justification, inasmuch as faith precedes justification ; and in faith as the organ, by which the union is effected, its beginning is already presupposed. Therefore Holl. (933), after consenting to this view, adds: 'Although the mystical union, by which God dwells in the soul as in a temple, may, according to our mode of conception, follow justification in the order of nature, it is however to be acknowledged that the formal union of faith, by which Christ is apprehended, put on, and united with us, as a mediator and the author of grace and pardon, logically precedes justification. For faith is imputed for righteousness, so far as this receives the merit of Christ, and so unites it with ourselves as to make it ours.'" (Schmid, 497)
It is to be noted that I am not speaking of the mystical union by which believers grow in virtue and love when I am speaking about union preceding justification. This was Osiander's error, which identified the justification with growth in grace. Rather, what I am referring to is the fact that the believer has to be united to Christ in order to receive his righteousness. I have to be "in Christ," in order for God to declare me justified.
Riley further critiques the book writing: "What Luther does not seem to be up to in the Galatians commentary, since Cooper does not emphasize these matters in his book, is distinguishing law and Gospel, the theology of the cross, or the theology of the Word." The purpose of my book is to discuss Paul's view of justification as interpreted by Luther and the fathers, and thus I utilized the Galatians commentary to speak of one particular aspect of Luther's theology that is pertinent to the study. Nowhere have I argued that Luther's theology of the Word or law and gospel are not central to his thought. Clearly, they are. Of course, I was not writing a treatise on the major themes of Luther's Galatians commentary.
Riley argues again: "Schwenkfeld was the one to start talking among Lutherans about “participation” in Christʼs glorified humanity, or having a union with “heavenly flesh.” This is the very thing the Finns and Cooper are trying to connect to the early fathers and Luther via the tradition of theosis. Theosis is, in essence, enthusiasm, which grasps for God outside the Word, deep in the flesh (logos sarkos) in which we can “participate” in divinity."
I have written a book on theosis that will be released next year. In that work, I explicitly reject the idea that one grasps God apart from Word and Sacrament. That is one of my primary criticisms of the Eastern Orthodox approach to deification. What I affirm is simply the historic Lutheran teaching of mystical union.
The next point Riley makes is: "But where Cooper emphasizes increased holiness by divine law, there should instead be death and resurrection. Where he emphasizes ontology, there should be eschatology." First, the idea of increased holiness by divine law is not in the book at all. It appears that Riley is reading other things I have written (which don't teach that either) into this work, rather than actually digesting what is in the chapters. Regarding eschatology, I actually have a section in the Luther chapter titled "Luther and Eschatology," where I make the point that Mannermaa misses Luther's eschatological focus. It seems Riley did not read this chapter carefully.
He further claims that: "Cooper grounds his critique of the New Perspective on Paul by following Mannermaa into the Galatians commentary, where the latter emphasizes a theology of love which reflects, not Lutherʼs search for a gracious God, but Schwenkfeldʼs search for pure love, found finally in being formed in Christ himself as our complete and perfected holiness. Sin is then formulated as misdirected love. Faith is redirected love, when Jesus himself effects this in the Christian. Righteousness is an ontological reality." The theology of love that Riley discusses here is completely irrelevant to the purpose of my book and is not even mentioned here. This seems to be a description of a traditional Augustinian approach to sin and love that I do not hold to.
He then states that "This is routinely missed by Cooper in his book, who seems to think that being in Christ is a process of becoming less one thing and becoming (ontologically) more of another thing. In this case, the sinful human passing over into the holy divine." I would affirm, with Lutheran Orthodoxy, that the union with God that the Christian has is genuine and real. This grows throughout the Christian's life, but one is never absorbed into God so that personal identity is lost.
The final claim I want to examine, which is likely the most inaccurate, is where Riley writes:
"Cooper opens a way to argue that deification of human nature in Christ is a prerequisite for justification. Following the Finns allows Cooper to dance lightly around the confusion this then interjects into matters of glory-theology, faith and love, bondage of the will, simul iustus et peccator, and the works of the Holy Spirit."
I have never, nor would I argue that anything within the human person is a "prerequisite for justification." The only prerequisite for justification is the righteousness of Christ. I'm sure that such a theology might affect the areas of faith Riley mentions, but that is irrelevant to my own theology.
Overall, the position Riley critiques is a gross caricature of my view. His review failed to use any citations, overlooked quotes which would disprove is misrepresentations, and he didn't even engage the argument of the book. The section on Mannermaa's interpretation of Luther is a small aspect of this volume, which is on the subject of the New Perspective on Paul and Patristic theology. Riley seems to have used this book as a means to expound upon his own problems with the Finnish interpretation of Luther, rather than actually engaging the text.
Riley accuses me of "pietism and radical spiritualism" in the second paragraph of his review, but fails to define either of those terms or cite an instance in my work where that is indeed the case. In fact, there are no citations of my book in the review at all. Riley chose to focus on one specific chapter of the book, rather than the entirety of my argument, and consequently attacks my view as somehow connected with Schwenkfeld.
The heart of Riley's argument is that: "Leaning on the Finns for his critique of the New Perspective on Paul, Cooper ends up launching a similar attack on forensic justification. He argues for an essential form of justification, an ontological change in believers."
This was certainly a surprise to me, as I hadn't realized myself to be one who disagrees with forensic justification! The purpose of my discussion of forensic/participationist soteriological motifs in Luther's theology was not to negate the historic Lutheran understanding of justification as forensic, but to argue that in Luther's theology, forensic and participationist categories are not mutually exclusive. I write in the book: "Mannermaa's contention that ontological union is part of what Luther means when discussing the concept of justification seems to be contradicted by several statements of Luther. Though they are connected concepts, Luther often distinguishes between ontological union and justification" (P.61). Justification is a forensic declaration which includes the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
What I argue in the book is that for Luther, ontological union precedes justification. That does not mean that ontological union is justification. This statement may be controversial, as the general ordo salutis in Lutheranism has placed mystical union after justification rather than vice versa. However, I am not alone in arguing this point, as Kurt Marquart argues the same way in his article, "Luther and Theosis." There is also some precedent for this in the Lutheran dogmaticians, as David Hollaz argues that union can in some sense be said to be prior to justification. Schmid writes:
"According to another mode of considering it, it can be said that union precedes justification, inasmuch as faith precedes justification ; and in faith as the organ, by which the union is effected, its beginning is already presupposed. Therefore Holl. (933), after consenting to this view, adds: 'Although the mystical union, by which God dwells in the soul as in a temple, may, according to our mode of conception, follow justification in the order of nature, it is however to be acknowledged that the formal union of faith, by which Christ is apprehended, put on, and united with us, as a mediator and the author of grace and pardon, logically precedes justification. For faith is imputed for righteousness, so far as this receives the merit of Christ, and so unites it with ourselves as to make it ours.'" (Schmid, 497)
It is to be noted that I am not speaking of the mystical union by which believers grow in virtue and love when I am speaking about union preceding justification. This was Osiander's error, which identified the justification with growth in grace. Rather, what I am referring to is the fact that the believer has to be united to Christ in order to receive his righteousness. I have to be "in Christ," in order for God to declare me justified.
Riley further critiques the book writing: "What Luther does not seem to be up to in the Galatians commentary, since Cooper does not emphasize these matters in his book, is distinguishing law and Gospel, the theology of the cross, or the theology of the Word." The purpose of my book is to discuss Paul's view of justification as interpreted by Luther and the fathers, and thus I utilized the Galatians commentary to speak of one particular aspect of Luther's theology that is pertinent to the study. Nowhere have I argued that Luther's theology of the Word or law and gospel are not central to his thought. Clearly, they are. Of course, I was not writing a treatise on the major themes of Luther's Galatians commentary.
Riley argues again: "Schwenkfeld was the one to start talking among Lutherans about “participation” in Christʼs glorified humanity, or having a union with “heavenly flesh.” This is the very thing the Finns and Cooper are trying to connect to the early fathers and Luther via the tradition of theosis. Theosis is, in essence, enthusiasm, which grasps for God outside the Word, deep in the flesh (logos sarkos) in which we can “participate” in divinity."
I have written a book on theosis that will be released next year. In that work, I explicitly reject the idea that one grasps God apart from Word and Sacrament. That is one of my primary criticisms of the Eastern Orthodox approach to deification. What I affirm is simply the historic Lutheran teaching of mystical union.
The next point Riley makes is: "But where Cooper emphasizes increased holiness by divine law, there should instead be death and resurrection. Where he emphasizes ontology, there should be eschatology." First, the idea of increased holiness by divine law is not in the book at all. It appears that Riley is reading other things I have written (which don't teach that either) into this work, rather than actually digesting what is in the chapters. Regarding eschatology, I actually have a section in the Luther chapter titled "Luther and Eschatology," where I make the point that Mannermaa misses Luther's eschatological focus. It seems Riley did not read this chapter carefully.
He further claims that: "Cooper grounds his critique of the New Perspective on Paul by following Mannermaa into the Galatians commentary, where the latter emphasizes a theology of love which reflects, not Lutherʼs search for a gracious God, but Schwenkfeldʼs search for pure love, found finally in being formed in Christ himself as our complete and perfected holiness. Sin is then formulated as misdirected love. Faith is redirected love, when Jesus himself effects this in the Christian. Righteousness is an ontological reality." The theology of love that Riley discusses here is completely irrelevant to the purpose of my book and is not even mentioned here. This seems to be a description of a traditional Augustinian approach to sin and love that I do not hold to.
He then states that "This is routinely missed by Cooper in his book, who seems to think that being in Christ is a process of becoming less one thing and becoming (ontologically) more of another thing. In this case, the sinful human passing over into the holy divine." I would affirm, with Lutheran Orthodoxy, that the union with God that the Christian has is genuine and real. This grows throughout the Christian's life, but one is never absorbed into God so that personal identity is lost.
The final claim I want to examine, which is likely the most inaccurate, is where Riley writes:
"Cooper opens a way to argue that deification of human nature in Christ is a prerequisite for justification. Following the Finns allows Cooper to dance lightly around the confusion this then interjects into matters of glory-theology, faith and love, bondage of the will, simul iustus et peccator, and the works of the Holy Spirit."
I have never, nor would I argue that anything within the human person is a "prerequisite for justification." The only prerequisite for justification is the righteousness of Christ. I'm sure that such a theology might affect the areas of faith Riley mentions, but that is irrelevant to my own theology.
Overall, the position Riley critiques is a gross caricature of my view. His review failed to use any citations, overlooked quotes which would disprove is misrepresentations, and he didn't even engage the argument of the book. The section on Mannermaa's interpretation of Luther is a small aspect of this volume, which is on the subject of the New Perspective on Paul and Patristic theology. Riley seems to have used this book as a means to expound upon his own problems with the Finnish interpretation of Luther, rather than actually engaging the text.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Response to Steve Ray on Sola Fide
On today's program, I interacted with a lecture by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray in which he argued against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I demonstrated that this idea is clearly taught in Romans,and also discussed James 2.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
The Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience
Here is the program.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Beyond Imputed Righteousness: A Reappraisal of the Great Exchange
I have posted an essay which contains many of the themes that will be expounded upon in my upcoming book Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis. This essay presents an argument that Luther's "great exchange" formula is more than a legal transaction. Drawing on Patristic and Medieval sources, Luther's idea of the great exchange involves a concept of theosis alongside of forensic imputation.
Here is the article.
Here is the article.
Friday, July 5, 2013
My Book "The Righteousness of One" is Now Available!
An updated version of my Masters Thesis The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul is now available to order at the Wipf & Stock site here. It will be available on Amazon in the near future.
In the forward, Peter Leithart writes that this book "should have a dramatic effect on the debate" regarding the New Perspective on Paul. He writes that,
"Cooper does not claim to pass final judgment on the New Perspective. What he offers is the opportunity to renew the debate in a more historically informed fashion. Having cleared the clutter, Cooper leaves us still with the task of grasping what St. Paul really said."
In the forward, Peter Leithart writes that this book "should have a dramatic effect on the debate" regarding the New Perspective on Paul. He writes that,
"Cooper does not claim to pass final judgment on the New Perspective. What he offers is the opportunity to renew the debate in a more historically informed fashion. Having cleared the clutter, Cooper leaves us still with the task of grasping what St. Paul really said."
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The Active Obedience of Christ
The doctrine of the active obedience of Christ has come under attack in various quarters in the contemporary church. In Presbyterian churches, it has been questioned by some in the Federal Vision movement; in New Testament scholarship, the New Perspective on Paul has argued that this doctrine has no foundation in the Pauline text; in Baptist theology, it is denied by the "New Covenant Theology" movement as well as certain forms of dispensationalism; in Lutheran churches, it has been rejected by Gerhard Forde, who proposes that any contention of the imputation of Christ's active obedience is based on a merit scheme foreign to the theology of Luther. Because of these challenges, it's a necessary question for the modern theologian to ask: is there validity to the teaching of Christ's active obedience?
Hoenecke describes the traditional Lutheran approach to active obedience writing, "So then, according to Scripture, that through which Jesus furnished satisfaction is his entire obedience (obedientia vicaria universalis), which is partly a doing (obedientia activa), namely, fulfilling the law, partly a suffering (obedientia passiva), namely, enduring the wrath deserved by us." (ELD III, 185) The believer is justified through faith by the imputation of Christ's obedience. This includes his active fulfillment of the Law which is counted to us, along with his death by which the Law's penalty has been paid. Certain evangelicals, like Robert Gundry, have argued that the second part of this is correct, but there is no Biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
I think what is needed is a balanced approach to this issue, with a frank admission that the active obedience of Christ is not as Biblically apparent as we have proposed that it is. In Reformed circles, I often heard the active obedience of Christ equated with the gospel itself. Look for example at this explanation of the gospel from D. James Kennedy where he equates the gospel with the imputation of Christ's perfect life. You have broken the Law. Christ obeyed the Law perfectly. Through faith, his obedience becomes yours. While I don't reject such a statement, as I think it can be demonstrated to be in line with Biblical revelation, this is not the way that the Apostle's spoke of the gospel. Rather than the active obedience of Christ under the Law, the central message for Paul, Peter, and John was the death of Christ, and his resurrection. Look for example at Romans 5,
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:18-21)
This has often been used as a text to defend the concept of Christ's active obedience, due to the contrast between the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ. However, note that what is contrasted here is "one trespass," and "one act of righteousness." While some interpreters (John Piper and Robert Reymond for example) argue that "one act" can in fact refer to Christ's full life of obedience, the more obvious interpretation is that Paul is indeed speaking of one righteous act of Jesus. It is more likely that this "one act" spoken of by Paul is the cross, because earlier in that same chapter Paul writes that we are "justified by his blood."(Romans 5:9) Because Paul is following an extensive discussion of the cross with this "one act," they are likely the same event.
There really is no explicit statement in the epistle to the Romans that Christ's active obedience is in any sense imputed to the Christian for righteousness. This is odd, since Romans is Paul's most detailed discussion of the doctrine of justification. Pauline interpreters are right, due to this fact, to question the centrality of this idea in Paul's thought. It is unfortunate fact of history that the concept of active obedience has often eclipsed that which Paul does connect to justification more clearly: the resurrection. In Romans 4, in the midst of Paul's most detailed discussion of justification, he writes that Christ "was delivered for our trespasses and raised for our justification."(Romans 4:25) While I could give numerous examples of sermons I have heard which emphasize Christ's active obedience as essential to justification, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I have heard the resurrection connected with justification in any sense. This is where I think a lot of the contemporary challenges to the traditional approach to Christ's active obedience are insightful. N.T. Wright, some of the Federal Vision writers, and others have sought to place the resurrection back in a central position.
So my primary concern here is not with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience itself, because I think its validity can be demonstrated, but with the centrality of this theme. In Paul's mind, Christ's righteousness most certainly is imputed through faith alone. One has faith, grasps Christ, and his righteousness becomes the believer's in justification. However, this righteousness, in Romans, is connected with Christ's death and resurrection. That isn't to say that Paul doesn't also have the active obedience of Christ under the Law in mind, but it isn't explicit.
Another major problem I have with equating the active obedience of Christ with the gospel (I have talked to some people who argue that a belief in the active obedience of Christ is necessary for one's salvation) is that this concept isn't present in the early church, or (at least not explicitly) in the writings of Luther. The fathers certainly thought that Christ's life was important. Jesus needed to live a sinless life, and needed to become an adult so that humanity could be recapitulated in his person, but there isn't any talk of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the Law. To equate active obedience with the gospel is to say that the fathers didn't understand the gospel. I don't see how one can genuinely propose this. I also don't see the doctrine in Luther's own writings. For Luther, Christ's righteousness is primarily connected to his death and resurrection. There are certain hints at the imputation of Christ's Law-keeping, but it isn't explicit and certainly is not Luther's central concern.
The Formula of Concord does confess the concept of Christ's active obedience:
"Therefore, his obedience consists not only in his suffering and death but also in the fact that he freely put himself in our place under the law and fulfilled the law with this obedience and reckoned it to us as righteousness. As a result of his total obedience-which he performed on our behalf for God in his deeds and suffering, in life and death-God forgives our sin, considers us upright and righteous, and grants us eternal salvation." (FC SD III.15)
The Lutheran fathers rightly placed this idea in the lengthy discussion of justification in Article III, but they didn't make it the central aspect of Christ's righteousness. There is much more space devoted, in the Confessions, to the death and resurrection of Christ than to his active obedience. If I were asked what Biblical precedent there is for the idea that Christ fulfilled the Law on behalf of humanity, there are a couple of texts I would point to which hint at this idea. Galatians 4 speaks of Christ as one who was "born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law." (Galatians 4:4-5) Christ was born under the Law for the sake of those who were under the Law, in order that the Law might be fulfilled in himself, and its penalty might be paid. Regarding Jesus' baptism, Matthew writes,"But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented." This points to the fact that Christ's righteousness consists not only in his death, but also certain aspects of his life. If we take these passages together, that Jesus life has something to do with his righteousness, and that it was necessary for Jesus to be born under the Law, and put these ideas together with the Biblical theme that the Law requires perfect obedience, it becomes apparent that Christ's righteousness consists partly in his obedience to the Law.
Since the Scriptural texts really aren't that strong on this theme, I think the best way to go about this idea is through the nature of Kingship. If you look at the Old Testament, and the way that Israel was treated under the covenant, it is apparent that the obedience/disobedience of any given king doesn't only affect the welfare of that individual king, but of the nation as a whole. The king is representative of the people. An obedient and righteous king causes God to bless Israel. An unrighteous king causes God to curse Israel. If Jesus is truly the fulfillment of the Davidic promise as the true son of David and eternal king of Israel, then it's a given that his righteousness plays a representative role. I think this is the context in which we can genuinely speak of the active obedience of Christ. I understand why we speak of the "merit of Christ" in this discussion, because of the medieval context in which these ideas were formulated, but maybe we would be better to speak of Christ's faithfulness, or his covenantal obedience, rather than the imputation of his active merit. That would point to the Old Testament roots of this concept, and might settle the fears of some that the idea of Christ's active obedience is grounded in Medieval scholasticism, rather than the Biblical narrative.
Hoenecke describes the traditional Lutheran approach to active obedience writing, "So then, according to Scripture, that through which Jesus furnished satisfaction is his entire obedience (obedientia vicaria universalis), which is partly a doing (obedientia activa), namely, fulfilling the law, partly a suffering (obedientia passiva), namely, enduring the wrath deserved by us." (ELD III, 185) The believer is justified through faith by the imputation of Christ's obedience. This includes his active fulfillment of the Law which is counted to us, along with his death by which the Law's penalty has been paid. Certain evangelicals, like Robert Gundry, have argued that the second part of this is correct, but there is no Biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
I think what is needed is a balanced approach to this issue, with a frank admission that the active obedience of Christ is not as Biblically apparent as we have proposed that it is. In Reformed circles, I often heard the active obedience of Christ equated with the gospel itself. Look for example at this explanation of the gospel from D. James Kennedy where he equates the gospel with the imputation of Christ's perfect life. You have broken the Law. Christ obeyed the Law perfectly. Through faith, his obedience becomes yours. While I don't reject such a statement, as I think it can be demonstrated to be in line with Biblical revelation, this is not the way that the Apostle's spoke of the gospel. Rather than the active obedience of Christ under the Law, the central message for Paul, Peter, and John was the death of Christ, and his resurrection. Look for example at Romans 5,
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:18-21)
This has often been used as a text to defend the concept of Christ's active obedience, due to the contrast between the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ. However, note that what is contrasted here is "one trespass," and "one act of righteousness." While some interpreters (John Piper and Robert Reymond for example) argue that "one act" can in fact refer to Christ's full life of obedience, the more obvious interpretation is that Paul is indeed speaking of one righteous act of Jesus. It is more likely that this "one act" spoken of by Paul is the cross, because earlier in that same chapter Paul writes that we are "justified by his blood."(Romans 5:9) Because Paul is following an extensive discussion of the cross with this "one act," they are likely the same event.
There really is no explicit statement in the epistle to the Romans that Christ's active obedience is in any sense imputed to the Christian for righteousness. This is odd, since Romans is Paul's most detailed discussion of the doctrine of justification. Pauline interpreters are right, due to this fact, to question the centrality of this idea in Paul's thought. It is unfortunate fact of history that the concept of active obedience has often eclipsed that which Paul does connect to justification more clearly: the resurrection. In Romans 4, in the midst of Paul's most detailed discussion of justification, he writes that Christ "was delivered for our trespasses and raised for our justification."(Romans 4:25) While I could give numerous examples of sermons I have heard which emphasize Christ's active obedience as essential to justification, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I have heard the resurrection connected with justification in any sense. This is where I think a lot of the contemporary challenges to the traditional approach to Christ's active obedience are insightful. N.T. Wright, some of the Federal Vision writers, and others have sought to place the resurrection back in a central position.
So my primary concern here is not with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience itself, because I think its validity can be demonstrated, but with the centrality of this theme. In Paul's mind, Christ's righteousness most certainly is imputed through faith alone. One has faith, grasps Christ, and his righteousness becomes the believer's in justification. However, this righteousness, in Romans, is connected with Christ's death and resurrection. That isn't to say that Paul doesn't also have the active obedience of Christ under the Law in mind, but it isn't explicit.
Another major problem I have with equating the active obedience of Christ with the gospel (I have talked to some people who argue that a belief in the active obedience of Christ is necessary for one's salvation) is that this concept isn't present in the early church, or (at least not explicitly) in the writings of Luther. The fathers certainly thought that Christ's life was important. Jesus needed to live a sinless life, and needed to become an adult so that humanity could be recapitulated in his person, but there isn't any talk of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the Law. To equate active obedience with the gospel is to say that the fathers didn't understand the gospel. I don't see how one can genuinely propose this. I also don't see the doctrine in Luther's own writings. For Luther, Christ's righteousness is primarily connected to his death and resurrection. There are certain hints at the imputation of Christ's Law-keeping, but it isn't explicit and certainly is not Luther's central concern.
The Formula of Concord does confess the concept of Christ's active obedience:
"Therefore, his obedience consists not only in his suffering and death but also in the fact that he freely put himself in our place under the law and fulfilled the law with this obedience and reckoned it to us as righteousness. As a result of his total obedience-which he performed on our behalf for God in his deeds and suffering, in life and death-God forgives our sin, considers us upright and righteous, and grants us eternal salvation." (FC SD III.15)
The Lutheran fathers rightly placed this idea in the lengthy discussion of justification in Article III, but they didn't make it the central aspect of Christ's righteousness. There is much more space devoted, in the Confessions, to the death and resurrection of Christ than to his active obedience. If I were asked what Biblical precedent there is for the idea that Christ fulfilled the Law on behalf of humanity, there are a couple of texts I would point to which hint at this idea. Galatians 4 speaks of Christ as one who was "born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law." (Galatians 4:4-5) Christ was born under the Law for the sake of those who were under the Law, in order that the Law might be fulfilled in himself, and its penalty might be paid. Regarding Jesus' baptism, Matthew writes,"But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented." This points to the fact that Christ's righteousness consists not only in his death, but also certain aspects of his life. If we take these passages together, that Jesus life has something to do with his righteousness, and that it was necessary for Jesus to be born under the Law, and put these ideas together with the Biblical theme that the Law requires perfect obedience, it becomes apparent that Christ's righteousness consists partly in his obedience to the Law.
Since the Scriptural texts really aren't that strong on this theme, I think the best way to go about this idea is through the nature of Kingship. If you look at the Old Testament, and the way that Israel was treated under the covenant, it is apparent that the obedience/disobedience of any given king doesn't only affect the welfare of that individual king, but of the nation as a whole. The king is representative of the people. An obedient and righteous king causes God to bless Israel. An unrighteous king causes God to curse Israel. If Jesus is truly the fulfillment of the Davidic promise as the true son of David and eternal king of Israel, then it's a given that his righteousness plays a representative role. I think this is the context in which we can genuinely speak of the active obedience of Christ. I understand why we speak of the "merit of Christ" in this discussion, because of the medieval context in which these ideas were formulated, but maybe we would be better to speak of Christ's faithfulness, or his covenantal obedience, rather than the imputation of his active merit. That would point to the Old Testament roots of this concept, and might settle the fears of some that the idea of Christ's active obedience is grounded in Medieval scholasticism, rather than the Biblical narrative.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
A Review of "Inhabiting the Cruciform God" by Michael J. Gorman
Michael J. Gorman's work Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology, is one in a number of works seeking to reinterpret Paul's theology. Rather than defending traditional Pauline interpretation, or getting on the New Perspective bandwagon, Gorman offers a proposal that transcends other interpretive grids.
For Gorman, the center of Pauline thought is not to be found in forensic justification (Luther), nor is it to be found in the concept of covenant community (Wright). Rather, "theosis is the center of Paul's theology." (171) Theosis, for Gorman, is a thoroughly Christological reality, and can be called "Christification." Gorman's concept of theosis shares similarities with the Eastern Orthodox approach, but is not synonymous. For Gorman, theosis is primarily cruciformity. God's nature is cruciform, and thus theosis is living the cruciform life, mirroring God's self giving love. Gorman proposes that the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2:6-11 is Paul's "master story." This text serves as a lens through which Paul's theology is to be read. Gorman argues, convincingly I think, that the phrase "although he was in the form of God" can be read "because he was in the form of God." In other words, the incarnation is not contrary to God's normal manner of acting, but is thoroughly consistent with God's character. In fact, it is the ultimate revelation of God's character. Thus, in contrast to human perceptions of divinity which are linked with political power, God's power in shown in weakness. It is of God's essence and character to be self-giving. In Gorman's words, "divinity has kenotic servanthood as its essential attribute."(31)
There is a redefinition of the term "Justification" in Gorman's writing. For Gorman, justification is not a purely forensic reality, but is thoroughly participatory. Trying to overcome the division common in Pauline studies between juridical and participationist soteriology, Gorman contends that "Paul has not two soteriological models (juridical and participationist) but one, justification by co-crucifixion, meaning restoration to right covenantal relations with God and others by participation in Christ's quintessential covenantal act of faith and love on the cross."(45) Justification is a covenantal category, and it involves participation in Christ's death and resurrection. The believer, through faith, is incorporated into Christ and is "co-crucified" with Jesus. Through this crucifixion, covenantal relations are restored. This involves both the restoration of one's relationship with God, and the restoration of the relationship one has with fellow man. Gorman discusses Galatians 2, in which Paul connects justification with participation in Christ's death. This causes Gorman to conclude that "Justification by faith, then, is a death-and-resurrection experience."(69)
The exegesis that Gorman provides is challenging, and does point to a connection between justification and the death and resurrection of the believer. However, it is not entirely convincing. Gorman contends that justification is not a judicial term, and does so through the text in Galatians 2. However, he does not spend time exegeting various texts which would seem to put this idea into doubt. For example, Romans 8:33-34 is a text that has been used since the Reformation to defend a legal reading of justification. Paul writes, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?" In this text, Paul contrasts justification with condemnation; the assumption is that both are legal terms that can be contrasted with one another. Because of justification, no charge can be brought against the believer. A detailed exegesis of this text would have to be done for Gorman's thesis to hold, which would demonstrate that Paul is not using legal categories here. Another text, which Gorman mentions only in passing, is Romans 4:4-5. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." The contrast between faith and works, as well as the language of crediting in contrast to earning, point to a thoroughly Reformational understanding of justification. This text simply doesn't fit many of the contemporary readings of Paul. It is usually passed over without a lengthy discussion.
It's my contention that Gorman is correct about a number of points in this work. First, it is part of God's nature to be self-giving. In contrast to the Reformed conviction that God's own glory is his ultimate concern, Paul would agree with Luther that salvation through self-donation is God's "proper work." Gorman has also demonstrated that there is a closer connection in Paul's theology between justification and participation in Christ, specifically in his death and resurrection, than many Pauline interpreters have been willing to allow. Justification does involve a death and resurrection as Gorman contends. However, I don't think there are grounds for simply dismissing the traditional forensic approach to justification in Paul. This is especially clear in Romans 4:4-5 and 8:33-34, but can also be demonstrated elsewhere in his epistles. I contend that justification includes legal and participationist categories. When justified, the believer is imputed righteous by the righteousness of Christ. However, in light of Paul's participationist theology, this justification also involves a death and resurrection of the sinner through mystical union with Chist's life, death, and resurrection.
Gorman's work is challenging, and is refreshing in that he avoids many of the typical false dichotomies presented in contemporary Pauline scholarship. However, like much of the New Perspective, Gorman's work ultimately privileges certain aspects of Pauline thought over others, and ultimately misses the Reformation's understanding of Paul, which I still believe (unpopular as it may be) to be exegetically warranted.
For Gorman, the center of Pauline thought is not to be found in forensic justification (Luther), nor is it to be found in the concept of covenant community (Wright). Rather, "theosis is the center of Paul's theology." (171) Theosis, for Gorman, is a thoroughly Christological reality, and can be called "Christification." Gorman's concept of theosis shares similarities with the Eastern Orthodox approach, but is not synonymous. For Gorman, theosis is primarily cruciformity. God's nature is cruciform, and thus theosis is living the cruciform life, mirroring God's self giving love. Gorman proposes that the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2:6-11 is Paul's "master story." This text serves as a lens through which Paul's theology is to be read. Gorman argues, convincingly I think, that the phrase "although he was in the form of God" can be read "because he was in the form of God." In other words, the incarnation is not contrary to God's normal manner of acting, but is thoroughly consistent with God's character. In fact, it is the ultimate revelation of God's character. Thus, in contrast to human perceptions of divinity which are linked with political power, God's power in shown in weakness. It is of God's essence and character to be self-giving. In Gorman's words, "divinity has kenotic servanthood as its essential attribute."(31)
There is a redefinition of the term "Justification" in Gorman's writing. For Gorman, justification is not a purely forensic reality, but is thoroughly participatory. Trying to overcome the division common in Pauline studies between juridical and participationist soteriology, Gorman contends that "Paul has not two soteriological models (juridical and participationist) but one, justification by co-crucifixion, meaning restoration to right covenantal relations with God and others by participation in Christ's quintessential covenantal act of faith and love on the cross."(45) Justification is a covenantal category, and it involves participation in Christ's death and resurrection. The believer, through faith, is incorporated into Christ and is "co-crucified" with Jesus. Through this crucifixion, covenantal relations are restored. This involves both the restoration of one's relationship with God, and the restoration of the relationship one has with fellow man. Gorman discusses Galatians 2, in which Paul connects justification with participation in Christ's death. This causes Gorman to conclude that "Justification by faith, then, is a death-and-resurrection experience."(69)
The exegesis that Gorman provides is challenging, and does point to a connection between justification and the death and resurrection of the believer. However, it is not entirely convincing. Gorman contends that justification is not a judicial term, and does so through the text in Galatians 2. However, he does not spend time exegeting various texts which would seem to put this idea into doubt. For example, Romans 8:33-34 is a text that has been used since the Reformation to defend a legal reading of justification. Paul writes, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?" In this text, Paul contrasts justification with condemnation; the assumption is that both are legal terms that can be contrasted with one another. Because of justification, no charge can be brought against the believer. A detailed exegesis of this text would have to be done for Gorman's thesis to hold, which would demonstrate that Paul is not using legal categories here. Another text, which Gorman mentions only in passing, is Romans 4:4-5. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." The contrast between faith and works, as well as the language of crediting in contrast to earning, point to a thoroughly Reformational understanding of justification. This text simply doesn't fit many of the contemporary readings of Paul. It is usually passed over without a lengthy discussion.
It's my contention that Gorman is correct about a number of points in this work. First, it is part of God's nature to be self-giving. In contrast to the Reformed conviction that God's own glory is his ultimate concern, Paul would agree with Luther that salvation through self-donation is God's "proper work." Gorman has also demonstrated that there is a closer connection in Paul's theology between justification and participation in Christ, specifically in his death and resurrection, than many Pauline interpreters have been willing to allow. Justification does involve a death and resurrection as Gorman contends. However, I don't think there are grounds for simply dismissing the traditional forensic approach to justification in Paul. This is especially clear in Romans 4:4-5 and 8:33-34, but can also be demonstrated elsewhere in his epistles. I contend that justification includes legal and participationist categories. When justified, the believer is imputed righteous by the righteousness of Christ. However, in light of Paul's participationist theology, this justification also involves a death and resurrection of the sinner through mystical union with Chist's life, death, and resurrection.
Gorman's work is challenging, and is refreshing in that he avoids many of the typical false dichotomies presented in contemporary Pauline scholarship. However, like much of the New Perspective, Gorman's work ultimately privileges certain aspects of Pauline thought over others, and ultimately misses the Reformation's understanding of Paul, which I still believe (unpopular as it may be) to be exegetically warranted.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Osiander and the Finnish Interpretation of Luther
When I published my article "A Lutheran Response to Justification: Five Views," (which can be found here) I was suspected by some of being guilty of the teaching of Osiander, which was condemned by the Formula of Concord. This is due to my adherence to certain themes of the Finnish interpretation of Luther; namely, that Luther's soteriology is participationist rather than purely juridical. I argued that justification is not a bare declaration wherein Christ's righteousness is passed to the believer in the heavenly Law-court, but it involves the reception of the person of Christ. In other words, Christ's attributes are not separated from His person. One does not receive Christ's righteousness without receiving Christ Himself.
I want to clear up some misconceptions, since my upcoming book "The Righteousness of One" is highly indebted to the Finnish school of thought. In my view, Luther teaches that Christ is present in faith. Faith receives Christ's person, and based on this mystical union, the believer is declared righteous by the righteousness of Christ. I agree with much of what Mannermaa has done in finding a doctrine of theosis in Luther, but I disagree with him on some major points. There is not an exact identification of justification/theosis in Luther's thought, but they are related concepts, and both important to his theological project.
First, let me clarify that I disagree with much of what has been done by figures other than Mannermaa in this school of thinking. Karkkainen, for example, conflates justification and theosis, so as to neglect important reformation themes, such as the imputation of Christ's righteousness which are central to Luther's thought. For Karkkainen, "Justification for Luther means primarily participation in God through the indwelling of Christ in the heart through the Spirit." (One With God, 59) I think we would do better to take Luther's own word for it when he defines justification as the fact that "through faith we receive a different, new, clean heart and that, for the sake of Christ our mediator, God will and does regard us as completely righteous and holy." (SA 12:1)For Luther, there is a real participation in God through the indwelling Christ, but this is not to be equated with justification itself.
It's argued by many in the Confessional Lutheran camp that the Finnish interpretation of Luther is essentially a modified form of Osiander's theology. It is also argued by the Finnish writers that the Lutheran Confessions depart from Luther's teaching that Christ is present in faith, placing mystical union as subsequent to justification, rather than vice versa. I don't think such a strict division exists between Luther and the Formula on this point.
The Formula does not condemn what is proposed by Mannermaa as Luther's teaching on mystical union. What is condemned is the teaching of Osiander that one is justified based on the indwelling divine nature of Christ. Contrary to this, Luther teaches that justification comes as a result of both natures of Christ, primarily through his life giving death and resurrection. The other false teaching of Osiander, as condemned by the Formula, is that believers are in any sense justified by their own works. That's why the majority of Article III argues, not against mystical union, but against the contention that justification is based on the renewal or good works of the sinner. Look, for example at III.35:
"Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal, sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God, so that the proper honor may be accorded to our Redeemer Christ ad (because our new obedience is imperfect and impure) so that the consciences under attack may have a reliable comfort." (FC SD III.35)
The point here is that justification is not based on infused love, virtues, or good works inherent in the believer. Neither I, nor Mannermaa, have taught this. It may be argued however that mystical union is, in the Formula, always a result of justification, rather than a prior or simultaneous reality: "this indwelling is a result of the righteousness of faith which precedes it." (FC SD III.54) Note that what is rejected is the idea that this indwelling that is a result of justification. It is rejected that the Osiandrian sense of indwelling, the infusion of virtues and love, precedes faith, because this would result in a righteousness based on works. That doesn't mean that indwelling of the person of Christ in faith must be subsequent to justification. It does not deny that Christ gives his whole person to the believer in justification. In fact, the Confessions reject the notion that "not God but only the gifts of God dwell in believers." (FC SD III.65)
It is worth noting that the Article III of the Formula says, "For any further, necessary explanation of this lofty and sublime article on justification before God, upon which the salvation of our souls depends, we wish to recommend to everyone the wonderful, magnificent exposition by Dr. Luther of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, and for the sake of brevity we refer to it at this point." (FC SD III.67) This gives the Galatians commentary a semi-Confessional status, since the Lutheran fathers agreed unanimously to point to this text as a correct exposition to justification. It is the Galatians commentary of Luther which has in fact served as the basis for the Finnish school of thought. In my own reading of Luther's Galatians commentary, it seems undeniable that Christ is present in faith, and that justification involves the receiving of Christ's person as righteousness.
I hope this helps clarify some of my positions on this issue. I affirm sola fide, the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Christ's active and passive obedience, and all the other traditional themes associated with justification in the Lutheran tradition. I am trying to clarify this, since some seem to think that my association with the Finnish school of thought has led me to an unorthodox approach to justification. If you are interested in this issue, take a look at Kurt Marquart's essay "Luther and Theosis," which agrees with my position on the issue.
I want to clear up some misconceptions, since my upcoming book "The Righteousness of One" is highly indebted to the Finnish school of thought. In my view, Luther teaches that Christ is present in faith. Faith receives Christ's person, and based on this mystical union, the believer is declared righteous by the righteousness of Christ. I agree with much of what Mannermaa has done in finding a doctrine of theosis in Luther, but I disagree with him on some major points. There is not an exact identification of justification/theosis in Luther's thought, but they are related concepts, and both important to his theological project.
First, let me clarify that I disagree with much of what has been done by figures other than Mannermaa in this school of thinking. Karkkainen, for example, conflates justification and theosis, so as to neglect important reformation themes, such as the imputation of Christ's righteousness which are central to Luther's thought. For Karkkainen, "Justification for Luther means primarily participation in God through the indwelling of Christ in the heart through the Spirit." (One With God, 59) I think we would do better to take Luther's own word for it when he defines justification as the fact that "through faith we receive a different, new, clean heart and that, for the sake of Christ our mediator, God will and does regard us as completely righteous and holy." (SA 12:1)For Luther, there is a real participation in God through the indwelling Christ, but this is not to be equated with justification itself.
It's argued by many in the Confessional Lutheran camp that the Finnish interpretation of Luther is essentially a modified form of Osiander's theology. It is also argued by the Finnish writers that the Lutheran Confessions depart from Luther's teaching that Christ is present in faith, placing mystical union as subsequent to justification, rather than vice versa. I don't think such a strict division exists between Luther and the Formula on this point.
The Formula does not condemn what is proposed by Mannermaa as Luther's teaching on mystical union. What is condemned is the teaching of Osiander that one is justified based on the indwelling divine nature of Christ. Contrary to this, Luther teaches that justification comes as a result of both natures of Christ, primarily through his life giving death and resurrection. The other false teaching of Osiander, as condemned by the Formula, is that believers are in any sense justified by their own works. That's why the majority of Article III argues, not against mystical union, but against the contention that justification is based on the renewal or good works of the sinner. Look, for example at III.35:
"Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal, sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God, so that the proper honor may be accorded to our Redeemer Christ ad (because our new obedience is imperfect and impure) so that the consciences under attack may have a reliable comfort." (FC SD III.35)
The point here is that justification is not based on infused love, virtues, or good works inherent in the believer. Neither I, nor Mannermaa, have taught this. It may be argued however that mystical union is, in the Formula, always a result of justification, rather than a prior or simultaneous reality: "this indwelling is a result of the righteousness of faith which precedes it." (FC SD III.54) Note that what is rejected is the idea that this indwelling that is a result of justification. It is rejected that the Osiandrian sense of indwelling, the infusion of virtues and love, precedes faith, because this would result in a righteousness based on works. That doesn't mean that indwelling of the person of Christ in faith must be subsequent to justification. It does not deny that Christ gives his whole person to the believer in justification. In fact, the Confessions reject the notion that "not God but only the gifts of God dwell in believers." (FC SD III.65)
It is worth noting that the Article III of the Formula says, "For any further, necessary explanation of this lofty and sublime article on justification before God, upon which the salvation of our souls depends, we wish to recommend to everyone the wonderful, magnificent exposition by Dr. Luther of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, and for the sake of brevity we refer to it at this point." (FC SD III.67) This gives the Galatians commentary a semi-Confessional status, since the Lutheran fathers agreed unanimously to point to this text as a correct exposition to justification. It is the Galatians commentary of Luther which has in fact served as the basis for the Finnish school of thought. In my own reading of Luther's Galatians commentary, it seems undeniable that Christ is present in faith, and that justification involves the receiving of Christ's person as righteousness.
I hope this helps clarify some of my positions on this issue. I affirm sola fide, the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Christ's active and passive obedience, and all the other traditional themes associated with justification in the Lutheran tradition. I am trying to clarify this, since some seem to think that my association with the Finnish school of thought has led me to an unorthodox approach to justification. If you are interested in this issue, take a look at Kurt Marquart's essay "Luther and Theosis," which agrees with my position on the issue.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Universal Objective Justification- My Position on the Issue
I have avoided getting into this debate because it becomes unnecessarily heated. However, I have been asked quite a few times about the issue since I made the announcement that I had come to the conclusion that UOJ is a valid Biblical concept. This is, in brief, my perspective on the issue:
There are certain terms that are used in Scripture multiple ways. Sanctification for example can be used to refer to a past event in Christ, or an ongoing action performed by the Spirit. A failure to acknowledge this had caused this whole recent sanctification controversy. The word Law is used at times to refer to the Old Testament, other times it is used to refer to commands.
Justification is the same. Most of the time, the term refers to what the sinner receives through faith alone, but other times it can refer to a past event (the resurrection) or a future event (eschatological vindication). N.T. Wright has often spoken about this; justification is a past, present, and future reality. For all of my disagreements with Bishop Wright, I think he is right on this point.
Christ's resurrection is his vindication by God. This is described in 1 Timothy 3:16,
"He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory."
The term for vindicated in 1 Timothy is "edikaiothe", one of the words in the "dik" word group, having to do with righteousness.It is the vindication of who he is, of his sinless life, victory on the cross, and accomplishment of salvation. Through humanity's solidarity with Christ, humanity itself is vindicated. I would place this in Irenaeus' framework of the Adam/Christ parallel, wherein Christ serves not only as a representative of the new humanity, but the solitary person in which the new humanity begins and realizes itself. Thus, by participation in humanity, all in a sense participate in what Christ did to humanity through his life, death, and resurrection.
Reformed scholar Richard B. Gaffin has done some work on this, connecting Christ's vindication in 1 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 5. Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as our justification (Rom 4:25). Through humanity's solidarity with Christ, his vindication becomes the vindication of humanity, or the justification of humanity. Gaffin of course connects this only to the elect, believing in limited atonement. Since I don't agree with that, but think his exegesis is spot on regarding this, this would mean that all of humanity has been justified through Christ's resurrection.
I would then point to Romans 5:18, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." The most obvious way to read this text is to take the Adam/Christ parallel at face value. Adam brought sin and death to all. Christ, encompassing all of humanity in himself, brought justification (vindication) and life to all men. I take this "one act of righteousness" to be his resurrection which is identified with justification in 4:25.
I think theologians are right to recognize that Paul utilizes the term justification in at least two different senses. It can refer to what happened to all men in Christ at the resurrection (objective justification) and what happens to those who have faith (subjective justification). And as I pointed out previously, it can also refer to one's eschatological vindication, though that isn't part of this particular dispute.
Personally, I don't see this as a Confessional issue. I think Lutherans can have genuine disagreement here so long as both sides agree that Christ's death and resurrection were done on behalf of all people, and that the benefits of Christ's work must be received by faith. People are too quick to throw condemnations around in this debate, which is why I have largely avoided it. But, that being said, I do think that the concept of UOJ is valid and helpful. It is especially useful in explaining the Lutheran approach to universal atonement in opposition to both the Reformed and Arminian views.
There are certain terms that are used in Scripture multiple ways. Sanctification for example can be used to refer to a past event in Christ, or an ongoing action performed by the Spirit. A failure to acknowledge this had caused this whole recent sanctification controversy. The word Law is used at times to refer to the Old Testament, other times it is used to refer to commands.
Justification is the same. Most of the time, the term refers to what the sinner receives through faith alone, but other times it can refer to a past event (the resurrection) or a future event (eschatological vindication). N.T. Wright has often spoken about this; justification is a past, present, and future reality. For all of my disagreements with Bishop Wright, I think he is right on this point.
Christ's resurrection is his vindication by God. This is described in 1 Timothy 3:16,
"He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory."
The term for vindicated in 1 Timothy is "edikaiothe", one of the words in the "dik" word group, having to do with righteousness.It is the vindication of who he is, of his sinless life, victory on the cross, and accomplishment of salvation. Through humanity's solidarity with Christ, humanity itself is vindicated. I would place this in Irenaeus' framework of the Adam/Christ parallel, wherein Christ serves not only as a representative of the new humanity, but the solitary person in which the new humanity begins and realizes itself. Thus, by participation in humanity, all in a sense participate in what Christ did to humanity through his life, death, and resurrection.
Reformed scholar Richard B. Gaffin has done some work on this, connecting Christ's vindication in 1 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 5. Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as our justification (Rom 4:25). Through humanity's solidarity with Christ, his vindication becomes the vindication of humanity, or the justification of humanity. Gaffin of course connects this only to the elect, believing in limited atonement. Since I don't agree with that, but think his exegesis is spot on regarding this, this would mean that all of humanity has been justified through Christ's resurrection.
I would then point to Romans 5:18, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." The most obvious way to read this text is to take the Adam/Christ parallel at face value. Adam brought sin and death to all. Christ, encompassing all of humanity in himself, brought justification (vindication) and life to all men. I take this "one act of righteousness" to be his resurrection which is identified with justification in 4:25.
I think theologians are right to recognize that Paul utilizes the term justification in at least two different senses. It can refer to what happened to all men in Christ at the resurrection (objective justification) and what happens to those who have faith (subjective justification). And as I pointed out previously, it can also refer to one's eschatological vindication, though that isn't part of this particular dispute.
Personally, I don't see this as a Confessional issue. I think Lutherans can have genuine disagreement here so long as both sides agree that Christ's death and resurrection were done on behalf of all people, and that the benefits of Christ's work must be received by faith. People are too quick to throw condemnations around in this debate, which is why I have largely avoided it. But, that being said, I do think that the concept of UOJ is valid and helpful. It is especially useful in explaining the Lutheran approach to universal atonement in opposition to both the Reformed and Arminian views.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Atonement Theories and Objective Justification
On today's program I did a brief overview of the controversy over objective justification and gave some of my thoughts on the matter. Then I answered a question about the Governmental theory of the atonement and launched to a discussion of the various atonement motifs. Here's the program. 
Here is the article I referenced in regards to objective justification: What is objective justification?
Here is the article I referenced in regards to objective justification: What is objective justification?
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sola Fide in Patristic Literature
I have had numerous emails and comments about the sources I have recommended for seeing a "Lutheran" doctrine of justification in the Church Fathers. This is an attempt to put together a list of Patristic sources which I think approach a Lutheran doctrine of justification.
I had mentioned on my podcast, two apostolic fathers. First is Clement of Rome, who writes,
"All these, therefore were highly honored and made great, not for their own sake, or for their works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of his will. And we too, being called by his will in Jesus Christ, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men." (I Clement 32)
Second is the anonymous author of the Epistle to Diognetus who clearly teaches imputation of Christ's alien righteousness:
"This was not that he at all delighted in our sins, but that he simply endured them; nor that he approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that he sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached it’s height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting his own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great longsuffering and bore with us, he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities, he gave his son as a ransom for us, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible one for the corruptible, the immortal one for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness? By what other thing was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hidden in a single righteous One, that the righteousness of one should justify the many transgressors." (Chapter IX)
The best resource for the Apostolic Fathers is the translation: Holmes, Michael. The Apostolic Fathers in English (Baker, 2006) The old J.B. Phillips translations in the Schaff ANF series still hold up as well.
I would particularly point to the writings of St. Ambrose. His treatise On Jacob and the Happy Life is very significant in this regard. Look at the following quote for example,
"Nevertheless, the law was of help to me. I began to confess what I used to deny, I began to know my sin and not to cover over my injustice. I began to proclaim my injustice to the Lord against myself, and you forgave the impurities of my heart. But this too is of help to me, that we are not justified by the works of the law. Thus, I do not have the wherewithal to enable me to glory in my own works, I do not have the wherewithal to boast of myself, and so I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I have been redeemed. I will not glory because I am free from sins, but because sins have been forgiven me. I will not glory because I am profitable or because anyone is profitable to me, but because Christ is an advocate in my behalf with the Father, because the blood of Christ has been poured out in my behalf. My guilt became for me the price of redemption, through which Christ came to me. On account of me, Christ tasted death." (On Jacob and the Happy Life, 133)
This quote is merely a sample of Ambrose's Christ-centered pastoral heart. You will find a lot of talk about justification by faith and the condemnatory use of the law. The English translation of this can be found in: McHugh, Michael P. St Ambrose: Seven Exegetical Works (Washington D.C: Catholic University of America, 1972)
John Chrysostom's commentary on Galatians expounds upon the law/gospel distinction rather clearly. He defines the purpose of the law as follows,
"the Law commands all its precepts to be performed, and punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to it, for no man has fulfilled it. Here observe, how guardedly he assails it; he says not, 'the Law is dead to me' but 'I am dead to the Law', the meaning of which is, that, as it is impossible for a dead corpse to obey the commandments of the Law, so also it is for me who have perished by its curse, for by its word am I slain." (Comments on Galatians 2:19)
He also writes,
"For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justified by Faith." (Comments on Galatians 3:12)
Speaking of Abraham, Chrysostom states, "And if he who was before grace, was justified by Faith, although plentiful in works, much more are we. For what loss was it for him, not being under the Law? None, for his faith sufficed unto righteousness." (Comments on Galatians 3:6)
Chrysostom's Pauline commentaries can be found in the NPNF series edited by Phillip Schaff. There are numerous editions.
Other works I would point to are Augustine's treatise On the Spirit and the Letter, which demonstrates a pretty clear law/gospel distinction. This work was especially important for Luther, as was the work The Call of All Nations by Prosper of Aquitaine, which I have often referenced.
I will probably do a part two to this post, because there are so many resources that could be referenced. My upcoming book deals only with the Apostolic Fathers, but I would like to write one dealing with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who are two of my favorite writers and preachers.
Ultimately, isolated quotes are not enough. You will have to read the works themselves, look at the context, and place these ideas into the overall theological system of these particular writers. This is what I attempt to do with my work, and hopefully some others will take up the task as well, looking at other early writers who I have not had the time to study.
I had mentioned on my podcast, two apostolic fathers. First is Clement of Rome, who writes,
"All these, therefore were highly honored and made great, not for their own sake, or for their works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of his will. And we too, being called by his will in Jesus Christ, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men." (I Clement 32)
Second is the anonymous author of the Epistle to Diognetus who clearly teaches imputation of Christ's alien righteousness:
"This was not that he at all delighted in our sins, but that he simply endured them; nor that he approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that he sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached it’s height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting his own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great longsuffering and bore with us, he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities, he gave his son as a ransom for us, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the incorruptible one for the corruptible, the immortal one for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness? By what other thing was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hidden in a single righteous One, that the righteousness of one should justify the many transgressors." (Chapter IX)
The best resource for the Apostolic Fathers is the translation: Holmes, Michael. The Apostolic Fathers in English (Baker, 2006) The old J.B. Phillips translations in the Schaff ANF series still hold up as well.
I would particularly point to the writings of St. Ambrose. His treatise On Jacob and the Happy Life is very significant in this regard. Look at the following quote for example,
"Nevertheless, the law was of help to me. I began to confess what I used to deny, I began to know my sin and not to cover over my injustice. I began to proclaim my injustice to the Lord against myself, and you forgave the impurities of my heart. But this too is of help to me, that we are not justified by the works of the law. Thus, I do not have the wherewithal to enable me to glory in my own works, I do not have the wherewithal to boast of myself, and so I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I have been redeemed. I will not glory because I am free from sins, but because sins have been forgiven me. I will not glory because I am profitable or because anyone is profitable to me, but because Christ is an advocate in my behalf with the Father, because the blood of Christ has been poured out in my behalf. My guilt became for me the price of redemption, through which Christ came to me. On account of me, Christ tasted death." (On Jacob and the Happy Life, 133)
This quote is merely a sample of Ambrose's Christ-centered pastoral heart. You will find a lot of talk about justification by faith and the condemnatory use of the law. The English translation of this can be found in: McHugh, Michael P. St Ambrose: Seven Exegetical Works (Washington D.C: Catholic University of America, 1972)
John Chrysostom's commentary on Galatians expounds upon the law/gospel distinction rather clearly. He defines the purpose of the law as follows,
"the Law commands all its precepts to be performed, and punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to it, for no man has fulfilled it. Here observe, how guardedly he assails it; he says not, 'the Law is dead to me' but 'I am dead to the Law', the meaning of which is, that, as it is impossible for a dead corpse to obey the commandments of the Law, so also it is for me who have perished by its curse, for by its word am I slain." (Comments on Galatians 2:19)
He also writes,
"For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justified by Faith." (Comments on Galatians 3:12)
Speaking of Abraham, Chrysostom states, "And if he who was before grace, was justified by Faith, although plentiful in works, much more are we. For what loss was it for him, not being under the Law? None, for his faith sufficed unto righteousness." (Comments on Galatians 3:6)
Chrysostom's Pauline commentaries can be found in the NPNF series edited by Phillip Schaff. There are numerous editions.
Other works I would point to are Augustine's treatise On the Spirit and the Letter, which demonstrates a pretty clear law/gospel distinction. This work was especially important for Luther, as was the work The Call of All Nations by Prosper of Aquitaine, which I have often referenced.
I will probably do a part two to this post, because there are so many resources that could be referenced. My upcoming book deals only with the Apostolic Fathers, but I would like to write one dealing with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who are two of my favorite writers and preachers.
Ultimately, isolated quotes are not enough. You will have to read the works themselves, look at the context, and place these ideas into the overall theological system of these particular writers. This is what I attempt to do with my work, and hopefully some others will take up the task as well, looking at other early writers who I have not had the time to study.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
This Weeks Episode: The Importance of the Reformation
This week episode is a special reformation edition of the podcast, in light of reformation Sunday this weekend. I didn't get to the discussion of limited atonement or listener questions, but discussed the importance of the reformation. I dealt specifically with attacks on the Lutheran understanding of Paul in recent years. Listen here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
My Upcoming Book
I just received word from Wipf & Stock that an edited version of my Masters Thesis will be published. The title of the work is The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul. I will keep you updated when I get a date for publication.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Priority of Justification over Sanctification
The following is a section from my chapter "New Life in Christ: Sanctification and Vocation" in my upcoming book on Reformed and Lutheran theology, 
The primary reason why justification assumes a theological priority over sanctification is that it is a completed act. The work of justification establishes God's eschatological verdict of “righteous” placed upon the sinner. As Romans 4:5 states, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” As was discussed in the previous chapter, this text has specific reference to Abraham. In Genesis 12 Abraham was made an heir of the covenant, given the promise of being the forefather of the future messiah and the nation of Israel. Thus Abraham's journey of faith began earlier than the text Paul utilizes from chapter 15 wherein Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness. Paul explicitly labels Abraham as one who “does not work” and even calls him “ungodly.” This does not refer merely to the beginning of Abraham's life of faith, in which he would become godly and righteous by his own strength, but to the Abraham who had already left his pagan idolatry in order to serve God. Thus even after Abraham had some level of sanctification and displayed that through his good works, he is still labeled by Paul as ungodly, and is righteous apart from works. This demonstrates that justification is primary, not only in the beginning of the Christian life, but in one's continual journey in faith. Even after one is sanctified to an extent one can still be labeled as “ungodly” and “without works.”
There is a prominent pastoral concern in this discussion as well. As one progresses in the Christian life, rather than seeing victory over sin, one often struggles with the fact that the sins which should be done away with keep returning. The old Adam continually reasserts himself, bringing God's children back into the sin which previously enslaved them. If I as a pastor were to emphasize the work of sanctification and progress in the Christian life, one's state of mind would likely become that of despair. The progress that we hope to find in our spiritual journeys simply isn't there. Rather than pointing to that work of God which is still incomplete, that work by which God would still only be able to call his people “ungodly”, I as a pastor have a duty to point to that work of God which is complete, that work by which alone one will be received into God's kingdom and participate in the resurrection unto life. Alien righteousness is full and complete, and is the only thing which one can cling to in assurance that eternal life is a present possession, not the incomplete work of renewal which will only lead to the Christian's realization of their failure to progress as far as they should.
Paul demonstrates this principle in a pastoral manner in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Of all his letters, this is the one in which Paul deals with the broadest moral problems. The Corinthian congregation is struggling with sectarianism, sexual immorality, a lack of concern for the sins of others, and a tendency to take other Christians to court. Amidst this group of people, seemingly lacking the fruits of sanctification, Paul is willing to address them as “saints.” Even though they are full of obvious sin that Paul addresses throughout this epistle, they are righteous and holy people. After chastising the Corinthians for their tendency to desire taking others to a law court in order to settle church disputes, Paul warns them that those who practice wickedness will not inherit the kingdom of God. Rather than pointing them, then, to the sinfulness of their own lives, and the lack of fruit that they demonstrate, he reminds them of something which is a past reality. He states, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” He reminds the Corinthians that even though they demonstrate all sorts of sin and wickedness within their congregation, these sins do not define who they are in Christ. Though previously slaves to sin, the Corinthians have now been baptized into Christ, they have been set apart, they have been declared righteous and their sins have been forgiven. Even in the midst of a situation of profound sin, Paul is willing to assure the Corinthian believers of their status before God by their baptisms and their justification.
The primary reason why justification assumes a theological priority over sanctification is that it is a completed act. The work of justification establishes God's eschatological verdict of “righteous” placed upon the sinner. As Romans 4:5 states, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” As was discussed in the previous chapter, this text has specific reference to Abraham. In Genesis 12 Abraham was made an heir of the covenant, given the promise of being the forefather of the future messiah and the nation of Israel. Thus Abraham's journey of faith began earlier than the text Paul utilizes from chapter 15 wherein Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness. Paul explicitly labels Abraham as one who “does not work” and even calls him “ungodly.” This does not refer merely to the beginning of Abraham's life of faith, in which he would become godly and righteous by his own strength, but to the Abraham who had already left his pagan idolatry in order to serve God. Thus even after Abraham had some level of sanctification and displayed that through his good works, he is still labeled by Paul as ungodly, and is righteous apart from works. This demonstrates that justification is primary, not only in the beginning of the Christian life, but in one's continual journey in faith. Even after one is sanctified to an extent one can still be labeled as “ungodly” and “without works.”
There is a prominent pastoral concern in this discussion as well. As one progresses in the Christian life, rather than seeing victory over sin, one often struggles with the fact that the sins which should be done away with keep returning. The old Adam continually reasserts himself, bringing God's children back into the sin which previously enslaved them. If I as a pastor were to emphasize the work of sanctification and progress in the Christian life, one's state of mind would likely become that of despair. The progress that we hope to find in our spiritual journeys simply isn't there. Rather than pointing to that work of God which is still incomplete, that work by which God would still only be able to call his people “ungodly”, I as a pastor have a duty to point to that work of God which is complete, that work by which alone one will be received into God's kingdom and participate in the resurrection unto life. Alien righteousness is full and complete, and is the only thing which one can cling to in assurance that eternal life is a present possession, not the incomplete work of renewal which will only lead to the Christian's realization of their failure to progress as far as they should.
Paul demonstrates this principle in a pastoral manner in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Of all his letters, this is the one in which Paul deals with the broadest moral problems. The Corinthian congregation is struggling with sectarianism, sexual immorality, a lack of concern for the sins of others, and a tendency to take other Christians to court. Amidst this group of people, seemingly lacking the fruits of sanctification, Paul is willing to address them as “saints.” Even though they are full of obvious sin that Paul addresses throughout this epistle, they are righteous and holy people. After chastising the Corinthians for their tendency to desire taking others to a law court in order to settle church disputes, Paul warns them that those who practice wickedness will not inherit the kingdom of God. Rather than pointing them, then, to the sinfulness of their own lives, and the lack of fruit that they demonstrate, he reminds them of something which is a past reality. He states, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” He reminds the Corinthians that even though they demonstrate all sorts of sin and wickedness within their congregation, these sins do not define who they are in Christ. Though previously slaves to sin, the Corinthians have now been baptized into Christ, they have been set apart, they have been declared righteous and their sins have been forgiven. Even in the midst of a situation of profound sin, Paul is willing to assure the Corinthian believers of their status before God by their baptisms and their justification.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Issues Etc. Interview on Justification
I was on Issues etc. today discussing my recent article on Justification. Listen here.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
My Response to "Justification: Five Views"
A response I have written to the book "Justification: Five views" has been published by Logia. It can be found online here.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Is the gospel purely forensic?
In the continuing discussions in the Reformed camp over the issue of union with Christ and its relation to justification, one of the questions that has consistently risen is that of the definition of the gospel. Is the gospel the forensic doctrine of justification? Is it solely defined as imputation of righteousness and forgiveness on the personal ordo salutis?
It is often the assumption that the Lutheran approach to the gospel consists purely of subjective justification of the sinner without ontological or transformational categories. It is pure legal declaration. But is this portrayal of the Lutheran position accurate?
The Smalcald Articles make it apparent that for Luther, the center of the gospel is the objective work of Christ in history for us. This is how Luther defines the "chief article" of the Christian faith:
"That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.
2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.
3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f
4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ." (Part II: Article 1)
Both objective and subjective justification constitute the gospel. Luther is also not willing to dismiss the effective change in the believer's heart as something foreign to the gospel. He states later in the Smalcald Articles of the doctrine of justification,
"I do not know how to change in the least what I have previously and constantly taught about justification. Namely, that through faith, as St. Peter says, we have a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ our Mediator. Although sin in the flesh has not yet been completely removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it." (Part III Article 13:1)
Not only is regeneration an aspect of the gospel for the Lutheran church, but also the Christian's adoption as God's child. As Melancthon writes in the Apology, “Since we receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit through faith alone, faith justifies. For those reconciled are counted as righteous and as God’s children.” (Apology IV:II:86)
Chemnitz also defines the gospel as something broader than simply imputation and forgiveness in his Loci Theologici, “For the Gospel contains the promise of the Spirit of renewal, who writes the Law into the heart of believers, Jer. 31:33. It also teaches how the beginnings of obedience, although imperfect and contaminated in many ways, are pleasing to God in those who are righteous for the sake of Christ." (Loci Theologici II-III, 826)
The gospel is the message of Christ for us and his accomplished salvation in his life, death, and resurrection. This brings imputation, forgiveness, adoption, eschatological vindication, and the Spirit who renews hearts. Hopefully this helps clarify some of these issues in the ongoing dialogue.
It is often the assumption that the Lutheran approach to the gospel consists purely of subjective justification of the sinner without ontological or transformational categories. It is pure legal declaration. But is this portrayal of the Lutheran position accurate?
The Smalcald Articles make it apparent that for Luther, the center of the gospel is the objective work of Christ in history for us. This is how Luther defines the "chief article" of the Christian faith:
"That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.
2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.
3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f
4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ." (Part II: Article 1)
Both objective and subjective justification constitute the gospel. Luther is also not willing to dismiss the effective change in the believer's heart as something foreign to the gospel. He states later in the Smalcald Articles of the doctrine of justification,
"I do not know how to change in the least what I have previously and constantly taught about justification. Namely, that through faith, as St. Peter says, we have a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ our Mediator. Although sin in the flesh has not yet been completely removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it." (Part III Article 13:1)
Not only is regeneration an aspect of the gospel for the Lutheran church, but also the Christian's adoption as God's child. As Melancthon writes in the Apology, “Since we receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit through faith alone, faith justifies. For those reconciled are counted as righteous and as God’s children.” (Apology IV:II:86)
Chemnitz also defines the gospel as something broader than simply imputation and forgiveness in his Loci Theologici, “For the Gospel contains the promise of the Spirit of renewal, who writes the Law into the heart of believers, Jer. 31:33. It also teaches how the beginnings of obedience, although imperfect and contaminated in many ways, are pleasing to God in those who are righteous for the sake of Christ." (Loci Theologici II-III, 826)
The gospel is the message of Christ for us and his accomplished salvation in his life, death, and resurrection. This brings imputation, forgiveness, adoption, eschatological vindication, and the Spirit who renews hearts. Hopefully this helps clarify some of these issues in the ongoing dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)