Paul Lamey over at Expository Thoughts has a clever post on N. T. Wright's changed position on justification through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. His post title is "They can't both be 'Wright'"!
Here are the two quotes which were written 25 years apart.
“Justification by faith is the heart of the Gospel. This is what is contained in the promise, ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.’ If we fail to grasp the fact that the righteousness which justifies us is imputed and not infused or inherent, we shall find that, in substance, what we preach is a gospel of works, not a Gospel of grace” [from N. T. Wright (along with John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, and Michael Sadgrove) in the 1972 edition of The Grace of God in the Gospel (Banner of Truth)].
“If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . . To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how language works” [from N. T. Wright in the 1997 edition of What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans)].
Brian G. Hedges | Pastor & Author
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Hedges on Schreiner on Paul on Law: Eight Theses
Having finally completed Thomas Schreiner's The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (I started this en roue to Africa in October!), this afternoon I've tried to summarize Schreiner's position in a series of "theses." Schreiner does not do this himself, although much is summarized in the conclusion of the book. So, these should be read as my interpretation of Schreiner, not direct quotations (although, there are a lot of direct quotations in what follows).
1. The term law (nomos) in Paul usually refers to the Mosaic law and in particular the commandments of the law, although Paul also uses the term law metaphorically at times in reference to some other principle or order or power.
2. The term works refers to deeds that are performed, while the phrase works of law refers to the works or deeds demanded by the Mosaic Law including the moral and ethical commands. Works of law may include but is certainly not limited in its scope to distinctively Jewish ceremonial laws (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws) which functioned as “boundary markers.”
3. Paul’s primary critique of Judaism is not that it is nationalistic and exclusive of Gentiles, nor is his primary concern with works of law that they are legalistic, although there is good evidence that Paul was countering legalism in his disputes with Judaizers. At the heart of legalism is the delusion that human beings are good and that their works can be sufficient to obtain righteousness.
4. But the primary reason why Paul asserts that no one can be saved by the works of law is because no one can obey the law perfectly because of sin. Paul believes that people would be saved if they could perfectly keep the law, but this is impossible. Therefore, a right standing with God comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.
5. One reason the law does not save is because a salvation-historical shift has occurred with the coming of Jesus Christ. When Paul says the law was a pedagogue or guardian, he is emphasizing its temporary and provisional nature. The Mosaic covenant was not intended to be in force indefinitely, but only for a certain period of history, as an interim measure until the promise given to Abraham was fulfilled. That promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
6. The purpose of the law was not to save, but to increase sin. Though the law itself is good, it has no inherent power to produce the obedience it requires. Because of the weakness of the flesh, the law without the Spirit only produces condemnation and death. The triumph of grace over sin shines brighter when the full depth of human sin is realized. Human beings do not realize the extent and gravity of their corruption until they measure themselves against the standard of the law.
7. There is a tension in the New Testament between the abolition of the Mosaic law and the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. The relationship between the law and believers today is complex. We should avoid radical discontinuity on one hand, which denies that the moral norms expressed in the Old Testament law are in force for believers today. But on the other hand we should also avoid radical continuity which asserts that the cultic laws of Israel should continue to be practiced or which attempts to impose the civil laws of Israel onto civil governments today. There are clear indicators in the New Testament that the ceremonial and cultic aspects of the Mosaic law (sacrifice, food laws, circumcision, Sabbath, purity laws, feasts and festivals) have been fulfilled in Christ. Yet New Testament authors do not hesitate to appeal to the Old Testament in their moral and ethical exhortations for Christian living.
8. Good works are not the basis of a person’s justification, because no one can obey God’s law perfectly. The substitutionary and atoning death of Jesus Christ is the only sufficient ground for justification. Yet, all who are justified are given the gift of the Holy Spirit and will produce obedience that is significant, substantial, and observable, and final judgment and the granting of eternal life will be in accordance with these Spirit-empowered “good works.”
The whole issue of law/gospel is a particularly thorny one that I've been wrestling with (on and off) for several years. I'm still not completely satisfied and don't feel like I've fully digested all that I've read from Schreiner, Westerholm, and others. But this is an important issue because it influences so many others, especially one's doctrine of justification. My thinking has definitely been challenged and influenced by what Schreiner has written. I hope that with further reading on this issue, and especially further and more in-depth study in Paul's letters themselves, will yield increasing clarity in the years to come.
1. The term law (nomos) in Paul usually refers to the Mosaic law and in particular the commandments of the law, although Paul also uses the term law metaphorically at times in reference to some other principle or order or power.
2. The term works refers to deeds that are performed, while the phrase works of law refers to the works or deeds demanded by the Mosaic Law including the moral and ethical commands. Works of law may include but is certainly not limited in its scope to distinctively Jewish ceremonial laws (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws) which functioned as “boundary markers.”
3. Paul’s primary critique of Judaism is not that it is nationalistic and exclusive of Gentiles, nor is his primary concern with works of law that they are legalistic, although there is good evidence that Paul was countering legalism in his disputes with Judaizers. At the heart of legalism is the delusion that human beings are good and that their works can be sufficient to obtain righteousness.
4. But the primary reason why Paul asserts that no one can be saved by the works of law is because no one can obey the law perfectly because of sin. Paul believes that people would be saved if they could perfectly keep the law, but this is impossible. Therefore, a right standing with God comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.
5. One reason the law does not save is because a salvation-historical shift has occurred with the coming of Jesus Christ. When Paul says the law was a pedagogue or guardian, he is emphasizing its temporary and provisional nature. The Mosaic covenant was not intended to be in force indefinitely, but only for a certain period of history, as an interim measure until the promise given to Abraham was fulfilled. That promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
6. The purpose of the law was not to save, but to increase sin. Though the law itself is good, it has no inherent power to produce the obedience it requires. Because of the weakness of the flesh, the law without the Spirit only produces condemnation and death. The triumph of grace over sin shines brighter when the full depth of human sin is realized. Human beings do not realize the extent and gravity of their corruption until they measure themselves against the standard of the law.
7. There is a tension in the New Testament between the abolition of the Mosaic law and the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. The relationship between the law and believers today is complex. We should avoid radical discontinuity on one hand, which denies that the moral norms expressed in the Old Testament law are in force for believers today. But on the other hand we should also avoid radical continuity which asserts that the cultic laws of Israel should continue to be practiced or which attempts to impose the civil laws of Israel onto civil governments today. There are clear indicators in the New Testament that the ceremonial and cultic aspects of the Mosaic law (sacrifice, food laws, circumcision, Sabbath, purity laws, feasts and festivals) have been fulfilled in Christ. Yet New Testament authors do not hesitate to appeal to the Old Testament in their moral and ethical exhortations for Christian living.
8. Good works are not the basis of a person’s justification, because no one can obey God’s law perfectly. The substitutionary and atoning death of Jesus Christ is the only sufficient ground for justification. Yet, all who are justified are given the gift of the Holy Spirit and will produce obedience that is significant, substantial, and observable, and final judgment and the granting of eternal life will be in accordance with these Spirit-empowered “good works.”
The whole issue of law/gospel is a particularly thorny one that I've been wrestling with (on and off) for several years. I'm still not completely satisfied and don't feel like I've fully digested all that I've read from Schreiner, Westerholm, and others. But this is an important issue because it influences so many others, especially one's doctrine of justification. My thinking has definitely been challenged and influenced by what Schreiner has written. I hope that with further reading on this issue, and especially further and more in-depth study in Paul's letters themselves, will yield increasing clarity in the years to come.
By Faith, Not By Sight by Richard B. Gaffiin (Book Review)
(Murray was also one of Gaffin's teachers at Westminster Seminary, where Gaffin now teaches). Murray's book is an in-depth study of the atonement and the application of salvation to believers from start to finish. Gaffin's focus is slightly different, and complementary to Murray's.After carefully defining and distinguishing the terms historia salutis (the history of salvation - salvation accomplished in history) and ordo salutis (the order of salvation - salvation applied in experience), Gaffin sets Paul's soteriological concerns within the context of his summary statements of the gospel and the gospel's nature as solution to the plight of human sin. Gaffin next tethers his comments to "union with Christ" as the center of Paul's soteriology, and then develops Paul's anthropology and eschatology, which sets the stage for reading Paul's soteriology in those contexts, so that salvation is viewed within an already/not yet framework. Then Gaffin starts connecting the dots between sanctification and eschatology, justification and eschatology, etc. in very helpful exegetical theological reflections.
Along the way, Gaffin occasionally interacts with the New Perspective on Paul, usually critically. His primary dialogue partner is N. T. Wright, with whom Gaffin delivered the series of lectures which eventually became this book, at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church a couple of years ago. I am not persuaded that Gaffin fully understands all the nuances of Wright's theology, but some of his criticisms of Wright are probably valid. Helpful for me was Gaffin's logical defense of the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the basis for a believer's justification. I also appreciated his refusal to polarize the individual dimensions of salvation from corporate and cosmic dimensions. Most beneficial to me was how Gaffin masterfully showed the centrality of union with Christ in his death and resurrection and the eschatological impact of those key gospel events on the believer's salvation.
Gaffin draws heavily on the work of Herman Ridderbos and has made me want to explore Ridderbos for myself. Mostly, Gaffin makes me want to read Paul more closely and discover the richness of Paul's theological perspectives on Christ's glorious accomplishment in redemption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)