PDA

View Full Version : Justification


Amazing Rando
November 16th 2005, 01:46 AM
Hot off the presses- a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology class on the huge topic of justification- 9 pages long. As always, comments are welcome.

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

Rob Arner 11-14-05
Systematic Theology I

Justification


In Protestant theological circles, the Pauline phrases “justification by grace through faith,” or just “justification by faith” have become buzzwords. The so-called “rediscovery” of this key theological concept by Martin Luther has been touted as the most important contribution to the Christian faith made by the Protestant Reformation. But what did Paul intend to convey through his emphasis on this concept? Traditional Protestant doctrine has focused on the “legal” or “courtroom” aspects of the biblical word “justify” to convey the sense of God’s “acquitting” us poor, wretched sinners from the guilt of our sins. But as we shall see, Paul’s intended meaning of the related words dikaiosunh ”righteousness” and dikaiow,"justify" go far beyond the legal implications from which they were taken through the catachresis of the early church. This paper will catalog the biblical definitions and usage of “justification” as well as explore some of the implications that justification has in Pauline thought, both corporately for the Church, and personally for the individual follower of Jesus.

For the biblical writers, “justification” and “righteousness,” which come from the same root in Greek, carry a rich variety of meaning. In common parlance in the first century (in contexts apart from Jewish and Christian theological usage), justification was primarily a legal term. It had to do with a court of law, in which a judge would decide in favor of one of the two parties, either accuser or defendant, thereby “justifying” him or her. If the accused was acquitted of the charges against him, he was considered to be “just” or “righteous” in both the legal and moral senses.

However, this legal definition was largely co-opted and overshadowed in biblical thought by the covenantal connotations of justification. God was seen as the judge, who ruled in favor of Israel and against her oppressive enemies, the nations (Assyria, Babylon, Rome, etc). In Isaiah for example, YHWH declares that “by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many” (Isaiah 53:1), meaning that the Suffering Servant would be the agent by whom Israel was “acquitted” in YHWH’s sight and restored to the shalom state of covenantal faithfulness. This has implications for both the present and the eschatological future. As Michael Gorman summarizes it, “On the one hand, then, justification is the language of restoring and maintaining right covenant relations in the present; on the other, justification is the language of acquittal and acceptance on the apocalyptic day of judgment.” For Israel to be justified meant for the restoration of (1) right covenantal relations with God, (2) right relations with others (both within and beyond the ethnic and religious identity of Israel), and (3) vindication on the apocalyptic Day of YHWH.

In the New Testament, and particularly in Paul’s letters, the mode of justification is Jesus Christ. In particular, it is Jesus’ faithful obedience that shapes Paul’s view of justification. Gorman makes an important point when he notes that the phrase pistewV cristouused in many places throughout the Pauline correspondences such as Philippians 3:9 for example, and which is frequently translated as “faith in Christ” would be better translated as “faith of Christ” due to the use of the genitive case. The distinctions are subtle but critical. “Faith in Christ” implies that it is our faith that justifies us, whereby our response to God’s call to repentance is the agent of justification, what makes us righteous. “Faith of Christ” emphasizes instead the faith of Jesus Christ himself, namely his perfect and complete trusting obedience to God the Father, as exemplified through his life and particularly, his death on the cross. The pre-Pauline hymnic material Paul cites or paraphrases in Philippians 2:5-11 has as its hinge point Jesus’ actions when he “humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8). It is Jesus Christ’s model of obedience and faithfulness which Christians are called to imitate that actually justifies us.

The implications of this great act of justification for God’s people are enormous, both on the corporate level (the Church), and the personal level (the individual). For the body of Christ as a whole, justification means membership in God’s covenantal people, alignment with the right “political faction,” freedom from bondage and slavery (to sin, self, and other people), participation in the resurrection, and restoration of shalom in reconciliation and right relationships. On a personal (though not private!) level, justification means acquittal from guilt, deliverance from shame of all types, and sanctification. While this is just the beginning of the list of all the effects and implications justification has on us as individuals and as the Church, it should be sufficient as a representative sample.

For the Church as a whole, justification means being welcomed with open arms into the family of God’s people. It means being embraced by the New Covenant, along with “all the overtones of appropriate behavior” that covenant membership requires. This is not to say that it is the ethical overtones inherent in covenantal relationships that make covenant relationships possible, but rather, as Gorman paraphrases Paul, “Justification is not merely a declaration, but a restoration to covenant faithfulness, and that is an inherently moral enterprise.” Our justification is then, not a matter of a pronouncement of a restored covenant followed up by no action, but rather the actual restoration and reconciliation of the broken bonds of covenantal membership, based exclusively on God’s initiative, but conditional on our response in faith.

Justification also means being aligned with the right “political party.” As Gorman shows in Apostle of the Crucified Lord, Paul’s gospel is a profoundly political one, or rather, a theopolitical message. Many of the words Paul has appropriated through catachresis to help him communicate his gospel are from the political sphere. For instance, to euaggelion, far from being a “religious” term, actually meant the “good news” of a military victory or the birth of an heir to the throne, but for Paul it takes on the meaning of the glorious news of the salvation offered through Jesus Christ, our new Lord. Furthermore, in Paul’s letters, justification takes on the connotation of being aligned with the right political faction. No longer is it safe to cast one’s lot in with the Herodians, Zealots, Pharisees, or Romans (or we might say in contemporary contexts, with the Republicans or Democrats). Now, the only politics that matter are the politics of the inbreaking reign of God proclaimed by Jesus and of the crucified Lord proclaimed by Paul. Justification in this sense means being found in proper alignment with God’s politics and plan of redemption.

In addition to the “theopolitical” overtones of the cross, justification also includes the sense of freedom for God’s people from bondage and slavery. Just as Israel celebrates YHWH’s salvation in His intervention in the Exodus event on their behalf, Paul rejoices in the liberation that comes through the justification of the cross. This is freedom from the slavery of “works of the law” (as is celebrated in Galatians 5:1), hollow legalism (Colossians 2:20-23), the slavery of sin (Romans 6:17-22), and even death itself (Romans 8:2, also see Hebrews 2:15). Through Christ, we are “redeemed” or “liberated,” words borrowed from the parlance of the slave market, from those masters, only to be made slaves to the perfect Master. Freedom in this sense is not won through violence, coercion, or forcing others to submit themselves to our will, but rather by surrendering our will to the One who demands it. The idolatry we make in this country of political freedom as an end unto itself misses the point of the gospel entirely. Justification in this sense is enslavement to God, in whom lies the most amazing freedom imaginable. Or as Gorman summarizes, “True freedom, in Paul’s experience, is belonging to the right master.”

Another major theme in Paul’s letters is justification and salvation as participation in the resurrection of the dead. The great treatise on the resurrection found in 1 Corinthians 15 makes this abundantly clear. What is frequently missing from discussions of justification and salvation as regards the resurrection however, is that the resurrection is both future, and present! Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are given a foretaste of what is to come in the future, when death is “swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:54) and we will experience “a transformed bodily existence in the presence of God.” But justification also entails present resurrection as well. Paul clearly asserts that the Church (as well as individual believers) experience present resurrection from the old life. This is made abundantly clear in Romans 6:4, which declares that “we were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

Another implication of justification for the people of God as a whole is the restoration of shalom with God and with one another. As partakers of the New Covenant, the Church’s relationship with God is healed and restored to shalom, the way it was meant to be. This is also true of corporate relationships within the Body of Christ. The new ethic of love taught and lived out by Jesus Christ is God’s gift to us through justification by the faith of His Son. True peace with God and neighbor (as opposed to the bare absence of conflict and violence proposed by worldly schemes) is among the blessings of the gospel for all who would embrace it.

These corporate benefits of justification for the Church as a whole do not quite cover the entire scope of the term in Pauline thought. There are also many personal implications of the polyvalent terms “justification” and “righteousness.” It should be noted however, that these benefits are, as Gorman puts it, personal, but not private, in that they are not a matter of some private, subjective “religious experience,” but rather concretely individual, life-transforming applications that affect the believer’s entire being, which are offered to all humanity, to all creation to experience as individuals, but in community with one another.

For the individual Christian, justification carries with it the meaning of acquittal from guilt. In a Jewish court of law, to be “justified” is to have the judge rule in your favor, particularly if you were the defendant, perhaps on trial for your life. In Paul’s correspondences, to be justified means for God, the holy and righteous judge, to find you not guilty. Gorman points out that this has particularly strong implications in Paul’s discussions about the apocalyptic Day of Judgment. We are each to “give an account of (ourselves) to God on that day (Romans 14:2), and the one who is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ need not fear on that day.

One of the powers from which justification also saves us is from the tremendous worldly power of shame. In a society as concerned with honor and shame as first century Jews, following a Messiah who suffered the shameful death of a common criminal would have been all but unthinkable- yet somehow the gospel persists. It is a “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23), but it commands an unimaginable power over the lives of believers who have been delivered from all types of shame by the One who took up their shame and nailed it to the cross. As a result of justification says Paul, “anyone who trusts in Him will never be put to shame” (Romans 9:33, 10:11).

Finally, justification enables the sanctification of the individual believer. Sanctification is the clearest way Christians experience the power of justification as a process that transforms their lives to conform to that of Jesus. As Gorman notes, “Christ, for Paul, enables believers to embody the sanctified (“holy”)- i.e. distinctive or countercultural- lifestyle appropriate for the people of the covenant. Christ is believers’ holiness.” Justification enables us to grow into Christ, to conform our lives to his in perfect obedience over the course of our lives. It is through justification that we are sanctified and enabled to follow Jesus in a life of obedience, carrying our own crosses, ready and willing to live or die for Him as we seek not be served, but to serve Him; not to kill, but to be killed with Him; not to live for ourselves, but to die with Him. The life of suffering servanthood is that for which all who would name the name of Jesus Christ are called, and we are sanctified through this life of faith.

This discussion of justification may now be drawn to a close now with a note from Gorman on the costliness of our justification through faith that is all too frequently overlooked by Christians of all stripes in this popular era of “cheap grace.” Gorman writes: “For Paul and the communities to which he writes, then, cruciform faith is costly. It costs Jesus his life, it yields relentless suffering and persecution for the apostle, and it frequently brings affliction to believing communities. ‘This is what we are destined for’ (1 Thess. 3:3).” We were bought for a price, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23, and the price of our justification is higher than we could ever imagine. Jesus’ costly faith is now our own. Let us now live as the justified people of God in order to share the good news of that justification with this starving and broken world.

Works Consulted


Gorman, Michael. Apostle of the Crucified Lord. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004.


Gorman, Michael. Crucifirmity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001.


McClendon, James Wm., Jr. Doctrine: Systematic Theology, Vol. II. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.


Wright, N.T. “Justification.” New Dictionary of Theology, eds. David F. Wright, et al. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Accessed from: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Justification.htm


Wright, N.T. “Righteousness.” New Dictionary of Theology, eds. David F. Wright, et al. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Accessed from: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Righteousness.htm

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

Sorry, I'm too lazy to format all the footnotes and titles and stuff from the Word Document to Tweb code, but I hope you enjoy nonetheless.

Amazing Rando
November 16th 2005, 03:31 PM
Only 4 views for my essay? :bawl:

spiritmech
November 16th 2005, 03:32 PM
I like the concept of the gospel going beyond the guilt/shame dichotomy.
sm

Amazing Rando
November 16th 2005, 04:57 PM
I like the concept of the gospel going beyond the guilt/shame dichotomy.
sm

I think it could be said that Jesus not only took our pain, but our shame as well. We have no more need to fear shame.

spiritmech
November 16th 2005, 09:38 PM
I think it could be said that Jesus not only took our pain, but our shame as well. We have no more need to fear shame.

:ale::highfive::thumb:

semmie
November 19th 2005, 04:10 PM
i almost never come in here. interestingly, i was just thinking that i need to understand justification more than i do. i doubt i'll have anything useful to say once i've read it, but i'm excited about it, anyway. :smile:

Amazing Rando
November 19th 2005, 05:51 PM
i almost never come in here. interestingly, i was just thinking that i need to understand justification more than i do. i doubt i'll have anything useful to say once i've read it, but i'm excited about it, anyway. :smile:

I would recommend two sources: the Anchor Bible Dictionary has a very good treatment of the subject- you can find it in any good library, and "Justification" (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Justification.htm) and "Righteousness" (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_NDCT_Righteousness.htm) in another theological dictionary, both by N.T. Wright. I used those sources (among others) in writing my paper.

Darth Executor
December 8th 2005, 06:56 PM
One question. You said Paul would not give "political allegiance" to Zealots, Romans, etc. What of this then?

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Rom 13:6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

George Blaisdell
December 10th 2005, 10:54 PM
Hey, AR -
One thing you CAN do, with the Greek, that I have found useful [unless you actually WANT it to be that big, black and ugly on the page], is to go to 'preview post', cut and paste the big ugly greek there back down below to where the greek-/greek is, and it becomes tame, docile, and normal sized... You can still make it bold, if you like, but the program now in place on T-Web does make it big, bold and ugly until copied and pasted...
Arsenios

Watch: ArsenioV
Becomes: Αρσενιος

And all I did was cut and past the big ugly back into the text beneath.

A.

Xavier
December 10th 2005, 11:04 PM
How did I miss this? TO THE PRINTER!

George Blaisdell
December 10th 2005, 11:22 PM
How did I miss this? TO THE PRINTER!
You ain't no Greek Geek, Leek!
Tain't been right fer longtimenow...

A - Medicinally challenged...

Amazing Rando
December 12th 2005, 09:48 AM
One question. You said Paul would not give "political allegiance" to Zealots, Romans, etc. What of this then?

[Romans 13:1-8]



What of it then? :tongue:

Paul writes in Romans 13:1 that we are to "submit" to the governing authorities.

A literal translation of the first part of that verse would be something like "Every soul to the overlording-authorities subordinate." The particular word for "subordinate" or "be subject" as your translation reads, has a connotation of "order," literally, "ordering under." It's a call to those who were embracing the newfound freedom that Christ offers not to abuse that freedom by rebelling against the governing authorities.

But it's a terrible abuse to say that this passage means unquestioning fealty to whatever political entity happens to be ruling your particular geographical area.


The Christian and the state. Paul's instructions on submission to the state (Rom 13:1-7) have provided authoritarian states and monarchies with powerful ideological tools to legitimate their rule as if by divine right and to enforce obedience. Taken as the last word on the subject, these words have tended to absolutize political authorities and to make of the church a kind of civil religion, the task of which was to support and legitimate the policies of those in power. Even in situations where the policies were marred by gross injustice, Romans 13:1-7 has been used to maintain the status quo, silence prophetic critique and stifle the impetus for reform.

Paul calls for submission to authority, but it is notable that he does not leave any room for the ideology of Rome or the emperors so prominent at the time. The authorities have no quasi-divine status: they have authority only as God's servants. They are legitimated by God only to the extent that they reinforce justice and advance God's purposes for human society. With regard to the authorities then, Paul advises a demythologized submission. The believer is thereby distanced from national and political ideologies and self-legitimating propaganda, and invited to view the governing authorities from the viewpoint of how they serve God's purposes. Submission, however, does not rule out criticism and prophetic direction. Indeed, Paul's formulation of the relationship of human authority to God, to whom every authority is accountable, calls disciples to proclaim this relationship to those in authority. If the authority is to serve God's interests, he or she must be made aware of what those interests are in order to have the opportunity to act in line with God's justice, and not deceive itself.

...A sound philosophy for Christian response to human authority must take into account the spectrum of New Testament witnesses to this subject, including Revelation's potent critique of the regime that upholds values contrary to the justice of God. When authority opposes God's designs, punishes the good while rewarding evil, inflicts misery on the innocent for the benefit of the privileged, and pressures people to participate in idolatry and unholiness, prophetic critique, nonviolent protest, and nonparticipation would be the more appropriate Christian response.

Also it must be noted that while many translations of 13:1 say something like God "established," "appointed," or "instituted," the actual verb form is a participle of tassw, which is better translated "ordered" or "arranged." This verse cannot be taken as a blanket statement meaning that God approves of or "instituted" every human governing authority, because the word means more that God "keeps the authorities in line," prevents them from overstepping their boundaries, that sort of thing. This is not a declaration of the legitimacy of human government, but rather a statement that God is actually ultimately in control of those powers. While the powers do serve a legitimate function in God's ordered plan of creation and redemption (i.e. keeping evil in check), they are not, and must never be, accorded the quasi demigogue status that many Christians have wanted to give them in order to perpetuate the status quo.

Thus I stand by my original statement from my paper, in which I said, "Furthermore, in Paul’s letters, justification takes on the connotation of being aligned with the right political faction. No longer is it safe to cast one’s lot in with the Herodians, Zealots, Pharisees, or Romans (or we might say in contemporary contexts, with the Republicans or Democrats). Now, the only politics that matter are the politics of the inbreaking reign of God proclaimed by Jesus and of the crucified Lord proclaimed by Paul. Justification in this sense means being found in proper alignment with God’s politics and plan of redemption."

The human authorities must be obeyed to the extent that they do not overstep the place God has assigned them, and when they set themselves up to oppose God's purposes for justice, peace, and reconciliation, they cannot be cooperated with. The only one to whom Christians may "pledge allegience" to is God Himself,the king of the universe, not the United States of America, the United Nations, or any other nation-state. Many people are unaware the the word "Christian" is actually a political term that is grammatically parallel to "Herodian" in the Bible. Wheras a "Herodian" was one whose political allegience was alligned with Herod, a "Christian" is in that sense, one whose political allegience belongs to Christ. We belong to the "party of Christ," not the Republicans nor the Democrats, our citizenship is in heaven (Phillippians 3:20), not in the Roman nor the American empires, and we have but one Master.

Amazing Rando
December 12th 2005, 09:51 AM
Hey, AR -
One thing you CAN do, with the Greek, that I have found useful [unless you actually WANT it to be that big, black and ugly on the page], is to go to 'preview post', cut and paste the big ugly greek there back down below to where the greek-/greek is, and it becomes tame, docile, and normal sized... You can still make it bold, if you like, but the program now in place on T-Web does make it big, bold and ugly until copied and pasted...
Arsenios

Watch: ArsenioV
Becomes: Αρσενιος

And all I did was cut and past the big ugly back into the text beneath.

A.

Aww rats! I wish I'd known how to do this earlier! Thanks so much, Αρσενιος!

Αμαζινγ Ρανδο thanks you! :hehe:

Darth Executor
December 12th 2005, 12:34 PM
But it's a terrible abuse to say that this passage means unquestioning fealty to whatever political entity happens to be ruling your particular geographical area.


Well, I wasn't suggesting that. However, your original essay makes it look like we have to pick between either God or government. As far as I remember, when Romans was written, the Romans weren't persecuting Christians and forcing them to give up their faith and thus there was no "conflict of interest".

George Blaisdell
December 12th 2005, 01:11 PM
Aww rats! I wish I'd known how to do this earlier! Thanks so much, Αρσενιος!

Αμαζινγ Ρανδο thanks you! :hehe:
Cool - You got it!

A.

Solly
December 12th 2005, 01:12 PM
AR,

This is a good little essay which I hope will pique the interests of others to look into the matter further, and see that our salvation is much broader and deeper than just ''getting' saved'' and going to heaven, and that what seems like difficult theology has everyday applications - our relationships with God, each other, and the planet in particular.

However, I am concerned about a certain lack of clarity of thinking surrounding your advocacy of the concept of the 'faith of Christ.'

You write:
In the New Testament, and particularly in Paul’s letters, the mode of justification is Jesus Christ. In particular, it is Jesus’ faithful obedience that shapes Paul’s view of justification. Gorman makes an important point when he notes that the phrase πιστεως χριστου used in many places throughout the Pauline correspondences such as Philippians 3:9 for example, and which is frequently translated as “faith in Christ” would be better translated as “faith of Christ” due to the use of the genitive case. The distinctions are subtle but critical. “Faith in Christ” implies that it is our faith that justifies us, whereby our response to God’s call to repentance is the agent of justification, what makes us righteous. “Faith of Christ” emphasizes instead the faith of Jesus Christ himself, namely his perfect and complete trusting obedience to God the Father, as exemplified through his life and particularly, his death on the cross. The pre-Pauline hymnic material Paul cites or paraphrases in Philippians 2:5-11 has as its hinge point Jesus’ actions when he “humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8). It is Jesus Christ’s model of obedience and faithfulness which Christians are called to imitate that actually justifies us.

My concerns are,
1. having read the likes of Mark Seifrid and Seyoon Kim, I do not accept the argumentation in this direction at all, and you haven't endeared the idea to me. Jaltus can address the grammatical aspects, I am sure, so I will deal with the theological - which I am sure jaltus and GP and others can do also :teeth:

2. I am often worried at how easily the advocates of the 'faith of Christ' view easily elide the meaning of pistis from 'faith' to 'faithfulness' to 'faithful obedience, without being aware, seemingly, of what that means for the use of the term pistis elsewhere in scripture. Christ said, believe in me. Did he really mean, be faithfully obedient to me? I do not think so.

I have recently left the Reformed community, and one of the theological problems I had with it was its advocacy of the idea of Chrsit's active and passive obedience, the latter being his death on the cross, the former his conformity to the Mosaic law, which conformity is then imputed to the believer upon belief, so that we become righteous legally under the Mosaic law. I renounced the concept, as I could not find scriptural support for the idea, and was confirmed in this after reading Seifrid's Christ our Righteousness. In particular, given the contention-conflict theology of the bible in its use of the terms righteousness and justification, the principal idea before us is that God has a contention with us, and we 'justifiy God in his judgement against us' and cast ourselves upon his mercy. He then justifies us, on the basis of Christ's atoning work [though how, I will leave aside for the moment.] We are told Christ died for us, not that Christ was obedient for us.

So wherein lies his obedience, which is mentioned in scripture? In that he endured temptation, recaptitulating Adam's test, but also succeeding where Adam, and all humanity in him, fell. His obedience does have salvific connotations, but not in itself, it is how and in what he obeyed that saves us: his death on the cross; not his obedience as such.

My problem is that, having renounced an implicitly works oriented view in the Reformed community, I find others are now trying to import it back via the pistis xristou idea. Remember the prodigal son? Did he work for his justification? Did anyone else? No, it was of grace. Again, although Christ's work is obviously central, I do not say here in what way, as I am thinking that through outside of Reformed thought, particularly in the light of criticism of the penal substitutionary view.

3. On the extension of this idea into our Christian life, it is not so, I submit, that we are called to imitate Christ; rather we are called to follow him, which is not the same thing. We are called to follow him, because God has exalted him as Lord. The contention is over in Christ, and those in him are restored to relationship and covenant position through Christ, and await his return.

4. Does our faith justify us? Yes it does, instrumentally, for it is turning from ourselves - metanoia - and turning to God and his mercy, and nothing else. It is not a work, it is the ceasing from works, ours or anothers. It is placing ourselves before a holy God, against whom we have sinned, and waiting upon him. Ps 51, knowing that only he can say yea or nay. In that sense, that is all that is required of us, the rest follows from that reorientation. We no longer have our heads on backwards, as Ursula LeGuin termed it in Always Coming Home.

5 You rightfully highlight the biblical courtroom aspects of the concept of justification, and its broader covenant position. Seifrid does as much also, cf the article I have attached. But then you undermine the grace that is evident in that arena, but then you bring works back in in the wrong place. Works follow faith, just as the law followed salvation and covenant making in the OT. Without a covenant, works account for nothing, they are a response to the covenant, and a reflection of the relationship that exists.

regards slly

Amazing Rando
December 12th 2005, 06:33 PM
AR,

This is a good little essay which I hope will pique the interests of others to look into the matter further, and see that our salvation is much broader and deeper than just ''getting' saved'' and going to heaven, and that what seems like difficult theology has everyday applications - our relationships with God, each other, and the planet in particular.

You're too cool Solly! Glad you can hang around Tweb once more! :rando:

This "Faith of Christ" concept is an idea I ran across for the first time in reading Gorman- as I'm just a young, budding, naive theologian, he swayed me pretty easily, but I'm certainly not opposed to being won back over!


However, I am concerned about a certain lack of clarity of thinking surrounding your advocacy of the concept of the 'faith of Christ.'

You write:


My concerns are,
1. having read the likes of Mark Seifrid and Seyoon Kim, I do not accept the argumentation in this direction at all, and you haven't endeared the idea to me. Jaltus can address the grammatical aspects, I am sure, so I will deal with the theological - which I am sure jaltus and GP and others can do also :teeth:

2. I am often worried at how easily the advocates of the 'faith of Christ' view easily elide the meaning of pistis from 'faith' to 'faithfulness' to 'faithful obedience, without being aware, seemingly, of what that means for the use of the term pistis elsewhere in scripture. Christ said, believe in me. Did he really mean, be faithfully obedient to me? I do not think so.

I've been partial to interpreting pistis as more "trust" than "belief." I certainly don't think that whan Christ said "believe in me" he meant only "cognitively assent to me" (though of course that's part of it). Pisteuw in the biblical tradition seems to have connotations of trusting fully in God and in Christ, rather than simply believing He exists.

I understand your concern about sliding too far over into the ol' "works righteousness" trap... but what if the "works" are those done by Christ himself? Could we say that we are justified through our faith in his faith? Through our trust in his faithful obedience?

I have recently left the Reformed community, and one of the theological problems I had with it was its advocacy of the idea of Chrsit's active and passive obedience, the latter being his death on the cross, the former his conformity to the Mosaic law, which conformity is then imputed to the believer upon belief, so that we become righteous legally under the Mosaic law. I renounced the concept, as I could not find scriptural support for the idea, and was confirmed in this after reading Seifrid's Christ our Righteousness. In particular, given the contention-conflict theology of the bible in its use of the terms righteousness and justification, the principal idea before us is that God has a contention with us, and we 'justifiy God in his judgement against us' and cast ourselves upon his mercy. He then justifies us, on the basis of Christ's atoning work [though how, I will leave aside for the moment.] We are told Christ died for us, not that Christ was obedient for us.

How about Philippians 2:8-9? Seems to be saying that because of Jesus' humility and obedience, God exalted him.

So wherein lies his obedience, which is mentioned in scripture? In that he endured temptation, recaptitulating Adam's test, but also succeeding where Adam, and all humanity in him, fell. His obedience does have salvific connotations, but not in itself, it is how and in what he obeyed that saves us: his death on the cross; not his obedience as such.

Okay, I follow you there.

My problem is that, having renounced an implicitly works oriented view in the Reformed community, I find others are now trying to import it back via the pistis xristou idea. Remember the prodigal son? Did he work for his justification? Did anyone else? No, it was of grace. Again, although Christ's work is obviously central, I do not say here in what way, as I am thinking that through outside of Reformed thought, particularly in the light of criticism of the penal substitutionary view.

This whole deal is still mostly well over my head, though I have learned enough to be critical of the severe inadequacies of the penal subsititionary model.

3. On the extension of this idea into our Christian life, it is not so, I submit, that we are called to imitate Christ; rather we are called to follow him, which is not the same thing. We are called to follow him, because God has exalted him as Lord. The contention is over in Christ, and those in him are restored to relationship and covenant position through Christ, and await his return.

How do you differentiate between following and imitating?

The one place, to my knowledge, that we're specifically called to follow Christ's example (which sounds an awful lot like "imitating" to me) is in his suffering, a la 1 Peter 2:21.

4. Does our faith justify us? Yes it does, instrumentally, for it is turning from ourselves - metanoia - and turning to God and his mercy, and nothing else. It is not a work, it is the ceasing from works, ours or anothers. It is placing ourselves before a holy God, against whom we have sinned, and waiting upon him. Ps 51, knowing that only he can say yea or nay. In that sense, that is all that is required of us, the rest follows from that reorientation. We no longer have our heads on backwards, as Ursula LeGuin termed it in Always Coming Home.

Perhaps this whole quandry is caused by confusion over the object of our faith. Does our having faith in what Christ did on our behalf still constitute "works righteousness" in your book?

5 You rightfully highlight the biblical courtroom aspects of the concept of justification, and its broader covenant position. Seifrid does as much also, cf the article I have attached. But then you undermine the grace that is evident in that arena, but then you bring works back in in the wrong place. Works follow faith, just as the law followed salvation and covenant making in the OT. Without a covenant, works account for nothing, they are a response to the covenant, and a reflection of the relationship that exists.

regards slly

Interesting thoughts! I rather took Gorman's argument to mean not that we're justified by faithful obedience on our part, but by Christ's faithful obedience, or more specifically, our trust in Christ's faithful obedience. I'm still not sure I see the flaws in his reasoning.

BTW Solly I'd like to ask, if I may- do you know Norman Kember, the British fellow who was kidnapped in Baghdad with CPT? I only ask because I know Kember was a past president of the Baptist Peace Fellowship in Britain, and it seems like you would be one to run in those circles, knowing Mark Nation and all. :teeth:

George Blaisdell
December 12th 2005, 07:02 PM
AR -
The "Faith of Christ" business is interesting, and I do not have a lot of answers regarding it. yet I have some observations. If the faith, given once, for ALL, to the Apostles, is RECEIVED... Then it is received FROM Whom? And that answer is, from Christ, for it is Christ Who gave it to the Apostles, and it is the Apostles who disciple the nations, and the nations receive the faith from them, upon their entry into the Body of Christ at Baptism...

So that the faith is not your own, but is received by you, from the Body of Christ, and perhaps it is this reason that it is called pistis theou or christou, and not pistis eis christon or theon...

And the implication that begs illumination here is that the faith is not 'arrived at', in some self-evaluative process, in the mind of the person, but is PLACED in that person... By Christ... Through His Apostles... In His Body... At Baptism...

Those are some first thoughts... Just off the top...

And we all know from James 2:22 that faith is perfected by it's works... eg Your faith, like Abraham's, is perfected by your works, as his works perfected his faith...

Arsenios

Solly
December 14th 2005, 09:03 AM
AR -
The "Faith of Christ" business is interesting, and I do not have a lot of answers regarding it. yet I have some observations. If the faith, given once, for ALL, to the Apostles, is RECEIVED... Then it is received FROM Whom? And that answer is, from Christ, for it is Christ Who gave it to the Apostles, and it is the Apostles who disciple the nations, and the nations receive the faith from them, upon their entry into the Body of Christ at Baptism...

So that the faith is not your own, but is received by you, from the Body of Christ, and perhaps it is this reason that it is called pistis theou or christou, and not pistis eis christon or theon...

And the implication that begs illumination here is that the faith is not 'arrived at', in some self-evaluative process, in the mind of the person, but is PLACED in that person... By Christ... Through His Apostles... In His Body... At Baptism...

Those are some first thoughts... Just off the top...

And we all know from James 2:22 that faith is perfected by it's works... eg Your faith, like Abraham's, is perfected by your works, as his works perfected his faith...

Arsenios
I'm pressed for time today, so I'll try and get back to this tomorrow AR

Christian2
December 19th 2005, 02:42 PM
Hi Amazing,

I thought I recognized a little NT Wright in your paper and wasn't surprised when I got to your notes and found his name there.

For whatever it is worth I want to quote something from John F. MacArthur, Jr.'s book, "The Gospel According To Jesus" about justification by faith.

"During his earthly ministry, Jesus rarely used the word justification. Nevertheless, justification by faith was the underlying theme of the message he preached. Look again at the parable of the Pharisee and the publican:

Luke 18:9-13:

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’

Jesus must have drawn gasps from the Pharisees when he punctuated his story with this pronouncement: "I tell you, this man [the tax-gatherer] went down to his house justified rather than the other [the Pharisee]; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted" (v.14).

The parable reveals that justification is instantaneous. The repentant tax-collector "went down to his house justified"; that is, there was no time lapse--no works of penance, no ritual, no sacrament, no confessional exercise, no meritorious deeds he needed to do before he could be whole in God's eyes. Everything had already been done on his behalf. He was justified by faith on the spot.

Here our Lord simply states the fact of justification; he does not explain the theology of it. Still, the parable is an ideal portrait of justification by faith, in perfect harmony with the doctrine that Paul would later articulate so clearly in Romans 3-5.

Justification may be defined as an act of God whereby he imputes to a believing sinner the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving the sinner of all unrighteousness, declaring him or her perfectly righteous in God's sight, thus delivering the believer from all condemnation. That definition contains several elements: imputed righteousness, forgiveness of sins, a new standing before God, and a reversal of God's wrath. Those all indicate that justification is a legal verdict. It is a forensic reality that takes place in the court of God, not in the heart of the sinner. In other words, justification is an instantaneous change of one's standing before God, not a gradual transformation that takes place within the one who is justified."

What is interesting to me is that the man in the parable said: ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ and according to Jesus he was instantaneously justified. But, where does Jesus say that in order to be justified that we must believe in Him and we must accept His' sacrifice on the cross in order to be justified?

I would like to see Paul's theology traced back to the theology of Jesus.