Friday, April 24, 2009

Blockheads and Icons - An Invitation

Hello blogging buddies!

I just want to let you all know that I am tentatively penciled in to deliver a sermon at the Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene on Sunday May 17th at 11:00 a.m.; and I want to send this warm invitation to all who are willing and able to come and visit us that day.

I titled the sermon Blockheads and Icons. My thesis is that we humans were created to bear the image and likeness of God (i.e. the concrete reflection of the character and glory of God) in and to his creation. As a consequence of the fall we find ourselves in the paradox of still carrying the purpose of divine image bearers, without the ability to fulfill that purpose, we have essentially become ‘cracked icons’. As a result we have become idol worshippers (blockheads) and have taken on their character traits, a sure sign by our lifestyles that we are not god-fearers. But God, through the first fruits of Christ - the new creation - has made us into a new creation so that we are transformed once again into the likeness of God, and are changing from one state of glory to another; and if this is not evident by the fruit of our lives (i.e. the Spirit in us), then we are not bearing God’s image and need to search our lives for whatever idol it is we are worshipping instead – to destroy it.

The references I will be using to assist in formulating my thoughts are We Become What We Worship by G.K. Beale; In The Beginning by Henri Blocher; and A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight.

Pray for me in the weeks and days leading up to the sermon; pray especially that I would never forget to seek that God would stir up and execute this gift in my life, that I would not rely on the so-called ‘talents’ of the flesh in delivering this (or any) sermon; ‘cause when I do, I fall flat on my face.

I hope to see you there!

Derek

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Rethinking The Tongues-Evidence Paradigm


“This writer was baptized with the Holy Spirit at the age of thirteen and spoke in tongues, and I still speak in tongues” - Larry Newman, p.3

I have come across many books over the years written on the topic of Spirit-Baptism, they typically fit in one of three categories. First there are the “Traditionalist” who insist that the spiritual gifts (including ‘tongues’) faded from history shortly after the first century; second are the Pentecostal’s who are (uncritically) heaven-bent on writing that the initial or primary evidence that one has received Spirit-Baptism is that the said individual will speak in tongues. And the third group are those who have ‘exited’ from Pentecostalism bitter and hurt from the uncritical claims and subsequent results this doctrine has had on them, and they have become hell-bent on informing the world of the ‘evils’ of Pentecostalism in books such as "17 Reasons Why I Left the Tongues Movement”(o/p).

Seldom, however, have I come across a book written by a Pentecostal, one who was “baptized with the Holy Spirit” and “spoke in tongues” and continues to “speak in tongues”, yet who has risen to the challenge of critically examining one of the movements most sacred doctrines in light of academically acceptable scriptural hermeneutics. Furthermore, Newman, while at times defending Pentecostalism, has in godly love and humble self-examination admitted the weaknesses within Pentecostalism and its’ doctrines and history, and attempts to map out for the Pentecostal reader a better way, one that aligns itself more faithfully to the scriptures, brings unity to the Body of Christ, and calls for the distinctiveness of Pentecostalism to contribute to - not harbor against - the Church at large.

Newman says, “There are some who think that the issue of tongues-as-evidence ought to be left alone. Then there are some who recognize that the examination and reformation of this doctrine may well be the most important theological endeavor in the history of the Pentecostal movement” [p.xiii].

“Tongues” - Not exclusive to Christianity!

If the visible expression of speaking in tongues is the evidence that someone has been filled with the Spirit of God (Spirit-Baptism), then the only logical way for this to be so is if “tongues” were exclusively a Christian experience. As “fearless” erroneously concluded in the previous blog, if someone speaks in tongues, they must be a Christian. Newman shows how this seems to be a general assumption made by Pentecostals and he quotes many writers to that affect, all claiming that the tongues phenomenon did not exist any where by any means throughout history prior to Pentecost in Acts chapter two. This assumption is historically unfounded and incorrect. As a matter of fact, the “tongues” phenomenon existed for centuries prior to Pentecost within certain Greco/Roman “mystery” religions. “The experience of the emerging church on the day of Pentecost was not the introduction of speaking in tongues into the realm of human history” [p.3, italics original].

“The Delphic Oracle, associated with the religion of Apollo, was well known for its emphasis on glossolalic phenomena and was active for more then one thousand years” [p.4]. Closely related to this cult is the cult of Dionysus, younger brother of Apollo who was considered to be the mystic, ecstatic god. Historians tell us that “it was not just the priestess who spoke in tongues in this cult but that it appeared to be a common event during the festivals of Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries” [p.5]. Newman goes on to quote Marcus Bach, “When the exuberance of the worshipers reached rapturous heights, the incredible, sometimes musical utterances, began. They were like sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. The speakers became the center of attraction. Initiates listened enthralled and often they, too, became overpowered and burst into a babble of sounds… devotees not only spoke in tongues but were also baptized in the river” [p.5]. When someone in this cult began to utter glossolalia it was believed that this was a sign that the ‘gods’ had inhabited the person. It will become very relevant when we discuss Paul (below) that the Corinthians would have been all too familiar with this tongues-speaking cult, and understanding the cultural and historical background of 1 Corinthians 12-14 goes along way to properly understanding and applying Paul’s message of tongues and prophecy.

Newman further gives examples of individuals at the start of our recent Pentecostal movement who spoke, not from the Holy Spirit, but in tongues of another persuasion - demonic. The wife of one of the patriarchs of the modern Pentecostal movement, Sarah Parham, recorded an experience; “One day, when in prayer, a power seized my lower jaw, which began to tremble, then shake with increased violence [and after her husband Charles began to pray for her] The power, over which I had not control, left me and I realized it was not of God”. Ironically, Charles Parham was instrumental in developing the tongues-as-evidence doctrine [p.7].

Newman also adds that “the flesh can mimic Holy Spirit produced glossolalia, and the demonic can imitate this phenomenon” [p.7]; and concludes his first chapter with this critical observation; “The belief that speaking in tongues is the primary evidence that one has been filled with the Holy Spirit is at best tenuous. We must seek an evidential construct or constructs that can be neither mimicked by the flesh nor imitated by the demonic” [p.9, italics original].

Newman goes on to show how the gifts of the Spirit (including tongues) continued on throughout the patristic period up to around 400 A.D. and that the modern movement had a precursor to it in the revival meetings of Edward Irving around 1830; yet the doctrine of tongues-as-evidence never before was taught either by the early church or by England’s Pentecostal precursor. Furthermore, he shows that in the beginning of the modern Pentecostal movement the tongues-as-evidence doctrine was highly debatable - contra the idea that it was unanimously accepted - and, for example, it was not accepted in the Assemblies of God until 1916 [p.74].

F.F. Bosworth was a well known Pentecostal who joined the Assemblies of God in 1906. He is most known for his healing ministry and most famous for his book, Christ the Healer - he affirmed and strongly believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was perhaps a leading voice against the tongues-as-evidence doctrine in the ensuing debate. After the General Council wholly accepted the said doctrine Bosworth submitted his resignation and joined the Christian and Missionary Alliance - one groups loss is another groups gain [p.74-75]

Turning to Hermeneutics

Larry Newman has analyzed the Pentecostal attempt of creating a distinct hermeneutic, one that ignores or fails to take into account those hermeneutical principals that have been tried and proved, in favor of one that is more sympathetic to the doctrine of tongues-evidence. The result has been a lack of respect for the great tradition of the Christian Church - a sort of looking down the nose at all who have gone before - and a great deal of scriptural misunderstanding. He says, “If the call for a hermeneutic that is particularly Pentecostal means that we set aside interpretive principles that have stood the test of time throughout the history of the church, we must rigorously resist such a notion” [p.55].

Larry shows how often Pentecostals have run amuck with their experiences, and often scour the scriptures for ‘evidence’ that such and such is biblical; and that this approach often leads deeper into false doctrines. What often happens is that an experience that someone has may be considered “extra revelation” by the Spirit - but, I warn, such notions uninhibited opens the door to encounters which are not from God. All things must be measured by God’s Word, since the Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself.

He also shows how “some Pentecostals deem it unnecessary to receive formal (or informal I would add) training in order to properly interpret the word of God. The Holy Spirit will reveal to the seeker what a particular passage means. After all, the Spirit inspired the word to start with, why should he not reveal what it means now?” [p.60]. Newman goes a long way to defend some of the essence of that quote, the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God, “we need the transcendent illumination of the Holy Spirit” [p.63], but are we prepared to be so bold as to judge all the powerful men of God throughout the centuries as being unable to interpret the word of God, since, in the Pentecostal judgment, the vast majority of them did not have the “illumination of the Holy Spirit” (assuming tongues-evidence)? But examining inwardly Newman adds, “there is something lacking, for the most part, in Pentecostal hermeneutical labors… sound hermeneutics requires exegesis, something at which we Pentecostals have certainly been remiss. The failure to properly exegete a passage of Scripture has often lead to misinterpretation of the passage” [p.63]. “We have already witnessed the devastation wreaked upon our movement by people claiming to have received extra-revelation from the Spirit that was absolutely contrary to a proper understanding of the word and ways of God; in particular, the Jesus Only movement and the Latter Rain movement, both of which rose out of the Pentecostal movement, due to too much subjectivity in the hermeneutical task” [p.64].

One particular hermeneutical fallacy consistent in Pentecostalism is it’s treatment of the book of Acts, in particular, by ignoring its genre and also by stretching certain aspects of what it says. Acts is not and should not be treated as didactic! The book of Acts is a historical and narrative literature, not didactic, and should be approached on different grounds then, say, the Pauline epistles which are deliberately didactic! Larry Newman asks a most compelling question (one I’ve asked for years), if glossoliala is the evidence that someone has received the fullness of the Holy Spirit, then why, in all of the doctrinal letters in the New Testament, is this one teaching eerily absent? Why, if it is not addressed by Peter, John, the author of Hebrews, or indeed Paul, is it so adamantly insisted upon in modern day Pentecostalism?

Furthermore, when Acts is taken into account, remembering that its genre is historical/narrative and not didactic, we must remember that Luke was very specific in selecting what parts of the narrative to document, and what not to. Of the five instances where it is said that someone receives Spirit-Baptism, only four of them mention tongues, and two of those four instances tongues is accompanied with another gift, and of the two remaining, the first holds certain uniqueness due to the fact that it was the birth of the church in Jerusalem, the second holds a distinct uniqueness due to the fact that it was the first time the Spirit was poured out on to the Gentiles. Taken all of these examples into account it should be evident that Luke is not giving us a “pattern” or “paradigm” to follow of tongues-evidence; Acts gives no consistent standard.

It is interesting to note that when the Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles in Cornelius’ home, it happened without them seeking, it happened without Peter or anyone else praying for them to receive it, and when it suddenly happened (surprisingly interrupting Peter’s sermon) Peter exclaimed what was happening was the same thing that happened “as on us at the beginning?” If Luke is being careful and accurate in what he wrote, then this indicates that all those thousands who were saved between chapters two and ten of Acts did not necessarily receive tongues-evidence! “He could just as easily have said, ‘As He has been baptizing all from the beginning.’ If it was well known that all these spoke in tongues when they were Baptized in the Spirit, why should he point back only to the time when they spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost?” [Bosworth, p.127-8].

To confirm the uniqueness of this event in Cornelius’ house, the very pattern established regarding salvation is slightly altered by the sovereignty of God in order that Peter and those with him would understand that the gospel includes the Gentiles. When the multitudes cry out on the day of Pentecost, “what shall we do?”, Peter answers in this order, 1. Repent; 2. be baptized (water); and 3. you will (after that) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit [Acts 2:37-38]. At Cornelius’ house the order was altered, they were pierced in the heart by Peters sermon, God filled them with the Spirit (in the same manner he did to Peter on Pentecost) and only after that occurred, “the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles… Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?’” [Acts 10:44-47].

Newman shows many further instances were Pentecostalism’s hermeneutical approach is wrong, getting specific at times and on one particular occasion he addresses a “questionable interpretation” of Acts 2:39 by Thomas Holdcroft concluding his analysis that such an interpretation simply will not stand up under proper hermeneutical procedure. The promise Luke makes reference to in Acts 2:39 is the person of the Holy Spirit, not some manifestation of the Spirit” he adds, “We must not confuse the charisms of the Spirit with the person of the Spirit. The church down through the centuries has had the Spirit at work within her, even in the most somber days of the Dark Ages. The Holy Spirit did not leap over the centuries from the upper room in Jerusalem to Camp Creek, North Carolina, or a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, leaving everything in between in a vacuum. God did not start something different with Agnew Ozman” [p.78].

I only mention this one particular instance in Newman’s book because years ago during my first year at the International Bible College I read Holdcrofts book Holy Spirit, and grew in frustration over the sheer volume of “questionable” interpretations Holdcroft was making. But what astonished me further is that so many swallowed Holdcrofts hermeneutical fallacies, uncritically, hook, line and sinker.

To Be Continued:

As I draft this blog in a Word document I see that I am already on the fifth page and there is still much to say. For example, in the next blog we will take a look at the Apostle Paul and what he has to add to the subject of tongues-evidence. It may astonish the reader to discover that while Paul does not teach a tongues-evidence paradigm in his doctrinal epistles, he may (in fact, it seems he does) specifically teach the opposite. It will astonish the reader further that Paul explicitly denies the Pentecostal holy grail of tongues-evidence and then he specifically and explicitly offers an alternative evidence paradigm!

We will then examine that alternative paradigm and offer Pentecostals a way forward that does not detract from true biblical Pentecostal experience, but rather places the movement firmly on a solid hermeneutical bedrock that will contribute to the church at large and give the Pentecostal movement greater credibility.

I will conclude with referencing a relevant letter written by F.F. Bosworth titled, Do All Speak with Tongues?: An Open Letter to Ministers and Saints of the Pentecostal Movement.

Until then,

Continue to allow the fruit of the fullness of the Spirit of God to shape you into the ever increasing glory of Christ, imago Dei!

Derek

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Evidence of Tongues - A Testimony

Introduction:

Between my relatively long-term study on the New Perspective on Paul, of which I am currently reading Dunn’s rendition of it, I have several other (and ever increasingly so) interests that have been creeping up and of which I have been taking hold of. As is well known from those who have followed my blogs, I recently responded to a Catholic friend on the issue of “Faith Alone” - of which, it is important to note, I have been contemplating a better way of articulating this doctrine (i.e. in what sense do we mean “works”? The way this question is answered will affect how the word “alone” is employed, etc). I have been reading - on occasion and slow going - Cullman’s nearly impossible to obtain book titled Christ and Time which revolutionized and forcefully introduced the concept of the “Now and Not Yet” principle to biblical theology. Furthermore, I have recently picked up and am reading a very interesting book titled: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Contributors and their positions are as follows: John Hick (Pluralistic Christian - if there is such a thing); Clark Pinnock (Inclusivism - of interest is the amount of influence the Second Vatican Council has on Pinnock’s view), Alister McGrath (Salvation in Christ) and Gievett and Phillips (Salvation in Christ Alone). I am almost one third done and find this an educational read (as counterpoints always is).

But there is one more book that has taken priority over all else due to the nature of the subject and its personal relevance to my past in particular, the book I speak of is Larry Vern Newman’s the Ultimate Evidence: Rethinking the Evidence Issues for Spirit-Baptism (2009) .

Personal Testimony

I spent my formative Christian years as a member of a small Pentecostal church which belonged to a large Pentecostal denomination called the Church of God out of Cleveland Tennessee. Speaking for this particular denomination (but also apparently for that which is common among most large Pentecostal organizations such as the Assemblies of God) there is a fundamental belief or doctrine which teaches that the evidence (initial evidence my teachers would say) that an individual was baptized in the Holy Spirit is that the said individual will begin to speak in an unknown tongue (glossolalia).

I have heard many things come out of this doctrine over the years from Pastors, evangelists, Sunday school teachers, bible college professors and others which I have struggled immensely with in light of the scriptures and also of practical experience. For example; one particular preacher boldly declared that the way to determine “if someone is a Christian or not is by whether or not they speak in tongues”. His conclusions where deductive in following their logic, he’s not excluding those who do not speak in tongues he was simply affirming (what he perceived to be) the reality that if someone spoke in tongues they must be a Christian. My initial reaction to this brassy proclamation was to recall the words of Christ, they shall know we are His by our love [John 13:35], not by our glossolalia; Paul further declares that one who speaks in tongues but has not love is nothing more than a loud gong! [1 Cor 13:1.] Furthermore, since that experience I have met at least one person who no one would deny her Christianity, but when she began to speak in tongues it later manifested itself as demonic. That (once) popular preacher whom they called “fearless” is no doubt wrong.

Another example: Taking a Holy Spirit class in Bible College, my professor declared that by the end of the term everyone would be speaking in tongues (a sure sign of Spirit-Baptism). At the time I wondered how anyone could place such commands and restrictions on the Holy Spirit. As it turned out she was (nearly) right. I say nearly because from the experiences which I am aware of only two (so far as my memory serves me) did not receive “the Spirit” by evidence of “speaking in tongues” and I was one of them. Near the end of the course the second last person was being prayed over to receive it and I was more or less asked not to place my hands on him with the rest of the students because I did not speak in tongues - I silently walked out of the class and was ordered to apologize or lose credit for doing so. In other words, a sub class (a boundary marker James Dunn would say) was imposed upon the student body; those who speak in tongues were considered more powerful in the Spirit and in the Christian walk and those who did not were considered less. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.

Furthermore, it is interesting to point out that it was in that setting - one of those very students - who received a tongue in chapel in Bible College, and who’s tongue later manifested as demonic! I wonder in retrospect if there isn’t such a strong psychological pressure placed on these students, that their desire to speak in tongues and thus to be considered equal to other superior Christians, is so powerful that it actually opens them up to receive demonic influences as opposed to the influence of the Holy Spirit, or an impulse of the flesh.

Another example: I watched a young man receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as is assumed by the evidence of tongue speaking) but who continued doing, selling, and buying drugs. It was his reputation. Another person accused me of some “hidden sin” because when a group of men prayed over me to receive the Spirit (aka. Speaking in tongues) for nearly three hours nothing happened - later on that same young man was caught in an internet pornographic addiction! A teacher once declared that any person (even one who is addicted to some sin) who speaks in tongues has more power of the Holy Spirit in a single finger then Billy Graham (who, as far as I know, does not speak in tongues). I began to wonder (based on this philosophy) why I, who was doing my dandiest to live a godly life, was being denied the Holy Spirit (assuming the evidence of tongues), while drug addicts, porn addicts and other overt sinners were granted the Holy Spirit (again, assuming the evidence of tongues)?

A certain question needs to be considered here: I mentioned in the introduction that I am also reading a book on salvation in a pluralistic world. John Hick’s professes to be a Christian, but he denies the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the Incarnation, and refers to God the Father as “the Reality” - in short, Hick’s believes that God can be found in every religion manifested in different ways. One of the factors that have led Hicks to this conclusion (he was at one time a conservative evangelical) and polemic against Christian exclusivity is based on a lack of morality among Christians who claim to have the Spirit! In Hicks words, “Should not the fruit of the Spirit, which according to Paul is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control” (Gal. 5:22-23), be more evident in Christian than in non-Christian lives? Yet it does not seem to me that in fact Christians are on average noticeably morally superior to ...” [he lists several other religions, p.41]. Whether or not Hicks argument is relevant to his own discussion (Pinnock and McGrath believe it is not), his question holds certain relevance here: Why would God grant the Holy Spirit baptism to one who was, is, and continues to be unchanged in their sinful addictions, but denies the other Christian in who’s life the Spirit is very much evident according to the standard of Paul in Gal. 5?

Final Example: I will not persist any longer in the problems which flow out of this doctrine (though I could turn to the scriptures to show - quite decisively I believe - how this doctrine is imposed on the text - eisegesis - rather than flows from it - exegesis) I do want to add one more personal and life altering effect this belief within the Church of God denomination had on me:

I have received a call to the ministry; by that I mean that aside from events and circumstances and ‘coincidences’ and the such that borderline miraculous, I have - ever since my teen years - received different calls from different people at different places and different times. In obedience to this call I travelled across the country for bible college, spent time interning at a church on the opposite side of the country, ministered alongside a pastor friend in another city, have preached in various cities from Alberta to Nova Scotia, from North Dakota to Michigan and many places in between. Yet in all of this I have never been ordained and remain a lay reflective Christian who’s insights are not taken seriously (despite my studies) due to the fact (and this is quite a fact) that I have - practically speaking - "nothing" behind my name (as far as creditentials go - even in the Christian world, this is necessary). I attribute this phenomenon to the choice I made to stick with the only denomination I ever knew - and thus my tardiness and hesitance to leave due to a sense of having to ‘start afresh’ as it were. What was the problem? Simply this, an ordained minister must speak in tongues since it is assumed that one who speaks in tongues is baptised in the Spirit, and they do not want their leaders to not have the Spirit (understandably so - note: there are exceptions to the rule!). It has been said and judged of me that if I were truly called into the ministry of ordination that God would equip me to do so by empowering me with the Holy Spirit as is evidenced by Speaking in Tongues; however, it is this very notion that is being called into question. The onus is not on God to further ‘prove’ my call with the gift of tongues, the onus is on the Church to align its teachings to what God has already said in his Word, and not place restrictions on the Spirit of God that prevent those who are called from entering into the ministry! So though I believe the entire premise is erroneous, nonetheless this is the predicament I found myself in.

One might ask, Derek what were you thinking spending all those years waiting, hoping, working and serving? The answer for many years was this: I was hoping that enough Pastors and Leaders in the Church of God denomination would one day vote at their national assembly to revisit and rethink this doctrine and its implications; indeed I had even wondered if I would somehow be a contributing catalyst to help the denomination progress in this way. And this brings us to Larry Vern Newman’s book The Ultimate Evidence: Rethinking the Evidence Issues for Spirit-Baptism; and in particular, to its forward which was written by Bruce Arnald Tucker, Ph.D. of the Church of God in Cleveland Tennessee; the very denomination of my roots and the rumblings of my hopes realized!

Qualification

I have wanted to write on this subject for some time now - and indeed I even tried once or twice before - but I feared that the negative experiences I have had along these lines would color my writings with emotional rhetoric and bitterness. So I decided many times to withdraw from the subject, examine my heart - my motives and intent - and to wait until I sought forgiveness from God for the callousness which built up within me, and also, to forgive those who I feel have allowed this doctrine, which I believe is unbiblical and (evidently) harmful, to be used against me - albeit, unintentionally.

Thanking the Lord for this grace and extending mercy and forgiveness, I now believe that I can safely address this subject and even (as is evident above) share my own testimony of the effects this teaching can have on a believer, and do this out of a clear conscience.

I am very thankful for my experiences within the Pentecostal movement, for my growth and the emphasis of the Holy Spirit that was built in me. Because of these experiences and this emphasis being ingrained in me the Person and work of the Holy Spirit often (though often subtly) influences and can be felt within my theology. This observation is more critical then is usually credited for; often among mainline theologians, the person of the Holy Spirit is seldom (if ever) seriously addressed and given due credit. Yet - and I think, in part anyways, thanks to my Pentecostal background - the Spirit is no less recognized in my theology then God the Father or Jesus the Messiah (as a case in point: I have been contemplating coining the phrase “Covenantal Pneumism” in place of “Covenantal Nomism” as a means to more accurately articulate the Covenant relationship of the New Testament believer in relation to Faith and the Law [Romans 3:31, cf. Gal. 5], giving the Spirit prominence in a theology of the New Covenant! - See a forthcoming blog.)

Furthermore, as a final note, I have many dear friends in the Church of God - brothers and sisters in the Lord - who I love and cherish and strenuously wish to avoid offending. Many of them I went to college with, many I grew up with and one in particular - the most influential pastor in my life - who graciously accepted the position of standing next to me as my Best Man on my wedding day.

This is a theological blog, a long overdue and much needed re-examination of a doctrine which I believe - and can further illustrate with more examples if one would like - is harmful and anti-productive to the body of Christ - thus making it unbiblical in more ways than one! When Larry Newman employs the word “rethinking” he is revealing his cards, that he is a post-conservative Christian. When he says “The church faces grave danger exactly at that point where theological constructs are considered to be absolutes. In other words, our theology must always be open to adjustment or reformation when it is exposed to and judged by a fuller and more competent understanding of the Word of God” [p.xiv]; I think we should listen.

In the words of Bruce Tucker Ph.D. of the Church of God, Cleveland TN; “Let us then, welcome this work, examine it thoroughly and thoughtfully, and then respond to it in a manner that honors our witness to Jesus Christ” [p.ix] - amen.

Derek

Next Blog... to be continued...

Monday, April 13, 2009

Justification - N.T. Wright

In contrasting conservative Christians with liberal ones, I have been heavily influenced by Roger Olson’s book, How to be Evangelical without Being Conservative and also his weightier book, Reformed and Always Reforming. In the first book in particular Olson argues for what he refers to as a Post-Conservative Christian, which is a reflective Christian who seeks to maintain an attitude of continual reform by continually returning to the scriptures and challenging our traditions from time to time. It is in this camp – the Post-Conservative camp – that I have found my belonging.

This has been no secret to my readers, but what is interesting in relation to the current blog is that I have at times spoken boldly and presumed to speak for other theologians – particularly those I enjoy reading (Olson, McKnight, Boyd, Wright, Pinnock and others) – to suggest that they too are post-conservative and that they – if having read Olson’s book above – would readily admit it. As it turns out, I am right of at least one – though crucial – theologian; N.T. Wright.

Next month Wright is coming out with a new book on the so-called New Perspective on Paul titled simply Justification (in large part it is a response to Piper’s book, Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright). At InterVarsity Press I was able to read a preview of the preface and first chapters and discovered a couple of interesting facts.

1. Regarding my introduction above, Wright says: “These issues in turn need to be mapped onto broader questions within parts of the Western church, as is done (for instance) by Roger Olson in a recent book, where he distinguishes “conservatives” (people like Don Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) from “post-conservatives” (people like me). It’s always intriguing to discover that you belong to a group you didn’t know existed” [p.26] – yes it is.

2. Regarding the so-called New Perspective on Paul; up to now it is commonly cited that James D.G. Dunn is the one who coined the phrase ‘New Perspective’ in his 1983 essay (recently covered); following suite – having no evidence to the contrary – I have also cited Dunn with having coined the phrase; alas we have the truth and Wright is the culprit! “There are times” says he “when I wish that the phrase had never been invented; indeed, perhaps for Freudian reasons, I had quite forgotten that I had invented it myself… until J.D.G. Dunn, who is normally credited with it, graciously pointed out that I had used it in my 1978 Tyndale Lecture, in which, as I well remember, he was sitting in the front row” [p.28].

So that settles it; Wright – like myself – is a post-conservative Christian; and secondly on another subject, he is the culprit for having invented the phrase ‘New Perspective on Paul’ (though Dunn – beyond question – is guilty of popularizing it and Wright himself may have borrowed it from Krister Stendahl).

Just some interesting facts I gleaned from Wrights forthcoming book, Justification.

Derek.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Dunn - New Perspective on Paul - 1982-83

New Perspective on Paul
(1982-83)


Five years after Sanders published his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, James D. G. Dunn lectured and then published an essay which he titled “The New Perspective on Paul” (now published with a series of other essays in a single volume under the same title). He begins by introducing the reader to Sanders work (which we have already covered); “There is, in my judgment, only one work written during the past decade or two which deserves that accolade [of “breaking the mould” of Pauline studies]. I refer to the volume titled Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders of McMaster University in Canada” [p.100 italics original]. It is encouraging to observe that Dunn has drawn many of the same conclusions of Sanders work as I have (or rather, the other way around): “Sanders basic claim is not so much that Paul has been misunderstood as that the picture of Judaism drawn from Paul’s writing is historically false” [p.102]. This is why I referred to Sanders work as the New Perspective on Judaism as opposed to the New Perspective on Paul.

I also concluded that, given Sanders conclusions, I could not see how Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law was affected – Sanders certainly gave no reason to suggest that it was and almost seems to show that Paul arbitrarily broke from Judaism on many points and remained on others (he explicitly rejects the thesis of Davis and Stendahl that Paul’s theology was revolutionized by his encounter with the Jewish Messiah – a factor I think is crucial [Sanders, p,514; cf. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, p.7ff.]. Here again I find my observation supported by Dunn’s: “the most surprising feature of Sanders writing, however, is that he himself has failed to take the opportunity his own ‘mouldbreaking’ work offered”. He continues, “instead of trying to explore how far Paul’s theology could be explicated in relation to Judaism’s ‘covenantal nomism’, he remained more impressed by the difference between Paul’s pattern of religious thought and that of first-century Judaism” [p.103]. And so it is in this context that Dunn sees a tremendous opportunity: “I am not convinced that we have yet been given the proper reading of Paul from the new perspective of first-century Palestinian Judaism opened up so helpfully by Sanders himself” [p.105]; and thus, with the study of a single verse – Galatians 2:16 – is the spark on dry wood which will ignite what has come to be known as the controversy of Justification over the New Perspective on Paul.

Galatians 2:16

Galatians 2:15-16 reads: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified”.

Law as Boundary and the end of Covenantal Nomism

Dunn points out (and builds his argument around) the fact that Paul’s reference to “the law” here is not to be understood as 'good works' per se, but specifically to those laws which distinguished Jews from Gentiles, namely, meals, rituals and festivals (i.e. Torah). Also, as a preliminary observation, Dunn points out that the reference to ‘Gentile sinners’, is a reference to a Jewish prejudice and an awareness among the Jews that they are the special elect covenant people of God. Placing these two elements together (clear in their context Dunn would probably suggest) and what we have is Sander’s covenantal nomism. A people who are elected as covenant people of God, but who also have the law which, in obedience to it, they considered themselves righteous. This is probably why Paul stereotypically referred to Gentiles here as ‘sinners’, in the Jewish mind, since Gentiles did not have the law, they could not possibly be righteous.

I am going to make an observation – after carefully reading this section of Dunn – of something he takes for granted which the reader may not – I certainly did not at first – pick up on. That is, for Dunn (maybe) and perhaps Sanders as well, when the phrase covenantal nomism is employed – especially as the particular element of righteousness is considered – it is within the context of ‘faith’. I allow this conclusion to help me understand Dunn; after studying the use of righteousness (tsedaqah) in the Old Testament, Stendahl says: “Therefore when one spoke of the manifestation of God’s righteousness, God’s tsedaqah, it was a word of salvation. As in the Song of Deborah in earliest times, it meant, salvation, rescue, victory, triumph. Here we have the chief reasons for Paul’s emphasis on the terms, justification and righteousness. This emphasis presupposes a faith in which the church knows itself as belonging to God, knows it’s enemies to be God’s enemies” [Stendahl, p.34].

With this presupposition in mind, Dunn goes on to say that “Paul therefore prefaces his first mention of ‘being justified’ with a deliberate appeal to the standard Jewish belief, shared by his fellow Jewish Christians, that the Jews as a race are God’s covenant people” [p107]. Dunn observes this by noting that Paul says in essence ‘we Jews (who are not Gentile sinners, because we have the law) know…’ – so Paul seems to be appealing to something Jews (as opposed to Gentiles) know. What do they know? According to Dunn, they know that 1. justification can refer to an initial act, a repeated act and a final vindication and 2. that justification is obtained by faith (see what is presupposed by Dunn above – previous paragraph); to confirm my understanding of Dunn’s presupposition, he adds, “This is to say, integral to the idea of the covenant itself, and of God’s continued action to maintain it, is the profound recognition of God’s initiative and grace in first establishing and then maintaining the covenant” [p.109]. So according to Dunn, Paul is beginning his polemic on common ground with typical Jewish believe, what Sanders calls covenantal nomism.

What Paul is attacking in this passage is specifically covenantal works (centered out three times in this single passage is the phrase “by works of the law”). Not works in general, but works as they are specifically related to the covenant (here we can see where a Reformer like Piper may begin to get steamed). Reading from the context Dunn points out that the specific covenant related works which Paul has in mind are circumcision, food laws and also the celebration of holy days. He (Dunn) spends a great deal of time showing how by the first century these laws came to be of crucial importance to Jewish identity. So much so that to fail to circumcise your child or to eat with Gentiles or to not celebrate a Jewish holy day was akin to walking away from the covenant, and to declare yourself no longer a person belonging to the elect of God [p.108 ff.]. In other words, circumcision, food laws, and holy festivals functioned as boundary markers by which Jews maintained their distinctiveness from pagan Gentile sinners. So when Paul – while appealing to the Jewish concept of justification by faith – sets faith as being antithetical to works, he is essentially – I am interpreting Dunn here and may be wrong – ripping apart their precious covenantal nomism straight down the middle.

This is a crucial point to keep in mind – I think – if we are to understand Dunn’s idea of the new perspective, so I will repeat it succinctly: the laws which Paul is arguing against is a law which specifically relates to the covenant as markers or boundaries; circumcision, food laws and holy days. In other words – according to Dunn – Paul’s original polemic against works of the law is not against good works per se, but rather, against those laws which maintained a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. “The phrase ‘works of the law’ in Gal. 2:16 is, in fact, a fairly restricted one: it refers precisely to these same identity markers described above, covenant works” [p.111]. (I should have noted when introducing this subject, that the new perspective views Paul’s primary concern when discussing justification by faith not as a polemic of salvation, but rather one which addresses the question of how Jews and Gentiles relate to one another in Christ.)

Dunn adds to this that by “works of the law” both Paul and his Jewish interlocutors understand to mean badges or membership to the covenant, not works which earn God’s favor. Remember that in Palestinian Judaism that favor was given as a free gift of electing grace. “In other words” Dunn says, “Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls ‘covenantal nomism’. And what Paul denies is that God’s justification depends on ‘covenantal nomism’, that God’s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant” [p.111]. It is at this point (but not only this point) that I find contention with Dunn thus far. Covenantal nomism is not given to those who are members (“those who wear the badge”), it is given to those who are not members so that they may become members, and the badge (the works of the law) is only worn to reflect that fact, not the other way around. Unless Dunn can change my mind and convince me otherwise, it is unlikely that I will subscribe to his flavor of the new perspective, since it seems that everything else he has to say depends on this concept.

Jesus Messiah

So – according to Dunn – Paul has thus far appealed to the common Jewish concept of righteousness by faith, but then he sets it in opposition to works of the law – thus tearing covenantal nomism asunder – he now establishes that faith in something else, namely the Messiah. This is a distinguishing factor that separates Paul and Peter with the rest of their Jewish kindred.

This is a key issue to be considered – a compelling question I’ve never heard asked – “Is it in fact this faith in Jesus (as) Messiah which marks them off from their fellow Jews, or is it their belief in justification by faith, as has so often been assumed?” He continues, “What is the point at issue here? If not ‘justification by faith’ as God’s initiative in declaring in favor of men, if not ‘works of the law’ as merit-earning good works, then what? What precisely is involved in Paul’s contrast between being justified by works of the law and being justified by faith in Jesus Messiah?” [p.112] The answer is that these two (justification by works or by faith in Jesus Messiah) are antithetical.

He breaks verse 16 down as such: a) “man is not justified from works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ”; the word “except” makes faith in Jesus Messiah a qualification to justification by works, not it’s opposite. But then Paul turns the argument on its head by continuing on to say that “we might be justified from faith in Christ, and not from works of the law”… following this line of exposition, Dunn draws his conclusion that “faith in Jesus as Christ becomes the primary identity marker which renders the others superfluous”.

In other words, Paul takes the generally accepted understanding of covenantal works as a marker by which one is in the covenant, to saying that faith in Jesus as the Messiah is now the primary identity (or covenant) marker, thus the other marker – works – is rendered useless. In all of this I see and hear what Dunn is trying to say, I just don’t follow his logic very well. I don’t see why Paul would go through all of this – from pretending to agree with covenantal nomism, to altering it slightly by saying one may be justified by works as long as one has faith in the Messiah, to rejecting works all together by claim that Messianic faith is the new supreme badge. This logic escapes me, perhaps at this stage I am just failing to grasp what Dunn is trying to say so I press on in hopes that this will be made more clear.

Conclusions:

1. Dunn’s new perspective emphasizes that Paul’s polemic against “works of the law’ is not against good works per se, or against the law in general, but rather, it is against works of the covenant specifically as they function as boundary markers which keep Gentiles out.

2. Faith in the messiah is a key to understanding the new movement.

3. Paul – according to Dunn (and Sanders also we observed) – is protesting covenantal nomism as such. Again, I disagree. I think Paul may be redefining covenantal nomism in light of the Messiah by altering the function of ‘righteousness’ and ‘faith’. But I do not think that he is dismantling it all together.

Dunn has much more to say and we'll try to hash through it over the next several weeks; however, the next blog (to compensate for this one) will be a much shorter and interesting reading (I think anyways). I got a sneak peak at Wrights future book on Justification (responding to Piper!) which will be published next month and learned some interesting pieces of information.

Until then, be blessed

Derek

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Responding to a Catholic Friend

(Continued from previous blog)

Is the doctrine of Faith Alone biblical? According to my Catholic friend (and cousin) it is not. His reasoning is such: the word "alone" is not used in Paul in conjunction with the word "faith". Luther added the word "alone", which makes him guilty of violating solo scriptura. The word ‘faith’ as it is used in the text in question is used as a verb (action/work) and not a noun.

The second question we must ask is why Catholics are so adamant against the concept of "faith alone". A cursory search on line will reveal the pattern: 1. they prove that "alone" was inserted by Luther (thereby assuming it is an unbiblical concept) and 2. Followed by a string of verses which explicitly teach justification by works (e.g. Romans 2:13). (This fallacy is a result of failing to understand the dual spectrum of the use of Justification in the scriptures as it relates to faith and works, the present reality of our state with God and the future judgment which all - righteous and unrighteous alike - will face.)

In Response to Jim (click here to read his comment in full):

1. Error: You said "Bible Christian… not biblical":

You seem to enjoy paralleling the phrase "Bible Christians" with the phrase "un-biblical". "Hey Bible Christian, Solo scriptura is un-biblical" or "Hey Bible Christian, Solo Fide is un-biblical". Why? Because the words "solo scriptura" or "solo fide" are not in the bible… yet you - by way of hopeful proof-texting - claim scant scriptural support for the doctrines revolving around the Papacy. That’s irony. It seems you assume that for a "bible Christian" in order for something to be biblical the very words must be in the bible, this is patronizing to the educated Protestant Christian. News flash: all orthodox Christians adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, though the word is not scriptural. I can still claim it to be a biblical doctrine because the bible teaches it. A biblical Christian is one who adheres to the authority of God as it is exercised through His Word by means of right and proper hermeneutics (more on this below).

2. Error: You said "this concept [of Solo Fide] is not biblical":

Had you simply said, "Solo Fide is not found in Paul" I would have nothing to say, but you are not here attacking the use of the word, you are attacking a "concept"… this is where you are in error. If a man were to ask, "Are we justified by faith or by works of the law", I would answer "by faith, not by works of the law" or I could say, "By faith alone". The concept is there, the message is the same; it is two different ways of saying the same thing. Either you misuse the bible or you patronize me as though I were some type of fundamentalist. I am not interested in this or that word for the sake of this or that word; I want to know "what is being communicated", "What is the message", "what is the point". And in Paul, what is being communicated is that righteousness is obtained by faith, not by works of Torah… or put another way, by faith alone. This is the principle, and whether or not "alone" is in the text the concept is very much biblical.

3. Truth and Error: You argue that faith is a verb and not a noun:

I can imagine the scenario going something like this: You inform your Protestant buddy that one is not justified by faith alone apart from works since faith itself is a work (i.e. verb). Your protestant friend committed to faith alone digs his heels in and says "no! It’s by faith alone, not by works". You answer, "faith is a verb" he says "faith alone not by works", you smugly and calmly repeat yourself, "it’s a fact, faith is a verb not a ‘thing’" and your friend’s blood pressure begins to boil as it commits himself to Luther’s "Faith Alone" despite apparent logic and truth. Then you part ways feeling as though you accomplished something. Truth is, the case is not either/or, but rather both/and. Faith is a verb, yet one is still justified by faith apart from works of the Torah. And so your entire argument is based on a poor understanding of how the word "works" is employed in Paul’s argument for Faith (which will be covered below).

When Jesus was asked by some Jews "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus did not respond with "keep the big Ten" or "be circumcised" or "be good enough" or "sacrifice regularly" or "make sure you are baptized in the Catholic Church" (that last one is a freebie). No he appeals to faith, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28-29). So when you argue that faith is a verb, we shout out "AMEN!" - But it’s the only verb required!

Faith and Soteriology: Putting it together

A thorough study of Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith (pisteos) it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe (pisteusai) that He is (estin) and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.") has led me to this conclusion and definition of faith: Faith is believing that God is who He said He is, and that God does what He said He does. Working backward, one must have this faith to please God [Heb. 11:6, cf. Rom 8:8], and working backwards further, when one pleases God because one has this faith, one walks with God [Heb. 11:5-7; cf. Gen 5:24, 6:9, Gal 5:25, Rom. 3:31; 1 John 2:6]. And in conjunction with Paul, when one has this faith one is declared righteous [Rom 3:38, cf. Rom 4ff]. So (connecting the hermeneutical dots), one must be righteous [Rom 3:20] in order that one please God and walk with God, yet all have sinned [Rom 3:23], all fall short of God’s glory [Ibid] , there is no one good no not one [Rom 3:10-12, cf. Gal 3:22]. If no one is righteous [Gal 3:11] because all are sinners then how can any please God - it cannot be by works since we are by nature enemies of God [Jam 4:4, Rom 1:28-32, 8:7-8], the answer: by faith [Rom 3:28], which is believing that God is who he said he is (Creator Covenant Maker God Almighty revealed in Jesus Christ [cf. Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Gen 14:18-22; John 1:14; 14:7-9]) and that God does what he said he does (reconciled the world to Himself by His death and resurrection [John 3:16; Col 3:15-20]), and by this faith we are declared righteous [Rom 4:3. 5] and given the Spirit [Gal 3:15, 5:16-25] that we might be what we have been declared to be [Rom 3:31; John 14:23-26] and as a result we are made into an ever increasing glory which is by faith [2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Exodus 33:18-19], and not by anything we can do, not by our works of trying hard enough or being good enough because we are sinners by nature and aliens and enemies with God - or worded another way, by faith alone!

Justified by Works?

Many have pointed to Jesus and James and even Paul himself to justify a rejection of Faith Alone in favor of Works. Coming off the heels of Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism, he shows that in Paul the "dik" word group (justify, be made righteous, etc) had no one place in Paul’s writing, and of its various uses, there are two that interest us here: Justification may be used to describe a present state of reality [Rom 3:22, 24] and it may be used to describe a future act of judgment [Rom 2:13]. The principle to follow is this: present justification is a declaration by God that a man is righteous, even though he is a sinner, by faith [Rom 4:5] and therefore is saved by God’s graciousness and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9]. However, future judgment is based on works [Matt 25:31-46; cf. Rev 12-15]! Romans 2:13 uses the future tense "will" when connecting justification with works, "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous", and unless we are to think so little of Paul as to place a contradiction in his hands within a span of a single chapter, there clearly are two - a present and a future - concepts of justification. We are presently saved (justified) by grace, but whether or not we remain to the end - future justification - well that is another story all together.

What about James?

But what about James one might ask? Does James contradict everything else we’ve discussed so far? By no means! Rather, the theology of James fits nicely in everything we have discussed. James asks the question: can a faith without deeds save a man [2:14]? He answers his own question: Faith without deeds is dead [vs. 17]; this sounds eerily familiar, Paul said that it is by our faith that we fulfill the law [Rom 3:31] and Jesus - wording it another way - said that if we love him we will obey his commandments [John 14:23]. I’m seeing a pattern here: if you have faith in God, if you have a relationship with God having been reconciled to him by his blood, if you love him in other words, then you will obey his teachings, you will fulfill the law, you will do good deeds, you will be like Christ, you will be led by the Spirit and walk with the Spirit etc. This is the New Testament principle. And so elaborating on this James adds: "you see that [Abraham’s] faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scriptures were fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" [James 2:22-24 in agreement with Romans 3:31 and 2:13], because in the end, Christ will ask us: when I was hungry did you feed me, or visit me in prison, or give me something to drink or invite me in, or give me cloths or take care of me when I was sick [or sponsor a child, be a friend to your lonely neighbor, or be an example of me at your work place, treat your wife with the love and respect she deserves, keep unity among my body of believers everywhere - Catholic and Protestant alike etc].

Christianity: Covenantal Nomism

All of this is in keeping - I believe - with the concept that Christianity is a covenantal nomism religion. That is, it is a religion that teaches a person is saved by grace through faith and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:22-24] and as a proper response to this saving grace that comes by faith a person obeys Jesus, the Covenant Creator [Luke 22:20; John 14:23; Rom. 3:31; James 2:17-18, 22]. Obedience is thereby the evidence that one has this faith [Rom 3:21; James 2:14 and especially 1 John 2:3] and overt and constant disobedience is how one loses this faith and thereby will be judged unrighteous at the echaton [Heb. 10:26-31; 1 John 1:9-2:1-6; Rom 2:13; and especially Matt. 24:10-13].

Conclusion: This is a snap shot at how it all fits together; present justification, future justification, faith, works, Torah, covenant, love… and in all this I have not even graced the surface of the atonement and victory of Christ within the context of justification. The point is that these matters are far too complex to make the overly simplified claim that "Luther added monon, therefore, Faith Alone is not biblical". Furthermore, to do this is to unnecessarily sow seeds of doubt among baby Christians who may not be grounded yet in the theology of the scriptures.

Jimmy, thank you very much for your dialogue. Fleshing out the relationship of Justification, Faith, Works and Torah was a fruitful exercise. You are not obligated to agree with all of my conclusions, and I am certainly not obligated to agree with your position - in my mind this does not effect at all our relationship or our faith in Christ.

Be blessed brother, continue to search (as I will and always do) and remain (as I am) teachable - but not always easily persuaded.

In Christ,

Derek

On Luther - An After Thought

It is not my desire to defend Luther as some type of infallible theologian; case in point, I criticize him on many grounds and stand radically opposed to his determinism philosophy. And the fact that he called the book of James "a strawy right epistle" is common knowledge, however, the circumstances in which that phrase was birthed should be considered with grace before we in our glass houses throw too many stones.

As far as the addition of the word "Alone" in his German translation goes, and the claim that it is found nowhere prior to Luther, I have only a few comments to make. Being an amature bible translator myself I have come to learn that we who are not bilingual are too quick in our ignorance to claim "this word is not there" or "that word is not there". When my wife who is bilingual (Spanish/English) has to translate something from Spanish into English for me she sometimes has to add words, not to change the meaning, but to clarify what is being communicated. In Luther's case - and naturally, considering his situation - inserting the word "alone" acted as emphasis: "It's not about penitence, or do's and don'ts or adhering to this or that law... it's not by works of the law, it's by faith ALONE". If I were translating Romans 3:28 I would probably choose to leave "alone" out of the text for two reasons: 1) it is less accurate to add it, and 2) it does not change my understanding of "faith and works of Torah" if I did add it. However, it is interesting to note that while inserting "alone" is less accurate, it is not wholly inaccurate. As a matter of fact there may be a number of Catholic translations which even include "monon" into the text and there may be a number of pre-Luther Leaders and Fathers in the Church who understood Romans 3:28 to be refering to faith "alone". (I say "may be" because my source is another web site and not an authoritative book. Either case is in-consequential to my argument.) None of this really matters too me since my authority is not Luther, but the Word of God.

And finally - Jim - you said that it was Calvin who persuaded Luther to keep James in the bible. This has no bearing on anything, but because it interests me I would like a source if you have one.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Comment from a Roman Catholic Friend

Dear Reader,

I have a cousin and friend named Jim who also happens to be a devout Roman Catholic; somehow (probably through mother) he came across my blog and has read many of them and commented on some. So far I have allowed his comments to be published after carefully reading them over; I did this because dialogue can be fruitful and his perspective may invoke further reflection on the part of many of my readers. However, because my blogs are not a forum for Catholics and Protestants to debate – that is not the purpose I created this site, my interest expands far beyond such debates, for example, I am curious about Eastern Orthodox Christianity as well – therefore I may limit the amount of comments Jim makes. This has nothing to do with Jim or his understanding of Christianity.

A word about Jim and Catholicism:

It seems the Catholic/Protestant debate is a hot subject for Jimmy. From what I know of him, he is not (how many Protestants perceive Catholics) a nominal Catholic, on the contrary, he is a reflective believer and if I may be so bold, he is no less committed to Christ then I. I have heard many in the Protestant tradition who try and exclude Catholics from the faith (and vice-versa I might add!), I am in no position to judge each individual Catholic, not least Jim. And while we stand in polar opposition on various matters (the Papacy, Solo Scripture, and evidently Solo Fide – see below), I wonder if I would have more in common with Jim then many of my own kindred (the Word of Faith people and the such).

Why this Blog

As I study the New Perspective on Paul which happens somehow to interact with the Reformed doctrine of “Righteousness by Faith Alone” Jim found it as an opportunity to declare that “Faith Alone” is not even in the bible. He has written his comment in such a way as to declare a sure fact: “To the shock of most Bible Christians” he says and then concludes, “I don’t mean to put a thorn in your side” as if he somehow swiftly and decisively sent the poor uneducated Protestant buck running for the hills with his tale tucked between his legs.

I am not concerned, not persuaded, not intimated and only a little bothered that I have to interrupt my agenda (the New Perspective on Paul) to respond to Jim’s charge. I will try and avoid the temptation to do this too often in the future.

Be advised that much of what Jim says is true and much of it is misleading. Here is his comment:

Jim Writes:

“Concerning Sola Fide (by Faith Alone): To the shock of most Bible Christians, this concept is not Biblical. Yes, you will be able to find it in some modern version of Scripture (Romans 3:28, 5:1, Gal 3:24); however, the word “alone” (monon, in Greek) was not in the original Greek New Testament, nor any translation between then and the Reformation. Martin Luther added the word “alone” to his German translation of Scripture after the Reformation had begun. Luther didn’t seem to have much of a problem altering scripture (A side note: Luther also wanted to take the epistle of James out of the NT altogether, calling it “...an epistle of straw”, because it barely mentions Christ”; probably also because of that book’s emphasis on works. It was Calvin who convinced him not to).

Furthermore, in the verses cited above Paul was not writing ‘faith’ as a thing which one has but a verb. Therefore, he would not have said “we are justified by faith alone” (the noun, the thing: faith, by itself), but he uses a verb which means ‘believing/to believe, trust/to trust’. It could be argued that Paul could just have easily written “...we are justified by believing alone”; however, the fact of the matter is he did not. The Greek does not say men are justified by believing ALONE, but by “...believing apart from the law”.

I don’t mean to be a thorn in your side, but it is always useful to consider differing views (a part of being “challenged in your faith”). Don’t take it the wrong way; I’ve been doing the same thing to Bob Dutko for a long time.

Jim Gomes”

Conclusion: I will show in the next blog how Jim’s understanding of what it means to be a “bible Christian” (which is patronizing) is warped, that good exegesis does not exclude “faith alone”, that his understanding of Faith Alone and “not by works of the Torah” as reflective in his comment above is probably based on folk Protestantism, that his appeal to faith being a verb is also probably a response to folk Protestantism and that I, like most non-Lutheran Protestants, am not interested in defending Luther as some type of infallible hero.

St. Augustine is quoted as saying: “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity”.

Derek

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Sanders: Contrasting Paul and Judaism

Sanders on Paul

[Part 6: See Part: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

I want to conclude my study of Sanders – which deals specifically with Pauline theology – the same way I concluded the portion of his book on Judaism – by highlighting his conclusions. Of particular interest to Sanders study is to contrast Paul with the Jewish theology of the first century.

The Heart of Paul’s Theology

One of the main points Sanders labors to make is that while Reformed doctrine teaches that the center of Paul’s theology is the doctrine of Righteousness in Faith Alone, in actuality Paul’s central element is the doctrine of participation, ‘in Christ’. He says: “as long as one takes the central theme in Paul’s gospel to be ‘righteousness in faith alone’, one misses the significance of the realism with which Paul thought of incorporation in the body of Christ, and consequently the heart of his theology” [p.434].

Sanders appeals to another writer who has revealed several reasons why the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ cannot be Paul’s’ central doctrine: 1) The phrase always only appears in Romans and Galatians wherever the controversy over the Law has to be dealt with, and even then – “very significantly” – only when the scriptural argument is based on the uncircumcised Abraham. 2) The phrase always appears in connection to Paul’s doctrine of ‘in Christ’. 3) Paul does not connect it to the other blessings of redemption such as the possession of the Spirit and the resurrected life. 4) Closely connected to point three, Paul has no use for the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ when discussing ethics, baptism or the Lords Supper; ethics, for example, Paul discusses in relation to dying and raising with Christ (i.e. ‘in Christ’), he does not appeal to ‘righteousness by faith’ when exhorting his audience to live godly lives – again, enforcing the hypothesis that ‘righteousness in faith alone’ is not central to Paul’ theology [p.439].

Further to reinforce this hypothesis that ‘righteousness in faith alone’ is not central to Paul’ theology, Sanders appeals to his (Paul’) polemic against ‘works of the law’. Sanders shows in chart form [p.493] that the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ by no means had a monopoly on his arguments against the law. On the contrary, many other phrases were used, aside from the familiar ‘righteousness by faith not by works of the law’ (Gal. 216) – i.e. Spirit… by faith… not by works of the law {Gal. 3:1-5); sons of Abraham by faith (3:7); blessed by Abraham by faith (3:9); promise of the Spirit by faith [not by works of the law] (3:14); etc. etc. Faith then – not ‘righteousness’ – is the foundation of Paul’ argument against works of the Law; you received the Spirit by faith, not by works of the Law, etc. In other words, you were saved, i.e. in Christ, by faith, and in so being, you were justified, Spirit possessed, crucified and raised with Christ and the such. The point being, ‘righteousness’ is only one of many that characterize a person’s status ‘in Christ’, it is not the central element, but only one of many.

Paul’s Usage of the Word-Group ‘Righteous’

Of further importance in Sanders is that the word-group of ‘to be justified’, ‘righteous’, and the such, did not have just one meaning in Paul. On the contrary Paul uses the ‘righteous’ word-group in several different ways:

“The righteousness of man is his uprightness before God with regard to his works (2:13) or the right relationship with God which is received by faith and not by law (4:11), being ‘justified’ or ‘made righteousness’ is the acquittal achieved by Christ’s death (5:9f., 18), or the possibility of salvation achieved by Christ’s resurrection in contrast to the acquittal of trespasses achieved by his death (4:25). It agrees with this that in general ‘righteousness’ is sometimes the forensic status of being justified (sanctified) from transgression so that one may then have life (5:1, 9) and sometimes simply the equivalent of life. In other terms righteousness may be either past, (5:1, 9) or future (2:13; Gal 5:5). Righteousness by faith in other words, is not any one doctrine.” [491-92]

Furthermore, ‘Righteousness’ is used in the sense of being ‘cleansed’ from sin [I Cor 6:9-11]; it is also used synonymously to being reconciled from past sins [Rom.5:6-9; 8:30]. Therefore justification is a reference to the intermediate state between being an enemy to God and the future state of glorification. The verb of justification is also used once in the sense of being ‘set from’ from sin (Rom. 6:7, cf. vs.18). So the family group of ‘justification’ is used by Paul (according to Sanders) in three ways: to be cleansed from sin; to be reconciled from past sins and to be set free from the power and enslavement of sin” [p.471-472].



(As an interesting side note: it seems Sanders holds – as the interpretive arching scheme of the atonement – to the view of Christus Victor; p.445 – 448 ff.)

Paul and Covenantal Nomism:

Sanders goes to great length (Section 5, Chapter V) to show that Paul did not hold to a Covenant Nomism “pattern of religion”, he says:

“The heart of Paul’s thought is not that one ratifies and agrees to a covenant offered by God, becoming a member of a group with a covenantal relation with God and remaining in it on the condition of proper behavior; but that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation, that one is a member of the body of Christ, and one Spirit with him, and that one remains so unless one breaks the participatory union by forming another.” [p.514]

The reference to breaking the union with Christ by “forming another” is in reference to becoming an idolater. According to Sanders, the only way to break the union of being ‘in Christ’ is by forming another union with something or someone else. Unlike Judaism which taught that one remained in the covenant by obeying the Torah and thus being righteous, Paul teaches that one remains in Christ by not giving oneself over to another.

Sanders concludes that this is “one of the major conclusions of the study: Paul’s ‘patter of religion’ cannot be described as ‘covenantal nomism’, and therefore Paul presents an essentially different type of religion from any found in Palestinian Jewish literature.” [p.543 – italics original]


I want to note here that I am not convinced of Sanders conclusion on this point. If – even in Paul – Christ is seen as being the climax of the covenants (as Wright shows), and if Jesus was the true answer to the problem of creation in the way that Israel was meant to be, yet they failed, then to be ‘in Christ’ – as Sanders understands Paul’s central doctrine to be – is to be ‘in Israel’, that is, to be in the True Israel. Christ did in point of fact declare a New Covenant, one that superseded the previous covenants because while the old covenants pointed to Gods answer to a corrupted creation, Christ himself was the fulfillment of those covenants. And if in Judaism, as Sanders contends, the dominant covenantal idea was that one was elected on the basis of being ‘in Israel’ (something Pharisee Paul no doubt would have known all too well), then it seems to me that while ‘righteousness’ had a different function in Paul then it did in Judaism, nonetheless, Paul’s doctrine of being ‘in Christ’ is very much a covenantal concept. To be ‘in Christ’ is to essentially accept the New Covenant he offered by his death and resurrection “that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation” as Sander says. I understand this concept to be very covenantal. But is it ‘nomistic’? We shall see below that I believe it is.

Paul: Righteousness by Works?

In quoting Romans 2:12-16 and commenting on verse 13 (“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified”) Sanders observes: “If there is any passage in Paul that is aberrant, it is Rom. 2:12-16, but not because it mentions judgment on the basis of works. The curiosity is rather that it mentions righteousness by works, which Paul otherwise insists must be by faith and not by works” [p.516 f]. The solution to this problem seems to be in the word “will” – future tense. So there is a strong sense in which justification is a future declaration based on the works of a person while the present declaration of justification is based on the grace of God which comes by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). So in Romans 2:13 the word group of ‘to justify’ is in reference to the question of punishment and not to one of being saved as it usually is in Paul.

Sanders finds this point very interesting (as do I) that on the very “point which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism – grace and works – Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism. There are two aspects of the relationship between grace and works: salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in’, but they do not earn salvation” [p.543 – italics original]

If this is Sanders conclusion of the place of works within Paul then I must conclude that Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ is very much ‘covenantal nomistic’. That is, I argued above that to be ‘in Christ’ is to accept the New Covenant Christ offers and thereby participating in his death and new life (as Sanders emphasis’) but that ‘works are the condition of remaining ‘in’’ Christ as Sanders shows above. Is this not the very definition of ‘covenantal nomism? Sanders should know; he’s the one who coined the phrase and then gave it its definition: “Covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression” [p.75]. In other words, that one’s place in God’s redemptive scheme is based on God’s grace and election, but that works are the natural response of those ‘in’ that relationship and are necessary to remain ‘in’.

Therefore in my opinion it can be shown that – based on Sanders definition – Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ can be described as ‘covenantal nomism’ and so I disagree with Sanders here. However, it is interesting to note that according to Sanders, “Paul’s view [of supposedly rejecting a covenantal nomism ‘pattern of religion’] could hardly be maintained, and it was not maintained. Christianity rapidly became a new covenantal nomism” [p.552].

Contrasting ‘Righteousness’: Judaism and Paul

This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of Sanders study in light of the debate that has since erupted as evidenced by Pipers book The Future of Justification and Wrights forthcoming response simply titled Justification.

The key to unlocking this debate is in the use or application of terms! As I’ve said before and will again emphasis here: The term ‘righteousness’ had a completely different function in Judaism then it does in Paul. Until one can grasp this concept (as I have gone to great pains to carefully explain to a fellow blogger on another site who failed on every point to understand this) the cloud fogging the issues surrounding this debate will never go away.

As a matter of fact I’m not sure Piper feels the weight of this exegetical principle. In a little foot note on the bottom of page 36 [Future of Justification] he actually belittles this principle by stating – contra to Wright – that it is the words themselves that are most important, not how they are employed. In doing this Piper – an experienced and influential theologian of sorts – commits the fallacy of eisgesis, of interpreting into the text what he wants the words to mean rather than pulling out of the text what the words were intended to mean. I feel it adds weight here to the fact that Piper must know that he in doing so is committing a fallacy that will mislead his fans and that D.A. Carson – someone I would consider to be akin to Piper – on another subject acknowledges this principle in favor of Wright and contra Piper! [See Carson’s Becoming Conversant, p.116ff].

Now without further ado, here is the distinction as the New Perspective sees it:

“To be righteous in Jewish literature means to obey the Torah and to repent of transgressions, but in Paul it means to be saved by Christ. Most succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term. In Judaism, that is, commitment to the covenant puts one ‘in’, while obedience (righteousness) subsequently keeps one in. In Paul’s usage, ‘be made righteous’ (‘be justified’) is a term indicating getting in, not staying in the body of the saved. Thus when Paul says that one cannot be made righteous by works of the law, he means that one cannot, by works of the law, ‘transfer to the body of the saved’. When Judaism said that one is righteous who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby stays in the covenant. The debate about righteousness by faith or by works of law thus turns out to result from the different usage of the ‘righteous’ word-group” [Sanders, p.544]

I could not have summarized it better myself, so there you have it, the distinction between the use of the word “righteous” in Judaism and its most common use in Paul.

Conclusion:


Paul and Judaism Disagree: Covenantal Nomism




  • Judaism: Patter of Religion – Covenant Nomism


  • Paul: Patter of Religion – Participation; it’s all about dying and rising with Christ

Paul and Judaism Agree: Grace and Works




  • Judaism: Judgment and rewards based on works while salvation based on grace.


  • Paul: Same as Judaism – Judgment and rewards based on works while salvation based on grace.

Paul and Judaism Disagree: Application of the word group “righteous”




  • Judaism: Righteousness – relates specifically to remaining in the covenant by doing good works.


  • Paul: Righteous word-group – has a wide range of applications but mostly relates to getting saved.

It must be remembered that Sanders study was not called 'the New Perspective on Paul', and to while - obviously - I see and finally understand - I think - the distinctions which Sanders study has drawn, I as yet do not see how it changes (or even if it changes!) Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith alone and not by works of the law. While I do see a repositioning of this doctrine from the Reformed understanding of its' central place to being subservient to Paul's doctrine of participation (i.e 'in Christ' language). This does not in my mind remove the doctrine of righteousness by faith alone - properly understood and articulated.


Several years after Sanders book Paul and Palestinian Judaism was published ('77) another highly acclaimed scholar, James Dunn, wrote a book around 1983 titled The New Perspective on Paul. While this edition is no longer available, a updated edition has been published 2008 containing several essays between those dates and with a new introductory chapter (some say worth the price of the book itself) responding to his critics. Since the essays in this book began to be published soon after Sanders', and since the very phrase of which this perspective was refered was coined by Dunn, there then seems to be the most obvious next book to study as I try to understand the issue and contentions.

Until then continue to grow and be challenged in your faith.

Derek

Followers