You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Justice' tag.
Although most theologians would be at pains to say that God’s plan of redemption in Jesus was conceived before the world was made, many people see it as a kind of plan B necessary to save a world which failed at plan A namely obedience to God’s Law. Is the New Covenant really a breaking of God’s original plan whereby one was saved by obedience and can now be saved by “easy” beliefs? Paul’s vision in Romans is grander, both are by grace and both require obedience. Read the rest of this entry »
There is an unstated but deep-rooted assumption in most Christian theology that righteousness is exclusively a moral category. That is, a person is perfectly righteous if they are morally perfect and any degrees of righteousness in a person are in a linear and inextricable relationship to the morality of that individual. This righteousness then becomes the basis of God’s judgement of that person and within this framework it is clear that any acquittal (aka justification) requires adequate moral performance.
Interestingly Catholics and Protestants have historically agreed with this assessment – they have however disagreed on the source and scope of that righteousness in justification. Catholics have said God transfers or implants his own righteousness into believers (Infusion) whilst Protestants have held that God reckons Christ’s perfect obedience unto believers (Imputation). In either case moral righteousness or obedience is the key to justification even if it is received by faith as Catholics and Protestants (now) agree it is. The problem is this: if justification is by grace it must be unmerited and both these models clearly require and account for obedient merit. Read the rest of this entry »
Have you ever wondered if everyone but the Christian Church is damned to hell? The Reformation gave us back something quite valuable by reminding us that the Bible teaches no hierarchy amongst believers. While some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers all are called to love and serve each other as brothers, in the face-to-face manner of Jesus, a great man yet who walked amongst men as friends and washed their smelly feet.
While it is clear that all followers of Jesus are called to mission, it is far from clear, from Jesus’ teaching, that only his followers would be saved. Let us set aside our black-and-white conception of the world divided into saved Christians and damned non-Christians and consider Jesus’ own words which, as will be plain, contained other categories. What emerges is an inclusive picture of people entering the Kingdom based not on religion or beliefs but on a multitude of other factors. Read the rest of this entry »
It should strike us as odd that the greatest (professing) Christian nations are so immoral. Either Christianity is a sham or those calling themselves Christians are missing something of their calling. Surely the blame for this phenomena lies at the doorsteps of those who preach Easy-Believism where a quick prayer is enough to guarantee a ticket to heaven regardless of moral behaviour. Can we recover the Biblical message of salvation without diminishing Jesus work and God’s grace?
Read the rest of this entry »
Ever since I heard Tim Keller explain that the root of all problems is failure to believe the Gospel I’ve been fascinated by discovering just what exactly “The Gospel” is and how it is the “power of salvation”. What fact could there possibly be which, when believed, saves and totally transforms a person? Part of my discovery came from listening to N.T. Wright argue persuasively that the Gospel is, quote, “Jesus is Lord” and that most of what we consider to be Good News is a consequence of this.
In the evangelical world the Gospel is taken to be the radical and indeed life-transforming truth that we are justified by faith alone apart from works. Implicitly or explicitly we are told, works are bad because they insult the work Jesus did. I’ve discussed why I disagree with this view in Which Gospel and my realisation is that this is a shrunken, individualised and subjective good news which encourages passiveness and occludes the royal announcement of Jesus’ Kingship which is for the whole world to hear.
We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Rom 3:28
This verse, for some, stands at the heart of Paul’s letter to the Romans, Pauline Theology, even the Gospel itself. I used to think it meant “we (Christians) get saved because we believe in something (Jesus, the Resurrection, the Gospel) instead of by doing any meritorious works”. Indeed that is how many Gospel presentations run in showing how Christianity is different from all other “striving” religions.
This sounds like Great News, an easier way to heaven, but I’ve been reading and studying Romans in detail and find four mistakes in this interpretation.
This is Part II of Substitutionary Atonement – How Can Jesus Pay for Our Sins?
The Rational Christian Model
Let us begin by analysing the ways in which resolution can be obtained after injustice. Our sense of justice demands a solution and we know that one cannot undo what has been done. However, two[1] paths are available so that justice is served and the conflict is resolved:
- Revenge: Punishment and Reparation followed by Forgetting
- Reconciliation: Repentance and Reparation followed by Forgiveness
The Problem
There are many things I understand about Christianity and a few (sometimes key) things I don’t. Atonement is one of the things I cannot make sense of. Why does Jesus’ death make it OK that I have sinned and will sin again? Can we really speak of justice when another person receives punishment for what I did?
For many people, this absurd notion is grounds for writing off Christianity as irrational, even inhumane. But despite this obvious problem, Christianity makes much more sense of life than any other explanation I have come across. I want a solution.
Read the rest of this entry »
