You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Justification' 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 »
Justification by Faith is perhaps the central tenet of evangelical belief. I’ve previously tried to understand and formulate what Justification is, how it is apart from works and what kind of faith is meant. In this article I want to explore what exactly the phrase “by Faith” means and let the spectrum of meaning come to light which we should be keeping in mind as we read and sometimes gloss over this familiar catchphrase. In particular the questions in my mind are: 1) what does “by” mean and 2) whose faith? Read the rest of this entry »
Amazing Grace how sweet the sound,
that saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now am found,
was blind but now I see.
Grace is indeed amazing because it is God acting to transform humans. Much has been said about the contrast between humans working and God working. Typically Christians would hold that salvation is God’s doing, a free gift we can only receive. This great truth has however sometimes obscured several necessary and active elements of reception namely: repentance, trust and obedience. Read the rest of this entry »
I remember, shortly after conversion, joyfully reading the opening chapters of Romans and thinking “wow, this is amazing, laws are unimportant now, just belief is what counts” – what a relief! I basically read Romans without understanding the context yet latching on to certain phrases as in Romans 3:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law;…blah blah bla…a righteousness from God, apart from law, …blah blah bla… 23comes through faith in Jesus…blah blah bla… 24and are justified freely by his grace…blah blah bla…On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
I concluded that Paul was saying that obedience to God’s law(s) was no longer required but just that we have faith (whatever that meant). I was reading the Bible to find out about salvation ignorant of what Paul intended to communicate and which struggle he was combating. Was Paul really fighting “legalistic spirit” in Romans, doing away with obedience and good works, and setting up faith in its place? I no longer think so and have argued elsewhere that we have often misunderstand what “works of the law” and, more especially “faith” mean to Paul. This view is also known as the New Perspective on Paul [1] and is considered by some, to be a mini-Reformation or at least an exciting re-discovery of Pauline Theology. Read the rest of this entry »
Wright’s Understanding of Justification of Faith
Most people understand the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith” to mean one is justified because of faith in Jesus. Though this is probable, N.T. Wright has argued in his Commentary on Romans (New Interpreters Bible, Vol. X) that “by” does not mean “because of” but “as evidenced by”. One has been justified and this is evident by one’s faith. As Wright is a Calvinist, faith is not something one produces but a gift of God (Eph 2:8) and this surely influence his interpretation.
Wright argues that faith is the true badge of justification (inclusion in God’s family) over and against the badge of circumcision (works of Torah). This is radically different from the common interpretation as the following example demonstrates: 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 »
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
Salvation by faith alone is the characteristic doctrine of Protestant theology and yet, in this form, a subtle imprecise and misleading formulation of Justification by faith alone. I would not even bother mentioning it if I didn’t think that, for most people, the misunderstanding is serious and detrimental to a healthy understanding of the Bible and of God. I also found that investigating the difference between salvation and justification has shed light on some theological problems and inconsistencies I have come across.
I propose to use Paul’s writings as a basis for better understanding how justification and salvation are related because Paul’s letters are the closest thing to a systematic theology I can find in the Bible, certainly regarding salvation. I see Paul’s task as looking back on Gospel events and expounding the theological and practical implications for the early church. I see our task as doing the same thing and working out a theology and practice for today’s church. We must become acquainted then, not only with what Paul said and meant, but the meanings it would have had to the audience at the time. This is no easy task but we run the risk of reading the Bible with post-enlightenment spectacles and misunderstanding much if we don’t. Read the rest of this entry »
