Parchment and Pen » Is Wright Right about the Righteousness of God?

Is Wright Right about the Righteousness of God?

[N.B. - For a more in-depth treatment of Dr Wallace's views on this subject, see "The Righteousness of God and N.T. Wright."]

N. T. Wright has written another important book, this time on justification in Paul. The book, Justification: Gods Plan and Paul’s Vision, was co-published earlier this year by SPCK in London and InterVarsity Press in Downers Grove, Illinois. It is both a response to John Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007)—which itself was a response to Wright’s treatment on justification that he had articulated over the years—and an epistle-by-epistle definition of his view of the matter. Wright is one of the leading NT scholars to have embraced the New Perspective on Paul, a view that got its major impetus from E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

I picked up Wright’s latest offering just before I left for Germany last May, the month it came out. I originally wanted to write a review of the whole book, but since I am, once again, teaching Romans at Dallas Seminary this year, I thought I would start with a review of Wright’s treatment of ‘the righteousness of God’ in Romans. But that paper ended up being nearly 10,000 words long—in itself too long even for a standard theological journal submission (they usually limit manuscripts to 8500 words). I dreaded how long a piece on all that Wright had to say in his book would be! So, I had to leave it at this one exceedingly important and programmatic phrase.

I have posted the review article at bible.org; the exact link is here. It was too long for a blog post at Parchment & Pen, but the articles at bible.org don’t have the format for comments there. So, I’m doing a rather unconventional thing of asking you to read the article there and comment on it here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

72 Responses to “Is Wright Right about the Righteousness of God?”

The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive on 06 Oct 2009 at 11:58 am #

[...] can comment on the review here at Parchment and Pen. Posted in Theology | No Comments » Leave a [...]
#John1453 on 06 Oct 2009 at 2:44 pm #

It doesn’t seem to me that Wright is saying anything different in Justification from what he has written before (and Wallace is not claiming that). Consequently, his argument is the same as in the massive commentary he wrote on Romans for New Interpreter’s Bible in 2002. I have not read that, but doesn’t that commentary deal more thoroughly with exegesis and with the views of other commentaries?

Even if Wright cannot exegetically and semantically support his meaning of “justification” as the overarching meaning in Romans (and elsewhere for Paul), it will not likely change the disagreement between Wright and Piper. Their debate is over more than defining justification and God’s righteousness, but seems to extend also to faith vs. works issues, the scope of God’s salvation, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life, the place of Israel in salvation history.

regards,
#John
Jim W. on 06 Oct 2009 at 3:54 pm #

While Paul was Jewish he was also a Roman citizen and it seems very likely that he was familiar with Roman thought. Since the book of Romans is written to Roman Christians wouldn’t it make sense that Paul utilized his familiarity with Roman thought to express his point? The emphasis on a legal or judicial understanding of God’s righteousness would seem to have been more relevant to Roman Christians even if they were of Jewish background. Or is my reasoning off here?
Jugulum on 06 Oct 2009 at 4:25 pm #

Dan,

I suggest you add a link from there to here—perhaps at the top of the article.
A. M. Mallett on 06 Oct 2009 at 7:11 pm #

While I can appreciate some of the concern over Sanders and Dunn’s vision of this NPP matter, I do not know that Wright should shoulder the association. He wrote a letter some years ago addressing this matter that might be profitable to review. His perspective strikes me as somewhat separate from that of Sanders and Dunn. The link to the letter is here:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm
Daniel B. Wallace on 06 Oct 2009 at 7:32 pm #

Dear A. M.,

I’m not sure whom you are referring to when you speak of being unfair to Wright for his associations with Dunn or Sanders. Not one of the comments mentioned either Dunn or Sanders, nor did I in my essay on Wright’s view of justification.

John 1453, although it is certainly true that more is at stake in the debate between Piper and Wright than just justification and how it is defined, wouldn’t you agree that this is at the core of the debate? After all, Wright didn’t write a response to Piper called “Paul’s view of Works.” This is why I addressed Wright’s view of justification; that seems to be the crux of the matter.

Jim W., although Paul was a Roman citizen, I think most scholars would say that his Jewish background far more strongly informed his understanding of law than his citizenship. Further, I think the legal genres of Exod 23.7 and Isa 5.23 are sufficiently clear that these texts should be seen as informing Paul’s though more than Roman legal issues.
Curt Parton on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:08 pm #

Dan, I just finished reading Wright’s Justification, so your article is especially timely for me. I think it’s appropriately focused and very well reasoned. I thought Piper effectively articulated what troubles many of us about Wright’s views, and now you’ve done an excellent job of putting Wright’s vision to the test using the relevant passages in Romans. And though Wright has some interesting insights, he still fails to convince me of his overarching premises.

I also appreciate your mentioning of his incredible hubris. I’ve enjoyed reading Wright in the past, finding him erudite and witty, but also have often been disturbed by a too frequent condescending attitude toward those who dare to disagree with him. But in Justification that condescension has run amuck. While there are a few attempts at humility, they are overwhelmed by a shocking arrogance. Even if Wright is absolutely right and he is the Copernicus to enlighten our backward thinking, to open his book in such a way is horribly ill-advised. I still find it hard to believe. To whom did he think this rant would appeal?

I should note that I am not a “Piperite,” and I would respectfully disagree with many of his views. But I was impressed with the fairness and grace with which he evaluated Wright’s thoughts. I did not see that fairness and grace reciprocated by Wright. I thought many of his supposed descriptions of the views of his critics were fallacious, even cheap shots. When I read Piper’s book, and your article, I recognized Wright’s viewpoints. When I read Wright’s depictions of Piper’s viewpoints, I often couldn’t recognize Piper’s views that I had just read!

To me, Wright seems to be the one who is rigidly narrow in his thinking about justification and the righteousness of God.
Daniel B. Wallace on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:21 pm #

Curt, thanks for your helpful comments. You make an interesting, if ironic, insight in your last line.
Marc on 07 Oct 2009 at 8:05 am #

Dan, I think you are mistaken in your final assessment of Wright if you think he has made justification by works (Rom 2:1-16) “the theme of Romans”. Wright has repeatedly said that no one has convincingly shown that Romans has a single theme. His point about Rom 2 is that it is bracketed out by commentators and the statements Paul makes are not taken seriously. As he says it is one of those rare instances of “big picture exegesis” misleading us to think Rom 1:18-3:20 is simply about all mankind being sinful. This is to miss what Paul is saying in 2:1-16 (and elsewhere, notably Rom 14, 2 Cor 5) that all will be judged by works and to deny this is to deny wht Paul, as a good Jew, held implicitly and most basically: Judgement of a persons entire life.

Wright’s view of Romans (not fully expounded in this book) is only a “brilliant failure” for those whose bottom line is “am I saved from hell and off to heaven” and for whom anything else automatically pales in comparison; those who think individualistically and are unable to imagine that God’s rescue includes all of creation, those who forget that the Abrahamic covenanant was never revoked but, so Paul, fulfilled in Jesus so that ALL nations will be blessed by Jesus and his followers. Thus our task is not simply expansion (evangelisation) but, as with the apostles, the blessing, healing, liberating of the world as we not only preach but embody Jesus for the whole of creation.

The real stumbling block of Wright’s exposition is that it takes us back to Jesus’ call to take up our cross, lay down our life and bless the world. If we stick with Paul we can safely argue and blog about theology all day without getting our hands dirty, maintaining that it is Paul, not Jesus that brought us the Gospel.
Bruce Russell on 07 Oct 2009 at 11:25 am #

Wow Marc, you are focusing in on what is a tragic blind spot in Christian theology.

Wallace, like centuries of interpreters before him extracts Romans from its historical context and turns it into a self contained source volume for a systematic theology of individual salvation, thus missing the actual theme of Romans: it is a justification/vindication of God who has fulfilled and set aside the Mosaic covenant through Messiah’s faithfulness while simultaneously offering salvation to the gentiles on an equal footing with Jews. It remains the most incredible paradigm shift in human history. The Jews failed in their calling to be a light to the nations. The suffering servant succeeded while bearing the debt load of sin and faithlessness of both the chosen nation and the entire world. Individual salvation must flow from these realities! Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved! But you must endure to the end as a servant of God’s New Creation project in the power of the age to come!
Joe on 07 Oct 2009 at 11:33 am #

Paul was quite Hellenistic in many, many ways:

1) He indeed claimed to be a Roman citizen;
2) He quotes from Plato’s theology of Forms: things on earth being a perishable “shadow” of the ideal forms or “models” in “heaven,” etc.;
3) He constantly defends explicitly, “Greeks”;
4) Especially he defends Greeks, when criticized for bringing them into the “temple”; a real act, but also symbolizing his (mild?) Hellenization of Jewish thought.
5) It is commonly assumed he spoke or wrote Greek.
6) He argued for dropping the archetypical Jewish ritual: literal circumcision.
7) Like other Hellanized Jews, like Philo, he begins to suggest that many elements of Jewish/Hebrew religion, could be turned into allegeories, of the spirit. “Circumcision” of the penis, becomes a metaphor for cleansing our hearts, for example. He appeals his case to Rome;
9) He goes to Rome.
10) He argues that “gentiles” – non-Jews – and especially Greeks, can be considered to be followers of God, if they simply believe in him.
11) Paul criticizes Peter as a “hypocrite” for not allowing Jews and Gentiles – like Greeks presumably – at the same table (/fellowship/communion).
12) “For Gentiles do by nature, what the Law requires.”
13) While indeed, Jerusalem had been take over by Rome c. 64 BC; Paul was constantly exposed to Roman influence.
14) While Tarsus was rather Hellenized.
15) And Paul spent some time (years?) debating in the extremely Hellistic environment of Ephesus, filled with Greek intellectuals.

And so forth. So that any Romanization in Paul, is not simply a projection of “Medieval” thinkers; it was already well underway in Paul’s time, in Paul himself.

No doubt, Paul wants in fact to try to invoke/present a statement of classic fidelity of God to Jews – and of he himself, personally, to that Jewish God. In order to defend his Jewishness, and the fidelity of his new system of thought, to that tradition. To defend himself against the charge of traditional Jews, that he was siimply a traitor/heretic, a “law”-breaker, relative to traditional Jewish/Old Testament thought. When Paul indeed, began to modify – specifically Hellenize/Platonize – Jewish tradition. Or even modify, many say, the traditions of Jesus himself? With the assertion of a “new covenant.” Of “Grace” instead of Jewish/Old Testament “law.” Etc..

(By the way though, I elsewhere support the specific contention that Paul finally emphasized “works.”)
Bruce Russell on 07 Oct 2009 at 11:41 am #

Marc:

I checked out your site and found a few more blind spots: universalism, denial of original sin. The God of the Bible is a scary God: fear of Him is both warranted and essential to Salvation.

Luke 1:50
From generation to generation He is merciful to those who fear Him.
Susan on 07 Oct 2009 at 12:29 pm #

Marc, I too did some reading at your site, and I’m wondering……
Do you think that you are in right standing with God? If so, why? Why do you think you will inherit eternal life?
Susan on 07 Oct 2009 at 12:52 pm #

Oh, and Marc, I would be interested in you opinion of this short sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKT8IPdvzA
Thanks!
Daniel B. Wallace on 07 Oct 2009 at 1:49 pm #

Marc, I’m not sure what you’re reading, but I’d like to know where I said that Wright thinks that justification by works is the theme of Romans. I never said that, nor can it reasonably be inferred from what I wrote. And Bruce, it seems that you are simply parroting Marc. Have either of you actually read what I wrote? To argue that I have extracted Romans from its historical context is exactly what I did not do. I labored to show that my understanding of Romans fits in with what we know about the Judaism of his day. And it also is the one view that takes into account the only OT passages that speak of ‘justify,’ ‘gift/bribe,’ and ‘ungodly’ in one breath. It doesn’t bother me that you don’t agree with me, but to sweep under the carpet everything I said in a closely argued exegetical paper as though I’m simply exploiting Romans for what it can contribute to systematic theology is grossly unfair. I’m happy to have a real dialogue with you both about what I’ve written, but this sort of quick dismissal suggests that that’s not really what you’re after.
Marc on 07 Oct 2009 at 2:11 pm #

Dan, perhaps I misunderstood you but then can you could explain then which “minor theme” you think Wright is making “the theme of Romans”. From what you wrote…

What Wright has done is to pick on a minor theme that is necessary for Paul’s argument that all people are sinners and in need of salvation, and has turned that minor theme into the theme of Romans.

…I can only assume you think Wright is overemphasizing Paul’s teaching that “it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”, a doctrine reformed commentators gloss over, ignore or downright deny.
Daniel B. Wallace on 07 Oct 2009 at 2:25 pm #

Marc, on p. 5 of my paper I spoke of Wright’s view of the righteousness of God as “God’s faithfulness to his covenant, to Israel, and to the created world.” When I discuss Rom 3.1-8, I note that Wright sees God’s righteousness in Rom 3.5 as his covenant faithfulness. I actually never discuss Rom 2 at all in my paper, so I’m scratching my head, wondering where you came up with the idea that I was interacting with Wright over what he said there.
Marc on 07 Oct 2009 at 2:26 pm #

Susan, I’m justified, just like all other believers, on the basis of the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah.

Bruce, I’m no universalist and if you actually read my post on original sin you’ll see what I mean is not a denial but a clarification of what I think can be a misleading title for a doctrine. So, unless this was just an ad hominem, feel free to point out my blind-spots on my blog or via email so we don’t clutter up this page.
Marc on 07 Oct 2009 at 2:39 pm #

Dan, when you say “a minor theme that is necessary for Paul’s argument that all people are sinners and in need of salvation” I can only imagine you mean Rom 1:18-Rom 3:20 centering on Rom 2 especially since this is how most commentators deal with this passage summarizing it in 3 words “all are guilty”.

Now, if you think Wright is overplaying the idea of covenant membership (and I don’t see how the passage I am interacting with points to that aspect of Wright’s work) I do have sympathy. Wright does seem to be expanding (some might say, stretching) Paul’s actual words but his point is (see Gal 3:14) that God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant is so basic to Paul’s thought that it is latent and implicit, surfacing every now and then in such unexpectant ways as to prove it’s importance.

What I recommend in getting one’s head around Wright’s theology is holding the question: “When and how is God going to fulfill his promises to Abraham to bless the whole (Jew and Gentile) world?” in your mind as you read Romans and Galatians. If you do this you might find that the whole of Paul makes more sense than if you hold the question “How can I be saved from hell?” in mind. Remember Wright is not denying but expanding the old perspective, in typical Anglican fashion he’s both/and and not either/or.
Bruce Russell on 07 Oct 2009 at 4:12 pm #

Dan:

Sorry for the tone, and thanks for the quick response.

Could it be that Habakuk 2:4 is messianic?

Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness.

Who could that really apply to in absolute terms but Jesus?

If that is the case, then wouldn’t Romans 1:16-17 read like…

…For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (ashamed? no because the Mosaic administration is fulfilled with promises kept to the Fathers),

…for it is God’s power for salvation for everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (This is the ultimate Exodus from bondage announced to the whole world!).

For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from (His) faithfulness (in times past) to (His) faithfulness (in the future),…

…just as it is written, “The righteous one will LIVE by His faithfulness”.

So, in this understanding, LIFE (resurrection) is connected to the faithfulness of Christ, and God’s righteousness as it is revealed in scripture is intensified.

It’s not that the “righteousness of God” is equivalent to covenant faithfulness, it’s that God’s reputation for righteousness hinges on His faithfulness to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc.

I believe in Romans 3:1-8 you are dealing with God’s righteousness being on trial at the point of his faithfulness. That’s why the specific sin mentioned throughout this passage is lying. People say that Paul’s gospel makes God a liar and he should be ashamed of it.

The point is dealing with jarring adjustment with respect to Jew and Gentile inherent in the New Covenant and Paul’s push back on critics who say that the New Covenant makes God a covenant breaker. No God is the covenant keeper, and he will judge the world in righteousness.

Have I gone completely off the rails?

Bruce
Daniel B. Wallace on 07 Oct 2009 at 6:35 pm #

Marc, the minor theme that I see Wright turning into the major theme of Romans is that of God’s covenant faithfulness to Abraham in spite of the Jews’ unfaithfulness. Paul articulates this in Rom 2.17–20 and picks up on that theme again in Rom 3.1–4. He will again deal with it in ch. 9.

As for the Abrahamic Covenant and the question, ‘When and how is God going to fulfill his promises to Abraham to bless the whole world?’ I think that Wright has made a subtle shift. The promises of blessing to those who bless Abraham’s descendants is not the same as salvation, not the same as being part of the seed of Abraham. This is key, and this is where Wright seems to be muddled in his thinking. Genesis knows of no resurrection from the dead, so the question that comes to mind is, In what sense does God bless those who bless Israel? What I see Paul doing in Gal 3 and Rom 4 is moving beyond this general blessing to seeing Gentiles as connected directly to Abraham through Christ. But Wright seems to argue that God’s intended blessing of the whole world through Abraham via the Jewish people is equated with salvation. I don’t know how he makes that leap.

As for Rom 2 and Wright’s view of works, what struck me about his treatment of this chapter is that nowhere else in the parallel passages that he cites are non-believers in view. I think Wright fails in his exegesis of Rom 2 at precisely the point where it is vital for him to find solid ground. It just ain’t there.

Bruce, as for Hab 2.4 being Messianic, I’m skeptical. If it is, why isn’t this text viewed that way in Second Temple Judaism? That’s not fully determinative, of course, since the NT authors see some OT texts as Messianic that no other Jews of the day did (e.g., Isa 53, Ps 22). But if that is the case here, we would expect Hab 2.4 to be developed Messianically in the NT. Where is this done? Also, you’ve got to do some altering of the third person suffix in Hab 2.4, making it refer to God/Christ, when the text scans differently than that. What exegetes take this view? I’m not aware of any who do, though I haven’t read every commentary on Romans! As I said in the article, the fundamental thing that I think Paul is addressing is how God’s righteousness can be upheld if Gentiles are now to be included in salvation blessings. Paul’s enemies thought that he had compromised on the gospel and that he had lowered God’s standard of righteousness. No wonder they dogged Paul wherever he went!

I would urge Bruce and Marc to reread Romans in light of that question. It makes eminently better sense to me than Wright’s approach.
Daniel B. Wallace on 07 Oct 2009 at 6:36 pm #

One other thing: A large part of Wright’s reading of Romans depends on his translation of Rom 4.1 as two questions instead of one. He argues that the Greek is much more satisfactorily read that way, and this allows him to see the Abrahamic covenant as the key concept of Rom 4. But I believe that he is quite wrong on his understanding of the syntax. His view is next to impossible syntactically. And, if so, then the theme of the Abrahamic Covenant is a minor chord in the song about salvation to all.
A. M. Mallett on 07 Oct 2009 at 9:33 pm #

Dan,
It was this comment in your post that sparked my interest.

.. Wright is one of the leading NT scholars to have embraced the New Perspective on Paul, a view that got its major impetus from E. P. Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). …

From what I have surveyed, a significant degree of objection to Wright from the Reformed camp centers on this association. My purpose in the comment was to point out that this association, which you yourself have made here contrary to your assertion otherwise, is not founded specifically on Wright’s views. Instead the fallacy of association with Sanders is held against him even though he has clarified his stance. That is why I provided the link to his short article explaining some of his views on the matter.
Daniel B. Wallace on 07 Oct 2009 at 9:55 pm #

A. M., in my blog post I was simply trying to give some historical background about NPP. The article I wrote about Wright’s view, however–an essay that is nearly 10,000 words–says nothing about either Sanders or Dunn. But your comment seems to assume far more than I am saying in the blog post; indeed, isn’t it a bit unfair of you to assume that I am shouldering more (to borrow your phrase) about Wright than I am actually saying? I mentioned only in the post that NPP got its impetus from Sanders, but said nothing about Sanders’ theological convictions, nor whether Wright shared them. So whether some in the Reformed camp object to Wright because of this association, it seems a bit unfair to assume that I am doing so.
Bruce J. Russell on 07 Oct 2009 at 10:14 pm #

Daniel:

Can you break down Wright’s understanding of Romans 4:1 for me? I don’t have any of his books. What are the two questions he is seeing there?

I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is a minor chord compared to the major cord of the New Covenant. The righteousness of God was displayed in many ways in the Old Covenant and prefigured the coming Righteous One. Nowhere is the righteousness of God displayed more profoundly than in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ which must be the ultimate focus of both Habakuk 2:4 and Romans 1:17. Certainly, faithfulness is the source of life for any man, but only Jesus can say that His faithfulness obtained LIFE, therefore Jesus is preeminently the Righteous One that lives by his faithfulness, and in Him the righteousness of God is most spectacularly revealed. Of course in union with Christ believers enjoy the same privilege of having LIFE surge like living waters from their hearts as they pursue faithfulness to God.

Hey, I’ve been attending a Bible study taught by Ardel Caneday of “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Study of Perserverance and Assurance.” Ardel suggested to me that Habbakuk 2:4 is Messianic.

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Set-Before-Perseverance-Assurance/dp/0830815554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254971018&sr=8-1

Hey, I’ll continue to reread Romans until I run out of heartbeats!

Bruce
Susan on 07 Oct 2009 at 10:57 pm #

Marc and Bruce, both of you use the phrase “the faithfulness of Jesus” as being that which secures our salvation. I’m wondering why you don’t say Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for our sin. The wages of sin is death. We deserve the wrath of God for our sin. Jesus died to take upon himself the penalty for our sin….so that we don’t have to face that penalty come Judgement Day. I can never be faithful enough to merit a right standing with God. To say that we are justified because Jesus is faithful….and then we must be faithful….seems to miss the essence of the true gospel. It seems that you are saying that the life we realize in Christ we realize only as we are faithful.

Am I reading you right?
Daniel B. Wallace on 08 Oct 2009 at 12:01 am #

Bruce, how can you criticize my take on what Wright is saying if you don’t even have any of Wright’s books? You should get his *Justification* and read through it carefully. In his section on Romans (over one third of the book), he discusses Rom 4.1 at some length. He translates it “What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?”
Dr_Mike on 08 Oct 2009 at 10:13 am #

Dan:

Unlike some others, I have read Wright and I don’t think I read Wright wrong. I agree with what you’ve said: his re-emphasis on covenant membership and redefining of “the righteousness of God” seems a whole lot more eisogeticial than exegetical.

Why he feels compelled to promote his idiosyncratic interpretations at the expense of historic orthodoxy is beyond me. I suppose he has succumbed to the hubris of our age, i.e., that we know more and are more intelligent than people of the past. We may have more information and fanciful ideas, but that doesn’t mean we understand any better – or even as well – as those who lived two millennia ago.
Joe on 08 Oct 2009 at 10:36 am #

Well, I’m not the expert here. But might offer some simple thoughts.

Of course, the classic idea of Paul’s Justification, is just that 1) just as the Jews were saved by obedience to God’s original covenants, so too, 2) can Gentiles be saved, by obedience, “faith”fulness to – an essentially similar – “new covenant.”

Where is an unbridgeable leap, from one covenant from God, to another one? Assuming that Jesus is the authorized representative of God – his “son” – then we are merely going from one covenant with God, to yet another similar one. With his heir/son. And in both cases, it is obedience to/faithfulness to God, and one of his covenants, that saves us.

Is there really a HUGE discontinuity between Judaism and its covenants, and Christianity and its new covenant? Salvation for the Jews, and salvation for Christians?

I think Wright might be right.

(By the way, in Hab., if the righteous one is saved by “his” faith, would the Greek allow the possibility that “his” means an individual, and “his” own faith in God? So that is not a reference to Jesus, but simply to the ordinary believer, being saved by his own faith in God.)
Bruce Russell on 08 Oct 2009 at 11:38 am #

Daniel:

I am not a trained theologian, but am intensely concerned about how Romans has been interpreted throughout the centuries, especially right now.

I’m going to study the translation Romans 4:1 that sounds really interesting.

Bruce
Bruce Russell on 08 Oct 2009 at 11:57 am #

Susan: Great discussion points and QUESTION!!!

“both of you use the phrase “the faithfulness of Jesus” as being that which secures our salvation. I’m wondering why you don’t say Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for our sin.”

That is precisely what I mean: because Jesus faithfulness to his mission of sin bearing is forever and always the ground of individual and cosmic salvation. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

” It seems that you are saying that the life we realize in Christ we realize only as we are faithful.”

Not exactly. The gospel offer of salvation is a conditional promise:

“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” — The condition of belief must be met for salvation to be granted. By the way part of this involves God justifying us in anticipation of his final verdict at the last day. WE initially ARE JUSTIFIED because we have believed in the faithful one who rose from the dead!

“Unless you endure to the end you cannot be saved.” — The condition of perseverence must be met in order to inherit eternal salvation. Note that a the final judgement there will be a judgement according to good works: Psalm 62, John 5, Romans 2, etc.

That would be scary except that the Holy Spirit enables and God’s word directs us from conversion to the last day, that we become “doers of the law”, so that “the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

I stress the faithfulness of Christ as being the ground of our justification because a lot of expositors and most of our translations seem to indicate that our own individual faith in Christ is the ground. No No No! Our faith is instrumental to salvation, as is our obedience.

Susan, how would you concisely formulate the “true gospel”?

Blessings,

Bruce
Dr_Mike on 08 Oct 2009 at 12:30 pm #

Joe:

You are precisely correct in at least one thing – “I’m not the expert here.” Neither am I. Nor, as far as I can tell, is anyone who has commented here other than Dr Wallace.

Why we trust our own (at times, admitted) ignorance over another’s expertise is indicative of our arrogance. I am pointing the finger at myself more than anyone else: like most believers these days, I make my own understanding the final test of truth.

I’d like to think that my two seminary degrees and 35+ years of walking with Christ makes me an expert, but they don’t. They make me knowledgeable and that’s all.

I heard a sermon by Haddon Robinson in which he likened ignorance of theology to ignorance of medicine. We would never trust anyone other than an expert to do brain surgery, but we trust the untrained and non-expert “theologian” or “biblical scholar” with our eternal destinies and/or rewards. That, to me, is foolishness.

We would all do well to emulate Socrates who, when told that an oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man alive, attributed it to the fact that he was more aware of his own ignorance than anyone else.
cheryl u on 08 Oct 2009 at 12:55 pm #

Dr Mike,

It could very well be that I am not understanding quite what you are saying in your last comment here. And frankly, this comment is not just addressed to you but to many that comment here.

I get the feeling at times from reading here that for the lay person like myself, it is hopeless to ever expect to understand what the Bible is telling us. That we have to have years and years of schooling under our belts and multiple degrees before there is any hope that we will come close in our understanding of things.

I guess I wonder at times how people in third world countries today, or the common folk in Bible times ever got anything right or could walk with the Lord, or for that matter even be saved, if we have to have all of this time spent in school and multiple degrees under our belt in order to really know anything.

I don’t think God meant His Word to be such an enigma that no one can understand it without all of that. And He did say that He would send His Spirit to lead us into all truth.

Granted, we may not understand some of the finer points of how justification works for instance, but is that really all that necessary that we all know that in order to be able to walk with the Lord?

Dr Mike, you remarked a few comments ago that there was no reason to think that we understand things better than folks that lived two mellenia ago. That is my point exactly. And I don’t think that those folks had multiple years in universities and seminaries and multiple degrees to bring them to that understanding.
Dr_Mike on 08 Oct 2009 at 2:10 pm #

cheryl u:

Sorry if I confused or upset you. Let me clarify just a bit what I think about a few of the issues you raise.

First, I thoroughly believe in the truth of 2 Tim 3.16-17:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Bible is understandable and it does not require seminary, college, or training in logic to comprehend it. There is profit in being taught by those wiser and more knowledgeable, but any believer is capable of understanding all that is necessary for salvation and sanctification.

But, second, something like textual criticism or the historical development of doctrines (which is at the root of some of this discussion) is not covered by 2 Tim or any other book. That is where specialized training is needed and where we “ordinary” believers would do well to listen more than we speak.

I have read, in addition to Wright, both E.P. Sanders and Jimmy Dunn. But I don’t think I understand all that they are saying because (a) I’ve not studied any of their theologies or works in sufficient depth, and (b) I’m not smart enough to understand all their interpretative gymnastics – or “voodoo exegesis,” as someone once joked re Zane Hodges. I am also no scholar when it comes to Greek, so I need to listen to exegetes like Doug Moo, F.F. Bruce, Dan Wallace, et.al.

But these are not things essential to salvation or sanctification. Such issues have more to do with verification and apologetics, and with the integrity of the text and proper interpretation.

My own experience as a result of two stints in seminary was pretty Socratic: I went in thinking I had all the answers and came out realizing that I didn’t even know the right questions in some instances. Not about salvation or sanctification but about many of the more difficult and important theological and biblical matters.

I hope that clarifies it for you a bit.
cheryl u on 08 Oct 2009 at 2:30 pm #

Thanks, Dr. Mike for your clarification. Like I said, I wasn’t just addressing my question to you although it was your comment that got me to thinking about this again.

I confess I have been left feeling and thinking the way I spoke of more than once by some of the comments that have been made on this blog.

I will certainly agree that there are specialized areas that need the experts. But I think I have often been left with that sense of total inadequacy to ever be able to really know anything without some degrees in theology in a much more generalized way.
Darrell Pack on 08 Oct 2009 at 3:32 pm #

If any of you are pastoring a congregation rather than dealing with theologians, let me ask you this: Do you think that even 1% of your congregation would walk away from their reading of Romans with impressions similar to Wright’s?

Further do you think that a 1st century congregation that included slaves, illiterates, uneducated, and Gentiles would leave their worship services after having heard Paul’s letter read to them would have come away with Wright’s views?

I don’t
Bruce Russell on 08 Oct 2009 at 5:49 pm #

Darrell:

Further do you think that a 1st century congregation that included slaves, illiterates, uneducated, and Gentiles would leave their worship services after having heard Paul’s letter read to them would have come away with Wright’s views?

Of course even the unliterate 1st Century Christians would have a massive amount of Old Testament committed to memory. And the idioms and cultural context would be completely transparent to them. Plus their attention to these things would be a matter of life and death because of persecution.

On the other hand, 21st century Christians are notoriously ignorant of the Old Testament, have been catechised in a sectarian tradition, and perhaps simply choose their church based on the musical taste or availability of programs for the children, and worst of all have been groomed by the culture to feel, not think.

Wouldn’t you agree that a lot rides on our pastors and theologians getting these things right.

Blessings,

Bruce
Dave Z on 08 Oct 2009 at 6:05 pm #

Of course even the unliterate 1st Century Christians would have a massive amount of Old Testament committed to memory.

Talk about massive! That’s quite an assumption. Especially regarding the church in Rome. On what do you base this claim?
cheryl u on 08 Oct 2009 at 6:31 pm #

Regarding my comment #35:

“I will certainly agree that there are specialized areas that need the experts. But I think I have often been left with that sense of total inadequacy to ever be able to really know anything without some degrees in theology in a much more generalized way.”

I wrote that and it doesn’t really make sence even to me! Let me try again: “I will certainly agree that there are specialized areas that need the experts. But I think that I have often been left with a generalized sence of inadequacy to ever be able to really understand anything about the Bible without some degrees in theology.

(I hope that is a bit clearer!)
Susan on 08 Oct 2009 at 7:17 pm #

Bruce, I would add to your ‘conditions of salvation’ that one must repent. Where there is no true conviction of sin, there can be not true conversion. That conviction is not self-manufactured, but rather a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of an individual. God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud. It’s quite possible for a person to have all of the correct beliefs about Jesus, but never to have come to a place of repentant conviction (seeing sin as God sees it–a huge offense in light of his holiness). When one is convicted of their sin, there will be sorrow over sin, and the recognition of helplessness and need—need of forgiveness that is.

As far as remaining faithful till the end goes….I would contend that One who is truly saved is ALWAYS saved: Romans 8:1-2 ” There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you FREE from the law of sin and death.” God’s Spirit is doing a work of sanctification in us from the moment we are declared righteous in Christ. That work of sanctification never ceases. We sin, yes, but we are secure in Christ, because God sees us as clothed in the righteousness of Christ…..not because we deserve it, but because Christ earned it for us on the cross. Dan has written an excellent article on this topic (perseverance of the saints/ eternal security)….but I’m not at liberty to pass it on. If you are interested, ask him.

As for your final paragraph, Eph. 2: 8-9 tells us, For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God ; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.”

Our obedience is not instrumental to our salvation….or we would all be in trouble. Even the faith that is required of us is a gift of God’s grace. Our salvation is a free gift from God…from beginning to end. Romans 3:10 “just as it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.”

We don’t even seek God unless He himself draws us. “It’s His kindness that leads us to repentance”.

And lastly, you mention the second judgement. Dan can speak to all of this better that I can, but my understanding is that that will be a determination of rewards for those who are in Christ. Some Christians will live relatively unproductive lives for God’s kingdom, others will have earned rewards. The Great Throne of Judgement is where the sheep will be separated from the goats (true children of God from all others).

I posted a link to a great sermon ….the true gospel, to be sure! (Comment #14) It’s not real long. I’d love for you to view it!
A. M. Mallett on 08 Oct 2009 at 8:05 pm #

Dan,
The “shouldering” comment was not particularly directed at you personally. I apologize if it came off in that manner. It was a general comment and observation of the Reformed general community and it’s regard and treatment of Wright’s work.
Bruce J. Russell on 08 Oct 2009 at 11:11 pm #

Susan:

I totally agree that repentance is a condition of salvation and a crucial aspect of faith both at conversion and throughout the Christian life.

Obedience as well is a condition of final salvation. How much? Well, we know from John 5:28…

5:28-29 “Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out – the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.

We also know from Romans 2 that the justified ones, pursue glory, honor, and immortality. Notice that it does not say they attained perfection. I believe that the judgement by works will require that believers present on the last day with a life of authentic loyalty to God…something that all true believers are granted through the Holy Spirit.

So I would say that authentic as opposed to perfect good works are required at the judgement seat.

As far as obedience being necessary to final Salvation, my best proof text is Romans 8:12-14

8:12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh 8:13 (for if you live according to the flesh, you will die), 16 but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

Eternal Death is the inheritance of those who live according to the flesh. Putting to death the deeds of the body is a command. It is obedience that is instrumental to final salvation as well as its current enjoyment.

Blessings,

Bruce
Susan on 09 Oct 2009 at 2:10 am #

Bruce, unfortunately, even our good works are so often tainted with sin….which makes them less authentic.

I went to Romans 8, and I think that it’s interesting to read the verse you quoted in context: Rom. 8:5-11. A contrast is made between those who live according to the flesh, and those who live according to the Spirit.
Of those who live according to the flesh it is said, (Rom. 8:7-8) “because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so” (Rom. 8:8-9) Those who are in the flesh can not please God.” Of those who live in the Spirit it says, “You however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him. (Rom 8:10) But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is your life because of righteousness. Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Christ from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through His Spirit who lives in you.
Here’s where the verse you quoted comes in:
“SO THEN, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh (for if you live according to the flesh you will die), but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For those who are lead by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

Bruce, all of this is describing those who are not saved vs. those who are. It is a description of that which is absolutely true about people in one or the other category. It is not instruction to be good and do right in order to make sure your final destination is with God, it is rather a statement of fact that one who lives according to the flesh CAN’T please God, and the one who lives according to the Spirit is “under obligation to put to death the deeds of the flesh” vs 14-17 “For all who are lead by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit that WE ARE GOD’S CHILDREN. And if God’s Children, then heirs…”

If I am lead by God’s Spirit (saved), I will produce the fruit of the Spirit. If I am living according to the flesh (unsaved) I cannot please God.

I don’t have to fear death…I haven’t received a spirit of slavery leading to fear.
I’ve been adopted. The adoption is permanent. Do you think that God would adopt me and then kick me out of his family because I sin? God’s Spirit has indeed assured me that I am His Child. He has let me know this in my inner spirit. I am His Child. He is not going to change his mind. I am an heir!….my inheritance is secure….not because of my behavior but because I stand in the righteousness of Christ who paid the debt for my sin which I can…
Bruce Russell on 09 Oct 2009 at 8:32 am #

Susan:

I agree with the following statement …

If I am lead by God’s Spirit (saved), I will produce the fruit of the Spirit. If I am living according to the flesh (unsaved) I cannot please God.

…but I don’t believe this is what Romans 8:13 is teaching here.

(for if you live according to the flesh, you WILL die), but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you WILL live.

Isn’t the clear grammar of the sentence indicating that future life is conditional on the active obedience of putting to death the deeds of the body in the power of the Spirit?

There are past, present and future aspects to salvation. Believers have been saved, they are also being saved, and will ultimately saved from this present evil age and remaining sin.

There are literally hundreds of texts which contain a promise of salvation conditioned on obedience…

Mathew 6:14-15
6:14 For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 6:15 But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.

Mark 13:13
You will be hated by everyone because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

The encouragement is that we are to employ both the already, and not yet aspects of salvation to strengthen our faith, and when we do we will strengthen our claim on eternal life…

I Cor 6:9
6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, 5 practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 2:8-10
For by grace you are saved 19 through faith, 20 and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

Phil 2:12-13
So then, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but even more in my absence, continue working out your salvation with awe and reverence, for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort for the sake of his good pleasure is God.

2 Peter 1:10-11
Therefore, brothers and sisters, make every effort to be sure of your calling and election. For by doing this you will never stumble into sin. For thus an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be richly provided for you.

Blessings,

Bruce
Darrell on 09 Oct 2009 at 10:13 am #

Bruce:

Great points.

But the gist of my question was that it’s an old but good rule of Hermeneutics that “double” exegesis of a passage is dangerous. This led to the wild fancies of medieval allegories. If Wright is coming to conclusions that would not have been likely found by the first readers/listeners of Paul’s letter is he not imposing a double treatment of the text? What did the average congregant in the average church in Rome think Paul was on about when this letter was first read?
Bruce Russell on 09 Oct 2009 at 4:09 pm #

Darrell:

I’m doing the Winnie the Pooh thing here (trying to think beyond my mental horsepower), but what are the ground breaking issues in Romans? Certainly not the fundamental truths of God’s holiness, man’s sin, Jesus being the promised Messiah, the great high priest, the necessity of faith in Christ, baptism, discipleship, holiness.

Paul is demonstrating to gobsmacked Jews and gentiles alike that Moses has been superceded in a way that both honors the tradition and does not violate God’s promises made to the Hebrew fathers and nation.

He does break ground with the Flesh/Spirit antithesis. In fact I think we make a mistake if we equate the Flesh/Spirit antithesis with some kind of law/grace antithesis.

He also, subsumes individual soteriology under cosmic soteriology and supports the whole thing with the theme of resurrection, both individual and cosmic.

So, ultimately, I see the book as first and foremost a vindication of God.

Blessings,

Bruce
Joe on 10 Oct 2009 at 11:06 am #

Bruce:

I agree: 1) establishing continuity with the OT, fidelity to “God,” is a major goal in Paul.

To be sure also however, as you hint, 2) the dualistic, spirit vs. flesh antithesis, seems rather new in Paul. And seems rather Greco-Roman/Hellenistic/Platonic specifically. Derived from Plato’s ideal forms, spirits, floating in heaven; being unable to come down to material things earth, except in the extraordinary occasion of Jesus, spirit made flesh. And it is tempting to identify this as part of the “law vs. Grace” motif.

So that there might be a discontinuity or real difference HERE, relative to the OT perhaps; and a distinctively new “Christian” philosophy here. One that Jews perceived as being different enough in fact, from what they already knew, from the OT, that many Jews wanted not only Jesus, but also Paul, arrested and executed, for heresy. FOr deviating from the OT too much.

So 3) granting (Wright’s point?), that Paul’s main task was establishing continuity with the Jewish/Old Testament tradition, what do we do with THIS discontinuity, though? DO we say that a) indeed, Paul was a heretic relative to the Jews and the OT? Or, b) more positively stated, he founded a new religion, different from Judaism and the Old Testament? Do we accept Paul’s new ideas? The Hellenization of Judaism? Or c) do we say, try to reconcile his bipolar dualism – spirit v. flesh – in some way?
Bruce Russell on 10 Oct 2009 at 10:50 pm #

Joe:

I think the flesh / spirit antithesis has more to do with the new creation inaugurated by Jesus resurrection.

I think the new creation was God’s purpose from Genesis 1 onwards. I believe the History described in the Old Testament was providentially organized by our sovereign God to prepare the world for His Son, and that the Scriptures themselves are simultaneously history and literature designed to typify, prefigure and point to the Lord Jesus Christ.

After the resurrection, clinging to the jewish identy badges became as much ‘in the flesh’ as pagan idolatry. This is why Paul wrote such a compelling theodicy to the Jew first and also Greek.

blessings,

bruce
Joe on 11 Oct 2009 at 2:05 pm #

Well, back to the main point here: what is so mysterious about “righteousness”? It seems simple enough: 1) God is “righteous” or “just” to the extent that the makes and honors his covenants. SImilarly, 2) we as followers of God are righteous to the extent that we agree to and follow our part of the covenant.

What’s so mysterious here?
Bruce Russell on 11 Oct 2009 at 5:30 pm #

Joe:

I think that a lot of modern evangelicals want to say that in justification by faith we have all the righteousness we could every have through imputation of Christ’s merit.

Therefore, they are vested in having Romans 1:16-17 say that the righteousness of God means the fully orbed moral perfection of God’s nature which God imputes to our account.

Mounting hobby horse…

In my opinion the practical result of this approach is a deemphasis of the Not Yet of Justification. And of course the Not Yet it the primary justification. Justification by faith is the crucial gracious anticipation of God’s verdict on the Last Day.

Thus, when did you last hear a sermon stressing our final day judgement of out of Psalm 62, John 5:24-20, or Romans 2, etc.?

Finally, could this be the reason for the mind numbing immaturity seen in most evangelical churches today?

…Dismounting Hobby Horse,

Bruce
Joe on 12 Oct 2009 at 11:23 am #

Well sure: claiming that we already are “full”y justified and good, does 1) neglect the fact that only God himself knows whether we were really good; and only God will “judge” us, as good or bad, in the end. While 2) supposing we have it all already, seems to commit the (bourgeoise) sin of Vanity and Pride too.

Are we on the same page here?
Joe on 12 Oct 2009 at 2:21 pm #

By the way: the Bible itself never mentions being saved by faith “alone” … except in James. Where James condemns it. James telling us several times, that “faith without works is dead.”

And even if we could be saved by faith …. how do you know the idea of God you have faith in, is the right idea of him? You can have all the faith in the world, in a false Christ … and yet all “your faith is in vain.”

As is faith without “love,” said Paul himself.

So that there are many things you need, besides faith, to be righteous. Says God. And even if faith alone was enough, still, only God himself will judge whether your faith was in the right idea of God, or not.

That being the case, we should all be humble, in “fear and trembling,” till the End. And do good work.
Susan on 13 Oct 2009 at 1:42 pm #

Joe and Bruce, the point of ‘faith without works is dead’ is that true faith will result in true good works. It is not saying that you must work to confirm your faith by your works. A good tree produces good fruit (said Jesus), a bad tree produces bad fruit. The fruit reveals the truth of what is in fact in the heart. A person who is a false-convert will have ‘faith’ that does not produce the fruit of true good works, nor the fruit of the Spirit. A person who is a true child of God will necessarily produce these as a result of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. God’s word speaks of ‘the testing of our faith’. Sometimes severe (or not so severe) trials squeeze a person to the point where the true condition of their heart (once tested) is found, more evidently and openly, to be in a state of rebellion (rather than submission to) God. Trials can bring to light that a person is not a true child of God.

To live with the mindset which both of you have is to live under the burden of self-righteousness. Christ completely forgives all of our sin when we come to a point of true repentance and belief (by HIS standards). To say that we have to keep working to assure our good standing with God is to lessen the significance, and completeness of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. It is to become like the “foolish Galatians” As Paul said, Gal 3:1-3 You foolish Galatians! Who has cast a spell on you? Before you eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crusified! The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?”

Don’t you see that this is exactly what you are doing? It is right to apply effort to our obedience—”to do good to all men, especially those who are of the houshold of the faith”. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t, but this will not boost our chances of being saved when we come before Jesus on the Great White Throne of Judgement. He did the work…..all of it, which is necessary to earn our salvation.

God wants us to repent of our self righteousness. To repent of the notion that we gain favor in His sight because of our righteous deeds. Do you not recall that God has called our righteous deeds “filthy rags”?
It’s entirely critical to come to a right understanding of this issue, or you will go through life with a self-righteous mentality without even recognizing it. There will always be times of doubt about your standing with God come judgement day….which will no-doubt be followed with going through your mental check-list of the good deeds you have done…and a tendency to assess yourself by comparing yourself with others (which should NEVER be the way we determine how we stand with God). 1 John 5:11-13
Susan on 13 Oct 2009 at 1:59 pm #

…cont. 1 John 5:11-13 “The witness is this: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life, He who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life. I have written these things to you who believe in the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.”

If you have the Son of God, you have eternal life. That’s what God has said.

Look at the parable of the sower and the seeds. Three of the seeds sprouted (responding to the gospel in some way), but it was only the fourth seed which grew and took root. It is only the fourth seed which is illustrative of true conversion. Notice that the condition of the soil, not the effort of the plant, is what must be right. God conditions the soil. It is only when God’s Spirit brings a person to a point of true understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, AND brings conviction…a sorrowful awareness of ones own sinfulness, that one can be truly saved.

BTW, Dan Wallace is trying to meet a book deadline this month, which is why he has been absent from this discussion. I have read an article he wrote recently on the perseverance of the saints (which I recently reread)…..so I know that he is in agreement with what I have said here. I would post the article, but it is not-yet-published.
Joe on 13 Oct 2009 at 2:38 pm #

Our position is self-righteous? There is nothing so self-righteous as a person who says he/she is already fully saved by faith, and does not need to do anything else, ever.

“Be not righteous overmuch.”

“By their fruits you shall know them.”
cheryl u on 13 Oct 2009 at 2:56 pm #

Susan,

There is a passage in Ephesians 4 that says: “But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Ephesians 4:20-24

It then goes on to list a bunch of things that are to be “put off” and tells us how to live instead.

So, it seems to me we are to be very actively involved in living the life He has for us, an active “putting off” and putting on other things instead. It isn’t all just an automatic thing that happens because we have the Spirit within us. It is rather a cooperating with the Spirit in an active way. Remember what Philippains 2:12-13 says? “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Then in chapter 5 it says: “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.” Ephesians 5:5-7

This is a very stern, it seems to me, warning spoken to Christians to be careful that they are not deceived and take the things that God forbids lightly. He tells us not to be partakers in these things because of the dire consequences that comes to those that do them.

(There are very similar passages in Colossians and I Corinthians.)

I believe these are warnings and passages we all need to heed. They seem to me to all too often be swept under the rug and ignored as we focus on the types of verses that you spoke of above.

And if we are doing these things as we are told to in these verses, it isn’t our own righteousness, which is indeed “as filthy rags”, but it is God’s righteousness–the new man that we have put on, with the “spirit’s of our mind renewed”, as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” because, after all, it is He that “works in us to will and to do!”
Darrell on 13 Oct 2009 at 6:28 pm #

Susan,

You said, “It is only the fourth seed which is illustrative of true conversion. Notice that the condition of the soil, not the effort of the plant, is what must be right. God conditions the soil.”

That seems to me to be an overt case of begging the question.

First nothing in the text indicates that God conditions the soil. In Luke’s version (8:18) it appears that the person receiving the word prepares the soil of his heart.

Second, nothing indicates that the plants that grow in the cases of the receptive seeds in any way differ one from the other. The word was identically productive in three of the four cases: a plant comes up from the planted word. If the one case is conversion, how are the other two not? The lack of ongoing fruitfulness comes from offense regarding persecution, and the gradual choking out of the word’s life through temptation.

That these two categories are spurious conversions is definitely not apparent from anything in the text.
Susan on 14 Oct 2009 at 1:36 am #

Joe and Cheryl,
….by their fruits you shall know them indeed. That which cannot produce fruit, does not produce fruit. Matt 7:17-20 Jesus said, “every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.”

And, in response to your comment, I DO believe that I am fully saved by faith in the Son of God (1John 5:11-13). My good works do not in any way contribute to my salvation. Self righteous means that one thinks that their good deeds are necessary for meriting salvation. Now, you have implied that I believe that I don’t think I need to do anything else ever. In one sense you are correct…..in that I know that my post-coversion works don’t save me any more than my pre-conversion works. However, as I stated in my last post: ” It is right to apply effort to our obedience—”to do good to all men, especially those who are of the houshold of the faith”. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t, but this will not boost our chances of being saved when we come before Jesus on the Great White Throne of Judgement.

We are commanded in scripture to do many things….to put off the old and put on the new etc. Yes, we should obey. Yes we should apply effort to serve God and others, and yes we need to heed God’s warnings not to partake in the deeds of the ‘children of disobedience’……..but that isn’t what saves us!

I don’t at all sweep the directives of scripture…of God Himself, under the rug. It’s a bit presumptuous to draw that conclusion. I never said anything akin to ‘we don’t need to concern ourselves with obedience to God’s word. If you knew me, you would know that I don’t do that.

The scriptures you have quoted are not at all in conflict with anything I have said. BTW, why do you quote King James? That was a good translation in the 1600’s, but it’s not the most readable version now….
Susan on 14 Oct 2009 at 2:09 am #

Darrell, only one plant grew and produced fruit….indicative of life. I’m too tired to write more, but I will tell you that Dan Wallace’s view is that only the last seed/soil represents a true convert. He’s the scholar
cheryl u on 14 Oct 2009 at 2:13 am #

Susan, I’m tired and it is late too! Just wanted to let you know the only reason I quoted KJV was the program I was using at the time had a glitch and would only print it in KJV.
cheryl u on 14 Oct 2009 at 10:08 am #

Susan,

I am not saying that I think you are deliberately sweeping God’s commands under the rug. What I am saying however, is that I still don’t you are seeing my point.

You said, “And, in response to your comment, I DO believe that I am fully saved by faith in the Son of God (1John 5:11-13). My good works do not in any way contribute to my salvation. Self righteous means that one thinks that their good deeds are necessary for meriting salvation. Now, you have implied that I believe that I don’t think I need to do anything else ever. In one sense you are correct…..in that I know that my post-coversion works don’t save me any more than my pre-conversion works.”

Now, depending on your definition of “good works”, I may or may not agree with you. If you are saying things we do on our own to merit salvation, I agree with you 100%.

However, there are quite a few other Scirptures that are, if you will, the flip side of the ones you have quoted. I will just mention a few here.

Romans 8:3-4 “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God {did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

See, there is still a “requirement of the law” that needs to be fulfilled. Only when we are Christians, the SPIRIT does it through us, and we don’t do it ourselves.

Then Romans 8:12-13 says, “So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

So, accoding to those verses, if we are “putting off the old man”–the flesh, and “putting on the new man”–and walking by the Spirit, we will live.

Remember all of the times Paul says that “those that do these things, (or the unrightesous), shall not inherit the Kingdom of God”? He said that speaking of works of the flesh. (I Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:21, and Ephesians 5:5)

While these passages make it clear that we are new in Christ, and that we have crucified the flesh in Him, they are all telling us to be sure to “walk in the Spirit” so that is a reality in our day to day life. They also make it clear that we can still have those sins within us and we are not to allow ourselves to fall into them. And then comes the warnings, “they that do them shall not inherit the Kingdom of God”, or as in Romans 8, “if you live according to the flesh we, you must die.” Several times these passages make it clear too, that we are not to be deceived about this. Why would Paul keep telling us that if it were not a possibility?

Continued in next comment…
cheryl u on 14 Oct 2009 at 10:18 am #

Continued from comment # 61:

Of course, this doesn’t mean that if we sin we are immediately doomed to hell! There is always repentance and forgiveness. But as far as I can tell, they do mean that the process that we call sanctification is very much tied up in the whole salvation experience. It is not optional! It is just that the Spirit in us will fulfill the requirements of the law as it says in Romans 8. But we are to be sure to be walking in the Spirit and letting Him do that in us.

“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” II Thessalonians 2:13

Salvation through SANCTIFICATION by the Spirit and FAITH in the truth!!
Marc on 14 Oct 2009 at 10:36 am #

Susan, your position and that of Piper, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer unto salvation is the view (among others) which Wright critiques in his latest book, Justification. Aside from the fact that the explicit concept is absent in Paul (Packer says the “meaning” is there) and the illogic of it I was wondering how you reconcile this idea with Paul’s concept of personal judgement (Rom 2; 2 Cor 5:10) and especially Jesus judgement, in Mt 25, clearly on the basis of a person’s works apart from their beliefs held? What do you think Jesus meant when he promised mercy to the merciful and forgiveness to those who forgive? Was he just playing around and we needed Paul to give us real soteriology? Seriously, when you are one day judged are you going to be surprised when God says, “Let’s look at what you’ve done Susan.”? Would you really stand up to God and say, but that’s not how I was taught, gimme Jesus’ credit!
Susan on 14 Oct 2009 at 11:35 am #

Cheryl, as I pointed out to another commenter in my post # 43, it’s important to read Rom. 8:12-15 in the context of the entirety of that chapter. A contrast is made between those who live in the flesh (non-converts) vs. those who live by the Spirit (true believers). Paul points out that those who live in the flesh can’t please God….it is impossible.
(Rom. 8:8-9) Those who are in the flesh can not please God.”

Of those who live in the Spirit it says, “You however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him. (Rom 8:10) But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is your life because of righteousness. Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Christ from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through His Spirit who lives in you.

Cheryl, this sermon by Mark Driscoll is entitled: Why I Hate Religion .
It speaks very directly to this discussion. It is very clear and well-delivered. Dan Wallace has told me that he finds Driscoll’s theology to be right-on. I very much hope that you will listen to it.

Thanks for the discussion, Susan.

You see, Cheryl, there are only two categories given. Those who are of the flesh, or those who are the adopted sons and daughters of God, who are of the Spirit. You can’t be an adopted child of God….and then become un-adopted! Please do read all of Romans 8 carefully. It’s very encouraging to me, and should be to all true believers.

You said: “See, there is still a “requirement of the law” that needs to be fulfilled. Only when we are Christians, the SPIRIT does it through us, and we don’t do it ourselves.”

That requirement was fulfilled by Jesus who’s righteousness is imputed to us, Cheryl. In order to for us to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law we would have to be sinless. We aren’t. We’ve been condemned to face the wrath of God for our sin. It is ONLY because of what Jesus did on the cross that we have a way of escape from the future wrath of God. “The wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life.” When someone gives you a gift, what do you need to do to obtain it? You simply need to receive it…..you don’t have to do good things after you receive it in order to make sure it isn’t taken back from you. “Gift” is God’s word here.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are you saved, through faith, and this is NOT from yourselves, it is the GIFT of God; it IS NOT FROM WORKS, so that no one can boast.” Excuse the caps, but I think that it is incredibly important that one understand this. If someone thinks that their salvation is in jeopardy if they sin…and don’t do enough good deeds, then I will say that such a person is not trusting Christ alone for their salvation. Why did Christ have to die?…..would then be a…
Susan on 14 Oct 2009 at 11:42 am #

…. a legitimate question to ask.

Cheryl, that’s weird. My post ended up jumbled and out of order. My comment about Mark Driscoll’s sermon was my LAST comment, but the paragraphs rearranged when I submitted the comment.

Here’s the link to Driscoll’s powerful sermon (it’s not real long): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKT8IPdvzA
Susan on 14 Oct 2009 at 12:01 pm #

On the other hand, Marc: Jesus says in Matt. 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven–only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds? Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me you lawbreakers!”

On judgement day, the pretenders and false converts…..who may have served long and hard in the church, will be exposed. What matters is having a right relationship with Him. This comes about when we are broken over our sin under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and we receive the forgiveness which comes through Christ alone. If you think that you have a plea before God BECAUSE you have dutifully served Him, you are in for a big surprise. Only God knows the true condition of a person’s heart. He gives grace to the humble (like the tax collector who beat his breast before God), but He is apposed to the proud (those, like the Pharisee, who think that their good deeds and right-living, give them a place before God).

And notice that phrase (Matt 7:21 “…only the one who does the will of my Father”. Recall that Romans 8 makes it clear that only those who are in the Spirit are at all capable of doing the will of the Father.
Susan on 14 Oct 2009 at 12:05 pm #

Cheryl, you are correct that salvation isn’t ‘optional’ (which makes it sound like WE make it happen)….it is promised by God! Sanctification is worked in us by God’s Holy Spirit. It is not something which we work in ourselves.
cheryl u on 14 Oct 2009 at 12:23 pm #

Susan,

I am just heading out the door. I was going to ask about the link to that sermon but I see it came through now.

You said, “Cheryl, you are correct that salvation isn’t ‘optional’ (which makes it sound like WE make it happen)….it is promised by God! Sanctification is worked in us by God’s Holy Spirit. It is not something which we work in ourselves.”

I assume you meant sanctification isn’t optional–which is what I said? Yes God works it in us, but we are also told to “Work it out with fear and trembling.” Philippians 2:12

The phrase “work out” means, according to Thayer’s:

“1) to perform, accomplish, achieve

2) to work out i.e. to do that from which something results

a) of things: bring about, result in

3) to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing”

The same verse goes on to say it is God who works it in us.

But this aspect of “working out” is what I have been talking about.

Have to go for now…
Michael on 14 Oct 2009 at 1:36 pm #

You know I was chatting with some friends from my Bible study recently and the question came up that if we could remove one book from the Bible what book would it be. I said Romans because it seems nearly 75% of the arguments that arise among Evangelical’s stem from something that was said in Romans and the various ways different groups interpret it.
Darrell on 14 Oct 2009 at 1:42 pm #

As this conversation has taken the direction of an Arminian versus Calvinist discussion. I’d like to suggest that Robert Shank’s Life in the Son would be a valuable contribution.
cheryl u on 14 Oct 2009 at 3:03 pm #

Susan,

A few more thoughts.

First of all, I want to reiterate again, that I do not believe in any way that it is our own works that save us. It is ONLY through Jesus and what He did and being in relationship with Him that we are saved. We will not stand before Him on judgment day and be welcomed because we have done anything on our own to merit salvation. However, what He did makes the way for us to not only receive forgiveness but life and sanctification through His Spirit. Yes, it is He who works the sanctification in us–but we are told to work it out.

You say that in Romans 8 it speaks of two categories of people–the saved and the unsaved. Those that walk in the flesh and those that walk in the Spirit. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if you are saved, you will be walking in the Spirit. I still believe there is a distinction there however.

Look back in Romans 6:11 and the next few verses. I think that may help show what I mean. There we are told to reckon ourselves dead to sin and to not let sin reign in us. It sounds to me like even here in Romans there is a choice to be made as to how much we yield to the Spirit. And again, Paul warns that if we are servants of sin, the end is death.

And in Galatians 5 there is a real distinction made between living in the Spirit and walking in the Spirit. (See verse 14 to the end of the chapter, noting particularly verses 16 where we are commanded to walk in the Spirit and verse 25 which says that if we live in the Spirit, we should also walk in the Spirit). The implication being, it would seem to me, that just because we are a Christian, we may not necessarily be walking in the Spirit. In which case we would be living in the flesh, which Paul says leads to death! I think the Ephesians, Colossians, and I Corinthians verses I spoke of earlier bear this out.

You know, I honestly can’t say that I understand how all of these concepts, (the ones you spoke of and the ones I have brought up), work together. But I simply can not deny that I see these things in Scripture and the warnings that go with it.

By the say, I haven’t had time to listen to that link yet and may not for awhile.
Daniel B. Wallace on 14 Oct 2009 at 4:27 pm #

Friends, I’ve been stuck in central California for four days, waiting for a flight home to Dallas. I’ve been able to read the comments a bit, but not thoroughly. I think it’s time to close this discussion since it has moved far away from the original topic. This happens almost all the time unfortunately.

Before we close it, however, I would like to offer a perspective on the nature of the comments. All too often commenters do not deal with the details of an argument, but rather speak in generalities about what the Bible teaches. Some have simply ignored the critique I made of Wright on justification and have assumed that works are an essential part of salvation–even if they are sponsored by the Spirit of God. But this is precisely what I was critiquing Wright for: a sloppy, not-well-thought-out view of justification that somehow requires us to do more than put our trust in Jesus to be saved. The key texts here, as I have argued, are Rom 3.21-26 and 4.5. There is absolutely nothing that we can do to get ourselves saved nor anything that we can do to keep ourselves saved. It is all of God’s grace. We receive the gift of salvation by faith. Once you add anything to the finished work of Christ on the cross you effectively blaspheme the Lord because you’re saying that he didn’t do enough and that our feeble, sin-tainted efforts can add to his accomplishment. Paul underscores the logic of grace in Rom 4 to such an extent that one cannot miss his emphasis on works as adding zip, nada, nothing to our salvation.

Where works come in is especially related to the ministry of the Spirit. A true believer is one who has repented of his/her sinfulness and has begun to trust the Lord—not only for salvation but for all of life. And the Holy Spirit has invaded this person’s life, prompting him/her to live for God. Phil 2.12-13 was mentioned by one commenter, as though this demonstrated that works were a necessary addition to our salvation. But only v. 12 was quoted! Verse 13 puts the divine perspective on v. 12: “For the one producing both the desire and the labor, for his good pleasure, is God.” Paul says that we are to work out our own salvation, but God is the one who ‘works it in,’ if you will. It’s there, and is our present possession, but the aspect of salvation known as sanctification is an ongoing process in which we use effort, under the power of the Spirit, to please God, knowing that our eternal home is with him.

At issue here is the role that assurance of salvation might have in the process of sanctification. As Susan has well noted, God never unadopts his children! Yes, there will be a judgment to face, but the judgment that believers will face is not one in which their salvation is in jeopardy. Let me close with this question: For those of you who are married, do you love your spouse more if you think that at the slightest infraction he or she might abandon you? Or do you love your spouse more if you rest secure in…