Review of Introducing Paul by Guy Waters

Over at Reformation21, Guy Waters of RTS has a review of my book Introducing Paul. I think it is a very fair review but with expected points of contention over "incorporated righteousness" vis-a-vis "imputed righteousness". There were some pointed questions by Waters and I appreciate that he has taken the time to understand what I was trying to say. He observes correctly that what I'm putting forward is not quite the standard Reformed view, but nor am I in the N.T. Wright camp. Waters raises a good question about what is the "righteousness" that believers are incorporated into or have imputed to them. Now I'm 100% convinced that it is not the merit of Jesus or his entire life of obedience. I've just gone and read again over Romans 5 and I see how people can think that, but it is clear that this is not explicitly said in the text. Jesus' "one act of righteousness" results in justification, but the one act of righteousness is not something that is imputed as the grounds of justification (Rom 5.18-19). My advice here is to look at the meaning of "righteousness" in 5.17 and 21 before going into 5.18-17. In Rom. 5.17, 21, righteousness refers to a salvific status not to a substance or merits that can be infused/imputed (delete as preferred). It is thereafter that we see in Rom. 5.18-19 that Jesus' act of righteousness (i.e., his sacrificial death) leads to justification and by his obedience believers will (note future tense) be righteous at the final day. Yet there is no explicit statement of imputation here and the righteousness in 5.19 might be transformative as well as forensic (see Schreiner's Romans commentary on this which is particularly helpful). I have a little rhyme: "No matter how much may people try, kathistemi does not mean logizomai." So Depending on the context of Romans 3-5, I think "righteousness" can refer to (1) The status of being righteous, (2) Deemed to have fulfilled a covenant relationship, or (3) Salvation generally. I think we are incorporated into the status that the Father gives to his Son in the resurrection (i.e., a verdict of righteous). Then by virtue of union with him we also share by implication in his faithfulness that was the basis of his vindication. So what is true of the Messiah is now reckoned to be true of the people of God. It is this implication that I think makes imputation legitimate. If we are in Christ than what is true of him is true of us, including the faithful execution of his messianic vocation as the second Adam, Son of God, and true Israel.

J.I. Packer on Justification

Justin Taylor quotes a famous short dictionary article by J.I. Packer on justification:

“[God] reckons righteousness to them, not because he accounts them to have kept his law personally (which would be a false judgment), but because he accounts them to be united to one who kept it representatively (and that is a true judgment)”

—J. I. Packer, “Justification,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984], p. 596.

If you buy into the concept of "union" and "representation," then the notion of justification as resting on the imputed merit of Jesus Christ starts to fall apart.

Old and New Perspectives in Diognetus

I'm currently working on the reception of Paul in the Epistle to Diognetus. Along the way I've noticed that the Old and New Perspectives on Paul can both find roots in ED which confirms my view that the Reformed and NPP views simply aren't new and are not mutually exclusive. Consider the following:

First, note this soteriological picture in ED concerning a forensic alien righteousness that clothes believers.

"So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient; not because he approved of that former season of unrighteousness, but because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy of life might now by the goodness of God be made worthy, and, having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power. (2) But when our unrighteousness was fulfilled, and it had been made perfectly clear that its wages—punishment and death—were to be expected, then the season arrived during which God had decided to reveal at last his goodness and power (oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God!). He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge against us; instead he was patient and forbearing; in his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, “the just for the unjust,” the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. (3) For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? (4) In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? (5) O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners! (6) Having demonstrated, therefore, in the former time the powerlessness of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed the Savior’s power to save even the powerless, he willed that for both these reasons we should believe in his goodness and regard him as nurse, father, teacher, counselor, healer, mind, light, honor, glory, strength, life, and not be anxious about food and clothing." (ED 9.1-6).

Second, note the condemnation of Jewish boundary markers in ED, especially about boasting in circumcision by Jews.

"But with regard to their qualms about meats, and superstition concerning the Sabbath, and pride in circumcision, and hypocrisy about fasting and new moons, I doubt that you need to learn from me that they are ridiculous and not worth discussing. (2) For is it not unlawful to accept some of the things created by God for human use as created good but to refuse others as useless and superfluous? (3) And is it not impious to slander God, as though he forbids us to do any good thing on the Sabbath day? (4) And is it not also ridiculous to take pride in the mutilation of the flesh as a sign of election, as though they were especially beloved by God because of this? (5) And as for the way they watch the stars and the moon, so as to observe months and days, and to make distinctions between the changing seasons ordained by God, making some into feasts and others into times of mourning according to their own inclinations, who would regard this as an example of godliness and not much more of a lack of understanding? (6) So then, I think you have been sufficiently instructed to realize that the Christians are right to keep their distance from the thoughtlessness and deception common to both groups and from the fussiness and pride of the Jews. But as for the mystery of the Christian’s own religion, do not expect to be able to learn this from man." (ED 4.1-6).

So we have a very Pauline soteriology with a clear forensic justification plus a recognition of the boasting of Jews in their elect status, arguing for the freedom of Gentiles from Jewish observances - Jimmy Dunn plus Martin Luther are now reconciled - how wonderful it is when brothers dwell in unity, it's like oil flowing down the beard of Aaron.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (547–549). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Justification - Publications and Conferences

The recent issue of Table Talk is entitled, What N.T. Wright Really Said, with contributions from who's who of American Reformed circles (HT Scott Clarke). The editorial by Burk Parsons includes a lengthy quotation from John Piper about the positive elements of N.T. Wright's ministry which is a polite opener to an issue dedicated to criticism of him. However, R.C. Sproul Sr. reflects on N.T. Wright's dictum that "We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself - in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead". Sproul objects to that statement because it makes a strawman of Protestant orthodoxy. Perhaps so! But Jonathan Edwards made a similar warning as N.T. Wright does (see Compete Works 1.654 - sadly my books are en route from Inverness to Brisbane [if the Somali pirates haven't got their filthy hands on them] and I don't have that book on hand to cite it). I found that reference to Edwards in Timothy George's essay in Justification and Variegated Nomism vol. 2 (p. 461n.68), I included it in my Saving Righteousness of God (p. 8n.8), and I passed the reference on to John Piper who also mentioned Edwards and Owen making a similar point in Piper's Future of Justification (pp. 24-25n.30). The danger that people talk as if we are justified by assent to a doctrine rather than by believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and his work is thus a real danger for Protestant orthodoxy which has always had a temptation of retreating into a cerebral scholasticism. Even if you don't agree with Wright's formulation of justification (and who does at every aspect!), his point here is valid.

In other news, the Annual Evangelical Theological Society Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia has as its main theme "justification by faith" and invited speakers include John Piper, N.T. Wright, and Frank Thielman which will include a panel discussion! I picked a real stupid time to take a year off from ETS/SBL!!! In the words of the great American philosopher, Homer Simpson, "Doh!".

Michael Horton Reviews N.T. Wright on "Justification"

Thanks to Trevin Wax, here is a list of Michael Horton's series of reviews on N.T. Wright's book on Justification.

1. Introduction
2. Justification and God’s single plan: The Covenant and History
3. Justification and God’s people
4. Justification and God’s Righteousness: Imputation and Future Hope
5. Justification and God’s Righteousness: Covenant and Eschatology
6. Justification, Faith, and Faithfulness: The Works of the Law
7. Justification and the Testimony of Paul
8. Justification and Romans
9. “Works of the Law” – Soteriology and Ecclesiology
10. Conclusion

Horton makes some good points here, several criticisms I would qualify or contest, but an even handed review overall. Horton and I will be engaging each other in a forthcoming IVP volume on four views of justification in the future where I'm down to advocate something called the "progressive reformed view" (sadly the word "progressive" carries all sorts of freighted connotations that I'll have to carefully qualify).

Justification has vertical and horizontal aspects

I've noticed recently how a growing number of commentators maintain that justification has both vertical and horizontal aspects. By that, I think they mean that justification includes, firstly, a verdict of acquittal and vindication by faith in Christ/being in-Christ. Secondly, it establishes the legitimacy of their membership in the people of God. In other words, God justifies the ungodly by faith not works and you don't have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul is interested in the inclusion of the Gentiles into God's saving purposes and the basis of their inclusion! Consider the following quotes:

"This point advocates of the new perspective are quick to emphasize, and rightly so. But since the justification of which we have been speaking has dealt with both the radical, vertical problem of a relationship with God and the horizontal problem of Jew-Gentile relationships, rather than simply the latter (which is the particular focus on the new perspective), then the solution is more properly based and the assurance is made 'more doubly sure'" (Peter T. O'Brien, "Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?", 291.

"If, as one strand of Luther’s legacy understood it, the phrase 'the righteousness of God' matters most and is defined as the forensic status of 'righteous' that gives people irrespective on their behaviour, then this locus and the letter into which it leads is all about the vertical relationship between an individual and God. Romans becomes a road to salvation for individuals and no more. But if 'to the Jew first and to the Greek' is still emphasized within the locus, a window is left open to consider God’s righteousness as concerned with humanity as a whole and therefore to be both vertically and horizontally understood. For centuries, based on one understanding of how Luther read Augustine, we have been led to believe that the righteousness of God as described in Romans is in the first place about an individual believer’s legal status before God and does not primarily concern how God’s people live out God’s righteousness – or justice – on the earth" (Mark Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 5).

"A holistic reading of Romans and Galatians should tie together the covenantal and forensic dimensions of God’s righteousness. The vertical and horizontal aspects of justification need to be appropriately described and weighted in order to provide a comprehensive picture of justification in Paul’s letters. According to Paul, faith alone in Jesus is the basis of vindication; and faith alone marks out the people of God" (Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, 153).

"Essentially, it is a matter of giving Romans 3:29-30 equal status with 3:27-28: the God who justifies is as such the God of Jews and Gentiles alike. At this point in Paul’s argument, the presence of a 'horizontal' or social dimension alongside the 'vertical' or theological one is unambiguously clear – although it is still routinely missed by the New Perspective’s critics" (Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective, 6).

Note now Dunn and Wright's appropriation of this:

Dunn:"Evidently [from Gal 2.16] the two dimensions are inextricably interlocked - the vertical and the horizontal, acceptance by God with acceptance of others to de-prioritize the horizontal emphasis, as 'sociological' and distinct from 'theological', is to miss and to mistake the high priority which Paul placed upon it, as his later writings confirm" (James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 489).

Wright: "Here the normal caricatures of the new perspective (which are sometimes of course richly deserved) simply break down. It is not either 'rescue from sin' or 'easy entry, without circumcision, into God's people.' Nor are these, as is sometimes suggested, merely to be thought of as 'vertical' and 'horizontal' dimensions, soteriology on the one hand and sociology on the other [footnote to Michael Bird saying he's wrong on this!!!]. Part of the point is that soteriology itself, for Paul, is in that sense 'horizontal,' having to do with the ongoing purposes of God within history, while sociology, for Paul, is 'vertical,' because the single multiethnic family, constituted in the Messiah and indwelt by the Spirit, is designed as God's powerfl sign to the pagan world that Israel's God, Abraham's God, is its Creator, Lord, and Judge. In fact, what appear to Western eyes as two separate issues - salvation from sin on the one hand, a united people of God on the other - seem to have appeared to Paul as part and parcel of the same thing. That single same thing included God's dealing with humanity's idolatry, failure to reflect God's image, rebellion andsin, and not least fracturing into different nations and ethnic groups. As we shall see in the next chapter, they are all different ways of saying, ultimatley, the same thing" (N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, 126-27).

A few issues:

1. I think some theologians just don't have a grammar or framework for attributing any social, covenantal, or horizonal sense to justification. Here the NPP is a genuine corrective, esp. Dunn's later works, in showing you don't have to abandon Luther if you give Sanders a fair hearing.

2. Does the vertical/horizontal divide go far enough? No doubt these elements are identifiable in Paul's thought (e.g. Rom. 3.21-26 and 27-30). But many will want to insist that vertical is the basis/content of justification while the horizontal is merely the scope/context of justification. Does that downplay the social/horizontal elements? I've struggled with this myself insofar as I've referred to the social side of justification as something that is both an implicate of and yet intrinsic to the justifying verdict.

3. Is Wright's objection to this vertical/horiztonal divide legitimate?

Gerald Bray and Paul Helm on N.T. Wright

My two HTC colleagues, Gerald Bray and Paul Helm, have written some direct and animated criticisms about N.T. Wright's latest book on justification which will prompt much discussion on the internet.

Markus Barth on "Justified by Faith"

Markus Barth writes:

"'Justified by faith' means, accordingly, tried by the faithful God, sentenced conformably to the appearance, death, and rising of the obedient and loving Son, acquitted and set free in a manner identical with new creation and recognizably only with rejoicing and thanksgiving. God's faith, the faith of Jesus Christ, and man's answer in faith are - each in its own way - the means by which the righteousness and life are given to the community of sinful Jews and Gentiles. It is true: man is justified sola fide, by faith alone But this saving faith is much more than a mere existential posture and response of man. Faith is first of all the characteristic and gift of God and his Son. Built on the faithfulness of the Judge and the Advocate, the human trust and faithfulness toward God stand on firm ground. There is no other requisite or means of justification beyond this."

Lane Tipton and Calvin, Union with Christ, & Justification

There is a great little clip by Lane Tipton of WTS-Philly on Calvin and Justification. Tipton asserts that some modern exponents have over emphasized the forensic aspect of justification at the expense of the rest of the benefits of Christ. In fact, Tipton seems to make the scandalous inference that justification is based on union (gasp!). Do watch it!

Guy Waters reviews N.T. Wright's "Justification"

Earlier this year, Guy Waters was on the Reformed Forum giving an oral review of N.T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Now at Reformation 21, he has a written review at hand. One quote from Waters merits attention:

"[S]ome of Wright's critics may indeed deny a final judgment according to works. His Reformed critics do not. They deny a final judgment on the basis of works, but they do not deny a final judgment according to works. In other words, the believer's conduct is not the basis upon which he will sustain God's final judgment. Instead, his conduct will publicly show the Christian to be who he already is: a person justified solely on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, received through faith. If Wright understands the Reformational doctrine of justification by faith alone to necessitate much less to permit a denial of final judgment according to works, then he has been misinformed. Reformed readers' do not object to Wright's insistence that there shall be a final judgment of the believer at the Day of Judgment. They have objected to what he claims are the place or role of the believer's works in final justification".

I think this really is the problem with Wright's articulation. Judgment "according to works" is quite biblical, but a final judgment on the basis of works is not. I think it was Charles Cosgrove who many years ago examined the prepositions in relation to justification (ek, dia, kata etc.) noting that Paul always made faith the instrumental for justification (though my memory is a bit hazy on that one). What is the difference between "according to" and "on the basis of"? In my mind works, even Spirit enabled good works, do not constitute the basis of aquittal at the final judgment. What role for works then? Well, to quote St. Leon Morris (peace be upon him) good works demonstrate the integrity of the faith that we profess. Thus, with Calvin, we can say that we are not justified by works, but neither are we justified without them. In fact, Christ justifies our works when we are engrafted into him: "Therefore, as we ourselves, when we have been engrafted into Christ, are righteous in God's sight because our iniquities are covered by Christ's sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are this regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ's purity, and is not charged to our account. By faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified" (Institutes, 3.17.10).

Difference Between Luther(anism) and Calvin on Justification

Calvin and Luther undoubtedly shared a perspective of a forensic act of justification based on an alien righteousness imputed to believers. Yet while some try to pass off Luther and Calvin as essentially twins on the subject, some differences do remain. These differences are competently exposited by Mark Garcia in his book Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin's Theology. Garcia writes:

"Unlike his Lutheran counterparts, Calvin did not ground good works in imputation or justification but in union with Christ. In contradistinction with Melanchthon, for example, Calvin argued a positive, soteric value of good works as the ordinary prerequisite for receiving eternal life. It appears that basic differences exist in their respective understandings of justifying faith: at the heart of the inseparability in Calvin's unio Christi-duplex gratia formulation is a justifying faith defined not only passively, as resting on Christ alone, but actively, as an obedient faith that, resting on Christ alone, perseveres in the pursuit of holiness" (p. 260).

Gracia goes on to note that many in the Reformed tradition (e.g. Charles Hodge) have given sway to the Lutheran view rather than following Calvin when they assert that sanctification is the logically corollary of justification. Garcia states: "Within Calvin's soteriological model, to make sanctification follow justification as an effect is to concede the theological possibility that one may be truly justified but not yet sanctified, with the result that the legal fiction charge, to which Calvin was always sensitive, would be validated" (p. 264). I think on Calvin's model that there is no split nano-second of delay between justification and sanctification as both occur in Christ.

N.T. Wright Video on Justification and God's Plan

IVP has put up this video on you.tube about N.T. Wright's book on Justification.



HT: Art.

SBTS Wright Review Panel

I've finally had a chance to listen to the review of N.T. Wright's new book on justification by Tom Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, and Brian Vickers at SBTS/Boyce College. Congrats to Denny Burk (grand poohbah of Boyce College) for organizing a very good panel discussion. My name was mentioned at the beginning and ocassioned what sounded like some kind of nervous laughter by the panelists! While the discussion could have been alot more sympathetic to Wright (a couple of readings from his book would have helped, I thought Seifrid went a bit too far at some points esp. when he called Wright's view "horrid" and accused Wright of "moralism", and generally Wright has not for a long time reduced justification to ecclesiology) it was a relatively balanced affair and criticisms were articulated appropriately (note esp. Schreiner's appreciation for Wright). I wish I was there for it (audience or panelist), but as one who has endorsed books by Piper and Wright, here's my thoughts on the discussion, panel member by panel member:

1. Tom Schreiner. Tom was dissatisfied with Wright's new book. He felt that it lacked an actual response to the precise issues that Piper raises against vis-a-vis wright. What is more, Wright fails to emphasize the degree of discontinuity begtween the Old and New Covenant. Generally, I think this is correct. Wright has a tendency to paint with a thick brush on a big canvass, rather than get drawn into the nitty gritty specifics. While the big picture is often a master piece, and draws you in, you can be left wanting on some of the precise details.

2. Mark Seifrid. Mark is one of my favourite Pauline scholars and his book Christ, our righteousness has been one of the biggest influences on my own views of Paul. I must also recommend his forthcoming essay in a book I'm editing on the Pistis Christou debate. Mark Seifrid and Preston Sprinkle present what I think is the THE solution to the "faith of Jesus Christ" debate. Back to the panel discussion, I confess that I was pretty much gobsmacked by Mark's opening remark about Wright coming close to Roman Catholicism. I've had this same discussion with Dan Wallace in the past about whether Wright is "Catholic" and I'm not convinced that Wright is Tridentine (and I know Tim Chester will back me on that one). In fact, Wright is closer to Bucer and Zwingli than he is to Westminster and I think THAT is the real reason why he gets mistaken for being Catholic. But Mark was the most engaging and provocative speaker at the session and I enjoyed what he had to say. He regards Piper and Wright as being hyper-forensic and not giving due regard to the effective nature of justification. That is to say, justification is not about a "mere" declaration but concerned with the actual enactment of justice (see Ps. 82 and Luke 18.1-8). When it comes to works, Mark chides Wright for laying so much stress on the role of the Holy Spirit in producing good works in us as the basis of eschatological justification. For Mark (see his 2000 SBTS lecture on this availabe from SBTS in audio) good works are the works that Christ works in us. For Mark, faith is God's work in us , what Christ carried forward, and what God presents before himself on the final day is not our inspired works, but his own work of new creation. According to Mark, good works are necesssry in the same way that it is necessary for the sun to shine.

3. Brian Vickers (whom I count as a genuine friend) was the dark horse of the discussion and he had some short and thoughtful comments to add. Best of all was that he shows that, contra Wright, imputation does not rely on this notion of a "treasury of merit" that Jesus supposedly acquired (if you've read Bird's Eye-View of Paul/Introducing Paul, you'll know that I "amen" that one loudly). Also, Vickers drove home that union with Christ is the framework for understanding justification and imputation. While Wright says that "union with Christ gives you everything that imputation does" that is fine, but some where along the line you have to state how and by what mechanism does union create, cause, or make us "righteous"? As Leon Morris wrote: "imputation is a corollary of the identification of the believer with Christ".

Two final observations:

First, for me the best part was how all three guys articulted imputation. Vickers sees imputation as related to union with Christ and he believes that it emerges from a "synthesis" of the biblical materials. Similarly, Seifrid believes that imputation is doctrinally correct, but it does not appear directly in Scripture. Again he uses the word of "synthesis" to describe how we arrive at imputation theologically. That confirms my suspicions, contra both Piper and Wright, that imputation is theologically correct but not exegetically explicit in the texts itself.

Second, I thought it was amazing that each panelist gave us a very different take on the meaning of the "righteousness of God". Closest to my own view was Vickers who sees it is as attributive quality, refering to God's own character, displaying God's saving activity, and related to salvation through judgment. In line with Vickers I should mention that in the same ball park are his colleagues Jim Hamilton who is doing a biblical theological study of salvation through judgment and Denny Burk who also gave a very good presentation on dikaiosyne theou at ETS last year where he argued for a nominal rather than verbal sense for dikaiosyne. Seifrid sees the righteousness of God as related to God's intent to establish justice throughout all of creation; which is fine and quite valid (e.g. Ps. 98) as long as you don't cut the cords with the covenantal dimension to God's righteousness either. Finally, Schreiner sees the "righteousness of God" as an objective genitive, i.e. to the righteousness from God that we receive by faith. Schreiner alludes to my criticism of him in a forthcoming Themelios review of his (rather superb!) NT Theology. In my Pauline theology class my students read Tom Schreiner's Pauline Theology book, but when they get to the section on justification and righteousness I tell them that the best refutation to Schreiner on this topic is to be found in the OT - not in the Old Testament, but rather in Old Tom - in Tom Schreiner's Romans commentary which I think gives a very good exposition of the "righteousness of God" in Rom. 1.17. This is what Tom wrote back then:

"The term 'righteousness of God' in Rom 1:17 ... is clearly fundamental for all of Romans, and it is unlikely that it can be confined solely to forensic or transformative categories. Those whom God has vindicated he also changes. In my opinion, it is doubtful that the term Paul features in presenting his gospel would contain only a forensic dimension. This transformation does not involve eperfection, and it is also crucial to see that God's transforming righteousness is still an alien righteousness - given by God as a gift to sinners. Nor is there any suggest that sinners somehow prepare themselves by good deeds to receive this righteousness. The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ's atoning death. Yet God's declaration of righteousness - which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age - is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God's grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God's grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God's saving work. The use of the verb dikaioun in Rom. 6:7 demonstrates that God's declaration of righteousness really frees people from sin. Similarly, in Rom. 5:19 Paul teaches that those who are incorporated into Christ Jesus are actually made righteous, just as those in Adam are truly made sinners. The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other. Those who are the recipients of the ministry of the Spirit have also been transformed by the ministry of righteousness (2 Cor. 3:8-9). Just as those who are condemned are actually guilty, so too those who are vindicated on the basis of the cross of Christ and his atonement for sinners (Rom. 3:21-26) have also been made righteous by God's gracious work (cf. Rom. 14:17). God's forensic declaration is effective because the Lord who was crucified on behalf of sinners was also raised from the dead (Rom. 4:25), and thus sinners live in a new way (Rom. 6:4)."

So I think Tom Schreiner had it right the first time around! But that's another story. But the panel discussion was worth listening to and goes for about 60 minutes.

Update: See Cel Joseph's review as well.

Guy Waters on N.T. Wright's new book

Over at the Reformed Forum is an interview with Guy Prentiss Waters about N.T. Wright's new book on Paul and justification. It was a good discussion and Waters' reference to Wright was not entirely negative. I'll offer a few comments:

When the panel began talking about Waters' essay as to how Rom. 10.5 proves the covenant of works, I made several painful facial expressions (much like those I made in relation to a sermon that intended to prove the pre-tribulation rapture from Psalm 110). But as I listened on, the discussion proved indeed worthwhile.

Waters makes a pertinent observation in that Wright is far more nuanced in his current work than he was in his 1997 volume What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright is genuinely attempting to bring the old and the new together (I'm reminded of Mt. 917). Still, Waters (who studied under E.P. Sanders at Duke) regards the Traditional Reformed view and the New Perspective view as thoroughly incompatibable. That is something that stands in diametrical opposition to my own approach to the matter which has sought to find the common ground between both perspectives. Waters compliments Wright for a covenantal approach and for also emphasizing the unity of the Bible's storyline. He suggest, however, that Wright makes far too much of "exile" rather than "being-in-Adam". I'll say several things here: (1) Certainly Wright does lean on exile very heavily, but for Wright "exile" is essentially a synedoche for a wider story that relates to Israel's role in creation, in appropriating the role of Adam for themselves, and their recapitulation of Adam's plight. What is more, Wright acknowledges that it was precisely the problem of sin that sent Israel into exile in the first place. I remember hearing D.A. Carson relay a conversation he had with Wright and he told Wright that he needs to push the problem back further than exile and back into eden. I think Wright did do that very much so in Resurrection of the Son of God which has a big focus on the creation narrative as providing the background to the resurrection theology of the NT. In other words, Wright's focus on exile is problematic in some respects esp. as a controlling meta-narrative (I have a forthcoming essay on this subject) but hardly at odds with a creation-Adam-sin-Abraham-Israel-Messiah narrative. (2) Waters counters that what Wright needs is a construal of the controlling story along the lines of Adam (covenant of works) and Christ (covenant of grace). If that is what the covenants mean for Waters, I could probably go for that depending on how it pans out in the details. At the Edinburgh dogmatics conference in 2005, Andrew McGowan argued for a basic structure of redemptive-history as comprising of an Adamic administration and a Messianic administration (a la John Murray rebooted). Wright was at the conference and in a conversation with McGowan (I am told) he found that kind of formulation essentially correct and in-line with his own thinking. And it gets better, I'll never forget attending a Bethlehem Institute discussion at ETS which touched on covenant theology and John Piper gave his own view as one is either in Adam or in Christ - those are the categories. Hence, I suspect that there is probably more in common between Wright and Piper on this Adam/Messiah element than is apparent (though I admit that my garnering of evidence on this is admittedly oral to date).

Waters argues that it is biblical to speak of justification according to works when properly understood, but not justification on the basis of works. I concur here. I find Wright often fuzzy and less exact than I'd like him to be on this matter. Even so, the impression that I get is that works are ultimately evidential for Wright rather than instrumental. What tips me off on that is that for Wright justification is forensic and he emphasizes the theme of assurance very strongly in his commentary on Romans 5-8. Assurance is exactly what you don't have in the Tridentine system (Sinclair Ferguson gave an excellent lecture on this topic at a John Murray lecture a few years ago).

On the "Righteousness of God" Waters is correct that it cannot be reduced to God's covenant faithfulness (Mark Seifrid's dictum is that all covenant keeping is righteous but not all righteousness is covenant keeping!). Even so, I do not understand why any Reformed proponent would take out a theological restraining order so as to keep God's righteousness and God's faithfulness to Israel's covenant apart from each other (that is Luther not Calvin!!!). I think Seifrid's point is well taken, but even his SBTS colleague Tom Schreiner thinks that he's gone too far and "separates righteousness too radically from covenant and wrongly traces it only back to creation" (Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 353 . 46). I would point out that relating God's righteousness to his faithfulness to the covenant goes back as far as Ambrosiaster and was also present among the English puritans like George Joye! In my view, the righteousness of God refers to his character and saving activity and it certainly covers God's faithfulness to Israel (hence for the "Jew first" in Rom. 1.16) even if it cannot be reduced to it. By the same taken (contra Tom Schreiner, New Testament Theology), I do not think the righteousness of God is the gift of righteousness from God as it is a far more comprehensive event than this.

For me the highlight came at the 50 minute mark with Waters giving a very good description of how Wright (and me) understand justification as participating in Christ's vindication in his resurrection (Seifrid and Gaffin agree with this for the most part). Believers are thus justified since they participate in Christ and share in his justification. But he proceeds to argue that Wright then telescopes transformation from Romans 6-8 into justification via union with Christ. Here I am not convinced that Wright does that. Wright does regard justification as forensic and even though he doesn't necessarily articulate the duplex gratia as Calvin does, I think he's in a similar ball-park as union with Christ provides the basis for our justification and is the source of our sanctification.

Overall, a very interesting discussion, there are several elements I'd certain demur from Waters on, but I think he makes some genuinely valid observations through out.

Five Views on Justification - Forthcoming IVP Book

Paul Eddy and James Beilby are the editors of a forthcoming volume with IVP (tentatively) entitled: "Justification: Five Views". The contributors are:

1. Traditional Reformed: Michael Horton
2. Progressive Reformed: Michael Bird
3. 'New Perspective': James Dunn
4. Theosis: Veli-Matti Karkkainen
5. Catholic: Gerald O'Collins & Oliver Rafferty

This, perhaps with the exception of # 2, looks like a pretty impressive cast of characters. I certainly would pay good money to see Jimmy Dunn, Gerald Collins, and Michael Horton talk Pauline theology over a beer and a bag of cashews. So keep an eye out for this one in the future!

Doug Wilson on Wright's New Book - Follow Up

Wilson insightfully engages a major issue here:

Wright formally rejects as exegetically unfounded a concept which he demonstrates (in the same chapter, no less) as exegetically grounded on bedrock. Wright says:

"This faithful obedience of the Messiah, culminating in his death 'for sins, in accordance with the scriptures' as in one of Paul's summaries of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15.3), is regularly understood in terms of the Messiah, precisely because he represents his people, now appropriately standing in for them, taking upon himself the death which they deserved, so that they might not suffer themselves" (p. 84, emphasis his).

Wright is gloriously right here, but there is a catch. If I were speaking to Wright in Greek, and I were to undertake the task of repeating his thought back to him in my own words, one of the words I would use with abandon would be logidzomai. I would do the same thing in summarizing Paul. The reason I would do so is that these few sentences are saturated in imputation realities, and I don't know any way of making sense of them apart from talking about imputation. What is meant by represent? How does that work? How can one person stand in for others? Why is that allowed? On what basis? How can the death that one deserves be assigned to another without gross injustice? There is no way to answer these questions in Greek without using that great Pauline covenantal word for reckon, consider, impute.

My Comments:

1. I think Wilson is correct, Wright holds conceptually to something pretty much akin to imputation (via Jesus' representative function and union with Christ), but it is the exegetical validity of the entire formulation that is disputed. The problem is with those who want to find the whole package in each and every key text, but it just ain't there.

2. Wilson does commit one fallacy in that he assumes that logizomai has one basic and consistent meaning in Paul - it doesn't - check out Rom. 2.26 [is uncircumcision imputed as circumcision?] and Rom. 4. 5 [faith is imputed?]. This complicates (but does not nullify) a Pauline view of imputation.

3. The question is where does imputation fit into the story? Whereas some want to make justification the centre and imputation the centre of justification; I would make imputation a corollary explains the forensic nature of justification, the representative functions of Adam and Christ, the gift of righteousness, etc.

Doug Wilson on Wright's New Book

Doug Wilson (of Federal Vision fame) has a series of reviews on Wright's new book on justification. It is a rather amusing review at several points. You can read posts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and what I found notable were his comments:

Post # 5: "I believe that Wright is actually kicking against a particular form of the imputation calculus -- the idea that somewhere there is a reservoir of merit, and that withdrawals are made from it from time to time in order that we may pay our debts. But let's forget about merit. Suppose for a moment that we are not talking about the imputation of merit, but rather the imputation of obedience. The former is medieval; the latter is Hebraic and covenantal. Not only do I believe it is fully consistent with what Wright is saying, I believe that it is what he (in essence) is saying."

Post # 6: "And so contra Wright, the picture is more like this. Adam is in the dock, and lined up behind him (in the billions) are all his descendants, condemned because of his disobedience. He was a federal, covenantal head of the human race, and so his sin was reckoned to all of us, considered as ours, imputed to us. And so Jesus was born into our race as the last Adam, and the same kind of thing happened. Jesus stood in the dock, received the penalty that was due to Adam, rose from the dead, and was vindicated or justified by God. And so everyone who lines up behind Him is therefore justified as well. His payment of the penalty, and His perfect obedience in its own right, are now credited to us who believe in Jesus. The obedience of Jesus is imputed to us in just the same way that the disobedience of Adam was."

My comments:

1. Wilson is correct that we need to dump this idea of merit and focus on the covenantal aspects of Jesus' obedience as the true Israel and second Adam.

2. As long as we believe that Adam is the federal representative of humanity and Jesus is the federal representative of the new humanity, then something akin to imputation will aways enter into the equation in terms of switching persons from condemnation in Adam to justification in Christ.

3. I'm still not sure if the NT allows for a distinction between active and passive obedience (usually what is emphasized is his passive obedience, e.g. Phil. 2.6-11).

4. What is missing in this discussion by Wilson is reference to "union with Christ" as the mechanism that communications righteousness since we are only justified in Christ. There is no imputation without participation and incorporation into Christ.

Jensen on Bird

I am grateful to Michael Jensen for his generous thoughts on my articulation of justification in Bird's Eye-View of Paul.

Justification and Race

Probably the main area where my own view of justification departs from mainstream Reformed perspectives is in giving a place to the horizontal aspects of justification. I think Calvin teases this out fairly well in his Galatians commentary, but the horizonal dimension has been largely overlooked and neglected in Reformed dogmatics. I have articulated this with the description of justification as the act whereby God creates a new people, with a new status, in a new covenant, as a foretaste of the new age (No doubt some will regard that as too broad, whereas my aim is to be comprehensive). I have no desire to deny or downplay the clear vertical element whereby we are counted righteous in Christ by faith. But I have come to the view that ignoring or denying the horizontal element is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel and of justification. Two exampes suffice: (1) In Gal. 2.11-15, Paul moves from a debate about food and fellowship to some sharp polemical remarks about justification by faith and not by works of the law. Regarding Cephas' segregation from Gentile believers, Paul says that this is not walking according to the truth of the gospel. That means either separation or gospel, but it can't be both; (2) In Rom. 3.28-29, Paul says that we reckon that a man is justified by faith without works of law, and he asks in return, "or is God the God of the Jews only?" Notice "or"! In other words, justification by faith and ethnocentrism are mutual exclusives.

Now let me ask, can a person believe in racial segregation and believe in the gospel and justification at the same time? I will say "no". Now let me say that it is not that such a person has failed to grasp an "implication" of the gospel or of justification. The language is much stronger than that in the NT. Such a stance is a perversion of the gospel and a competing alternative to justification. A person can believe in the gospel partially and grasp justification fallibly. But a person who believes in racial segregation or cultural hegemony does not believe in the true gospel and does not grasp the true meaning of justification.

I will never forget Mark Seifrid telling me that 11.00 a.m. on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week in America. Now let me ask, is there a reason why some of the most rancorous and acidic critiques of the New Perspective derive some certain leaders in certain Southern denominations in the USA? Is it because they are happy to use justification as a stick to bash Catholics for works-righteousness, but object when that same stick is used to bash them for driving for 40 minutes across town to attend a white middle-class church when a perfectly good evangelical black church is 5 minutes around the corner? Does attributing a horizontal dimension to justification potentially challenge the cultural dynamics and social separateness of churches that are almost single race churches? Subsequent Note: After re-reading this post and receiving some comments, do not take me as saying that opposition to the NPP is rooted in racism or that southerners are inherently racist. What I am saying is that resistance to recognizing that justification has horizontal significance can be, at the conscious or sub-conscious level, because it potentially challenges the boundaries of certain ecclesial sub-cultures that have become defined by race. I'm trying to draw a line between those who resist attributing to justification a horizontal dimension and the fact that church life in the south is heavily segregated and I have known pastors who like it that way.

I'm obviously being provocative here so let me qualify that. (1) There are many fine men and women in the south who believe in the gospel, have big problems with Tom Wright and co., and rigorously oppose segregation and racism. (2) I'm aware that you don't have to be white in order to be racist. Prejudice knows no limits and no one has a monopoly on indifference. (3) I'm moderately aware of the social, cultural, and historical complexity of racial relations in the USA. (4) Anecdotally, a friend of mine offered to pastor a church in the suburbs of Atlanta if the church consented to move to a new area because, he said, too many blacks were moving into the area. Also, I once met an African-American Christian who simply didn't want to atttend a church with a majority of white folks because they had a different culture typified, in his mind, by their refusal to east pickled hogs feet. Such things should not happen among brothers and sisters in the faith. I'm not an expert on American race relations, but neither am I completely naive on this subject, and I think justification by faith has something to say to this.

I'm not trying to reduce justification to an anti-racist mantra, I'm not trying to replace soteriology with sociology, nor do I want to rob justification of its offence to humans in their self-righteousness and ingrained prejudices (me genoito). Yet justification in its rich, fully orbed, and biblical scheme is what the church needs to cling to in order to preserve sola gratia of the gospel whereby sinners (and not the righteous) are justified by faith in Christ and preserve the truth that Christ unites in himself a Greek and a Jew, an American and an Arab, an African and an Asian, and thus unites them together in full eucharistic fellowship! This is justification. If our tradition-confession-system has not adequately given place to the horizontal dimension of justification, if it has robbed us of our greatest tool to fight division and prejudice in the church, then rather than preach the infallibility of the tradition-confession-system and anathematize those who hint that it might be somehow deficient in any way, we should modify, change, re-write the tradition-confession-system. To be Reformed is to be biblical first and foremost and not to seek the favour of men and their traditions. So I say: Long live the Reformation, Praise be to the Father through the Son, and Make us One Lord God as You are One.

N.T. Wright Interview

Trevin Wax has an interview with N.T. Wright about his forthcoming book on Justification.