I think there are two camps of people we have to deal with, George and =
I. One is the group that treat any notion that a Christian should be =
doing good works as "works-righteousness" and they claim that anyone who =
does them is trying to earn their own salvation. The notion that a =
Christian may wish to do good works out of love in response to the =
unmerited gift of grace (faith working through love, as Paul put it) is =
one they seem not to entertain. The other are the ones George refers =
to; I've encountered them too: Believe that Jesus is God, follow the =
rules, and you will get to heaven. The first group fail to understand =
the link between faith and works, and I think they often don't =
understand because it is never pointed out to them, despite the best =
efforts of people who do understand it. The second in part seem to not =
understand the nature of either grace or faith as trust, but think of =
faith in terms of beliefs and rules. If any of the second would insist =
on following the Ten Commandments, as George put it, I would insist that =
if they are going to follow rules as followers of Jesus, they try the =
Sermon on the Mount instead.
Bob=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: george murphy=20
To: Robert Schneider=20
Cc: asa@calvin.edu=20
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: justification
Robert Schneider wrote:=20
My further comment follows George's response below.=20
=20
Bob's comment:=20
Perhaps the statement I was trying to reproduce from memory came =
in =3D=20
one of the accompanying documents to the final Joint =
Declaration.=3D20=20
To repeat Paragraph 37 of the Joint Declaration:=20
37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived =
in =3D=20
faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When =
the =3D=20
justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they =
bring =3D=20
forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle =
against =3D=20
sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also =
for =3D=20
them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the =
apostolic =3D=20
Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of =
love.=3D20=20
I wonder if George and I are in part talking past each =
other. I =3D=20
have been emphasizing the notion in this statement that "this =3D=20
consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they =
must =3D=20
fulfill" but I seem to be misunderstood as saying that I think works =
can =3D=20
justify, period. I don't believe that. Nor am I trying to =
interpret =3D=20
Eph. 2:10 apart from 2:8-9, just the opposte: I am criticising =
those =3D=20
who interpret 2:8-9 apart from 2:10. I think that walking the way =
of =3D=20
good works is the heart of the Christian life and that it is simply =
=3D=20
wrong to downplay them. So much of the polemic regarding =
justification =3D=20
by faith, in my view, has resulted, perhaps as an unintended =3D=20
consequence, in that very consequence. That is the point I am =
making.
I understand that you are not arguing for justification by =
works. But as I said in an earlier post, this is an issue that requires =
absolute clarity. As much as possible it's necessary not only to speak =
correctly but to speak in such a way that it cannot be interpreted =
_in_correctly - because people's natural tendency _is_ to think in terms =
of works righteousness. It is the natural religion of humanity.=20
As for interpreting Matt. 25:31ff in the light of Romans and =
=3D=20
Galatians and not the other way around, I reject as a hermeneutical =
=3D=20
principle that the gospels should be interpreted as a matter of =
course =3D=20
in the light of Paul's gospel. Sorry, the NT is multivalent, in my =
=3D=20
view, and I don't think we should reduce its theology to Paul on any =
=3D=20
question, including justification and salvation. While it is too =
=3D=20
sweeping an assertion, I think there is some justice to John =
Dominick =3D=20
Crossan's remark that "If you come to Jesus through Paul, you will =
=3D=20
understand Jesus incorrectly; if you come to Paul through Jesus, you =
=3D=20
will understand Paul differently."
There are 2 problems with this. First, it is not a matter of =
Paul or Jesus but of Paul's and Matthew's understanding of Jesus. E.g., =
Gundry in his Matthew commentary introduces the parable=20
by saying flatly, "Matthew himself is responsible for the description =
of the judgment of the sheep and the goats." This does not mean that =
the significance of the parable is lessened, a la red letter Bible or =
Jesus Seminar approach, but OTOH it does not trump Paul.=20
& second, one ought to try to interpret relatively obscure =
passages in light of relatively clear ones. The Matthean parable, as I =
noted, can be interpreted in different ways. Romans & Galatians=20
really can't. So while, as I said, one has to be careful with such =
theological harmonization, this is the direction in which to go if one =
wants an answer to the basic question at all. If someone asks "What =
must I do to be saved?" it won't do to say, "Would you prefer a =
Mattheanor a Pauline answer?"=20
I find the remark fits so many of my =3D=20
former students who always read Jesus through the lens of Paul, and =
so =3D=20
often do understand Jesus incorrectly. Perhaps, George, what is =
going =3D=20
on here, is that I am writing in terms of those experiences, and you =
are =3D=20
writing in terms of your strong convictions about the Lutheran =3D=20
interpretation of Paul. Do forgive me if I am misreading you. I =
=3D=20
respect your convictions and don't mind a little polemic.
Yes, that's pretty much right. But I'd also add that my =
emphasis is sharpened by the kinds of experiences I've mentioned in =
which, no matter what one says about grace, free acceptance &c, people =
think that being salvation is a matter of trying to obey the Ten =
Commandments.=20
If there is a misreading of my thinking, it is in your =
thinking =3D=20
that I am treating faith as "assensus." I would rather say that it =
=3D=20
seems at times that many Protestants treat "justification by faith" =
as =3D=20
"assensus": all you have to do is believe that, and no works, =
please. =3D=20
In fact, the notion of faith as "assensus" is a point of view that I =
=3D=20
often challenge, because, while it is not absent from the notion of =
=3D=20
"faith" in its broader sense, the primary and guiding meaning of =
"faith" =3D=20
("pistis") is trust.
I don't think that you are understanding faith as assensus. =
But the what seems to be in view in a challenge like 'Are we to say, =
"Lord, Lord" and "well, I'm saved and that's all that matters"?' is a =
doctrine of "justification by assensus".=20
The question I think needs to be asked, and I =3D=20
think it is a valid one is that if good works are absent, and =
granted =3D=20
that they are the fruit of faith, then where is the faith? or what =
kind =3D=20
of "faith" is it? If a Christian believer has no sense of =
obligation to =3D=20
do good works, where does the problem lie? In a lack of faith =
(trust)? =3D=20
In a lack of responding to the kind of exhortation to the Christian =
life =3D=20
that Eph. 2:10 gives? In a notion of faith as "assensus" to the =3D =
doctrine of justification by faith, as stated above?
I suspect that it lies to some extent with all three. & while =
"Imitation of Christ" and "WWJD" have their limitations, I think that =
preaching Christ both as "as a sacrifice for sin and a model of the =
godly life" is likely to produce better results than nagging them with =
the law.=20
=
Shalom,=20
=
George=20
George L. Murphy=20
http:.//web.raex.com/~gmurphy/=20
"The Science-Theology Interface"=20
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 17:43:05 EDT