Much controversy over the doctrine of justification arises from how the term is employed in Scripture. Reformers such as John Piper tend to see it as the moment when the righteousness of Christ is imputed into us by our faith in him. Evangelical dissenters such as N.T. Wright tend to see it as a declaration of membership or kinship in God's covenant relationship with His people.
The debate hinges on how such interpretations fit with various Scriptural passages. But I wonder: might the term 'justification' (and its cognates) be used in a non-univocal way throughout Scripture, and even by a single author (viz. St. Paul).
I am neither a biblical nor systematic theologian, and I don't pretend to fully understand and appreciate all the relevant issues. But from my earnest attempt to understand Scripture as a layman (and by the illumination of the Spirit, from an evangelical point of view) and having read more theological texts concerning this issue than the average layman, I see no reason to think that the term is being applied univocally across the board. If so, then it is up to the systematic theologian to construct a concept of justification that is faithful to some concept in the Scripture, even if there are syntactically similar terms that are employed in Scripture that differ in sense. Furthermore, it seems that it would be a futile attempt to see if one's concept is supported by every instance of that term; rather, one should see if the concept is found in Scripture and attempt to embed it in overall framework that takes into account the other theological concepts in Scripture.
The same seems to be true of other concepts, e.g. grace, faith, righteousness, etc. It is not obvious to me at any rate that terms such as 'grace' are being applied univocally--e.g., "stewardship of grace", "grace and peace to you", "justified by faith through grace", etc. For instance, a standard meaning given to 'grace' by evangelicals is something along the lines of "unmerited favor"; but it is hard to see how that works ("the stewardship of unmerited favor" seems not to be what Paul is saying in Ephesians).
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Evangelical Bickering
For theologians and Christian academics (and perhaps certain evangelicals "in the know"), a recent storm has been brewing among prominent evangelical leaders, namely between Norm Geisler and Michael Licona:
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html
Various evangelical leaders (especially at Biola) have sided with Licona, suggesting that Geisler is overreacting in his judgment that Licona has abandoned the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture (based on an interpretation of Matthew 27's account of "raised bodies"at Christ's death).
Now I am not surprised that such criticism and vehement response has occurred. Remember that whole Rob Bell brou-ha-ha (which I finally read his book and think that it is less a book and more a long blog post, unworthy of serious response just as much as any of my blog posts). J.P. Moreland also underwent much scrutiny when he presented a paper at an ETS meeting in which he argued against the dangers of idolizing the Bible and not using it in a proper manner. Those who reside on the outside or fringe of evangelical conservatism get less heat; perhaps it is expected that they hold views contrary to the fold. But those who are within the pack are often criticized if they begin to say anything that sounds as if they are straying from the center of the evangelical core.
What I wonder is how someone like Geisler can ask Licona to recant, or how he can call him "unorthodox" or "non-evangelical". On what basis? Whose orthodoxy? Tradition or the Magisterium are ruled out. The orthodoxy of conservative fundamentalists or evangelicals. But who are they, for they are legion. Do Moreland and William Lane Craig count as orthodox (although they hold a doctrine of the Incarnation that is fairly close to a condemned heresy, viz. Apollinarianism)?
And why does a re-interpretation of Matthew 27 no longer qualify Licona as an evangelical? In fact, it makes him the model evangelical. For he attempted to understand the Scripture based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers and by serious scholarly research that applies appropriate hermeneutic techniques that respect the genre and context of the passage--everything that they teach us to do at evangelical universities. There is no Tradition or Magisterium telling him that he got it wrong. And if he arrived at his view based upon the method of Scriptural interpretation that is the paradigm of the evangelical approach, how can he be considered to be going against evangelicalism?
Again, I'm not surprised this happens, since it happens quite frequently--one evangelical calling another evangelical a heretic. But if our only doctrinal or interpretative ground is the Scripture as understood from personal reading and the Spirit's witness, then whatever view comes from that, the evangelical must embrace if they are to be evangelical at all.
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html
Various evangelical leaders (especially at Biola) have sided with Licona, suggesting that Geisler is overreacting in his judgment that Licona has abandoned the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture (based on an interpretation of Matthew 27's account of "raised bodies"at Christ's death).
Now I am not surprised that such criticism and vehement response has occurred. Remember that whole Rob Bell brou-ha-ha (which I finally read his book and think that it is less a book and more a long blog post, unworthy of serious response just as much as any of my blog posts). J.P. Moreland also underwent much scrutiny when he presented a paper at an ETS meeting in which he argued against the dangers of idolizing the Bible and not using it in a proper manner. Those who reside on the outside or fringe of evangelical conservatism get less heat; perhaps it is expected that they hold views contrary to the fold. But those who are within the pack are often criticized if they begin to say anything that sounds as if they are straying from the center of the evangelical core.
What I wonder is how someone like Geisler can ask Licona to recant, or how he can call him "unorthodox" or "non-evangelical". On what basis? Whose orthodoxy? Tradition or the Magisterium are ruled out. The orthodoxy of conservative fundamentalists or evangelicals. But who are they, for they are legion. Do Moreland and William Lane Craig count as orthodox (although they hold a doctrine of the Incarnation that is fairly close to a condemned heresy, viz. Apollinarianism)?
And why does a re-interpretation of Matthew 27 no longer qualify Licona as an evangelical? In fact, it makes him the model evangelical. For he attempted to understand the Scripture based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers and by serious scholarly research that applies appropriate hermeneutic techniques that respect the genre and context of the passage--everything that they teach us to do at evangelical universities. There is no Tradition or Magisterium telling him that he got it wrong. And if he arrived at his view based upon the method of Scriptural interpretation that is the paradigm of the evangelical approach, how can he be considered to be going against evangelicalism?
Again, I'm not surprised this happens, since it happens quite frequently--one evangelical calling another evangelical a heretic. But if our only doctrinal or interpretative ground is the Scripture as understood from personal reading and the Spirit's witness, then whatever view comes from that, the evangelical must embrace if they are to be evangelical at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)