Searching for The Third Way: Baptism, Part 5

I’m going to say some completely unbelievable things. And take a while doing it. But when I get done, I expect to explain baptism and faith and the Spirit and time.

It’s going to take a while. But it’ll be great fun. And you’ll have a deeper understanding of the mystery of God, even if you disagree with me. Which you probably will.

Time, baptism, the Spirit, and prevenient grace — the problem defined

I’m wrestling with two questions. The first is how baptism can be the time when we receive the Spirit, which is essential to salvation, when so many verses say we are saved at the moment of faith.

The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ: Part 6, Forgetting Who We Are

* The progressives are moving so rapidly into a generic evangelicalism that we may lose the Godly parts of our Restoration Movement heritage. We have much to contribute to the evangelical mainstream — but not if we forget who we are.

We’ll consider what we have to contribute in a later post. The goal here is just to argue that we are losing our group identity (for good or bad). Now remember: we’re looking 20 or 30 years ahead. This isn’t going to happen this year. Here’s the evidence —

* First, many progressive Churches have already changed names, often becoming a “community church” or “Family of God.” Some have adopted entirely individualistic names.

The New Perspective: The Theology of Community

One of the most appealing aspects of N. T. Wright’s theology — at least, to me — is his emphasis on the doctrine of community.

“Community” is a fair translation of koinonia, the Greek word also translated as “fellowship,” “communion,” “sharing,” “contribution,” or “participation.”

“Church” translates ekklesia, which derives from the Greek root words for “called out,” but which really means “called together.” In each case where a group of people is called an ekklesia, they weren’t merely roused from their homes, they were called to be together for some purpose.

Wright says,

We have been so soaked in the individualism of modern Western culture that we feel threatened by the idea of our primary identity being that of the family we belong to—especially when the family in question is so large, stretching across space and time. The church isn’t simply a collection of isolated individuals, all following their own pathways of spiritual growth without much reference to one another.

The New Perspective: Where Are the Dead Before the Second Coming? Part 2 (Modern Physics and the Second Coming)

To this point, we’ve seen that the dead in Christ are most commonly described as being asleep until the Second Coming–the End–when the old earth and old heaven will be destroyed, the living and dead will the judged, and God will transform the earth and heaven into a New Earth and New Heaven–and he’ll transform our bodies into new, incorruptible, imperishable bodies.

And yet, as mentioned in the previous post, this leaves us with some apparent inconsistencies. How can the dead be asleep when so many will have no bodies at all? Consider those who died in Hiroshima. Their bodies were vaporized, not buried, and their atoms are scattered, quite literally, all over the earth!

And how could Jesus promise the thief on the cross Paradise “today” when Paradise won’t be prepared and ready for the saints until the End thousands of years later?

The New Perspective: Where Are the Dead Before the Second Coming? Part 1

In the previous two posts, we considered the idea that at the end of time, after the Judgment, God and the New Jerusalem will come down to a renewed and purified earth, where we will dwell in new, imperishable, incorruptible bodies.

The verses seem plain enough, but Wright (and others) admit the we are told very little about what happens to us after our physical deaths and before the End.

Some verses speak of Christians sleeping. Others speak of believers being transported to Paradise with Jesus. Others seem to speak of our being in heaven.

Although Wright offers no real guidance, I thought surely the scriptures would have a plain teaching on such an obvious and important subject.

A Communion Meditation Reflecting on the New Perspective

We struggle sometimes with even talking about the Lord’s Supper. We want to avoid any accusation that this is some sort of “sacrament.” We want to make this event purely, 100% symbolic.

But when we do that, we say that the only thing that happens is what we do. God does nothing. He did a lot. But now, we just remember the past.

And we should most certainly remember the past–what Jesus did for us. Of course. But we can do that and the Lord’s Supper can be even more.

The story of the Bible has a simple outline. God made the heavens and the earth. Man lived in a perfect place in daily, intimate communion with God. But man sinned, and so man and the earth were cursed. God has ever since worked, in love, to restore us to Eden–a place where God provided man with his food as a gift, where man did not have to work for his meals.

The New Perspective: The End of the World as We Know It–The Second Coming

(Hab. 2:14) For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

With this passage, in The Simple Church, N. T. Wright lays out his theory for how the world will be reborn at the end of time. The End, you see, is not about the world ending, but about heaven and earth being merged–God making this new earth his home together with his people.

The New Perspective: The End of the World as We Know It–Introduction

I’ve never been particularly interested in eschatology (It’s a ridiculous word and I promise never to use it again. It’s the study of the end times.). I just kind of figure that however things end up, they’ll be much better than the present, I’ll have either no body or a better body (either is good), and the details just don’t matter. I mean, it’s like Christmas times infinity-and I like to be surprised!But I’ve been reading Wright’s enjoyable little book, Simply Christian, in which he goes into some detail as to how he figures things will be. And his views have some interesting implications in terms of how I understand God’s existence–outside the universe and so outside time. At least, that’s my theory.

So I figure it’s worth the effort to see how Wright’s theories test out against the scriptures.

The New Perspective: On Being “Called”

[This material has been relocated from the preceding post. It occurred to me that this material really didn’t add to the baptism discussion but remains important in its own right. So I moved it and fixed it up just a little.]

N. T. Wright argues that our “justification” occurs after we are saved, when God declares us saved. If “justified” doesn’t mean saved, then just when are we saved? Wright argues this happens when we are called.

But “called” sounds so much like “invited.” Surely many have been called and not responded! I mean, how many have heard the gospel message and refused to turn to Jesus as Lord?

The New Perspective: Baptism, additional thoughts

 [The material on the meaning of being “called” has been moved to the following post.]

As noted in the previous post, N. T. Wright considers baptism to be the event at which justification occurs and the “call” to be the event of our salvation. Hence, as Paul writes in Romans 8:30, we are called (saved) and then justified (baptized).

Of course, going back to Alexander Campbell, Churches of Christ have taught that salvation, justification, and baptism are all concurrent. And so, I thought I’d poke around the scriptures a bit and see what light I can find on this disagreement.

I remind the reader that according to Wright (and many other commentators), “justification” is not salvation so much as God’s declaration of acquittal or vindication or “not guilty” occurring upon salvation.

The New Perspective: Baptism

This “new perspective” is, in many respects, very congruent with the traditional teachings of the Churches of Christ. We’ve already noticed  how Wright’s teaching on judgment in accordance with works resonates with historical Church of Christ teaching.

Much closer to the heart of traditional Church of Christ teaching is Wright’s understanding of baptism.

The New Perspective: Imputed Righteousness

One of Wright’s most controversial arguments is that there is no Biblical basis for the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” This is the view that we are saved because Jesus’ merits are credited to Christians.

Now, this should not be confused with substitutionary atonement, which teaches that Jesus accepted our punishment for us, which Wright plainly teaches. The question isn’t whether Jesus saves–it’s whether the means of salvation is our being credited with Jesus’ merits.

Wikipedia (okay, not a work of great theology, but it’s an easy place to start) cites in favor of this view 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30; and Romans 4:6 (as do a number of articles posted in opposition to Wright’s views).

The New Perspective: Justification, Part 4 (objections)

The faithfulness of Christ

Nothing is more helpful to my own study than readers who disagree or raise hard questions. Such questions allow me to consider points I wouldn’t have thought of on my own.

Alan Rouse argues,

I think it is a bit of a stretch to translate one phrase of Gal 2:16-17 as “faithfulness of Christ” when the same word “faith” is used in the other sense in adjacent verses. Such a choice would necessarily carry some preconceived doctrinal preferences, since there is nothing in the Greek to indicate that choice. The original Greek-speaking audience would have seen the same word in each place. They would have had to draw their understanding from the context, without any distinction in the actual words. I think that is what we should do also.

Compare Gal 2:16 “faith of Christ” with Rom 3:22 “faith of Jesus Christ” and Mark 11:22 “Have faith of God”. It does not seem unreasonable to understand these passages as referring to our faith which we receive from Jesus and from God. If faith is certainty of things unseen, then it does not make sense to speak of God having faith. OTOH it makes perfect sense to speak of God granting faith. (Eph 2:8)

The New Perspective: Justification, Part 3 (we finally get to justification)

Justification is, of course, a major New Testament theme, especially in Romans and Galatians. Wright insists on redefining the term contrary to 500 years of Reformation history.

He sees “justification” as coming from the terminology of the law court. When a man is tried by a judge and found innocent, in the First Century, he was declared “justified” by the judge.

Hence, “justification” is not the process of gaining faith or even being saved. Justification is the judge’s declaration that the accused has been vindicated.

The New Perspective: Justification, Part 1 (Substitutionary Atonement and Imputed Righteousness)

This is perhaps the part of Wright’s New Perspective that is most controversial (which is saying a lot!) Wright believes that Paul’s central concept of “justification” has been misunderstood in a subtle but profoundly important way.

Even since Luther, the Protestant churches have taken “justification” to refer to the saving event, particularly, being converted. Wright believes that justification occurs immediately following our conversion. It’s God declaration–as our judge–that we are vindicated: “not guilty.”

The significance of this fine distinction is not immediately obvious, but for Wright, it’s a step toward a radical rethinking of imputed righteousness–that is, the concept that Christians are saved because Jesus’ merits are credited to them.

The New Perspective: Final Judgment According to Works

If ever a post title was calculated to draw attention, this is the one! I mean, nothing is better established in Reformation theology than sola fide, that is, “faith only.” Going back 500 years to Luther and Calvin, the very foundation of Protestant teaching has been salvation by faith.

But Wright asks us to reconsider our thinking–

The third point is remarkably controversial, seeing how well founded it is at several points in Paul. [I]t seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16.

The New Perspective: The Righteousness of God

Paul frequently writes of the “righteousness of God,” especially in Romans. The New International Version obscures this phrase, sometimes translating “righteousness from God” or the like. But the KJV and some of the other translations get it right.

Of course, as we tend to approach the scriptures looking for how to be saved, and as we expect to have Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us, as good Protestants, we are expecting to see “righteousness from God.” But Wright disputes the translation–

Paul always uses this phrase to denote, not the status which God’s people have from him or in his presence, but the righteousness of God himself.

Now, Wright doesn’t dispute that God’s people are to be righteous. He’s just challenging the mistranslation of this particular phrase.

Indeed, Wright sees the phrase as having cosmic significance–

The New Perspective: The Gospel

I’ve argued several times before that the Churches of Christ have misunderstood the meaning of “gospel” as used in the New Testament. We have a tendency to use “gospel” to refer to just about any Biblical truth.

My own view of the gospel has been that it’s about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus–and what those events mean for our salvation. I based my position largely on such passages as this–

(1 Cor. 15:1-5) Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Wright, however, takes a different slant–

The New Perspective: The Church and Politics

The so-called New Perspective espoused by Wright is much broader than the question of salvation. One fascinating element is the implication of this theology for the political side of Christianity.

“Political side of Christianity”? Is there such a thing? Well, some say yes, and some say no.

Those who say no often see Christianity as all about getting to heaven, living ethically, and little else. Those who say yes often see Christianity as all about affirming traditional American values of economic and political freedom.

Wright, however, offers some interesting insights. The next few quotations are from Wright’s paper “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire.”

The New Perspective: Introduction & Galatians

Serious students of Paul have likely run into the so-called “new perspective” on Paul. This began with E. P. Sanders and has been taken up by others, particularly N. T. Wright. There are various shades of interpretation among different scholars, but the gist of the argument is plain enough.

Modern research into First Century Judaism denies that the Jews taught any sort of proto-Pelagianism. That is, the Jews didn’t teach a works-based salvation. Rather, they saw works as an outworking of grace received from God as a result of their being God’s chosen people.

The scholars thus ask, if that’s so, why does Paul spend so much effort refuting the notion of salvation by works of the law?