James Verses Paul

TOA has commented (on my own Blog) that James’ usage of justification proves that the Protestant’s understanding of Paul’s use of it in Romans 4 must be in error. Of course this begs the question. How do we know TOA’s interpretation is correct? Did he exegete the text or did Rome? Perhaps he could provide Rome’s dogmatic exegesis for us?

Nevertheless, it also begs another question. Why does James’ usage have to be exactly that of Paul’s? Is it not possible that different writers of the New Testament could be using similar terminology while addressing very different issues? I must again cite from Leon Morris’ work, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.

“St. James takes up rather a different position when he expressly says that ‘by work a man is justified, and not by faith’ (Jas. 2:24), and when he uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab to reinforce his position. But is should be noted that he recognizes implicitly the place of faith. His polemic is directed not against faith as such, but against faith without works. He reiterates that that sort of faith is dead, ‘faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself….For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead’ (Jas. 2:27, 26). Moreover the Epistle does not inculcate a demand for law-works I the accepted sense; there is no thought of accumulation of merit by the performance of deeds in accordance with the letter of the law. Rather there is a stress on love, humility, and kindred qualities. The ‘works’ of James are very much like “the fruit of the Spirit’ of Paul. While we must recognize that James has expressed his point of view in very unPauline language, yet the fact remains that he does not replace Paul’s scheme of Justification by another based on law-works. He does not mean by works what Paul means, and he does not mean by faith what Paul means. His demand is for a ‘faith that worketh by love’ (Gal 5:6), if we may borrow a Pauline phrase, and his polemic is directed against those whose faith is revealed to be a hollow sham, by the absence of lives of service.”

I am always amazed that the debate that has raged for nearly 500 years can repeat the same arguments as if the other side has never responded. So when you hear that James tells us one thing, therefore Protestants are wrong about Paul, keep in mind that Protestants have repeatedly answered the charges of Rome and all those who would seek to insert man into the finished work of Christ.

In the next post, I will try to contrast Morris’ understanding of Justification with the claims of Robert Sungenis.

Morris On Justification

Okay, I finally finished it. It has taken me several months to read this difficult book by Morris. So I thought I’d share a few thoughts from the last chapter on Justification. So many want a self help gospel that is presented by the Joel Osteens. However man doesn’t need help. He needs the righteousness of Christ.

From page 287

“G. O. Griffith reminds us, ‘It is often said that to speak of “justification by faith” is to use language which, to the modern man, is meaningless. What is often forgotten is that such language was as meaningless to ancient man also, apart from the Gospel which gave it significance…the heart of the Christian gospel is that, while no works of our hands will avail to make us acceptable before God, we are acceptable if we come in faith on the grounds of God’s own action in Christ. And this great truth St. Paul delighted to express in the forensic language of justification.”

Now many object to the forensic language of Paul citing other passages to override his plain teaching of the imputed righteousness of God in Christ. On page 291 Morris quotes Halliday:

“it has not always been seen that no man can be justified before God unless his nature is so changed that the assent of God is the assent to a reality.”

Many use James 2 as a counter argument against Paul’s teaching in Romans 4. Morris says on pg 285:

“Moreover the epistle does not inculcate a demand for law-works in the accepted sense; there is no thought of an accumulation of merit by the performance of deeds in accordance with the letter of the law. Rather there is a stress on love, humility, and kindred qualities. The ‘works’ of James are very like the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ of Paul.”

Even the common Muslim argument (one that Shabir Ally raised in the debate with White) offers a similar objection raised on page 280:

“It is objected to this interpretation that the bearing of penalty by one in place of another is not really just, so that when Christ suffers for us it is not a matter of fulfilling legal requirements.”

To which Morris replies:

“There is some force in this objection, and there would be more if we were dealing with human law. But the fact is that we are not. The law in question is the law of God’s holy nature, and that nature is merciful as well as just.”

Morris spends much time studying the justification word group and sees that it is overwhelmingly used in the forensic sense. So much so, that even his conclusion at the end of the book leads him to the ojective view of salvation. While modern preaching leads many to look inwardly, Morris concludes on page 299,

“This examination of the evidence has, I think, demonstrated that there is much support for objective as opposed to subjective views of the atonement. None of the concepts we have considered fits naturally into a subjective view. Something happened on Calvary quite objective to man, and it is because of this that we can have the completest assurance of our salvation. In the last resort it depends on what God has done, not upon some effect of that action upon the human heart (which is not to deny that there is such an effect, and that it is important).”

As the White Horse Inn program has articulated so many times, the preaching of the Law brings men to look inwardly. It is the preaching of the true Gospel that brings men to look outwardly to a Savior who is perfect and will save perfectly. It is Christ’s full and complete alien righteousness that is forensically imputed to me by faith alone.

But we took excellent notes to blog later...

This blog has been woefully silent for the following reasons:

1. The ship was without Internet for several days. We are still geeks, though.

2. We are mere, poor channel rats, and the internet on board is very expensive (and this post is only because I needed to use the minutes I planned on using in channel, since this ship won't allow for it).

3. We needed the time to meditate upon all the excellent teaching we have been receiving this week!

Miscellaneous

In light of Howard's previous post concerning Morris' treatment of "propitiation" as consistently used in the Scriptures, I thought it relevant to mention Don Carson's message where he sums up the argument Morris takes up against Dodd quite well here:

Why Trust a Cross?

And for those who haven't quite carved out the time to read Owen's classic, you might appreciate J. I. Packer's attempt to whet the reader's appetite for Death of Death:

Introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ

If you haven't been keeping up with the readings, these are both good and quick ways to familiarize yourself with some of the relevant subject matter.

Morris Old Testament Propitiation

Well, I’m up to chapter 6 in Morris’ book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. There is so much I’d like to quote as I go along or just comment on, but time has been short this week. So I will give some quotes on one of the two largest chapters in the book. Both chapters deal with Propitiation and the Wrath of God and both chapters are approximately 35 pages of small print in length. Clearly Propitiation of God’s wrath is a central thought in the work of the atonement. Chapter five is about propitiation in the Old Testament.

Christians are often accused of having a bloodthirsty God, who is just an evolved form of the pagan deities. After much argumentation the author has demonstrated:

“These are important conclusions and they are being increasingly accepted, for it is a relief to know that we have solid grounds for our conviction that the God of the Bible is not a Being who can be propitiated after the fashion of a pagan deity. That this point has been conclusively demonstrated is certain.”[i]

“There is a consistency about the Wrath of God in the Old Testament. It is no capricious passion, but the stern reaction of the divine nature towards evil.”[ii]

Much of the argumentation examines scholarship that seeks to make propitiation merely expiation. For instance, Dodd says, “’the Wrath of God’ is taken out of the sphere of the purely mysterious, and brought into the sphere of cause and effect.”[iii] In other words, as I understand the argumentation, God’s wrath isn’t being satisfied, but our sins are being expiated or done away with.

It is true, as Morris argues, that our sins are expiated, but he believes that both senses are true. After several pages of argumentation he states:

“Thus the propitiatory idea which we have seen to be involved in [ilaskomai] is to be discerned also in [ilasmos]. Wherever it means ‘forgiveness’, the circumstances indicate the turning away of the divine wrath.”[iv]

Morris also goes to the Hebrew Kopher in the Old Testament:

“The particular Kopher which is to be offered is not mentioned in Ezekiel 16:63, but the explicit mention of the wrath of God (verses 38, 42) makes it clear that we are still moving in the same circle of ideas. In Psalm 78:38 the parallelism makes ‘forgave (atoned) their iniquity’ almost equivalent to ‘turned he his anger away’, and similarly in Psalm 79:9, the removal of the wrath as the way of purging sins is clear from the references to the divine anger in the situation (verses 5,6,8).”[v]

Morris also explains the idea that a Ransom must be paid.

“From the foregoing examination of the evidence it appears that, when Kipper is used in the Old Testament to denote the making of an atonement by means other than the use of the cultus, it usually bears the meaning ‘to avert punishment, especially the divine anger, by the payment of a kopher, a ransom’, which may be of money or which may be of life.”[vi]

In Morris’ conclusion, there is an excellent paragraph summarizing the meaning of propitiation.

“It is against such a background that the Old Testament idea of propitiation is to be studied. Where there is sin, the Old Testament teaches, there is wrath. But this does not mean that all men are to be consumed, for that wrath is the wrath of a loving father who yearns for His children to come to Him. There is forgiveness with God, and this forgiveness necessarily involves the laying aside of wrath. But it is important to note that the removal of this wrath is due not to man’s securing such an offering that God is impressed and relents, but to God Himself. This alone is sufficient to show that we are not dealing with the pagan idea when we speak of propitiation.”[vii]

Praise God that He has sought to satisfy His own wrath against our sin. God truly reconciled the world to Himself through the vicarious substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ.

---

[i] 148

[ii] 150

[iii] 151

[iv] 159 Also, the Greek words are just my poor transliteration.

[v] 165

[vi] 166

[vii] 177

Twas the Night Before Debate

1. Twas the night before debate, when all through Seattle
Not a creature was stirring, not even in channel;
The chairs all were placed before tables with care,
In hopes that Doctor Oakley soon would be there;
The Calvies were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of cross-exam danced in their heads;
And Flamey in her jammies and I in mine too,
Had just settled down for an October snooze,

2. When outside the door there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the hallway as fast as a train,
Unfastened the dead bolt and unhooked the chain.
The laser pointer and sounds gave me a clue
And I heard Scottish accents, so surely I knew,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a laptop, an iPod, stacks of books by Shabir,

3. With a bright colored sweater, his bald head in sight,
I knew in a moment it must be James White.
More rapid than eagles the channel rats came,
And he chuckled, and chortled, and called them by name;
"Now, AO! Now, Tired! Now MrP! Shuey!
On, Uni! On, How2! On, Wifey, and Bluey!
The defense of the cross! And here that is our call
Now read away! Read away! Read away all!"

4. As dry dust that before the wild desert storm fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,
So up to the book-stacks the channel rats flew,
With hearts full of prayer, and Doctor Oakley too.
And then, in a twinkling, Doc’s studious looks,
The rustling of pages in each of his books.
As I drew in my hand, and was turning around,
Down the hallway Doctor Oakley came with a bound.

5. He was dressed in Coogi, his tartan tie in hand,
And on his wrist, his bright blue “No Compromise” band;
All of his notes his trusty Blackberry stored,
Bible verses and quotes that could not be ignored.
His laptop-- how useful! Libronics- how geeky!
And he even brought AOMin’s faithful dog Zekey!
Total Recorder played something by Deedat,
No possible way it would be won by mere fiat;

6. The end of a pen he held tight in his teeth,
And his tablet PC, it displayed the Hadith;
BibleWorks was open, and Qur’an Reader Pro,
And his iPod was playing some songs by Mylo.
He was ready it seemed, he was fit for the task,
Could answer any question Muslims might ask;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know we had nothing to dread;

7. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And packed up the books, changed his channel nick to “lurk”,
He finished up emails that needed to be sent,
And with a holy nod, to his room he went;
He stood by the door, to the channel rats he waved,
And I wondered if from the usual kick Greg was saved.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he went out of sight,
"HAPPY DEBATE TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT."

Written by Marie Peterson, 10/06/2007

Redeemed From the Curse of the Law

I have finally finished the first chapter of Morris' book on the study of Redemption. So I thought I'd share a couple of quotes. Quite often I hear Roman Catholics speak of the "legal fiction" of the Protestant's view of Justification. In speaking about the passage in Galatians 3:13:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

Morris had this to say on page 58:

When, therefore, Paul speaks of Christ as having borne the curse of the law, he speaks of our removal from the legal plight into which we have fallen through our failure to keep the law of God.

and again on page 59:

It is wrong to separate the legal status, gained by the complete discharge of the claims the law had upon us, from the resultant life. The only redemption Paul knew was one in which the redeemed had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in which they lived as those who had been adopted into the family of God.

Morris is in agreement with Piper's argument against the New Perspective on Paul. It is precisely because we have been legally freed by the justification of God in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people that gives the believer true peace with God and the freedom to serve Him.

Jesus "acts in this place as only He can, in our cause and interest, that we cannot add to anything that He does there [in the substitutionary atoning work] because the place where we might do so is occupied by Him, that anything further which might happen can result only from what is done by Him in our place and in our cause."

Praise be to God. Jesus is the Perfect Redeemer of His people.

Final Conference Reading List

Here's a list of books those going to the conference might be interested in reading beforehand. It's neither official, nor exhaustive, but since there is a lot of material, you might as well get started now!

The required reading list:

Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, Martin Hengel
[Amazon]

The Death of Christ (Works of John Owen, Volume 10), John Owen
The required reading is The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, but Dissertation on Divine Justice is a portion relevant to Islamic apologetics, and I've linked both CCEL versions below.
[Solid Ground] [Amazon]
[CCEL's Dissertation] [CCEL's Death of Death]

The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Leon Morris
[Amazon]

Definite Atonement, Gary Long
[Amazon]

"Did Jesus Die for the Sins of the World," Shabir Ally
[WMV Download] (right click, save as)

The supplemental reading list:

Jeffery, Steve, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach. Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (IVP, 2007).
piercedforourtransgressions.com
[Amazon] Now Available!

Brown, Raymond. The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.) Doubleday, 1994.
[Amazon Vol. 1] [Amazon Vol. 2]

Hill, Charles (ed), Frank James (ed), Roger Nicole (ed). The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Roger R. Nicole (IVP, 2004)
[Amazon]

McKnight, Scott. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Baylor University, 2005)
[Amazon]

Buckham, Richard. God Crucified (Eerdmans, 1998).
[Amazon]

Beilby, James, Paul Reddy (eds). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (IVP, 2006)
[Amazon]


Source: aomin.org