Paul’s Ordo Salutis
1. God has predetermined
· That those with faith would be resurrected to glory (Rom. 8:29)
· Predestination language highlights God’s sovereignty (Rom. 9:18-21) and the honor of the “elect”
· without contradicting the possibility for any individual to call on the Lord (10:13)
· or the need for human choice
· Paul does not work out the philosophy (e.g., Rom. 11:11-12).
· Paul is focused more on groups than individuals.
2. Gentiles begin “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20)
3. Jews begin “under the Law”
· The Jewish Law
· They don’t keep the Law to “get in” but to “stay in”—they have a covenantal relationship with Yahweh.
· Jews do not believe that “works of Law” ultimately justify them—grace of God, who has set up things like repentance, sacrifice, etc… as a basis for acceptance.
· But works of Law are an essential response to God’s patronage.
· “Works of Law” refer in general to deeds of the Jewish law, but seem to refer especially to the finer points that related to Jewish ethnic boundaries like circumcision, food laws, etc…
· Law confirms to a Jew that s/he is a sinner (Rom. 7:7).
· Law aggravates sin—under the power of Sin makes the Jew even more sinful (Rom. 5:20; 7:8).
4. Sanctification
· Means made “holy,” touching God and thus “watch out; that wire is live.”
· Can be used of unbelievers or children “sanctified” by a believing spouse or parent (1 Cor. 7:14).
· Applies to believers who have received the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), and involves the cleansing of past sins (1 Cor. 6:11)
· Implies a certain care with regard to how we live—you don’t want to get shocked (“this is the will of God, even your sanctification”: 1 Thess. 4:3)
· Demands a complete “purity” (otherwise the water conducts and will shock) (1 Thess. 5:23)
5. Atonement
· Reconciliation with God achieved solely through the offering of Jesus (5:10)
· Satisfies God’s righteousness and wrath (Rom. 3:25)
· Christ died “for us” and “for sin” but not “for our sin” in any legalistic way (2 Cor. 5:21)
· We receive forgiveness and pardon (not prominent Pauline concepts)
6. Justification
· “Initial” justification relates to the non guilty verdict we receive when we trust in what God has done through Jesus Christ and confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 5:1; 10:9).
· The process is exactly the same for both Jew and Gentile (Rom. 3:23-24)
· While Jesus was justified in accordance with his innocence, Jews and Gentiles are only justified because of his faithfulness unto death (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16).
· However, “final” justification before the judgment seat of Christ requires us to remain blameless through the power of the Holy Spirit, to keep by nature Christ’s law, which is the law of love (2 Cor. 5:10).
7. Salvation
· Primarily future oriented for Paul—“having been justified we will be saved”—relates to the Day of Wrath when we escape God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9-10).
· Paul can speak proleptically of it in the present or past tense
8. Glorification
· Paul can speak in the present of being transformed from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18).
· When we are resurrected, Christ will transform our bodies to be like his glorious body (Phil. 3:21)
· We will then fulfill Psalm 8 and God’s initial intention for humanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Thanks!
Hi Ken,
Great post.
Your comments on atonement are not clear to me. Does not 1 Cor 15:3 read "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"? How does this fit in? This section of 1 Cor appears to be traditional material, but Paul does deploy it.
Perhaps I am misreading your comments.
Peace
Thanks for the reference Brian. In this line I was trying to remember the way Joel summed up the distinction he was making in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. Maybe I misremembered the conversation.
In any case, the point has to do with penal substitution. The idea is that when Paul says that Christ died for our sins, he didn't mean that God added up the all the individual "sin-ons" that he foreknew the redeemed would commit, set the gauge on the penalty gun appropriately, and then zapped Christ on the cross to account for that precise amount.
I suppose the statement isn't very clear, but it is beautifully pithy!
A scholarly Lutheran who challenges many of the presuppositions that are undergirding Dr. Schenk's position.
http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2006westerholm.pdf
Ok, the link didn't completely attach.
Just google
Justification by Faith is the answer: What Is The Question.
by Stephen Westerholm
Yes, Westerholm (a very nice man) is one of a growing number of NT scholars (Simon Gathercole would be another, Don Hagner another) who question the "new perspective on Paul" that came to the fore in the 80's. Note that these are usually Lutheran and Reformed scholars and thus have a vested interest in defending traditional Reformation readings of Paul. I on the other hand have been delighted to find that most Pauline scholars have come to a reading of Paul that fits amazingly well with Wesleyan-Arminian theology! And here we've been accused of being stupid all these years!
Ken,
I like what you have done here...very helpful.
One question: Why do you place (4)sanctification before (5) atonement and (6)justification in your understanding of Paul's order? Is this what Paul does from your perspective?
Thanks,
Chris Bounds
I was asked this by a student too. I did it largely to point out that the NT can speak of the sanctification of someone who isn't even justified. In other words, I put it there to generate this very question. Certainly I believe the most appropriate place for it is in association with (initial) justification. Lack of "sanctification" thereafter can be considered an inadequacy in a person's life.
My thoughts...
Dr. Schenk,
Certainly you wouldn't contend that Dunn, Wright, Stendahl, Sanders and others don't have vested interests of their own?
Secondly, do you have some statistics that show that 'most Pauline Scholars' are now New Perspectivists?
From my reading I get the sense that the New Perspective is still very far away from being entrenched. But even were it to become entrenched I would try to keep in mind that at one time Bultmann was entrenched.
Have you read D. A. Carson's works on 'Justification and Variegated Nomism' yet? Certainly passages like Luke 18:11f clearly teach that there was in Second Temple Judaism salvation by self righteousness.
Finally, I for one have never thought Holiness folk to be stupid. I have thought them wrong but never stupid.
OAW
Thanks for calling my hand, OAW. The thing is, the theological interests of this lot don't seem to coincide with this topic. Dunn is a Scottish Presbyterian whose generally Reformed interpretation of Romans 7 is even rejected by Moo at Wheaton. Stendahl I believe is a retired Lutheran bishop, yes? Now you might argue that they are into interfaith dialog with Judaism as an angle.
Tom Wright is an Anglican, and I detect some Reformed elements in his thought (e.g., faith is a badge of membership, not a condition of membership).
Of this lot only Sanders is Methodist, but my sense is that he is a nominal Methodist at best--not one looking for a "second blessing" any time soon. I believe he has engaged in some interfaith dialog, but probably by invitation more than as a quest. He doesn't strike me as the "ambassador" type.
I can't give you statistics on new perspective. It was my general feel for the guild. I'd love to see some and will openly repent if proved wrong. I have noticed a recent mobilization of "anti-new perspectivism" (check out the euangelion blogger Mike off to the side). But my sense is that it is theologically reactionary rather than evidentially driven.
I haven't read Variegated yet. I'm waiting for someone to buy me a copy :-) I generally break out in a rash at the mention of Carson's name :-) What are we to make of common NT sentiments like 1 Cor. 3:14: "If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward"?
So....
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Christ's death on the cross was the sin offering (Atonement)
(so i guess that has to be first, correct?)
At conversion we become justified?
And thereafter the Holy Spirit, in conjunction with our cooperation (just for you OAS) enacts sanctification?
Just trying to keep my ducks in a row.
KN
Finally something from a "Bible head" that merges two of my interests so creatively: Holiness and electricity!
"Watch out; that wire is live.”
Evidence comes in the context of Worldview. As such there is no such thing as a brute evidentiary fact. Therefore appealing to evidentially driven authority forces us to first consider the legitimacy of the Worldview construct in which the evidence rests.
You wouldn't be surprised to hear that many in the Reformed community would consider these New perspective advocates to be nominally Reformed. Indeed, in my quarters those who have tried to embrace N. T. Wright are dodging (rather effectively) discipline procedures against them. Just recently the Orthodox Presbyterian Church ruled New Perspective views on justification as out of bounds. I was amused when you claimed the New Perspective as sympathetic to Wesleyans since there are those (actually more than a few) in the Reformed camp who are trying to suggest that it can operate within a Reformed paradigm.
Certainly I would argue that the New Perspective Theologians have an interest in pursuing this Theology, if for no other reason then keeping their nouveau readings afloat. Also, I do indeed believe that the New Perspective serves the politically correct, perspectival ecumenical approach to Theology.
In the Reformed community I see a great deal of stuff that is challenging the New Perspective. There is Guy Waters recent release(Justification And The New Perspectives On Paul: A Review And Response) Richard Gaffin (NT guy at Westminster East) has written seeking to correct it. J. Ligon Duncan (Misunderstanding Paul?) has written. And then of course there is the two Volume work edited (not written) by Carson (Variegate Nomism) which examines Second Temple Judaism to see if the presuppositions that are driving the New Perspective can be maintained. I see little in those works that can be considered 'reactionary.'
Your final question could lead to fruitful discussion. I suspect that you may be appealing to it as proof that we stay in the covenant by works? First I would say that Grace rewarded is grace crowned. Second, I would offer that Paul in Corinth is dealing with a situation where there are competing 'builders' and so he is reminding ministers that their efforts must depend on God's wisdom and not the wood, hay, and straw of human wisdom. Third, I would note that it is interesting here that though ill conceived works will not follow the 'hay boys' still they themselves are saved. Finally, no Reformed person would ever say that good works are un-neccessary for salvation -- broadly conceived. They would just insist that good works are a necessary consequence that reveals salvation and not a necessary condition that creates or maintains it. Saved and kept by a faith that does its proper work of resting in Christ for all in justification while working in Christ in Sanctification.
Finally, could you refer me to some works that explain the Wesleyan view of Covenant in their Theology?
OAW
"Evidence comes in the context of Worldview."
Does this apply to evidence relative to the interpretation of the Bible? If so, what is the right worldview to apply to the Bible? And where does it come from? It can't come from the Bible since we can't interpret the Bible correctly without it. So apparently this worldview is a higher authority than the Bible. What is the source of this authoritative worldview? Calvin? Reformed theologians? Reformed epistemologists of the late twentieth century?
I'm not sure what Wesley's view of covenant was, although I imagine it was similar to Calvin's, the main difference being the optimism Wesley affirms to the covenant of grace through the Spirit. From a NT perspective (at least for Paul and Hebrews), the new covenant seems to be the age when the Spirit writes the law on our hearts so that we fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Rom. 8:4) and Gentiles demonstrate by doing the things of the law (Rom. 2:14) that the law is written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). For Paul, the new covenant is a covenant of grace and law (Rom. 3:31), albeit Christ's law (1 Cor. 9:21) of love (Rom. 13:9-10).
Doc,
Does this apply to evidence relative to the interpretation of the Bible?
OAW,
Yes
Doc,
If so, what is the right worldview to apply to the Bible?
OAW,
The Biblical one
DOC,
And where does it come from?
OAW,
The mind of God, by the procession of the Holy Spirt as He runs along the tracks of Scripture. It's called conversion and ongoing sanctification.
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Be not conformed to this World but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.
DOC,
It can't come from the Bible since we can't interpret the Bible correctly without it.
OAW,
We certainly can interpret the Bible correctly with a Worldview that begins and ends with the God of the Bible, and so grows up out of the soil of Scripture.
I might be misunderstanding you but you seem to be presupposing the autonomy of man. Man must be the one who, beginning with himself, figures out the things of God.
Our Worldview must inform our interpretation and our interpretation must inform our Worldview. But conversion and then progressive sanctification is what changes our Worldview so that our interpretations increasingly reflect the mind of God.
The existence of the God of the Bible and the verity of His Word thus becomes the axiomatic presupposition upon which our Worldview rests. God is the necessary pre-condition for intelligability but it is a pre-condition that only God can give in conversion.
Our first parents interpreted the World correctly according to God's Word. They replaced that Biblical Worldview for a Autonomous Worldview when they first believed that Satan's interpretive word was co-equal with God's interpretive Word and then embraced Satan's interpretive Word (Worldview) for God's interpretive word (Worldview). Thus the fall.
Doc,
So apparently this worldview is a higher authority than the Bible.
OAW,
God said. Satan Said. In the end, there are only two Worldviews.
Doc,
What is the source of this authoritative worldview? Calvin? Reformed theologians? Reformed epistemologists of the late twentieth century?
OAW
The B-I-B-L-E
Yes, that's the book for me.
I stand alone on the Word of God.
The B-I-B-L-E
If you want to learn more about this I'd reccomend Dr. Gordon Haddon' Clark's 'A Christian view Of Men and Things.'
But let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.
Are you really going to suggest that in coming to Scripture you do so without biases that affect your conclusions on what counts for evidence?
Can you come at Scripture presuppositionally naked? Are you a tabula rasa?
If you advocate for inductive reasoning in order to come to truth about God how can you know the particulars without first knowing the Universals? Without the Universals you wouldn't know what the particulars were particulars of. And worst yet, with inductive reasoning you can only argue the probability of God not the certainity.
If you advocate for deductive reasoning how can you know the Universals without first knowing the particulars? Without the particulars you couldn't arrive at the Universals.
And so to be Biblical we must reason presuppositionally being given the mind of God in conversion and building our Worldview accordingly. We think God's thoughts after Him.
Never perfectly. Always haltingly. But in progressive Sanctification His Worldview (THE WORLDVIEW)progressively becomes our Worldview.
OAW
p.s. -- I take it then that the Wesleyans haven't spent a great deal of time developing covenant. I have so wanted for the past few years read something on that.
Also it was Bullinger more than Calvin who spent time developing Covenant Theology though it certainly is there in Calvin.
Great discussion OW. If you don't mind, I'll try to take this dialog to a post later today, so these gem-discussions don't get buried in the comment section. Then we can continue the discussion with a greater audience.
Yikes!!!
We are going center stage??
You must really believe that you have me in your gun barrel sites.
Well, I'll do my best to keep up. If nothing else I'll provide you with a good trophy.
OAW
:-)
I can't take you as a trophy because that would reveal that I'm not entirely sanctified :-)
Hey, this is an interesting discussion, yes? Why bore people with things I'm thinking when they can watch us do a proxy debate for two great traditions (am I allowed to consider the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition great and still be entirely sanctified?)
Yes it is an interesting discussion -- more so because it is absent the usual claws and fangs.
I am only a country preacher but I will be glad to give it a whirl with a bona-fide Academic.
However since you are entirely sanctified you have the advantage on me because I certainly am not, and that despite experiencing multiple works of grace.
So let's do a kinder, gentler and electronic version of the penny pamphlet wars. You get to be Wesley and I'll do Toplady.
Problem is... My strain of Reformational thinking is a good deal different then Augustus'.
Your serve ... I'll volley,
OAW
p.s. -- Actually what reveals that you may indeed have perfect love is the fact that you call the Reformed tradition 'great.'
Post a Comment