michaelspotts
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm reading Cornelis Venema's little book, "Getting the Gospel Right," that assesses justification in light of the Reformation and the New Perspectives on Paul. Are there any patient souls here who can diagnose whether I am getting the difference clearly? I know the Reformed position, but do not want to misrepresent the NPP side.
In the third chapter, Venema mentions E. P. Sanders' conclusion that Second Temple Judaism emphasized, not strict legalism, but salvation through covenant participation, the covenant itself being initiated graciously. "Justification"—here defined as being in right relationship to God in the covenant—is maintained through faithfulness to the terms, or laws, given to the covenant people, including making use of means for atonement as often as necessary.
Sanders argues the difference between Judaism and Christianity is Judaism's failure to update to the latest terms of entry and participation in the covenant community, including the revelation of Christ himself as means of atonement. However, he claims, both systems offer salvation through essentially the same pattern of personal faithfulness as the basis for justification. Such a scheme can even make room for monergism, as some some Federal Visionists maintain.
The question is, to my mind, "Does the apostle Paul teach a form of justification which is present, perfect, and perpetual, on the grounds of imputation and unbreakable union with Jesus Christ, received through faith alone?" If so, this is the difference between Pauline theology and Judaism, and Sanders misses the point.
In this case of present, perfect, and perpetual justification, which is articulated in the Reformed confessions, salvation is certainly assured to every believer, because believers are invariably just and perfect in Christ, who has fulfilled all righteousness in their place; who is stationed at throne of God as priest and king, to ceaselessly administer his cleansing blood and defend his members from accusation; and preserves the faith of all believers by the same inexhaustible divine power which raised his mortal body from the dead.
In the Judaistic scheme, justification—the state of being regarded as righteous before God—may be forfeited through personal neglect and sin, because the principle of justification is personal faithfulness to the terms of the covenant. One may enter such a covenant through grace, and may be even be preserved in personal obedience, “faithfulness”, by grace; but the final ground of justification is obedience wrought within and through the covenant member, rather than the obedience of Christ as the Covenant Head.
Am I getting the difference clearly? Thanks.
In the third chapter, Venema mentions E. P. Sanders' conclusion that Second Temple Judaism emphasized, not strict legalism, but salvation through covenant participation, the covenant itself being initiated graciously. "Justification"—here defined as being in right relationship to God in the covenant—is maintained through faithfulness to the terms, or laws, given to the covenant people, including making use of means for atonement as often as necessary.
Sanders argues the difference between Judaism and Christianity is Judaism's failure to update to the latest terms of entry and participation in the covenant community, including the revelation of Christ himself as means of atonement. However, he claims, both systems offer salvation through essentially the same pattern of personal faithfulness as the basis for justification. Such a scheme can even make room for monergism, as some some Federal Visionists maintain.
The question is, to my mind, "Does the apostle Paul teach a form of justification which is present, perfect, and perpetual, on the grounds of imputation and unbreakable union with Jesus Christ, received through faith alone?" If so, this is the difference between Pauline theology and Judaism, and Sanders misses the point.
In this case of present, perfect, and perpetual justification, which is articulated in the Reformed confessions, salvation is certainly assured to every believer, because believers are invariably just and perfect in Christ, who has fulfilled all righteousness in their place; who is stationed at throne of God as priest and king, to ceaselessly administer his cleansing blood and defend his members from accusation; and preserves the faith of all believers by the same inexhaustible divine power which raised his mortal body from the dead.
In the Judaistic scheme, justification—the state of being regarded as righteous before God—may be forfeited through personal neglect and sin, because the principle of justification is personal faithfulness to the terms of the covenant. One may enter such a covenant through grace, and may be even be preserved in personal obedience, “faithfulness”, by grace; but the final ground of justification is obedience wrought within and through the covenant member, rather than the obedience of Christ as the Covenant Head.
Am I getting the difference clearly? Thanks.