Overview of critiques on salvation-historical perspective?

[JohnD]

I'm struggling to find critical reviews of the salvation-historical approach, and would like to know if anyone can recommend resources to see how others have responded.

I don't have in mind the perspective of redemption from a historical perspetive. What I'm thinking of is that of the old era vs new era distinction where salvation can only occur in the new era inaugurated by Christ's first coming, often described as the 'salvation-historical' view. From what I can see, this is becoming increasingly common, in full, or in part, either overtly or subtely. Although it is clear that it goes against the biblical evidence systematised by the reformed view of the covenant of grace in both OT and NT, I've not come accross those who are openly critical of it (as distinct from those who simply promote different views). This is almost certainly due to my lack of wider reading.

I would therefore appreciate if anyone could point me in the right direction for critics or opponents of this. Thanks

 

[Peairtach]

where salvation can only occur in the new era inaugurated by Christ's first coming,

Sounds like a form - even whackier and more radical - of dispensationalism. Do such believe that all those before Christ were lost? Are they influenced by dispensationalism, "New Covenant Theology", Liberalism or what?

 

[JohnD]

From what I can pick up, there seems to be a sliding scale, or range of acceptance of the salvation-historical view. On the one hand there is what appears plainly to be the extreme contrast in a historical sense of no salvation by the law before Christ, to salvation by grace through faith since Christ. On the other hand, the obvious presence of believers in the OT is noted, with the view being expressed that the salvation-historical approach does not neatly fall into a strictly temporal or historical division. It is not just the view that salvation is revealed throughout history, but that salvation is divided historically into two eras, not just under two federal heads that span both OT and NT. It seems to be an approach that spans different systematic theological approaches also, to greater or lesser extents.

I'm working mainly with commentaries, not journal articles or books on the subject. But I have come accross this review:
Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology, The | Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society | Find Articles at BNET
where O. Cullman, M. Albertz and L. Goppelt (page 2) seem to be the main proponents in the latter half of the last century. This ties in with what little I have found elsewhere. The book in question seems to be supporting the salvation-historical approach, asserting that it is not a fallacy. This is the only hint that there are critics that I have been able to find.

In order to help get an idea of what I refer to, it seems best to add some quotes. They are long, but better than short ones that could appear out of context. Here are three views from different authors in commentaries to Romans.

If I've got the wrong end of the stick, or if I am misinterpreting the authors below, I'll gladly be corrected. But, for me, the extracts below just do not sit comfortably with the covenant of grace and justification by faith (through OT and NT) and how it is expressed biblically.

Is this something that has been discussed already in the forums, or elsewhere? It seems to me that these are significant matters, but it seems hard to find critical material. I'd appreciate being pointed in the direction of where I can find more debate on this.



On Romans 10:4, Osborne writes:

“Paul is saying, then, that Christ has put an end to any attempt to achieve righteousness by means of the law (so Morris 1988; Schreiner 1993b). Salvation is attained by faith in him alone, and the works of the law in that sense are at an end. In 6:1–6 we have “died to sin” so that we can “live a new life,” and in 7:4 we “died to the law through the body of Christ” so that we can “belong to” God. The slavery to the law of sin and death has been broken, and we are now slaves to God (6:15–22). There has been a salvation-historical switch from the covenant of the law to the covenant of grace so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. The works of the law have been replaced by faith as the only standard for righteousness.” [Grant R. Osborne, Romans, The IVP New Testament commentary series (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004). 266.]
​

On Romans 2:25-29, Schreiner writes:

“The γράμμα-πνεῦμα (gramma-pneuma, letter-spirit) antithesis supports the salvation-historical character of the text. … The contrast between the letter and Spirit is a salvation-historical one (cf. Käsemann 1971: 143; Moo 1991: 169–70; Westerholm 1984: 234–35). The “letter,” as already suggested in Rom. 2:27, refers to the law and the commandments contained in it (cf. Käsemann 1971: 143).… The “letter kills” (2 Cor. 3:6), and the ministry of Moses ends in death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7, 9). Although the law is glorious, it does not provide any ability to obey it. Thus both the “letter” and “circumcision” are benefits for the Jews; the problem is that without the Spirit these gifts do not produce righteousness (cf. Westerholm 1984: 235; Hafemann 1995: 178). …
​

By contrast, the Holy Spirit is the gift of the new age prophesied in the OT (Joel 2:28–29; cf. Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26–27). …
​

The conclusion to which I have been driving is this. In the OT and second temple Jewish literature there was the expectation that God would come (by his Spirit) and circumcise the hearts of his people so that they could keep the law. The references to the circumcision of the heart and the Holy Spirit in Rom. 2:29 signify that in Paul’s mind the eschatological promise has become a reality.” [Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998). 142-143.]
​

Moo is more balanced as he notes that the division cannot be strictly temporal. He writes:

With Christ as the climax of history, then, history can be divided into two “eras,” or “aeons,” each with its own founder—Adam and Christ, respectively—and each with its own ruling powers—sin, the law, flesh, and death on the one hand; righteousness, grace, the Spirit, and life on the other. All people start out in the “old era” by virtue of participation in the act by which it was founded—the sin of Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12, 18–19). But one can be transferred into the “new era” by becoming joined to Christ, the founder of that era, thereby participating in the acts through which that era came into being—Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (cf. 6:1–6). This corporate element in Paul’s thinking is vital to understanding his argument at a number of points in Romans.
​

The division of history into two ages was popular in Jewish apocalyptic, and Paul probably drew his conception from that background. But his understanding of God’s work in Christ introduces a key qualification in the scheme. Although Jewish apocalyptic conceived of the transition from old age to new as taking place in the field of actual history, Paul’s conception is necessarily more nuanced. For, contrary to Jewish expectation, the Messiah has accomplished the work of redemption, the Spirit has been poured out, yet evil has not been eradicated, the general resurrection is still future, and the final state of God’s kingdom has not been established. In other words, the new era has begun—has been inaugurated—but it has not yet replaced the old era. Both ages exist simultaneously; and this means that “history,” in the sense of temporal sequence, is not ultimately determinative in Paul’s salvation-historical scheme. Thus, the “change of aeons,” while occurring historically at the cross (cf. 3:21), becomes real for the individual only at the point of faith. The “change of aeons” that took place in Christ is experienced only “in Christ.” Therefore, the person who lives after Christ’s death and resurrection and who has not appropriated the benefits of those events by faith lives in the old era yet: enslaved to sin, in the flesh, doomed to eternal death. On the other hand, Abraham, for example, though living many centuries before Christ, must, in light of Rom. 4, be considered to belong, in some sense at least, to the new era. This circumstance introduces a confusing factor, making it difficult to come up with an overall system that is capable of integrating all of Paul’s applications of salvation history.” ...
​

“The nature of Paul’s salvation-historical scheme is such that, as we have seen, a neat transfer into straightforward temporal categories is impossible. People before the coming of Christ, while still “bound” to the law, could nevertheless escape its condemning power (e.g., Abraham, David—chap. 4). Moreover, people after the coming of Christ can still be subject to its rule. While, then, it is fair to speak of all of Israel between Moses and Christ as being “under the law” (cf. especially Gal. 3–4)—insofar as it was the “ruling” authority of that “dispensation”—we must at the same time recognize that people during that time could escape the condemnatory “rule” of that law by faith in the God who had made promises to Abraham.” [Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996). 26-27, 390.]​

 

[Dieter Schneider]

I recommend Harvie M. Conn Contemporary World Theology

 

[JohnD]

I recommend Harvie M. Conn Contemporary World Theology

Thanks Dieter.