This blog is devoted to discussing the pursuit of eternal life.
Discussion and participation by readers is desired,
but contributions should correlate to the book,
The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology
of Perseverance & Assurance by
Thomas R. Schreiner
& Ardel B. Caneday
Showing posts with label Book Reviews and Comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book Reviews and Comments. Show all posts
This review is from: The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Paperback)
The Race Set Before Us is a book which, after reading the introduction, I was excited to dive into. I had strongly agreed with Schreiner in his defense of the penal substitution view in The Nature of the Atonement (though with slight modification, which I will not go into here). Unfortunately, I was greatly disappointed in reading his and Caneday's argument here. Though there were a couple of shining moments, there were three major problems in this work that, as a result, have prevented their argument from convincing me: 1) Logical fallacies, 2) a considerable amount of hypocrisy, and 3) the redundant nature of their argumentation.
1) Unfortunately, the fallacy the authors made concerns their main argument. It was the authors' primary concern to establish the fact that warnings in the Bible are not a sign that a person could possibly fall away: "Paying heed to the admonitions does not...threaten assurance but is the pathway by which assurance is maintained" (308). The logical problem here is obvious. Essentially, this makes the warnings in the Bible from God comparable to a father saying to a child, "Don't touch the sun; it will burn you!" To say that the warning to not touch the sun prevents the child from touching it is not simply superfluous; it is ridiculous. Since the author's say that the warnings prevent believers from falling away, they would have to contend that, should a regenerate believer happen to never read those specific warning verses, such a person could fall away.
2) The hypocrisy the authors commit relates to their point that we should not try to impose the warnings in scripture over the promises in scripture, so that we lose our assurance of salvation (205). This is a valid claim, but is not the issue. The problem is that the authors do the same thing, only in the opposite way. They impose the promises of scripture on the warnings, so that the warnings become exactly how I described them above: nonsensical and superfluous. For the authors, promise overrides warning, but they deny any attempt to claim the opposite, saying instead that "the two stand compatibly together" (205).
3) Even in those beginning portions when my optimism toward the book was high, I was still bogged down by the method the authors used in writing the work, for three reasons. First, they were highly redundant; they seemed to make each of their points several times, and then even came back to them again later. The argumentation could have been made more effectively in half the space. Secondly, the amount of details and side-arguments seemed way over the top, making it difficult to follow their line of thought. Finally, the book has a negative tone because they spend so much space refuting other views. While it is important to do this in moderation, they were often guilty of creating straw-man arguments. Sometimes they refuted other views by means of their own feelings, saying something to the effect that the opposing view did not offer a true sense of assurance to them. But we should use logic and not emotion to argue our points.
Even with these problems, the authors did make some good points. The here and not-yet aspects of salvation were generally very well presented, and they took the right position that it is not up to us to determine the salvation of other people (309-310). At least in the first chapter, they did a good job at presenting the opposing four views fairly. It is not as if I learned nothing from reading this book; it certainly helped me clarify my own views on salvation. Nevertheless, the three main problems given above have left me unconvinced.
Here's a review of The Race Set Before Us that I just discovered, though it was posted in 2004. It is of interest to me, particularly, because it is written by a former student.
Particularly helpful are two lists that Tim Stoner offers. One consists of the Emergent Movement's false antinomies; the other of Emergent's false synonyms.
The Emerging Church’s false antinomies (driving a wedge between concepts that only appear to be opposites):
The Gospel is about a person, not a message.
The Gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be professed.
The message and its interpretation is fluid, not static and solid.
The Gospel is about behavior, not belief.
The Gospel is primal/elemental (ancient), not European/sacramental (antiquated).
The Bible is a human book, not an utterly unique, divinely inspired revelation from God.
The church is for the lost, not the found.
Life is about searching (pioneer), not finding (settler).
Evangelism is about saving the world, not individual souls.
The Bible is about stories (indicatives that describe), not prescriptions (imperatives that prescribe).
God cares about the boardroom, not the bedroom.
Jesus came to set an example, not appease the wrath of God.
God is a God of love, not judgment (because He loves He does not hate).
Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.
We are to love the “world”, not hate it.
Our posture toward culture is to affirm it, not critique it.
But then, as if to counter its imbalance, it careens off track by over-compensating, for it brings together things that are not the same. Its false synonyms (equating concepts that only appear to be similar):
Anger with abuse.
Authority with authoritarian.
Confidence with smug.
Fundamentals with fundamentalism.
Judgment with judgmentalism.
Correction with criticism
Power with oppression.
Fervor with fanaticism.
Militancy with militarism.
Uncertainty (ambiguity, doubt) with humility.
Long I have contended that few people can make necessary distinctions and do so with proper propotionality. Tim Stoner captures this well in his two lists.
I intend to secure a copy of the book and read it.
I'm sorry that I have been far too busy to keep this blog active for the past two months. I will strive to do better as we begin a new year. Happy New Year!
This book has many fine attributes to recommend it: it seeks to be based on exegesis only; it seeks to assure all believers of their eternal salvation; it believes in the election of believers; and it rebuts many of the false teachings on this important doctrine; and it engages with the various competing positions.
However, as a Lutheran I must state that it misses the point with its unique position of denying any possibility of apostasy by primarily confessing the warning passages are there to keep believers in the faith and running towards the finish line. This would necessarily mean that God uses the Law (since these are what the referenced passages in the book are) to keep people believing and saved. The Gospel is what keeps people saved, never the Law. Thus the Calvinistic error of law-gospel-law is evidenced. For those interested in what I'm referring here to, see David Scaer's excellent new book from Luther Academy: "Law & Gospel and the Means of Grace."
Further, what is a very necessary discussion of this doctrine is omitted in this book, the many passages which speak of salvation as the forgiveness of one's sins. When looked at from this major Biblical way of speaking of salvation, one has to go through all of life with one's sins forgiven by faith in the gospel. Faith at any one time will forgive sins, but one needs to continue in this faith to have one's sins forgiven at the end. This would have been an enlightening discussion to see how these authors would handle the many numerous passages on forgiveness of sins, but they chose not to.
Also, it is not clear what their stance is on double predestination. If they hold to the Classic Calvinist position here, then there is a substantial problem with God being responsible for sin and evil.
The most telling line in the review is this: "However, as a Lutheran I. . . ." I have many books in my library that come from the pens of Lutherans. I have read much of Martin Luther's works. I have read Franz August Otto Pieper'sChristian Dogmatics. Despite all my reading, no one has provided any convincing biblical evidence to persuade me of what rodboomboom claims in his critique of The Race Set Before Us. In other words, no one has given me any biblical warrant to embrace the notion that biblical warnings against apostasy and admonitions to persevere in Christ Jesus "necessarily mean that God uses the Law (since these are what the referenced passages in the book are) to keep people believing and saved. The Gospel is what keeps people saved, never the Law."
I confess, though the criticism makes logical Lutheran sense to me, it makes no biblical sense to me at all. Honestly, I find that this aspect of Lutheranism, which forms the essential core of Lutheran theology, has no biblical warrant whatsoever. It strikes me as thoroughly wrongheaded but also powerfully destructive to perseverance of faith. For Lutheranism really does set faith in opposition to deeds by insisting that even New Testament admonitions and warnings partake of the law and not of the gospel.
As for rodboomboom's criticism concerning forgiveness of sin, we actually do address the subject in chapter two. Perhaps rodboomboom did not notice because he was looking for a Lutheran way of addressing the topic, as his criticism suggests.
Read the review by Felix H. Cortez Read the Review Published 4/19/2008 Citation: Felix H. Cortez, review of Herbert W. Bateman IV, ed., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, Review of Biblical Literature.
Stanley’s book consists of twelve chapters. Chapter 1 offers rationale that validates the question raised by the book's title. Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? Stanley contends that essentially the same question is raised by the teacher of the law (Luke 10:25-28), the Rich Young Ruler (Matt 19:21), and the jailer in Philippi. However, Paul’s response, in Acts 16:31, differs from how Jesus responds to the question. While the apostle Paul commands, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” Jesus calls for deeds. Jesus continually calls for actions that include forgiving the sins of others, as conditions that must be fulfilled in order to receive God’s forgiveness, to receive eternal life, or to enter the kingdom.
Stanley’s thesis is clear: “the presence or absence of ‘works’ plays a significant role (in final judgment) in determining where one spends eternity.” Without dispute, his thesis is controversial. For many readers, his thesis will be threatening. Stanley realizes that he needs to demonstrate how his thesis agrees with the measure of orthodox evangelical belief that salvation is “by grace alone through faith alone.” Does Stanley’s understanding of Jesus’ teaching concerning salvation and deeds agree with the common evangelical affirmation with regard to justification by grace through faith apart from “works of the law”? Throughout the latter portion of chapter 1 Stanley considers the need for a book such as his, he anticipates objections to his thesis, and he outlines an approach for arguing his thesis.
Stanley traces various historical theological explanations concerning the relationship between works and salvation in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles throughout chapter 2. He grounds his thesis within the range of theological expressions gathered from the early church theological fathers to more recent times. Stanley demonstrates that the church’s theologians did not sign in unison concerning the relation between works and salvation but with diverse voices, sometimes harmoniously but sometimes with conflicting sounds. In this chapter Stanley identifies passages of Scripture that have held prominence in the church’s theologians’ diverse explanations concerning this relationship. The chapter does one further thing. It offers a historical and theological framework for assessing the author’s own theological expressions concerning the relationship between works and salvation.
In chapter 3 Stanley locates his own work on the relationship between salvation and works within the range of post-Reformation scholarship concerning the relationship between works and salvation within Judaism. Primarily, his objective is to show the historical and theological backdrop within which Jesus taught. Secondly, Stanley provides critical interaction concerning E. P. Sanders’s thesis that Judaism was rooted in grace not in works-righteousness (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion). Finally, the chapter evaluates the fallout of Sanders’s thesis on scholarly discussions concerning the relationship between works and salvation in Paul’s letters but also in the Gospels.
Chapters 4 and 5 provide Stanley’s own understanding of the relationship between works and salvation. His concentration is on the concepts of “works” and “salvation” in the Synoptic Gospels. Nevertheless, he offers a scan of the whole New Testament. Most basic concerning Stanley’s argument is the “already” and “not yet” nature of salvation. In these two chapters Stanley to endeavors to demonstrate how his own theological voice concerning “works” and “salvation” blend harmoniously with an expanding chorus of evangelical voices that cogently make the same argument.
Chapters 6 through 11 unpack the significance of what Stanley argues in chapters 4 and 5. The author contends that Jesus’ teaching concerning the relationship between works and salvation entails works not simply as evidence of conversion but also as a condition for receiving final salvation. Stanley offers careful nuance concerning his use of the term “condition” for fear that someone may allege that he views the relationship as one that entails the notion of achieving merit with God. Stanley argues that when Scripture presents salvation as “already” possessed, works and endurance are properly conceived of as evidence of salvation. Likewise, he insists that when Scripture presents salvation as “not yet” attained, we properly conceive of works and endurance as a condition of salvation. Stanley argues this thesis by addressing crucial issues in the Synoptic Gospels under the following chapter titles: “Requirements for Entering the Kingdom” (chapter 6); “Attaining Eternal Life” (chapter 7); “The Role of Discipleship in Salvation” (chapter 8); “The Role of Endurance in Salvation” (chapter 9); “The Role of Treating Others in Salvation” (chapter 10); and “The Role of Judgment in Salvation” (chapter 11).
Stanley draws his argument to a conclusion in chapter 12. He does this by observing that the answer one gives to the question asked by his book’s title depends on the outlook on salvation that is present within the biblical passage under review. By outlook, Stanley refers to whether the passage’s orientation is toward the beginning of salvation (conversion) or toward the end of salvation (consummation). He insists that in passages where Jesus speaks of initial conversion, not of final salvation, Jesus links works to salvation as evidence of salvation. However, wherever Jesus is speaking of salvation’s consummation in the eschaton, not conversion, Jesus presents works as a condition of salvation. Whenever Jesus speaks of persevering unto final salvation, which is an event that is yet to come and not an event that has already occurred, we correctly speak of perseverance as a necessary condition in order that we might be saved.
Stanley’s thesis is courageous. Some, perhaps many, will say that his thesis is wrong. This book is published as debates over Paul’s teaching concerning justification continue to escalate, a dispute incited mainly by what is called “the New Perspective on Paul.” Stanley draws notable distinctions between his work on Jesus’ teaching on the relationship between works and salvation from the “covenantal nomism,” the view of E. P. Sanders in his work on Second Temple Judaism and Paul’s letters. Though Stanley clearly draws distinctions, it is doubtful that he will escape indictment as siding with the “new perspective.” Some will impute guilt by association. I had to smile, even chuckle, at one statement that survived editorial revision. I did not realize that E. P. Sanders was so aged; he has aged well: “The writings at Qumran, of which only a fraction existed in Sanders’ time. . .” (p. 107).
If ever a book called for sympathetic reading and what D. A. Carson calls “distanciation,” Stanley’s book does. Lamentably, his cautions and clarifications will go unheeded, despite his care to develop and to demonstrate the validity of his thesis. Despite his caution to guard against misunderstanding, Stanley occasionally makes statements that will arouse dismissive response. For example, after he acknowledges that humans are entirely dependent upon God for the gift of salvation and for the capability to do any good deeds, Stanley observes, “Yet it is true that Paul never teaches salvation by faith alone if we understand salvation as a broad term” (p. 321). Because Stanley is discussing Ephesians 2:8-9, he owes the reader an explanation concerning the breadth of the term “salvation” but also of other expressions to avoid dismissive indictment from some readers. Stanley does provide thoughtful distinction between pre-conversion works and post-conversion works, to clarify his rather arresting statement. Nevertheless, what does “faith” entail? Fuller explanation concerning the relationship between faith and good works would go a long way to protect him against being misunderstood. As I have argued on this blog, I fear that Stanley confounds categories when he asserts, “In the last analysis the decision as to who is saved will be made not on the basis of faith but works” (p. 321)? May I suggest that it would be better to say that God’s final verdict concerning salvation will not be rendered “on the basis of faith” but rather “according to deeds”? As I have observed at various times on this blog, to some I may seem excessively cautious to distinguish the means of salvation from the grounds of salvation. Yet, the distinction seems crucial to our Protestant and evangelical faith.
If one will understand Stanley’s thesis and the development of that thesis, one will have to follow his distinction between the already and not yet aspects of salvation. Understanding these is vital for developing a coherent and compatible understanding of Jesus’ teaching concerning the role of works in relation to salvation. If one does not accept this distinction one will hardly accept Stanley’s explanation that Jesus teaches that works relate to salvation not always nor even primarily as evidence of salvation already begun. Stanley correctly shows that the principal way that the Synoptic Gospels portray the relationship between works and salvation is that Jesus speaks more frequently of “works as a condition for final salvation or entrance into the eschatological kingdom” (p. 334). What does Stanley mean? He means that if “works (e.g., endurance, love, mercy, forgiveness) are not present then final salvation will not be granted” (p. 334). Despite his clarity, Stanley occasionally confuses the reader, such as when he offers his explanation of Colossians 1:22-23. Stanley mistakes the verb of the apodosis as “you have been reconciled” instead of “to present you.”
Some readers may be annoyed by the somewhat parochial dimension that manifests itself throughout the book but especially in chapters 1 and 12. Understandably, a dissertation submitted for a PhD at Dallas Theological Seminary on the relationship between works and salvation in Jesus’ teaching would interact with the marginal views of those associated with the Grace Evangelical Society, views historically tied to Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, and various other mostly former professors.
I commend Stanley’s book for serious readers who desire to wrestle with the relationship between works and salvation in the Synoptic Gospels. No one who desires to preach, teach, or write accurately concerning salvation and works in the Synoptic Gospels can afford to ignore Stanley’s book. For those who may find the book rather challenging may prefer Stanley’s Salvation is More Complicated Than You Think less daunting.
A. B. Caneday Northwestern College, Saint Paul, Minnesota
____________________
This review is a thoroughly rewritten version of my review that will be published in the next issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Find the above review on the Amazon.com web page here.
In a recent dialogue with Rick in the comments feature I promised to post some of the reviews of The Race Set Before Us. Here is a list of several. For those that can be accessed via the internet I have provided links.
Review by Armstrong, John H. Reformation & Revival Journal, 10 no 3 Sum 2001, p 216-219.
Review by McFadden, Kevin. KWMC (blog). Kevin McFadden says that the authors of TRSBU are amillennialists. I do not understand how TRSBU manifests this. It is a rather curious claim in that I teach at an institution that requires me to sign a doctrinal statement annually that is not amillennial.
Review by Morrison, Gregg S. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 45 no 4 D 2002, p 673.
Review by Pennington, Jonathan T. Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, 21 no 1 Spr 2003, p 72-75.
Review by Richardson, Neil. Expository Times, 113 no 6 Mr 2002, p 209.
Review by Wilkin, Robert N. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 15 no 28 2002 pp. 2-24. See my earlier brief comment on Wilkins's review.
Review by Yinger, Kent. Evangelical Quarterly, 76 no 4 O 2004, p 367-369.
Review by Zuck, Roy B. Bibliotheca Sacra, 160 no 638 Ap-Je 2003, p 241-243. See my earlier brief comment on Zuck's review.
____________
Interaction with TRSBU by Keathley, Ken. "Does Anyone Really Know if They are Saved? A Survey of the Current Views on Assurance with a Modest Proposal." Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 15 no 28 2002 pp. 37-59. See my earlier brief comment on Keathley's interaction with TRSBU.
Free Justification: A Hill to Die On by Steve Fernandez. I have previously commented on this booklet, which was originally intended to be the first chapter of a book. Fernandez not only fails to understand The Race Set Before Us, he resorts to deceptive quoting that makes it appear that we argue for ideas that we actually repudiate. I may re-post my response to Fernandez.
I am not sure whether I should post it again because it strikes me as so unseemly to have to expose the serious failings of a pastor to be accurate, truthful, and judicious in his handling of The Race Set Before Us. It feels unseemly and cheap, not simply to defend our ideas, but to expose a completely fallacious assault by a man who read the book with jaundiced eyes and heart. Pointing out the faults of another, even if that one has published his own wrong and defective indictment of our beliefs, seems unsavory and offensive. I have a fairly deep sense of what Paul experienced and the turmoil he underwent as he expresses it in 2 Corinthians 11. It is akin to the twin proverbs:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes (Proverbs 26:5-6).
A few things in the review prompt me to smile. One of those is the attempt to do source criticism, venturing who wrote which chapters. It seems that Tom and I must have done a fairly good job veiling who wrote each chapter.
My thesis is that in the letters of Paul and in much of the literature of Judaism from the Greek and Early Roman periods, a post-mortem or Last Judgment of God determines an individual's eternal destiny. Moreover, both corpora agree that an individual's behavior is rewarded with eternal life, bad behavior with damnation. Paul agrees with a significant number of his Jewish contemporaries on the subject. This book also examines the notion of divine recompense within the framework of God's grace and mercy as understood in early post-biblical Jewish texts and in Paul's letters. God's grace and mercy may be present throughout a person's life, working on his or her behalf; but one's deeds determine approbation at the final judgment. On this subject, I find no difference between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries (p. 15).
The first half of Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (chapters 1 & 2) focuses upon extrabiblical or post-Old Testament Jewish literature but with commentary on numerous Old Testament passages as they are raised by Jewish extrabiblical literature. The first two chapters are "Election, Covenant, and God's Grace as They Relate to Obedience in Post-Biblical Judaism" and "The Last Judgment According to Deeds and Its Relationship to God's Grace, Mercy, and Covenant with Abraham." Chapters 3 & 4 focus upon letters from the apostle Paul respectively, "Behavior, The Last Judgment, and Eternal Destiny in the Pauline Epistles," and "'Justification by Faith'--A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept."
By the time one reads the first two chapters one gains considerable insight into the trajectory of thought that VanLandingham will have when he discusses the apostle Paul's letters in chapters 3 & 4. The author projects his observations and conclusions the following way.
In early post-biclical Judaism, it is axiomatic that God renders judgment to each according to his or her deeds. Likewise, in this chapter, I argue that Paul believes that dees not only affect one's eternal destiny, but form the ultimate criterion for determining one's eternal destiny at the Last Judgment. The specific deeds proscribed, permitted, or even required may differ, as they do, for example, in the Qumran texts and Sirach; but the idea remains the same: obedience matters to God and forms the basis for final acceptance with God, despite disagreements over what exactly God requires. Regardless of one's divine requital, whether eternal life or damnation, one's behavior determines the outcome (p. 175).
Indeed, it is clear from Paul and from all the other New Testament writers that judgment will be according to our deeds and that deeds are consequential with regard to our salvation in the Last Day. However, the direction VanLandingham takes the discussion poses enormous dissonance with the Protestant and Evangelical faith. He is aware of this, for he acknowledges
Of course, once cannot make any arguments about judgment by deeds in Paul without considering and ultimately reconciling them with the notion of "justification by faith." Since Martin Luther, the Pauline doctrine of "justification by faith" has had a direct bearing on the interpretation of the Last Judgment in Paul. . . . Widespread, though not unanimous, support persists for the view that justification refers to an acquittal at the Last Judgment that is pronounced proleptically at the time of faith in Christ. Such an understanding cannot be sustained if at the Last Judgment God recompenses each one's eternal destiny according to behavior. In the pursuit of this overall thesis, a number of sub-arguments are necessary for correcting certain readings of Paul that force judgment passages to conform with the doctrine of justification by faith. The notion of justification by faith must be understood in light of the judgment passages (pp. 175-176).
Following are VanLandingham's itemized sub-arguments.
One of Paul's primary concerns for his converts pertains to their moral state, particularly at the time of the judgment. Paul endeavors to make the Gentiles acceptable to God, in part by bringing their behavior into conformity with what God requires. What is at issue "before God" at the judgment is one's moral state--in the end one's moral state makes one "acceptable" to God.
Justice at the Last Judgment is retributive and, consequentially, eternal life and damnation are given respectively to those who are deserving. Eternal destiny is the primary issue at the Last Judgment. One's eternal destiny has not been determined beforehand, such as at the time of faith in Christ. Specifically, if justification by faith refers to an acquittal at the Last Judgment, which one receives proleptically at the time of faith in Christ, then one should expect some hint of this idea in the Pauline judgment passages. This idea, however, remains absent in those very judgment passages where this notion of justification by faith should have some imprint (based on the forensic interpretation of the dikai- group of terms).
The Last Judgment includes a possibility that God might reject believers on the basis of their moral failure. Paul does not state directly, or even imply that one cannot forfeit "salvation" regardless of one's behavior.
All this raises many questions, but one question leaps to the foreground. If entrance into eternal life will be on the basis of our deeds, as Chris VanLandingham contends, then for what purpose did Jesus Christ offer himself as a sacrifice for our sins? One will read page after page without finding the answer to this question. Nevertheless, while reading, the answer begins to dawn upon the reader. An explanation begins to take some anticipated shape, but the anticipated explantion for why Christ died may prompt the reader to adopt a Macaulay Culkin pose, expressing some measure of astonishment. Why did Jesus Christ give his life as a sacrifice for sin, according to VanLandingham?
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul presents the solution to the problem besetting human existence. Indeed, the solution lies within the message of his gospel that God has sent his son Jesus, who in turn "gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age" ([Galatians] 1:4). The problem this solution addresses is less easy to identify, but apparently it either refers to "the present evil age" in which both Jews and Gentiles find themselves enslaved to malevolent, personal forces (4:3, 8-9) or refers to "our sins," which notes the process by which humanity is enslaved to these malevolent, personal forces. Both were perceived as major problems in the ancient world. Portions of the Hebrew Bible and a great number of post-biblical Jewish texts indicate that sin is endemic to Jews and Gentiles alike. . . . A thread runs through the Hebrew Bible--especially in Leviticus and Deateronomy, the historical books, and the Prophets--and in post-bibilical texts--many of the apocalypses, but also texts such as the Psalms of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and Josephus--that state that foreign hegemony results from the presence of national sin and God's punishment of Israel. Paul lived in such a time (p. 206).
Are you clasping your face yet? Wait, we have not yet arrived at the part that prompts the Macaulay Culkin pose.
Paul certainly believed that a connection existed between sin and these sinister, cosmic forces, a point central in understanding Paul's soteriology, that is, how one will escape God's coming wrath and live eternally. Paul says that Jesus gave himself up for our sins, that is, he sacrificed himself in order that . . . he might set us free or rescue us from the present evil age (1:4). By expiating a person's sins, the power that demonic forces have over that person is broken. Of course, an individual appropriates this forgiveness by faith (2:16), but as a result the believer is "made righteous" in the sense that the person no longer bears the guilt, stain, and akaqarsia of personal sins. The believer, now purified and fit for God's presence (cf. 1 Cor 3:17b; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1), receives the Spirit of God/Jesus ([Gal] 3:2, 14; cf. 2:20 and Rom 8:2-4). In turn, the Spirit of God/Jesus inspires the believer so that he or she now has the ability to produce the obedience that leads to eternal life (6:8-9; cf. Rom 8:4-13) (p. 207).
What begins to emerge from the pages of VanLandingham's book, then, is that Jesus Christ's sacrificial death is not the basis upon which God renders his Last Day judgment in advance upon the one who believes in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16), that which I believe that the apostle Paul calls "justification, acquittal, being set right with God." Instead, according to VanLandingham, Jesus Christ's sacrificial death constitutes us righteous now because it is a sacrifice for our sins past but does nothing to atone for sins that the believer may or will commit after one first believes in Jesus Christ. He explains,
Accordingly, God rectifies this situation [of human sinfulness and inability to obey God's requirements] by making it possible through Jesus' sacrificial death for humans to possess the Spirit that catalyzes the obedience necessary for divine approval. Why it takes Jesus' sacficial death so that humans possess the divine Spirit remains unclear (p. 210).
So, evidently, Jesus' sacrificial death brings forgiveness for past sins and puts us into a new position to have the capacity to obey God's requirements by virtue of possessing the Spirit. Now that we possess the Spirit, however, our final standing before the judgment throne of God will be, not on the basis of Christ's sacrificial death but on the basis of our deeds.
Being a recipient of God's kindness does not indicate whether one will be spared at the judgment: but how one responds to this kindness, which has repentance as its goal, provides evidence. Even the participant in God's covenant is not guaranteed deliverance at the judgment. God's kindness is available only before the judgment and is presently active in order to make a favorable judment possible. A favorable outcome at the judment, then, depends on whether one obeyed the covenant stipulations, not on God's kindness or mercy at that time; otherwise the judgment would not be impatial (p. 218).
This is where I will suspend these first considerations of Chris VanLandingham's book. It should become rather apparent that he has recast virtually every aspect of biblical theology concerning salvation to fit his grid that entails a number of theological assumptions and beliefs that he has embraced. I invite you readers to identify several of his theological assumptions and beliefs that govern the conclusions I have cited above.
(Note: Some are embracing VanLandingham's thesis. See here, for example.)
Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul by Chris VanLandingham Hendrickson Publishers
Is salvation a gift of God's grace or something God’s followers must earn by good works? How do we reconcile the two emphases that salvation is a bestowal of God’s mercy and that the final judgment will involve an assessment of the way people have lived during their time on earth?
In Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), E. P. Sanders defined the terms and laid the groundwork for this crucial debate. Sanders’s “New Perspective” sought to resolve the tension between grace and good deeds by arguing that for the Jews of Paul's day as well as for Paul himself, entrance into God's saving covenant was a gift of God's grace while remaining in the covenant required good works done in obedience to God.
Sanders’s most vigorous opponents have disputed the works side of his formulation, taking issue with his contention that obedience is required to retain right standing in God's covenant. In Judgment and Justification, Chris VanLandingham challenges the grace side of the Sanders thesis, arguing that Paul’s teaching on salvation, following the prevailing Jewish thinking of his time, establishes good works as the criterion for salvation at the final judgment.
In making his case, VanLandingham does a careful, text-by-text survey of early Jewish literature, interacting with a wide range of biblical scholars who deal with the themes of salvation and judgment found in these texts and in the Pauline writings. VanLandingham wraps up this survey with a challenging reassessment of Paul's teaching in the light of the Jewish thinking of his time.
Judgment and Justification offers an incisive new look at the Jewish context for our understanding of Paul's teaching. Scholars on all sides of the ongoing debate will benefit by interacting with the texts presented and the provocative arguments the author draws from them.
“With Judgment and Justification Chris VanLandingham enters the fray that is the study of the Apostle Paul against his Jewish backdrop. But rather than simply logging another entry into the catalog of oft-repeated and well-worn arguments, VanLandingham proffers a thesis sure to challenge the positions of all parties in the debate. To those who have followed and advanced the “New Perspective” on Paul first put forth by E. P. Sanders, VanLandingham marshals an impressive array of evidence culled from Jewish sources to argue that the mainstream Judaism of Paul’s day was indeed a religion that urged good works as the path to God’s favor. He radically reinterprets the doctrine of “justification by faith” by arguing that Paul himself fits well into the mold of contemporary Judaism by teaching that those who have experienced forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ must themselves produce a life of good deeds to secure a favorable judgment in the end. Not only will the arguments of this book change the landscape of Pauline studies, but they should also be heard as a contributing voice to Christian theology. This book is not just an engaging piece of scholarship; it will prove to be one of those rare scholarly works that challenge the convictions of those who read it.” —Jeffrey S. Lamp, Associate Professor of New Testament, Oral Roberts University
“Chris VanLandingham’s stunningly provocative and well-argued thesis demands careful engagement. E. P. Sanders was simply wrong as were those who built uncritically on his foundation. Election in Second Temple Judaism was a reward for obedience. Salvation was earned as quid pro quo. The Apostle Paul, for his part, agreed with his Second Temple peers and encouraged his hearers to accrue the good works necessary for the reward of eternal life. Justification (by faith), never employed in forensic contexts, has been almost completely misconstrued. VanLandingham calls for a complete overhaul in our understanding of both Second Temple Judaism and Paul. The theological implications would be breathtaking.” —A. Andrew Das, Niebuhr Distinguished Chair and Associate Professor of Theology and Religion, Elmhurst College
Author Bio Chris VanLandingham earned his Ph.D. in Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman World from the University of Iowa under the supervision of Dr. George Nickelsburg. He has served as an Assistant Professor of Ancient History at Oral Roberts University and as an Adjunct Professor of Ancient History at St. Gregory's University, both in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
(2008): 399-401.
. By Alan P. Stanley. Volume 4, The Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series. Edited by David W. Baker. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2006. 415 pp. $42.00.
on the 