Justification in the Early Church

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/….xiv.xviii.html

Here’s what Schaff has to say about the doctrine of justification in the early church:

The doctrine of the subjective appropriation of salvation, including faith, justification, and sanctification, was as yet far less perfectly formed than the objective dogmas; and in the nature of the case, must follow the latter. If any one expects to find in this period, or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, as the “articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae” be will be greatly disappointed. The incarnation of the Logos, his true divinity and true humanity, stand almost unmistakably in the foreground, as the fundamental truths. Paul’s doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. The fathers lay chief stress on sanctification and good works, and show the already existing germs of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the meritoriousness and even the supererogatory meritoriousness of Christian virtue. It was left to modern evangelical theology to develop more fully the doctrines of soteriology and subjective Christianity.

Does this mean the Roman Catholics are right in criticizing the Protestant understanding of justification by faith? Does this give fuel to the New Perspective people who redefine justification in their own, unique way?

John W. Robbins- The Justification Controversy

http://www.vincentcheung….on-controversy/

Previously I had erroneously attributed this blog entry to Vincent Cheung. Although it was published in Mr. Cheung’s blog, it was actually written by John W. Robbins- a fact I had completely overlooked. I hope Mr. Cheung will accept my apology for mis-characterizing him for saying things he never said.

In this blog, John Robbins attempts to explain that the current debate over the New Perspective on Paul has been going on longer than one might, at first, think. In fact, he ends up blaming Westminster Seminary as the cause of the current debate- specifically attributing it to the theological methodology of Cornelius Van Til.

I couldn’t resist responding to his blog entry (albeit a year old) because it touches on two of my favorite topics- justification and presuppositional apologetics. In fact, as a result, I will finally unveil my new blog category: apologetics.

Bonar’s The Everlasting Righteousness (Chapter 2)

http://www.jude3.net/ber2.htm

Reading the second chapter of Bonar’s brief book on forensic justification I can’t help but notice (again) how it offers a great critique on the New Perspective on Paul.

Bonar’s The Everlasting Righteousness (Chapter 1)

http://www.jude3.net/ber1.htm

Horatius Bonar predicted the current debate over the New Perspective when he said…

Yet the tendency of modern thought and modern theology is to refuse the judicial settlement of these questions, and to withdraw them from the courts into which God has introduced them. An extrajudicial adjustment is attempted; man declining to admit such a guilt as would bring him within the grasp of law, and refusing to acknowledge sin to be of such a nature as to require a criminal process in solemn court; yet admitting the necessity or desirableness of the removal of the sore evil under which humanity is felt to be labouring, and under which, if unremoved, it must ere long dissolve.

Justification and Atonement

http://www.jesuscreed.org/wp-trackback.php?p=890

Here’s a great blog about the recent debate on the New Perspective on Paul. It includes a review of the book, “Justification: What’s at Stake in the Debates?”

Was Wright Wrong or Just Wilson

http://www.dougwils.com/i…D=1&BlogID=1526

Here I am trying to write a productive blog about justification, and here come these people challenging what I have always understood the doctrine of justification to mean. So, of course, I have to take the time to investigate them.

I started with two books that briefly outline the New Perspective on Paul: one by Sanders and the other by Wright. Good summaries and challenging arguments, but at the end of the day I felt like they were still lacking a consistent view of the entire Scriptures.

But then one friend tells me that is not enough. Apparently there are some who have taken the New Perspective a little further than Sanders and Wright would have- and applied it specifically to Presbyterian theology. Now I have to consider their specific views.

What Saint Paul Really Said, N. T. Wright

http://www.amazon.com/exe…ce%26n%3D283155

In his book, What Saint Paul Really Said, N. T. Wright offers a challenging summary of current ways of understanding Paul in the New Testament. Although he talks about more than the debate on the New Perspective on Paul in this little book, Wright’s understanding of justification is the focus of this review.

Paul, E. P. Sanders

http://www.amazon.com/exe…ce%26n%3D283155

Well, here I am blogging about justification when someone had to burst my bubble. Apparently there is a debate about the doctrine of justification that I had no idea was going on. After justifying my ignorance of this debate I realized that I had some catching up to do- but where was I going to start?

I went to my local bible college’s library to see what they had on the topic. I, honestly, didn’t want to try and tackle the work that started the whole debate- Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism- so I resorted to a smaller (and more recent) book by Sanders simply titled, Paul. There are two justifications for this choice: it is better to read Sanders summarizing his own work than someone else and being a more recent publication I figured it would have given him more time to clarify his own ideas.