Paul among the Evangelicals, §4: Barth on Rom. 5 (4.1.1)

4.1.1. The faithfulness of God

Barth shifts the center of gravity in justification from individual, subjective faith to the faithfulness of God in Jesus Christ. This is a shift from a direct vision or apprehension of revelation to an indirect vision: “in Jesus revelation is a paradox, however objective and universal it may be.”[39] Regardless of its universal dimension, revelation (as reconciliation) is always a dialectical event that occurs in the “critical ‘Moment’”[40]; it never becomes a “thing” that one may possess (“I have the promise of salvation”) or a predicate that can be attached to a name (“John is justified”), without involving its dialectical opposite. Barth shifts faith from a direct relation to God to an indirect relation, from a direct and unqualified notion of salvation to an indirect and paradoxical salvation. He is motivated in this by the concern of undermining any grounds for spiritual pride. That we are “saved” is a notion that opens the door to religious self-justification; it becomes the basis for the most insidious form of sin: the sin of believing one to be in the right with God while others are in the wrong. Barth does not deny that reconciliation has occurred in Jesus Christ; he merely argues that this “is not, and never will be, a self-evident truth . . . because it is a matter neither of historical nor of psychological experience, and because it is neither a cosmic happening within the natural order, nor even the most supreme event of our imaginings.”[41]

The effect of Barth’s radical move is that evangelicals are wrong insofar as they insist on turning faith into a subjective reality, something that humans do in order to procure divine justification. Barth argues that this is simply a pious form of self-justification. Faith is indeed “the radically new disposition” of the human person “naked before God,” but Barth is keen to add: “Faith is the faithfulness of God.”[42] Consequently, “faith is not a foundation upon which men can emplace themselves”; it is not a solid basis upon which humans can move beyond the crisis of their condemnation and into the safety of religion.[43] By defining faith as a divine reality, Barth has denied faith as a possibility latent within humanity as such. Faith is, instead, “the absolute Miracle,” because “it is defined by God” alone.[44] On this point, as a Reformed theologian, Barth stands resolutely against certain strands of contemporary evangelicalism which share more with Schleiermacher in terms of the efficacy and centrality of human faith in Christ.

For the outline of the complete series, click here.
________________________

39. Barth, Romans, 97-98.
40. Ibid., 165.
41. Ibid., 98.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 110.
44. Ibid., 145.

Witnessing to peace in the midst of tragedy

Today’s New York Times contains a story about a peace-advocating Methodist church in Connecticut trying to deal with the murder of a mother and two daughters who were active in the church. The church’s consistent stand against the death penalty places them in a very difficult position. On the one hand, this situation presents the perfect opportunity to put Christ’s command to “love your enemies as yourselves” into practice. On the other hand, no one wants to turn the tragedy of a person close to the community into a political rally cry.

Complicating this matter further is the possibility that some in the church are changing their minds about capital punishment because of this experience. But that only exposes the fact that their conception of peace is born within a bourgeois framework of personal comfort. To speak out against the violent systems of evil in our world is no more challenging for some people than dropping dimes in a Red Cross bucket. That is why this situation is so interesting. Can a church that has denounced capital punishment and the use of retributive violence witness to this gospel of peace in the midst of tragedy?

For those of us who are not part of this church, how do you think your own local congregations would respond to a situation like this? Would the church cry out for punishment? Would people stay silent in order to respect those left behind? When is it appropriate to speak out publicly? How do you witness to peace in the midst of tragedy?

Ben Witherington III on Scripture

Michael Bird of Euangelion recently posted an interview he did with Ben Witherington III. The interview focuses on Witherington’s forthcoming commentary on 1-2 Peter, but along the way they discuss the doctrine of inerrancy–a doctrine in which I have shown some interest in the past. Here is the part of the interview that interests me:

3. What do you make of terms such as “inerrant” and “infallible”?

The terms inerrant and infallible are modern ways of attempting to make clear that the Bible tells the truth about whatever it intends to teach us about. I much prefer the positive terms truthful and trustworthy. When you start defining something negatively (saying what it is not) then you often die the death of a thousand qualifications, not to mention you have to define what constitutes an error. I am happy to say that the Bible has three main subjects–history, theology, and ethics, and that it tells us the truth about all three.

I certainly appreciate his attempt to substitute a positive definition of Scripture (true and trustworthy) for a negative one (inerrant and infallible). But I am uncomfortable with his final definition of the Bible’s truthfulness: “the Bible has three main subjects–history, theology, and ethics, and that it tells us the truth about all three.” I offer the following five theses in rejection of Witherington’s statement:

1. Witherington’s definition identifies the subject of the Bible to be an object of study (history, theology, ethics) rather than a personal God whom we worship. This is an inherently and restrictively modern notion.

2. Witherington’s definition undermines the unity and coherency of Scripture by identifying three subjects rather than one. When we focus on the God attested to in Holy Scripture rather than the various human subject matters, the biblical text is unified as a coherent dramatic narrative arising out of and witnessing to the triune economy of grace.

3. Witherington’s definition buys into the modern academic division between history, theology, and ethics, which is simply untenable in relation to the biblical text. In Holy Scripture, history = theology = ethics. We might make certain distinctions here and there, but a rigid division like this is a modern imposition upon the text unknown to the early church and to most of the Christian tradition.

4. The Bible does not tell the truth “about” something. This again buys into the modern view of the Bible as a kind of ancient textbook which tells us about some thing. But Scripture does not speak about; it simply speaks. Holy Scripture is a text of proclamation. It is the written Word of God—not a word about something, but a word of someone and to someone.

5. Finally, the truthfulness of the Bible is not a property residing in or belonging to the text itself; rather, the Bible is true by virtue of the Spirit who shaped its composition in the past and shapes our reading of the text today. The truthfulness of the Bible is only guaranteed because the Spirit of truth actualizes the truthfulness of the text. To put it simply, I suggest that John 16:13 should be a central verse in our bibliology: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”

2008 Trinity Blogging Summit

Nick Norelli is hosting the 2008 Trinity Blogging Summit in an attempt to take a close look at the doctrine of the Trinity from different perspectives. He is looking for people who might be interested in submitting posts that look at the doctrine from a variety of angles—whether historical, dogmatic, or exegetical. Right now, the summit is still in an exploratory stage to see what kind of interest there might be. If you want to get involved, check out the post here.

Paul among the Evangelicals: Update

I have, for some reason, forgotten to finish my series on Romans, evangelicals, Barth, and universalism. I will try to post the rest of the series over the next couple weeks. For those who are not familiar with these posts, the series is adapted from a paper I wrote on how evangelicals and Barth read Rom. 5:12-21. These verses are viewed as one of the central passages in favor of a Christian universalism. In this paper, I examine the arguments of evangelical universalists and non-universalists regarding Rom. 5, and then I look at Barth to see how his interpretation of Romans squares with the evangelical arguments. Here is the outline of the series with links to the posts published thus far.

Paul Among the Evangelicals: Outline of Posts

§1. The Problem: Rom. 5:12-21

§2. The Context of Rom. 5:12-21

§3. The Argument over Universalism in Rom. 5:12-21

§3.1. A Typology of Universalisms

§3.2. The Arguments for and against Universalism

§3.2.1. Does Paul Really Mean “All”?

§3.2.2. Possibility and Actuality

§4. Karl Barth on Rom. 5:12-21

§4.1. Barth’s Rejection of the Evangelical Arguments

§4.1.1. The Faithfulness of God

§4.1.2. Universal Rejection as Universal Salvation

§4.2. Barth’s Partial Affirmation of the Evangelical Position

§4.3. Barth’s Contribution to the Evangelical Debate

§5. Conclusion: Paul Among the Evangelicals?

Orthodox Presbyterian Church on justification

If you are really interested in federal or covenant theology or need to read everything on the doctrine of justification or are simply a glutton for punishment, then you are in luck! The Orthodox Presbyterian Church—a product of the fundamentalism/modernism split in the Presbyterian Church in the 1920s—has made its lengthy report on the doctrine of justification available online in .pdf format.

Here is the outline of the OPC document:

PREFACE
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

A. The Nature of Justification
B. Perfect Obedience to the Law
C. The Inability of Sinners to be Justified by Works
D. The Perfect Obedience of Christ
E. The Imputation of Christ’s Obedience to Believers
F. By Faith Alone
G. Justification and Sanctification
II. JUSTIFICATION IN THE ECUMENICAL CONTEXT

A. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)
B. The Gift of Salvation (GS)
III. THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL

A. Introduction
B. Development of the NPP
C. Major Elements of Consideration
D. Critique of the NPP on Matters of Definition
E. Critique of the NPP and Its Doctrine of Justification
F. Conclusion
G. Suggested Reading
IV. FEDERAL VISION

A. Introduction
B. The Rise of the FV
C. The Background to the FV
D. General Positive and Negative Contributions of the FV
E. Prolegomena and Doctrine of Scripture
F. Theology Proper
G. Anthropology
H. Christology and the Accomplishment of Redemption
I. The Holy Spirit and the Application of Redemption
J. Ecclesiology
K. Eschatology
L. Concluding Remarks
M. Suggested Reading
V. SUMMARIES

A. General Summary
B. NPP Summary
C. FV Summary
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

The cardinal sin of the academic

I like to think of myself as a world-class literary faker. In second grade, in order to win some kind of certificate, I let everyone believe I had reached the end of an epic novel called The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet, when in fact its heroes had barely even met their first sentient fungi. I solidified this reputation one day in high-school English class, when, in answer to our teacher’s impossible question about an Ibsen play we hadn’t been assigned to read, I shouted, in a voice of casual authority, “Ghosts!” When this turned out to be correct (I had picked a random title from the list on the back cover of A Doll’s House), my classmates looked at me as if I’d spoken the secret of the universe, and they assumed I was fluent in Norwegian, and started whispering when I passed in the hall. A decade of college and grad school—boot camps of strategic fakery—immeasurably deepened my arsenal: Today I’m proficient in such feints as the stretched truth (“It’s funny, I’ve never actually finished that,” I’ll volunteer about War and Peace, of which I’ve read only the first paragraph), the misdirection (“Have you read Gravity’s Rainbow?” “You know what’s always bothered me about Pynchon?”), and, on very rare occasions, the enthusiastic flat-out lie (“Did you finish Brideshead Revisited?” “Yes! Yes, I really did!”). My signature move is a mildly orgasmic “Mmmmm,” which manages to suggest several things simultaneously: agreement, disagreement, ambivalence, and above all that my familiarity with the book in question is so deep it’s become muscular and sub-verbal, less a literary opinion than the visceral appreciation of a jaguar for the dawn.

—Sam Anderson, Review of How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read