The difference matters--a lot

I believe that that the sine qua non of evangelicalism is not inerrancy or disputed aspects of soteriology, but rather, how one defines and expresses the evangel. Likewise, I believe in the reformation but I have to admit that Rom. 10.9-10 offers a definition of a Christian that is broader than the reformed confessions. My former Systematic Theology lecturer, James Gibson, taught a generation of ministry students that the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist is that evangelicals are more excited in telling you what they are for, while fundamentalists are more excited in telling you what they are against. I know what I am for, I think I know what Wright is for, and it seems to me that we are for the same thing: the advance of the kingdom of God in this postmodern world. My own sentiment is that if some bastions of evangelicalism are to prevent a slide into a quasi-fundamentalism then they need to strike a delicate balance between maintaining theological purity and a commitment to inclusiveness among those who believe the same gospel and share in the same basic theological fabric. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 193

<idle musing>
That's the final excerpt. I fitting conclusion, I would say. The difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is eliding; many don't see any difference. I no longer can self-identify as evangelical—unless you qualify it so much as to be meaningless. As long as the heresy-hunters are allowed to dominate the conversation—and I would argue they have ever since Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible—there will be a continued slide toward fundamentalism.
</idle musing>

What flows from what?

Justification is based on the work of Christ in his redemptive death and sharing in the vindication of his resurrection. Justification is not the result of the empowerment of the Spirit in the life of the believer. That does not require one to divorce believing from doing as works demonstrate the integrity of the faith that we profess. Ultimately, obedience and faithfulness are functions of believing in Christ and flow from the work of Christ operating in the believer through the Spirit. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 183

<idle musing>
In other words, justification is the gift, our life is the outflowing of the Spirit as a result of that gift...
</idle musing>

How scriptural is it?

“...there is no text that explicitly says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. That does not make imputation entirely redundant as imputation constitutes a cogent (and perhaps necessary) theological explanation of the mechanism through which union communicates righteousness to the believer. Several texts speak of the non-accounting of sin (e.g. Rom. 4.8 and 2 Cor. 5.19), imputation is implicit in the representative roles of Adam and Christ, righteousness is a free gift, and the language of “reckoning” certainly moves in the direction of imputation. Nevertheless, to articulate righteousness as a status given by God wholly apart from union with Christ is to exchange Paul’s christocentric language of justification for an abstract theory based on computation.” —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 182

<idle musing>
Personally, I'll stick with Pauline language. The abstractness of imputation doesn't bring home the necessity of a changed life. I still say, no transformation, no salvation.
</idle musing>

Easy-believism

Likewise to insist that mere profession of faith irrespective of the character of one’s life and conduct is justifying is to engage in a kind of easy-believism, it runs foul of the warning of Jas. 2.14-26, and it denies the transforming power of the gospel. For Paul obedience is not a work in the sense that it makes a claim upon God (e.g. Rom. 4.4-5), but obedience is the tangible out working of faith. Faith and obedience are inseparable even if they are not completely identical. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 177

<idle musing >
As I say so often, no transformation, no Christianity
</idle musing >

Transformation is the goal

Romans 12–15 are, homiletically speaking, the most under preached passages in Evangelical churches. This is travesty since in these chapters we find manifold resources for living out the Christian faith in a polytheistic, pluralistic and pagan world not so different from our own postmodern setting. Paul is not interested in merely imparting copious amounts of theology to the congregation in Rome (an impression you could get if you finish reading Romans in chapter 11) but seeks transformed lives and changed behavior as the result of his epistle. Any theology of Paul that focuses solely on doctrine and does not address the kind of lives he aspired for his converts to live is deficient and defunct.  —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 151

<idle musing>
Amen! No transformation = no salvation. Jesus came to deliver us from sin—from sinning! That's a transformed life—and it is all by the power of God. All—and I do mean all—the glory goes to him because all the power comes from him through the Holy Spirit.
</idle musing>

Union with Christ means...

The exhortation to righteousness in Romans 6 is predicated on one crucial premise: the transforming power of the gospel and the new obedience created by union with Christ. Christ is the sphere of holiness, righteousness and redemption (cf. 1 Cor. 1.30) and believers are emancipated from the old age of sin and death and are uniquely empowered by baptism into Christ to live their lives in complete service to God. This thought is expressed most aptly as the indicative and imperative of Pauline ethics; because you have been united to Christ, you need not offer your body into the service of sin. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 147

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! If we are united with Christ—which we are—then we are free from the necessity of sin. Why don't we see more of it? Because a. we don't here it preached or taught and b. most people don't really believe it. After all, aren't we sinners? No! We are saints and the righteousness of Christ—at least that's what the scripture says. So, whom are you going to believe? Scripture or doctrine? Your call, but I'm going with scripture!
</idle musing>

Calvin and works

"We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith not works ... Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation in Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification."—John Calvin, cited by M. Bird in —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 111

Presuppositions

I am constantly made aware of my own prejudice of reading Paul and the New Testament via the grid of soteriological inquiry where I often assumed that the question underpinning every Pauline text was “what must I do to be saved?” A far better question to embed at the back of our minds as we read Paul (and indeed the entire New Testament) is this: who are the people of God and in what economy shall they be vindicated?—The Saving Righteousness of God,  page 109

More than forensic

Yet as soon as we acknowledge that union with Christ is forensic and issues forth in a transformed status such a bifurcation becomes a grossly inadequate generalization. Justification cannot be played off against union with Christ, since justification transpires in Christ. To be sure, union with Christ is not something that is entirely synonymous with justification. Yet neither is union with Christ an ancillary concept subsumed under justification or vice-versa. Rather, union with Christ comprises Paul’s prime way of talking about the reception of the believer’s new status through incorporation into the risen Christ by faith.—The Saving Righteousness of God, page 86

<idle musing>
Say what? What he is saying here is that union with Christ is greater than justification; it includes justification, but goes beyond it...
</idle musing>

Incorporated righteousness

...the notion of imputation fails to grapple with Paul’s in-Christ language that gravitates more towards the concepts of incorporation, substitution and representation. Given the supremely christocentric ingredient in Paul’s formulation of justification it is far more appropriate to speak of incorporated righteousness for the righteousness that clothes believers is not that which is somehow abstracted from Christ and projected onto them, but is located exclusively in Christ as the glorified incarnation of God’s righteousness. In my judgment this term represents a reasonable description of what is happening at the exegetical level in the Pauline corpus regarding how the believer attains the righteousness of Christ.—The Saving Righteousness of God, page 85

<idle musing>
I like that, incorporated righteousness. Has a nice sound to it—and is theologically sound, as well.
</idle musing>

Short circuit!

Evidently, becoming God’s righteousness is tied to union with Christ, not imputation. For Paul, being “in Christ” means identifying with Christ’s death and resurrection where union with him is sphere or realm of justification. Far from being “vague” the righteous status believers possess derives from union with the “Righteous One” (Acts 3.14; 7.52; 22.14; 1 Jn 2.1), who is also the very locus of righteousness (1 Cor. 1.30) and was justified upon his exaltation into glory (1 Tim. 3.16). To resort to imputation at this stage is to skip an important element. Isaiah 53 should provide our paradigm as Paul perceives justification as occurring in the one whom God has justified. Justification ensues because believers are now identified with the crucified, risen and vindicated Christ and, furthermore, believers participate in that vindication. Thus, whether it is reconciliation, justification or new creation – all are “in him”. —The Saving Righteousness of God, pages 84-85

<idle musing>
We need to re-examine our methodology. Do we interpret scripture by our theological presuppositions? Or do we let the scripture speak—even if it means we let go of our sacred cows...imputation is one of those...
</idle musing>

Whence comes holiness?

The possibility of holiness in a corrupt and perverse world derives exclusively from union with the one who himself was fully righteous and empowers others with righteousness. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 80

<idle musing>
Exactly! It isn't in ourselves; we can never make ourselves holy. But, because it is "in Christ," there is no reason we can't be holy! I'm liking this book...
</idle musing>

What is the gospel?

To equate the gospel as consisting of the doctrine of imputed righteousness makes about as much sense as saying that the gospel is the pretribulation rapture. Furthermore, if we look at the most concise summaries of the gospel in the New Testament (e.g. Rom. 1.3-4, 1 Cor. 15.3-8; 2 Tim. 2.8) justification language is entirely absent. The gospel should be more properly related to the kingdom of God and the righteousness of God revealed in the death and resurrection of Christ. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 69

<idle musing>
Ah, but some do. Indeed, some would say that both are the gospel...
</idle musing>

The litmus test

To use reformation theology as a litmus test for theological accuracy represents a departure from the Reformers themselves and places them upon a pedestal which they would not otherwise care to sit on. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 68

<idle musing>
And this is from a Reformed scholar! Would that some of the more toxic Reformed theologians would heed his advice! The only standard that should be final is the scriptures themselves, interpreted through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and weighed in the balance of 2000 years of theological insight. But, scripture is primary.
</idle musing>

One thing

The Protestant tendency to view salvation in terms of a series of consecutive ideas (justification, sanctification, glorification) fails to grapple with Paul’s conception of justification as a comprehensive and holistic term relating to redemption, forgiveness of sins, peace, resurrection and the gift of the Spirit. Thus justification is not merely the erasure of our failure supplemented by an alien righteousness, but emerges as the supreme act of God in Christ for our salvation. Furthermore, its christocentric dimension means that the imperatives of continuing love, faith and obedience are never isolated from justification itself. —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 66

They go together

Jesus’ death and resurrection should be regarded as being inseparably part of the one redemptive event. The cross without the resurrection is sheer martyrdom, an act of solidarity with the persecuted nation. Conversely, the resurrection without the cross is a miraculous intrusion into history and a salvation-historical enigma. Together they constitute the fulcrum of God’s righteousness in handing over Jesus to the cross and raising him for our justification. This highlights that the justifying death of Christ is not efficacious without the resurrection. —The Saving Righteousness of God, pages 57-58

<idle musing>
How can we separate them? Yet, we tend to emphasize one at the expense of the other; some emphasize the cross to the point of depression, while others would prefer the cross never happened. Either one is a mockery of the gospel.
</idle musing>

Union with Christ

...union with Christ is union with the justified Messiah and the now Righteous One. Jesus by fact of his resurrection is the locus of righteousness and redemption (cf. 1 Cor. 1.30; 2 Cor. 5.21; Eph. 1.17) and believers are justified only because they have been united with the justified Messiah. Whereas believers formerly shared the verdict of condemnation pronounced on Adam, now they partake of the verdict of justification pronounced of Christ. The believer passes through the eschatological judgment by virtue of their association with Christ in his death and is co- quickened into the eschatological life through his resurrection. The union is symbolized through baptism but the conduit is, as always for Paul, through faith (cf. Gal. 3.26-27; Col. 2.12; Eph. 3.17). It is union with Christ in his death and resurrection that constitutes the material cause of justification.—The Saving Righteousness of God, page 56

<idle musing>
I've heard it said that if you take the phrase "in Christ" out of Paul's letters you end up with morality. In Christ is central to Paul—and the resurrection is central to being in Christ!
</idle musing>

It sure is!

There can be little doubt that the resurrection vindicates the message, person and death of Christ. The resurrection unambiguously announces the perfect obedience of Christ to the Father, his declared sonship and affirms the reality of his death as a sacrifice for sins. Furthermore, it removes any misunderstanding of Jesus’ death solely in terms of a martyr theology. Despite this, in reading the Pauline epistles one is struck with the suspicion that the resurrection is far more intrinsic to justification than merely comprising an authentication that our justification has taken place at the cross.—The Saving Righteousness of God, page 42

<idle musing>
We sell the meaning—and power—so short. It is almost like a bookend; as Michael Bird says, we tend to think of it as a martyr theology. For Paul, it is far, far more than that. We need to reacquaint ourselves with what it means; hopefully the snippets from this book will help us...
</idle musing>