A Comparison of the Justification Theories - Research Paper Example

?A Comparison of the Justification Theories of J. Kenneth Grider and John Murray Chapter I: Introduction The theological views on justification1 and atonement2 comprise a major point of contention among subsequent scholars of the Reformation.3. The term “justification” means “to be found just or righteous before God;” it is a divine verdict of acquitting one from the charge of having sinned, and declaring that person “not guilty – fully righteous” before all, a full vindication. On the other hand, “atonement” pertains to “how Christ accomplishes our justification through his sacrifice on the cross.4 It is the doctrine of forgiveness, and describes how humans can be reconciled to God by the grace of the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ; atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theological views of Grider (a Wesleyan scholar) and Murray (a Calvinist scholar) on the subject of justification/atonement. The objective of the research is to deepen our understanding of the implications of both theories and to formulate a judgment about which of them would be more consistent with our personal interpretation of the Scriptural teachings. Comparisons shall be made to determine principles commonly held by the two schools of thought, as well as divergences in their teachings and the reasons thereof. Necessarily, the scriptural bases for the teachings shall be examined, as well as where the interpretations of these readings differ. There is a slight limitation to this study. Justification and atonement theories have developed through the years, from the Augustinian teachings to Martin Luther and subsequently to Wesley and Calvin. In order to focus the discussion, this historical development was not specifically addressed, except where the construction of text or comprehension of the tenets involves an inquiry into past developments or comparison of theological positions. The assumption is made that the readers are informed about the history and development of justification and atonement theology. Chapter II: J. Kenneth Grider and Wesleyan Justification Theology This chapter shall discuss the Wesleyan theology and Grider’s teachings on justification theology pursuant to Wesleyanism. Justification theology finds its relevance within the body of doctrines that comprise the Wesleyan theology, therefore and understanding of these doctrines should be established prior to understanding justification. Wesleyan Theology Wesleyanism is a movement founded on the teachings and doctrines of evangelical reformers, brothers John and Charles Wesley, and their contemporary coadjutors including John William Fletcher. The teachings are centered on the life of Christian holiness, which is to love God with all one’s heart, mind soul and strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Other important doctrines of Wesleyanism include Prevenient Grace, Governmental Atonement, and Imparted Righteousness, which contribute to the Wesleyan justification theology. The Doctrine of Prevenient Grace finds its roots in Augustinian theology. Prevenient grace refers to the divine grade that precedes and exists separate from anything that humans have done.5 Humans are born with prevenient grace, and when they fall to temptation and sin, it is prevenient grace which enables people to use their free will as given by God, in order to either accept or reject the salvation offered by God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Doctrine of Governmental Atonement teaches that the suffering and death of Jesus Christ was done for humanity, so the God could forgive them and simultaneously maintain divine justice.6 Christ’s sufferings and death were necessary to substitute the punishment that must be due the sinner; they atone for the sinner, so that in this manner it is possible for God to be just (that is, the deserved payment for humanity’s sins has been justly paid), even while he dispenses his divine mercy and forgives the sinner. Imparted Righteousness is the gift of God’s grace which is given at the time of birth, and which enables a person to seek holiness and sanctification even in the midst of temporal corruption. Imparted Righteousness works in tandem with Imputed Righteousness; the latter is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that was imputed or credited to the Christian for the latter to be justified. In this manner, man does not seek justification of his own power or acts, but justification still emanated from the grace of God. John Wesley taught that that there is an “order” of salvation. Original sin exists in humanity because of disobedience, and in order to be saved from original sin, humans must begin from justification, proceed to sanctification, and conclude in glorification. Justification, the first step to salvation, refers to the pardoning of our sin. It is possible, not by any human act, but only by an act of God through Jesus’ atoning blood. J. Kenneth Grider and Justification Theology J. Kenneth Grider (1921-2006) is a Nazarene theologian who taught in the tradition of the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. Best known for his book A Wesleyan-Holiness Theory, Grider taught for nearly four decades at the Nazarene Theological Seminary, and part of his achievements is that he was one of the translators of the New International Version of the Bible.7 According to Grider: Many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us….Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive those who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. The view is called the governmental theory of the atonement. In the objective theology of atonement, God becomes the object or target of reconciliation. This means that the suffering of Christ was intended to cause people to repent and believe, so that God would forgive them their sins. As Grider stated, Christ did not pay the penalty for the sins of mankind, but He did suffer for us, to teach us repentance and to believe. Wesleyan theology also teaches that sanctification is an integral part of justification, and that a believer must arrive at perfection (or a type of perfection) before salvation can be completed. Concerning the subject Romans 5-8 supports the Wesleyan position. Up until Romans 5:11, Paul discussed sin as guilt, but this changed from 5:12 to 8:10, where Paul dealt with sin as revolt. The sinfulness of man (5:12-21) is discussed in terms of crucifixion with Christ (chapter 6), death to the law (chapter 7), and life in the Spirit (chapter 8). Mankind stood under judgment through Adam (5:18), but the judgment was cancelled in Christ (8:1). The Significance of “Christ in us” “Christ in us” pertains to the transformative grace that dwells in us as a result of our faith, which manifests in what we do (acts). This means that unless Christ is in us and, which should be evident in our actions, then there is no real faith and no real salvation. There are numerous teachings in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, which support this belief. In the Old Testament, King Solomon stated: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14). In the New Testament, a passage reads: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every man may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10)..Christ himself taught of the importance of works when he declared, “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat…” (Matthew 25: 34-45). And: “that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the. day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12: 36-37). It is Christ himself who instructed: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew, 19: 17). “Christ in us” means that the good works performed by the faithful are not preconditions for justification, but rather effects that stand as proof or manifestations of internal transformation. There is nothing paradoxical about salvation by faith and judgment according to works. The two, sanctification and justification, pertain to different aspects of salvation, which refers to “the saving of people from sin.” Justification by faith, the “condition of salvation” (John 3: 16 and Acts 16:31), pertains to belief in Christ, and this is never explicitly defined in the Bible. On the other hand, judgment according to works seeks the obedience that is manifested in deed when one possesses the faith, and in the Bible these are described specifically in terms of deeds. “Biblical belief is not mere intellectual acknowledgment; it is the surrender of the heart and life to God’s transforming power, which is what the new birth and true obedience are all about.” Therefore, one cannot be truly saved if he continues to lead an immoral life, because the transforming power of true faith is not evident in his actions. Works becomes the evidence, not the standard or pre-requisite, by which salvation is bestowed as a gift. Salvation is not the wage or reward in exchange for leading a virtuous life. Salvation is the result of one’s faith, and good acts are but the effect of true faith. Where the evidence of faith does not exist in the manner people live their lives, then it is likely that there was no true faith to begin with. “Our salvation is not to be treated complacently, we are to live godly lives (2 Peter 3: 11-12) knowing what is coming on the world.” Chapter III: John Murray and Calvinist Justification Theology Calvinistic Theology is comprised of those doctrines and teachings which were taught by John Calvin, a Frenchman and contemporary of Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century. Calvinism attributes a very high regard for Holy Scripture, and grounds its theological doctrines solely on the Bible. At the core of Calvinism is the belief that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and for these reasons He is capable of all things. Calvinism believes in predestination, that there are those who are predestined to be saved and that Christ died only for them, and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.8 There are 5 crucial point upon which Calvinism is mainly based: these are the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited (or Particular) Atonement , Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Total Depravity means that sin affects all parts of man, and therefore man is completely sinful.9 Man’s fallen nature is therefore totally incapable of its own salvation, therefore salvation can come only from God. The choice to be saved is not for people to make, but it is God’s choice who He wishes to save. This is the basis for the second point, Unconditional Election. God’s choice of whom to save is not conditioned on any set of criteria within the individual, but His own unlimited choice.10 Nothing the individual does can earn him/her the right to be chosen for salvation The third point, Limited Atonement, follows Unconditional Election. While the sacrifice of Jesus is complete and sufficient in itself, it was not meant to be for all, but only those who are predestined to be chosen by God. The Biblical passages repeatedly state that Jesus died for many, not for all. Therefore, Jesus’ Atonement for the sins of humankind is limited as to the number of people it is efficacious for, but for these people the atonement is sufficient.11 The fourth point is Irresistible Grace, referring to God’s call to salvation for his elect, from which they cannot desist. God issues the call through the Holy Spirit who inspires the hearts and minds of the chosen ones to heed the call of God to repentance and regeneration. The Bible says: “It is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.” 12 The fifth and final point is that of Perseverance of the Saints. Those who have been redeemed, once so saved cannot any longer lose their salvation. The “saints” in this point are the elect, those who have been chosen to be saved and whose status is secure. The will of God is sovereign and cannot be frustrated.13 John Murray and the basis of ‘Christ for Us’ John Murray (1898-1975) is a Calvinist theologian who was born in Scotland, served in the British Army during the First World War, studied at Princeton Theological Seminary where he also taught for a year, then lectured on systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1930 to 1966. Murray’s Calvinist teaching on justification by faith alone is at the center of the subjective theology: Therefore we must now discuss these matters thoroughly. And we must so discuss them as to bear in mind that this is the main hinge (the doctrine of justification by faith) on which religion turns, so that we devote the greater attention and care to it. For unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.14 Among Murray’s written works is his instructive discussion of The Atonement, which he calls “the substitutionary work of Christ,” that is, the extent to which Christ takes on the sins of the world and atones for these sins with His own self-sacrifice. From the outset, Murray underscores the fact that ‘atonement is the provision of the divine love’15 and that without this recognition, the whole importance of the Atonement is lost. Christ’s atoning work as evidenced in the bible is categorized by Murray into four: (1) Sacrifice – The work of Christ is described by Murray as expiatory with a transcendent virtue, efficacy and perfection. The concept of the suffering and death of Christ as sacrifice proceeds directly from the Old Testament when bulls and goats were sacrificed as acts of atonement. Then, the worshipper brought his petition to the altar and substituted an animal in his place, when the laying of hands transferred the offerer’s sin and his liability to the animal, which is then slaughtered. So too does Christ, as sacrifice take upon himself the sins of the unworthy, and by His death perfected them.16 (2) Propitiation – Loosely translated as ‘appeasement,’ propitiation as related to Calvary is again a drawback to the Old Testament when it meant ‘to cover’, i.e. (a) that which will be covered is related to sin; (b) the result of ‘covering’ is forgiveness and cleansing; and (c) the covering and its result both takes place before the Lord. Propitiation presupposed God’s wrath and displeasure, and the propitiation of Christ appeases the wrath of God, and renders God propitious to his people. (3) Reconciliation – While propitiation focuses on God’s wrath, reconciliation focuses on enmity and alienation from God and seeks to restore favor with Him. Unlike the Old Testament when the offerer seeks to be reconciled to God, in the New Testament the sense is very different, in that God, by the death of his Son, seeks to reconcile us to Himself. This is essentially substantive reconciliation, where reconciliation is not in terms of the removal of enmity between God and men, but the dynamic change in God’s economy of grace.17 (4) Redemption – This is not merely equivalent to the layman’s notion of deliverance. ‘The language of redemption is the language of purchase and more specifically of ransom.”18 It is evident from the Bible passages that support this that: (a) the work Christ came into the world to accomplish is one of ransom; (2) the ransom price was the giving of life; and (c) the ransom was substitutionary in nature.19 When one speaks of ransom, there is necessarily a hostage who is in bondage or captivity. Christ’s act of redemption is thus to ransom men from their bondage to or captivity in sin.20 The significance of “Christ for us” Christ “for us” refers to the doctrine that as long as an individual has faith in Christ and what he has done for us, then he is saved. “Christ for us” refers to the atonement of Christ for our sake, and that our salvation was solely attained through this act, for as long as we have faith. It is the cornerstone of Adventist faith that justification is by faith alone. We are saved by the work of Christ for us (Titus 3:5). This is founded on the teaching that our salvation has been purchased by the blood of Christ. Therefore, our salvation is complete and perfected with the death of Christ and his subsequent resurrection, and there is nothing else that needs to be added. On this matter, there is no quarrel, and it is agreed by all that one of the hallmarks of Christianity is belief in salvation by the blood of Christ. It therefore cannot be said that works, not even works of righteousness, can earn salvation because were this true, then faith alone cannot justify salvation, and it is not Christ’s blood but our own acts which saves us. This contradicts the core teaching of Christian faith. This is also the crux of the allegations against Adventists because of the latter’s emphasis on good works. Critics of Adventism, state that [Adventists] have a hopeless mixing up of Law and Gospel affirming that the Gospel way of salvation is completely wiped out… These critics often state that by equating the way we conduct our lives – that is, our works – with the justification for our salvation, the Adventist teaching is no longer Sola fide or salvation only by faith, but by works. In this sense they affirm that in doing so, “Christ for us is forgotten, and Christ in us is emphasized. With the power of Christ in us we are able to live a life of ‘genuine goodness’ and thus merit salvation for ourselves. Therefore, these critics seem to confuse the twin concepts of salvation by faith and judgment according to works. There are sufficient biblical passages to prove that these two concepts not only do not contradict each other, each existing to the exclusion of the other, but they actually complement each other within the framework of biblical teaching. The dilemma in this is that if one is saved by professing his belief in Christ, then that person is actually saved by his own act (man’s works), and not the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice. This goes against the principle of sola fide, or justification by faith alone. John Murray writes: This truth that God justifies needs to be underlined. We do not justify ourselves. Justification is not our apology nor is it the effect in us of a process of self-excusation. It is not even our confession nor the good feeling that may be induced in us by confession. Justification is not any religious exercise in which we engage however noble and good that religious exercise may be. If we are to understand justification and appropriate its grace we must turn our thoughts to the action of God justifying the ungodly.21 Murray’s teaching is consistent with subjective atonement theology. Simply stated, under this theory, God is the subject of the reconciliation process: that is, God is the one who carries out the process of reconciliation in His infinite mercy. There is nothing that humans need to do in order to atone for their sins;22 it is God’s infinite mercy that has done it all. Chapter IV: Synthesis of the Calvinist and Wesleyan Theories The problem to be resolved is the comparison and reconciliation, if possible, of Wesleyan thought on justification theology as espoused by J. Kenneth Grider and the Calvinist position on the same topic as taught by John Murray. Both theories have their strong points as well as their inconsistencies, and both will need to be thoroughly defined and analyzed. The following are fundamental differences observed between the Grider-Wesleyan and Murray-Calvinistic teachings about Christ-for-us and Christ-in-us, redemption, atonement, and justification: (1) Both schools of thought believe that it is not man’s act, but God’s through Christ’s atonement, that justifies, and it is man’s faith in God that justifies him. They differ, however, in how to regard human acts. Grider’s teachings indicate that it is important for human acts to reflect the faith that is within, in order to be justified. In Murray’s teachings, there is nothing that man should do to justify himself, because the elect have been chosen by God not for any attribute or act they possess, but for the sole reason that he chooses to do so (i.e., Doctrine of Unconditional Election) (2) In the Grider-Wesleyan theory, Christ’s suffering was intended to cause people to repent and believe, so that God will forgive them their sins. Christ in us refers to the transformative grace Christ’s salvific sacrifice works in us to change us from within. Unless the inner change manifests in the form of acts, then there is no real faith and, therefore, no real salvation. Good works are evidence of faith, not preconditions to salvation. In the Murray-Calvinist theory, the Doctrine of Total Depravity states that sin affects all parts of men, so men are completely sinful and there is nothing within men that will be the source of his salvation. (3) In the Grider-Wesleyan concept of atonement, Christ’s suffering and death was necessary to atone for the sinner so that God’s forgiveness embodies both perfect justice and perfect mercy. Christ atones for the sins of the whole world, and it depends upon men with their prevenient grace to exercise their free will and choose to follow Christ towards salvation, or not. In the Murray-Calvinist theory, under Limited Atonement Christ’s sacrifice is not meant for all people, but only those whom God had predestined to be saved. He has chosen the elect of his own omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, and therefore He can do anything He wishes and need not have any reason to do it under the theory of Unconditional Election. Therefore, Christ’s act saves only those who are chosen, for whom it is impossible to refuse this grace under the theory of Irresistible Grace. There is a distinction between the objective work23 of Christ and the subjective24 work of Christ for our salvation. The objective work of Christ refers to the work Christ undertook on our behalf within the context of history (i.e., time and space). Christ’s work in this sense stands outside of us, and we are able to appreciate how God is at the center of our salvation.25 The subjective work of Christ, on the other hand, is done in us and to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. As a result, the faithful are called, leading to repentance and faith, sanctification, and finally assurance of salvation. Chapter V: Conclusion There are fundamental similarities and differences between the Grider-Wesleyan and the Murray-Calvinist schools in the area of justification, which treats on “Christ-in-Us” and “Christ-with-Us.” Both schools believe that there man attains salvation not by works, but by faith alone (sola fide). The act of redemption is perfected by the pure grace of God, and no act committed by man can earn redemption for himself. They differ, however, in that Calvinism professes Total Depravity, while Wesleyanism teaches Prevenient Grace and Imparted Righteousness, so the latter believes that faith is manifested in works, while in the former there is no role for goods works. Another major disagreement lies in the subjects of the act of Atonement. Both beliefs subscribe to the theory that Christ’s suffering and death were necessary for the salvation of men. They differ, however, in who among humankind the Atonement act was for. Grider-Wesleyanism taught that men exercised their own free will to make use of the Prevenient Grace given by God, while in Calvinism there is no recourse, only the elite chosen by God through Unconditional Election can be saved. There is, therefore, a fundamental doctrinal disagreement between the two which may not be resolved. Salvific grace can come only from God, not man’s deeds, but while ‘Christ-in-us’ allows for the workings of the saving grace within man, ‘Christ-for-us’ is premised on the sinfulness in every part of man, which necessitates that God select only those who, deservedly or not by man’s reason, in His wisdom should be saved. Bibliography Akin, D.L. A Theology for the Church. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group (2007) Bassett, Paul M. Tribute to J. Kenneth Grider. Wesleyan Theological Journal, vol. 34 (1999), no. 2, pp. 281-286 Bemmelen, P.M.van 2007 ‘Justification by Faith: An Adventist Understanding.’ Available at http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/World%20Evangelical/Bemmelen,%20Justification%20by%20faith.pdf Calvin, John Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:11:2. Collins, Kenneth. John Wesley on Salvation. Grand Rapids, FAP, Zondervan, 1989. Chap. 1, ‘Prevenient Grace and Human Sin.’ Crawford, Thomas Jackson The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement.. 1871, at p. 367. “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, 9. 2006 ‘Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ,’” in Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook, 2006 ([Silver Springs, Maryland:] The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, 2006), 5. Goldstein, C. 2003 Graffiti in the Holy of Holies. Pacific Press. Lebron, Robyn E.. Searching for Spiritual Unity…Can There Be Common Ground? (Bloomington, IN: Cross Books, 2012) p. 269 Matthew J. Slick, The Calvinist Corner, 2012. Available at: http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 118. Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI, 1955, pp. 19-50 Nervig, C B 1941 Christian Truth and Religious Delusions. O’Meara, Thomas Franklin. ‘Toward a Subjective Theology of Revelation.’ Retrieved http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/36/36.3/36.3.1.pdf Paulson, K 2012 ‘The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?” Available at http://myshasta.info/tempest/seventhunders/BibleRevelations/sanctuary_message/sanctuary_doctrine_part_2.htm Rassell, M 2012 Exploring the Heavenly Sanctuary: Understanding Seventh-Day Adventist Theology. Full text available at http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=JPpfw7h6_1cC&pg=PA5&dq=Sanctuary+doctrine+of+adventist&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BJOrUIv0C8jdigeb3IDYBg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Sanctuary%20doctrine%20of%20adventist&f=false Roger, Olson E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform.(Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 374.. Van Wyk, K 2009 ‘Adventist trends in Christ for us and Christ in us.’ Everlasting Gospel. Available at http://www.egw.org/zboard/vannote/61133 Whidden II, Woodrow The Judgment and Assurance: The Dynamics of Personal Salvation Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2012, 51. White, E G The Desire of Ages. Tellico Plains, TN: Digital Inspiration, 1898 Read More