I will try to follow the index of posts to this point. First in a comment to a post where I ask:
Does inclusion into this covenant as radically re-instituted by Christ through the Cross require a public pledge or affirmation of allegiance? Or does the Cross have efficacy beyond the public recognition of people of its efficacy?
Michael Halcomb makes this statement:
What Jesus did and what we do must be wedded together otherwise salvation is simply salvation waiting to be grasped and lived out; in this case each person has not entered into right standing with God, it’s like it’s pending.
Clearly then, in order for the cross to have an effect one must receive it. On a subjective level, with this I agree. It is like love. One can tell you "I love you". But until one responds to that pronouncement with some kind of response, it simply has no effect on the person. Something is only truly a gift until it is received. This makes sense on the day-to-day contingent reality of being human.
However it is this idea where we get the idea of a "limited atonement". This creates two problems. Either salvation only has an effect in terms of our works in time and space. Or, it is something that we can only choose when and if God initiates the response in us. The first places the burden on human action, the second places it on the sole action of God. Catholicism tends towards the first while Calvinism tends towards the second. I would rather split the difference which I do below.
Halcomb also posts this response to McGrath here:
However, lest we get to the point where anything goes in Christianity, I am quite willing to say that there are things that do not go; I am quite willing to say that there are things that make Christianity distinct and that those things must be held on to. That is what the heart of this post is about!
The point here is that confession in Christ as Lord is that event in the believer that creates this necessary distinction from other kinds of belief. This is precisely what is constitutive of the community of believers called the church (note: Halcomb does not specifically argue for an ecclesiology here, and I am drawing this conclusion for where it seems to go quite naturally).
McGrath then replies here with this:
More striking still is Michael's willingness to sacrifice even Abraham's salvation to his presupposition that there can be no salvation outside of Christ. Where I feel confident that Paul was looking to Abraham as by definition a paradigm for the people of God who are defined (in one way or another) as his children, Michael seems happy to make subtle distinctions between being 'righteous' and being 'saved'. I think the way I am reading the text is far more natural. I would welcome input from other readers who may wish to assess both our readings, and perhaps propose still others.
It seems to me that there are two anxieties present that I would rather bracket out first and then explicate later. There is a certain level of discomfort among monotheists around the categories of inclusivism and especially universalism. I do not think that James is anywhere arguing for universalism since there are clearly works one can do that obey love of neighbor that are more receptive of the love of God than others. Not all will receive the love of God – just like not all will receive the love of a human being reaching out to a needy person. Some needy people do not want love, but something else – like money. But how much does the effect of the atonement require a human response to be effective?
The atonement is an objective event where Christ makes a universal act of salvation redeeming everything that is God's in the cosmos. Yet that does not mean that everyone will receive it. For instance, Christopher Hitchens refuses to receive any such thing and thinks such a notion to be rather absurd and even "poisonous". However, Simone Weil received it and continued to expand her thinking around what that event meant not only for her own context, but the cosmic context of humanity and the cosmos in general. These are distinct enough examples.
It is the grey areas that are the cause of the conflict. For instance Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, etc. give us evidence of a more generous sense of service to neighbor than many Christians who have proclaimed Jesus is Lord. This is where I submit the problem is. It is where the evidence and the theory no longer explain each other. Confession is not enough, but are these works? And what would they "be enough" for?
Let's be perfectly clear about Paul. Paul is absolutely clear that he did not believe that works of the Law lead to justification. Rather:
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Rom. 7:6).
It is clear that for Paul, works of the law equal captivity and do not lead one to righteousness. This is something reserved only for Jesus who through death and resurrection did the work of the law:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 5:18-21).
The issue here is the degree to which we account for the act of justification on the part of Jesus to be decisive in history and beyond it. The idea of things "being made righteous" reflects back on the image of the cosmic Christ making all things new through the Spirit. The issue is what degree this is being done without human input. If this is a righteousness that takes effect pending human response, it seems to put the emphasis on human agency in bringing about the Kingdom of God. There is not a subtle difference between partaking in a Kingdom that is objectively present now and is continually being made righteous through the Spirit, and a Kingdom that can only be present and made righteous pending human agency and response to Jesus as Lord.
The former is a better reading of Paul and of both apocalyptic and eschatological passages in Scripture – especially the Kingdom sayings in the Synoptics (see Matthew 22 as a perfect example of this). So can I partake in it without recognizing that I am actually doing so? Abraham apparently did if Jesus is the new Adam, the new Moses, etc. It is clear in Romans 9-11 that Paul argues for Jesus opening up the possibility for all to be "grafted on" to the covenant community and Christ has made this possible. So if the covenant community of the Jews remains within God's community of elect and they clearly do not accept the Lordship of Christ, what then? It is therefore more reasonable to argue along these lines that Paul is discussing a present kingdom that is being perfected and we can either choose to participate in it or not. It's existence and culmination is independent of human response. It is far more inclusive than we are comfortable with, and it is far more ethically demanding than we are comfortable with. Not choosing to participate now, does not mean that we are then cut off for eternity. It also means that we can participate in the Kingdom of God without even know we are doing so. Some will understand the present in light of a future hope that Is being revealed and others may not grasp that same future hope, but still are acting within the bounds of the Kingdom. It is something that will be revealed at the end of the age for even them.
Related posts:
Drew,
Good thoughts, though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Just to clarify, on that quote of James', that is off. I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn't saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times. Instead, I've been trying to show that Paul wasn't trying to make an argument that Abe was saved. Instead, Paul was simply saying he was righteous, which I see as two different things. I think, in fact, this is the more natural reading for James if anyone. I think Paul is clear on the fact that there are righteous persons outside of Christ. Lest we forget that Abe was a Gentile, the point Paul is making–at least in part–is that God made a promise to Abe. The promise, though, focuses not on Abe but one of Abe's descendants, namely, Jesus Christ. The whole reason Paul mentions Abe then, is as a means to an end, to eventually end up saying: What God promised back then–the uniting of all persons to Himself–has now come to fruition in Jesus (and Jesus alone!).
Drew,
Good thoughts, though I disagree with the overall conclusion. Just to clarify, on that quote of James', that is off. I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn't saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times. Instead, I've been trying to show that Paul wasn't trying to make an argument that Abe was saved. Instead, Paul was simply saying he was righteous, which I see as two different things. I think, in fact, this is the more natural reading for James if anyone. I think Paul is clear on the fact that there are righteous persons outside of Christ. Lest we forget that Abe was a Gentile, the point Paul is making–at least in part–is that God made a promise to Abe. The promise, though, focuses not on Abe but one of Abe's descendants, namely, Jesus Christ. The whole reason Paul mentions Abe then, is as a means to an end, to eventually end up saying: What God promised back then–the uniting of all persons to Himself–has now come to fruition in Jesus (and Jesus alone!).
Michael,
"I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn’t saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times."
I think this is the issue that I am taking up and following through to see what the distinction between righteousness and salvation means for you when we take into consideration the examples of Abraham and Jesus here. Can someone be righteous and not saved for Paul? That would seem to me to be a contradiction for Romans 3 and thus for the corpus of Romans since I would agree with Byrne that this is the pivotal chapter in Romans that Paul then expands upon in following material. This is why calling Abraham "righteous" is interesting since he is talking about an inheritance to the Kingdom that is given to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think it would be helpful if you gave a bit more on how you would distinguish between the notions of salvation and righteousness here.
Mainly what I do with this sort of discussion is draw out the possible conclusions of premises that have been argued. I think this is the main point here with what you have argued thus, and for James it is the issue of baptism. I am really arguing somewhat between the positions both of you are arguing since I see the inherent value and necessity in both for the church. It seems that Paul held both positions to a degree, but in different contexts or on different levels of reality (I am thinking of Torrance's view of knowledge here as a model). But before I continue on that route, the clarification I mention would be helpful indeed.
Blessings.
Michael,
"I have never attempted to argue that Abe wasn’t saved. In fact, I say he probably was/is, a few times."
I think this is the issue that I am taking up and following through to see what the distinction between righteousness and salvation means for you when we take into consideration the examples of Abraham and Jesus here. Can someone be righteous and not saved for Paul? That would seem to me to be a contradiction for Romans 3 and thus for the corpus of Romans since I would agree with Byrne that this is the pivotal chapter in Romans that Paul then expands upon in following material. This is why calling Abraham "righteous" is interesting since he is talking about an inheritance to the Kingdom that is given to all through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think it would be helpful if you gave a bit more on how you would distinguish between the notions of salvation and righteousness here.
Mainly what I do with this sort of discussion is draw out the possible conclusions of premises that have been argued. I think this is the main point here with what you have argued thus, and for James it is the issue of baptism. I am really arguing somewhat between the positions both of you are arguing since I see the inherent value and necessity in both for the church. It seems that Paul held both positions to a degree, but in different contexts or on different levels of reality (I am thinking of Torrance's view of knowledge here as a model). But before I continue on that route, the clarification I mention would be helpful indeed.
Blessings.
Drew,
I've tried to clarify:
http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/mich...
Drew,
I've tried to clarify:
http://michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com/2008/02/michael-halcomb-clarified.html
[...] Continues) ~Ken responded: Inclusivism and Universalism – To Hell With Sin? ~Drew responded: Who Benefits From Salvation? III ~Quixie responded: monitoring a blogologue… ~R.T. Jones has been following the conversation: [...]