Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Paul's "Ordo Salutis"

Paul’s Ordo Salutis

1. God has predetermined
· That those with faith would be resurrected to glory (Rom. 8:29)
· Predestination language highlights God’s sovereignty (Rom. 9:18-21) and the honor of the “elect”
· without contradicting the possibility for any individual to call on the Lord (10:13)
· or the need for human choice
· Paul does not work out the philosophy (e.g., Rom. 11:11-12).
· Paul is focused more on groups than individuals.

2. Gentiles begin “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20)

3. Jews begin “under the Law”
· The Jewish Law
· They don’t keep the Law to “get in” but to “stay in”—they have a covenantal relationship with Yahweh.
· Jews do not believe that “works of Law” ultimately justify them—grace of God, who has set up things like repentance, sacrifice, etc… as a basis for acceptance.
· But works of Law are an essential response to God’s patronage.
· “Works of Law” refer in general to deeds of the Jewish law, but seem to refer especially to the finer points that related to Jewish ethnic boundaries like circumcision, food laws, etc…
· Law confirms to a Jew that s/he is a sinner (Rom. 7:7).
· Law aggravates sin—under the power of Sin makes the Jew even more sinful (Rom. 5:20; 7:8).

4. Sanctification
· Means made “holy,” touching God and thus “watch out; that wire is live.”
· Can be used of unbelievers or children “sanctified” by a believing spouse or parent (1 Cor. 7:14).
· Applies to believers who have received the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), and involves the cleansing of past sins (1 Cor. 6:11)
· Implies a certain care with regard to how we live—you don’t want to get shocked (“this is the will of God, even your sanctification”: 1 Thess. 4:3)
· Demands a complete “purity” (otherwise the water conducts and will shock) (1 Thess. 5:23)

5. Atonement
· Reconciliation with God achieved solely through the offering of Jesus (5:10)
· Satisfies God’s righteousness and wrath (Rom. 3:25)
· Christ died “for us” and “for sin” but not “for our sin” in any legalistic way (2 Cor. 5:21)
· We receive forgiveness and pardon (not prominent Pauline concepts)

6. Justification
· “Initial” justification relates to the non guilty verdict we receive when we trust in what God has done through Jesus Christ and confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 5:1; 10:9).
· The process is exactly the same for both Jew and Gentile (Rom. 3:23-24)
· While Jesus was justified in accordance with his innocence, Jews and Gentiles are only justified because of his faithfulness unto death (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16).
· However, “final” justification before the judgment seat of Christ requires us to remain blameless through the power of the Holy Spirit, to keep by nature Christ’s law, which is the law of love (2 Cor. 5:10).

7. Salvation
· Primarily future oriented for Paul—“having been justified we will be saved”—relates to the Day of Wrath when we escape God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9-10).
· Paul can speak proleptically of it in the present or past tense

8. Glorification
· Paul can speak in the present of being transformed from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18).
· When we are resurrected, Christ will transform our bodies to be like his glorious body (Phil. 3:21)
· We will then fulfill Psalm 8 and God’s initial intention for humanity.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Ken,

Great post.

Your comments on atonement are not clear to me. Does not 1 Cor 15:3 read "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"? How does this fit in? This section of 1 Cor appears to be traditional material, but Paul does deploy it.

Perhaps I am misreading your comments.

Peace

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks for the reference Brian. In this line I was trying to remember the way Joel summed up the distinction he was making in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. Maybe I misremembered the conversation.

In any case, the point has to do with penal substitution. The idea is that when Paul says that Christ died for our sins, he didn't mean that God added up the all the individual "sin-ons" that he foreknew the redeemed would commit, set the gauge on the penalty gun appropriately, and then zapped Christ on the cross to account for that precise amount.

I suppose the statement isn't very clear, but it is beautifully pithy!

Anonymous said...

A scholarly Lutheran who challenges many of the presuppositions that are undergirding Dr. Schenk's position.

http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2006westerholm.pdf

Anonymous said...

Ok, the link didn't completely attach.

Just google

Justification by Faith is the answer: What Is The Question.

by Stephen Westerholm

Ken Schenck said...

Yes, Westerholm (a very nice man) is one of a growing number of NT scholars (Simon Gathercole would be another, Don Hagner another) who question the "new perspective on Paul" that came to the fore in the 80's. Note that these are usually Lutheran and Reformed scholars and thus have a vested interest in defending traditional Reformation readings of Paul. I on the other hand have been delighted to find that most Pauline scholars have come to a reading of Paul that fits amazingly well with Wesleyan-Arminian theology! And here we've been accused of being stupid all these years!

Chris Bounds said...

Ken,

I like what you have done here...very helpful.

One question: Why do you place (4)sanctification before (5) atonement and (6)justification in your understanding of Paul's order? Is this what Paul does from your perspective?

Thanks,

Chris Bounds

Ken Schenck said...

I was asked this by a student too. I did it largely to point out that the NT can speak of the sanctification of someone who isn't even justified. In other words, I put it there to generate this very question. Certainly I believe the most appropriate place for it is in association with (initial) justification. Lack of "sanctification" thereafter can be considered an inadequacy in a person's life.

My thoughts...

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks for calling my hand, OAW. The thing is, the theological interests of this lot don't seem to coincide with this topic. Dunn is a Scottish Presbyterian whose generally Reformed interpretation of Romans 7 is even rejected by Moo at Wheaton. Stendahl I believe is a retired Lutheran bishop, yes? Now you might argue that they are into interfaith dialog with Judaism as an angle.

Tom Wright is an Anglican, and I detect some Reformed elements in his thought (e.g., faith is a badge of membership, not a condition of membership).

Of this lot only Sanders is Methodist, but my sense is that he is a nominal Methodist at best--not one looking for a "second blessing" any time soon. I believe he has engaged in some interfaith dialog, but probably by invitation more than as a quest. He doesn't strike me as the "ambassador" type.

I can't give you statistics on new perspective. It was my general feel for the guild. I'd love to see some and will openly repent if proved wrong. I have noticed a recent mobilization of "anti-new perspectivism" (check out the euangelion blogger Mike off to the side). But my sense is that it is theologically reactionary rather than evidentially driven.

I haven't read Variegated yet. I'm waiting for someone to buy me a copy :-) I generally break out in a rash at the mention of Carson's name :-) What are we to make of common NT sentiments like 1 Cor. 3:14: "If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward"?

Anonymous said...

So....

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

Christ's death on the cross was the sin offering (Atonement)

(so i guess that has to be first, correct?)

At conversion we become justified?

And thereafter the Holy Spirit, in conjunction with our cooperation (just for you OAS) enacts sanctification?

Just trying to keep my ducks in a row.

KN

Keith Drury said...

Finally something from a "Bible head" that merges two of my interests so creatively: Holiness and electricity!

"Watch out; that wire is live.”

Ken Schenck said...

"Evidence comes in the context of Worldview."

Does this apply to evidence relative to the interpretation of the Bible? If so, what is the right worldview to apply to the Bible? And where does it come from? It can't come from the Bible since we can't interpret the Bible correctly without it. So apparently this worldview is a higher authority than the Bible. What is the source of this authoritative worldview? Calvin? Reformed theologians? Reformed epistemologists of the late twentieth century?

I'm not sure what Wesley's view of covenant was, although I imagine it was similar to Calvin's, the main difference being the optimism Wesley affirms to the covenant of grace through the Spirit. From a NT perspective (at least for Paul and Hebrews), the new covenant seems to be the age when the Spirit writes the law on our hearts so that we fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Rom. 8:4) and Gentiles demonstrate by doing the things of the law (Rom. 2:14) that the law is written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). For Paul, the new covenant is a covenant of grace and law (Rom. 3:31), albeit Christ's law (1 Cor. 9:21) of love (Rom. 13:9-10).

Ken Schenck said...

Great discussion OW. If you don't mind, I'll try to take this dialog to a post later today, so these gem-discussions don't get buried in the comment section. Then we can continue the discussion with a greater audience.

Ken Schenck said...

:-)

I can't take you as a trophy because that would reveal that I'm not entirely sanctified :-)

Hey, this is an interesting discussion, yes? Why bore people with things I'm thinking when they can watch us do a proxy debate for two great traditions (am I allowed to consider the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition great and still be entirely sanctified?)