This thesis is about the church reformational traditional perspective of Paul's doctrine of justification and discusses the controversy between the “new perspective” on Paul. According to the “traditional perspective”, Paul insisted that man cannot earn justification because it’s impossible for man ...
This thesis is about the church reformational traditional perspective of Paul's doctrine of justification and discusses the controversy between the “new perspective” on Paul. According to the “traditional perspective”, Paul insisted that man cannot earn justification because it’s impossible for man to observe the law perfectly by human works therefore man’s salvation comes only by faith and has nothing to do with the works of the law.
Concerning this insistence, people who hold to the “new perspective” assert that Paul's doctrine of justification should be understood in the social context of the 1st century. That is, they emphasize the doctrine of justification is an apologetic doctrine that criticizes the self-serving nationalism and exclusivism of the Jews. For example, this had brought about church division under the incident compelling Gentile christians, who had lived in Galatia, to observe circumcision, dietary laws , and the Sabbath. The doctrine of justification, like the traditional idea, does not mean that it objects to the idea of salvation by works, but holds to it that justification is by faith. People who hold to the new perspective on Paul reject the legal concept of justification which is explained in the traditional perspective. Therefore, people who believe in the new perspective view the doctrine of justification not by the legal concept in which God justifies imperfect human beings, who can’t be justified by themselves on the basis of human faith of Jesus' redemptive death. They stipulate God's covenantal faithfulness by directly forgiving human beings and fulfilling His covenant, even though human beings who make covenant with God are unfaithful. Additionally, people who adhere to the new perspective concept also claim that they reject the traditional perspective idea in which faith in Jesus Christ currently guarantees them ultimate salvation on the day of final judgement. Their viewpoint is that Paul taught that man can ultimately be saved on the basis of human works like Judaism. Concerning this controversy between the church reformational perspective and the new perspective, this thesis examines these opposing viewpoints into three points of discussion.
First, what was the meaning of Paul’s comparison of “justification by works” with “justification by faith?” According to church reformers, Paul insisted that man could not be justified by works of the law. Because God required man to obey the law perfectly, man could only be justified by God’s grace because it was impossible for man to be perfect at obeying God’s Law.
However, people who hold to the new perspective view insist that the reason why Paul rejected the works of the law was not based on the reason that man could not obey the law perfectly. As James Dunn emphasizes, they explain that the works of the law had not indicated all the law, but indicated special rules of the law, such as the rules of circumcision, dietary laws, and the Sabbath. Therefore, Judaism in Paul's day was not trying to receive salvation with the acknowledgement of good deeds by observing such law, but tried to differentiate God's people from the gentiles. Therefore, the reason why Paul criticized the works(observing the law) was to criticize the self-serving nationalism existing in Judaism at the time.
This idea of the new perspective, which tries to bring the doctrine of justification simply into the issue of relation between Jews and Gentiles, is not right. Since Paul's doctrine of justification in which Paul insisted justification only by faith rather than works of the law is an eschatological and soteriological declaration to the Law of Moses, such Paul's idea indicates that the salvation has already been given to man through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, therefore, christians are no longer under bondage because the Law of Moses is no longer effective. Therefore, holding to the Law of Moses rejects Christ's eschatological salvation which is now recognized as the New Covenant, and is no-longer under the bondage of the old covenant in which man tries to be justified by observing the law.
The second issue is what category does justification belongs to. While the Roman Catholic Church put justification into the same category as conversion and signification as a real change, a traditional idea insists that Paul's idea of justification belongs to a legal category in which an ungodly person being deserved to be condemned can be justified. Likewise, the church reformers emphasized that all human beings are under the sinful nature in which none can be justified by themselves before God's stern and righteous judgement. As a result there is no other solution to escape our hopeless state except Jesus' redemptive death and people’s faith in it.
However, people who hold the new perspective ideology understand the idea of justification as covenantal category instead of legal category. That is to say the new perspective prescribes God’s righteousness, instead of God's stern judgement toward sinners, as God's covenantal faithfulness in which God forgives sins by remembering His covenant with Abraham even if human beings are in unbelief.
Therefore, their understanding of covenantal justification brings about such a result, which shakes the basis of christology which is at the core of Christianity, by disregarding the hopeless situation of human beings who stand before God's stern judgement against human sins and by rejecting Christ’s salvation by His redemptive death which is key to Paul's gospel. Paul’s justification means liberation currently from the curse of the law by Christ's redemptive death on the cross. This is also currently to guarantee the ultimate and final salvation from eternal wrath.
The third issue is a matter of final justification according to works. That is, it is related to the subject whether the final salvation is
This thesis is about the church reformational traditional perspective of Paul's doctrine of justification and discusses the controversy between the “new perspective” on Paul. According to the “traditional perspective”, Paul insisted that man cannot earn justification because it’s impossible for man to observe the law perfectly by human works therefore man’s salvation comes only by faith and has nothing to do with the works of the law.
Concerning this insistence, people who hold to the “new perspective” assert that Paul's doctrine of justification should be understood in the social context of the 1st century. That is, they emphasize the doctrine of justification is an apologetic doctrine that criticizes the self-serving nationalism and exclusivism of the Jews. For example, this had brought about church division under the incident compelling Gentile christians, who had lived in Galatia, to observe circumcision, dietary laws , and the Sabbath. The doctrine of justification, like the traditional idea, does not mean that it objects to the idea of salvation by works, but holds to it that justification is by faith. People who hold to the new perspective on Paul reject the legal concept of justification which is explained in the traditional perspective. Therefore, people who believe in the new perspective view the doctrine of justification not by the legal concept in which God justifies imperfect human beings, who can’t be justified by themselves on the basis of human faith of Jesus' redemptive death. They stipulate God's covenantal faithfulness by directly forgiving human beings and fulfilling His covenant, even though human beings who make covenant with God are unfaithful. Additionally, people who adhere to the new perspective concept also claim that they reject the traditional perspective idea in which faith in Jesus Christ currently guarantees them ultimate salvation on the day of final judgement. Their viewpoint is that Paul taught that man can ultimately be saved on the basis of human works like Judaism. Concerning this controversy between the church reformational perspective and the new perspective, this thesis examines these opposing viewpoints into three points of discussion.
First, what was the meaning of Paul’s comparison of “justification by works” with “justification by faith?” According to church reformers, Paul insisted that man could not be justified by works of the law. Because God required man to obey the law perfectly, man could only be justified by God’s grace because it was impossible for man to be perfect at obeying God’s Law.
However, people who hold to the new perspective view insist that the reason why Paul rejected the works of the law was not based on the reason that man could not obey the law perfectly. As James Dunn emphasizes, they explain that the works of the law had not indicated all the law, but indicated special rules of the law, such as the rules of circumcision, dietary laws, and the Sabbath. Therefore, Judaism in Paul's day was not trying to receive salvation with the acknowledgement of good deeds by observing such law, but tried to differentiate God's people from the gentiles. Therefore, the reason why Paul criticized the works(observing the law) was to criticize the self-serving nationalism existing in Judaism at the time.
This idea of the new perspective, which tries to bring the doctrine of justification simply into the issue of relation between Jews and Gentiles, is not right. Since Paul's doctrine of justification in which Paul insisted justification only by faith rather than works of the law is an eschatological and soteriological declaration to the Law of Moses, such Paul's idea indicates that the salvation has already been given to man through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, therefore, christians are no longer under bondage because the Law of Moses is no longer effective. Therefore, holding to the Law of Moses rejects Christ's eschatological salvation which is now recognized as the New Covenant, and is no-longer under the bondage of the old covenant in which man tries to be justified by observing the law.
The second issue is what category does justification belongs to. While the Roman Catholic Church put justification into the same category as conversion and signification as a real change, a traditional idea insists that Paul's idea of justification belongs to a legal category in which an ungodly person being deserved to be condemned can be justified. Likewise, the church reformers emphasized that all human beings are under the sinful nature in which none can be justified by themselves before God's stern and righteous judgement. As a result there is no other solution to escape our hopeless state except Jesus' redemptive death and people’s faith in it.
However, people who hold the new perspective ideology understand the idea of justification as covenantal category instead of legal category. That is to say the new perspective prescribes God’s righteousness, instead of God's stern judgement toward sinners, as God's covenantal faithfulness in which God forgives sins by remembering His covenant with Abraham even if human beings are in unbelief.
Therefore, their understanding of covenantal justification brings about such a result, which shakes the basis of christology which is at the core of Christianity, by disregarding the hopeless situation of human beings who stand before God's stern judgement against human sins and by rejecting Christ’s salvation by His redemptive death which is key to Paul's gospel. Paul’s justification means liberation currently from the curse of the law by Christ's redemptive death on the cross. This is also currently to guarantee the ultimate and final salvation from eternal wrath.
The third issue is a matter of final justification according to works. That is, it is related to the subject whether the final salvation is
주제어
#바울의 칭의 새 관점주의
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.