Skip to main content

The Deliverance of God: Further Problems

In the third chapter Campbell lays out a preliminary reading of Romans 5-8 that he uses to expose further weaknesses in the justification theory of salvation. I'm going to skip his reading of Romans 5-8 and wait to discuss that when he gives his fuller treatment later in the book. For now I want to focus on one more objection that he raises (out of ten).

The first, and the biggest issue I had with what Campbell has termed justification theory is the problem of ethics. It has no way of encoraging converts to behave ethically. In fact, exherting effort to be ethical is usually condemned. To claim to be good is to be hypocritical (80-1).

Some would respond that this is where sanctification steps in. Justification only deals with salvation where the Holy Spirit sanctifies the believer on an ongoing basis. Campbell sees several problems with this move. I believe the most significant is that this is unexpected. 'Justification theory itself contains no obvious need for such assistance' (81). The problem of sin has already been dealt with. Why do ethics matter? Can a non-arbitrary reason be given? I don't think one can. The answer that saving faith produces always ends up producing works, while biblical, is arbitrary. Nothing about the doctrine of justification by faith prepares you for that solution.

Evangelicals struggle with how to encourage ethical behavior. The charge of 'works righteousness' and hypocrisy are fearsome, as is the stress on total depravity. We need a theory of justification that will allow us to boldly exhort one another to righteous living.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…