Return to main page
Wednesday March 10th 2004
[6:33 pm]
Paul's gospel vs. our gospel

In Galatians, Paul defends his gospel. He notes that the "pillars" of Jerusalem recognized that he had been committed with the "gospel of the uncircumcision" (see lit. 2.7). The quarrel he had with Peter was that Peter failed to "walk straightforwardly" concerning the truth of this gospel (2.14).

As I reflect upon Galatians, I am increasingly struck with the difference between what Paul means by his gospel, and what we mean by "the gospel," and how this plays out in terms of our own predominant insensitivity to Paul's own concerns.

I am becoming more and more convinced that for Paul, the gospel is ecclesiologically shaped. This is not to say that it is not soteriological (i.e. that it does not concern "salvation"), but rather the opposite, that in his view, salvation itself is an ecclesiological issue.

I have often expressed the complaint that 99% of Protestant (and even Reformed) discussions of salvation could dispense altogether with the church. Take, for example, the classic ordo salutis: election, effectual calling, justification, sanctification, glorification (or similar variations). The way this is usually articulated, the Church need not exist. Yet we think we understand the gospel when we can articulate such an ordo (and in particular, the "justification" section, which is narrowly focused upon faith and imputation).

Frankly, I don't think the author of Galatians would recognize us. Even more fundamentally, I don't think that we recognize him.

Paul is writing to a church that is being called upon to become circumcised and follow the Mosaic calendar (see 4.10). The so-called Judaizers are demanding this in order to recognize full covenantal membership of Gentiles. Paul introduces the Peter story as within this same category of thought - a story that is merely about table fellowship.

There is no evidence that Peter ever uttered a word to the Gentiles of Antioch that they needed to earn their salvation by keeping the Mosaic law. In fact, there is no evidence that the Judaizers in Galatia ever said so either.

But Paul treats both Peter's actions and the Judaizers' teaching as an assault upon the gospel. Frankly, I don't think that in parallel circumstances, we would - or do. Segregated communion in the American south has much more to do with Galatians than arguments over whether Norman Shepherd or Tom Wright has quite articulated the doctrine of justification properly. Reformed church A barring members of Reformed church B from the table has much more to do with Galatians than arguments over whether or not obedience is a "necessary condition" for salvation. Barring our children from the table until they can work their way over the hurdle of physiological development has far more to do with Galatians than whether we've quite managed properly to correlate the eschatological judgment according to works with the doctrine of sola fide. (If in no other way, yet here we may say that the Eastern Orthodox are being eminently more faithful with the gospel than are the hyper-orthodox-Westminster-is-inerrant-theologically-straitjacketed-defenders-of-"the-faith"-who-won't-share-a-table-with-anyone-outside-the-.00001%-margin-of-error-difference-from-themselves.)

And I suggest that the reason we usually fail to recognize this is precisely because, for us, the Church really doesn't matter. Salvation happens in your heart, in your heart, in your heart. The only Church that matters is the one you can't see anyway, because it's invisible. (Which really is no church at all. An invisible church without sacraments, without ministers, a church that you join in your heart is absolutely meaningless. The invisible church will do you as much good as an invisible, bodiless, incorporeal Christ. The bonus is that if you are satisfied with an invisible church, you will probably settle for a completely invisible heaven while you are tortured in hell in a merely visible and tangible state of existence, which we all know doesn't matter.)

Paul says that salvation happens at the font (Gal 3.27). It happens at the table. Those excluded from the table are delivered over to Satan (1 Cor 5). It is because the baptized have put on Christ and are thus full members of the new covenant priesthood that the old covenant regulations have become obsolete. Baptism trumps all the dividing lines imposed by the "elements of the world." That's why it is no incidental remark when Paul says there is "one baptism" (Eph 4.6). It is on a par with "one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all." "One baptism" is at the very heart of the Pauline gospel.

Paul's gospel isn't merely the object of technical theological discussion. It is lived at the table, precisely because the gospel is about the Church, and the Church is a eucharistic community - a body called into the koinonia of Christ (1 Cor 1.9), a koinonia which is in turn enacted specifically as a meal (1 Cor 10.16 - the term often translated "communion" is koinonia).

None of this means that we should stop talking about the mechanism of justification, or what pistis Christou ("the faith of Christ") might mean, or what is intended by "the righteousness of God." But it does mean that we will never understand Pauline soteriology until we are mastered by his view of the Church. The Gospels preach "the gospel" without ever entering into technical theological discussions. They preach the gospel by presenting Jesus as proclaiming good news to the poor, as drawing the rejected and the outcasts around Himself and forming them into a new community. They preach the gospel by proclaiming the kingdom of God, a kingdom which is founded upon His death.

And Paul is doing nothing different from that. Divisions at the table are what spark his polemic in 1 Corinthians 11, where he reminds the church that the Supper is about the death of Christ. Corinth is violating table solidarity and in this way is desecrating Christ's body and profaning His death.

Paul is echoing the Gospels, not providing all the theology that they are "missing." His epistles apply the new kingdom situation to the Jew-Gentile conflict, and explain redemptive history in terms of that kingdom. This kingdom is preeminently discovered in the new polis, the new ekklesia - the Church. Paul's gospel is not different from that of Jesus. It is about real human beings transformed into a baptized table community in Jesus Christ.
32 comments
----------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post, Tim.

Posted by on 03.10.04 at 7:29 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
Why is this post so freaking wide?

Given that the Orthodox practice close communion, your claim that they're more faithful to the Gospel falls flat in light of your insistence that all churches be in full fellowship with each other, regardless of what is preached.

I'm not sure "We won't fellowship with you until you confess the pure Gospel and abandon heretical articles" is the same as the Judaizing attitude. What about "We won't consider you a full church unless you're all immersed?" That sounds Judaizing to me, and yet you recommend fellowship with them, to the point of saying that breaking fellowship is unfaithful to the Gospel. What attitude did Paul recommend that the Galatians extend to the Judaizers? Extend the right hand of fellowship?

Posted by Josh S on 03.10.04 at 9:08 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
Re: the Orthodox - maybe you should reread what I actually said. I had just been talking about the issue of the communion of children. Then I said that on this point, if on no other, the Orthodox were more faithful than the hyper-confessionalist Presbyterians.

As for the Baptists, it's almost a moot point. Why? Because if they recognize our baptism, then they're not guilty of the charge you make. And if they won't, then fellowship isn't an issue in any case.

Posted by Tim on 03.10.04 at 9:38 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Tim. So true, some in the TR community have become 'Galatianesque' in their sectarianism and rationalism. We have to continue the Reformation. Appreciate your good thoughts.

Posted by Fred on 03.10.04 at 9:39 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
They don't recognize our baptism, because it's not by immersion and not done after a verbal profession of faith.

And why isn't fellowship an issue then? Shouldn't unity in baptism precede unity in Eucharist?

Sorry about the Orthodox thing. I misread you.

Posted by Josh S on 03.10.04 at 11:39 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
Fabulous post. Thanks so much for that. May I cite it at some length on my (Catholic) blog? I think superb exposition like this ought to get a wider reading (and I am up to about 290 hits a day on my blog). And of course, you would be most welcome to come there and dialogue with reactions to your post if you like.

I think that Catholics are often quite as ignorant of a more nuanced and (I say) biblical Reformed expression of theology and ecclesiology such as yours, as many Reformed are ignorant about any number of things in Catholicism. Education and knowledge are wonderful things.

I think they go hand in hand with a genuine ecumenism. The more I find out about other Christian traditions (from the more able proponents of them), the more, generally, I respect them and see kindred spirits in many respects.

In Him,

Dave

Posted by Dave Armstrong on 03.11.04 at 12:27 am
----------------------------------------------------------
Fantastic post Tim! I thoroughly agree.

Posted by Al on 03.11.04 at 4:42 am
----------------------------------------------------------
Greetings Tim,

First of all, I appreciate the thrust of your post to bring the instrumentality of the church to the foreground in salvation. I do have a question though concerning one of your remarks where you write, "Paul says that salvation happens at the font (Gal 3.27)."

I understand you to be saying that Paul is speaking about salvation when he says that the baptized person has "put on Christ." Now, I think I understand your theology enough that you don't believe a person can lose his salvation, so what does it mean for this baptized person to be 'saved'? Can salvation 'happen' without saving the person, or can salvation be lost? Perhaps there is another angle I am not considering either.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason



Posted by Jason1646 on 03.11.04 at 9:55 am
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, that first commendation was from me.

Posted by Jamie Soles on 03.11.04 at 10:55 am
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh - you write: "They don't recognize our baptism, because it's not by immersion and not done after a verbal profession of faith."

But Josh, if they really don't recognize our baptism, they are not going to sit at the table with us to begin with. My guess is that 99% of opportunities for Baptists to sit at the table with Reformed are going to be on the part of laypeople for whom it is not an issue. I'm not going to persecute them for something they're not perpetuating. The very fact that they are willing to share the table fellowship is an indicator that they are not "Judaizing."

Dave: feel free.

Jason: Hoo boy! That's a huge subject that really can't be addressed in a short blog comment. But the short answer is that we won't be able to understand the issue until we recognize that "salvation" is not merely an individual experience between the believer and God. The fall entails a loss of humanity, particularly in terms of community. Salvation entails the creation of a new humanity. Connection to Christ occurs in the form of membership in the body of Christ. Baptism (=being clothed with Christ) is baptism "into one body" (1 Cor 12.12-13).

IMHO, the Bible is relatively unconcerned regarding the direct question, "Can salvation be lost?" This is because the Bible's predominant understanding of salvation is shaped differently from our own. I am more concerned for us to reshape ourselves to the biblical pattern than to answer the questions that primarily arise from the wrong starting point to begin with. It seems to me that there are better, more biblical routes, to dealing with questions of assurance than getting into abstract discussions regarding whether "real" salvation can be lost. I will say, readily, that the number whom God has predestined to eternal life is fixed and unchangeable. I will say that there really are such people as hypocrites. But for the moment, I'll stop.


Posted by Tim on 03.11.04 at 11:06 am
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim writes: But the short answer is that we won't be able to understand the issue until we recognize that "salvation" is not merely an individual experience between the believer and God. The fall entails a loss of humanity, particularly in terms of community. Salvation entails the creation of a new humanity. Connection to Christ occurs in the form of membership in the body of Christ. Baptism (=being clothed with Christ) is baptism "into one body" (1 Cor 12.12-13).

Jason: Thanks Tim, this is what I thought you were getting at. I agree that salvation in Scripture is broader than conversion or justification, rather it has the entire scope of a new humanity in mind. It is spoken of in past, present, and future tenses for the Christian. We may differ on the level of abstraction of the individual in this area, but could we meet half-way and say that salvation begins at the font, rather than happens at the font? The latter seems to actually take away from the desired effect.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason



Posted by Jason1646 on 03.12.04 at 9:04 am
----------------------------------------------------------
Well, it was a rhetorical flourish that wasn't intended to be taken exclusively. Certainly I believe that salvation goes beyond the font.

Posted by Tim on 03.12.04 at 11:12 am
----------------------------------------------------------
I see, and upon a second reading I can see that better, since you also link salvation with the table and not just the font.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason


Posted by Jason1646 on 03.12.04 at 11:27 am
----------------------------------------------------------
True story:

Last year as part of preparation for a mission trip, the folks on our team were asked to prepare and present to each other a short testimony. I can't claim that mine was at al lelegant, but I talked mostly about my relationship with the church throughout my life. when I got done someone said "You used the word church too much, and I don't think you talked about the gospel." I wasn't exactly sure how to take this. When I think of what God has done in my life, I think of church. When I think about my participation in God's work, pitiful though my part is, I think of church.

This line of thought can really create some distance between us and our more evengelical friends. I still wish I could tell my story in a better way too.

Posted by Paul Baxter on 03.12.04 at 12:59 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
The issue is, "where is Christ"? Paul says that the Church is the fullness of Christ. (See my sermon on Eph 2.19-22.) Luther aptly spoke of "trysting places" in the Word and sacrament. I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

Posted by Tim on 03.12.04 at 1:05 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
I can apologize for being poor at rhetoric. If my speech bores and confuses people, it probably needs work. It would be great if I could tell my story in a way that interests people. Not interests them in me, but rather in Jesus and His people.

Posted by Paul Baxter on 03.12.04 at 4:22 pm
----------------------------------------------------------

You are invited to visit the sites dedicated to yahoo poker yahoo poker http://yahoo-poker.transcendentalartscouncil.org/
star poker star poker http://star-poker.quinteblogs.com/
online texas hold em online texas hold em http://online-texas-hold-em.gcminternational.org/
learn how to play poker learn how to play poker http://learn-how-to-play-poker.mountaincasadeglos.com/
free texas holdem free texas holdem http://free-texas-holdem.decoratordepotusa.com/
paradise poker paradise poker http://paradise-poker.osteriaportanova.com/
play poker play poker http://play-poker.mountaincasadeglos.com/
world poker championship world poker championship http://world-poker-championship.iacsoft.com/
poker chips poker chips http://poker-chips.otticarikcars.com/
on line poker on line poker http://on-line-poker.techlabmodels.com/
...



Posted by empire poker on 04.14.05 at 10:52 pm
----------------------------------------------------------

In your free time, check out some relevant pages in the field of morning after pill morning after pill http://morning-after-pill.threethreethree.us/
phentermine phentermine http://phentermine.op-clan.com/
herbal medicine herbal medicine http://herbal-medicine.threethreethree.us/
biaxin biaxin http://biaxin.op-clan.com/
erection erection http://erection.op-clan.com/
cvs pharmacy cvs pharmacy http://cvs-pharmacy.threethreethree.us/
doxycycline doxycycline http://doxycycline.threethreethree.us/
bontril bontril http://bontril.threethreethree.us/
lisinopril lisinopril http://lisinopril.op-clan.com/
prozac prozac http://prozac.op-clan.com/
...



Posted by ritalin on 04.19.05 at 6:04 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD


Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:04 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD


Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:05 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD



Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:06 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD


Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:06 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD


Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:06 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD




Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:07 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD






Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:07 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD






Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:08 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD








Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:08 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD










Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:09 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD











Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:09 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
STD
STD












Posted by std on 05.18.05 at 4:09 pm
----------------------------------------------------------

You may find it interesting to visit the pages about win ...



Posted by party poker deposit bonus cod on 09.21.05 at 8:18 pm
----------------------------------------------------------

You are invited to check out the sites in the field of strategy guide play texas hold em poker online ... Thanks!!!



Posted by bet on 09.24.05 at 1:58 am
Name:

E-mail: (optional)

Website: (optional)

Type your comments here:

Return to main page