Hi Jason, I really enjoyed the lecture and love the way you tackle the ‘Romans Road’ head on. Really reminded me of NT Wrights recent book on the ‘heart of Romans’. Thanks for putting this lecture out there!
I am currently leading a group of young Christians through Matthew Bates ‘The Gospel Precisely’ book. I have personally found quite a number of similarities between what you and Bates have said about the gospel and salvation. I wondered whether you felt there were any differences between your two approaches to salvation. Would you say your conception of ‘salvation by moral transformation’ has any major differences between Bates’ ‘salvation by allegiance alone’? Or are you essentially singing off the same hymn sheet?
There’s definitely some overlap; I first argued for an “allegiance” translation for πίστις in a conference presentation back in 2009, and the general sense that understanding brings is certainly common between the two of us. But I haven’t read Matt’s books yet, so I don’t really know about where we have any really significant differences. I do get the impression that he’s more inclined to retain connection to traditional Protestant readings where possible, whereas I’ve not been inclined to maintain any specific traditional reading of anything or to harmonize what I think is the best reading with later church teaching.
I’ve read both of y’all’s books. From what I could tell, Bates advocates for the view you espoused in this lecture in our day-to-day lives but then reverts to the Reformed view on imputed righteousness (he insists that if you emphasize enough that it’s only through incorporation in Christ that you receive Christ’s righteousness then it’s not really imputed righteousness) when it comes to final justification which was disappointing. He is led to do this because of his Reformed definition of justification (he rejects infused righteousness which seems to be pretty much what your view is).
Haven't finished listening to it yet, but when you said in your post here, "Secondly, some may observe that something like 'salvation by being conformed to the image and character of Christ' would be more theologically precise than 'salvation by moral transformation,'" I was curious if you read Haley Goranson Jacob's book, Conformed to the Image of His Son. It's tangentially related, perhaps, but she makes a case that "conformed to the image" is about glory, and glory is not about ontological transformation (moral or otherwise), but status (co-rulers with Christ). That might help avoid confusion between what you are saying and how we typically view being conformed to the image of Christ.
I haven't read it, but I do think "glory" is about status, though I think status winds up being pretty closely connected to ontology in how Paul frames things.
Right. I think her distinction was too sharp (but not surprising for a biblical studies dissertation done under NT Wright). Glory is status, but imagery like light (which she relegates to metaphorical) is the result of an ontological transformation that goes hand in glove with the change in status (I discuss some of that here: https://ryanclevenger.substack.com/p/what-is-glory-addendum).
Thank you. Much needed. I feel that Paul (for lack of a better term) would be appalled with the Great Exchange soteriology. I do agree with the idea of moral transformation. This is what God through the Messiah in the spirit has done FOR me. Yet, as you explain, the God-given grace is not to remain unrequited. I am to act in accordance with the spirit’s empowerment to act WITH him. This takes moral effort, sacrifice and self-control (Gal 5:22-25). God works for good WITH those who love him (Rom 8:28). This is where I believe conforming (with-forming) to the image of the Messiah is done in Christian practice. I just wish I was better at it.
Am I over my skis or is this “with-forming” to your presentation?
This is great. I would enjoy a post addressing common proof texts for what you call the “gospel of forgiveness”
Hi Jason, I really enjoyed the lecture and love the way you tackle the ‘Romans Road’ head on. Really reminded me of NT Wrights recent book on the ‘heart of Romans’. Thanks for putting this lecture out there!
I am currently leading a group of young Christians through Matthew Bates ‘The Gospel Precisely’ book. I have personally found quite a number of similarities between what you and Bates have said about the gospel and salvation. I wondered whether you felt there were any differences between your two approaches to salvation. Would you say your conception of ‘salvation by moral transformation’ has any major differences between Bates’ ‘salvation by allegiance alone’? Or are you essentially singing off the same hymn sheet?
There’s definitely some overlap; I first argued for an “allegiance” translation for πίστις in a conference presentation back in 2009, and the general sense that understanding brings is certainly common between the two of us. But I haven’t read Matt’s books yet, so I don’t really know about where we have any really significant differences. I do get the impression that he’s more inclined to retain connection to traditional Protestant readings where possible, whereas I’ve not been inclined to maintain any specific traditional reading of anything or to harmonize what I think is the best reading with later church teaching.
I’ve read both of y’all’s books. From what I could tell, Bates advocates for the view you espoused in this lecture in our day-to-day lives but then reverts to the Reformed view on imputed righteousness (he insists that if you emphasize enough that it’s only through incorporation in Christ that you receive Christ’s righteousness then it’s not really imputed righteousness) when it comes to final justification which was disappointing. He is led to do this because of his Reformed definition of justification (he rejects infused righteousness which seems to be pretty much what your view is).
Haven't finished listening to it yet, but when you said in your post here, "Secondly, some may observe that something like 'salvation by being conformed to the image and character of Christ' would be more theologically precise than 'salvation by moral transformation,'" I was curious if you read Haley Goranson Jacob's book, Conformed to the Image of His Son. It's tangentially related, perhaps, but she makes a case that "conformed to the image" is about glory, and glory is not about ontological transformation (moral or otherwise), but status (co-rulers with Christ). That might help avoid confusion between what you are saying and how we typically view being conformed to the image of Christ.
I haven't read it, but I do think "glory" is about status, though I think status winds up being pretty closely connected to ontology in how Paul frames things.
Right. I think her distinction was too sharp (but not surprising for a biblical studies dissertation done under NT Wright). Glory is status, but imagery like light (which she relegates to metaphorical) is the result of an ontological transformation that goes hand in glove with the change in status (I discuss some of that here: https://ryanclevenger.substack.com/p/what-is-glory-addendum).
Jason:
Thank you. Much needed. I feel that Paul (for lack of a better term) would be appalled with the Great Exchange soteriology. I do agree with the idea of moral transformation. This is what God through the Messiah in the spirit has done FOR me. Yet, as you explain, the God-given grace is not to remain unrequited. I am to act in accordance with the spirit’s empowerment to act WITH him. This takes moral effort, sacrifice and self-control (Gal 5:22-25). God works for good WITH those who love him (Rom 8:28). This is where I believe conforming (with-forming) to the image of the Messiah is done in Christian practice. I just wish I was better at it.
Am I over my skis or is this “with-forming” to your presentation?
Hi Greg, I think that's basically in keeping with what I'm presenting here, yes. And well stated.
Are you able to say if your Romans commentary will be part of a commentary series? You said more on this later, so if not, I understand.
I'll be able to give more details soon...