Thoughts

The only rule of faith therefore to every Christian, is the Doctrine of Christ; and that doctrine as applied to him by his own understanding. In which matter, to preserve his understanding from erring, he is obliged indeed, at his utmost peril, to lay aside all Vice and all Prejudice and to make use of the best assistances he can procure: But after he has done all that can be done, he must of necessity at last understand with his own understanding, and believe with his own, and not another[’]s faith. For (whatever has sometimes been absurdly pretended to the contrary,) ‘tis evidently as impossible in Nature, that in these things any person should submit himself to another, as that one man should see or taste, should live or breathe for another.

- Samuel Clarke, Scripture-Doctrine, ii

N. T. Wright argues that ultimate vindication (i.e. salvation) is the result not of a creature's confession ('Jesus, you are Lord') or a divine declaration at the time of said confession (i.e. 'You are justified') but rather on the basis of the life lived [Note: 'merely' is an important qualifier]. In less colorful terms and with far-less an understanding of the holistic message of Scripture, I've found myself gravitating to this position over the past three years. The Text appears to place far more emphasis on the role of works within the Covenant community than it seems Protestants have been historically willing to grant. I don't espouse the New Perspective in its entirety, but (at the very least) I think there are elements which we would do well to consider. Here are a few of my thoughts; I invite criticism.

First. To ask 'What is the role of works within a New Covenant context?' is to begin at the wrong place. We must, in my estimation, begin with the more foundational question: 'What was the role of works in the Old Covenant?' Maybe we have neglected this question because of Paul's language against 'works of the law', particularly in Romans. Certainly Paul argues strongly and often against a works-based, outwardly-ritualistic-but-inwardly-corrupt 'righteousness'. But, might we have merely misunderstood why Paul hammers Second-Temple Judaism? Paul's contention seems to lie not with the Divine intent of the law but with what the Jews had done with the law (i.e. made it into the 'works-based' system referred to above). Initial justification has always been by faith. Romans 4 is clear on this point. Abraham, apart from the works of the law, is declared righteous. So, if entrance into the Covenant community was based on faith and not doing the law, what is the actual point of doing the law? Wright would answer that the law was done not to get into the covenant but to maintain one's status within the Covenant. Again, Paul isn't trashing the intent of the law, he's bucking what the Jews had made the law to be--namely prior and indifferent to faith. Thus, the Pharisees fulfilled the letter but not the spirit of the law, and so invalidated their own religion. Let's shift the paradigm to a New Covenant context: 1) The basis for entrance into a Covenant relationship with God: faith in the promises of God (Eph. 2:8-9); 2) The reason for doing works: to maintain one's covenantal status (1 and 2 Timothy, which we will observe in a second). One might object, 'How is the New better than the Old? What's 'new' about the New?' One immeasurably important detail: the means of fulfilling ‘the faith’ --the Spirit. That's the great promise of the New Covenant. Jesus comes, gives himself as a ransom for his Bride, inaugurates the NC, and gives us the Spirit to empower us to do what, in the flesh, we were formerly incapable of ever accomplishing.

Second. Studying through portions of 1 and 2 Timothy has helped me put several pieces of this puzzle together. I don’t want to do (or, it would be more honest to say I’m incapable of doing) a thorough biblical theology of the 2 epistles—but here are a few themes for consideration.

1. In 1 and 2 Timothy, Paul presents ‘the faith’ as something which (though certainly apprehended at one point).

• 1:18-19a: '[By following the instructions I have given to you] you may fight the good faith, holding on to faith and a good conscience.'
• 2:15: 'Women will be saved through [the Child's birth]--if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.'
• 4:16: 'Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.'
• 5:8: 'If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.'
• 6:12: 'Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession..."
• 2 Tim 2:12-13: 'If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will disown us; if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself" [I take 'he will remain faithful' to be referring to God's faithfulness in the act of disowning those who are faithless].'

2. Paul demonstrates by way of personal examples that some have forsaken the faith

• 1:19b-20: 'Some...have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.'
• 4:1-2: 'The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.'
• 5:15: 'Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan'
• In 2 Timothy, Paul refers to himself frequently as 'being deserted', meaning that some were with him (presumably 'in the faith' as in 1 Tim) who forsook him for the love of the world (as in 4:10).

My question/proposition is: should we view works as did Old Covenant believers and as Paul at least hints at in 1 and 2 Timothy--namely that salvation is a process in which ultimate vindication will be prescribed on the basis of the life [of faith] lived and not merely a creature's initial confession or the Divine's preliminary pronouncement?