Theology of Holiness: Part 10: Glorification

This is it! The final part, part 10, glorification, of the theology of holiness series. The explanation of glorification is given below but suffice it to say that glorification is the ultimate "happy ending" for the believer in Jesus Christ. It is the goal of all Christian disciples and that hope for which we all live, that being heaven and eternal life in the Father.
Glorification
Simply stated, glorification, or final salvation as it is sometimes called, “is the ultimate goal of the Christian life” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.218). Glorification, that time in which all is set straight in the life of a believer, is the logical conclusion of any ordo salutis. Therefore, it is altogether fitting that this ordo salutis and paper should end on glorification. “Glorification is the final and full realization of salvation for the faithful, the result of which is eternal life” (Sawyer, 2006, p.560). Glorification, then, is the final chapter that is written in the story of the believer. “This, the final stage in the process of salvation, is an inheritance guaranteed by the Holy Spirit”, as evidenced by such scriptures as Eph. 1:14, “the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession” (NIV).
“The term, “glory”, which translates a number of Biblical words… one of them is the Hebrew, “kabod”, which refers to a perceptible attribute… with respect to God, it does not point to one particular attribute, but to the greatness of his entire nature” (Erickson, 2006, p.1008). In the New Testament, the focus shifts to a more tangible attribute. The Greek word, “doxa”, conveys the meaning of brightness, splendor, magnificence and fame” (Erickson, 2006, p.1009). “Both the Old and New Testaments present this eschatological manifestation of God’s glory as the believer’s hope and goal” (Erickson, 2006, p.1009).
As wondrous a gift that this current life is, it cannot compare to that which is ahead for God’s own. “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18, NRSV). We know that there are troubles and persecutions in this life, in fact, Christ promised us that “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you” (John 15:20, NRSV). Yet no matter how hard this life may be, we know that if we are in Christ, the glory that will be ours when we hear God say, “Well done… enter into the joy of your master” (Matt. 25:21, NRSV). Until that time, we live in the tension between this imperfect life here on Earth and the perfect and glorified life we will live in. More eloquently stated, “Our vision of the road from here to there, from creation to new creation, will vary not just according to what we conceive to be the final destination, but also according to the whole way we understand God and the world” (Wright, 2006, p.220).
Glorification is also called final sanctification. This is the moment in which sanctification comes to its glorious fruition. The definition of final sanctification is “the ultimate work of making us Christlike, which occurs in glorification, so that when we see Jesus face-to-face, we shall be like Him” (Drury, 2004, p.183). However, I am not sure if this definition is enough. The only contention that I have with glorification or salvation, for that matter, is that we always seem to use the future tense in regards to glorification and the present tense with salvation. Interestingly, Wesley regarded sanctification as “the prerequisite for final justification at the last judgment and for final salvation” (Lindstrom, 1980, p. 198). So, even in the doctrine of sanctification, its present and future connotations are noteworthy.
Could it be that we have it switched? Or could each concept be a bit of present and future? “The man, who through faith is justified and receives present salvation, achieves final salvation through continuing in faith” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.198). Wesley believed in a present and future salvation. In other words, we are saved here in this life through the atonement, justification and sanctification that we receive through faith. We are saved in the future at the judgment seat of Christ. I’ve already alluded to the future tense of glorification and heaven as our eternal destination if we are in Christ. It should be noted though that the concept of salvation actually “doesn’t come into being until the future judgment when we are found justified in Christ” (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture).
In a similar fashion, “the promise held out in the phrase “going to heaven” is more or less exactly “going to be with God in the place he’s been all along.” Thus “heaven” is not just a future reality, but a present one” (Wright, 2006, p.59). The beauty of the doctrine of glorification, besides being the consummation of our salvation is this. “The function of the future in biblical faith is to throw light upon the present” (Dunning & Greathouse, 1989, p.121). Additionally, “the concentration of final sanctification should not lead to forgetfulness of the magnificent gift already possessed in justification” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.200).
To me, viewing salvation and glorification in these new ways makes them all the more exciting and real. I do not claim to have this mystery of glorification all figured out. “The future glorification will also bring fullness of knowledge” (Erickson, 2006, p.1011). I claim the words of Paul in I Cor. 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (NRSV). Finally, in regards to glorification and how it relates to the power of Christ’s resurrection, I believe I can finally quote the following scripture in the proper Schenckian context: “Not that I have already obtained this or have already been made perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (Phil. 3:12, NRSV).

Costly versus Cheap Grace: Part 1
I really attempt to be an avid reader. Many times though, I wind up buying a book and sticking it on my shelves for "later use". This is an inevitability for many pastors, or so I am told. I have many that I want to get to from Barth, Wright, Bauckham, and Witherington. However, I believe that they will now have to wait. This is because I have found a true treasure recently. I've wanted to get my hands on "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer for some time. I was finally able to do that earlier this week and I believe that I will never be the same as a consequence.
There are many topics that Bonhoeffer addressed in his all too short lifetime. One that is resonating with me profoundly right now is the concept of cheap versus costly grace. I'm planning on addressing this issue in greater detail in a forthcoming series of posts but I do want to start now.
"Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves... That is what we mean by cheap grace , the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs" (Bonhoeffer, 1937, p.44).
What Bonhoeffer is talking about, I believe, is living a type of "christian" existence that is "christian" in name only. Cheap grace is found when someone speaks of "accepting Christ as their personal savior" without making any apparent lifestyle changes. This is when someone accepts Christ but then goes right out and lives like nothing is different for them. Now this may last for days, weeks, months, years or the rest of their lives. Frankly, this type of life begs the question... is that person saved to begin with? Now that is not the point of this series. I am not trying to put myself in the place of God, as he alone is the one who judges our eternal destination. That said, I do believe that Christians in general and pastors in particular have a responsibility to call others to a life of discipleship, or sa Bonhoeffer put it, a life characterized by costly grace.
"Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a (person) must knock" (Bonhoeffer, 1937, p.45).
Notice something? Cheap grace may be characterized as a life that is passive in relationship to Christ. This view believes that Christ did all of the work, thereby exonerating myself from having to work, to grow or to change. Costly grace, on the other hand, is active in nature. As Jesus said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened" (Matthew 7:7, NIV). The verbs that are used are active. Jesus didn't say "give thanks, don't speak, don't seek, don't grow, be complacent and let others do the hard work." We were told to pick our crosses daily in order to follow him, not to sit back and rest in what we deem to be salvation. This mindset MAY be enough to get one into heaven, but it is quite possible that, in the words of Pastor Steve DeNeff, one may get to heaven and see a God that one does not recognize.
Remember this, I am not advocating a life characterized by legalism. i am not suggesting a formula of one part Bible study, two parts prayer and one part church attendance. While each of those are worthy endeavors and vital for spiritual growth and survival, they aren't ends rather they are means to an end. That end is a discipled life of devotion to Christ Jesus.
Costly grace is designated as such because it literally costs both us and God. It costs us because we give up our lives. It cost God because he gave up his son for this to be possible, to paraphrase Bonhoeffer. In other words, our lives MUST be different than they were if we are to be true disciples of Christ. Spend time in prayer. Spend time in the Bible. Tell others about Christ in order that some might hear and come to him. Attend and invite others to church regularly.
Does this seem costly? It should. Grace may be freely given to us by Christ initially, but it can exact a high cost. That cost is our old lives. Yet, if we are willing to make that change, we will come to a time when that old life will be held in contempt in exchange for the life given to us in Christ, as Paul wrote in Philippians 3. That is the hope that we have when we come to a point when we are willing to exchange our old nature for a nature that is changed by the Holy Spirit, a life characterized by costly grace.

Seeking and Understanding the Bible

"The truth of the matter is that the central affirmations of the Bible are not self-evident; the Word of God... is not immediately obvious... the truth of the Word must be sought precisely, in order to be understood in its deep simplicity" (Barth, 1963, p.35).

I've been reading Karl Barth for some time now at a very leisurely pace. It seems to me that Barth had an uncanny ability to state what should be obvious in such a way that makes a reader feel like they were let in on a secret. The quote above is a perfect example. It would seem that anyone who has at least a passing knowledge of the Bible would realize that it is not set up as an answer book nor does it come with an abstract or easily readable lists of the most important statements that the Bible makes.
Even though this is true, the Bible still has managed to change the lives of its readers for millenia, in ways that no other work can possibly claim. Why is this? Could it be that the Bible is able to bypass and circumvent conventional wisdom in order to give people what they need rather than what they want?
For the 21st century, Western reader, books tend to be declarative and clear in intention and purpose. The Bible tends to take a different path. The Bible is largely narrative in nature. Much truth is given in the form of story and application. This means that a reader must do as Barth states. A reader must be willing to SEARCH for answers. For what it is worth, I believe that the Bible is in the form that it is in because its form has served to reach the most people in the most areas in the most times most effectively. It would be presumptuous and wrong to believe that the Bible was intended solely for our American sensibilities.
Due to the need for a search in order to begin to understand the themes and offerings of the Bible, it must first be able to be understood. This was the whole reason that the New Testament was largely written in what is called "koine" Greek. This is common Greek. It was the Greek that was spoken by the people. Interestingly, most works that were written in that era were written in a more formal style of Greek. Remember, books were all but unavailable to the common person. Scrolls weren't super common, either. That may be one reason why formal language was used in writings.
By using a common and understandable language, it may be ascertained that the Bible has always meant to be understood. For what it is worth, I believe this principle applies to today. That is one reason why I strenuously object with those people who declare that the King James Version is the only true Bible. As it was written in 1611, the KJV employs a style of text, that although rich, is quite archaic and not easily understood almost 400 years later. More modern translations not only benefit from employing more modern and more easily understood language, they also benefit from the vital archaeological finds of such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have helped to revolutionize Biblical understandings. This is one reason why when asked what version of the Bible I endorse, I will always say whatever version you will read. Remember, the Bible is meant to be understood!
The Bible must be sought after, much like a relationship with Jesus. Even though it is the work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ, we must still be willing to search and to strengthen our walks with him. In other words, the life of a Christian is never meant to be passive. If we are to truly be disciples of Christ, we must continually be willing to search, to grow, to be challenged and to exhort others to do the same. This is something that ALL are intended to do, not just preachers and "supersaints".
As Barth says, the Bible is simple. Yet, ironically, it can be quite difficult. I believe that although I might know more about the Bible now than I did ten years ago, I still don't understand the Bible as well as I would like or maybe even should. It always seems that the most profound truths are the ones that seem on the surface to be most simple. The Bible is an extraordinary example of this. Men and women have devoted their entire lives to one aspect of the Bible and still have only scratched the surface of understanding in that area. What this means is the more you might come to "know" about the Bible, the more you might realize that you know less than you thought. The Bible is so deep in truth that one must search in order to find it.
I would urge you then to search, to dig and to contemplate what it is that you are looking for in the Bible. Are you looking for an answer book to everyone's questions about meanings? Are you trying to find ways to either justify or condemn certain behaviors? In other words, are you actually trying to use the Bible for something other than what it was intended for? The Bible is meant to draw us into a deeper relationship with Christ. By making the reader dig for truth, by making the reader spend time in its words, the Bible "forces" the reader into a closer walk with God, if only the reader intends to do this.
Seek truth, not answers. Let the Holy Spirit speak to you through the Bible. By focusing on what the Bible wants rather than what you or I want, you will find a much more rewarding experience and life in Christ then we could ever have dreamt possible!

Part 9 of this "ordo salutis" on the Theology of Holiness is justification. This important piece of the salvation "puzzle" is explained below. It should once again be noted that this theology is totally indebted to Dr. Ken Schenck. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ!!

Justification
“Justification is the declaration of God that one, however sinful, who trusts in Christ’s atoning work is treated or accounted as righteous, insofar as in Christ one has entered into an upright relation with God” (Barth as cited in Oden, 1994, p.108). While the doctrine of justification has become associated mainly with Lutheran theology, its pursuit from a Wesleyan perspective is of great importance. “Justification’s nature is pardon, its condition is faith, its ground is the righteousness of God, and its fruits and evidences are good works” (Wesley as cited in Oden, 1994, p.109). Any ordo salutis would be lacking if justification were not included. In my personal ordo salutis, justification would come directly after repentance, which would lead to justification, regeneration and initial sanctification. Justification, then, stands as the foundation for which the rest of my ordo salutis may be built. “Justification is the liberation from the guilt of sin and the recovery of God’s favor” (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture).
As mentioned, the doctrine of justification is most commonly associated with the teachings of Martin Luther. Luther contended that we received justification by faith alone. In keeping with the concept of justification being a free gift from God, it is also considered that a person is justified by faith alone, rather than by committing any good works. “Justification is that divine act whereby one stands in right relation with God, an act of God’s free grace through which the sinner is absolved from guilt and accepted as righteous on account of the Son’s atoning work” (Luther as cited in Oden, 1994, p.108-9). It should be noted that just as Wesley was extremely interested in the doctrine, so was Calvin. “No evangelical teaching is more crucial” (Calvin as cited in Oden, 1994, p.108). However, it should be noted that for Calvin, sanctification held roughly the same esteem in his mind. He attempted to take “care to give the two doctrines (justification and sanctification) equal weight” (Lane as cited in Vanhoozer, 2005, p.418).
Interestingly, according to Lutheran theology, sanctification is “not something added to justification. It is simply the art of getting used to justification” (Forde as cited in Alexander, 1988, p.13). Therefore, according to the Lutherans, everything that we need for living a Christian life is received at justification. There is no need for a second act of grace then. Furthermore, growth in the life of the Christian is not viewed in the same light as it is in Wesleyan theology. “If justification by faith alone rejects all ordinary schemes of progress and renders us simultaneously just and sinners, we have to look at growth and progress in quite a different light” (Forde as cited in Alexander, 1988, p.27).
As an argument for a lower view of justification, it should be noted that the “NRSV has “justification” as a term only six times in the NT, “justify” only five times in the OT” (Gowan, 2003, p.262). This argument bases “justification” on the Greek word, “dikaiosis”, as found in Rom. 4:25, “who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” (NRSV). However, it would seem that the aforementioned six and five occurrences, respectively, take a limiting view of the word as a noun only. This is pointed out by the fact that there are “more than 500 occurrences in the OT and 225 in the NT where terms from these two roots (Hebrew “tsadaqah” and Greek “dikaioma”) are used” (Gowan, 2003, p.263). “Tsadaq”, in Hebrew, “was used to connote a conformity to a norm, or to declare righteous or to justify” (Erickson, 2006, p.968). These linguistic statistics are used to point out that justification is indeed an integral part of the salvation process.
Justification cannot be mentioned without an investigation of the legal ramifications of the word. This is also known as “forensic righteousness”. It is a doctrine that contends that “justify (dikaioo) doesn’t mean “make righteous” (Erickson, 2006, p.970), but is rather a type of legal “defense or vindication” (Erickson, 2006, p.970). From this perspective, the following definition is fitting. “God’s legal determination of the charges against a sinner as not guilty, made on the basis of the atonement of Christ and in light of man’s repentance and faith” (Drury, 2004, p.185). Likewise, “justification is God’s declarative act by which, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death, he pronounces believers to have fulfilled all of the requirements of the law that pertain to them” (Erickson, 2006, p.969). From a legal standing, God’s pardon that is granted to us through Christ is a type of “executive clemency remitting the penalty, on the principle of the pardon” (Oden, 1994, p.114). N.T. Wright stated that, “we are justified in the present in order to bring God’s justice to the world” (2006, p.136).
Calvin taught that justification didn’t imply righteousness as much as it served to “declare or deem upright (the individual) so as to acquit from guilt and punitive liability” (Calvin as cited in Oden, 1994, p.109). This rendering of the “not guilty” verdict by God seems to indicate that justification is indeed, less about human activity and so much more about the actions of God. “Justification cannot therefore be based on any righteousness in man himself” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.59). Wesley also contended that “atonement was the legal basis of justification. Atonement was a single event in the past, justification its individual and present application” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.92).
I do agree that there is a sense of justice that flows through all that God does and justification is no exception. "Essentially, justification is a judicial act" (Wiley, 1946, p.279). This means that in order for us to be considered "not guilty", God's justice had to be quenched at some point, by a worthy sacrifice. "Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:9, NRSV). This is why justification and Christ's atonement are two doctrines that are nearly inseparable for me. You can't really have one without the other. Further, both must be received in faith, yet accepted in a believer's life through works, which demonstrate the love and gratitude that a person has for God's gift of grace. However, it should be noted that "there is nothing in His justice which forbids the exercise of His mercy" (Tozer, 1961, p.88). We still receive a gift in justification that is as merciful as it is just.
Viewing justification from simply the viewpoint of God isn't complete for some. "Justification is bound up with three related factors: from God, his mercy and grace; from Christ, his satisfaction of God's justice by the ransom of his blood and his perfect fulfillment of the law; and from man: a true and living faith in the merits of Christ" (Lindstrom, 1980, p.64). Frankly, from viewing many scriptures, "(Rom. 2:5-11; II Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:7-12; I Cor. 3:12-15; 4:4-5; 5:5; 6:9; Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7-9)" it appears that "Paul teaches both justification by faith and judgment by works" (Lane as cited in Vanhoozer, 2005, p.418). James wrote, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith" (James 2:18, NRSV). Here, "James is not arguing that works must be added to faith. His point, rather, is that genuine biblical faith will inevitably be characterized by works" (Moo, 2000, p.120). In other words, there is at least an element of human interaction with justification. This interaction has more to do with gratitude and thanksgiving for the free gift of salvation than it does in meriting justification on our own.
Justification, then, is "what God does for us through His Son" (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). "While only God as Judge can pronounce the sinner righteous, only God as Sovereign can pardon or forgive. Thus, viewed negatively, justification is the forgiveness of sins; when viewed positively, it is the acceptance of the believer as righteous" (Wiley, 1946, p.279). So then, there is a certain duality that exists in justification. We are both forgiven and declared righteous. Justification serves to restore our favor with God. God works within the new believer to declare them "not guilty" of sins through the atoning work of Christ. "Justification is another word for pardon. It is the forgiveness of all our sins" (Wesley as cited in Lindstrom, 1980, p.86). This has been called a "relative change" (Lindstrom, 1980, p.84) by Wesley. "Justification only implies the forgiveness of sins and the acceptance incident to it" (Lindstrom, 1980, p.84). Wesley contended that the actual change in us occurs at sanctification. "Justification is not the work of God by which we are actually made just and righteous.

Missing the Point

Do you ever feel like maybe you've just missed the entire point of being a Christian? Or even worse, do you ever feel like you have it all figured out? As a preacher and teacher, I usually feel obligated to either provide an answer to a question or a response to an argument. This is almost a default setting for me. A teacher never wants to feel like they don't have an answer. Yet, by continuously giving answers, have I, have we as a church missed the question entirely?
By arguing over exegetical meanings, have people been brought to Christ? By debating over social issues and matters of sin, have people been enticed to search for Christ? Has an anti-alcohol stand or pro-alcohol stand brought anyone into deeper relationships with God? While issues as such may have some importance, I believe that they are off-target. People will not come knocking on the door of our churches and houses if we suddenly decide to be a "moderate drinking" church now. If we are hip and cool, will people come? It is highly doubtful. People need Jesus. They need authenticity. they don't need our answers to social issues. In fact, by putting so much time into issues such as that, we tend to make ourselves look and act so INTROVERTED, that we miss the point of our lives on Earth.
We aren't placed here to try to figure out everything for everybody. The point of church isn't to provide answers for every question. Frankly, the point of the Bible isn't that, either. It is NOT designed to be an answer book. We are designed as humans to speak, to love and to bring others into a desire for a relationship with Jesus. That's the point, I believe. I don't have that all figured out and I don't believe that there is a magic, 4-step plan or process that will provide all of those answers. That's not the point.
The point is more about a willingness to listen, to love and to speak about the inexpressible joy of following Christ. It is about going out and loving others with no ulterior motives. It's NOT to try to convert others. Remember, the Holy Spirit does the work of salvation. Our job is to love, our job is to bring others back to Christ. Our job isn't to answer every question. For every question, there are a thousand answers, with each one of the answers possessing some semblance of truth. Take a look at one Bible verse and you will find several interpretations that are as off-base or as on-target as you desire. What then are we called to do? We are called to point people to Christ. We are called to invite, to love and be with people that otherwise wouldn't hear or otherwise wouldn't care. This is the essence of Christ's earthly life, our earthly life and the Great Commission. To do less is to miss the point entirely.
Jesus doesn't call us to have every answer to every skeptical question. He doesn't call us to address every issue. He calls us to love, to spend with others and to listen. I know that in my life, I have missed the point so often. On that note, It's time to get to Sunday School and to begin to practice what I preach. More later. Have a blessed Sunday and may the love of Christ overwhelm you today!!

Theology of Holiness: 8: Law

The subjects of law and holiness may seem unrelated at first. However, as we find repeatedly throughout Romans, the concept of the law, judgment, atonement, grace, deliverance and salvation are intricately woven together. While we as Christians may not be bound under the Jewish law, we must know that "through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20). In this way, the law serves to make us aware of what we must do and how we must act. We are saved through faith but we are made aware of our need for salvation through the law. Therefore, the law is worthy of study and examination in the context of a theology of holiness.

Law
"In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God" (Rom. 7:4, NRSV). The theological concept of the law serves a background for our covenant relationship with God. This means that the law is not a part of an ordo salutis but a part of the background that illustrates why salvation is necessary. Despite its value, the law is usually overlooked when discussing salvation (Vanhoozer, 2005). "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Rom. 7:12, NRSV). While this twice quoted section from Romans 7 refers to a hypothetical situation (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture), it does begin to point out the importance and continued standing of the law, even for the Christian. For me, the law is valuable in that it begins to establish the need for behavior that is becoming to God as well as establishing our utter need for Christ's atonement.
According to Wesley, "the law to which man is now subject is that of faith" (Lindstrom, 1980, p.147). This was due to the fact that Wesley contends that the Christian is free from Jewish ritual, Mosaic law and condemnation under the law, due to the absolution found in Christ (Lindstrom, 1980, p.78-80). Even so, the law is not only of value to humanity for all time, but it also stands as the forerunner to the Gospel. In fact, it could be said that "the Gospel is the law with a promise" (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). The law is also just, as "it gives each man his due and exactly prescribes what is right with respect to the Creator" (Lindstrom, 1980, p.77).
"The word "law" is the standard translation of the Greek word, "nomos". This word occurs thirty-one times in the Gospels" (Moo as cited in Reid, 2004, p.675). In most cases "nomos refers to the Pentateuch" (Moo as cited in Reid, 2004, p.675). In Hebrew, the word "torah" was used. However, instead of having the meaning of "law", "torah would be better translated "instruction", and this torah compromises the whole of the Pentateuch" (Wenham as cited in Vanhoozer, 2005, p.442).
Further reinforcing this concept, it should be noted that "the torah was never intended to be a charter for individuals… it was given to a people; and at its heart it was about how that people would live together, under God and in harmony" (Wright, 2006, p.82). In this line of thinking of the law as instruction, it is of value to consider the four ways in which Paul uses the term, "the law" (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). Paul was referencing the Pentateuch when speaking of the law in Romans 3. In I Cor. 9, Paul meant "law" as in the Jewish legal code. Paul also uses "the law" to refer to the "just requirements of the law, as kept by some Gentiles. Finally, Paul could also mean "law" to refer to the rule of sin and death (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture).
Whenever the law is brought up, for most, the first thing that comes to mind are the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue (ten words), are the basis of our understanding of God's law for human behavior. "Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came" (Gal. 3:24, NRSV). The Ten Commandments have been described as "the epitome of the Torah" (Williams, 2006, College Wesleyan Church lecture series). They serve to demonstrate to man that "God expects his followers to emulate his righteousness and justice" (Erickson, 2006, p.315). The Decalogue "reflect the core values of Israel's theology and moral outlook" (Wenham as cited in Vanhoozer, 2005, p.445), as given to them by God. Further, it is the Decalogue that illustrates "God's exclusive claim to (Israel)" (Gowan, 1994, p.180). While other parts of the Pentateuch help to build upon the concept of God's holiness, such as "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev. 19:2, NRSV), none do so with as much clarity as the Decalogue.
It was these ten words which helped to define the complete holiness of God and the wretched state of man. This concept is most clear in the first commandment. It is this commandment, that we should no other gods before him sets the stage for both the sovereignty and holiness of God. In fact, the concept of God's holiness being the justification for law is one that DeNeff is in agreement with. "Where there are low views of God, there is no law" (DeNeff, 2004, p.21). Further, "if we forfeit the doctrine of the holiness of God, there is a lower level of commitment among those who would be Christians" (DeNeff, 2004, p.22). In other words, the holiness of God that is brought to us through the Decalogue has such impact that people can be eternally changed through the conclusion that God is indeed a holy God.
"The righteousness of God also means that his actions are in accord with the law he himself has established" (Erickson, 2006, p.313). For as stated by Jesus in Matt. 5:19, "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments… will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" (NRSV). This sentiment is reiterated in James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (NRSV). Furthermore, it is the first commandment, which calls for us to have no other gods before God that sets the precedent of God's holiness before man. As this commandment is broken both in mind and deed, it is this very commandment that set the need for the atoning work of Christ.
So then, the law is of importance. Wesley regarded the law as holy, just as the Bible states. He believed that the law, "in the highest degree (is) pure, chaste, clean and holy" (Wesley as cited in Lindstrom, 1980, p.77). Three uses of the law have been pointed out by Schenck. "The law serves to convict of sin, to lead man to Christ and the law serves to keep the justified and regenerated man alive" (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). Further, sanctification itself can be viewed "as an expression of both law and love" (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). Yet even for all of its worth, no one will be saved by keeping the law. "For no human being will be justified in his sight by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 2:20, NRSV).
Paul himself, although "blameless under the law" (Phil. 3:6, NRSV), still knew this wasn't enough. For as he stated, "Whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ" (Phil. 3:7, NRSV). This was so that he would not be found with a "righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ" (Phil. 3:9, NRSV). Paul desires the righteousness that only comes from Christ. For Paul the righteousness of Christ means that he would, "be done with "my own righteousness" which is "ek nomou" (from/predicated on law) and that he would then acquire a new righteousness from God "ek theou" (from/predicated on God)" (Fee, 1995, p.322). Still, while Paul had gained salvation in Christ, he "was still enough of a Jew psychologically to be uncomfortable with saying in every situation that the law was no longer valid" (Thielman as cited in Reid, 2004, p.690). It is in this vein that Wesley believed that "by faith the law shall be established in the heart and life of man" (Lindstrom, 1980, p.82).

Theology of Holiness: 7b: Atonement

This is the second part of atonement. Once again, without the atoning work of Jesus Christ, salvation would be impossible. We, as humans, have no capacity for saving or delivering ourselves, no matter what kind of life we lead. The work of salvation is found ONLY in Jesus Christ. He ALONE is "the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through (him)" (John 14:6, NRSV). May Christ be glorified!

The atonement has also been viewed through the lens of ransom. “Just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28, NRSV). “The theory with the greatest claim to having been the standard view in the early history of the church is probably the so-called ransom theory” (Erickson, 2006, p.810). It is this “approach to the doctrine of the atonement which seeks to maintain justice” (McGrath, 2005, p.328). “Christ’s gift of his life as a ransom suggests a transaction made in order to purchase freedom for slaves” (Bilezikian, 1993, p.145). The early church doctor, Irenaeus, espoused this view of the atonement. “The Lord therefore ransomed us by his own blood, and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh; and he poured out the Spirit of the Father to bring about the union and fellowship of God and humanity” (Irenaeus as cited in McGrath, 2005, p.328).
Further, Anselm of Canterbury agreed with this interpretation. “And since the only possible way of correcting sin, for which no satisfaction has been made, is to punish it; not to punish it, is to leave it uncorrected. Furthermore, to leave sin unpunished would be tantamount to treating the sinful and sinless alike” (Anselm of Canterbury as cited in McGrath, 2005, p.340). The justice of God is emphasized here. There is a certain satisfaction that had to be met in order to right the wrongs, so to speak. “Satisfaction cannot be made unless there is someone who is able to pay to God for the sin of humanity” (Anselm of Canterbury as cited in McGrath, 2005, p.341).
Another key view of the atonement is the thought that Christ stood as a substitute for all of humanity. By all rights, humanity should have to pay for all of its sins. However, Christ intervened in order to save us. From a historical perspective, “Athanasius was probably the first to propound the theory that the death of Christ was the payment of a debt due to God” (Wiley, 1946, p.225). This concept of Christ’s substitution and payment for our debt is also espoused by DeNeff. “Christ bore our punishment. He paid the price for us. Consequently man has nothing to offer God but the merits of Christ” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.65).
A common phrasing of this view of atonement is: “Christ came to pay a debt he didn’t owe because we had a debt we couldn’t pay”. The concept of penal substitution deals with the fulfilling of God’s just requirements. “Jesus absorbed all the sins that had ever been committed” (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). Atonement “is most frequently used in the sense of a substitute for penalty, a victim offered as a propitiation to God, and hence an expiation for sin” (Wiley, 1946, p.217). The term, propitiation, means to “appease the wrath of an offended person” (Wiley, 1946, p.223). “The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling, on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice, and the office of penalty in moral government (Miley as cited in Wiley, 1946, p.218).
The legal ramifications of the atonement must not be forgotten. As a just God, he requires a just payment for the many sins that humanity has committed in their rebellion against him. “Orthodox satisfaction would seem to be the dominant conception in the view of atonement” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.61) that is presented by Wesley. Just exactly what that payment is and how it is conceived is open for conjecture. What cannot be debated is the fact that Christ’s atonement, when viewed through whatever lens necessary, was able to pay this just requirement in full. “As a result of this adjustment the consequences of neither God’s justice nor his mercy have been fully exerted. Without mercy his justice would have sentenced us to the everlasting captivity of the devil; His mercy, on the other hand, would have freed us without the payment of a just ransom” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.63). This is the crux of the gospel, as presented in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life” (KJV).