It has been well stated that "JUSTIFICATION is a juridical concept, conceived in terms of law, and viewing God as a JUDGE, while ADOPTION is a filial concept, conceived in terms of love, and viewing God as a FATHER". These concepts are in no wise mutually exclusive, but are both expressed in scripture. The problem arises when we isolate one of these concepts at the expense of the other. The truths which historical theology either conveys, or seeks to convey, pre-date the historical framework in which they are encased and expressed. Thus reformation theology, the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith (with its forensic emphasis) in particular, need not be regarded as a 16th century invention. This doctrine only becomes a problem to those who isolate it, and fail to see its relatedness to every other element of soteriology. This doctrine is, as Luther so aptly stated, the article on which the Church either stands or falls. Since the fall, the incursion of sin, and in particular being under the condemnation of the the Law with its allied curse (noting the context of Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians), every human being stands in relation to God as a JUDGE without exception. Because of our sin Paul thus pushes the juridical metaphors to the forefront and boxes all men in to the estate in which they truly are -"under sin" -guilty before God! In short, to be justified before God is to be forgiven -to be aquitted of condemnation. This was the simple jist of Luther"s teaching, apart from any complex philosophies of the atonement. Luther was one of the most practicle of saints. He was not an idealist but a realist, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to him the the very portal of heaven and the embrace of a heavenly Father who loved him. It is this doctrine, above all, that is the balm of Gilead to the shocked conscience, bringing peace. (Rom. 5:1). I personally don"t have a problem with either Moo or Campbell in this debate. Both brought, what I believe to be, vital components on the topic to the table. My hat is off to Campbell with his emphasis on our identificaton (union) with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6), and fully agree with his statement that "For Paul, salvation is shaped baptismally". He did an outstanding job of articulating this oft neglected subject. I wish both of these saints God's best. Finally, I would say that the Cross of Jesus Christ is both the supreme manifestation of the LOVE of God and the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God. To Him be all the glory forever. Amen.
Excellent discussion, I have watched it like 5 times to actually be able to let all of this sink in. Dr. Campbell's new perspective on Paul I find it a lot more plausible, and Historical accurate than those presented by Sanders, Wright, Dunn.
The biggest problem I see here, for Douglas Moo, is that he has to unpack (or entirely dismiss) 1200 years of theological church history since he is starting with the Reformation and not with Scripture in terms of his stance on justification. This is anachronistic on his part since he has the cart (reformation theology of justification) before the horse (what Paul is actually saying in his letters regarding soteriology). It's exactly as Douglas Campbell pointed out (directing his confusion at Dr. Moo) when Campbell says, "It seems to me that you're abandoning the text but hanging on to the doctrine." I know that there is a lot to unpack here (in this debate) in such a limited amount of time, but, in my humble opinion, Campbell did a much better job of delineating his stance than did Moo.
Theologians and philosophers quibble over seemingly trivial issues and matters of emphasis. I prefer Campbell here, as Moo seems to stumble over his own words a bit more than I'd expect. Personally speaking, 'conversion' was more a matter of the Victory of Christ that I am allowed to share in more than my own inability to be or become something I am not as a sinner I was precluded from experiencing.
I enjoyed listening to this, and related more to Douglas Moo’s presentation as more vital and practical. His answer to the last question on assurance was stunning.
The term 'forensic' shown in the explanation of this youtube is a inaccurate term used in the study related to the Bible, (except something like forensic pathological study of death from crucifixion or archeological study of human remnants). The correct term is 'judicial'. This is a most ubiquitous mistake on the literatures and writings on religion or Christianity.
+Oun Kwon your comment is rather idiosyncratic, since both terms have been employed to treat the same issue through the centuries by those in the field of Theology.
Campbell errs in linking union with Christ to water baptism. The fact is, all believers in Gen 3:15 have been united to him. In the NT water baptism was employed to symbolise this fact.
I'm pretty sure he says that baptism narrates our participation in Christ, which seems to denote something similar to "symbolize." He wouldn't say baptism is some sort of condition for union with Christ. So I'm not sure what the issue is.
It is not idiosyncratic but 'SOCRATIC' as in Socratic dialogue that involves diatribes. Campbell's contention is that Paul sounds Socratic in his diatribe.
@@vimalanand8841Well, personally I don't think Campbell was being arrogant or constructing strawmen. But as for your argument: it is an iron law of debate that if someone is being arrogant in a debate or clearly violating the rules of logical argument, the worst thing you can do is call them out on it. Let your opponent bury themselves and let the audience decide. Calling them out for personal faults like arrogance or pleading logical fallacies like "strawman" makes you sound desperate and only weakens your position in a debate. Let them behave badly, and simply make your case, the audience will punish bad behavior for you.
Doug is so deep into the Fathers heart that this debate is uneven. I hope moo had revelation into His love
Which Doug?
Doug clearly won the debate
I totally disagree; Douglas clearly won the debate.
It has been well stated that "JUSTIFICATION is a juridical concept, conceived in terms of law, and viewing God as a JUDGE, while ADOPTION is a filial concept, conceived in terms of love, and viewing God as a FATHER". These concepts are in no wise mutually exclusive, but are both expressed in scripture. The problem arises when we isolate one of these concepts at the expense of the other. The truths which historical theology either conveys, or seeks to convey, pre-date the historical framework in which they are encased and expressed. Thus reformation theology, the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith (with its forensic emphasis) in particular, need not be regarded as a 16th century invention. This doctrine only becomes a problem to those who isolate it, and fail to see its relatedness to every other element of soteriology. This doctrine is, as Luther so aptly stated, the article on which the Church either stands or falls. Since the fall, the incursion of sin, and in particular being under the condemnation of the the Law with its allied curse (noting the context of Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians), every human being stands in relation to God as a JUDGE without exception. Because of our sin Paul thus pushes the juridical metaphors to the forefront and boxes all men in to the estate in which they truly are -"under sin" -guilty before God! In short, to be justified before God is to be forgiven -to be aquitted of condemnation. This was the simple jist of Luther"s teaching, apart from any complex philosophies of the atonement. Luther was one of the most practicle of saints. He was not an idealist but a realist, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to him the the very portal of heaven and the embrace of a heavenly Father who loved him. It is this doctrine, above all, that is the balm of Gilead to the shocked conscience, bringing peace. (Rom. 5:1). I personally don"t have a problem with either Moo or Campbell in this debate. Both brought, what I believe to be, vital components on the topic to the table. My hat is off to Campbell with his emphasis on our identificaton (union) with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6), and fully agree with his statement that "For Paul, salvation is shaped baptismally". He did an outstanding job of articulating this oft neglected subject. I wish both of these saints God's best. Finally, I would say that the Cross of Jesus Christ is both the supreme manifestation of the LOVE of God and the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God. To Him be all the glory forever. Amen.
Excellent discussion, I have watched it like 5 times to actually be able to let all of this sink in.
Dr. Campbell's new perspective on Paul I find it a lot more plausible, and Historical accurate than those presented by Sanders, Wright, Dunn.
I was really convinced by Doug. As for Doug, I don't think he did a great job.
Well, sir, I argue the contrary and find you to be entirely wrong.
It’s the fight of the Dougs
The biggest problem I see here, for Douglas Moo, is that he has to unpack (or entirely dismiss) 1200 years of theological church history since he is starting with the Reformation and not with Scripture in terms of his stance on justification. This is anachronistic on his part since he has the cart (reformation theology of justification) before the horse (what Paul is actually saying in his letters regarding soteriology). It's exactly as Douglas Campbell pointed out (directing his confusion at Dr. Moo) when Campbell says, "It seems to me that you're abandoning the text but hanging on to the doctrine." I know that there is a lot to unpack here (in this debate) in such a limited amount of time, but, in my humble opinion, Campbell did a much better job of delineating his stance than did Moo.
I say, “Yes!” to No.
Theologians and philosophers quibble over seemingly trivial issues and matters of emphasis. I prefer Campbell here, as Moo seems to stumble over his own words a bit more than I'd expect. Personally speaking, 'conversion' was more a matter of the Victory of Christ that I am allowed to share in more than my own inability to be or become something I am not as a sinner I was precluded from experiencing.
I enjoyed listening to this, and related more to Douglas Moo’s presentation as more vital and practical. His answer to the last question on assurance was stunning.
I think you've mixed the two Douglas's up. The one who spoke on assurance at the end was Douglas Campbell.
#TeamDoug
thank you for sharing. the latin heresy is very stubborn
So the whole objection to Romans 1 by Campbell was answered my Greg bahnsen self-deception book.
This was interesting.
The term 'forensic' shown in the explanation of this youtube is a inaccurate term used in the study related to the Bible, (except something like forensic pathological study of death from crucifixion or archeological study of human remnants). The correct term is 'judicial'. This is a most ubiquitous mistake on the literatures and writings on religion or Christianity.
Oun Kwon "Judicial" and "forensic" are synonyms.
+Oun Kwon your comment is rather idiosyncratic, since both terms have been employed to treat the same issue through the centuries by those in the field of Theology.
does it really matter? we know what he means, so we get his argument.
Gets going 13 mins in
Campbell errs in linking union with Christ to water baptism. The fact is, all believers in Gen 3:15 have been united to him. In the NT water baptism was employed to symbolise this fact.
I'm pretty sure he says that baptism narrates our participation in Christ, which seems to denote something similar to "symbolize." He wouldn't say baptism is some sort of condition for union with Christ. So I'm not sure what the issue is.
Just plainly no, NOWHERE is baptism call a meme symbol. NOWHERE
@@grahamhoppstock-mattson531 need to check acts chapter 2
@@maverickwitlouw6330 ^
Absolutely not. In the NT Baptism is the means of union, and the act of faith itself.
Abraham obeyed God by faith in Genesis chapter 12, before he was justified by faith in Genesis in Genesis chapter 15v6
John lennox on Daniel
Campbell came across arrogant and set up a *number* of strawmen during the discussion. And his idiosyncratic take on Rom. 1-3 is silly.
It’s ver silly
All of his rebuttals were full of strawmen.
It is not idiosyncratic but 'SOCRATIC' as in Socratic dialogue that involves diatribes. Campbell's contention is that Paul sounds Socratic in his diatribe.
@@Bewareofthewolves Well Moo didn't think so or he would have called him out for constructing strawmen. That would have been an easy win for Moo.
@@vimalanand8841Well, personally I don't think Campbell was being arrogant or constructing strawmen. But as for your argument: it is an iron law of debate that if someone is being arrogant in a debate or clearly violating the rules of logical argument, the worst thing you can do is call them out on it. Let your opponent bury themselves and let the audience decide.
Calling them out for personal faults like arrogance or pleading logical fallacies like "strawman" makes you sound desperate and only weakens your position in a debate. Let them behave badly, and simply make your case, the audience will punish bad behavior for you.