What do you think?
Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation
Recent scholarship has challenged post-Reformation ideas about the early Christian doctrines of salvation. This ground-breaking book draws together the conclusions of recent scholarship into a compelling and clear view of the early Christian paradigm of salvation. It presents the case that the early Christians focussed not on Christ's death on the cross or 'saving faith', but on moral transformation. They saw Jesus as God's appointed teacher, prophet, and leader, who died as a martyr in order to teach them a new way of life. Their paradigm of salvation centred upon this way of life taught by Jesus, and on following faithfully his example and teachings. Part 1: 'How the Gospels present Jesus' explores the way in which the early Christians understood the teaching of Jesus. It highlights five themes of Jesus' message: economics and wealth, moral purity, social equality, the temple system, and physical and spiritual affliction. It shows why people viewed Jesus as a divinely appointed teacher, prophet, and leader, and saw his death as a martyrdom for his cause and movement. Part 2: 'Doctrines of the early Christians' presents the key early Christian doctrines of salvation and shows why several post-Reformation doctrines conflict with their views. It shows that the early Christians believed God's final judgment is made on the basis of character and conduct. They believed that by following Jesus and transforming their lives morally, they would obtain positive judgment and resurrection. This part shows how the early Christians' ideas of faith, justification, forgiveness and grace all fit into this paradigm. Part 3: 'The importance of Jesus' looks at why the early Christians considered Jesus so significant; they focussed on the moral transformation he brought to their lives. This part highlights what they believed Jesus achieved for them, and how they used sacrificial language to explain these beliefs. It explores the evidence for viewing Jesus' death as a martyrdom, and for seeing his resurrection as equally important. Part 4: 'Ideas throughout history' shows that Christians held this paradigm of salvation for several centuries. It outlines the key changes that occurred from the 4th century through to the Reformation, which moved tradition away from the early Christian ideas. Finally, it offers a critique of modern post-Reformation doctrines of salvation.
330 pages, Paperback
First published February 12, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 2, 2019
This is an interesting book for a variety of reasons. Because the authors' perspective is how the early disciples and others in the first century perceive Jesus, they avoid shutting down conversation by saying "they thought he was Divine." Those who are expecting a book to reiterate that view will be somewhat scandalized by this book.
But that is one of the book's strengths. The authors stay on point and they present a first century that would have understood the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus differently than perhaps we have come to expect post-Nicea and post-Reformation.
The central theme of the book is a persistent hammering of righteousness equating to living as a virtuous person rather than short-circuiting the discussion by resorting to the modern ideas of grace and mental assent as "belief." They present an understanding of what God is (and has always been) after and that is a community of faithful followers of Jesus whose lives reflect adherence to the standard of Jesus' life, lived in the interest of transforming both people and communities into manifestations of virtue, of righteousness, of just people. They argue that grace can be understood as favor and in the first century, neither favor or grace meant that reciprocity wasn't understood and expected. Thus, being saved by grace doesn't rule out - and was not understood in the first century to rule out - some sort of response.
This book is hard to read for those who expect to see a Divine Jesus proclaimed on every page, and equally for for those who expect to read the modern "saved by faith" paradigm as the basis of salvation. Even so, the authors present their case well with both logic and exegetical handling of the text. If you are tempted to not read it because of what I have just said, you would do yourself a disservice to pass it up.
The book is a wonderful read in the vein of N.T. Wright's, and Matthew Bates' writings and it will be acclaimed by those who acclaim these writers and panned by those who pan them. Many will not read the book because of these connections and parallels but they and their faith will be worse off for having not read this book.
But that is one of the book's strengths. The authors stay on point and they present a first century that would have understood the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus differently than perhaps we have come to expect post-Nicea and post-Reformation.
The central theme of the book is a persistent hammering of righteousness equating to living as a virtuous person rather than short-circuiting the discussion by resorting to the modern ideas of grace and mental assent as "belief." They present an understanding of what God is (and has always been) after and that is a community of faithful followers of Jesus whose lives reflect adherence to the standard of Jesus' life, lived in the interest of transforming both people and communities into manifestations of virtue, of righteousness, of just people. They argue that grace can be understood as favor and in the first century, neither favor or grace meant that reciprocity wasn't understood and expected. Thus, being saved by grace doesn't rule out - and was not understood in the first century to rule out - some sort of response.
This book is hard to read for those who expect to see a Divine Jesus proclaimed on every page, and equally for for those who expect to read the modern "saved by faith" paradigm as the basis of salvation. Even so, the authors present their case well with both logic and exegetical handling of the text. If you are tempted to not read it because of what I have just said, you would do yourself a disservice to pass it up.
The book is a wonderful read in the vein of N.T. Wright's, and Matthew Bates' writings and it will be acclaimed by those who acclaim these writers and panned by those who pan them. Many will not read the book because of these connections and parallels but they and their faith will be worse off for having not read this book.
December 7, 2021
The authors basically challenge the Reformed ideas and, to some degree, do so effectively. However, they seem to advocate Pelagianism, which I don't necessarily disapprove on the face of it, but find that what they use to support their position is one-sided, that is, they seems to pick sources that affirm their own position while ignoring those sources that deny it.
For example, and my main objection to the theology presented in this book and what I see as the most troubling, is their assertion that Jesus' death was merely a martyrdom and not, so it seems, a sacrifice for the sins of men. They seem to ignore those Biblical texts that uniformly present Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sin and suggesting such language is merely metaphorical. It doesn't seem to me that the reading of Scripture is merely metaphorical when speaking of Christ's death. The Bible gives a clear impression that his death was sacrificial, a death on behalf of men as sinners.
The discussion that the resurrection is emphasized more in the Bible than his death, while having some merit, I don't think Jesus' death, as they seem to contend, has no spiritual effect upon us whatsoever towards our salvation and, along with the resurrection, is merely an example how we ought to live and nothing more.
His argument regarding faith equaling faithfulness is also with merit and, for the most part I agree. Yet, if they are contending that only works obtain God's favor, then I must disagree; for I believe the Bible teaches that the faith that saves is faith that is concomitant with works, with righteous behavior (which is what I think book is actually affirming, but in a way that seems to diminish the preeminent value of faith).
Despite my reservations, this book is an important read and, while one may not agree with everything, it merits reading on the basis of its challenge to certain misconceptions carried by believers in Christ, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
For example, and my main objection to the theology presented in this book and what I see as the most troubling, is their assertion that Jesus' death was merely a martyrdom and not, so it seems, a sacrifice for the sins of men. They seem to ignore those Biblical texts that uniformly present Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sin and suggesting such language is merely metaphorical. It doesn't seem to me that the reading of Scripture is merely metaphorical when speaking of Christ's death. The Bible gives a clear impression that his death was sacrificial, a death on behalf of men as sinners.
The discussion that the resurrection is emphasized more in the Bible than his death, while having some merit, I don't think Jesus' death, as they seem to contend, has no spiritual effect upon us whatsoever towards our salvation and, along with the resurrection, is merely an example how we ought to live and nothing more.
His argument regarding faith equaling faithfulness is also with merit and, for the most part I agree. Yet, if they are contending that only works obtain God's favor, then I must disagree; for I believe the Bible teaches that the faith that saves is faith that is concomitant with works, with righteous behavior (which is what I think book is actually affirming, but in a way that seems to diminish the preeminent value of faith).
Despite my reservations, this book is an important read and, while one may not agree with everything, it merits reading on the basis of its challenge to certain misconceptions carried by believers in Christ, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
January 29, 2017
Great book! For me it harmonized well with my understanding of the Bible, Christianity, and the progression of the faith from the Resurrection to the present time.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews