Beyond Justification

Much of the writing in Anglo-American epistemology in the twentieth century focused on the conditions for beliefs being "justified." In a book that seeks to shift the ground of debate within theory of knowledge, William P. Alston finds that the century-long search for a correct account of the nature and conditions of epistemic justification misses the point. Alston calls for that search to be suspended and for talk of epistemic justification to cease. He proposes instead an approach to the epistemology of belief that focuses on the evaluation of various "epistemic desiderata" that may be satisfied by beliefs.Alston finds that features of belief that are desirable for the goals of cognition include having an adequate basis, being formed in a reliable way, and coherence within bodies of belief. In Alston's view, a belief's being based on an adequate ground and its being formed in a reliable way, though often treated as competing accounts of justification, are virtually identical. Beyond "Justification" also contains discussions of fundamental questions about the epistemic status of principles and beliefs and appropriate responses to various kinds of skepticism.

Paul proclaims in 90 percent of what he wrote that we have been set free, resurrected, and transformed through Christ at the behest of a loving God. This gospel proclamation can be found wherever he speaks of being "in Christ." But this gospel and its account of salvation has been captured by "another gospel," which also lays claim to being Paul's account of salvation. And this gospel is retributive, conditional, and ultimately damaging. "Justification Theory," as we call this false account, lays claim to just under 10 percent of what Paul wrote. The presence of both these gospels within Paul's interpretation causes numerous acute problems. He is, to name just a few, fundamentally confused, frequently harsh, and unavoidably anti-Jewish. If we reread Paul's justification texts, however, paying more attention to the original historical circumstances within which they were composed, then they turn out to say something subtly but significantly different. Paul's justification texts can be interpreted carefully, faithfully, and consistently, in terms of his usual gospel--our transformation in Christ. Thus Justification Theory is never activated. Paul's true gospel is thereby liberated from its long captivity to a false alternative. We can now see a kinder, gentler, and more consistent, apostle.

This book explores the morality of compromising. The author argues that peace and public justification are values that provide moral reasons to make compromises in politics, including compromises that establish unjust laws or institutions. He explains how it is possible to have moral reasons to agree to moral compromises and he debates our moral duties and obligations in making such compromises. The book also contains discussions of the sources of the value of public justification, the relation between peace and justice, the nature of modus vivendi arrangements and the connections between compromise, liberal institutions and legitimacy. In exploring the morality of compromising, the book thus provides some outlines for a map of political morality beyond justice.

Paul proclaims in 90 percent of what he wrote that we have been set free, resurrected, and transformed through Christ at the behest of a loving God. This gospel proclamation can be found wherever he speaks of being "in Christ." But this gospel and its account of salvation have been captured by "another gospel," which also lays claim to being Paul's account of salvation. And this gospel is retributive, conditional, and ultimately damaging. "Justification theory," as we call this false account, lays claim to just under 10 percent of what Paul wrote. The presence of both these gospels within Paul's interpretation causes numerous acute problems. To name just a few, they create an image of Paul as someone who is fundamentally confused, frequently harsh, and unavoidably anti-Jewish. If we reread Paul's justification texts, however, paying more attention to the original historical circumstances within which they were composed, then they turn out to say something subtly but significantly different. Paul's justification texts can be interpreted carefully, faithfully, and consistently, in terms of his usual gospel--our transformation in Christ. Thus Justification theory is never activated. Paul's true gospel is thereby liberated from its long captivity to a false alternative. We can now see a kinder, gentler, and more consistent apostle.

The investigation of union with Christ and justification has been dominated by the figure of John Calvin. Calvin's influence, however, has been exaggerated in our own day. Theologians within the Early Modern Reformed tradition contributed to the development of these doctrines and did not view Calvin as the normative theologian of the tradition. John V. Fesko, therefore, goes beyond Calvin and explores union with Christ and justification in the Reformation, Early Orthodox, and High Orthodox periods of the Reformed tradition and covers lesser known but equally important figures such as Juan de Valdes, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Girolamo Zanchi, William Perkins, John Owen, Francis Turretin, and Herman Witsius. The study also covers theologians that either lie outside or transgress the Reformed tradition, such as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Faustus Socinus, Jacob Arminius, and Richard Baxter. By treating this diverse body of figures the study reveals areas of agreement and diversity on these two doctrines. The author demonstrates that among the diverse formulations, all surveyed Reformed theologians accord justification priority over sanctification within the broader rubric of union with Christ. Fesko shows that Reformed theologians affirm both union with Christ and the golden chain of salvation, ideas that moderns find incompatible. In sum, rather than reading an individual theologian isolated from his context, this study provides a contextual reading of union with Christ and justification in the Early Modern Reformed context.

In what has become known as the 'new perspective' on Paul, Tom Wright has proposed a vision of the apostle's central message that does full justice to all Paul's letters. In particular, he focuses on the God-centred nature of Paul's gospel, arguing that 'traditional' readings of Paul can suggest that the apostle's message is simply about us: our sin, our justification, our salvation. Ambitious in scope, yet closely argued, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision suggests that this crucial understanding of the theology of St Paul, and thus of the gospel of Christ, is urgently needed as the Church faces the tasks of mission in a dangerous world.