Veith/Witherington

Interesting post by Dr. Veith on discussion with Ben Witherington, including a comment on a post on my blog.

http://www.geneveith.com/2011/06/24/thoughts-on-the-conversation-with-my-critic/

Where the New Perspective on Paul meets the Fabricated Luther? Witherington on Romans 7

Ok, people help me with this. I cast the Witherington commentary aside, last year, because I was mad about what he wrote about Romans 6 and 7. All wrong, in my opinion, (if it counts). After the the Love Live conference we were sitting together talking amongst many things about Romans.

This below is on Romans 7.14-25 form Witherington's commentary.

There is an ever-growing body of opinion, led by the reassessment of early Judaism offered by E.P. Sanders and his disciples, that Paul could not possibly be describing here the experience of a Jew as a Jew himself would have described it. If we take, for example, Psalm 119 as a sort of transcript of Jewish experience of the Law, Jews delighted in the Law and saw wrestling with the Law and striving to keep its commandments as a joy, even if such practice was always a work in progress. Nor will it do to suggest that Rom. 7:14-25 is how at least a very rigorous Pharisaic Jew, like Paul, would have described his experience under the Law, for in fact Paul tells us in Phil. 3.6 that in regard to righteousness in the Law he was blameless. As Stendhal says, the evidence is that Paul had a quite robust conscience as a Pharisaic Jew. It is true that Phil. 3.6 does not say that Paul was sinless or perfect, only that, according to the standard of righteous behavior the Law required, no one could fault him for being a law-breaker. Blameless before the law and sinless are most certainly two different things. Gal. 1.14 only further supports this reading, for in that text Paul says he was making good progress in his faith and was very zealous and excited about keeping the traditions of his ancestors. Furthermore, as we have said, as a Christian Paul also manifests a robust conscience, not a sin-laden one, if the subject is what he has done since he became a Christian. His anxieties are about and for his fellow Christian, not about his own spiritual state. This becomes especially clear in Romans 9 when Paul will say that he could wish himself cut off from Christ if it would produce a turning to Christ by many of his fellow Jews. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find any mea culpas of any kind in any of Paul's letters when he is describing his experience as a Christian, much less evidence that he saw himself as burdened by the body of death and the bondage to sin. Nor, if Paul when a Jew did not feel like other person described in Rom. 7. 14-25, is there any good reason to suppose that other devout Jews felt this way. It is time to stop reading Rom. 7.14-25 through the lens of Augustine and Luther, not least because it keeps fueling skewed views of both early and modern Judaism, which in turn fuel anti-Semitism.

Really now? The author of the commentary basically does not want to allow that Paul is speaking of himself in Romans 7.  Previously he came up with a fictional rhetorical device that makes this passage the talk of a non-Christian only.

I am sorry, that is turning the passage on its head.

Paul's anxieties are only for fellow-Christians-- is the other argument here. Yes, he sounds extremely unselfish in Romans 9, but that does not fit here. Other Christians may struggle, but Paul not? That would make him the ultimate Pharisee, would it not? Also, if Paul's salvation really did not matter, then no body else's does either. Witherington does not see a rhetorical device when he does not want to.

And does this bringing in of "skewed views of early and modern Judaism", which supposedly "fuel anti-Semitism" make any sense here,at all?

No, they don't. Witherington, I submit, as a Methodist, does not like what Paul wrote here. That's all. And Luther and anti-Semitism have to be dragged in here, whether fair or not.

He finishes the chapter with the "Bridging the Horizons":

Paul Achtemeier warns about Romans 7: "Those who seek to preach or teach this passage face the problem of overcoming the weight of the long history of interpretation which has distorted Paul's intention in these verses." On the other hand, in an age of not only biblical illiteracy but also ecclesiological ignorance, not that many people, even in the church, know this history of interpretation. It is not necessary to remove a burden of interpretation that does not exist, but it is important to give a modern audience a sense of caution about over-psychologizing the text and especially about using it as a way to deal with modern psychological dilemmas of moral impotence or schizophrenia or the like. Reading this text through the eyes of Freud is about as unhelpful as reading it through the eyes of Augustine or Luther.

If, however, one can convey the sense of the flow of the text and that it deals with a spiritual crisis in the life of the non-Christian described, then this text could be used in fruitful ways. For example, one could ask: What is the nature of conversion? What happens not only to one's worldview but to one's moral compass and willpower when one is delivered from the bondage to sin? If conversion is not merely a cognitive event, what are its potential benefits vis-a vis one's emotions, will, and conduct? But if one goes down this road, one must also be prepared to talk frankly about the potential tensions in the Christian life, the struggle between inner and outer self, between person and persona, between flesh and Spirit. If one loads too much into one's theology of crisis conversion, one will then have difficulty explaining the struggles of the subsequent christian life.

Honestly, I don't understand this last bit. Is he now allowing for the "struggles of the subsequent christian life" and what does he exactly mean by that? Something other than what Paul wrote, there, obviously, because he supposedly did not write this about himself or the Christian life.

I, for one, am glad that Paul included this: "I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." He is also talking about himself in the present. Could he be putting it more plainly?

The simul-justus-et-peccator is exactly how this works. Witherington does not like simul-justus-et-peccator. I've asked him. And Luther and anti-semitism have to be brought in, instead of the genius of simul-justus-et-peccator.

Also Paul says: "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from the body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Again we note the present tense and the first person pronoun. I will not believe that Paul is not talking about himself in the present.

Is Paul already in Christ? Yes. His rescue will not be complete until he is separated from this physical body of death. The struggle remains, no matter his supposed "robust conscience". What is a "robust conscience" anyhow? Your conscience is either clear or not. Which is it? There is no middle thing. Paul is also a sinner and needs to rely on Christ every day of his life. He was strong. He was so strong he needed an affliction to keep him knowing God's grace aright. But God's grace he needed every day.

This is really, really important stuff. If we cannot adopt Romans 7:14-25 as the talk of someone who is in Christ also, we must certainly fall off the wagon to either pride or despair.

The other day, I saw a friend who told me how very guilty she feels about everything in her life. By the time she has gone from communion back to the pew she has already sinned again, she says. And I said, yea, and you even sin when you sleep. She said, yes, she'd done that, too. I explained the simul-justus-et-peccator to her and said that she really will never be in a position where she would not have to rely on the mercy of God, and would she think it would be a good place to be if she did not need it. That made sense to her. She will always and continually need to rely on the mercy of God. That's how it is. But this will come to and end, when this "body of death" is done away with.

Romans/ Witherington/5

The rest of the chapter is more straightforward. Again the:

"It is important in teaching and preaching this material that one focus on what the text does say and not on what it does not say. Romans 4 is about Abraham's nodal trust in God, which God reckoned as righteousness. It is not about Christ's righteousness being imputed to Abraham or to those who follow his example. The discussion is about faith vs. works, not christology v. anthropology. Furthermore, the dominant metaphor is not forensic but commercial--the reckoning of a credit because of faith and the non-reckoning of a debit, namely sin. These factors should guide the way one teaches and preaches this material."

We will keep his distinctions in mind,(though I don't understand what he is getting at) and see what he does with them in coming chapters.

Argument four--5.1-11.

I don't have any problems with this chapter. The only thing, Witherington, as usual, stresses the unfinished nature, (or is it the on-going nature?), of salvation. "How much more then, having been set right then by his blood, shall we be saved through him from the wrath of God...having been reconciled shall we be saved by his life."

He summarizes his point at the very end in the "bridging the horizons" section:

"--having been set right leads to peace with God, a current standing in grace, and a hope for the future. There are past, present, and future dimensions to salvation and its benefits. It is not just about pardon and release, not just about peace with God, not just about having grace sufficient to stand and to resist sin day by day, not simply about having a legitimate hope. It is about all these things and all of these benefits accrue in the present. Paul does not even speak about glorification here or the final future. Yet he does speak of one future dimension to salvation: if one has been set right in the present, one will be saved from the wrath to come. The salvation process is not complete in the present. It is completed only in the future, with the final deliverance from wrath and the assumption of the resurrection body Paul's entire discussion of salvation is eschatologically driven, and includes very few other-worldly dimensions."

I think this is emphasized mainly for the correction of Calvinism, again. Or else, it relates to the fact that Paul is explaining why he and others still suffer (we also rejoice in our sufferings). Actually, probably the latter.

Romans/Witherington/ 4

Romans 4.1-25
First paragraph.
"Abraham becomes a linchpin in Paul's argument concerning how righteousness and a right relationship with God have come to human beings quite apart from the law. This is very different from the sort of argument one finds in 2 Baruch 57.2, where Abraham is said to be able to be righteous and keep the law because God has already written the Law on his heart."

That is an interesting observation. Then comes what may be the thesis statement for this chapter or even the book.

"Put another way, the deliberative nature of Paul's argument here is clear because, as Guerra says, 'Romans 4 is an outstanding instance of the creative reinterpretation of Scripture, for the purpose of promoting a new community and its value system, evidencing its protreptic (What is protreptic? "serving to instruct, didactic") orientation.' Abraham turns out to be not only the example to follow but also the forefather of both Jews and Gentiles and so the proof that Jews and Gentiles were meant to be united in Christ as Abraham's heirs."

That's kind of nice.

Later: "In Romans Paul is trying to get the audience to place more value on their Jewish inheritance and on the fact that Abraham is the father of all who believe, and he is trying to undercut the boasting and ethnic and cultural arrogance of Roman Gentiles. The great leveler is of course that all have sinned and are equally saved by grace through faith. And now we discover that all, both Jews and Gentiles, are in the debt of Abraham the Jew, the paradigmatic man of faith."

That's nice, too. Though I am wondering if he is cutting the "boasting" problem back a little too much from works-righteousness to a cultural issue, though it may be both.

Then he comes to v.3.
"V3 is a crucial quotation of Gen. 15.6 LXX (which has the passive 'was counted' unlike the Hebrew, which has the active 'he counted'). It needs to be stressed that Paul is not speaking here of Christ's righteousness counting in place of Abraham's righteousness or, for that matter, in place of later Christian believers' righteousness. The text is quite explicit--the exchange is between Abraham's faith and Abraham's righteousness. The former is credited or reckoned in lieu of or as the latter. Where then does the idea of imputed righteousness come from? It comes ultimately from Erasmus, and the Lutheran adoption of his reading of this material, as we shall now see"

I really don't know/understand what distinctions he is making.

Witherington tries to elucidate in a section inserted here: "A closer look: imputed righteousness versus reckoned righteous". Again,I am not sure what he is getting at exactly. Erasmus chose to translate from the Vulgate (which has "reputatum" not "imputatum") (my question: since when are we dealing with the Vulgate and the Latin?) Here was supposedly born a "rather strictly forensic understanding of diakaisosyne". About Luther he says: "Luther himself (as compared to whom? Erasmus? Calvin?) does not always go quite this far. He is prepared to say that only by the accrediting of a merciful God and by faith in his word do we become just. (as opposed to what?) He also is prepared to say that all of our good is in fact outside ourselves and located in Christ. But, as scholars have pointed out, Luther does not usually use the language of imputation."

(does this make sense to anyone?)

"The crediting language ("it was reckoned") is not forensic language but commercial or bookkeeping language... In early Judaism there was the belief in the good and evil deeds of a person being recorded in ledgers... It is a mistake to simply read Paul's righteousness language through a forensic filter, not least because Paul believes that God requires of his people that, once saved, they actually lead righteous lives. Paul would likely be appalled by the notion that he is talking about some sort of legal fiction, including the idea that Christ is righteous in the believer's place in such a way that believers are not required to be righteous. Even worse would be the notion that when God looks at believers, he simply sees Christ's righteousness and reckons it to their accounts, instead of believers having to live holy lives."

Ok, I don't really care if it is imputed or reputed, if it is legal or commercial metaphor. Or am I missing something. Witherington is again worried about people thinking they can go on sinning so that grace may increase. We know he does not agree with simul justus et peccator. So he is hedging against justification without a decent life to go with it. OK. I think he is writing more against a Calvinistic understanding of once saved/always saved. He also thinks Luther advocates bold sinning.

He finishes up this section with:

"It is my guess that Paul would have concluded that either of these notions would amount to God being less than totally righteous. It would certainly involve God requiring more of his people under the law than he does under the new covenant, and this hardly comports with the intensification of demands we find in both Pauline parenesis and the Jesus tradition, including portions of the Sermon of the Mount, that Paul draws on in Romans and elsewhere."


Here, I think, W. shows his colors again about the role of the law in the believer's life. Jesus said: "my yoke is light". In the New Testament we have a different attitude. And the "law of Christ" is not like the OT law. Quote I found last night.

"But when a person is born anew by the Spirit of God and is liberated from the law (that is, when he is free from this driver and is driven by the Spirit of Christ), he lives according to the immutable will of God as it is comprehended in the law and, in so far as he is born anew, he does everything from a free and merry spirit. These works are, strictly speaking, not works of the law but works and fruits of the Spirit, or, as St. Paul calls them, the law of the mind and the law of Christ. According to St. Paul, such people are no longer under law but under grace."
(BOC, Solid Declaration).

That's all I can manage right now. I had thought that Abraham's faith is like my faith, like all believer's of all times faith, that the blood of the sacrifice takes away the guilt. The OT sacrifices were a foreshadowing of what was to come. "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered." He believed God's promise. We believe God's promise. "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Witherington stresses that there is a difference here: "Romans 4 is about Abraham's nodal trust in God, which God reckoned as righteousness. It is not about Christ's righteousness being imputed to Abraham or to those who follow his example. The discussion is about faith vs. works, not Christology vs. anthropology".

I still don't really know what he is talking about.

Reading Ben Witherington's Commentary on Romans, installment 3

There is so much in this commentary that I can't comment on, because I am not nearly at Dr. W's level of education. He is obviously an amazing man.

I did not have much of a problem with 3.21-31. There is a discussion about "forensic justification". He does not like these terms, but his clarifications seem good to me:

"...we should not immediately read a phrase like "the righteousness of God" in early Jewish or Jewish Christian sources through the lens of forensic categories. Occasionally the phrase does have a forensic sense, but this must be determined from the context. More often it refers to the character of God, which he actively expresses in his salvific work or sometimes in judgment. It is for this reason that I have avoided the traditional language of "justification" and "justify" and have preferred instead some form of usage that includes "right" or "righteous" in it. Romans 4 will discuss the matter of being reckoned as righteous, bit dikaisoyne means more that just this to Paul. It is not just about a declaration or forensic pronouncement, and the phrase "legal fiction" hardly does justice to this profound idea. God does not simply consider the sinner righteous as a result of the finished work of Christ. Through that salvific work of Christ a person has been set right--which means not only set back into a right relationship with God, or reckoned as righteous, but also set in the right moral direction as well." (p.105)

Most of the chapter seems to me to make helpful analysis and explanations. Several misunderstandings of different writers and periods are addressed.

At the very end of the chapter he does set up the idea of the new set of laws for the new covenant, which seems to me is a misunderstanding of such phrases as the law of Christ and the law of faith.

"Indeed, his promises to Israel are to be gathered up and fulfilled in Jesus in the context of the new covenant, not the continuation of the old one. So both Israel and Gentiles find themselves on a new footing with God as a result of the Christ-event. God is not keeping two contracts and two sets of laws with humankind at the same time."

Below, there is a video of Lee Strobel with Ben Witherington.

W's commentary on Romans, 2

Regarding chapter 2:17-3.20 Dr. Witherington writes on page 98, in his "bridging the horizons" section:

"There is a trap in focusing on Paul's insistence on a Law-free Gospel, the trap of cheap grace. Paul is not encouraging lawlessness by making clear that Christians are not under the Mosaic law and covenant. Indeed he will argue that Christians are under the Law of Christ. The issue here, however, is not only how one obtains right standing with God (by grace through faith), but also one's attitude and approach to the Word of God when it has been entrusted to believers as a gift. Paul's theology is that a gift never becomes a possession in the sense of something one can do with as one pleases. The Word of God, including the Law, was entrusted to Israel as a gift, and therefore there could be no ground for boasting. A gift is not an accomplishment or achievement."

I notice that Dr. Witherington writes very often about the "Law of Christ". I've never heard so much about the "Law of Christ" except from my friends and neighbors who are of the Mormon persuasion. Did the Mormons get Christ as lawgiver from the Methodists?

Dr. Martin Luther has Christ as an interpreter of the law, not a new law giver. When Witherington says that when Paul is writing against the law, he means the "Mosaic law", because now there is a new law, the Law of Christ--I have my alarm bells ringing. The question remains: what does it mean that Christ is the end of the law, and yet sometimes we hear about the law of Christ?

The way one of my professors and Bible study teachers, Dr. Russ Nelson, (also a famous biblical scholar) explains the change in the law from the OT to the NT is that there were, for one thing, several types of law. There is not just this overarching "Mosaic" law. There was the law that applied to the running of the ancient nation of Israel. That does not apply to us. There is the sacrificial and ceremonial law, which does not apply in the NT after Christ's death and resurrection. But there is also the moral law and the Decalogue, which is timeless and generally known instinctively also by the heathen. This moral law remains. In my understanding "Christ's law" is an interpretation/explanation of this moral law. It is not a "new" law, per se. The essence of the law has been and still is the love of God and neighbor. Paul does give specific instructions to the churches that would be expressions of morality, loving behaviour, as well as other instructions for good order for the times and location.

Christ is chiefly our Redeemer and thus: the "end of the law". The law will not reign in our consciences and terrify us any more. The Gospel, the good news, will reign, instead. It will make us glad to serve Christ and fellow man. If we mix the law into this, we do not have any Gospel. So yes, we need always insist on and focus on having a Law-free Gospel.

The text says quite clearly what the law does in the conscience: "But we know that whatever the Law says it speaks to those under the Law, in order that all mouths might be stopped and all the world be held guilty before God. Therefore, no one, from works of the law, will be declared righteous, from among all humans before him, for through the Law we become conscious of sin."

Dr. W. brings up "cheap grace". I guess, we can get that from Paul's question " 'Do evil so good may come?' The judgment of them is deserved." Of course, no one is saying that one should do evil so good would come of it. I don't know who would teach such a thing. Is the Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist way of thinking promoting cheap grace, according to W? He is not saying that. But I feel, he may be thinking/implying it. That would be a misrepresentation. He is not simply warning that there can be a danger with the Law-free Gospel. He says "there is a trap." Does he mean that focusing on the Law-free Gospel is definitely a trap?

Ok, so far my thoughts on that. I will add a quote from Luther here that shows how he handles justification and law keeping for the Christian. They must be carefully distinguished and separated as not to nullify the Gospel, and make Christ's suffering superfluous. From the commentary to letter to the Galatians (Luther’s works, volume 26, commentary on Galatians, p. 137):

” ‘ But the Law is good, righteous, and holy.’ Very well! But when we are involved in a discussion of justification, there is no room for speaking about the Law. The question is what Christ is and what blessing He has brought us. Christ is not the law; He is not my work or that of the Law; he is not my love or that of the law; He is not my chastity, obedience, or poverty. But He is the Lord of life and death, the Mediator and Savior of sinners, the Redeemer of those who are under the Law. By faith we are in Him and He is in us (John 6:56). This Bridegroom, Christ, must be alone with his bride in His private chamber, and all the family and household must be shunted away. But later on, when the Bridegroom opens the door and comes out, then let the servants return to take care of them and serve them food and drink. Then let works and love begin.

… Victory over sin and death does not come by the works of the Law or by our will; therefore it comes by Jesus Christ, alone. Here we are perfectly willing to have ourselves called ’sola fideists’ by our opponents, who do not understand anything of Paul’s argument. You who are to be the consolers of consciences that are afflicted, should teach this doctrine diligently, study it continually, and defend it vigorously...”

P. 145
But we do make a distinction here; and we say that we are not disputing now whether good works ought to be done. Nor are we inquiring whether the law is good, holy, and righteous, or whether it ought to be observed; FOR THAT IS ANOTHER TOPIC (my emphasis). But our argument and questions concerns justification and whether the law justifies. Our opponents do not listen to this. They do not answer this question, nor do they distinguish as we do. All they do is to scream that good works ought to be done and that the law ought to be observed. ALL RIGHT, WE KNOW THAT. (my emphasis). But because these are distinct topics, we will not permit them to be confused. In due time we shall discuss the teaching that the law and good works ought to be done.”

Reading Ben Witherington's Commentary on Romans, 1

Ben Witherington is not only an amazing scholar but an incredibly good and voluminous writer on subjects of New Testament. His commentaries on books of the Bible are said to be outstanding. And so I am reading one: "Paul's Letter to the Romans. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary."

From discussions on his blog, however, I already know that he holds to Wesleyan/Arminian theology and thinks it is very important to deconstruct the Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist interpretation. I know he thinks "imputed" righteousness is wrong. In know he thinks "simul justus et peccator" is very wrong. I know he thinks there is an "attainable perfection" that can be achieved by Christians.

So, as a Lutheran Christian who holds fast to a clear law/gospel distinction, who recognizes herself as sinner and saint at the same time, who knows she will not achieve anything near perfection, and who would be quite frightened if I thought of myself as nearly perfect--what do I expect to get from this commentary? Certainly, some things I won't be happy with. In this blog, I will point out some of the things I'm not happy with, because I think it matters.

The introduction and the chapter on Paul's lengthy greeting and purpose for writing are interesting. The section on 1:16, 17 I find weak. The gospel as power to save is illustrated in a cute story about someone not jumping off a bridge, because she remembered a Bible verse from Vacation Bible School. It is not really shown very clearly, that through the Gospel we are made the new creation, by believing it.

At the end of the section on 1:18-32, he feels compelled to bring in Luther and the Bondage of the Will. I will quote the whole thing (p. 71, 72), here:

"If, at the other extreme, one has a theology of election that does not allow for viable secondary causes, then ultimately one makes God the author of sin. Sometimes a work like Luther's 'The Bondage of the Will' seems to leave no room for human beings to make viable moral choices and so rightly be held responsible for their misbehavior. Or again, Jonathan Edwards' 'Freedom of the Will" can give the impression that all that freedom means is that human beings do not 'feel' compelled by God to do what they do, when actually they could not have done otherwise. There is no genuine power of contrary choice. It is hard to see how this sort of theology escapes the criticism that it ultimately makes God the author of sin and is a form of determinism or even fatalism.

Paul does not say that God wills everything that happens. To the contrary, he says here that God gave up the people he describes to their own devices and will and choice of behavior. God allowed them to follow the path of sin because they had determined for themselves to go in that direction.

Another problem with determinism is that no good action should be seen as virtuous if a person could not have done otherwise, or at least there should be no talk of rewards and the like if a person did something good quite apart from their own intention and will. Both Jesus and Paul do speak of rewards for virtuous behavior.

This is not to deny that all good deeds done by fallen persons are done with the aid of grace, but grace is not normally seen as some inexorable force that predetermines how one will use the grace given. Grace is a power given that enables a person to choose the good. It does not usually force a person to do something. In other words, grace is usually something that can be resisted or positively drawn upon. There are moments in life, no doubt, when one is overwhelmed by grace, but this is by no means always the case. Sometimes we reject the leading and guiding of God's love and grace in our lives, and it is part of the divine mystery that God allows such things to happen, as Romans 1 says."

So far Dr. Witherington.

The Bondage of the Will is a long and complicated book, and I read it not long ago. I think Luther would have rested his case and felt his point proved by just saying, as W says: "This is not to deny that all good deeds done by fallen persons are done with the aid of grace." The fact that grace is needed, puts God in control, that's what he is saying.

"Sometimes we reject the leading and guiding of God's love and grace in our lives, and it is part of the divine mystery that God allows such things to happen, as Romans 1 says." We don't believe in "irresistible grace" either. However, a Calvinist might.

"God allowed them to follow the path of sin because they had determined for themselves to go in that direction." Again, God allowing it, puts him in control again.

"The Bondage of the Will' seems to leave no room for human beings to make viable moral choices and so rightly be held responsible for their misbehavior."

The Bondage of the Will is concerned mostly with the power of human beings for regeneration and faith. Are they able to do this without God's aid? If they cannot do it without God's aid, then they are bound. As we saw already the Gospel is the power. Do people come up with the Gospel themselves, or is it preached to them? It is preached to them. So it is God's doing.

On the other hand, simple moral choices, are in a different category. The Bondage of the Will says, that in matters of daily life and simple reason, we do make choices.

How far the Bondage of the Will agrees with Calvinism, I am not sure. There is the critique of Calvinism that the "sovereignty of God" is taken too far in that atonement becomes limited, grace irresistible, that people are predestined to be the reprobate. We don't agree with that.

How far do Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Witherington disagree or agree with each other? I don't think Luther and Witherington disagree that much based on that passage alone. How far do Luther and Calvin agree? I think Witherington disagrees most with Calvin, but may not realize that.

Ok, that's the best I can do for now. Please, do pitch in with comments.