By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification

by Gary L. W. Johnson (Editor), Guy Prentiss Waters (Editor), David F. Wells (Contribution by), R. Albert Mohler Jr. (Contribution by), Cornelis P. Venema (Contribution by)

Overview

The Reformation swept across Europe with a God-glorifying gospel of grace. Now the doctrine of grace cherished and proclaimed by the Reformers is under renewed assault from an unexpected place—the evangelical church itself.

With the help of several theologians, Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy P. Waters trace the background and development of two seemingly disparate movements that have surfaced within the contemporary church-the New Perspective(s) on Paul and the Federal Vision-and how they corrupt the truth of salvation by faith alone. By regaining a focus on the doctrine of grace, pastors, seminarians, and future leaders can regain the cohesion, coherence, and direction to truly build the church to withstand the attacks of false and empty doctrines.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781433519178
Publisher:	Crossway
Publication date:	03/06/2007
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	224
File size:	2 MB

About the Author

 Gary L. W. Johnson (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is the senior pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona. He has written for Table Talk, Modern Reformation, and the Westminster Theological Journal.  

  Gary L. W. Johnson (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is the senior pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona. He has written for Table Talk, Modern Reformation, and the Westminster Theological Journal.  

Guy Prentiss Waters (PhD, Duke University) is James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson. He is the author or editor of fifteen books and numerous chapters, articles, and reviews. He is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

David Wells (PhD, University of Manchester) is a distinguished research professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the author or editor of a number of books, some of which have been translated into many different languages. He is a member of the John Stott Ministries board, where he has worked to bring theological education to church leaders in developing countries. He is also actively involved in working to build orphanages and provide educational opportunities for victims of civil wars and AIDS in Africa. David and his wife, Jane, live in Massachusetts.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. (PhD, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as the ninth president and the Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology of Southern Seminary. Considered a leader among American evangelicals by  Time and  Christianity Today magazines, Dr. Mohler hosts two programs: The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview, and Thinking in Public, a series of conversations with today’s leading thinkers. He also writes a popular blog and a regular commentary on moral, cultural, and theological issues.

Cornelis P. Venema (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) serves as the president of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where he also teaches doctrinal studies. He is also an associate pastor of the Redeemer United Reformed Church of Dyer, Indiana, and the co-editor of the Mid-America Journal of Theology. He and his wife, Nancy, have four children and twelve grandchildren.

  Richard D. Phillips (DD, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) is the senior minister of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, South Carolina. He chairs the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology and coedits the Reformed Expository Commentary. He is also a chairman of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, a council member of the Gospel Coalition, and a trustee of Westminster Theological Seminary.  

David VanDrunen (PhD, Loyola University Chicago) is the Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido, California.

  E. Calvin Beisner (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is a spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and an author and speaker on the application of the biblical worldview to economics, government, and environmental policy. He is a ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and has written over ten books and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs.  

  John Bolt (PhD, University of St. Michael’s College) is professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is the author and editor of several books. John and his wife, Ruth, have three children and nine grandchildren. 

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

What Did Saint Paul Really Say? N.T. Wright And New Perspective(s) on Paul CORNELIS P. VENEMA

During the last decades of the twentieth century, a quiet revolution occurred in New Testament scholarship, particularly in the study of the writings of the apostle Paul. Though largely unobserved by the proverbial man or woman in the pew, academic study of the apostle Paul has come increasingly to be dominated by an approach that rejected the traditional Protestant consensus regarding Paul's view of the gospel. Longheld convictions regarding Paul's doctrine of justification were dismantled and replaced with a new paradigm, or perspective, on his teaching. Though it remains to be seen how lasting this New Perspective will be, it has so influenced contemporary studies of the apostle that it is perhaps today the consensus view of biblical theologians. What began quietly in the academy, moreover, is beginning to seep into the churches. No longer is the New Perspective an exclusively academic point of view. Increasingly this view is gaining adherents and creating controversy within the churches. Since the New Perspective challenges the historic Protestant teaching that justification is the gracious act whereby God declares sinners acceptable to him on the basis of the righteousness of Christ alone, evangelical and Reformed Christians can ill afford to be ignorant of its emphases or influence.

One of the challenges confronting any attempt to address this New Perspective on Paul is that many different views fall under its broad canopy. Advocates of a new approach to Paul's understanding of the gospel represent a wide spectrum of opinion, and, even among recognized proponents of the New Perspective, there are substantial differences. In order to avoid some of the difficulty this poses for a summary of the New Perspective, the approach in this chapter will be to focus upon the position of one of its principal exponents and architects, N. T. Wright. In addition to being a gifted New Testament scholar and prolific author, N. T. Wright has proven to be a persuasive proponent of the New Perspective beyond the boundaries of the academy. Though Wright, who serves as the Bishop of Durham of the Church of England, prefers not to be identified with some monochrome development known as the New Perspective, he believes that a return to the older Reformation view of Paul's teaching on justification would be to turn back the clock.

Like many authors who are identified, to a greater or lesser extent, with the New Perspective on Paul, Wright maintains that we need to take a "fresh" look at the biblical and especially Pauline texts without the encumbrance of the traditional formulations and confessional (especially polemical) positions of the sixteenth-century Reformation. In this way, the contemporary church will honor the Reformation's emphasis upon sola Scriptura, while avoiding a slavish adherence to a reading of the apostle Paul that has been largely discredited by more recent historical and biblical scholarship. Wright is a natural choice for our purpose in this chapter for another reason. Not only has he popularized the New Perspective for a general audience, but he also views himself as an evangelical whose commitment to the great tenets of Christian orthodoxy is unswerving. Though admitting that he no longer views things in the black-and-white terms he once did, Wright insists that he remains a "deeply orthodox theologian" who wants to present a fresh reading of the gospel to the (post)modern world.

In order to accomplish the purpose of this chapter, which is to provide a summary of Wright's New Perspective on the apostle Paul and his doctrine of justification, I will begin with a general sketch of his position. Though I will not be able to provide anything like a complete assessment of Wright's position, I will also offer a preliminary evaluation of some of its key features. Other chapters in this volume will consider in greater detail some of the exegetical claims of the New Perspective and N. T. Wright; my aim here will be to accomplish two limited goals. First, I will attempt to present a clear statement of Wright's interpretation of Paul's doctrine of justification. And second, I will seek to encourage contemporary evangelical and Reformed Christians to view critically the claims of authors of the New Perspective. My thesis will be that the older perspective on Paul's doctrine of justification ultimately provides a more satisfying and comprehensive interpretation of the gospel than the newer perspective of writers like Wright.

Wright and the New Perspective

To understand Wright's view of the apostle Paul's understanding of the gospel, it is necessary to begin with two figures who have contributed significantly to his thinking. The first of these figures, E. P. Sanders, is widely known for his historical study of Second Temple Judaism. The second of these figures, James D. G. Dunn, is a New Testament colleague who has argued that Paul formulated his doctrine of justification in opposition to Jewish exclusivism rather than legalism, as was assumed by the older perspective on the apostle Paul. Wright's reinterpretation of the apostle Paul's doctrine of justification builds in large measure upon the insights of Sanders and Dunn. Despite Wright's reluctance to identify himself with anything as monolithic as the New Perspective on Paul, he proceeds from the assumption that the writings of Sanders, Dunn, and other advocates of a new approach require a fresh reading of Paul. The contributions of Sanders and Dunn to a new view of Judaism and the historical context for reading the New Testament and the writings of the apostle Paul have irrevocably altered the landscape of biblical studies. Consequently, any simple return to the past, particularly to the debates and positions of the sixteenth-century Reformation, would be an irresponsible path for contemporary New Testament studies.

E. P. Sanders's View of Second Temple Judaism

Even though there are a number of forerunners who made significant contributions to the emergence of a New Perspective on Paul, the most influential and pivotal figure is undoubtedly E. P. Sanders. Sanders's 1977 volume, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, is now generally regarded as a classic presentation of the view of Second Temple Judaism that is basic to the New Perspective. Sanders's stated purpose in his classic study was to compare the pattern of religion evident in Paul's writings with the pattern of religion in Jewish literature during the period between 200 BC and AD 200. By a "pattern of religion" Sanders means the way a religion understands how a person "gets in" and "stays in" the community of God's people.

Traditional accounts of the differences between religions, particularly the differences between Judaism and Christianity, focused upon the distinctive essence or core beliefs of these religions. In doing so, Judaism was often simplistically described as a "legalistic" religion, which emphasizes obedience to the law as the basis for inclusion among God's people, and Christianity was described as a "gracious" religion, which emphasizes God's free initiative in calling his people into communion with himself.

In the first part of his study, Sanders provides a comprehensive survey of Jewish literature during the two centuries before and after the coming of Christ. On the basis of this survey, Sanders maintains that Second Temple Judaism exhibits a pattern of religion best described as covenantal nomism. Sanders defines covenantal nomism as follows:

The "pattern" or "structure" of covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God's promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God's mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement.

Contrary to the traditional Protestant claim that Palestinian Judaism was legalistic, Sanders appeals to evidence in Jewish writings of the Second Temple period to support the view that it was a religion of grace. In the literature of Judaism, God is represented as graciously electing Israel to be his people and mercifully providing a means of atonement and opportunity for repentance in order to deal with their sins. So far as Israel's "getting in" the covenant is concerned, this was not by human achievement but by God's gracious initiative. Obedience to the law was only required as a means of maintaining or "staying in" the covenant.

One of the immediate problems that surfaces, as a result of Sanders's argument for a new view of Judaism, is what to do with the apostle Paul and his polemics against Judaism. If Judaism was not a legalistic religion, what are we to make of Paul's vigorous arguments against claims to find favor with God on the basis of works? Is Paul combating a kind of straw man in his letters (especially in Romans and Galatians), when he combats a righteousness that is by the "works of the law"? Sanders, both in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism and in a sequel, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, answers this question by suggesting that Paul's view of the human plight was a byproduct of his view of salvation. Paul started with Christ as the "solution" to the human predicament and then worked backward to explain the "plight" to which his saving work corresponds.

Though Paul has traditionally been interpreted to teach that the problem of human sinfulness, which is made known and aggravated through the law's demand for perfect obedience, calls for a solution in Christ's person and work, we should recognize that his description of the problem of sin derives from his prior convictions about Christ. Paul, in effect, starts from the basic conviction that Christ is the only Savior of Jews and Gentiles. On the basis of this conviction, he then develops a doctrine of the law and human sinfulness that corresponds to it. According to Sanders, the great problem with Judaism, so far as the apostle Paul was concerned, was not that it was legalistic; Paul's principal objection to Judaism was that it rejected the new reality of God's saving work through Christ. In words that have often been quoted, Sanders concludes: "In short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity" (emphasis in original).

James D. G. Dunn: A New View of the "Works of the Law"

Next to Sanders, the second figure of importance to Wright's understanding of the apostle Paul's doctrine of justification is James D. G. Dunn. In a 1982 lecture, "The New Perspective on Paul," Dunn acknowledged that Sanders's study, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, represented a "new pattern" for understanding the apostle Paul. In this lecture, Dunn credited Sanders with breaking the stranglehold of the older Reformation view that had dominated Pauline studies for centuries. The idea that there is a basic antithesis between Judaism, which supposedly taught a doctrine of salvation by meritorious works, and Paul, who taught a doctrine of salvation by faith apart from the works of the law, needs to be set aside once and for all. Judaism was, as Sanders has convincingly demonstrated, a religion of salvation that emphasized God's goodness and generosity toward his people, Israel. The law was given to Israel, not as a means for procuring favor with God, but as a means to confirm the covenant relationship previously established by grace. Dunn fully concurs with Sanders's argument that Judaism's pattern of religion was that of covenantal nomism.

In spite of Sanders's groundbreaking insight into the nature of Judaism, Dunn claims that he nonetheless failed to provide a coherent explanation of Paul's relation to Judaism. Though Sanders provided the occasion for a New Perspective on Paul, his own interpretation of Paul's gospel fails to show how Paul's view of the law arises within the context of the Judaism of his day. If the problem with Judaism's understanding of the law was not legalism, which teaches that obedience to the law's requirements is the basis for inclusion among God's covenant people, what was wrong with its teaching? To what error is the apostle Paul responding, when he speaks of a justification that is not according to "works of the law" but according to faith?

If we approach the apostle Paul from the perspective of the new view of Judaism, we will discover, Dunn argues, that Paul was objecting to Jewish exclusivism and not legalism. The problem with the use of the law among the Judaizers whom Paul opposed was not their attempt to find favor with God on the basis of their obedience to the law, but their use of the works of the law to exclude Gentiles from membership in the covenant community. The Judaizers were insisting upon certain works of the law that served as boundary markers for inclusion or exclusion from the number of God's people. The law functioned in their thinking and practice as a means of identifying who properly belongs to the community of faith. It was this social use of the law as a means of excluding Gentiles that receives Paul's rebuke, not an alleged appeal to the law as a means of self-justification. According to Dunn, Paul's real objection to the Judaizers' appeal to works of the law is clearly disclosed in passages like Galatians 2:15–16 and Galatians 3:10–14. In these passages, Paul was not opposing an allegedly legalistic teaching that obedience to the law of God in general is the basis for finding favor with God. Rather, Paul was opposing the idea that the works of the law, that is, those observances that particularly distinguish Jews from Gentiles, are necessary badges of covenant membership. What Paul objects to are those works of the law that served as ritual markers of identity to separate Jews from Gentiles.

The "Gospel" According to Wright

In his interpretation of Paul's understanding of justification, Wright proceeds from the conviction that Sanders and Dunn have undermined two essential features of the older Reformation view. First, whereas the Reformation perspective assumed that Paul articulated the doctrine of justification in opposition to Jewish legalism, Sanders's study of Second Temple Judaism has demonstrated compellingly that no such legalism was prevalent at the time of the writing of Paul's epistles. The assumption, which played such an important, even decisive, role in the Reformation understanding of the apostle Paul — that the Judaizers taught salvation on the basis of works righteousness — is largely a fiction. Sanders and others have conclusively demonstrated that Judaism emphasized the grace of God as the basis for his covenant with Israel. The role of works in Judaism was merely one of "maintaining" the covenant relationship and not one of establishing the basis for "entrance into" fellowship with God. Whatever the apostle Paul's problems with Judaism were, they could not be directed to legalism, since we know that no such legalism was advocated by Judaism in Paul's day.

Wright's endorsement of Sanders's new view of Judaism and its importance for understanding Paul's gospel is unmistakable: "the tradition of Pauline interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false Judaism for him to oppose. "Indeed, the Reformation's understanding of the gospel of free justification amounts to what Wright terms "the retrojection of the Protestant-Catholic debate into ancient history, with Judaism taking the role of Catholicism and Christianity the role of Lutheranism." Because the Reformation misunderstood the problem to which Paul was actually responding, it failed to grasp the real meaning of Paul's teaching on justification by faith.

Second, in addition to his agreement with Sanders's general description of Judaism as a non-legalistic religion, Wright also makes sympathetic use of Dunn's interpretation of Paul's dispute with the Judaizers and their understanding of the works of the law. The problem with the Judaizers' appeal to the works of the law was not its legalism, Wright insists, but its perverted nationalism. The Pauline expression, the works of the law, does not refer to a legalistic claim regarding how sinners can find favor with God by obeying the law, but to the nationalistic Jewish claim that God's covenant promise extends only to the Jews. The works of the law are what Dunn calls boundary markers, those acts of conformity to the law that served to distinguish the Jewish community from the Gentiles:

If we ask how it is that Israel has missed her vocation, Paul's answer is that she is guilty not of 'legalism' or 'works-righteousness' but of what I call 'national righteousness,' the belief that fleshly Jewish descent guarantees membership of God's true covenant people. ... Within this 'national righteousness', the law functions not as a legalist's ladder but as a charter of national privilege, so that, for the Jew, possession of the law is three parts of salvation: and circumcision functions not as a ritualist's outward show but as a badge of national privilege.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "By Faith Alone"
by .
Copyright © 2006 Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy Prentiss Waters.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Contributors,
List of Abbreviations,
Foreword DAVID F. WELLS,
Introduction: Whatever Happened to Sola Fide? GUY PRENTISS WATERS,
1. What Did Saint Paul Really Say? N. T. Wright and the New Perspective(s) on Paul CORNELIS P.VENEMA,
2. Observations on N. T. Wright's Biblical Theology With Special Consideration of "Faithfulness of God" T. DAVID GORDON,
3. A Justification of Imputed Righteousness RICHARD D. PHILLIPS,
4. The Foundational Term for Christian Salvation: Imputation C. FITZSIMONS ALLISON,
5. Reflections on Auburn Theology T. DAVID GORDON,
6. To Obey Is Better Than Sacrifice: A Defense of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Light of Recent Criticism DAVID VANDRUNEN,
7. Covenant, Inheritance, and Typology: Understanding the Principles at Work in God's Covenants R. FOWLER WHITE & E. CALVIN BEISNER,
8. Why the Covenant of Works Is a Necessary Doctrine: Revisiting the Objections to a Venerable Reformed Doctrine JOHN BOLT,
9. The Reformation, Today's Evangelicals, and Mormons: What Next? GARY L. W. JOHNSON,
Afterword: A Change in the Audience, Not in the Drama R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.,

What People are Saying About This

From the Publisher

"If you have been unsettled or impressed by the arguments of the New Perspectives or the Federal Vision-this book is for you. By Faith Alone is a serious and substantial rejoinder to the new viewpoints on justification, imputation, covenant theology, and more."
—Ligon Duncan, Chancellor and CEO, Reformed Theological Seminary

"The twin pillars of historic Protestantism-the authority of the Bible and justification by faith alone-have been under attack since the beginning of the Reformation. But the recent assault on justification by the New Perspective on Paul and by the Federal Vision is particularly pernicious, cloaked as it is in apparent scholarship and piety. This important book defends the historic Reformation doctrine with better scholarship and more profound piety."
—W. Robert Godfrey, President Emeritus and Professor Emeritus, Westminster Seminary California; Teaching Fellow, Ligonier Ministries

"In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther boldly declared that the doctrine of justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. In the twenty-first century, many churches have not stood their ground but have fallen prey to the voices of those who have offered new perspectives on an ancient, biblical doctrine. I am thankful the Lord has raised up faithful men to provide the people of God with a clear, biblical perspective on this most precious doctrine."
—Burk Parsons, Senior Pastor, Saint Andrew’s Chapel, Sanford, Florida; Editor, Tabletalk