African Christians don't read African authors - The same goes for Latin Americans.

This blog is written by a Latin American, so many things will have to do with how I see the world from a Latin American perspective.

Christianity Today has published an article that mentions how Africans are reading more christian American authors rather than authors from their own continent, that also write christian books. The article gives many reasons why authors from Africa don't feel compelled to write, but it also reflects the interest within the African community about prosperity gospel, and also about how much they know about the American type of Christianity, and how little they know about their own.

In Latin American, we suffer a similar thing. The prosperity Gospel teachers chew books out of the printer regularly. There's also a growing section of Christianity that are reading faithful Christian writers from the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe. This is good, but they don't go beyond that. Some, only read Reformed flavoured literature, and at times, only XVI century writers, that don't relate to the practical pastoral issues being faced in the continent.

This article, along with that particular whole issue of Christianity Today, opens us to the world of how diverse Christianity can be. It's not a sin to be different, if we are still faithful to the word of God.

What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement? An Interpretive Essay by Dr. Paul Owen

Below is a solicited essay by Dr. Paul Owen. Dr. Owen is Professor of Greek and Religious Studies at Montreat College in North Carolina, where he has taught since 2001.  Founded in 1916, Montreat College is the only liberal arts college in North Carolina that holds membership in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.  Dr. Owen’s academic articles and book reviews have been published in numerous venues, including the Calvin Theological Journal, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal of Biblical Literature, and Journal for the Study of the New Testament. (see a fuller bio at the article's end).

Dr. Owen is an occasional contributor on the comment threads at SBC Tomorrow, and it was his insightful comments on the so-called "young, restless, and reformed" theological trend which occasioned my request he tease his thoughts out further. He did.

Thus, the essay below is a spirited look at what TIME magazine listed in 2010 as one of 10 ideas changing the world right now--New Calvinism. Some will dismiss Dr. Owen's analysis as much too blustery. Others will praise his insight as spot on. Still others may raise suspicions concerning his conclusions since Dr. Owen's theological tradition is rooted in the Episcopal Church (unfortunately, we Baptists are at times prone to consider only Baptist contributions). What one cannot do, however, is ignore his studied, scholarly opinion.

I trust that whether or not one agrees with Dr. Owen, he will receive the respectful response a scholar deserves.

What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement?

by

Paul Owen, Ph.D.

I'm an Episcopalian. That means that I belong to the only major branch of historic Protestantism which has maintained apostolic succession through the historic episcopate (a linear succession of catholic bishops). My Christian beliefs and practices are shaped by the Bible (our only infallible source of doctrine), as read and interpreted by the undivided catholic Church, the consensual faith of the Patristic witness, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. But at the same time I'm also happy to be called a Calvinist. Clergymen from my Anglican church were present both at the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly.

In keeping with the Calvinist wing of Anglicanism, I affirm both the helpless depravity of man (his unwillingness to repent and believe without the operation of God's grace), and unconditional election (not based on God's foresight of human choice or use of his free will). That is to say, I believe that God's actual saving grace is bestowed only upon those persons whom God has chosen for eternal salvation before the foundation of the world. I also believe that the atonement which Jesus offered up to the Father on behalf of the whole world (strict adherents to limited atonement would differ), had its ultimate effect as its final and intended end—the salvation of all those elect believers out of the world. I believe that the grace God bestows on his elect people, because of its divinely intended effect, certainly and infallibly accomplishes their conversion unto eternal salvation. And I believe that none of God's elect saints, once truly converted by grace, can totally and finally fall away from the path of discipleship and salvation in Christ, but will certainly persevere to the end and be eternally saved. At the end of the day, I am still among those who see predestination as the primary reason why the grace offered to all becomes actual saving grace in the case of some, as opposed to my Arminian friends, who believe that it is the undetermined use of free will on the part of man which makes the primary difference.

So why then do I have so many misgivings about the state of Calvinism in the evangelical Church today? Why am I not more enthusiastic about what I see going on around me amongst the Young, Restless and Reformed? Why do I sometimes feel more of a kinship with non-Calvinists of various flavors, than with the children of Geneva? Having observed Calvinism "on the ground" (in America and Scotland) for around twenty years now, what follows are some of my misgivings and observations.

The TULIP Personality

Calvinism today seems to appeal mostly to a certain sort of personality, and that personality is not always healthy. I have discovered that the person who really spends a lot of time talking about the "doctrines of grace," tends to fit a typical profile. They tend to be male (rarely do you find women sitting around arguing about the details of TULIP), intellectually arrogant, argumentative, insecure (and therefore intolerant), and prone to constructing straw-man arguments. In order for the typical Calvinist's faith to remain secure, he seems to feel the need to imagine all others outside his theological box as evil, uninformed, or just plain stupid. I have seen this in men of all ages, some Baptist, some Presbyterian, some laymen, some ordained ministers.

I don't think there is any necessary connection between Calvinism and such traits, so why does it seem to be so prevalent today? Part of the reason, which I do not have time or space to develop here, is that the evangelical church has no robust ecclesiology, and thus no structured spirituality to put into practice as the body of Christ. And given the absence of a structured spiritual life, Reformed Christianity tends to be reduced to a set of doctrines to contemplate, which attracts mainly certain kinds of people, and encourages certain kinds of attitudes among believers. Thus, when you remove Reformed theology from its proper historical place in the structured life of Reformed religion and ecclesiology, and plant it in the foreign soil of modern evangelical gnostic spirituality, it takes a grotesque shape that is contrary to its origins.

One thing I have noticed is that such features tend to display themselves most dramatically in those who experience Calvinism as a "second blessing." They grow up either in a non-Christian home, or a Christian environment that did not talk about issues related to Calvinism. When they first encounter the "doctrines of grace," they are suddenly captured by the intellectual beauty of a logical system that "makes sense" to them. When listening to Calvinist newbies over the years, as they describe their first exposure to Reformed theology, there is an evident "conversion narrative." New TULIP converts speak in hushed tones about when they first "came to accept" the doctrines of grace. You get the sense that they entered a deeper state of Christian spirituality and walk with Christ by discovering that God arbitrarily saves and arbitrarily destroys whomsoever He chooses. I think that there is a certain obnoxious personality that likes to feel superior to others, and unfortunately, the "doctrines of grace" seem to do this for them.

The TULIP Gospel

On numerous occasions, I have seen Calvinists equate the gospel with the doctrines of grace. Supposedly, the doctrines of grace are simply the pure expression of the Christian gospel, and Calvinism is simply Christianity without the corruption of human merit mixed into the equation. Unfortunately, I have seen even men of great learning, who really should know better than to fall into such over-simplifications, talk in this manner. So any dilution of Calvinism is effectively a dilution of the gospel itself. Given this way of thinking, no wonder Calvinists seem to have a hard time playing with their friends in the theological sandbox! Who wants to be nice to people who are mixing human merit in with the pure gospel of Christ? Didn't Paul pronounce an anathema on people like that in Galatians?

This makes it very difficult for some Calvinists to acknowledge common ground with non-Calvinist theologies, or to admit when they are making good points. I have tried to avoid this insular way of thinking in my own theological reflection. There are verses in the Bible that Arminians seem to handle with more integrity than the typical Calvinist does. As far as it is possible, I try to listen to Catholic, Arminian and Lutheran theologians, and be willing to modify my Calvinism when I perceive it to be chastened by the Word of God. And the broad stream of theology which I follow is enriched not only by the views of Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen and the Westminster Confession of Faith (which seem to dominate the landscape of Calvinism today), but also by more moderate tributaries: Augustine and Aquinas, Garrigou-Lagrange, Bullinger, Vermigli, Hooker, Amyraut, Ussher, Davenant, Ward and the Second Helvetic Confession.

What follows are some of my concessions to my non-Calvinist brothers:

1. Non-Calvinists are certainly correct when they note that Scripture everywhere confronts man with the obligation (not only the duty) and the opportunity to repent of his sins and believe the gospel of the true God (Acts 17:27, 30). This must mean that man, even in his fallen state, retains the operative faculties of human nature which make conversion possible in principle. God does not command absurd impossibilities, nor does He tell people without eyes, to look, or people without ears, to listen. Notice how even a Calvinist-sounding text like Isaiah 6:10 presumes that the unsaved still possess the faculties which could embrace salvation, if they were to put them to good use. The problem is not that fallen man is literally unable to believe, but that (without divine grace) fallen man is unwilling to believe. Men still have operative mouths whereby they might feed on Christ, but in their fallen state they lack any and all appetite to do so. God's grace operates so as to give man a spiritual appetite, not a mouth to eat.
2. Non-Calvinists are correct to see conversion as an active movement of the will of man, and not merely a passive reception of the gift of faith. God's grace does not exclude consent and a cooperative response on the part of man. Philippians 2:12-13, for example, says to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." God's being at work in them does not exclude their free response, but provides the rationale for it. Notice Paul does not say, "for it is God who works in you, to work for his good pleasure." That might give the impression that human effort or action is the mere effect of God's monocausality. Instead he says "both to will and to work," which means that the effort expended is caused both by God's working and the working of our human will. The working out of our salvation that we perform as we grow in sanctification surely begins with conversion and the first work of God's grace in us. But the work that we do (since it is we who do it by God's grace) is still our own doing, and thus the "willing" which characterizes the working out of our salvation is likewise still our own willing (not simply the irresistible effect of regeneration upon passive objects).
3. Since this is the case, there is no reason for Calvinists to continually shy away from language which includes man's free consent and cooperation in conversion. When Ephesians 2:8 says of salvation by grace through faith, "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," it does not mean that we do not freely perform the act of believing. By way of parallel, 2:10 goes on to say, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand." The fact that the good works we do were "prepared beforehand" by God does not mean that we are not expected to willingly perform them. God's grace does not exclude our free, active, consenting, cooperating response in the arena of salvation; rather, it makes conversion possible for all, and actual in the elect (however "elect" be understood).
4. But are we not "dead" in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1)? How can a dead corpse do anything to contribute to his conversion? We often hear Reformed people talking like this. But it's a bad argument, and needs to be set aside by Calvinists who wish to speak biblically on these matters. A similar statement appears in Colossians 2:13, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him." This obviously does not mean that man is purely passive in the process of conversion, since the previous verse says that "you were also raised with himthrough faith in the powerful working of God" (2:12). Being "raised with him" is a plain image of new life or regeneration, and yet Paul insists that regeneration happens "through faith"! Since regeneration happens through the operation of faith (an act on our part), man's consent and cooperative response to God's grace is constitutive of that regeneration, and not only the effect of it (as Calvinists sometimes assert when they wrongly insist that regeneration precedes faith).
5. Non-Calvinists are correct to insist that God gives sufficient grace to everyone so as to constitute a real opportunity to respond to the summons of the gospel. Whenever men hear the gospel, it is truly possible for them to put to good use their natural faculties in the process of conversion. The preaching and hearing of the Word of God is always accompanied by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the audience. Romans 10:17 says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." The "word of Christ" is the gospel, and wherever the gospel is heard, faith is truly possible (otherwise Paul could not call hearing the source of faith). Reformed theology has sometimes given the impression that the Word and the Sacraments are inwardly operative in the elect alone, and only outwardly operative in the lives of the non-elect. This does not seem to be the view of Paul, who says that faith comes from hearing (something not limited to the elect). He does not simply say that the command to believe, or the appeal to believe, or the outward call to believe, comes from hearing, but faith itself. If hearing the word of Christ does not make faith truly possible for everyone, then this would be odd thing to say, since, again, the elect are not the only ones who hear the gospel. I am not saying that Calvinists who disagree cannot explain this (by saying that hearing is the instrument God uses in regenerating the elect); but I am saying that a person who believed what Calvinists typically assert, would not naturally talk about faith as the effect of hearing the gospel, as the apostle Paul does here.
6. Note also how 1 Peter 1:23-25 attributes regeneration ("since you have been born again") to "the good news that was preached to you." Who is the "you" here? Clearly, the good news was not only preached to the elect, but to elect and non-elect. And yet regeneration is directly attributed to this preached word (not simply to the Spirit's secret operation in the elect). Such an assertion makes no sense if the preached word did not provide a real opportunity for regeneration to all who hear; and since we know fallen men will not make good use of their natural faculties without the help of God's grace, this must mean that the preached word is accompanied by the operation of the Spirit, which supplies grace sufficient to make actual conversion a real possibility. Some of those who heard the good news responded with "obedience to the truth," which "purified" their souls (1:22). Man's obedient response to the gospel is (from the human end) what distinguishes between those who are regenerated "through the living and abiding word of God" (1:23) and those who do not benefit from the grace put at their disposal through the preaching of the good news.
7. Non-Calvinists often raise points that make better sense of numerous other texts of Scripture. Why would Stephen fault those who are "uncircumcised in heart" (i.e., unregenerate) for "resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51), unless cooperating with the Holy Spirit could produce a circumcised heart (i.e., regeneration)? Since those addressed by Stephen remained unregenerate, it must mean that they were resisting the grace of God which was sufficient to bring about their conversion. And is it not clear that since Jesus is the "true light, which gives light to everyone" (John 1:9), that all who are presented with the gospel have the real opportunity to receive Christ? What kind of light would it be, that leaves people without the chance to escape from the darkness? And is not that opportunity itself a real operation of God's grace? When John 1:11-12 goes on to distinguish between those who received him and those who did not, it seems clear that the fact that Jesus "gives light to everyone" was not highlighted in verse 9 to make a comment about the elect only, but also to show why those who did not receive him were fully culpable. "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light" (John 3:19).

The TULIP Cult

People are sometimes surprised to hear me speak of the TULIP cult. What do I mean when I speak this way? By a cult, I mean a sect within the broad landscape of Christianity which takes as its operating center some principle other than Christ crucified. This is certainly the case for the Young, Restless and Reformed. It is obvious that the operating center which holds this movement together is TULIP, not the gospel of the cross. One gets the impression that their sense of identity is inseparable from their sense of superiority, and thus it is tied to their adherence to and promotion of the doctrines of grace.

It is not the name of the Lamb that is constantly on the lips of these men, but the names of Calvin (though I have found most of the YRR have actually read very little of him) and the personalities featured at Calvinist conferences, gatherings and websites. What seems to be of paramount importance to these people is the demonstration of the superiority of the arguments for TULIP and its consequences for thinking out the logic of the Christian faith. The Christian faith, in other words, finds its coherence in the "doctrines of grace," rather than in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Rather than glory in Christ, and see in Christ's face the focus of divine revelation, Calvinists these days glory in the doctrines of grace, and see the focus of God's revelation in today's preachers of TULIP religion. And just as reflecting on Christ makes us more like Christ (2 Cor. 3:18), reflecting on these Calvinist personalities seems to shape many Christians into a far less pleasing image.

Some of these Calvinist ministries have been plagued with scandals of a sexual nature in recent days. I can't say this surprises me. I strongly suspect it is because they are expressions of the TULIP cult. When Christianity is reduced to talking, singing, arguing, and teaching about the "doctrines of grace" and their manifold ramifications, their spiritual well is bound to run dry pretty quickly. This is simply because the TULIP cult is not the time-tested, historic Christian religion. It is no different from the Prosperity Gospel movement, although it operates on different theological principles. In both cases, you have a movement which derives its theological center from something other than Christ crucified. The Christian religion starts at Calvary and works outward from there. The Prosperity Gospel works outward from the principle of material blessing in response to human faithfulness (at best a sub-theme developed in parts of the Bible). And the TULIP cult works outward from the principles of the doctrines of grace, though not as cautiously expressed in Scripture, but as dogmatically expressed in the highly fallible writings and sermons of men who have attempted to popularize Reformed theology for the masses.

The Spirit of God is not going to be present and operative in the promotion of TULIP as the essence of the Christian religion, any more than He would ever participate in promoting the empty "gospel" of the prosperity message. Where the Spirit of God is not present, you will only find the doctrines and myths of men, and where people are being fed on such a diet of spiritual junk food, it should not shock us to see all manner of spiritual diseases and dysfunctions. It is particularly dangerous when the pious-sounding doctrines of universal human depravity, and Christ's perfect active and passive obedience on our behalf, are distorted by unstable and untaught men, so that the gravity of sin and the necessary obligations of Christian holiness are minimized. No wonder people begin to think that it is normal for Christians to use filthy speech, to adopt the world's view of sexuality, and to engage in heinous sex crimes. (We're all just wretched sinners after all!) But thank God for his unconditional grace, and that perfect, imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ! Let's sing a few cool songs about that….

One final note. I am not a Baptist, but I suspect much of the discussion about Calvinism in the SBC is looking more at the symptoms than the disease. The disease is not Calvinism. There have been strict Baptist Calvinists on the scene since at least the seventeenth century. The disease is the TULIP cult of today's spiritually sick Church. It is the TULIP cult mindset that seems to be tearing apart the SBC. For whatever else you can say about the Baptist tradition, it is most certainly a version of Christianity which finds the gospel of the Cross and the offer of free forgiveness through the shed blood of Jesus as its operating center. When you have men in the SBC who are more zealous evangelists for conversions to Calvinism than conversions to Christ, more earnest in their apologetics for TULIP than for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, more excited about the doctrines of grace than the gospel itself—coexistence is going to be difficult.

And there are further related problems. When adherence to TULIP is the ultimate priority, other things, which should be of greater priority take a back seat. As long as the "doctrines of grace" are promoted, it matters very little to these men how the Church worships, how the pastor dresses and conducts himself, the order of the service, the form and content of the prayers, the atmosphere promoted through the structure of the service, the tone and substance of the sermons, the tempo, content and style of the music, and the themes which are viewed as suitable subjects for Christian teaching and reflection. There should be (and have been) distinctively Baptist patterns for "doing" church, grounded in a distinctive theology of what the Church is, and what exactly is its purpose. But in the TULIP cult, rather than being based on principled theological convictions, all these matters are up for grabs, for they have no substantive, distinctive theology to undergird preaching, ministry and worship. At least no theology that they have the time to reflect upon. Thus, you have churches today which are making all manner of compromises and accommodations to the trends of our shallow culture, but pride themselves on their adherence to the "doctrines of grace." The TULIP cult is certainly not alone in this regard (as seeker-sensitive church growth fads have shown for decades); but it is ironic that men who claim to be building on the insights of the Reformation and its recovery of the sovereign majesty of God, the sole authority of the Bible, the power of expository and doctrinal preaching, and a Reformed worship that is humbly subject to the commandments of Scripture, can be so tolerant of worldliness, shallowness and cultic devotion to know-nothing Calvinist celebrities.

When Protestants thought it was ok to kill another Protestant because they didn't agree

Look at this picture. This is not some Roman Catholic killing a Protestant. This is a Protestant drowning another Protestant, specifically, an Anabaptist, because he believed that baptism was only reserved to adults, and therefore, opposed infant baptism.

If they, the Magisterial Protestants (mainly Lutherans, Reformed) thought that by killing the Anabaptists they were doing away with "error", they were so wrong. 

In their martyrdom, the Anabaptists showed the Magisterial Reformers that they DID have the valour to follow their convictions to the end, even when those who were supposed to be on their side, set themselves against them.

How different denominations see each other

Europe is not only becoming unchristian, but is going pagan

What happens to a nation when they forsake God? They turn to any other type of belief, of course. Estonia and the Czech are prime examples of this trend, but are not alone in this. There are many countries that are going that guy. Australia is an example of it, even though we may have mega churches like Hill Song, that gives a false impression that the gospel is well and vibrant here. Talking to a Pentecostal pastor today, I was told that once you leave the centres of the cities, Pentecostal churches struggle to survive.

Another thing that worries me, is that those countries that embraced the Protestant Reformation, are also as enthusiastic to disowned it. Take this as an example. In a documentary about the Christian Church on the History Channel presented by Diarmaid McCulloch "A History of Christianity", when the female pastor of Geneve is asked what she thinks about how John Calvin would feel to know that a woman pastor is the one heading his congregation, her answer was "well, that was his time, now this is my time".

Now Geneva is far from the propaganda that John Knox spread during his time, that Calvin's Geneva was "the most perfect school of Christ". The reality is that it never was the most perfect school of Christ. Even when Jesus was with his disciples, and believe me, that was the most perfect school led by the real founder of our faith, they had issues among them. The sad thing of it all, is that Lutheran and Reformed countries never achieved the Reformation they sought, and due to the laziness imbedded in their own traditions-no works, even though after you are saved although you are called to do them but be careful not to over do them just in case you believe that you are doing works to be saved, therefore, don't do anything- has paid out at the end.

Well, you can read the news article, and be informed.

Estonia's capital Tallinn. A 2005 poll found that only 16% of Estonians believed in God. Photograph: Ilja Dubovskis/Alamy

Estonia and the Czech Republic are the two nations that often claim to be the least religious in Europe. And they seem to be proud of their unbelief. According to the census of 2000, 29% of the total population considered themselves as adherents of some religion. Almost 14% of them were Lutherans (in the 1930s the percentage of Lutherans was over 80), and about 13% Orthodox Christians divided between two churches: one under the canonical jurisdiction of ecumenical patriarchate and the other under the jurisdiction of Moscow patriarchate.

A Eurobarometer poll in 2005 found that only 16% of the Estonian population believed in God. With this number, Estonia hit the bottom of the list. However, at the same time more than half the population (54%) believed in some sort of spirit or life force. Thus it could be claimed that 70% of the Estonian population are believers, at least in some sense of the word. Professor Grace Davie's description of the British religiosity as"believing without belonging" seems to fit to the Estonian context as well.

The churches are on Sundays mostly empty and the ignorance of religion is widespread. According to the available statistics and surveys, the membership of religious associations in Estonia remains under one fifth of the total population.

Non-Estonians (mainly immigrants of Russian stock) are considerably more religious, and this becomes even more evident among the younger generations. Surveys show that young Estonians in general have become estranged from every form of religion that could be considered as traditional or as religion at all.

For this situation there are several reasons, starting from the distant past (the close connection of the churches with the Swedish or German ruling classes) up to the Soviet-period atheist policy when the chain of religious traditions was broken in most families.

In Estonia religion has never played an important role on the political or ideological battlefield. The institutional religious life was dominated by foreigners until the early 20th century. The tendencies that prevailed in the late 1930s for closer relations between the state and Lutheran church were ended with the Soviet occupation in 1940. While the Roman Catholic church maintained its dissident role in the Soviet countries, the Lutheran church was not successful in this. This might to have to do something with the Lutheran tradition in general as the role of the Lutheran church also in East Germany diminished considerably during the GDR days.

Although there were some clergymen associated with the dissident movement, the churches remained within the limits set for them by the Soviet authorities. The national reawakening in the late 1980s was accompanied with the religious revival. Religion was something that was seen as a connection with the pre-Soviet golden days. However, by the early 1990s the interest in institutionalised religion started to diminish. Currently the Lutheran church, still considered as the most traditional religious institution in Estonia, has fewer members than it had in the first half of the 1980s when the dues-paying membership reached its Soviet nadir.

The big question for the next decades concerning the religious situation in Estonia is what is going to be the future of the Lutheran church? Although it has been the dominant church among Estonians since the Reformation, the vast majority of younger generations have been estranged from it and the membership numbers are declining.

A new phenomenon during the last 15 years has been the rising number of Estonians identifying themselves with a nature-spirituality that could be defined as the Estonian neo-paganism. However, exactly what this is is much more difficult to explain, as it stresses individualism in religious matters. Although the organisation of the neo-pagans claim to represent pre-Christian religious tradition that has been passed from generation to generation through centuries, and dislikes the term neo-pagan, the historical facts do not support its arguments.

Estonian neo-paganism is closely associated with reverence to nature as well as reviving and following the centuries-old folk traditions, such as the lighting of bonfires during the summer solstice.

Reverence for nature and vocal protection of historical sacred groves has given a positive image to the movement and to their religion, known also as the Earth religion. On the other hand, there are not many neo-pagans officially affiliated with the organisation itself, and during the ancient holy days the groves are not filled with people. The claims by the organisation that all of that 54% who said they believed in spirit or life force are followers of old Estonian religious traditions is pure wishful thinking.

So much fuss about a window. N. T. Wright and reading of Scripture

I got to know about this video through a blogger that totally despises N. T. Wright.

I wonder how what he says on the video attacks the Reform faith. So, it is not right to read the whole of Scripture, just those parts that agree with you. If this is right, then now I understand how some hardline Reformed hate Wright so much.

I like what Scott McKnight has said, that when someone criticises Wright, it is more likely that there's something wrong with the one criticising.

Here it's the video, hope we can all learn from Wright.

WRIGHT AND CALVIN: NOT SO FAR APART

Gerald Hiestand

As noted in my previous post, I think a lot of the confusion regarding Wright arises from a failure to fully embrace the fact that he is using the term dikaioo (and its cognates) differently. This difference in semantics gives the appearance, I believe, of more distance between Wright and his critics than is warranted. So when trying to compare and contrast Wright and the Reformed paradigm I wonder if it wouldn’t be more productive to drop these terms altogether, and instead utilize neutral terms that gets to the substance of what each theologian means.

When it comes to substance (not semantics), there are four basic questions that every evangelical soteriological system generally addresses. I’m better on Calvin than Wright, but here’s how I think they both would answer these questions.

1) What is the ultimate ground of our initial acceptance before God?
For Wright, the ultimate ground of our initial acceptance before God is the atoning work of Christ—his death and resurrection. Wright’s covenantal focus gives his view of the atonement a unique twist, but basically he affirms penal substitution. Christ died in our place—the divine curse for sin is poured out on Christ and thus the way is cleared for all to participate in the blessings of the covenant (or something like that). He doesn’t affirm double imputation as understood by later Reformed theologians, but he does maintain that through Christ’s atoning work the believer has a righteous status before God.

For Calvin, the ground of our initial acceptance is the cross-work of Christ and the imputation of a righteous status based upon this cross-work. (I”m not convinced Calvin affirms the imputation of Christ’s legal obedience as understood by later Reformed theologians.) From what I can tell, Wright and Calvin are pretty much in-line regarding the ground of acceptance—the cross work of Christ, and maybe even the imputation (perhaps not Wright’s word of choice) of a righteous status.

2) What is the proper human response for appropriating this initial acceptance—i.e., what must a person do to “get in,” as it were?
Here’s where I think Wright gets a bit murky. From what I’ve been able to piece together, Wright doesn’t seem to think that any human response at all is required for “getting in.” For Wright the royal proclamation of Christ’s death, resurrection and Lordship (what Wright means by “gospel”) is itself the means by which a person “gets in.” This royal proclamation contains within itself the power to “save” those who hear it. He writes, “The message about Jesus and his cross and resurrection…is announced to them; through this means God works by his Spirit upon their hearts; as a result, they come to believe the message; they join the Christian community through baptism, and begin to share in its common life…” (What Saint Paul Really Said, 116). And again, “The [announcement of Christ’s death, resurrection and Lordship] carries its own power to save people, and to dethrone the idols to which they have been bound….[this announcement] itself creates the Church (Saint Paul, 151).”

But for me, the question still remains as to what human response is required in Wright’s view, if any, to move a person from outside to inside. One might be tempted to think Wright views “faith”—specifically faith in the royal proclamation—as the necessary human response for appropriating the blessings of the covenant, but not so. Wright is pretty clear that faith is not a means of “getting in.” He writes, “Faith…is never and in no way a qualification, provided from the human side, either for getting into the God’s family or for staying there once in” (Saint Paul, 160). For Wright, faith is not a means of “getting in” but rather is evidence that one is already in. So is there any response needed from the human side that is necessary for getting into God’s family? I haven’t yet found it in Wright. Wright’s articulation here seems radically monergistic—as though the royal proclamation is a magic dust that gets sprinkled over people and “poof!”—they are part of the people of God. There is an irony here, because Wright is often accused by Reformed theologians of opening the door to semi-Pelagianism. But given the above, I just can’t see it. If anything, I don’t think Wright gives enough attention to the human response. If anyone has a better understanding of Wright and can provide more clarity here, I would appreciate it.

For his part, Calvin is pretty clear that faith is the necessary human response for securing the blessings of salvation—i.e., “getting in.” We find mercy and God’s help, “if, indeed, with firm faith we embrace this mercy and rest in it with steadfast hope” (Institutes 3.2.1). So this seems like a pretty major difference between the Calvin and Wright, but one that, if anything, makes Wright more of a monergist than Calvin!

3) What is the ultimate ground of our final acceptance before God at the judgment?
From what I can gather, both Calvin and Wright would argue that the basis of our ultimate acceptance at the judgment is the same as the basis of our initial acceptance at our conversion – the redemptive cross-work of Christ. Wright would agree with Calvin, who writes in reference to the final judgment, “Therefore if one seeks the first cause that opens for the saints the door to God’s Kingdom, and hence gives them a permanent standing-ground in it, at once we answer: Because the Lord by his own mercy has adopted them once for all, and keeps them continually” (Institutes, 3.17.6). In other words, the basis for the believer’s acceptance before God at the judgment is the same as the basis for the believer’s acceptance at conversion . It’s not as though for Wright (or Calvin), one is saved initially by Christ’s redemptive work, but then must “make good” on this in order to stand at the judgment. This will become clearer below.

4) What is the necessary human response for appropriating this final acceptance at the judgment? (i.e., How do works relate to the judgment?)
Here is where Wright is most misunderstood, and thus the target of much misguided criticism. Wright certainly believes that a life of good works is the necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family, just as faith is a necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family. But Wright wouldn’t suggest that works somehow “earn” or “secure” one’s possession of eternal life at the final judgment. Just as faith is not a means of “getting in,” in an initial sense, so too works are not a means of “getting in” an ultimate sense. Both faith and works are the fruit of being in, not the cause. Pointing out that Wright affirms a final justification on the basis of works misses the point. For Wright, the final judgment is not about getting in, but about declaring who is in fact already in. The judgment is a public vindication of God’s previously private judgment. It is in this sense that Wright is comfortable talking about Spirit-wrought works “vindicating” the believer at the judgment. For Wright, the reason good works are are a source of vindication is because such works show that one is already “in Christ.” If I read Wright correctly, we are “in” at the final judgment because the royal proclamation has had its way with us; the inevitable result of this royal proclamation in us is a life of both faith and good works (a very Reformed idea!). At the judgment, God publicly declares who is in fact already in, based on the evidential good works wrought by the effect of the “royal proclamation.” So the final judgment for Wright is not about works “getting us in” but about God declaring who is already in. (The big deal that was made at ETS this year about Wright modifying his language from “on the basis of” to “according to” only underscores the point that Wright has not been understood. If you feel better about Wright because he is now using the phrase “according to” then you didn’t really understand him in the first place. From Wright’s perspective, and how he understands what is happening at the judgment, there really isn’t much difference.)

Interestingly, Calvin has more of a merit theology than Wright. Calvin is willing (all be it hesitantly) to talk about eternal life as a “reward” given to good works, but only in as much as one’s works have been justified and cleansed through the blood of Christ. “It is no absurdity that man is so justified by faith that not only is he himself righteous but his works are also accounted righteous above their worth” (Institutes 3.17.9, see all of 3.18). For Calvin, works are a “secondary” cause of being received positively at the judgment.

Ultimately, I don’t think Wright and Calvin are really all that different at this point. For both Wright and Calvin, works don’t “earn” or “acquire” eternal life in themselves, but rather are the necessary fruit of all who are true members of God’s family—the membership badges, as Wright calls them. For both Wright and Calvin, works function more in an evidential, rather than instrumental, role. If anything, Calvin’s discussion of judgment and works could be construed in slightly more Augustinian/synergistic terms, since Calvin views the judgment as more about “getting in” and Wright views it more about “declaring who is already in.”

Conclusion
So there you have it. If I’m reading Wright correctly, I don’t think substantively that he is all that different than Calvin when it comes to his basic soteriological framework. Semantically yes, but substantively no. The major place where Wright parts company with later Reformed theologians is (as noted above) his denial that faith is a means of “getting in” and of double imputation. Perhaps it bears noting that I don’t tend to follow Wright in all of these matters. I’m not sure he’ s using the terms “justification” and “righteousness” in the best ways, and I’m certainly in favor of the way Calvin (and Augustine) talk about faith as a means of appropriating salvation. But I am fairly confident that Wright isn’t a semi-pelagian who thinks that somehow we earn salvation through good works.

Our God Reigns The confession of the New Perspective on Paul??

Talking to my best friend, who is a Lutheran, we talked about how his Lutheran Church has the Book of Concord as a guide for a confession. Then, we talked how the Reformed have the Confessions, such as the Helvetic or Canons of Dort.

Then he asked me, what sort of document did I have as a guide.

I paused for a moment, and answered, "What St. Paul Really Said"!!!! We had a laugh, but N. T. Wright's little book is so well crafted that it may end up being a confession of faith. Just as the Confessions mentioned before were, and are still attacked by its opponents, this little book has suffered the same.

Nevertheless, chapter three of the book has really opened my mind as the real meaning of this song, so let us sing!!!!

N. T. Wright: Is He the Most Dangerous Theologian of Our Time?

by John H. Armstrong

From the first moment I heard the name of N. T. Wright, about twenty years ago I think, I was told to avoid him like the plague. Why? He was a dangerous man with a theology that would undermine the entire Protestant Reformation. Dutifully I avoided him because those I respected told me to do so. I limited my reading of Tom Wright to a few articles and to only one book about him (not by him). I was told that he embraced a position called "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP). This position was a damaging (some say, quite literally, a damning) stance on Paul's corpus of New Testament material because it directly attacked the most important truths of the Reformation. Thankfully a very good friend, who had taken the time to begin to read Tom Wright for himself, challenged me bluntly and forcefully to my face. In effect he told me to keep my mouth shut about Tom Wright until I had really bothered to read him for myself. In the mid-1990s I began to read Tom Wright and have appreciated his work profoundly ever since.

Shortly after I began to study Wright's work I decided to conduct an interview (a friend did it for our journal) with Bishop Wright. (He is the Anglican Bishop of Durham today.) We published this interview in our quarterly journal. Later on we did an entire issue of our journal on the theology of N. T. Wright. Time and again I heard stories of people saying that John Armstrong had given up the gospel and embraced the NPP. (Oddly, I heard all of this second-hand and in books and articles after the fact.) In almost every case the people who made these statements didn't seem to realize that Wright actually did not promote the NPP at all. He is admittedly appreciative of certain aspects of the NPP and openly writes of which parts he agrees with and why. But it made no difference to his critics. A label was found and a great scholar, who was and still is doing some remarkable biblical work, was deemed dangerous. The only problem with all of this hype was that it all only made Wright more interesting to a horde of younger readers, some inquiring pastors who would still read beyond what they were told to read, and a lot of us who just wanted to know what the hullabaloo was really all about. The end result is that Tom Wright is now one of the most widely read biblical theologians of our time.

I remember the first time I heard Tom Wright preach. I thought to myself, "If this man doesn't preach Christ and the gospel then who does?" He warmly commended the grace of God and the sufficiency of Christ alone to save those who believed the good news. He spoke with spiritual fervor and human warmth. I knew heresy when I hear it and see it and this did not seem like heresy to me. I was not alone in this response. A growing number of people made this same discovery by meeting and listening to Wright and over time they too found Wright compelling in so many ways.

Some years ago, before John Piper decided to write his book against Tom Wright's teaching on justification, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, several friends joined me for an evening of discussion with John about Paul's teaching on the nature of saving faith. It was a spirited and revealing dialogue. We clearly disagreed about some aspects of faith and the doctrine of imputation but parted peacefully. I had no idea, at least at that time, that John would eventually devote an entire book to this subject, seeking to show why Tom Wright's views compromised the gospel at several serious points. Wright then answered John Piper in his 2009 book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.

I have longed argued that the vast majority of ordinary folks, and many pastors must also be included here, criticize Tom Wright without paying careful attention to what he has actually written or spoken. I often begin a conversation about Wright with one simple question: "What books of Tom Wright's have you read in whole and what did you learn? Tell me what he actually says about such and such and tell me what did you object to and (very specifically) why?" The silence is often staggering. One critic, according to a source who knows this author personally and informed me of this fact recently, has read one small book by Tom Wright, What St. Paul Really Said. Based upon his reading of this little popular primer (with its one offensive chapter about imputation and 2 Corinthians 5:21) this man has written a rather large book that can very easily be construed as one of the more anti-Tom Wright books available to ordinary readers. (There are some excellent scholars who do disagree with Wright in a serious and engaging way and have done a wonderful job of expressing disagreement in a rigorous and proper academic way!) So hearing Wright critiqued in a context where he would personally interact with critics has always been a personal hope of mine. This is precisely what happened at the annual Wheaton College Theology conference on April 16-17. I was pleased to attend the entire event and enjoyed it immensely. I was not surprised, however, that I could not find a serious critic of Wright's in the entire crowd as I mingled and engaged scores of people one-on-one. (I am sure there had to be a few in a crowd of 1,100 plus registrants! ) The serious academic critics who disagree with Wright will tell you why. Some of this came out at the Wheaton Conference as you can see for yourself. He doesn't pretend to have everything figured out and admits he is still thinking through the implications of his own paradigm.

For those who are I remind you the same is true of great theologians of the past like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. Scholars speak, for example, of the early-Luther, the middle-Luther, and the late-Luther. Why will we give him a pass and if a living teacher like Tom Wright admits he is growing this is a sign that he is dangerous? Like I tell friends, fall in love with the work of a theologian who is dead and things will be tidier and a great deal safer for you.

This theology conference was filled with hordes of ordinary people, local church pastors and bible professors who have read Tom and wanted to hear him speak. Like me they wanted to hear various academics respond to his work in a gracious, critical and helpful way. You can be the judge of all of this for yourself since the entire conference is now available on video at Wheaton College. I hope you will take the time to watch and listen. I think you will find Tom Wright to be one of the truly great Christian thinkers of our time. And I also think you will be impressed by his gracious, humble and winsome manner throughout. If you are going to call this man dangerous then make absolutely sure that you know why before you repeat such a warning. If you are wrong then you may well be keeping yourself, and a lot of others, from the very theological truths that need recovery in our time so that we will discover the unity in the church that Jesus and Paul worked and prayed for in their own ministries.

Personally, I think Bishop Tom Wright is very dangerous. I think he is dangerous precisely because he winsomely and powerfully challenges some esteemed (and I think incorrect) ideas that need to be challenged by a fresh and faithful biblical theology. He seeks a theology that focuses upon the Jesus who is revealed to us in the New Testament. He wants a theology that lines up with the central emphasis of the Apostle Paul upon our unity in Christ in the church. (He refers to this as covenantal inclusion!) Two presentations by Wright were the very best in this conference if you do not have time to watch them all. First, watch the short chapel address that he gave the Wheaton student body on Ephesians. Second, watch his Saturday night presentation on the theology of Paul. I was moved deeply by both messages and gladly commend them to you. Meanwhile, be forewarned. Tom Wright may well be a dangerous theologian in your life. I believe he is so dangerous that his work will very likely change your thinking in ways that call for repentance and real faith. He will make you see the Jesus of the Bible and long for the unity of the Spirit that Paul labored for throughout his entire ministry. I have grown to love Christ more by reading and listening to this highly esteemed teacher of the gospel of Christ. I believe this is a danger that we can afford to take on board when the church is in desperate need of a new biblical reformation.

What Did Paul Really Mean?

'New perspective' scholars argue that we need, well, a new perspective on justification by faith.

Simon Gathercole | posted 8/10/2007 08:48AM

Pick up any recent Bible commentary or theology textbook, and you will read about something called the "new perspective on Paul." Seminaries have buzzed for decades about how they might apply to Paul the new light shed on Judaism. Some advocates of the new perspective conclude that the Reformers have led Protestants to misunderstand the all-important doctrine of justification.

Related articles and links

As a result, the new perspective has stirred more than a little controversy. Ligon Duncan, former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), said new perspective theology "undercuts the certainty of believers regarding the substance of the gospel message." In June, the PCA General Assembly said advocates of the new perspective should report themselves to presbytery courts, because their teaching does not accord with the Westminster Standards.

Leading new perspective theologian N. T. Wright has repeatedly responded to his critics. Talking in 2004 with James D. G. Dunn, who named the new perspective, Wright faulted his critics for producing websites that "are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith."

So is this merely a squabble among Reformed theologians? Certainly not—some new perspective scholars also teach that Martin Luther's preoccupation with the Roman Catholic Church has led all Protestants astray. Do we now need to reframe our preaching and teaching to be truly biblical? British scholar Simon Gathercole takes on that question in this article.—CT Editors

***

For nearly 30 years, a number of theologians have argued for a "new perspective" on the apostle Paul and his doctrine of justification. Advocates of this approach believe that many cherished concerns of the Protestant Reformation were either wrong or ill-directed. Those concerns include justification, which Martin Luther described as nothing less than the "key article of Christian doctrine." Yet some evangelicals have found in the writing of new perspective theologians—particularly James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright—a key to unlocking Paul's original intent. So what's all the fuss about?

What's So New About Paul?

One point that needs to be clear at the outset is that the new perspective on Paul is not really what it might sound like. For one thing, no secret society meets to promote this new school of thought. Advocates do not even offer a united front: Scholars generally associated with the new perspective argue with each other just as much as traditionalists do. The new perspective is, rather, a convenient umbrella for a current trend in Pauline scholarship with quite a limited agenda.

This leads to a second point. The new perspective does not propose to reevaluate all of Paul's thought. It says nothing new, for example, about the person of Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Christian life. It is focused narrowly on what Paul says about justification, and even more specifically on what Paul opposes when he talks about justification by faith. In particular, the new perspective investigates the problem Paul has with "works" or "works of the law."

The difference between old and new perspectives can be summed up briefly. In the old perspective, works of the law are human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God. In the new perspective, works of the law are elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations.

Two vital ingredients go into the new perspective. The first is actually more a new perspective on Judaism than on Paul. It reacts against the traditional idea that Jews in Paul's day believed they could accumulate merit before God by their deeds. In place of seeing Paul's contemporaries as legalistic, the new perspective says the concern in early Judaism was to maintain the identity of the Jewish nation, especially through observing the Sabbath, circumcising their newborns, and eating kosher. These boundary markers or badges of identity for the Jewish nation distinguished them as belonging to God's covenant people.

Second, this understanding of first-century Judaism is then applied to Paul. According to the new perspective, Paul is only focusing on these aspects of Jewish life (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws) when he mentions "works of the law." His problem isn't legalistic self-righteousness in general. Rather, for Jews these works of the law highlighted God's election of the Jewish nation, excluding Gentiles. Called by God to reach the Gentiles, Paul recognizes that Jews wrongly restricted God's covenant to themselves.

Paul extends these insights to church relations. Just as Jews wrongly restricted God's covenant, so also Jewish Christians wrongly insisted that Gentile Christians needed to observe the law to be full-fledged disciples. This led to the challenge that Paul issued to Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). How could Peter withdraw from table fellowship with the Gentiles there? Surely such an action was inconsistent with the truth of the gospel.

These two points are the product of a flurry of literature in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The new perspective on Judaism was argued for largely by E. P. Sanders in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). Sanders was particularly concerned about anti-Jewish tendencies in the old perspective and its portrayal of Judaism as inferior to Christianity. Sanders's aim was to present a cleaned-up picture of early Judaism, untainted by Christian prejudice. He argued that both pre-Christian Judaism and its successor, rabbinic Judaism, had just as strong an emphasis on grace as Pauline Christianity did. Election was central to Judaism, as was God's redemption of his people from Egypt. Observing the law merely kept Jews in the covenant established by God.

Scholars received Sanders's work as a major contribution to Jewish studies. But it fell rather flat when applied to Pauline scholarship. So N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn, along with Sanders, attempted to integrate this new view of Judaism more successfully with a new view of Paul. They focused on "exclusivism," the sense of national righteousness maintained by practices such as Sabbath-observance, circumcision, and keeping kosher. Paul, the new perspective argued, dedicated himself to warning against exclusivist national righteousness. God was bringing people from all nations to believe in the Messiah.

Happy Beginning, Sad Ending

Almost all scholars, new and old, agree that Paul answers the problem of "works of the law" with "faith." But if the new perspective has shifted how we understand works of the law, then the meaning of faith—or at least the emphasis of it—needs to shift as well. In the old perspective, faith means trust in God's mercy alone, not in human acts of righteousness. In the new perspective, faith is a badge, or identity marker, which can be shared by all, Jew and Gentile.

The new perspective does not necessarily deny the traditional meaning of faith, but rather finds its focus elsewhere. Faith remains central to Paul's doctrine of justification, because it means that Gentiles do not need to become Israelites when they become Christians. According to the new perspective, Paul accentuates this point in the early chapters of his letter to the Romans.

Galatians makes the same point in a different setting. Here, Paul finds the problem inside the church. Galatians 2 breaks the rules of good storytelling with a happy beginning and a sad ending. Initially, Peter and Paul agree at their meeting in Jerusalem about law-observance not being necessary for Gentiles (Gal. 2:1-10). Later, in Antioch, Peter rebuilds the barrier between Jews and Greeks. Nervous about his reputation as a traditional Jew, he withdraws from table fellowship with the Gentiles (2:11-14). Paul considers this move a disaster. So he castigates Peter and reminds him how faith and faith alone—not works of the law—mark people out as belonging to God's covenant (2:15-16). Faith means that Jew and Gentile must eat together.

Following this pattern, justification by faith and not by works of the law focuses on God's acceptance not only of Jews but also of Gentiles. Some have argued that Paul makes this point most clearly in Romans 3:28-30: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law [literally, "apart from works of the law"]. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith." Advocates of the new perspective tend to read this passage as a statement about God welcoming Gentiles, who then need not observe Jewish practices, such as Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, and a kosher diet. This interpretation would then be confirmed by what follows: a focus again on the fact that God is not the God merely of a single nation, but of Jew and Gentile alike (verses 29-30).

The New Perspective Assessed

The new perspective cannot merely be written off as a disaster from start to finish, as some critics would have us believe. One of the most important benefits of the new perspective on Paul is that it accentuates the worldwide focus of God's dealings in Christ. Paul uses justification to highlight how all Christians, Jewish and Gentile, come to God on the same basis—that of faith.

The new perspective also elevates our historical awareness of Paul's situation. There are certainly important ways in which Paul's debate with his Jewish contemporaries anticipates later controversies—between Augustine and Pelagius, for instance, and to a lesser extent between Luther and his opponents. But we must not read Paul merely with our favorite debate from church history in mind. E. P. Sanders rightly detects in much of the traditional Protestant description of Judaism an anxiety about Roman Catholic works-righteousness crouching at the door. This leads us to Sanders's concern with portraying Judaism in a fair and unprejudiced light. This is also an important contribution: There can be no place in the church for cheap caricatures of Judaism. Sanders has encouraged scholars to look seriously at Jewish sources around the time of Paul to understand what they really say.

Nevertheless, other scholars have shown that Sanders himself presents a one-sided view in his reaction against the one-sided traditional view of Judaism. So the close examination of these sources is still an important area of scholarly research. We also need to be careful in how we talk about Judaism from the pulpit and in our conversations about Scripture. Christians must avoid cheap caricatures as well as a politically correct anxiety about saying that Jews need to hear the gospel.

Similarly, when pastors preach on the Gospels and Acts, they must distinguish between criticism delivered by Jesus and Paul against their contemporaries, on the one hand, and their high regard for the law of Moses on the other. Some Jews in the first century clearly did interpret the law in a way that imposed strictures foreign to the Torah. But we must not criticize the law itself, as if it were a body of petty rules and regulations. To do so would be to criticize God himself. His law is "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12).

Six Tendencies

On the other side, there are a few points at which the new perspective is, in my judgment, at fault.

1. We need to go back to E. P. Sanders and his insistence that Judaism in Paul's day did not think in terms of salvation as something earned or gained by obedience to the law. Now it is certainly the case that Protestant scholarship had previously exaggerated this fact, but it is not wrong either. Documents from around the time of Paul state that some Jews believed obedience to the law was rewarded on the final day with salvation: "The one who does righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord" (Psalms of Solomon, c. 50 B.C.). "Miracles, however, will appear at their own time to those who are saved by their works" (2 Baruch, c. A.D. 100). There are a number of examples like this. Paul's understanding of justification makes sense, then, as a criticism of law observance as the means to eternal life (see Rom. 3:20). Many of Paul's contemporaries seem to have believed that obedience was possible without a radical inbreaking of God.

For Paul on the other hand, salvation was impossible without the earth-shattering events of the Cross, Resurrection, and Pentecost. I mentioned previously that for Sanders, observance of the law was merely how people stayed in the covenant that God had already established. But obedience for Paul was no mere formality. It took mighty acts of God to make it possible.

2. Does Paul think primarily of circumcision, Sabbath observance, and food laws when he uses the phrase "works of the law"? My own view, and that of a number of other scholars, is that Paul focuses on observance of the law as a whole. Works of the law simply means doing the law—the law in its entirety. So the issue at stake with works of the law is not so much Jewish identity as the ability of Israelites as human beings to obey the entire law. We shall return to this point later.

3. Criticism of "individualistic" readings of Paul can throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some new perspective scholars want to guard against individualistic understandings of justification. Seeing faith to be transcultural, available to both Jew and Gentile, these scholars shift the emphasis from personal conversion toward the larger canvas of God's dealings in salvation history. But we cannot escape the dimensions of conversion and personal faith in Paul. These are vitally important: The church is not a lump of humanity, but an assembly of individuals. Faith according to Paul is exercised by individuals (e.g. Rom. 4:5; 12:3; Gal. 2:20), and is also a feature of churches (e.g. Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:4). Individual and corporate faith are not at odds with one another.

4. A further tendency of the new perspective is to confuse the content of justification with its applications. It is true to say that justification by faith is about including Gentiles into the people of God. But it is essential to see that the core meaning of justification by faith is about how believers, despite their sin, can be reckoned as righteous before God. Then we can speak of the scope of justification, which is for all who believe, from every tongue, tribe, and nation. Unfortunately, in some hands, the emphasis on inclusion as a primary component of justification can have two further effects.

5. Seeing justification as primarily addressing how Gentiles can be incorporated into the people of God can lead to a downplaying of sin. This approach to justification can lose sight of Paul's vital concern for how sinners can be made righteous. One leading New Testament scholar has described his view of justification as God building an extra room in his house for Gentiles. But this view neglects the fact that Israelites as well as Gentiles are sinners and need to be justified.

6. Since the emphasis in some discussions of justification is on inclusion, tolerance, and ecumenism, there can be a tendency to downplay the importance of doctrinal clarity. One recent commentary on Romans emphasizes mutual acceptance as the key to the book. It is revealing that the commentator then regards Romans 16:17-20 as a later interpolation, because the passage emphasizes teaching doctrine and staying away from heretics. Paul insists, however, that unity and doctrine are not mutually exclusive. True unity comes not at the expense of doctrine, but precisely around the central truths of the gospel.

Once again, it needs to be remembered that the new perspective does not put forward a single, united front. As a result, these criticisms will not all apply to one person at the same time. They are, however, tendencies to keep an eye out for when studying the new perspective.

Hard Hearts Need Justification

It's not enough, though, to interact with scholarship about Paul. We also need to understand what the Bible teaches about justification.

"God is the justifier!" (Rom. 8:33). The triune God, out of his great love, sent his Son to die as a substitute. On this basis, he justifies believers (Rom. 5:1-11). But what happens in the event of justification? The word itself has been interpreted in a number of different ways, so it's helpful to turn to biblical passages that define it. The apostle Paul derives his definition from the Old Testament—specifically, Genesis 15:6: "What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3, quoting Gen. 15:6).

In the Old Testament, "righteousness" is the status that an Israelite received when he or she fully observed the requirements of the law: "And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness" (Deut. 6:25). The tragedy of the covenant, however, is that despite God's glorious provision of redemption and of his Torah, the Israelites often behaved just like Gentiles. Stiff-necked and hard-hearted, they rebelled against God. They never attained the status of righteousness, which they would have possessed had they lived up to the ideal in Deuteronomy.

But this status of righteousness is precisely what is granted to those who have faith in Christ. Although these former idolaters traded in the glory of God and disobediently suppressed the truth, God now declares them righteous—declares them to have fulfilled everything in his presence that he has commanded. This "in his presence" (or "before the Lord our God" in Deut. 6:25) is important. Justification, in which righteousness is reckoned to us, is both a legal declaration of our status and a statement about our relationship with God. People who are sinners are declared by God to have done all that he has commanded.

This justification, made possible through the cross of Christ, means we don't need to be anxious before God. There is nothing that can come between the justified person and the everlasting blessing of life with God on the other side of Judgment Day. The phrase from Romans 8:33, "God is the justifier," is Paul's answer to the question of whether it is possible for anyone to bring a charge against God's elect. Of course not! Paul is almost certainly alluding here to Isaiah's great testimony about the Lord:

He who vindicates me is near.
Who then will bring charges against me?
Let us face each other!
Who is my accuser?
Let him confront me!
It is the Sovereign Lord who helps me.
Who is he that will condemn me?
They will all wear out like a garment;
the moths will eat them up
(Isa. 50:8-9).

Justification by Faith

Faith is another term that Paul helpfully defines. (Paul isn't always as difficult to understand as he is cracked up to be!) He returns to the Genesis narrative and Abraham's response to God's promise, offering this clear description of faith: "Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, 'So shall your offspring be.' Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why 'it was credited to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:18-22).

We can see from this passage three particularly important aspects of faith (or believing—they are forms of the same word in Greek).

1. Abraham recognized the futility of his own future without God and God's help. God promised that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the stars, yet humanly speaking this was impossible: Abraham "faced the fact that his body was as good as dead," and when he did trust God, it was "against all hope." So trusting God is not something we simply add on to our life. Christian faith requires a complete reorientation of our whole attitude.

2. But faith is not merely an attitude—it is also the response to God's specific promises. In Abraham's case, his faith answers the divine word, "So shall your offspring be." Faith is not content-less humility that places our hope in a higher power. No, in faith we answer the divine word and its specific verbal content. God speaks, and we believe in him in response to his word. God made particular promises to Abraham, and in Romans 4, Paul goes on to say that God promises justification to those who trust in him as the one who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 4:23-25; see also Rom. 10:9).

3. Faith focuses not only on what God has said but also on his character. Abraham trusted that "God had power to do what he had promised." Biblical faith mirrors God, the object of that faith. In everyday life, we generally have different kinds of faith in different people, according to the nature of the relationship. We have a certain kind of faith in a spouse, another kind in a doctor, and a different sort in relation to a pastor or a friend. By telling us who God is, the Bible defines what kind of faith we must place in him: He is the God who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), who creates out of nothing (4:17), and who raised Jesus from the dead (4:24). Utterly all-powerful, he wields that power to bring righteousness where there was none, creation where there was none, and life where there was none. That's the God we believe in.

Not by Works of the Law

So what is wrong with works of the law? They are associated with the flesh, Paul answers. (The NASB helpfully preserves the old-fashioned sounding flesh, for a more literal translation of the key passages.) "Works of the law" means obedience to the law done outside of Christ, without the new-creating power of the Holy Spirit. In this condition, it is clearly impossible to observe the law, "because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20, NASB). Paul has seen this borne out in Israel's history. Even this nation "entrusted with the very oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), given a law that was "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12), could not please God.

The flesh is powerless to obey. "For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did" (Rom. 8:3, NASB). Trying to obey the law through the flesh is like trying to climb a sheer rock face with no foothold or handhold, without equipment. It can't be done.

In fact, the problem runs deeper than the flesh's weakness. The flesh even wars with God: "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so" (Rom. 8:7, NASB). Do revolutionaries follow the law? No—they seek to overthrow it. We sometimes present sin as people's failure in varying degrees to reach God's standards. But Romans 8:7 shows that we do not even start to please God. The problem with works of the law, according to Paul, is that stiff-necked human beings, left to their own devices, cannot get anywhere near pleasing God.

Paul makes it clear to the Romans that God reckons righteousness purely by grace. He stresses that God is the sole operator in salvation. There is no place for the program offered by the law, that "if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness" (Deut. 6:25). As we have seen, it is not that we have accomplished some successful law-observance that needs to be topped off by God to make a full quota. No, we have not left the starting blocks as far as righteousness is concerned. God acts so that it is obvious to all that he alone does the whole saving work. "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Rom. 11:6).

At its core, the doctrine of justification says that sinners can be miraculously reckoned righteous before God. This happens for all who believe and has nothing to do with observance of the law, which for sinners is impossible. With this foundation in place, we can move on to see how Paul uses the doctrine of justification by faith. The new perspective rightly observes that Paul uses justification to argue that Gentile Christians need not take on the yoke of the law (Galatians) and that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians should live together in harmony (Romans 14-15). While we must not neglect these demands, we should not allow the tail to wag the dog.

Simon Gathercole is senior lecturer in New Testament at the University of Aberdeen. He was recently appointed a lecturer at the University of Cambridge, starting in October.

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today.