Justification and New Perspective 3

Patrick,

Thanks for the response. Agreed that you could *potentially* adopt many of Wright's core views -- i.e., that justification is at least partially about God's single-plan-through-Israel-to-defeat-sin-and-benefit-the-whole-world-and-incorporate-gentiles-in-Abraham's-family, that "righteousness" has very significant covenant overtones, that the "boasting" Paul discussed at least partly relates to Jewish pride in their ethnic and covenant status, that "incorporation into Christ" is how we are justified, etc. -- but *also* see it as both/and -- i.e., add in to all of the above the traditional Reformed view that part of the "boasting" and "works of Torah" that Paul was against included any sort of view that moral conduct plays a factor in salvation.

You couldn't, however, adopt that both-and approach if you agree with Wright's view on another point, which is probably his most controversal view: Although he and the traditional Reformed both arrive at the conclusion that salvation is secure for people who put their faith in Christ, they arrive at that conclusion in very different ways: Wright says that faith gets us into God's family, but that we all (Christians included) will be judged by Christ in the end on the basis of what we do. (See Romans 2, Romans 14.10–12, 2 Corinthians 5.10, 1 Corinthians 3). Piper says yes, Christians will be judged, but only in terms of their reward. Wright responds that Piper and the other Reformed are adding to the relevant passages when they make that suggestion, to force the passages to fit their theology. Wright's view is that, despite the fact that we (Christians included) will be judged by Christ (and not just in terms of our reward), we nevertheless have security because God (the Holy Spirit) produces in us the conduct that is necessary (he cites several passages for this -- "He who began a good work in you," etc.)

This is his most controversal point, although, IMHO, it makes a lot of sense of the relevant passages when taken as a whole (more sense, to me, than the traditional view, which does seem to stretch some of the passages). But you can decide not to accept his views on that particular point, and (I suspect) probably take the both/and approach you are suggesting. But if Wright is correct on this point, then your both/and approach wouldn't work; in that case, Paul's opposition to "works of Torah" probably doesn't refer to any sort of reluctance by him to suggest that Christ's judgment of us will be based on what we do here on earth (see, again, Romans 2, and other passages above).

Of course, Wright suggests he has other reasons to support his views of what Paul meant regarding Jewish boasting and "works of Torah," including (what looks like to me to be) strong exegesis of Paul, and the second temple literature (i.e., all that New Perspective stuff). I'm just commenting on whether it is *possible* to adopt some of Wright's overall core views regarding jusification, as well as the more traditional one you suggest (the "both/and" approach).

Anyway, I appreciate your dialgoue on this stuff. It will be interesting to see where the discussion goes with Scot's later posts; although I lean toward Wright's views, I'm still working through what I think about many of these issues (including the points you raise).

Eric & John:

I'm reading Piper's critique of Wright now (about halfway through). Another significant difference that irks Piper has to do with imputed righteousness. Piper insists that to be justified is to have Christ's/God's righteousness imputed through faith (he interprets the phrase "reckoned righteousness" in Romans to mean "imputed righteousness"). Wright thinks this view is nonsensical. Piper is preoccupied with Paul's use of the law-court metaphor.

Also, without ruling out global implications for God's saving work, Piper does make it clear that he thinks the personal (individualistic?) implicatioons should be emphasized more. And I have read no evidence that he is concerned about how the traditional Protestant understanding of justification in relation to Judaism has contributed to anti-Semitism.

Wright makes the point that his critics are from the reformed tradition. You quote Wright: “’My friend [here he’s referring his critics] has simply not allowed the main things I have been trying to say to get anywhere near his conscious mind.’ Wright is saying that the anti-New Perspective critics operate in a Reformed view that is imposed from without and not from the meaning of the texts in Paul’s context.”

You agree with Wright’s view when you state that your Lutheran student’s “experience has been typical for me whenever talking new perspective stuff to those who are thoroughly Lutheran or Reformed.”

This is also the opinion stated in some of the comments. For example, one comment refers to those who hold to the anti-New Perspective as “Piper and the unsettled neo-Reformed crowd.”

Not a minor point in this discussion is the fact that NOT all who disagree with N. T. Wright, James Dunn, and E. P. Sanders are from the Reformed tradition. That being the case, the disagreement is not so much theological as it is interpretative. The issue is not what does my tradition believe but what does the texts of the N.T. teach about imputation.

Dr. Mike Stallard, who is a non-reformed theologian, who graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary with a Ph. D., in his evaluation of NPP authors James Dunn and E. P. Sanders, voiced his concern that the NPP is denying “the doctrine of justification by faith alone.” Dr. Stallard comments of Dunn’s Galatian mistake: ‘Dunn’s comments miss the point. The Reformers would say that any attempt to maintain righteousness after salvation is a repeat of the Galatian mistake whether the Judaizers were Jews outside or inside the Church.” What Stallard says next is important: “Again, there is trouble harmonizing Dunn’s statement with Romans 11:6 but little trouble harmonizing his statement in principle with Roman Catholic views of justification.