Defending The Faith Ministries

Article 9

Departing Orthodoxy

by Uri Brito

"Luther's oft-quoted dictum that the doctrine of justification is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, has fallen on hard times yet again," says Kim Riddlebarger. Though the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone was immensely challenged by the Roman Catholics in the Council of Trent, this Biblical doctrine was able to overcome by God's grace the attacks of heretics throughout the centuries. This great doctrine has been for centuries the theological stone that holds all other stones. The Reformation Sola Fide is now part of confessions and creeds in mainly all historical Protestant Churches.

Indeed with this great victory has come this great attack. we have looked in the last two articles at an overview of this new theology on Paul and also on a definition of what "Justification" really is according to the Scriptures and one of its main proponents, the German Reformer Martin Luther. In this final article, we will look at the attack, our response, and what can we learn. Of course since there have already been exaustive works on this issue the author will not attempt to accomplish such task but demonstrate that the Bible is authoritatively clear on this subject.

Whenever a new theological position arises it behooves us to look at it carefully with the utmost seriousness for it can be another means to bringing the body of Christ into theological chaos. It seems as though we as defenders of the faith have become oblivious to what is taking place. Not only is this New Perspective destructive but it also betrays the central idea of salvation - forensic justification. This tells us that salvation is necessary for all mankind through a "other" means. Interestingly when the Old Testament speaks of God as being Holy, this holiness come to represent the"otherness of God." Simply put He is superior or separate from His creation. This qualifies Him to be the author of salvation.

The Scriptures demand that we understand humanity as unable and incapable of attaining any privilege or favor from a Divine Being ( Romans 3:11-19;6:23).If we cannot come to grasp of this supernatural reality on our own than we need supernatural intervention. This work is an act of Christ. But perhaps this doesn't directly hit on our subject unless we interfere by remarking that our estate in the covenant community is not one of our works but the works of Christ. Hence, this concept of a forensic righteousness fits as a proper response to this New Perspective. Let's develop these thoughts a bit more by looking at one of their greatest proponents and Biblical scholars John Dunn.

Note that this new perspective is not primarily based on Scriptural exegesis but a new understanding of Palestinian data. For instance, in order to make this new perspective (concept) on Paul more cogent in light of the Palestinian data and the New Testament, Dunn contends that Galatians 2:16 is one critical passage which requires significant re-interpretation. "This is the most obvious place to start any attempt to take a fresh look at Paul from our new perspective. It is probably the first time in the letters of Paul that his major theme of justification by faith is sounded." Contending that justification is a major theme in Paul, contra Sanders, Dunn develops what amounts to a significant redefinition and reworking of the doctrine from that of traditional Protestant orthodoxy which we have defined in article two:

In talking of `being justified' here Paul is not thinking of a distinctly initiatory act of God. God's justification is not his act in first making his covenant with Israel, or in initially accepting someone into the covenant people. God's justification is rather God's acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant -- whether that is in an initial acknowledgement, or a repeated action of God (God's saving acts), or his final vindication of his people.

Dr. Riddlebarger writes: "Rather than argue that justification by faith is the dividing line between Paul and the Jewish Christians - as in the historic Lutheran and Protestant interpretation - according to Dunn, the breakthrough as to the nature of Palestinian Judaism as a religion of sola gratia, allows us to see that the doctrine of justification by faith is actually common ground between the two parties.

He continues:

"By now the conclusion should be obvious. If the new perspective on Paul is in fact supported by the evidence at hand, then we can no longer believe that Paul was writing to answer the question as to how a guilty sinner could be declared righteous before a Holy God. Instead, we must see the Apostle as addressing the question of how Jew and Gentile relate to one another within the context of membership of the covenant. The critical phrase, "works of the law" can no longer be interpreted as Protestants have historically argued, as an attempt to earn reward-merit from God through human effort. Now the phrase must be limited to mean only those external nationalistic badges, i.e., food laws and circumcision, that tragically divided Jew from Gentile. The new perspective on Paul is therefore, a serious and formidable challenge to the fundamental article of historic Protestant faith, the doctrine of justification sola fide."

When one peruses through the books and articles of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright it is clear that they have piggy backed on one another attempting to work from the weaknesses of each other in order to strengthen their view. In the end all fly by the internal evidence of the Scriptures. For example Dunn completely neglected some of the apostle's most explicit statements on the subject at hand, including Rom 4:5; 11:6; Eph 2:8-10; and Phil 3:9. In regard to these texts Romans 4:4-5 is especially damaging to the New Perspective sicne according to Moises Silva: "Paul states so sharply the antithesis between working and believing that the latter is virtually defined by the negation of the former." "The whole argument of Romans is built consistently and even relentlessly in opposition to the Judaizing thesis, which chap. 4 in particular stresses that the great national marker of Judaism, circumcision, is unnecessary to belong to the seed of Abraham." Silva is quick to note that this does not support the conclusion that Paul did not speak often of the forgiveness of sin and that the Apostle did not see justification as initiatory or forensic. Looking at the data, says Silva, "it makes even less sense to deny that Paul views working -- in some aspect at any rate -- and personal righteousness-through law as producing fleshly confidence that is diametrically opposed to saving faith." Silva laments the fact that "even if Dunn could come up with a plausible understanding of Rom 4:4-5 that is consistent with his thesis, one would still have to ask why this crucial passage seems to have played no role whatever in the development of the thesis."

Perhaps a final text to seal the letter of response is found in the struggling Christian of Romans 7. The author of this article has had serious doubts in coming to a conclusion on this text. But it was the Biblical structure of a Redeemer that led me to the conclusion that Paul is speaking as a believer. One who constantly struggled with the trials of life, he elaborates on the immense difficulty of immersing from sin as victorious. Finally, he burts in admiration of his sin and his inability to ever overcome and then in verse 25 he confirms what he knew that only Christ is the Deliverer, only Christ can save him from such a miserable life of defeat. Now, Christ assumes his role as Savior and Lord and assures to Paul that amidst struggles there He is to rescue to suffering Christian. This is Paul's autobiography, this is ours as well. If this is truly the case and it clearly seems to be then according to Kim Riddlebarger: 'it provides an important basis to understand Paul as presenting Christ as the solution to man's plight. This would be additional evidence that the doctrine of justification stands at or near the center of Paul's theology.'

In Conclusion, one must affirm that if we say that this New Perspective on Paul is correct than all our Biblical understanding of faith is demolished into a relational Jew-Gentile "covenant living." This would cause all our main confessions which are so dependant on the sola fide idea to be reinterpreted in light of this new discovery. This would cause the church to relive a form of "Reformation" crisis. Indeed this view places Dunn, Wright and others as some iconoclast figures and that they are, but must their challenge to our traditional Biblical view be modified? No, not modified but cherished. If we claim to be ambassadors of the most high God then we must know what gave us the privilege of becoming embassadors in the first place. This new perspective causes Christians (particularly of the Reformed tradition) to reexamine the foundation of Christ's victory at Calvary rediscovered at the Reformation.

For any questions on this subject or to have other articles responding to the New Perspective on Paul just e-mail me at apologus@hotmail.com.