News

Glenn Martinez NT305 New Testament Theology Response “If you were to die tonight and come face to face with the Creator, what reasons would you give to enter into heaven?” This is the first question that we ask in our Foundations class for prospective members in our church. Having taught the class several times, I can attest to the multiplicity of answers that such a question roduces. Some people appeal to their upbringing in the church as the basis of their acceptance into heaven. Others suggest that they have led a relatively good life and thus should be let in. Our goal in raising the question, however, is to begin to orient the reader to the Gospel truth that Jesus and his work on the cross have merited our entry into heaven. This foundational principle seems to me to be what is under discussion in the debates surrounding the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP). While I appreciate Prof Moo’s charitable approach to NPP thinking in recognizing its strengths, I also agree that there are significant demerits in the line of thinking that should be dealt with in a serious way. I would have never thought that something so central as the doctrine of justification could be placed under the cloud of suspicion that the NPP has created. N.T. Wright puts forward a metaphor that supposedly characterizes the conversation between Reformed Christians and the NPP. He likens the conversation to one between a geocentrist and a heliocentrist. It is as if the heliocentrist (i.e., the proponent of the NPP) clearly and laboriously demonstrates the fact that the earth moves around the sun through a variety of physical and astromonical proofs. Even so, the geocentrist refuses to listen and grabs the heliocentrist by the hand to observe a sunrise. The sunrise is proof of the geocentrist position – the sun, in fact, revolves around the earth. The illustration is faulty on a number of grounds. First, it assumes that the NPP perspective has adduced evidence resembling that of physical and astronomical proofs. Second, and more importantly, it assumes that the position of Reformed Christians is one of blind faith or, at a minimum, of faulty interpretation of the evidence. I would argue that Wright’s analogy breaks down because it attributes too much to the NPP and too little to the traditional Reformed view. The Reformed doctrine of justification is opposed by Wright, Dunn and Sanders on a number of grounds. Sanders argues that the Reformed doctrine must be erroneous because it fails to respond directly to his notion of covenantal nomism – a notion he suggests was the position of Judaism during the first century. I find it unconvincing to say that Paul meant something different than what he said simply because other ideas existed at the time he said it. Sanders is unable to refute the notion of variegated nomism, but even so he assumes that Paul must have been in dialogue with his own view of nomism. Dunn extends this argument by proposing a unique meaning for the phrase “works of the law.” Under Dunn’s interpretation, works of the law are to be distinguished from works. Paul is not saying, according to Dunn, that salvation is not by works but that it is not by the works of the law which refers to specific ethnic practices that marked off Jews from the nations. Wright’s position is perhaps the most audacious. Wright rejects the notion of imputation and creates a dual view of justification that distinguishes between present justification and future justification. Present justification is nothing more than the declaration that a person has become part of the People of God. Future justification, on the other hand, will take place on Judgment Day and will include the whole of the life lived. These ideas are clearly contrary to the historical understanding of Paul and in direct contradiction to many of Paul’s own statements and formulations. How, for example, can Wright’s view of present and future justification be reconciled to Paul’s clear teaching in Romans 8:1 that there is now no condemnation in Jesus Christ? I agree with John Piper’s view that the NPP far from being simply a trend within Biblical Theology is rather a direct threat to pastoral ministry and discipleship. It strikes at the very heart of what the church teaches and, I would add, offers no compelling reason for doing so. What is the benefit to pastoral ministry and discipleship that is achieved in the NPP? I have yet to read a convincing answer to that question. While I agree with Prof Moo’s list of strengths of the NPP and while I would also add that it’s focus on covenant is an additional strength that Prof Moo does not specifically identify, I think there are more positive ways of bringing these strengths to the discussion without having to sacrifice cardinal doctrines with huge pastoral implications.