New/Old Perspective on Justification 6

November 22, 2011 By Scot McKnight

It used to be that in discussing justification there were two discussion partners: the Roman Catholic view and the Protestant view. The former connected forensic declaration with transformation and the latter more or less made justification forensic, leaving transformation for sanctification. While there were always nuances, it is not unfair to simplify the options in those days to two. We are looking at James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy’s new book, Justification: Five Views.

Then along came the New Perspective and we had a third partner. Now comes a fourth: the Finnish Lutherans have complicated justification by tying it to the Eastern view of theosis and union with Christ, making union the grounding reality so much that one can say they’ve created a genuine fourth alternative. In the book we are examining, Justification: Five Views, this Finnish Lutheran, established by Tuomo Mannermaa, view is explained by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. [Point of clarification: this book distinguishes two Protestant views, the traditional Reformed and the progressive Reformed. Point of interest: these Fins have some cool names.]

Have you heard of the Finnish Lutheran school? What happens to justification when it is rooted in union with Christ? Do you think the Reformers separated justification too much from transformation/sanctification?

Some highlights: this deification view results from the ecumenical discussion of Lutherans with Catholics and the Orthodox. This view contends some things about Luther, like too radical of a difference between forensic and transformation, have been overcooked in Lutheranism but were not by Luther himself. They contend Luther’s emphasis was the real presence of Christ in the believer, and this creates space for theosis and makes justification more than the forensic.

I have to insert here that I would like to have seen Veli-Matti define “theosis” more closely because it seems too much like “union with Christ” and not enough sacramental and not enough ontological transformation in an Eastern sense. These ideas come up but I’d like to have seen more delineation of what the Orthodox mean. (more…)

New/Old Perspective on Justification 5

November 11, 2011 By Scot McKnight

Thanks to the fine efforts of James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, one of the principals in the entire issue, J.D.G. Dunn, describes for us the “new perspective on justification” in the book Justification: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books).

Questions: Is the “covenant of works” in Reformed theology based on the old view of “works of the law” in Christian thinking? When you hear people criticizing the “new perspective” what are they saying? Do they reflect these four emphases of J.D.G. Dunn?

Jimmy Dunn doesn’t speak for every new perspective proponent; the new perspective has a variety of viewpoints. But this also means that many who say “the new perspective says this…” is almost certainly wrong. (Unless they are talking about a new perspective on Judaism; on that most agree.)

So, let’s learn to listen to what the principals are saying.

Dunn says the “new” perspective is not really new; it’s something Paul himself defended. What is “new” is that a neglected feature of Paul’s teaching has been neglected. Get this, too: the new perspective is not opposed to the old perspective. [Those who think this way are creating tensions that may not even be there.] The new perspective assumes the old perspective and seeks to make it better.

Dunn examines four themes: (more…)

New/Old Perspective on Justification 4

November 4, 2011 By Scot McKnight

The New Perspective argues that since Judaism was not a works religion, Paul was not opposing “works” righteousness. If everything in the old perspective flows out of the view that humans are merit-striving and if everything flows from a gospel that assaults human striving by replacing it with grace and faith, and if the new perspective is more accurate, then, well, lots of Paul’s theology deserves a more careful look. Which is why the works of Ed Sanders, Jimmy Dunn and Tom Wright are so much at the center of today’s debates. And since so much is at stake, we ought not be to surprised at the vehement reaction to the new perspective by some in the Reformed camp. Someone once told me he heard a well-known NT scholar say “Anyone who believes in the new perspective is not a Christian.” Well, that’s raising the flag, wouldn’t you say?

Thanks to the fine efforts of James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, the book, Justification: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books), we have a book that sorts out the various views on justification in this new perspective debate today. We looked last week at Michael Horton’s traditional Reformed view, and today we look at Michael Bird’s “progressive” Reformed view.

Michael Bird is one of the bright young lights in the evangelical movement, but he’s not easy to box up into a predictable position. Michael wants more if more is to be had in the Reformed view; and he wants less if the Bible dictates less. So, in this post, he moves outside the box of Horton but is not with Dunn. He’s Reformed but he’s got a new perspective kind of Reformed theology of Paul. He takes “reformed and always reforming” seriously. Most Reformed don’t.

How does Bird’s take on justification strike you? Does it improve on Reformed thinking? Does it go far enough toward the new perspective? If not, where does it not go far enough?

He gets us started with this: “justification is the act whereby God creates a new people, with a new status, in a new covenant, as part of the first installment of the new age” (132). Paul’s emphasis in justification language — and here he parts ways with everyone in the traditional Reformed camp — “justification is Paul’s way of describing how the gospel saves Gentiles and brings them into the heritage of Israel” (133). “Works of the law,” so contested in this debate, “means works that the law requires, though in some contexts the laws that distinguish Jews from Gentiles” [there’s the more I spoke of above].

(more…)

New/Old Perspective on Justification 3

October 28, 2011 By Scot McKnight

Plenty of pastors and Christians really don’t know what the flap about the “new perspective” is about, and unfortunately some have raised fears to the level of apocalyptic in order to warn folks away from the “new” perspective. It is also true that some, mostly early in the discussion, contended the Reformation completely misunderstood Paul … and so a book like the one we are examining is enormously helpful. The problem is translating this into the language that ordinary Christians can both comprehend and, at the same time, see it’s significance. In essence, the new perspective argues that a more accurate view of Judaism leads to some shifts in what Paul is actually saying. Not least when he uses the term “justification.”

Put more concretely: since Judaism was not a works religion, Paul was not opposing “works” righteousness. Everything flows from this. I just finished reading a book that seminary students and pastors-out-of-the-know on this issue need to purchase and read. Kent Yinger, The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction. Brief, accurate, and balanced … a really, really good introduction to all things new perspective. Including the major criticisms being leveled at the new perspective. Now done, let’s move on to the post….

Thanks to the fine efforts of James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, the book, Justification: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books), provides good voices for a variety of views.

How would you describe or define justification? how about the Reformed view?

They begin by letting the “traditional Reformed” view speak first, and Michael Horton represents that view well. Horton’s chp is wide-ranging, shadow-boxing here and there with opponents of the Reformation view as well as outlining that view, and so I will have to summarize some main points:

It all begins with humans as born in sin; original sin; dead in sins and trespasses. Therefore, all human deeds are inadequate.

Justification is about God’s declaration and not one bit about transformation (the Catholic view [terms here were infusion of grace vs. imputation/impartation]). Justification then is forensic, judicial, and a declaration.

This justification is based on imputation, that is, double imputation: our sins are imputed to Christ (and he absorbed the wrath and carried them away) and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us so that we have an “alien” righteousness. This justification is by faith alone, by grace alone. Faith is the means, grace is the source, Christ alone is the ground. Christ’s active and passive obedience provide the foundation for the imputation.

The Reformation distinguishes between the righteousness that God is and the righteousness that God gives. The former leads to judgment; the latter to justification by grace. The gospel is about justification as gift.

Horton criticizes esp NT Wright, Mark Seifrid and Robert Gundry. Horton then is subjected to response by: (more…)

New/Old Perspective on Justification 2

October 21, 2011 By Scot McKnight

So what is the “new perspective” on Paul, and thus also the “new perspective on justification”? If you listen to its critics, who (again) are mostly Reformed/Lutheran-leaning evangelicals, you would think it is Pelagianism or some kind of works-righteousness Christian progressivism.

The single-most important factor in perceiving the polemics at work here is that the new perspective (from now on NPP: New Perspective on Paul) folks believe they are beating the evangelicals (in Reformed thinking) at their own game: namely, they think they are being even more biblical. Thus, the NPP ultimately is an attempt to be reformed and always reforming. The problem, of course, is that the NPP at times denies or at least contests fundamental views of the Reformation. Which means some think it is actually a “new” Reformation, which it isn’t. When it comes to theology, and this is not the primary issue at work in NPP thinking, the NPP offers a greater precision to the Reformation.

Thanks to the fine efforts of James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, we now have a new volume that sketches the NPP on justification in a whole chp; the book is Justification: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books). The chp is written also with Steven Enderlein and it is a breathtaking sketch … buy the book just for this chp!

If you had to define the New Perspective, what would you talk about?

Here’s where the NPP has to begin, and until this is appreciated we get into fuzzy thinking:

1. The NPP is first and foremost a “new perspective” on Judaism. To wit, Judaism was not a works-oriented religion. This is where Ed Sanders’ 1977 book was so important: he argued Judaism was “covenant nomism.” One got into the covenant not by works but by election; one maintained one’s relationship to the covenant by works. But Judaism was not a works religion. One can argue that the “old” perspective almost needs that as its foil: for the old perspective the human condition is about striving to please God by efforts. The old perspective thus says Paul was all about showing that merit isn’t the way; faith is the way. The Law is not the way; Christ is.

2. The NPP is not a monolith: there is no such thing as the “new perspective on justification.” Neither is the NPP a kind of theology, as if it can be compared to Reformed or to Lutheran theology. The NPP is an attempt to understand Paul, in his context, in the context of a fresh/new perspective on Judaism. What that means for theology is for the theologians to discern. The NPP scholars are not primarily theologians but historians and New Testament scholars.

If you get these two points you will have some solid footings to understand what’s going on. Many who critique the NPP don’t get these two points right. (more…)

New/Old Perspective on Justification 1

October 19, 2011 By Scot McKnight

Nothing has rocked the theological world of evangelicals and the Reformed more than the “new perspective on Paul.” In contrast to the “new” perspective is the “old” perspective, but it ought to be observed here that this is mostly an evangelical intramural debate and not a widespread scholarly debate. Ed Sanders got this going way back in the late 70s and he was a liberal Methodist, and Jimmy Dunn was next and he’s a Methodist, and then Tom Wright’s stuff came along, and he’s an Anglican. But it was the conservative evangelicals of the USA who mostly got upset about this new perspective stuff, and they asserted the “old” perspective, which mostly means Reformation/Augustinian theology either in a Reformed or Lutheran key. So let’s not think “New Testament” when we think “old” because both the “new” and the “old” think they are most faithful to the New Testament.

Thanks to the fine efforts of James Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, we now have a new volume that gets major thinkers to interact over the new perspective vs. old perspective on justification. The book is called Justification: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books). I’m really glad the first piece is by Michael Horton because I haven’t received his book “For Calvinism” yet and so the blog has tipped toward Roger Olson’s book “Against Calvinism.” But at least we can begin this series on a Reformed note, even if not today. Today we look at the big picture in the history of the church: How has justification been understood? (Next post will examine just the “new” perspective.)

The various authors who define justification and then interact with other views are Michael Horton (traditional Reformed), Michael Bird (progressive Reformed), James Dunn (new perspective), Veli-Matt Kärkkäinen (deification view), and Gerald O’Collins/Oliver Rafferty (Roman Catholic). Well, this is a dream team.

If justification is so central to the gospel, and it surely is for the Reformation, why does it not come up in 1 Cor 15 and only once in the sermons in Acts, and hardly at all in the Gospels? Or, does it come up in those texts? How important is justification by faith to the gospel?

And the editors provide a wonderful sketch of the history of justification theology in the church. Origen, who against Marcion did not separate faith and works as many have done. The earlier Augustine didn’t either, but later in his life Augustine (392, 396 and later) did develop a much more grace-shaped justification. But, Augustine saw justification as transformative and not just forensic. Medieval justification theory is Augustinian. So Aquinas: infusion of grace, movement of free will toward God through faith, movement of free will aginst sin, and remission of sin. Thus, justification is both forensic and transformative process. (more…)

Apocalyptic New Covenant

November 11, 2019 By Scot McKnight

Michael Gorman has fashioned a Pauline and NT theology rooted in cruciformity, and his approach is a NT theology, a NT ethic, and a NT ecclesiology. As such his work is a singularly important contribution to NT studies. His newest collect of essays expresses that theology in shorter chapter length forms: Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (#ad).

But Gorman’s work is eclectic and this is becoming increasingly valuable to both professors and pastors: his central theme is participation in Christ but that theme pulls in, as John Barclay has done with his “gift” perspective, what is deemed valuable from the Old, the New, and the Apocalyptic approaches to Paul.

New life in Christ is life in the Spirit. Here is Michael’s conclusion and then I will offer a little of his supporting arguments:

We have encountered evidence from Paul’s letters for the inseparability of apocalypse and new covenant, and have therefore contended that Paul should be described as a proponent of the apocalyptic new covenant, the coming of which is an event of disruptive continuity. Moreover, we have seen that inherent in this apocalyptic new covenant is the need for apostles and all believers to embody, and thus also to manifest, the revelation. By means of the Spirit, the church is to be an apocalypse of the apocalypse, a living manifestation and exegesis of the surprising new covenant. Life the Spirit of the crucified Messiah will therefore reflect the counterintuitive and countercultural ways of God revealed in that messianic apocalypse. Paul’s own life is an attempt to bear witness to that apocalypse, empowered by the Spirit, and to encourage those who encounter him, whether in person or via his letters, to do the same.

Sometimes “covenant” and “apocalyptic” are seen as mutually exclusive options. The terms “continuity” and “discontinuity” (often expressed as disruptive or everything-is-new) also are seen as at odds. But Gorman is a peacemaker who makes peace between the categories.

A caveat: what is expected in Ezekiel and Jeremiah for the new covenant is undoubtedly seen by Paul as fulfilled in Christ through the gift of the Spirit. In that sense alone Paul has a new covenant theology. What continues to baffle me is the rarity of the term “covenant” in Paul. 9x in Paul and probably only 3x for what Paul is affirming for his “new covenant” theology. Here are his references in Galatians.

Gal. 3:15 Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it.

Gal. 3:17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Gal. 4:24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery.

Covenant then is not absent; it’s present. But to contend Paul thinks with that term may be contending for too much, and I’m not saying Gorman does that. Gorman has created a construct of many ideas with his helpful use of “apocalyptic new covenant” for what is going on in Galatians.

Now to Gorman.

1. With N. T. Wright and others, I contend that Paul is both an apocalyptic theologian and a covenant theologian—and specifically a new-covenant theologian. What is revealed, or “apocalypsed,” is the radically unexpected and new way in which the new covenant has come to fruition.

2. Borrowing Wright’s language, we need to recognize how Paul has reworked his theology of the new covenant in light of God’s apocalyptic incursion into human history and life in the Messiah and the Spirit—and specifically Paul’s experience of the Messiah and the Spirit.

3. A critical aspect of the content of Paul’s revelation is that the gracious “invasion” of God’s Spirit (Ezekiel) and Law (Jeremiah) into the hearts of God’s people that was associated with the promised new covenant has, in fact, occurred, but in a shocking, cruciform mode. This fulfillment is expressed in the language of the faithful and loving Messiah who now indwells Paul (and, implicitly, all believers; Gal. 2:19-20), the presence of the Spirit of the Son in believers’ hearts (Gal. 4:6), and believers’ fulfilling the “Law of the Messiah” (Gal. 6:2).

4. Thus, to return to the conjunction of Galatians 1:12 and 1:16 [which some pose as an either-or], the revelation to Paul and the revelation in Paul are inseparable—a claim that is developed most fully in 2 Corinthians but also in Galatians itself. By means of the invading and indwelling Messiah / Spirit / Law of the Messiah, Paul becomes his gospel (i.e., embodies his gospel), and he expects others to do so similarly—to live out the new covenant of faithfulness and love, the beginning of the new creation.

That is to say, the in-breaking of God into human history in Jesus’ new-covenant-inaugurating death and in the gift of the Spirit necessarily includes a divine in-breaking into the lives of individual human beings to create a community of the new covenant that embodies the character of that divine invasion. The result is both shockingly new and surprisingly continuous with the prophetic promises in Scripture.

State of New Testament Studies: 5 Free Copies!

October 29, 2019 By Scot McKnight

I have five copies of our new book, The State of New Testament Studies (edited by SMcK and Nijay Gupta).

A substantial book.

Diverse perspectives.

Summaries of major elements of NT studies today.

A primer for pastors, seminary students, and academics.

How to get a free copy?

Drop a comment in the Comment Box below as to why you need a copy and I will randomly choose, next Monday, five names.

Please provide some kind of contact information in the comment box so I can contact you — Disqus no longer provides emails to the Admin for the blog’s comments.

Three New Books about Women and the Church

August 27, 2019 By Scot McKnight

Three books, three levels, each very good in its own way. One exegetical-theological, one analytical-logical, and one exegetical-motivational.

One by Lucy Peppiatt: Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. I have had two posts about Lucy’s very fine book. This will prove to be an influential book from a professor and theological college principal. It is full of wisdom: she knows the debates, what gets folks riled up, and she avoids creating controversy. Rather, she speaks words of peace, and does so with a firm voice.

One by Andrew Bartlett: Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts. This one came out of the blue to me; it’s rigorous, fair minded, exegetical, analytical, logical, and written like a text book for group discussions.

I predict this will become THE textbook used in colleges and seminaries that want to discuss women in ministry afresh. He provides both sides, cuts through nonsense, and works his way to reasonable, sound conclusions.

Andrew Bartlett, QC of Crown Office Chambers, London, is a highly-rated international arbitrator with a wide range of experience in disputes in various sectors, in numerous locations around the world. Head of Crown Office Chambers 2009-2012. Formerly Deputy High Court Judge (England) and Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Financial Services; Information Rights), he has a BA in Theology (University of Gloucestershire). Has served as an elder or churchwarden in various churches.

One by Kat Armstrong: No More Holding Back: Emboldening Women to Move Past Barriers, See Their Worth, and Serve God Everywhere. This is such an inspiring read and is based on solid exegesis (Dallas Theological Seminary students can read the texts in Greek). Kat’s book should be read by all women (especially) who need an advocate. Just listen to her chapter titles and you know she’s on the mark and in tune with the issues gifted women face:

ONE: Women Can’t Be Trusted to Learn and Lead
TWO: I Don’t Have a Lot to Offer
THREE: My Greatest Joy Is Marriage and Highest Calling Is Motherhood
FOUR: I Am Too Much to Handle
FIVE: Leading Ladies Don’t Fit in Supporting Roles
SIX: All Your Heart: Developing a Heart for God
SEVEN: All Your Soul: Praising God When Life Gets Real
EIGHT: All Your Mind: Staying Open to New Ideas
NINE: All Your Strength: Slaying the Forces of Darkness
TEN: Pouring Love Out ELEVEN: Letting Love In

KAT ARMSTRONG is an innovative ministry leader, sought-after communicator, and the cofounder and executive director of Polished , a network that gathers young professional women to navigate career and explore faith together. Kat and her husband, Aaron, live in Dallas, Texas, with their son, Caleb, and attend Dallas Bible Church, where Aaron serves as the lead pastor.

I’m teaching a NT cohort at Northern Seminary this week. The class has a majority of women, gifted and leader types, and they will love Lucy’s book and grab onto Kat’s book from the heart and soul, but keep Bartlett’s book on the shelf for when they need to be ready for the argument.

Conversation in Trinitarian Perspective

June 11, 2019 By Scot McKnight

Last week I began a series of posts on C. Christopher Smith’s wonderful new book, How the Body of Christ Talks: Recovering the Practice of Conversation in the Church.

In that post I said this:

The evangelical church’s conversational style can be simplified to the term didactic while the mainline’s approach is dialogical, and Smith and his church are seeking to embody the recovery of conversation as how the church can better be a body.

I’m convinced this form of rhetoric constantly shapes our forms of conversation. Smith begins with a theological rooting of conversation in the Trinity, in what is called “social Trinitarianism.”

In this Trinitarian theology he finds three themes that can help us reshape our conversations: (1) mutual presence, (2) an economy of reciprocity, and (3) diversity. A snippet from each:

Theologians who take a social view of the Trinity often describe the unity of the three divine persons in terms of their “indwelling’ of one another. To say that the persons of the Trinity indwell one another is also to say that they are mutually present to one another. In mutual presence, the persons of the Trinity are fully attentive to one another, speaking and responding out of this complete attentiveness.

Any community will necessarily have an economy, a flow of resources that is an expression of care for its members. Although we would err to say that any person of the Trinity has need of anything, resources are freely shared in the caring triune community that is God.

A crucial tenet in understanding the Trinity, according to orthodox Christian theology, is that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not identical.”7 The Trinity thus consists of three persons bound into one, through their indwelling of one another. We see in the scriptural story that the three persons of the Trinity have distinct roles and functions: the Son took on flesh and lived as a human being in first-century Palestine; the Holy Spirit came among the gathering of Jesus’s followers at Pentecost and continues to abide with and guide God’s people today; the Father, enthroned in the heavens, is the divine mystery, the source of all creation. Yet despite their diversity, the three persons of the Trinity are one, indwelling one another, each bearing witness to the others in their particular work. Indwelling allows the three persons to be bound without coercion; each member remains free.

Conversation among us has analogies due to our being created in God’s image.

As we are learning to talk together, we are learning to be present to one another, to give and receive from one another in the reciprocity of God’s abundant economy, and to be committed to one another despite our diversity. Conversation is difficult for us as human beings. We have been shaped by histories of brokenness: of oppression due to poverty, race, gender, or ethnicity; of the national violence of war or the domestic violence of abuse; of greed that drives both oppression and violence. And these are only a handful of the causes at the heart of our profound brokenness. These histories compel us to withhold our presence from others out of fear—or, on the opposite extreme, to withhold our presence by manipulating others through authoritarian control. These histories incline us to resist sharing ourselves and our resources in reciprocity. They also make it difficult for us to stay committed to others, particularly those who differ from us.