Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Theology in the Raw

Home
Evangelical
The New Perspective on Paul: A Raw Reflection (Part 4)

The New Perspective on Paul: A Raw Reflection (Part 4)

Last updated on: January 23, 2015 at 5:00 am by Preston Sprinkle

The New Perspective on Paul: A Raw Reflection (Part 4) 2015-01-22T15:16:01-06:00 Preston Sprinkle

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

We wrapped up the previous post with a question: “What role do works play in our future justification?” We’ll get to that question below, but first, let’s throw the whole Piper/Wright debate on the table. In a nutshell: Piper thinks Wright has seriously revamped the gospel, and Wright thinks that Piper is reading too much systematic theology back into the text. I’ve been a little discouraged by the whole exchange, since both Piper and Wright have hugely impacted my life as a preacher, teacher, scholar, and Christian. I value them both for somewhat different reasons, and I’m a bit saddened to see two gems miss each other like ships passing in the night.

But lets back up a bit. How does N.T. Wright fit into the New Perspective? Basically, Wright’s views about Paul’s view of the law and first-century Judaism were already crystallized right around the time that E.P. Sanders published his tome in 1977, and a few years before Dunn christened “the New Perspective” with his essay in 1983. However, Wright has just as many disagreements with Dunn and Sanders as he does agreements, which means he can hardly be the poster-child for the New Perspective. So you can love N.T. Wright, and not be New Perspective, which is pretty much where I fit in. There’s tons of things I love about Wright’s view of the New Testament. But I’m not “New Perspective” (whatever that means, anyway).

So what is it that’s roped Wright into the whole NPP movement? Here’s the gist:

First, Wright agrees with Dunn about the meaning of “works of the law” (e.g. Rom 3:20, 28); namely, that they refer to Jewish boundary markers (circumcision, food laws, etc.). Second, Wright believes that first-century Judaism was not legalistic (though many old perspective proponents, including myself, would agree with that). Third, Wright tends to see Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians along the lines of Jew/Gentile relations, and not strictly how a sinner finds forgiveness before a holy God. The two streams of thought, of course, are not at odds; it’s usually a matter of emphasis.

Beyond that, there’s not a lot in common between Dunn or Sanders and Wright. The first two, in fact, are quite Arminian, while Wright is much more Calvinistic—despite what you may hear from his critics.

Now that we’ve got a running start, what is it about Wright that’s ruffled Piper’s feathers? There are actually 8 different issues, but for the sake of space and your precious time, let’s deal with 2 big ones.

First, Piper believes that Wright’s understanding of final justification is a serious aberration from the gospel. Again, Wright thinks that our final justification will be on the basis of the total life lived by the power of the Spirit, and Piper thinks this is tantamount to justification by works. But remember, Wright never says that our initial justification (the thing that happened at conversion) was on the basis of any ounce of good behavior. We were “ungodly” when we were justified in the past—Wright agrees with this, and so does Paul (Rom 4:4-5). But Wright says that God will judge all people according to works in the future (Paul agrees with this as well; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10-12), and this means that Spirit-generated works are the basis of our future (not past) justification.

But Piper is not at all comfortable with works playing such an important role in our future salvation. Piper, however, does “believe in the necessity of a transformed life of obedience to Jesus by the power of the Spirit through faith as a public evidence and confirmation of faith at the Last Day for all who will finally be saved” (Future of Justification, 110).

Did you get that? Piper says that works are the evidence of genuine faith and will be necessary for our future salvation; Wright says that Spirit-generated works are necessary for our future justification.

Basis vs. evidence; salvation vs. justification. That’s the gist of one of the most blistering points of contention between Piper and Wright. And interestingly, at an ETS conference a few years ago, I heard Wright say that he was unaware that he’s been using the phrase “future justification on basis of works” and explained that he in no way was saying that Spirit generated works replace the work of Christ as the foundation for our past, present, or future salvation. Wright simply uses “on the basis of” as a short-hand for “according to,” which is what Paul himself uses (Greek: kata). What Wright means and what his critics thought he means were two different things.

I’m pretty sure that if they got together at a pub and worked this out in the context of good beer and brotherly Christian dialogue, I wonder if they’d really be that far apart. I mean, all Wright is pushing for is what John MacArthur trumpeted back in the 80’s with his whole Lordship salvation gig (that obedience matters for the final day), and no Evangelical would accuse MacArthur of denying the gospel.

Oh, wait a minute. They did. Um…this is awkward. Ok, let’s move on.

Second, Piper goes after Wright for denying the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. In sum, Piper believes that Christ’s perfect obedience to the law was credited or “imputed” to our account, so that when God looks at us he sees the perfect, sinless, obedient life of Christ in us. Wright thinks this is fine theologically, but doesn’t see it clearly taught in Scripture. For Wright, “the accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are ‘in him,’ but the righteousness of Christ is not the sinless obedience of Jesus that he merited before God on earth, but that which results from God’s vindication of him as Messiah in the resurrection” (Wright, I Forget, p. 000). And what is true of Christ is true of us by virtue of our union with him; as such, we received the righteousness of Christ (see Piper, The Future, 121-23).

Let this be clear, then. Wright believes that we have an “alien” righteousness; that our righteous status before God is not our own; that it has been given to us by God through Christ by virtue of his resurrection. I emphasize this because I’ve heard people accuse Wright of saying that our works constitute our righteousness and this is what vindicates us before God. But man, that’s a pretty butchered view of what Wright is saying, and if he did say that, I’ll tie the noose. But he hasn’t. In his own words, God’s justification is God’s “judicial sentence on sin, in the faithful death of the Messiah, so that those who belong to the Messiah, though in themselves ‘ungodly’ and without virtue or merit, now find themselves hearing the law-court verdict, ‘in the right’” (Wright, Justification, 206).

Okay, I have yet to stick my neck out on where I stand on these issues, so I’ll close by giving my own two cents.

First, future justification on the basis of works. This is a huge issue and to understand it we’d need to comb through some pretty tough passages. But in short, I think that Paul does believe that there will be a future justification and it will be “according to works” (Gal 5:4-6; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10-12). The phrase “according to” is desperately vague, however. Will works be the “evidence” of genuine faith (Piper and MacArthur) or the “basis” of the verdict (Wright)? I’m going to mildly side with Piper on this one, though as we’ve seen, I don’t think Piper and Wright are actually saying different things. The unilateral work of Christ, whose death and resurrection was a free gift toward the ungodly (Rom 4:4-5; 5:8-11) must form the foundation for our past, present, and future verdict—hence the word “basis” (see too Rom 8:31-34 in the context of future justification). Everything we do flows from that unconditional gift. So I’m totally fine with the word “evidence;” I’m even okay with the word “condition” to speak of the role of works on judgment day, since according to Paul our works are created and sustained by the dynamic work of Christ and the Spirit. So when we receive a positive verdict on judgment day—our future justification—it will be God pronouncing “well done good and faithful Spirit, who took a pile of dung and squeezed a beautiful gem out of it.” This ain’t works-righteousness, friends. It’s God being well-pleased with his own work in our lives.

Second, imputed righteousness. I’m going to side with Wright on this one. As much as Piper’s view makes some theological sense, I just don’t see it in the text. Piper sees it everywhere—in Romans 3:21-26, 4:1-8, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Philippians 3:6-9. But it just isn’t there. Paul never explicitly says that Jesus perfectly obeyed the Mosaic law and credited this obedience to our account. And plus, this seems to assume a covenant of works (you theologians know what I’m talking about) that I don’t see in Scripture either.

In any case, what matters most for me is that the righteousness that vindicates us before God is not our own. It comes from Christ, who is inherently righteous (he didn’t need to earn it through obedience the law), and is given to us freely by virtue of his death and resurrection—this seems to be exactly what Paul says in Romans 4:25 and 5:18-19.

There’s much more I can say, but let me just remind us that the whole debate about the imputed righteousness of Christ is not a New Perspective thing. Neither Sanders nor Dunn made it a big deal, and Wright sort of mentioned it in passing in 1997, which whet the swords of his critics.

Ya’ll sick of this New Perspective series yet? Hang in there. We’ve got one more post, where I’ll lay out my main contention with the New Perspective on Paul.

Previous Post

January 22, 2015

The New Perspective on Paul: A Raw Reflection (Part 3)

Next Post

January 26, 2015 The New Perspective on Paul: A Final Raw Reflection (Part 5)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 40 Questions A Letter to my congregation adoption Alan Chambers Alcohol America american Jesus andrew marin angels Anne Paulk Annihilation apology Apostles creed atonement AudioFeed Balkhu Baptism bastard being biblical believer's baptism bible Bible College biblical love biblical studies Boise book review Books buzzwords called celibacy Center for Pastoral Theologians Charis charleston shooting cherubim christian movies Christian teens Christianeze Christmas church Church Refugees civil rights college debt communal faith Conditional Immortality conference david gushee debt free education Dechurched derwin gray desiring the kingdom Discipleship Don Miller Dones ecclesia and ethics Erasing Hell Esther eternal conscious torment Eternity Bible College ethnic diversity ETS eunuch evangelicalism Fight Four Views on Hell Francis Chan Francis Watson Free Bible Resources French Quarter grace gran torino gun control haters hell holy war homeschool homosexuality house church immigration Incarnation individualism Infant Baptism interpretation Intersex Israel James Dunn james smith Jerry Fallwell Jr. Jessica Minassian Jesus Jesus refugee Joey Dodson John MacArthur John Piper John Stott Josh Packard Joshua Ryan Butler judgment Justification Karl Barth Ken Wilson Kevin DeYoung Lance Hancock Leper lesbian LGBT LGBTQ Life Love God liturgy living in a gray world Luke 22 martin luther king mary magdalene Matthew Vines Megan DeFranza Michael Bird millennials Ministry Missions mixed orientation marriage movies Multiethnic churches Music Festival My Exodus N.T. Wright nationalism New Perspective New Year resolution nonviolence obedience Old Testament Online Biblical Training orlando massacre Pacifism parenting pastoral ministry Pastoral Theologian patriotism people to be loved personal relationship with Jesus politics poverty Prayer Preston Sprinkle Project Bayview public square Q Conference qualifications for ministry Racial Reconciliation radio show Reading reading plan real Christianity Reformed refugee refugee crisis rick hogaboam robb bell robert gagnon Romans Romans 13 Romans 9 sam allberry same sex attraction sanctification school segrated churches seraphim sex Sex Difference in Christian Theology sexual fluidity Shawn Gordon short term missions Skeletons in God's Closet Slums Sodom Speaking syrian refugee crisis technology teen girls texting The Bible Project The Gospel Coalition the high definition leader theology Third Way Tim Mackie Touch Nepal trols UK Tour Uncategorized Urban Ministry Us vs. Us Vieux Carre Baptist Church violence vocation Waiting warfare welcome the stranger women women in ministry worship songs writing

Select a Month August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Eve was created from Adam's rib.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE