Customer Reviews

By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a very thought-provoking series of theological essays engaging the contemporary challenges to the historic Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Any book of this sort, with multiple contributors, is bound to be somewhat uneven in quality - but this is one of the better books of this sort that I've seen.

Here is the table of contents, interspersed with my brief comments.

1. What did Saint Paul Really Say? N. T. Wright and the New Perspective(s) on Paul - Cornelis P. Venema

2. Observations on N. T. Wright's Biblical Theology with Special Consideration of the "Faithfulness of God" - T. David Gordon

These first two chapters engage the writings of N. T. Wright, who is probably the highest profile proponent of the New Perspective on Paul (and is also one of the most renowned contemporary Jesus scholars). Their critiques of Wright are very, very insightful and should be seriously considered. Everything really does seem to fall on Wright's embrace of a certain way of reading Second Temple Judaism (as non-legalistic) and his interpretation of the phrase "dikaiosune theou" as "the covenant faithfulness of God" instead of "the righteousness of God." This second question is adequately challanged in the second chapter of this book.

3. A Justification of Imputed Righteousness - Richard D. Phillips

4. The Foundational Term for Christian Salvation: Imputation - C. F. Allison

These two chapters address the recent controversies surrounding the doctrine of imputation. Having read Piper's defense of imputation in Counted Righteous in Christ, as well as Carson's essay in the volume on Justification edited by Husbands, I still found these chapters very helpful and persuasive (I've not yet read Brian Vicker's Jesus Blood AND Righteousness, a recent more in-depth treatment of imputation). These essays were very good.

5. Reflections on Auburn Theology - T. David Gordon

This was a little less interesting to me, probably b/c I'm not Presbyterian.

6. To Obey is Better than Sacrifice: A Defense of the Active Obedience of Christ - David Van Drunen

As I recall, this was also a good essay, defending the necessity and imputation of the active obedience of Christ to believers

7. Covenant, Inheritance, and Typology: Understanding the Principles at Work in God's Covenants - R. F. White & E. C. Beisner

Of all the essays in this book, this one stands out as the most helpful and the one that will repay several re-readings in the future. The authors set out to show why the theological construct of covenant theology (as traditionally understood in Reformed theology) is biblically-faithful and warranted from the texts (even though the language is sometimes extra-biblical). Most helpful was their contrasting the two principles of inheritance, by either personal merit or representative merit, and then tracing these two principles through the various historical covenants. This is the best thing on covenant theology that I've read so far (though my reading in this area has not been very wide).

8. Why the Covenant of Works is a Necessary Doctrine: Revisiting the Objections to a Venerable Reformed Doctrine - John Bolt

As with the chapter 7, this was a very, very helpful treatment of covenant theology, specifically the covenant of works. Bolt is an excellent and lucid writer and I finished the essay wanting to read more of his material.

9. The Reformation, Today's Evangelicals, and Mormons: What Next? - Gary L. W. Johnson

This essay was good, but seemed a little bit displaced in this volume.

Overall, this is a very good volume and worth reading for those engaged in the current debates over justification. However, if you are only going to read one book on the New Perspective on Paul, get Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics. It is much more comprehensive and has been the most important book I've read on the issue.

This is a book of essays - nine in all (ten, if you count the introduction by Guy Waters) - responding to recent challenges to the historic Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, concentrating on the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision, but also engaging the classic Arminian position and Mormonism.

As might be expected from a book that consists of essays by various authors, the book is a little uneven. Some essays seem to be written with the interested lay person in mind, and others assume much more prior knowledge on the part of the reader. In addition, since the essays were originally intended to stand alone, there is a fair bit of repetition of ideas and arguments.

That means there were essays I enjoyed reading, those that were beyond me, and those I just wasn't interested in. The first two essays engage the writings of N. T. Wright. While I found the explanations and arguments in these two chapters very interesting, I don't think I know enough about the issues to judge them. I also enjoyed several essays defending imputed righteousness and the active obedience of Christ, because this is a doctrine that seems to come up in discussions occasionally, and it was helpful to see it defended from scripture. The essays related to the Auburn Avenue or Federal Vision controversy were mostly beyond me. I'm not Presbyterian, and I don't know enough about the issues to even understand the essays.

If you are like me, and a bit of a novice on these issues, you might need a little more background knowledge before you would find this book completely useful, but if you are up on these things, my uneducated guess is that you'll find this to be a valuable book.

'There are those who see in this the passing of historical orthodoxy, and this is something that they mourn.' David F Wells, Foreword

David F Wells sets off to trace the origin of the smoking gun, delivering an introduction that is unputdownable. Making shrewd observations and weaving the intricacies of the post-modern attempt at upending the Reformation principle, By Faith Alone, he persuasively engineers the scope of the book. The incumbent attention to scriptural detail that follows is sure to secure the Reformation position in Scripture alone, thereby placing it beyond all doubt.

NT Wright is in the cross-hairs. The bishop of Durham, the home of strange sightings, has epitomized the latitudinarian spirit of the age. His writings are popular, thought-provoking and unconventional, yet sorely lacking a biblical approach to propitiation, imputation and justification. Ecclesiology, or the 'Sitz Im Leben', or cultural setting, is frequently seen to take precedence in his folklore of the unfolding covenants and God's renewed grace. Following the literary success of Guy Prentiss Waters' Justification & The New Perspectives On Paul: A Review & Response a renewed commitment to 'sola fide' is the best remedy.

Cornelis P Venema opens fire by challenging the obscure parentage of the New Perspective on Paul: James Dunn and EP Sanders, who substantiated a hypothesis of an intricate legalistic community in Second Temple Judaism fundamentally based on post-modern form-critical scholarship. Yet is it not just Pelagianism cloaked in a new garb? Is Paul not too clear on his position? Venema would seem to think so, making a sound refutation from Romans 1-5, and Galatians 3.

T David Gordon makes the astonishing find that NT Wright's estimation of God's wrath only goes as far back as Abraham, and thereby denies sin's origin being in Genesis 3, further denying any concept of total depravity. This fault-line wreaks havoc on the New Perspective's views of 'the righteousness of God', so beloved of Luther and the Reformation fathers.

If the imputed righteousness of Christ to saved sinners be denied, on what basis are we to be reckoned justified before a holy God? Richard D Phillips pronounces the flawed teachings of especially Arminian and the NPP academics untenable to our faith, by showing that the perfect obedience of Christ is the ground for our justification before God. Reminiscent of 'the great transaction' terminology of the Reformers, Phillips explains: 'First, we believe that our sins are imputed - that is, transferred by reckoning - to the crucified Lord Jesus. Our sins are recorded under our names before God and we have to answer for them. But God takes our debt and reckons it to Christ's account. This is imputation.' p 76

John Bolt makes perceptive expositions of Scripture, accumulating in what can only be phrased as a question: if God did not institute a creation covenant of works, why did a curse follow Adam and Eve's failure to comply?

David van Drunen restates the significance of Christ's active obedience, for which Machen was so grateful for. Denying 'cheap grace' any influence, Van Drunen takes a gospel stand. I do not remember too many instances where this has been so vividly presented as the dying Machen in a telegram to John Murray. 'Nevertheless, the biblical teaching upon which the Reformed tradition has articulated the doctrine of active obedience is clear and worthy of reaffirmation.' p 129 Here Van Drunen powerfully argues that Christ fulfilled the demands of the law by keeping it (active obedience), and went to the cross in submissive obedience to the Father's will (passive obedience).

'The law requires present and perfect obedience, as well as satisfaction for past disobedience. Christ both endured the penalty due to man for disobedience, and perfectly obeyed the law for him; so that He was a vicarious substitute in reference to both the precept and the penalty of the law. By His active obedience He obeyed the law, and by His passive obedience He endured the penalty. In this way His vicarious work is complete.' WGT Shedd, The History Of Christian Doctrine 2:341

R Fowler White and Calvin Beisner collaborate to restore a sense of pride to covenant theology. The biblical evidence for 'What is true in the covenant arrangement with the second Adam will also have been true in the covenant with the first Adam', (Meredith Kline), is presented as having its precedent in Reformed theology as the covenant of works. 'This covenant of redemption, being pre-creational, preceded and was archetypal of the covenant of works between God and Adam.' p 150 In light of the bias developed against the forensic application of Christ's righteousness to sinners (imputation) as applied in classic covenant theology, justification constituted in terms of its federal function as 'representative merit' is revisited.

Gary L W Johnson's contribution is the defining statement of this collection. 'Throughout Millet's book he seeks to make common cause with groups across the broad evangelical landscape, especially those identified with the pentecostal-charismatic wing of evangelicalism...because Mormonism insists on additional inscripturated revelation...Roman Catholics certainly believe an ongoing form of heavenly guidance comes through such means as papal encyclicals...people within Protestantism believe that spiritual gifts, such as the speaking and interpretation of tongues, is one means by which Deity communicates His will to individuals and groups.' p 199 Unafraid to state his convictions, unafraid to challenge those who insist we change our distinctive Reformational position, and unafraid to call those to stop pretending to be parading in the beautiful attire of evangelicalism, when they are, in fact, denuding the doctrines of grace. Would more of us take issue with the truth as he has!

This combo of writers does a thorough job of examining the caricatures and problem areas in Reformed Evangelicalism and in Protestantism. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wishes to understand the New Perspective on Paul. I would also recommend "The Future of Justification" by John Piper as a good starting place, as well as "Justification" by NT Wright. When one starts here, with foundational reading in the Bible, one can slowly, but confidently, sift through the arguments on both sides of the debate, as well as examine some other issues in the book.

By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification (Crossway, 2006) is a collection of essays that challenges the New Perspective on Paul, as well as the Federal Vision controversy that is currently raging in Reformed circles. Gary Johnson and Guy Waters do an admirable job of bringing together the diverse contributions from the authors into one readable book.

Most of the chapters deal directly with N.T. Wright's theological outlook, critiquing his exegesis and subsequent theological conclusions. A couple chapters focus more on the Federal Vision, and several chapters serve more as "filler," with general information on the covenants and typology.

There is much in the critique of Wright that is to be commended. Wright notoriously brings background theology to the forefront and shifts forefront theology to the background, and he is taken to task for some of his weak exegesis. At other points, the authors argue more from Reformed tradition instead of Scripture alone, which buttresses somewhat Wright's contention that many in the Reformed camp are more tied to their traditions and doctrinal statements than to the truly Reformed principle of sola Scriptura. The book gets bogged down in minute details of theological precision at times, making even the conditioned theological reader scratch his head and wonder, "Is that really that big a deal?" But sometimes, the stark differences between the two views come clearly to the surface, reminding us all what the debate is about.

A good essay/book to read alongside By Faith Alone is John Frame's "Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy" - for another revered Reformed theologian's take on the issues at stake and whether or not the differing views are necessarily mutually exclusive.

This is a book of scholarly papers by theologians with a traditional
Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification. The papers
interacts with recent challenges to that doctrine. The papers are well
written, the book nicely typeset, and footnotes are where they belong
... at the bottom of the page they are referenced on. There is a
Scripture index and a Subject/Name index.

The Foreword is by David F. Wells, and in it he argues that there are
three streams in contemporary evangelicalism: the orthodox; the
marketers (pragmatists who while not denying orthodoxy, often keep it
out of sight as they package Christianity for `seekers'); and the
emerging church, which seems to be against doctrinal clarity (or
denies that it is possible). This is a passionate appeal for the
Reformation of evangelicalism, and, perhaps in places, is more
passionate than fair.

The first chapter is by Guy Prentiss Waters, and is entitled
`Introduction: Whatever Happened to Sola Fide?'. This sketches the two
principle contemporary challenges to the Reformed doctrine of
justification: the New Perspective(s) on Paul, and the Federal Vision.

The second paper is by Cornelis P. Venema, and is entitled `What Did
Saint Paul Really Say? N.T. Wright and the New Perspective(s) on
Paul.' This is a good and fair (if short) treatment of the New
Perspective(s) on Paul, focusing in particular on the subtle position
of N.T. Wright, who is a powerful advocate of one strand of the `New
Perspective on Paul'. Venema sketches the debate, and points out
important areas where the New Perspective positions are
problematic. Venema is clearly drawing upon the various books he has
written on this subject, and such mastery of the debate shows, and
makes this an important short treatment of the debate. It is a pity
that the timing of this book meant that John Piper's more substantial
treatment of Wright's position could not be interacted with.

The third paper is by T. David Gordon, and is entitled `Observations
on N.T. Wright's Biblical Theology With Special Consideration of
`Faithfulness of God'.' Gordon helpfully takes on Wright on his own
ground of `Biblical Theology', and shows the inadequacy of Wright's
reduction of God's righteousness to `covenantal faithfulness'.

The fourth paper is by Richard D. Phillips, and is entitled `A
Justification of Imputed Righteousness'. In this, Phillips reviews the
recent debate between Arminians and the Reformed over whether
justification involves the imputation of Christ's righteousness
(passive or active). One good feature of this paper is that Phillips
interacts with D.A. Carson's important paper (`The Vindication of
Imputation', published in `Justification: What's at stake in the
Current Debates', 2004) which responds to the Arminian
arguments. Phillips also tackles New Perspective critiques of
imputation. An important overview of the current debate, and
a helpful rebuttal of the challenges.

The fifth paper is by C. FitzSimons Allison, and is entitled `The
Foundation Term for Christian Salvation: Imputation.' This is a
profoundly important essay which traces the deleterious impact of
imagining that we can stand before God with anything other than the
perfect righteousness of Jesus. In particular, Allison explores how
the whole concept of `sin' has to be down played in Roman Catholic
thought (and in other systems) to make our imperfect obedience or
`faith' the ground of our acceptance with God. Insightful and
stimulating.

The sixth paper is by T. David Gordon, and is entitled `Reflections on
Auburn Theology.' Auburn Theology or `Federal Vision', for those not
in the know, is a rag-bag term for the teachings of various `Reformed
Revisionists' associated with Auburn Avenue. Gordon, who has some
sympathies for the aims of the Federal Vision apologists, does a
sterling job of exposing some of the poor theology behind this
vision. In particular, he shows how they fail to take the plurality of
biblical covenants into account, and traces this monocovenantalism back
to John Murray. He acknowledges, however, that Murray was kept from
the mistakes of the Federal Vision by maintaining the historic federal
understanding of Adam's representative role. This paper unfortunately
does not do as good a job as it could have done in orienting the newcomer
to what actually the Auburn Theology is about.

The seventh paper is by David VanDrunen, and is entitled `To Obey is
Better Than Sacrifice: A Defence of the Active Obedience of Christ in
the Light of Recent Criticism.' This paper traces the Reformed
teaching that justification involves the imputation of the active
obedience of Christ and discusses the Federal Vision and New
Perspective rejections of it. Helpfully, he traces a cause of this
rejection to a view that perfect obedience to the Law is not required
by God for eternal life, advocated by scholars such as
E.P. Sanders. VanDrunen exegetes the Pauline passages which talk about
God's righteousness, and shows how they contribute to the debate. He
concludes that the active obedience of Christ is important not only
for justification and the work of Christ, but for the character of God
and the nature of man. A super essay.

The eighth paper is by R. Fowler White, and E. Calvin Beisner, and is
entitled `Covenant, Inheritance, and Typology: Understanding the
Principles at Work in God's Covenants'. This is a tour de force of
exegetical treatment of the biblical covenants, especially focusing on
the relationships between them. The relationship between the Covenant
of Works and the Mosaic Covenant are explored, and the differences
between them and the Abrahamic, Davidic and New covenants are
discussed.

The ninth paper is by John Bolt, and is entitled `Why the Covenant of
Works in a Necessary Doctrine: Revisiting the Objections to a
Venerable Reformed Doctrine'. Bolt provides an important defence of
the Covenant of Works by collecting and answering the various
objections that `Reformed' theologians have advanced against it.

The tenth paper is by Gary L. Johnson, and is entitled `The
Reformation, Today's Evangelicals, and Mormons: What Next?' In this
Johnson documents how doctrinally vacuous some definitions of
evangelicalism are, and shows how this allows some Catholics and even
some Mormons(!) to claim to be evangelicals.

There is an afterword by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., entitled `A Change in
the Audience, Not in the Drama'. In this helpful essay Mohler argues
that traditional Reformed gospel is facing a new audience, namely
contemporary evangelicalism, and that many are impatient with aspects
of it. He concludes with the following observation: `We can only hope
and pray that contributions like this important volume can help to
awaken evangelicalism to its doctrinal peril. Otherwise, nothing
genuinely evangelical will remain of evangelicalism.' To which this
reviewer can only add his heartfelt, `Amen!'

I have become increasingly convinced that the doctrine of
justification by faith alone must play a central role in our preaching
and teaching. Failure to explain it will lead our hearers into thinking
that it is something that they do which will win them acceptance with
God. This book is a helpful and inspiring aid to treating justification
well.

Two recent books which helpfully supplement this one with further
scholarly treatment of the doctrine of justification by faith from a
traditional Reformed perspective are (i) R. Scott Clark (ed),
`Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays By the Faculty
of Westminster Seminary California', P. and R. (Phillipsburg: New
Jersey), 2007 and (ii) K. Scott Oliphint (ed), `Justified in Christ:
God's Plan for Us in Justification', Mentor (Fearn: Scotland),
2007. All three are worth reading.

Like most edited works, some chapters are great and some really aren't all that good. But on the whole, it's an excellent read for someone seeking to understand better the current ecclesiastical climate surrounding justification by faith alone.

The chapters that are especially good are the two by T. David Gordon. Even if you just bought the book for those to contributions, it would be worth every penny.

Hey Guys, how do you interpret these verses from the Bible:

1 Corinthian 13:2

"though I have ALL FAITH, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (love), I am NOTHING."(KJV)

What does it mean to be NOTHING? are you saved or not?

Jesus tells us that love is the key to life. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself" - Matthew 22:37-38 (KJV)

Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the GREATEST of these is LOVE.

Colossians 3:14
And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (NIV)

Catholic teaching on Justification:

We are save by grace alone through faith working with love and NOT by faith ALONE (sola fide) Nowhere in the Bible you can find this teaching of faith alone well aside from one verse of James 2:24.

Protestants are known their slogan that we are justified by "faith alone," but the expression "faith alone" only appears once in the Bible--in James 2:24--where it is rejected.

Romans 4:4

Protestants assume at "faith alone" is the same thing as "faith apart from works of law." That is absolutely false. "Faith alone" means that NOTHING can be added to faith for justification. "Faith apart from works of law" only means that "works of law" cannot be added to faith for justification. Paul does not say "Faith apart from love" or "Faith apart from hope," since love and hope are under God's grace. "Works of law" are further explained by Paul in Romans 4:4 as works of legal debt, works upon which someone boasts and expects payment or strict merit. But Paul does not put the works of Romans 2:4-13 into this category, nor the works of Romans 14:10-12, or those of 1 Cor. 3:12-17; 2 Corinthians 5:10; or any number of passages which speak about works determining our salvation.