Justification: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Books) [Paperback]

James K. Beilby (Editor), Paul Rhodes Eddy (Editor), Steven E. Enderlein (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 18, 2011 | Series: Spectrum Multiview Books

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). When Paul wrote these words he seemed confident he had made himself clear.

But for centuries the Pauline doctrine of justification has been a classic point of interpretation and debate in Christian exegesis and theology. And while in recent decades there have been moments of hopeful convergence among the various traditions of the Western church, the fine print often reveals more facets and distinctions than ever before.

This volume focuses on five views of justification and calls on representative proponents to set forth their case and then respond to each other. The five views are:

Traditional Reformed (Michael S. Horton)
Progressive Reformed (Michael F. Bird)
New Perspective (James D. G. Dunn)
Deification, or Theosis (Veli-Matti Krkkinen)
Roman Catholic (Gerald OCollins and Oliver Rafferty)

In addition, editors James Beilby, Paul R. Eddy and Steven E. Enderlein provide an extensive introduction to the issues informing this important debate. This distinguished forum of biblical interpreters and theologians offers a lively and informative engagement with the biblical, historical and contemporary understandings of justification. is not only a fascinating probe into Pauls meaning, it is also a case book in theological method.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Of all the multiple views books, this one was needed most. It is also perhaps the best yet: getting Horton, Dunn, Bird, Kärkkäinen, O'Collins and Rafferty all at the table at the same time under the same roof is both a tour de force and a brilliant example of how their interaction can teach each of us. One word is needed most for the justification debate at work among (mostly) evangelicals, the word listen, and if you listen to the pages of this book you will see examples of not listening and listening. The challenge remains for all of us: will we listen again to the Scriptures to hear what it says about justification? Or will we impose our systems of thought on the Bible?" (Scot McKnight, North Park University)

"Beilby and Eddy have raised the bar with regard to this multiple views genre, this time bringing together world-renowned scholars and theologians to engage a very hot topic. Reading Justification: Five Views is like being treated to five books by five masters of their craft, each going deep into the details at times but yet also stepping back to cover the forest ably enough for the less initiated to appreciate what is at stake. A must-read for those interested in the ecumenical implications of the doctrine of justification." (Amos Yong, Regent University School of Divinity)

"No single volume could possibly cover all Christian views of the doctrine of justification. Justification: Five Views courageously selects five contemporary views and helpfully presents and critiques them. Each view is expounded and defended by a leading proponent and then critiqued by other contributors. Anyone interested in the current discussion about this crucial Christian doctrine must read this book. It sheds more light than heat in an area of theology almost burned over by heated polemics. Of all the 'views' books out there, this is one of the best." (Roger E. Olson, professor of theology, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University)

"A wonderfully useful book. After a superb historical survey of the issues to be debated, five influential approaches to the doctrine of justification by faith are presented and defended by credible and engaging representatives. I can think of no better introduction to these important debates than this outstanding volume." (Alister E. McGrath, King's College, London)

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: IVP Academic (October 18, 2011)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0830839445
• ISBN-13: 978-0830839445
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #237,679 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

26 of 30 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Weak on Exegesis, Poorly Selected Contributors December 31, 2011

By Ashton Wilkins

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

In Justification: Five Views, the five views treated are (1) Traditional Reformed (defended by Michael S. Horton); (2) Progressive Reformed (Michael F. Bird); (3) New Perspective on Paul (James D. G. Dunn); (4) Deification (Veli-Matti Karkkainen); and (5) Roman Catholic (Gerald O'Collins, SJ and Oliver P. Rafferty, SJ). After having read this entire volume, my assessment is that the book is not worth buying. Indeed, this work has little value even for those who are looking for a basic introduction to the contemporary debates over the doctrine of justification by faith. In what follows I will offer some concrete criticisms which warrant this negative judgment.

My first criticism has to do with the selection both of the represented positions and the contributors. A glaring omission is that the classical Lutheran position, which in some important respects differs from the Reformed view, is not represented. Although an attempt is made to justify this omission, a fully satisfactory explanation is not given. Additionally, one wonders whether the "Progressive Reformed" doctrine of justification has the sufficient identity, historical permanence, or number of adherents to warrant space in this volume. Wouldn't an Eastern Orthodox view be a better fit? (Note that the deification view in this volume is defended by a non-traditional Lutheran, not an Eastern Christian.)

Furthermore, the selection of contributors is truly uneven. Dunn and Bird are competent biblical scholars, Rafferty is a Catholic historian specializing in the 19th and 20th centuries, and Karkkainen, Horton and O'Collins are systematic theologians. The result is that the contributors are often incapable of interacting deeply with the issues on account of their lack of overlapping fields of expertise.... This does lead to instances of authors "talking past" each other without much fruitful point of contact. Indeed, the reader sometimes feels that the debate degenerates into humble praise of the other contributors rather than a competent interaction with their views. In his response to Dunn, for example, Karkkainen mentions that "as a systematic theologian" he has been asked "to make remarks on [Dunn's] learned essay in biblical theology by the leading international authority, the master of the art of New Testament studies," adding that this is "a humbling experience." Paragraphs of praise for Dunn follow, along with autobiographical snippets and almost anything other than careful, exegetical response and interaction.

Nor is this an isolated case. In his essay on Roman Catholicism, Fr. O'Collins remarks that "I feel a little embarrassed to find that I have written only sporadically and briefly on justification [throughout my career]." Then, instead of using his valuable space to present a clear account and defense of the Catholic position (he expressly refrains from doing that), he instead opts "to tell the story of my own modest engagement with this theme as an individual Roman Catholic." What follows is half a chapter of a personal narrative of O'Collins' academic career and the exposure he had to debates on justification from 1960 to the present. In other words, he tells a personal story. No statement of the Catholic position, no defense of it, no substantial biblical exegesis---nothing. (I am serious.) In a multi-view book, this is a total disappointment. One almost feels as though O'Collins refrained from debating the issues because he didn't feel sufficiently qualified to do so. If that is the case, then one is prompted to ask why he was chosen to be a contributor to this volume in the first place.

Another criticism of this work is that most of the contributors do not state and defend in a logical manner a clear and consistent account of justification. Horton is the one notable exception; it must be admitted that his essay is clearly stated and defended. (I say this as someone who is deeply critical of the Reformed doctrine, but one who recognizes logical reasoning nonetheless.) Bird, in his essay on the "Progressive Reformed" view, lays emphasis on union with Christ as an alternative grounding of imputation, but does not offer a structured doctrine of justification which shows how he differs from traditional views except in points of emphasis and language. Dunn explicitly refrains from systematizing the biblical material and ends up defending no clearly identifiable position at all; his essay is not so much a defense of the "New Perspective doctrine of justification" as an explanation that there is no such thing as a "New Perspective doctrine of justification." Karkkainen's essay on deification is wonderful if one is looking for a history of the Finnish reconstruction of Martin Luther's views. But if one wants a clear statement and biblical defense of justification-as-deification, he has to look elsewhere. Indeed, as other contributors point out, Karkkainen does not even clearly define what he means by "deification"---which, needless to say, limits the value of his essay. As for the Catholic chapter, Rafferty spends the first half giving an historical overview of justification from Augustine through the Council of Trent. This is an enlightening exercise but I want to stress that the value of his work is purely historical, not theological. In the second half of that chapter, O'Collins tells us a lot about himself but virtually nothing about the Catholic doctrine of justification. I have remarked on this already, above.

As a Roman Catholic reviewer, I would like to express particular disappointment in the chapter on Roman Catholicism. Nowhere in that entire chapter is the Catholic doctrine stated in a systematic manner, much less defended. Moreover, the contributors are not representative of the traditional Catholic approach. For example, O'Collins repeatedly affirms that "faith in Christ" means "the faith of Christ," and even goes so far as to affirm that "during his earthly existence [sic] Jesus lived by faith and not by sight," echoing his earlier work on Christology. O'Collins is aware that this view of his departs from the consensus of Catholic theologians. Interestingly, he states that "I would find myself seriously at fault if I refused to let [the joint declaration] guide my thinking in the area of justification," even though the joint declaration is not a binding statement of Catholic doctrine, as he himself admits. Nevertheless, when it comes to the meaning of "faith in Christ," he is bold enough to reject official papal teachings that Christ had "the knowledge of vision" of "everything past, present and future" (Pope Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office, 1918 [Denz. 2184-85]). One wonders why O'Collins feels compelled in conscience to let an unofficial document guide his thinking when he is so free to depart from the *official* teachings of the magisterium. Is he really giving readers a fair presentation of the *Catholic* viewpoint? (For those who are looking for an intelligent statement of the Catholic position, cf. Christopher Malloy, Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of Joint Declaration [Peter Lang, 2005].)

In conclusion, I do not recommend this volume for the reasons stated above. Read more ›

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars This is the way to learn theology March 20, 2012

By Joel L. Watts VINE™ VOICE

Format:Kindle Edition

Before we get into the review proper, let me say that these books are important for at least two reasons. First, the theological topics which the Spectrum series from IVP-Academic are covering is essential to the Christian doctrinal life. We are losing ground in the battlefield of the intellect because theology is no longer being examined, and if not examined, it will not be lived. It needs examined; it needs examined and if found wanting, it needs reformed. By allowing different views to be presented, the reader can gain a pretty sizable view of the angles which need to be used to approach a particular theological issue, and in this case, justification. This feeds into the second. For too long, education has been about regurgitation; with a series like with, where views are presented and responded to in the same volume, it demands that the reader use a book such as this as a foundational source to begin to explore their own theological views.

Michael S. Horton begins with the Traditional Reformed view, which is the basis of the Reformation. Horton's writing is almost polemical, beginning with the disagreement that the Progressive Reformed should not contain the connotation of Reformed, noting that it is not Progressive to fall away from the truth. This is the problem with Horton and others who insist on the Traditional view, that for them, the dogma of justification is the measure by which to test new exegesis, facts and studies. Horton shows that it is not the fair evaluation of the other perspectives and doctrines which he is after, so much as it seems to be the denial of their validity and the attacks to thwart actual consideration of their views. As several of the respondents have shown, Horton misses the many nuances of the other positions in attempt to defend his own.... For instance, his usual anti-Catholic biases come forth when he writes of the Council of Trent and dismisses the importance of the document signed between Rome and the World Lutheran Federation. Further, he is unable to truly handle Dunn's New Perspective, accusing them, not of misunderstanding Paul so much as misunderstanding the Reformation. As Dunn points out, this is simply not true, as for many in the non-monolithic NPP, he wants to bring an added dimension to Paul's theology which was missing during the Reformation.

I am almost persuaded by Michael F. Bird's essay, given his use of both substitutionary atonement as well as hints of Christus Victor and his idea that such an important issue is not so one-sided. Indeed, Bird is able to show that "justification is multifacted" (156) with at least five different angles to examine. While he falls clearly within the Calvinistic-Reformed line of thought, he has reformed this somewhat to reflect current scholarship and gotten under the usual patina to examine verses outright and not through the lens of the fathers of the Reformation. My main issues are with the reading of Romans as the zenith of Paul's theology. We seem to believe that we know the Apostle's mind on such matters. Wouldn't it be odd to find out that Paul thought little of the self-serving Roman Epistle (if Stowers and others, including myself, are correct) and instead saw, say, Philemon, as the height of his own theology? Further, I take issue with the usual focus on Romans 1.16-17 as the central thesis to the entire letter as well as the reading which Bird places on Romans 1.18-32. I do, however, appreciate his enthrallment with Galatians and his grace in such a manner. Bird presents his case supported firmly with a near complete biblical picture. Again, he's almost persuaded me, and not just because he has the word "progressive" in the title of his position.

My initial bias lies with the New Perspective (NPP), but I was hoping for something more than what Dunn presented. Perhaps, this only solidifies the assertion that not all NPP theologians arrive at the same conclusions and helps me to understand why I prefer Tom Wright's results, shaded differently, than others in the NPP (and why it seems that Horton spoke forcefully against Wright, who is not included in the book but remains an ever present shadow, instead of focusing his attention on Dunn). One of the most palatable things about Dunn's essay is his admission that while there are indeed sticking points, the NPP remains open to revision. It's not forever settled, but picks up where the Reformation left off - reformed, and ever reforming. This apparent when he discusses some of Paul's "warts." (200) Further, Dunn allows for tensions within Paul and the New Testament, something that appeals to me in that Paul was himself continuing to explore and to be led by the Spirit in articulating the new life in Christ Jesus. Further, he calls for acceptance of these warts, tensions, and difficult parts in a way befitting a theologian and a scholar. His view is simple, really, that Paul tensely showed that works must be manifested for the life in Christ. Further, he dismisses the notion that Paul was completely set against the Judaism of his day, but allows that Paul saw the Law as something to be done away with. His pays attention to Paul's historical context, which surprisingly, was not post-Middle Ages Europe with a real forensic justice philosophy developing not just in theology, but in the political realm as well. The focus is still on faith, heating the argument over whether or not it is faith in or the faith of. I tend to stick with the latter. Frankly, I do not know how the Reformed get around the idea of total participation if they continue to rely on the faith in translation, but that is neither here nor there.

I am more nearly convinced with Kärkkäinen's views than I have been before. It, for me, carries the necessary elements of sound theology. First, it is biblically based and allows for a broad interpretation so that the various tensions through images are upheld as equal. Second, it is based in history with both Luther and Athanasius contributing their respective intellects to the development of the overall view. Third, it contains the elements of the Spirit, what I believe would be a sacramental theology (this is somewhat validated with both Horton's and Bird's responses), and the call to good works. Finally, it is of an ecumenical, albeit a somewhat cautiously realistic one, nature in that the author begins with the Joint Declaration signed by the Vatican and the World Lutheran Federation in 1999 and moves into broader Protestantism (mentioning the Anabaptists and even Methodists along the way) while seeking to encounter the East as a living and necessary stream to Christianity, something that should not be surprising from Finland. Let me add that this theology seems to be rooted as well in recent biblical scholarship, specifically, from the New Perspective on Paul. It meets the progression of theology with open arms. What I found lacking (and this is echoed in Bird's response) is that theosis is simply not defined.

History is never as one-sided as the sectarians would have us believe, and the essay giving the history of the still-Roman Catholic debate which led to Luther and from Luther to Trent, shows that the usual Protestant banter around this particular topic is often devoid of an objective view of history. Further, the entire essay by these two authors shows that the movement of Scripture is still alive and well in the Roman Catholic Church. The essay is split in twain, with Rafferty giving the general lead up to Trent, as well as the actual discussion of Trent (although it is light on this subject) and O'Collins adding a theological reflection as well as a personal journey regarding the present topic. If we Protestants continue to see Rome through Trent, we will continue to allow Rome to out pace us in ecumenical moves and theological discussions. Other than the spirituality expressed in this essay, there is not much here to tell. These scholars of theological history show that Trent is often misunderstood, which allows the responders to, rightly, call into question the fact that even with all the change Vatican II put into place, the 16th century council was never revisited. Further, they stress as those before, during, and after Trent, that justification is a many splendored image. If it is misinterpreted, and rarely used rightly, allowing O'Collins to issue his own personal theories, then it should be reexamined and in some way changed. Further, given that both the West and the East have recognized that justification is a theme, an image, that fits into the Scriptural view of salvation, then Trent should be reexamined in such a way as to allow for some of the anathemas to be rescinded, which is a major sticking point for Protestants, and rightly so. But Rome has a great deal to show us in the way it tackles theological questions, often without alienating the factions, but finding a way to strengthen the entire Church.

There are some issues here with this book, however. For instance, the views are selectively picked. Granted, there is only so much space in which to discuss such a deep topic, but the choices are only those familiar to Western theologians. Granted, the deification view is present, but it is not a purely Eastern presentation, as it is written by a Lutheran, himself noticing that no real Lutheran view can be found in the volume. There should have been voices from the outside as well. The book seemingly comes with a warning label, "No Women Where Consulted in the Production of this Book." I note that while this book is not one which is reviews the sociological impacts of the doctrine(s) of justification, it would have been helpful to hear at least one feminine voice in this theological treatise. The final issue I see with this book is that it does not allow a final response by the essayist. The format used in a previous work in which responders to N.T. Wright were answered by Wright would have worked well here, I think.

Overall, this is an excellent book and one well worth reading over and over again. Read more ›

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars One of THOSE Conversations... January 20, 2012

By Da Panda

Format:Paperback

Ever have one of those conversations that just won't end? Like you can't wait for it to be over and yet it just drags on and on. You look for ways to get out and eventually, you just have to groan and get through it.

I really feel that way about the whole justification debate. It just keeps going and going. People keep fighting over it and writing different perspectives on it.

You have the Reformed position on one side and the New Perspective on another side and the mediating position and the Catholic position. They keep quoting the same passages and making reference to Second Temple Judaism and after a while the weary reader just wants to step back and say, "Uh, can we move on yet?"

The whole thing is a shame because justification is a central doctrine for the Christian faith. If we miss the mark on this thing we can go into some dangerous territory such as salvation by works.

Which is why I sometimes get frustrated with books like Justification: Five Views. It isn't that the contributors aren't fantastic. You have Michael Horton, James Dunn, Michael Bird, Veli-Matti Karkkainen, and Gerald Collins and Oliver Rafferty. It is like a dream team of theologians coming together to debate justification. You know the essays are going to be, for the most part, solid (with the odd exceptions of Karkkkainen's and Collins/Rafferty's).

The problem is that at the end of the day, there is almost no progress made in the debate. There simply is not enough room in each essay to cover the topic well. This is a complex debate and, sadly, there just isn't enough room to cover the topic well. Worse, the reader can get the impression that each view is equally, possibly, correct.... There can be no real exegesis done and most of the time we are left with summary statements. But then again, I suppose the five views books are really just supposed to be introduction. As an introduction, the book does ok.

But at times it just seems like it makes an already long conversation go longer. Take that for what you will.

I mentioned above that Karkkainen and Collin/Rafferty's chapters were not quite up to par. Let me be a bit more forceful--they are not good chapters. While the first three contributors do a really good job given the restrains the second half of the book is just weak. Karkkainen does no exegesis and Collin/Rafferty's chapter is a weird mix of a historical overview and an autobiography. I had no feel for what the contributors actually believed. It was just baffling and sadly, they lower the overall quality of the book.

So should you buy the book? Believe it or not, I think the answer is yes. Why? Because, to date, there is no book I am aware of that provides a side by side look at each view. For those who are "up" on the conversation, there is some clarity provided--I found it beneficial. I think those who have not read much in the justification debate are going to walk away a bit confused at points but will find it overall useful.

So let the conversation continue...and continue...and continue...

*I received a review copy from IVP Academic in exchange for a fair review* Read more ›