Not too long ago I was challenged by someone to rethink the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner and consider that the teaching of the active obedience of Christ was simply a result of an antiquated argument. After pondering these ideas for some time it was obvious these were thinly veiled suggestions coming from the popular "New Perspective". For those of you who have no clue what I am talking about, don't feel bad. In the academic world of evangelicalism there are some heated debates among Christian scholars that the average lay person would have no clue about. However those academic debates eventually trickle down to the lay persons in one form or another. The debate we are talking about is with New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. Bishop Wright is a brilliant man and among one of the best New Testament scholars in the church, and has contributed a great deal of good to the church. However he has also reintroduced a teaching that is not sound and can lead to serious problems if left unchallenged. The teaching commonly refereed to as the "New Perspective of Paul" based on his book- "Paul in Fresh Perspective". Overall Wright argues that evangelicals have misunderstood justification as it was understood by Paul. One of his arguments, among many, is that imputation was merely a product of middle age thought and restricted to just the Reformation mind set. Based on new scholarship of Judaism during the first century, he argues that we now have a "fresh perspective" so to speak, on Paul's view of justification. Here a couple of snippets of his views:
“It is therefore a straightforward category mistake, however venerable within some Reformed traditions including part of my own, to suppose that Jesus ‘obeyed the law’ and so obtained ‘righteousness’ which could be reckoned to those who believe in him. …It is not the ‘righteousness’ of Jesus Christ which is ‘reckoned’ to the believer. It is his death and resurrection.”
—N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, p. 232
Is there then no 'reckoning of righteousness' in, for instance, Romans 5:14-21? Yes, there is; but my case is that this is not God's own righteousness, or Christ's own righteousness, that is reckoned to God's redeemed people, but rather the fresh status of 'covenant member', and/or 'justified sinner', which is accredited to those who are in Christ, who have heard the gospel and responded with 'the obedience of faith'." -N.T. Wright, 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25–28 August 2003, p. 8
In the this weeks sermon I made a clear biblical case for the doctrine of imputation and believe it is as clear as can be. I adamantly reject the New Perspective on the grounds that it leaves many questions unanswered about righteousness, and leaves the door wide open for works righteousness, whereby the believer is credited with a righteousness of their own. I cannot see how it is possible for a believer to merit any good before God. But for anyone who may doubt, I will not pretend to be a scholar, and instead point you to some of the most formidable theologians and scholars of our day and allow them to dissect Wright's views. Below are a few links that you will find helpful. But a more thorough search will help you find a wealth of resources.
Tom Schreiner's article
More Media from Ligonier Ministries
Media by D.A. Carson
Media by John Piper
Happy Studying!
Is it not our faith in Jesus and his works that allows us to be saved? I think in order to be truly saved, our own consciousness won't allow us to believe in the redeemer unless we account for our own works on a personal level. So in effect our own righteousness is taken into account of our own belief in Jesus. I know what I'm saying isn't the debate at heart, but I think it is relevant in the terms of why God sent his only Son to this Earth.
ReplyDelete