When Wright is Wrong. Phillip D. R. Griffiths

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ NPP embraces aberrant views on doctrines that touch the very heart of what we Reformed evangelicals believe, for example, the way it undermines justification by faith alone, denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and takes issue with what we believe Paul meant by “the works of the law” etc.

Being a Reformed Baptist does not mean that I do not make use of works produced by Reformed paedobaptists. Indeed, the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession is in almost all aspects identical to the 1647 Westminster Confession, differing only in regard to covenant theology, church government, and the rightful recipients of baptism. So, whilst I very much disagree with the Reformed paedobaptist position in regard to the covenants,9 and the recipients of baptism, I stand shoulder to shoulder with them on most doctrines.

      In this short work, I attempt not only to offer a refutation of Wright’s new perspective on Paul but also exhort Christians to, in the words of Jude, “contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

      06/20/2018.

2. Wright, Simply Christian, 183.

3. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 158–9.

4. In Scripture, the church is always the people, the congregation of the saved. It is never a bricks and mortar building

5. Wells, God in the Wasteland, 27.

6. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity, 152.

7. Wells, “Forward,” 13.

8. New Perspective on Paul will from hereon be referred to as NPP.

9. Here I am alluding to those who espouse Reformed paedobaptism, for example, John Owen, Charles and A. A. Hodge, John Murray etc.

Part One

      Methodology

In part one, I will seek to provide a general introduction to the NPP.1 However, one cannot understand the significance of this without knowing something about what is now called the old perspective or Lutheran view. I shall, therefore, start by briefly examining this position. This will be followed by looking at some of the main thinkers within the NPP. Here I will limit myself to examining the works of Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn, and N. T. Wright. More weight will obviously be given to Wright’s position, after all, this is a work about his understanding of the new perspective.

      Although in part one I will confine myself to describing the views of NPP proponents, when examining Wright’s position, I will interject criticism, explaining to the reader why I disagree with some of his conclusions. Further criticism will be provided in part two where I shall examine certain passages of Scripture.

      Because I am approaching this from a Reformed Baptist covenantal position, it will be necessary to explain its understanding of the covenant of works that God made with the first Adam, along with subsequent covenants, namely, those made with Abraham, Moses, and the new covenant in Christ. In the second part of this work, while I concentrate on texts drawn from Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians, I will, however, also seek to address some other texts employed by Wright, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21.

      It will also be necessary to examine other motifs in Wright’s new perspective, for example, the idea that being saved is not about going to heaven when we die, that Israel at the time of Christ was still in exile etc. Finally, I will, contrary to what Wright claims, seek to show that penal substitution lies at the very heart of Christ’s victory over sin and that the Christus Victor model should be understood within the context of Christ’s propitiatory offering.

      Hermeneutic Principle.

      It is essential to understand the nature of the various covenants because a misunderstanding here will affect other areas of theology. For example, the Reformed paedobaptist belief that the old and new covenants are of the same substance causes them to conclude that water baptism has replaced circumcision, and, of course, if the latter included children then so too must the former, and this significantly changes the way one views the makeup of the church.

      God always deals with his people through covenant, and when interpreting a given text or passage one should consider which of God’s covenants the person(s) alluded to are under, for example, are they under the covenant of works or the covenant of grace? The old or the new covenant?

Scripture reveals two primary covenants– the covenant of works made with Adam and the new covenant made with Christ.2 Both men are federal heads, all humanity was represented by Adam, and those whom God has chosen to save are represented by Christ. We are all either under the first Adam, and under the covenant of works, where we stand condemned because of sin or else under Christ, the second Adam, and under the new covenant. There is no alternative or third position.

      There is only one covenant of grace and this is the new covenant. There is no other covenant, for example, the old covenant, for which Christ is the mediator, hence, to benefit from his mediatorial work one must belong to this covenant. All of God’s people, whenever and wherever they may have lived, be it before or after Christ’s redemptive work, have been the recipients of new covenant blessings. Therefore, central to my understanding of Scripture is the belief that there is no salvation outside of the new covenant, as John Frame succinctly states:

[T]he work of Christ is the source of all human salvation from sin: the salvation of Adam and Eve, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of David, and of all of God’s people in every age, past, present, or future. Everyone who has ever been saved has been saved through the new covenant in Christ. Everyone who is saved receives a new heart, a heart of obedience, through the new covenant work of Christ.3

      Or as Woolsey puts it:

Christ was their Mediator too. Though his incarnation had not yet happened, the fruits of it still availed for the fathers. Christ was their head . . . So the men of God in the Old Testament were shown to be heirs of the new. The new covenant was actually more ancient than the old, though it was subsequently revealed. It was ‘hidden in the prophetic ciphers’ until the time of revelation in Christ.4

      One objection frequently raised when one speaks of new covenant blessings being available before the covenant’s ratification concerns the words uttered by Jeremiah when he alludes to the covenant that will be made in the future, being “after those days” (Isa 31:31; Heb 8:10). Clearly, if it was futuristic and “after those days” how could the fruits thereof be available to those who lived before “those days”? Understanding the answer to this question is vital for understanding the unity that exists in Scripture concerning the way of salvation. John Owen, who was arguably the greatest theologian the English speaking world has ever produced, anticipated this, explaining it in the form of a question and answer:

      First, ‘This covenant is promised as that which is future, to be brought in at a certain time, “after СКАЧАТЬ