Too catholic to be Catholic 2
Thursday, November 07, 2013
The Source of the Question
This
article is the second of a series interacting with Matt Yonke’s blog post on
May 24, 2012. Yonke, a Roman Catholic is
in turn interacting with Dr. Peter J. Leithart, a Presbyterian. The resulting discussion is a very sobering
examination of the interrelationships between Reformed and Roman theology. Neither of these writers is a lightweight,
and neither pulls any punches. This is
exactly the sort of honest dialog that is necessary for the welfare of The
Church. I will post my objections and observations
in the order they are discussed by Yonke.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/comment-page-2/#comment-62615
New Perspectives on Paul
New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) is a significant endnote to Federal Vision Theology (FVT) or Auburn
Avenue Theology (2002),[1] which is why it needs to
be discussed here. NPP is sometimes mistakenly considered
to be related to FVT; there are accidental coincidences, but these are
exactly that: accidents. FVT is distinctly conservative;
while NPP may not always be conservative.
FVT is a Presbyterian and Reformed movement while NPP is much broader in
denominational involvement. NPP looks
specifically at soteriological issues with the Reformation, especially as
expressed by Lutherans and Calvinists; while FVT takes pains to maintain the
classical soteriological constructs. NPP
possibly traces its roots to a 1963 Paper by a Lutheran theologian named
Krister Stendahl (1921-2008).[2] It appears to coalesce around 1977 with a
paper by Ed Parish Sanders[3] (1937 —),
a self-described liberal, whose religious heritage appears to be mixed, but was
originally Methodist. James D. G. Dunn[4] (1939
—), a Methodist, gave the movement its name in 1982. If Sanders triggered the coalescence of NPP, Nicholas
Thomas Wright[5]
(1948 —), an Anglican, who is very conservative, except for leanings toward
Christian mortalism,[6]
is possibly its current banner carrier.
NPP from an FVT Perspective
1.
Justification by faith was present in the Old Testament
as well as the New Testament.
2.
Faith and works are not opposed to one another in the
Bible. Faith was always present, even in
the Old Testament. The Jews were not
trying to earn anything by works.
3.
Law and grace are not opposed to one another, or
that the Old Testament was mostly law and the New Testament was mostly grace.
4.
Paul's primary focus was not individual salvation,
but corporate salvation.
5.
Judaism was not a religion based on salvation by works or
merit.
6.
Judaism satisfied Paul's burden of guilt; rather than
what the Old Perspective thought, that Judaism could not ease Paul's
conscience.
Evidently
Wilson agrees with the first three of these tenets. We comment.
1. Justification by faith is the exclusive
teaching of both Old and New Testaments.
However, biblical faith does not exist apart from biblical works. Nor do biblical works exist separately from
biblical faith.
2. Biblically defined faith and works
are not opposed to one another. Biblical
faith and secular works of the flesh are always opposed. Covenant redemption and salvation is always a
work of divine grace, for the Jews or anyone else, either corporately or
personally. However, that covenant
redemption and salvation always requires a response of faith, and that faith is
always attended by corresponding actions, which may properly be called works,[9]
but not works of the flesh.
3. Law and grace, or law and Gospel are
almost always stated in the same verse: they are rarely, if ever, separated.[10] “You shall not have other
gods before Me” brings the promise of life and freedom at the same time it
reminds that violation brings slavery and death.” This law is presented to a redeemed people,
after their redemption. However, they
have been saved from slavery; they are about to be saved into the promised
land. It is self-contradictory[11]
to permit a people bent on slavery to occupy the land of freedom. “God so loved the world” brings life to one
and death to another.[12] There is no distinction, division or tension
between them: they are two perspectives of the same thing. The same covenant brings both blessing and
cursing. This is not merely a threat:
the self-contradiction of disobedience is always impossible to consider. One simply cannot believe in Christ and
disbelieve in Christ at the same time.[13]
4. The Biblical focus is on covenantal, community
salvation. Adam and Eve are Created in
paradise: yet, together, throw it all away.
No sooner does God patiently provide redemptive garments, when Cain throws
it all away. Noah finds grace[14]
in the eyes of the Lord, but before long large numbers have squandered it. God makes Abraham a man of faith with all his
family, but soon Lot’s wife is lost along with Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses leads a mixed multitude out of the
slavery of Egypt, but within days, most of them chose death. The remaining Israelites enter the promised
land, but by 722 BC, Israel has forsaken it; by 586 BC, the Jews have forsaken God as
well, and the kingdom of God on earth will lie dormant, fallowing for 582 years,
there is nothing left except a hollow shell.
When Christ comes, whole families are baptized into the faith, but many
continue to fall away. It appears to be
more accurate to say that many who were welcomed into the community of salvation,
chose to walk away: the emphasis is on individual damnation. Nevertheless, this community gift brings with
it a world and life view that calls forth an obedience of faith: having been
given all the blessings and rights of the community covenant, individuals must
still live within them. On the other
hand, our view of evangelism is distorted: we demand the preaching of sin,
before applying the ointment of grace. To
the contrary, the Bible records the often repeated salvation of stiff necked
and superstitious people; petulant children who only learn of the stench of
their sins as they grow to adulthood.
Romans, for example, is directed to Christians who need to grow in
grace, not to unbelievers in need of a savior.
That growth in grace always takes place within the supportive community.[15]
5. Judaism after the Babylonian captivity in 516 BC,
is a community devoid of the visible presence of God. Although there are prophetic glimpses of
light, the community remains predominantly in darkness.[16] During this period Pharisaism lapsed into
traditions that were added to Scripture, voiding it. The traditions of the Pharisees had the
effect of teaching salvation by works or merit, and hinged on blind rote
obedience. Judaism (516 BC-present) never has any
significant gift of prophetic utterance, or of the Holy Ghost, hence the whole
focus is on compliance in the flesh, simply because the visible Glory of God is
absent. When the visible Glory of God
returns in 4 BC, Judaism is incapable of recognizing Him. Foreigners from Persia, and unwashed peasant
shepherds recognize Him, but Judaism does not.
Hence, the voice of Prophecy is rejected by Judaism.
6. Devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost, Judaism
is incapable of seeing what David saw: the obedience to the Law through grace
and faith. Judaism is nothing more than
a hollow, man centered form, of the covenantal richness of the Old
Testament. Paul found himself crushed
under the weight of the Law, rather than being able to build upon the Law’s
foundation. Because Paul could not yet
understand the resurrection of Christ, he could not understand the Law as
fulfilled blessing.
NPP from an NPP Perspective
We
offer the following summary quote unedited.[17]
‘It is
often noted that the singular title “the new perspective” gives an unjustified
impression of unity. It is a field of study in which many scholars are actively
pursuing research and continuously revising their own theories in light of new
evidence, and who do not necessarily agree with each other on any given issue.
It has been suggested by many that the plural title "the new
perspectives" may therefore be more accurate. In 2003, N. T. Wright,
distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, commented that “there are
probably almost as many ‘new perspective’ positions as there are writers
espousing it – and I disagree with most of them”. There are certain trends and commonalities
within the movement, but what is held in common is the belief that the “old
perspective” (the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of Paul the Apostle and
Judaism) is fundamentally incorrect.’
We humbly offer the following oversimplified summary of New Perspectives on Paul. Here are some of the issues being discussed.
·
According, at least to
some, NPP views, issues of Jewish Law including Torah, are cultural lifestyle
issues between Jews and Greeks, in which the Greeks have no need to emulate the
Jews. This new view opposes the older
view, in which it is impossible to meet God’s standards by good works. We comment.
There are obviously broad differences in culture between Jews and
Greeks. It is true that the Gospel must
go into all the world without uprooting the wide variety of established
cultures. On the other hand, Paul cannot
be speaking with reference to Torah. The
death and resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment everything that Torah
means: so Torah is as binding on Christians as it is on Jews.[18] The only difference is that Christians see
Torah as gloriously fulfilled; while Jews see it as unfulfilled, a burden that
they must carry on their backs. The old
view is correct, in that the Jews were focused on rote obedience to the law, so
much so that the Pharisees added many regulations in order to accomplish
this. Jesus brings scathing condemnation
of such ideas as He fulfills the whole Law as our Champion in battle. Paul further observes that such ideas bring
only death for both Jew and Greek.
Nevertheless, the NPP point is well taken: it is not necessary to recite
a litany of sins before preaching the Gospel.
The Law is given to a redeemed people after their redemption, and not
before it. The Scripture does not teach
Cultural Imperialism, and it is fruitless to require the overthrow of a
culture, before presenting the Gospel: that is not how the Gospel came to us. The Gospel first came to us in all its freedom;
then little-by-little the Holy Ghost led us to understand more of the death and
resurrection of Christ; more-and-more how to live in the Kingdom; and our
cultures were changed, not by coercion, but willingly. It is inappropriate for us to impose that culture
on anyone else. God was patient with us
as ignorant children steeped in useless superstition; we must be patient as He
leads His other children. God intends
only one road for us all; but it is not our place to play God, we are not the
Holy Ghost. Our place is to cooperate
with the Holy Ghost and serve Him, not to meddle in and obstruct His work. If NPP has anything of value to say on this
point, it would be that we have misinterpreted Scripture, been overzealous in
our application, and have impeded people from coming to Christ. We need to rethink our evangelism, but the
Works of the Law are still death to all people.
·
“Paul [has] nothing
negative to say about … good works.” We
comment. We agree, good works are GOOD
works. The rabid dichotomy between faith
and works is not something that is entertained anywhere in the Bible. Faith and works are inseparable. The expression “Sola Fide” cannot possibly
mean faith without works, for that would be in direct contradiction of Paul’s
own words, not to mention James. The
expression “Sola Fide” can only mean that my works have no merit for my redemption.[19] Obviously, my works may have merit for
others: for I may yet carry the Gospel to a new culture, and to this end I
labor. Previously, I did not cooperate
with God in my redemption. Dying, and
already dead He breathed new life in me.
Prior to that, all my works were to wage war against God, so devious was
the corruption of my madness. But now He
indwells me, and the Holy Ghost leads, so that by faith I cannot help but do
good works. I am part of the very body
of Christ; His works, I do: I cooperate with God. Since my salvation will not be complete until
I see Jesus face-to-face in heaven with the resurrection of my body at the last
day, my cooperation with God helps me grow in grace, and benefits those around
me. Even so, all of this cooperation
with God is the work of His grace as He indwells me, and at the end of the day,
I have earned nothing, deserved nothing.
Rather, I have labored in God’s vineyard for mere seconds; yet He
rewards me with a full day’s wages and more.
So great is His grace, love, and mercy.
If however, I equate redemption and salvation, which is a perspective
also seen in Scripture, my works will seem invisible. Isn’t this a contradiction? No!
When we are baptized, we receive all of the kingdom, not part of
it. Yet, we continue to live in our
earthly bodies until death. Why? Why can’t we just go to heaven immediately,
receive our resurrected bodies, and be done with it? Why must we continue to live on this earth
with all its sin and suffering? This
last pretends to be the question, but it is actually the answer. We partake of the life and suffering of
Christ, so that the rest of the world will hear and be saved. In the process, we grow to be more-and-more
like Christ, and we become evangelists.
Evangelism is not something that we do, as much as it is something that
we are already, and are becoming. This
is indeed meritorious, it is faith in action, it is a life inseparable from
good works. We are not saved by our own
works, but we cannot be saved apart from our own works. Works are applied only in community and
covenant as we are members of the body of Christ, but as members, we still
participate individually. I myself am
baptized, but my baptism is for the welfare of The Whole Church. I give my gifts, but they are for the good of
all.
·
The old perspective is
claimed to mean that faith is trust in the finished work of Christ alone for
salvation. NPP claims that faith
frequently means faithfulness.[20] We comment.
If by salvation, we mean forensic justification or redemption, then yes,
faith is trust in the finished work of Christ alone in His death and
resurrection. If by salvation, we refer
to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, which saves us, yes, faith is trust in the perfect
work of the Holy Ghost. However, if by
salvation we include the ongoing leadership of the Holy Ghost throughout life,
which incorporates us into the body of Christ and empowers us to live the
Christian life so that we grow in grace and reach our glorious destination of
eternal life in Christ, which is called by some Glorification and by others
Theosis: we now consider something that requires faithfulness. As with teaching children, the lessons of
faith require appropriate responses. A
new lesson is not presented until the response develops. The Christian life begins with baby steps,
until we walk, then run, and finally fly.
There is nothing new in this. The
classical definition of faith has always been: in the Bible fides is notitia,
assensus, and fiducia. The last word has
been contested on philosophical grounds, but the word obedience suffices in its
place. Faith always did mean “full
submission to God.” At most NPP simply
reinforces the classical idea of faith.
It is sad to say that licentiousness has progressed so far in our
“anything goes” society that many think of obedience to God as oppression,
rather than freedom. People want faith
in faith, but they do not want faith in any objective reality. The idea of Biblical faith only seems like an
innovation, because it has been forgotten.
·
According to NPP the idea
of grace implies a favor that must be repaid; whereas the old idea implies a
lack of human effort in salvation. We comment. This is a reductio ad absurdum. We should have listened to the hymn, “We give
Thee but Thine own.” The only thing we
have to give to God that is exclusively our own is the confession of our
sin. We give God thanks for all His many
blessing, but we could not even do that had He not given us the means to
speak. Our cooperation with God in grace
is absolutely dependent on that grace from the Holy Ghost working within
us. How, exactly, is that a repayment? If God loves me in such a way that I am empowered
to love Him freely in return, how is that a repayment? We have a debt of love, but my repayment
amounts to returning a penny from my allowance to my Father: this is no
repayment at all. Blessed are the poor
is Spirit….
·
The old idea of the atonement
is claimed to be the Penal Substitution theory. The scope of differing NPP views is exceedingly and excessively broad.
We comment. The alleged NPP ideas
are too varied to conclude that NPP has anything significant to say about
atonement. Consensus simply does not
exist.
NPP from Our Perspective
From our perspective NPP has only one real contribution to
the discussion: or at least only one in which we are interested. NPP suggests that much of the Pauline corpus
must be interpreted communally, corporately, covenantally, or nationally; not
individually as usually assumed during the Reformation, and in the various
developing Reformation theologies. This
is part of point four above as made by Douglas Wilson.
We agree that much of the Pauline corpus must be interpreted
communally, corporately, covenantally, or nationally; not individually. However, if this is imposed upon every verse
of the Pauline corpus we must disagree.
Furthermore, it must also be observed that where Biblical Covenants are
binding nationally, that individual loyalty and obedience within the Covenant
nation is also necessary. Nevertheless,
that individual loyalty and obedience within Covenant must be reassessed. This means that each verse must be reexamined
in light of the idea of national Covenant to be sure that undue weight is not
placed on individual behavior. Failure
to do this results in the eisegesis of Scripture, rather than its
exegesis. On the other hand, it is
utterly impossible to draw a conclusion devoid of individual responsibility:
for the Covenant community is necessarily made up of individuals, who must
swear fealty to the Covenant’s Suzerain and live under the Covenant’s blessings
and curses. This may enable us to
resolve many issues of Scripture that have long been problematic and the
subject of controversy in The Church.
We believe that all the other ideas associated with NPP are
corollaries of this one central idea.
Moreover, we believe that this analysis of NPP has a natural
tangency with the Covenant idea developing within conservative Presbyterianism:
hence the overlap and confusion between FVT and NPP, which are otherwise quite
distinct.
It is this growing and maturing idea of Covenant in Scripture
that most interests us; it most informs our ensuing discussion. Issues concerning the Trinity are viewed as
set in stone and thus not really open for discussion. Eschatology seems to be a discussion of great
interest, but not focally relevant to issues of Catholicity. As far as Sacerdotalism[21] is concerned, we plead
guilty as charged, with these provisions: One. Jesus Christ is the sole
officiating priest in all Sacraments, human officiants merely serve as the
hands and voice of Christ. Two. The Holy
Ghost is the sole empowerment and enabler of all Sacraments.[22] Three. Whatever happens in Sacrament happens
only at the pleasure and schedule of God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost: nothing occurs according to the will of man. We view the other issues as less germane to
the overall topic of Catholicity.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Sanders
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._G._Dunn
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_(theologian)
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision,
under Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul
[9]
Other descriptive names may also be used; but different names do not obviate
the necessity of these works. For
example, baptism is not an optional exercise, even though it is not exactly
clear how the thief on the cross was baptized.
Nor is communion optional, for the one who believes cannot abstain from
communion without good cause. Likewise,
church attendance is not optional, for it is the gathering of Christ’s
body. Whether one calls these works or
something else, they are still required, along with several other like things.
[10]
The attempt to sever Law and Gospel is like attempting to split a coin between
its obverse and reverse: the result is meaningless, it is not half a coin, it is a
headless or tailless nothing. The full
meaning and value of the coin exists because its obverse and reverse stand
together.
[11]
God is in the first commandment as Heavenly Father and Omnipotent Creator
God. Violation of the first commandment
is a confession, a statement that we do not wish to have God as our Heavenly
Father and Creator: We wish to have a different father and creator. When God yields to our obstinate will, we
quickly discover that we have chosen something that is non-existent, but we
have orphaned ourselves. Later, we
discover that behind all such temptations lies the company, deceit, and slavery
of demons: preferring their company we also share in their destiny, the Lake of
Fire. The self-contradiction is obvious.
God’s punishments are not the Lake of Fire, they are
disciplines of teaching to deter us from our mad course and bring about
repentance.
A father understands the enormity of sorrow wrapped up
in the loss of a child. The Heavenly
Father loves all His children with the infinity of love only possible in God
Himself. We cannot begin to fathom the
enormity of grief associated with God’s loss of a child. However, as with David, the shock of grief
occurs on the road to death. After
death, nothing more can be done, and grief is soon ended. None of the observers understood this in
David’s life.
[12]
This proves that there is no dichotomy between the testaments. The one may be called Law according to common
figures of speech; but neither can be associated exclusively or even
differently with Law or Gospel. The same
covenant expressed in one, unfolds in the other; the same elements visible in
the full blossom, were always present, though somewhat veiled in the bud. Nor does the Law blossom into the Gospel; Law
and Gospel are together in the same words.
[13]
The mystery of faith is so complicated that we are almost afraid to make this
statement, less we mislead. Since the
Fall man has been so duplicitous that he believes and disbelieves in the same
breath. The difficulty is removed as we
begin to understand that this duplicity is all unbelief. Real perfect and pure faith is the gift of
God built in us over time. The facts of
the matter are, we call ourselves believers, but we’re not there yet.
[14]
Please do not miss the dominant theme of Grace in Covenant so early in
Scripture.
[15]
Hebrews 12:22-29, even if it were possible for the whole Christian Church on
earth to abandon us and leave us orphaned, we would still not be left alone.
[16]
Matthew 4:16 following the prophecy of Isaiah 9. The people in darkness are Israelites, not
pagans.
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul,
under Main Ideas
[18]
Some are so fanatically opposed to this fact that the mere mention of it is
protested with outcries: judgmentalism, legalism, unlovingness, and the
like. This fanaticism is so rabid and
rampant with regard to sexual sin that one can scarcely speak of the matter at
all: anything goes, it is my body; I do with it as I please. This open malice to the Law has progressed to
the point where I overheard a priest quip, “I don’t take confessions anymore,
there are no sins left.” This condition
of open malice to the Law is anarchy, antinomianism, and unrestrained
licentiousness; it can only lead to death.
[19]
The word, salvation, can be used here, and sometimes is. We used redemption because it takes place
only at the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Salvation comes at a different time as Christ
baptizes me with the Holy Ghost (this is not a defense of Pentecostalism), at
which time, I was saved; so I am being saved, and when my body is raised, I
will be saved.
[20]
The concern over the genitive, pistis Christou, has little or nothing to do with NPP.
The linguistic difficulty between the objective and subjective use of
the Greek genitive has always been present.
Translators sometimes overcook their work. It should be clear to all that the Greek
genitive and the English genitive are not perfectly identical in concept or
scope. The Greek genitive may have
twenty or more nuances or uses that need to be spelled out in English. This should inform us that the Greek idiom
may embrace many or even all of these ideas at the same time, it wasn’t that
difficult for the Greeks to understand.
If this claim is repugnant, please produce a Greek grammar from 50 AD
that draws a distinction between the objective and subjective genitive. Quite obviously, the faithfulness of Christ
and faith in Christ (literally the faith of Christ) are inseparable concepts:
so the point is moot, it amounts to so much grammatical nit-picking. The faith of Christ has always been complete
in God the Father and in God the Holy Ghost.
All one-in-many problems are resolved in the Trinity. Christ’s confidence in the Trinity rests in
the objective reality that it is impossible for any member of the Trinity to be
unfaithful. My faith in Christ exists
only as I am objectively joined to Him.
God became man, so that man could become god. We do not see that this has anything to do
with the NPP position.
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacerdotalism
[22]
We are not discussing here, the existence or non-existence of confection, or of
God’s freedom to delegate authority, thus creating lawful human order and
procedure. God’s freedom is absolutely
acknowledged.
