God's Will, Part 2

God's Will, Lost or Found - Part 2


In Dave Swavely’s helpful book, Decisions Decisions, he writes:

Many Christians, who would say that they do not believe in new revelation, are essentially seeking new revelation in their decision making. They may have a theology of “cessationism” in their view of revelation, but in their everyday practice they contradict that theology by trying to hear God say something that is not in the Bible. And I would suggest that their theology is right, so they should let it shape their practical living. God is speaking today, but he is speaking through his Word.[1]

But can’t we have it both ways? Can’t we have the completed revelation of God in the Bible and extrabiblical revelations, which do not quite approach inspiration, on the side? O. Palmer Robinson suggests that we can’t:

And why not both? Why not the illumination of Scripture coupled with new revelations of the Spirit? Simply because if you declare a need for both, you have implied the insufficiency of the one. You have placed yourself back in the framework of the old covenant, in a time when the new revelations were required because of the incompleteness of the old. But Christ is the final word.[2]

On the other side of the fence are those who say that such theology is practical Deism, robbing us of a personal God who is at work in us individually. Scripture, they would say, is unquestionably the inspired Word of God – but it is God’s Word for everyone equally. When I read that the “Lord is my Shepherd” or that Christ died for our sins, these are true statements, but they are true for every believer not just for me. How would you like it, they ask, if your wife said she loved you but she loved you equally to everyone she knows? Would that make you feel special or just one of many? So it is with God and us. He claims to love the world and He has spoken in general to all (through the Bible), but we also need personal words – words just to us, to affirm our personal relationship. And part of that personal word includes guidance. If the Lord really loves me and He is all-wise, then I need His intimate instructions. It is not enough, once again, that He has given broad instructions, principles and guidance to everyone. I need something more, something just for me, something private. The Scriptures tell me that God leads me in the paths of righteousness – and that is good. But I need His leading in more specific issues such as job selection, which person to marry, what house to buy and dozens of other concerns. I don’t need His help in choosing what clothes to wear or which route I should take to church (apparently there is a threshold below which I am capable of making my own choices), but for life’s big decisions I need a personal message.

What these folks are saying seems to make sense but are they correct? It would appear that a number of passages of Scripture indicated that they are not. What if, as Garry Friesen says, impressions are not authoritative but are really just impressions?[3] What if they are not communications from God at all, I mean, unbelievers have impressions, don’t they? What is the source of their impressions? Let’s see what the Bible says.

But What About Those Scriptures?

Psalm 19 teaches us there are two sources of revelation, from nature (vv. 1-6) and from Scripture (vv. 7-14). The “general revelation” of nature, while speaking boldly of the glory of God, still has serious limitations. Romans 1:20 confirms that nature is capable of revealing to mankind the eternal power and divine nature of God; therefore even those who know nothing of Jesus Christ are without excuse when they reject God. But general revelation is incapable of exposing a multitude of things including Jesus Christ, the Cross, grace, eternal life and on and on. For such things we need the “specific revelation” of Scripture. These two, general and specific revelations, have been recognized by God’s people throughout the ages as the normal ways in which God communicates to us. Occasionally, the Lord breaks through in other ways, whether by angels, visions, dreams and even donkeys, but these are rare exceptions as we have explored in previous papers. But to these have been added another form of communication, one not found in the Word – that of the inner voice of God in one form or another. While we have already found that this inner voice is absent in Scripture (the “still small voice” that Elijah heard in 1 Kings 19:12-13 is often presented as evidence of the inner voice of God, but even a quick look at the passage shows that this was a literal “outer” voice, not an inner impression), still there are a number of texts that would appear to indicate that God leads in this New Testament era apart from Scripture. That is, to be clear, God seems in these passages to be communicating specific instructions about our individual lives through extrabiblical sources, most often through circumstances, impressions and godly counsel. That in decision making the Christian would be wise to pay careful attention to these matters is not up for debate. The question is whether God is actually communicating His particular authoritative will for a particular individual through these particular means. I believe the answer is a clear “no.”

But what about the Scriptures which seem to imply that God does have a specific will and He will lead us in it if we meet certain conditions? These Scriptures include: Proverbs 3:5, 6; Colossians 1:9-10; 3:15; Philippians 4:6, 7; Romans 8:14, 16; Psalm 32:8; John 16:12-14; Ephesians 5:17. Let’s take a quick look at the predominate of these to see what they are actually teaching in context.

Romans 8:14 – “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” A common interpretation of this verse is that one of the ways we know we are actually sons of God is through the inner leading of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If we are born again we should expect the Holy Spirit to confirm our spiritual condition by the steady reception of extra-biblical, supernatural direction from the Holy Spirit about personal decisions. But the context of the passage has nothing to do with decision making and everything to do with holy living. The evidence of our conversion, Paul is saying, is the leading of the Holy Spirit in our lives – but that leading is toward righteous living not decision making (vv. 9-13).

Romans 8:16 -- “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.” But doesn’t this verse speak of an inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Even if we recognize that the context concerns evidence of spiritual life and not decision making, isn’t Paul saying that a Christian will know he is saved because the Holy Spirit is somehow speaking to his heart? Well first, even if that were true, we are not told how the Holy Spirit “testifies with our spirit.” Many run to the conclusion that this witness is an inner voice or impression by which we feel the presence of God through the Holy Spirit and thus know we are saved. But I do not believe that interpretation can be confirmed from this verse. To start, the verse does not say that the Holy Spirit witnesses to our spirit but “with” our spirit. In other words, when the Holy Spirit and our spirit are in agreement, we know we are saved. When the witness of the believer’s spirit, as to why he believes he is a child of God, agrees with the witness of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit-inspired gospel as recorded in the Bible), then he knows he is a child of God. I agree with Don Matzat on this verse,

Bible teachers generally agree that when the apostle Paul tells us to be led by the Spirit, he is not speaking of some momentary external invasion of the Holy Spirit into our consciousness, telling us what to do and how to do it. Nor is he referring to our effort to conjure up the Spirit in some mystical encounter. Paul is simply telling us to live according to our new life in Christ, which is Christ dwelling in us by His Holy Spirit, or to be “led by the Spirit” as opposed to living according to our old sinful nature, or being “led by the flesh.”[4]

Psalm 37:4 – On the basis of this verse, “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart,” some conclude that believers living in conformity with the Lord are able to trust their desires to lead them. Calvin is reported to have said, “Love God and do as you please.” But this interpretation pushes the verse too far and runs counter to other Scriptures. The normal understanding of this verse is that, when we delight in the Lord, it will result in changing our desires so that they are in harmony with God’s desires for us. But the Psalm does not go on to say our desires are now totally trustworthy. Our flesh is at war with the Spirit for as long as we are in these bodies (Galatians 5:16-18), making it difficult to always know that our heart’s desires are pure. Paul seemed to struggle with conflicting desires on a regular basis (Romans 7:14-25) and he desired to go to Spain, but never did (Romans 15:24, 28). Even Jesus desired to avoid the Cross but chose to submit Himself to the will of the Father (Matthew 26:36-46). The desires of the committed Christian may be a good starting place in our decision making process, but we cannot biblically claim that our desires have been implanted by the Spirit, or that they are infallible guides.

Philippians 4:6-7 coupled with Colossians 3:15 are verses that have been used by multitudes of believers who seek the “peace of God” in their decision making. The argument goes like this: the final arbitrator (ruler) in knowing God’s will is the peace of God. If the Lord wants us to take action He will indicate His approval by giving us His peace. On the other hand, if we are not in the will of God, the Lord will make this obvious through unrest in our hearts.

As a young man trying to apply the “peace of God” theory to my life, I ran into some very practical problems. For example, I could never get God’s peace when it came to major purchases. I “desired” a new car (was this a desire from God or not?) but I was too much of a penny-pincher to have “peace” about spending large chunks of money. I was at a stalemate. I had no peace about buying the car but no peace about not buying it either. Somehow the peace theory (or even the desire theory for that matter) wasn’t working for me. I assumed I was either too sinful or too stupid to discern God’s peace. Then I observed people claiming God’s peace over the dumbest of decisions – decisions that would come back to haunt them. It wasn’t until years later I was relieved to revisit these passages and discover that they were not in the context of decision making at all. Both passages were talking about peace (or lack of conflict) between the believer and other people and/or God, not some inner peace that would indicate when we have made the right choices. Harmony with our fellow man and God by living out His revealed will is the context, not decision making.

2 Corinthians 2:12-13 – And what about those open doors? This passage reads, “Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ and when a door was opened for me in the Lord, I had no rest for my spirit, not finding Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went on to Macedonia.” Verses that speak of open doors (see also, Acts 14:27; 1 Corinthians 16:8, 9; Colossians 4:3) “open the door” for us to examine the role circumstances play in the specific will of God. Are circumstances God’s way of communicating His will to us? Scripture does not indicate that they are. One of the problems with circumstances is their subjective nature; that is, we can read into them just about anything we want. If we can’t find a good job in our home town, is this God’s way of telling us to move or His way of wringing materialism out of our souls? If we interpret that it is God’s will for us to move, just where is He leading? Certainly the Lord was direct with Paul’s call to Macedonia, but that was a unique move on the Lord’s part involving a vision, not just a change in circumstances. Of course, if the Lord opens a door, or closes one (something never mentioned in the Bible), we need to take a good look. But even these open doors are not authoritative. Paul prayed for open doors for the gospel, asking for opportunity to spread the good news, yet in 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 God had given him an open door which he chose to ignore because he had other things on his mind. At best, circumstances represent opportunities (or lack thereof) which may help us in our decisions but are not mandates from God. If I believe I have been “called” to preach but no one seems to be called (or are willing) to listen, the examination of that circumstance may prove most helpful. But it neither confirms nor negates whether I ought to be a pastor, although it could supply helpful data in my vocational choices.

Proverbs 3:5-6 – “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding, in all of your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.”

This is surely one of the most beloved passages in the Word and rightly so. During great moments of stress and doubt what believer has not read or quoted these words with great comfort? But just what is being promised to those who trust and acknowledge the Lord? The understanding of the passage is skewed by the KJV rendering of the final phrase, which reads, “And He shall direct thy paths.” The implication, at least to many, is that the Lord will direct us in His perfect and specific will for our lives if we will but trust in Him. The problem with this understanding of the passage is that the word “path” does not reference a specific will in the Old Testament usage, but speaks of the general path of life. In Proverbs 4:18 we hear of the “path of righteousness.” And in Proverbs 15:19 we are told that “the path of the upright is a highway.” Proverbs 11:5 gives a similar promise as 3:6 when it says, “The righteousness of the blameless will smooth his way.” What we have then is not a promise of an individual direction found through trusting God, but a description of the type of life that the trusting lead. It is a life in compliance with the moral or revealed will of God. Those who lean on Him are going the right direction in the path of life. They are living as God would have the righteous live. Friesen says it well, “The point of Proverbs 3:5-6, then, is that those who trust God, and trust in His wisdom rather than their own worldly understanding, and acknowledge God in each part of their life, will reap a life that is successful by God’s standards.”[5]

John 14:26 – “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

John 16:12-14 – “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.”

Many take these verses to have universal application. But are we to read these passages as a promise for all believers at all times, or are these promises peculiar to the apostles and indicators of the New Testament revelation that would soon be given them through the Holy Spirit? John 14:12 especially has been used by many to support either continuing revelation or unique illumination, but such an interpretation is hobbled by the closing phrase which promises to “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” Jesus was clearly speaking of instructions given to the apostles while He was walking among them. Much of what He taught them was beyond their comprehension. This discourse found in John 14-16 contained some of the deepest theology ever given by our Lord and was easily beyond the grasp of the apostles. He therefore promises them that in the future a Helper will come, the Holy Spirit, who will bring these things back to their remembrance and even guide them into new revelation (16:13-14). I do not believe Jesus is referencing individual decision making concerning the routine areas of life. Rather He is speaking of the method by which the Lord would transmit New Testament truth to the church (see I Corinthians 2:9-10).

A Personal Application

As I write this paper I am sitting on a veranda in Brazil. Some months ago I was invited by some Brazilian pastors to come to their country and minister at a pastors’conference, preach in several churches and present lectures on contemporary theological issues at a seminary. When invited, I had a decision to make. The opportunities to present the Word, teach and encourage Brazilian church leadership and other believers were enormous. But on the other hand the trip would be expensive and I would have to be gone from my own church and family for 17 days. How was I to decide the “Lord’s will” in this matter? A door of opportunity was open, but I would be forfeiting other opportunities. I could seek the Lord’s peace but I was on the horns of my usual dilemma – peace either way was elusive. I sought the counsel of my church elders and they said, “Do whatever you want” – big help they were. If only the Lord would tell me what to do, or a least give me some strong impressions, then I might know what to do, but no promptings were forthcoming. In the end I made a decision to come to Brazil, a decision that I believe was one that honored the Lord. But if the Lord wasn’t “leading” me to come to Brazil, how do I know whether I am in His will? Without impressions, promptings, the Lord’s peace, or definitive circumstances, how do I know that I made the right decision? Or could I have stayed home and still been in His will? Next time.

[1] Dave Swavely, Decisions, Decisions, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2003), p. 65.

[2] As quoted in Swavely, pp. 30-31.

[3] Garry Friesen, Decision Making and the Will of God (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1983), p. 131.

[4] Don Matzat, The Lord Told Me, I Think, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1996), p. 64.

[5] Garry Friesen, p. 98.

by Gary E. Gilley

God’s Will, Lost or Found - Part 1

A prestigious evangelical graduate school asked Professor X to accept a position as dean. In attempting to determine God’s will on the matter, Professor X writes, “While reading Acts 10 in Peterson’s The Message, I read the words, ‘If God said it is okay, it is okay.’ I felt the Lord applying this Scripture to my situation; I knew then that I had permission to go.” A well respected Christian author writes, “When we feel the Master’s hand and hear His voice in our inner chambers, we should follow Him” (emphasis mine). A writer of devotional classics in one of his books, heaped story upon story of the Lord leading through inner impressions and audible voices. He writes, “It is positively exhilarating, and at the same time very humbling, to be in the company of men so intimately acquainted with God that they expect Him to even direct them in which house to visit, what tide to take, or what stranger to speak to on the trail.”

This concept of how the Lord leads is so commonplace today that the above examples probably shocked none of my readers. And this is not just a modern phenomenon – such views can be traced throughout church history. For example take the Puritan pastor Cotton Mather (1663-1728), one of the most influential religious figures in American history. While doctrinally sound in most ways, Mather had a strange belief in what he termed “particular faiths.” He meant by the term, “A little degree of the Spirit of Prophecy granted by God to the devotional elite for abounding in secret prayer” (emphasis his).[1] Mather believed that angels administered this “particular faiths” which would guarantee answers to prayer and provide infallible divine leading. For many years he had absolute faith in “divine leadings,” until a large number of the messages supposedly from God proved to be false. This included the death of his wife and the spiritual condition of his son. Because of disillusionment with “particular faiths” Mather’s own faith almost unraveled. He speculated for a time that the problem may actually lie with the angels (who he believed transmitted these messages from God). Perhaps, he mused, they may actually be ignorant of the future themselves. Of course, this did not solve the problem. If God was leading him through angels and yet that leading was fallible, of what good was the leading? Finally he came to realize that he had misinterpreted these impressions, became cautious and abandoned them as if of no value.[2]

We are faced with the same dilemma. Does God lead His children through extrabiblical means or not? To what extent would such leading be reliable? Could extrabiblical leadings (if they existed) be trusted completely, partially or not at all? How would we know? Our only hope for a comprehensive answer, as always, is not in the testimonies and experiences of people but in examination of the sufficient Word of God.

The Will of God for My Life

We constantly overhear in Christian circles that someone is looking for the will of God for his life. He is most likely speaking of the major decisions – who to marry, where to attend school, what vocation to follow, etc. Others are seeking God’s will for slightly lesser concerns: what car or house to buy, church to attend, vacation to take. We have been taught that the will of God can be ascertained through divine prompted feelings, hunches, impressions or dreams. If these fail we can turn to fleeces, fasting, flipping coins or opening the Bible randomly and following the first verse that makes sense. To be sure, these methods are usually coupled with analysis of circumstances, wise counsel, and the peace of God. But here a serious question arises -- does the Bible prescribe such methods? Is this how God says we are to discern His will?

The first step in answering these questions is to discover what the Scriptures have to say about God’s will. Most Christians use the term “the will of God” in three distinct ways. First, there is the sovereign will of God in which it is recognized that our Lord is in control of all things in the universe. Ephesians 1:11 reads, “…having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” While certain aspects of God’s sovereign will are revealed to us in Scripture, other parts are not for us to know at this time (Deuteronomy 29:29). Nevertheless, the Word is clear that God rules over all things and His plans can never be thwarted. Resting in this truth brings lasting peace to the hearts of God’s children regardless of circumstances.

Secondly, Scripture speaks of the revealed will of God which makes known to us how God expects us to live. Paul writes, “Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you may excel still more. For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality” (1 Thessalonians 4:1-3). This is just one example of the revealed will of God for lives. It is God’s revealed will that we be sanctified or, in this context, live in purity. It is His revealed will that we love Him and that we love our neighbor. It is God’s revealed will that we worship and obey Him, and so forth. The Bible clearly teaches both the sovereign and revealed wills of God.

It is the third understanding of the will of God, the specific or individual, which demands our attention. This is defined by Garry Friesen as “God’s ideal, detailed life-plan uniquely designed for each believer.”[3] He further frames the issue by writing, “This life-plan encompasses every decision we make and is the basis of God’s daily guidance. This guidance is given through the indwelling Holy Spirit who progressively reveals God’s life-plan to the heart of the individual believer. The Spirit uses many means to reveal this life-plan as we shall see, but He always gives confirmation at the point of each decision.”[4] Most espousing this view are content to suppose that God reveals His will only for major decisions, but others take this to the extreme of believing that God has a will, which we must find, for even the most minute thing, from which shoes to wear to what route to take to work.

The question on the table is whether the “individual-will-of-God” theory can be supported by Scripture. That God is at work behind the scenes, leading and directing our lives, is not the question. The question is whether the Bible teaches that God has specific wills for each of us – specific choices He wants us to make on all sorts of things – and whether these will(s) must be discerned through various extrabiblical means. I believe, contrary to the majority of Christians, that the answer to this question is a clear “No.”

The Biblical Evidence

I believe the support for my position can be found first from the silence of Scripture. The Bible nowhere teaches that God has a specific will for every believer’s life that is to be found through extrabiblical means. Yes, we have numerous examples in the Word in which God specifically directed His people to take a course of action. But I would raise a number of objections at this point:

* The fact that a few individuals received direct guidance from God does not mean that such guidance was then, or is now, normative. If certain things happened in the Holy Writ does that mean they will happen all the time or that they will necessarily happen to us? Balaam’s donkey spoke to him but I don’t expect my dog to speak to me. Peter walked on water for a while but I wouldn’t try it. Elijah called fire out of heaven, but I can’t even light my gas grill half the time. Even if it can be proven that it was customary for God to reveal His specific will to people in biblical times, it does not necessarily prove that such is God’s plan today. Proof by example is weak evidence at best.

* Secondly, these examples are far fewer than most people think. Yes, God spoke and directed Moses on a regular basis, David and Peter on occasion, Solomon two or three times and a host of others in a singular instance. But there is no evidence, in either Testament, that the vast number of believers ever received such guidance. With rare exception, only the major players in biblical history enjoyed the direct supervision of God – the masses, even of the godly, lived their entire lives without a personal word from the Lord.

* Even guidance given to the key characters of Scripture was rare and reserved for a handful of decisions. God spoke most often in biblical times through the prophets, yet even major prophets could go years without a word from God. Many who walked powerfully with God and accomplished much for His glory never once heard from God, to our knowledge. I think of Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, Ruth, David’s mighty men and thousands of others - the list is almost endless. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the godly found in Scripture never personally heard from God concerning their individual lives and decisions. The ones who we are aware of were the exceptions, not the rule.

* Even the exceptions received guidance only for the most important matters – almost exclusively matters pertaining to the big scheme of God’s plan. Except as object lessons and/or messages intended for a wider audience, we hear of no instances in which a biblical character was told specifically what choices to make concerning normal matters of life such as household purchases, investments, or even who to marry except for the case of Isaac (and that was indirect) and Hosea as an object lesson to Israel. It was just not the norm in the Bible for God’s people to be given specific instruction on a regular basis from the Lord. Most never received such instruction even once – and apparently never expected it.

* While God chose to occasionally give special leading to a few of the important New Testament leaders, we never find those individuals seeking such guidance (or being commanded to do so). Peter was sleeping on a roof, Paul was headed to a different country, Philip was involved in a preaching campaign. All of them were busy serving the Lord when the Lord chose to redirect them. As a matter of fact, the last time we find an example of God’s people seeking His specific will is in Acts 1:24-26 with the choosing of Matthias to be an apostle. And here they do not hear the voice of God, or even feel a prompting but rely on a game of chance. It is altogether questionable to me that the right decision was made through this methodology. Later Christ would handpick Paul as Judas’ replacement, leaving little room for Matthias to be part of the Twelve.[5]

God’s Leading

Assuming for the moment that God, in this New Testament era, has changed plans and has made extrabiblical leading by means of the Holy Spirit the norm, exactly how should we expect this to take place? Most evangelicals outside of charismatic circles do not expect God to communicate with them through prophets, audible voices, visions, the casting of lots, angelic visitations or the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30), yet these were the instruments used in biblical times when God chose to lead apart from the written Word. Today the majority of evangelicals believe that God leads through other means, usually highly subjective ones such as hunches, promptings, open doors or peace (or lack thereof). In Scripture, when God chose to communicate, the transmission was objective. While there were times when the interpretation of these messages was complex, there was never any doubt that God had spoken (through some understandable vehicle). We don’t hear of Isaiah, for instance, saying, “God spoke to me last night, I think, and I believe He wants you Israelites to do such-and-such, but then again, I am not absolutely sure of this. After all, it is often difficult to tell when the voice of God leaves off and my own thoughts takeover. And, of course, there is always that pesky problem of interpretation. I know what I heard, but I may possibly confuse the message. My prophecy may then be 50% from God and 50% from my own imagination, but I will lay it out before you and let you discern whether and how much the Holy Spirit has actually said through me.”[6]

We never hear of God speaking in this manner in the Bible but we are told that it is common place today, especially in charismatic and mystical circles. And the problem becomes even more complex in noncharismatic settings, since noncharismatics are often expecting God to lead and speak to them in ways never mentioned in Scripture. We will search in vain for instances in which God led His people through hunches and promptings. And, equally, we will search in vain for occurrences of New Testament believers asking God for His individual will or, for that matter, explaining their decisions as springing from God’s individual will communicated to them through feelings. Take the example of the folks in James 4:13-17 who arrogantly announce their business plans without regard to the will of God. James does not admonish these believers for neglecting to first seek the will of God in the matter; he simply is saying that our plans must always be subject to the sovereign will of God. The Lord is at liberty to adjust or cancel any of our plans and the believer must live in recognition of this fact. The implication is that, since none of us can know God’s will in advance, we must humbly accept His will when it becomes evident. This is the pattern found in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul is dealing with one of the most important decisions in life – marriage. What a perfect opportunity to lay out the steps for discernment of the will of God. Instead the Holy Spirit-inspired apostle, after some advice pertinent to the current situation, leaves the decision as to whether one should marry to the individual believer (vv. 8-9, 20-21). Then to top things off, he even leaves the decision as to whom he is to marry to the individual, as long as he marries another believer (v. 39). Why didn’t the apostle take this golden opportunity to lay out the principles for finding the individual will of God? I mean, outside of our relationship with the Lord, what could be more important than whom (if anyone) we should marry? Yet we find this decision being left up to the believer within biblical parameters.

Conclusion:

Seeking the individual will of the Lord is so out of alignment with New Testament teaching that Professor Bruce K. Waltke wrote a book suggesting that it was basically a pagan notion rather than a biblical one.[7] He writes,

When we seek to “find” God’s will, we are attempting to discover hidden knowledge by supernatural activity. If we are going to find His will on one specific choice, we will have to penetrate the divine mind to get His decision. “Finding” in this sense is really a form of divination. The idea was common in pagan religions. As a matter of fact, it was the preoccupation of pagan kings…. But that sort of pagan behavior is what Christ saved us out of.[8]

Is Waltke correct or has he overstated his case? That can be determined only by the examination of Scripture. Next time!

Dr. Gary E. Gilley

[1]Kenneth Silverman, The Life and Times of Cotton Mather (New York: Harper & Row, 1984) p. 173.

[2] Ibid., pp. 173-190.

[3] Garry Friesen, Decision Making and the Will of God (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1983), p. 35.

[4] Ibid.

[5] See Revelation 21:14 which strongly implies that the inner circle of the apostles of the Lamb is limited to twelve. The other individuals mentioned in the New Testament as apostles (e.g. Barnabas), I believe were apostles (or sent ones) of the church and were not on the same level as the Twelve.

[6] See the previous Think on These Things paper “The Lord Told Me, I Think,” dealing with this form of modern day prophecy.

[7] While Waltke’s book Finding the Will of God, a Pagan Notion? has a number of insightful comments I nevertheless found it overall disappointing with Waltke often supporting the very things that he set out to disprove.

[8] Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God, a Pagan Notion? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), p. 11.

Think On These Things - May 2007

The New Perspective on Paul

By Dr. Gary E. Gilley, Pastor-teacher, Southern View Chapel

The lovers of God’s truth can be excused if they seem to be a little “under the weather” lately, for everywhere we turn there are attacks on cardinal doctrines of the faith which most of us have considered secure and untouchable for years. Nathan Busenitz says it well,

It seems like just about every major doctrine of historic Christianity is currently under attack. Theology proper faces the Open-Theism debate; bibliology is still reeling from higher criticism; and pneumatology is split over the Charismatic question. For Christology the issue is the lordship of Christ; for anthropology it’s Christian psychology; and for ecclesiology it’s the Church-growth movement.¹

Not even the gospel is safe from attacks by those who claim to be part of the church. As a matter of fact, the foremost battle being waged at this moment is over soteriological issues. Emergent church leaders are in the forefront of this battle as they slice, dice, rearrange, deny and undercut the gospel message as found in Scripture.² Emergent church leaders fight this battle largely on the popular front, but underpinning their views is the theological framework of what has been termed “The New Perspective on Paul” (NPP).

The NPP, like most novel and complicated doctrinal positions, is not monolithic. Views among leading components vary but there are some definite core beliefs that we will explore.

Origins

The backdrop for the NPP appears to be various searches for the “historic Jesus” stemming from Albert Schweitzer in the early twentieth century. Schweitzer was a liberal missionary/theologian who concluded that Jesus had tried but failed in His quest to rescue humanity. He further denied the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. In contrast to the Reformers, Schweitzer believed that the center of Pauline theology was not justification by faith but Christ-mysticism, or what he calls “being in Christ.” One got into Christ through baptism, Schweitzer maintained. He was one of the first to advocate that Paul’s theology was derived from his Jewish roots and not from the Hellenistic culture. Thus, to Schweitzer’s way of thinking, Paul’s theology and the rabbinical teachings of the first century were very much in harmony

Rudolf Bultmann, in the mid-1950s, introduced the second leg in this search, arising from skepticism and leading to such modern challenges as the Jesus Seminar. Still, Bultmann reversed course from Schweitzer on justification (it was central to Pauline theology), Judaism (Judaism was a works-based religion) and influence (Paul was decidedly Hellenistic).

A third round in the search for this historic Jesus centered on attempting to understand the Bible through the studies of Second-Temple Judaism (extrabiblical understanding of Judaism from approximately 200 B.C. to A. D. 200) and the rabbinical writings of that period. Challenging Bultmann were theologians such as William Davis, Ernst Kasemann and Krister Stendahl who saw little disagreement between Paul and Judaism. Their contention was that Western thinking had created these differences and, contrary to Bultmann and the Reformers, the Judaizers of New Testament times taught a grace-based faith much like the Christianity Paul taught. Therefore when Paul came to Christ he experienced not a spiritual conversion but a vocational call. His call was to take the message his Jewish brothers already had to the Gentiles, with the addition of the Lordship of Jesus. Paul was a Jewish rabbi who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. This is the seed-bed of the NPP.

What happened next, with the publication of E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism, has been called “the Sanders’ revolution.” N. T. Wright states Sanders’ position as such:

Judaism in Paul’s day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness… [Rather] the Jew keeps the Law out of gratitude, as the proper response to grace – not, in other words, in order to get into the covenant people, but to stay in…. Judaism… was and is a perfectly valid and proper form of religion. Paul’s only critique of Judaism, according to Sanders, was that it was “not Christianity.”³

There are other developers and promoters of the NPP including James Dunn of the University of Durham, but it is important to note that all of the aforementioned scholars would be considered liberal in their theology and understanding of Scripture. Enter now N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and leading New Testament scholar (author of 43 books) who claims to be an evangelical and is accepted by many as such. It is Wright who has become the conduit through which the NPP teachings have entered the evangelical church. For this reason, as we examine the NPP, it is the writings of Wright with which we will interact, principally his book What Saint Paul Really Said.

What is being taught by Wright and his followers? Phil Johnson gives an excellent summary:

In a nutshell, they are suggesting that the apostle Paul has been seriously misunderstood, at least since the time of Augustine and the Pelagian controversy, but even more since the time of Luther and the Protestant Reformation. They claim first-century Judaism has also been misinterpreted and misconstrued by New Testament scholars for hundreds and hundreds of years, and therefore the church’s understanding of what Paul was teaching in Romans and Galatians has been seriously flawed at least since the time of Augustine.

An Overview of Basic Teachings

I will handle the all-important issue of justification and the gospel message in another section. At this point let’s identify some other vital teachings of the NPP.

Covenantal nomism.

Covenantal nomism is a centerpiece in the theology of the NPP. Quoting Sanders, Guy Waters gives this definition:

One enters the covenant by baptism…. Once one enters the covenant, then membership provides salvation. Obedience to (or repentance for a transgression of) a specific set of commandments keeps one in the covenantal relationship, while repeated or heinous transgression removes one from membership.⁴

Under covenantal nomism one is placed in the covenant through the grace of God (although baptism is necessary). One does not earn a place in the covenant through works (except the work of baptism). However to maintain one’s position in the covenant requires obedience to the laws of the covenant. One enters the covenant by faith but stays in by works. Jack Hughes is correct when he notes,

The similarities to Roman Catholic theology are very striking. Roman Catholic theology teaches that infant baptism places one into the “covenant community” and as long as that person continues to observe the sacraments, he will preserve himself and be saved. That is legalism, salvation by works.⁵

Correcting a false grid

The NPP proponents see themselves as the first people since the early Church Fathers who have rightly understood Paul and his message. This is the case, they say, because believers in the past have used the wrong grid with which to filter the words of Paul at least since Augustine and especially since Luther. John Armstrong, once a defender of Reformed theology who has in recent years become an adherent to the NPP, writes,

Luther understood Paul’s description of the Jews, and their relationship to the law, through the grid of his medieval Roman Catholic experience. By this approach Luther saw Judaism as a religion of merit, a religion in which one earns salvation. Coming to rest in the grace of God alone, Luther believed that Paul’s first century experience was essentially like his own sixteenth century one. Justification by grace through faith was really new, or at least the new element of the gospel that had not been clear to Jews of the Second Temple period. In Luther’s view this gospel of grace was the central point of his entire reformation effort. This is why Luther said, “The true Church stands or falls” by this article, sola fide.⁶

In other words, Luther read his own experience into the Pauline epistles. Since the Roman Church of the sixteenth century was legalistic, seeking salvation through merit, so Luther reasoned that Judaism described in Paul’s epistles did the same. But the NPP leadership assures us that such was not the case. We have been misunderstanding Paul all these years. So what was Paul really after?

Racial reconciliation

Wright insists, “Justification in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences, as together they wait for the final creation.”⁷

Since legalism was supposedly not on the table for first century Judaism, Paul apparently was not discussing the issue of how one is saved, but rather who belongs at the same table. In other words, how can Jews and Gentiles live together peaceably in the same covenant community? For Gentiles to be accepted in the community it would be necessary for Jewish believers to lay down their laws concerning foods, circumcision and holy days and welcome Gentiles on equal terms. The “badge” (a favorite NPP term) of community membership must be shifted from Kosher laws to baptism, faith and obedience to Christ.

To Paul, justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology. That is, Paul is not really concerned about the individual’s standing before God. His concern is about the status of Gentiles who are now joining the Jews in the covenant community. Paul is laying down boundary markers for those in the community (the church); badges that tell who is “in,” not requirements for getting “in.” Since those who practiced Judaism were already in the covenant community, so say the NPP scholars, the only issue is how to integrate Gentiles into the already-established community.

Second Temple Judaism

This leads us to a brief discussion about what Judaism of the New Testament times actually believed and taught. Foundational to NPP theology and without which the system collapses, is E. P. Sanders’ thesis that Judaism of Paul’s day (often referred to as Second Temple Judaism or Palestinian Judaism) was not a self-righteous, merit-based religion. Long before the Reformation, Augustine had defended the faith against Pelagianism which taught that salvation was obtained through works. The Reformers, they claim, had read their struggle with Catholicism back into the New Testament texts and assumed the practitioners of Judaism were as Pelagian as medieval Catholicism. The Reformers equated sixteenth century Roman theology with Pelagianism then linked both with Second Temple Judaism.

Thus, in the minds of Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers, Paul was addressing first century Pelagianism found in Judaism much as they were addressing it in Romanism. It is the contention of the NPP leaders that the Reformers misread Paul because of this faulty link between Judaism and Pelagianism. For this reason it is believed that Paul did not so much as even address legalism, for Palestinian Judaism was not a legalistic religion. First century Judaism was a religion of grace and Paul did not have any significant theological disagreements with it.

On what do the NPP scholars base their understanding of Second Temple Judaism? They claim when the primary rabbinical writings are studied they yield a very different understanding of Judaism than that of the Reformers and evangelicals since. What these writings yield is covenantal nomism as described above; that is, a religion in which one enters the covenant by the grace of God but stays in the covenant through obedience.

How do we respond to this claim by the NPP?

• There is much disagreement even by scholars who are reading the same texts. Interpretations of the texts are not easy and vary widely; the state and date of the texts are often uncertain; many rabbinical documents were written in the 3^rd to 5^th century but are being used to illustrate Jewish teaching in the 1^st century.⁸

• The NPP misrepresents what evangelicals teach. No one is saying that either Catholicism or Palestinian Judaism were Pelagian in the sense that they were totally work-based religions. Rather they both were semi-Pelagian, meaning that they both taught that salvation (whatever that might mean to the NPP) is based on the grace of God and accepted by faith plus works. Both Rome and Judaism were semi-Pelagian – God does His part and the rest is up to us (also known as synergism).

• This means that Sanders and the others do not really understand legalism. Even as they claim that Judaism is not legalistic they provide quotes from rabbinical sources showing that it clearly is.⁹ Even the definition of covenantal nomism, as given by Sanders, is a synergetic, and thus legalistic, defining of Judaism.

• The NPP places more confidence in rabbinical sources than they do in the New Testament. The Reformers in the past, as well as modern evangelicals, have drawn their conclusions about Judaism primarily from the inspired text of Scripture. Indeed, it is impossible to go to the New Testament and not conclude that first century Judaism is clearly legalistic. Acts 13:38-39; Luke 18:14; Galatians 2:16; and Romans 3:20 and 9:30-32 would be hard to refute. We would have to wonder what so disturbed Jesus about the Pharisees that He would pronounce them hypocrites who added their traditions to the Word of God if, in fact, they and He were basically on the same page.

William Barrick offers this critique of Judaism as analyzed in the book of Galatians. He writes,

Consider the following characteristics of Paul’s opposition:

• They preach a different gospel (1:6).

• They are “disturbing Paul’s converts and “distorting” his gospel message (1:7).

• They are “false brethren (2:4; 5:1).

• They belonged to the “party of the circumcision” (2:12).

• They compel Gentile Christians to live like Jews (2:14).

• They cause Galatian believers to be spellbound and drawn away from the gospel (3:1).

• The Gentiles must accept their ethic in order to be saved (4:17).

Barrick continues, “Paul’s antagonists were not simply first-century Jews with a grace perspective practicing so-called ‘covenantal nomism’ nor were they ‘right wing’ Jewish Christians. Clearly, they were first-century enemies of the faith and opponents of the gospel in particular.”¹⁰

Phil Johnson summarizes the evangelical position well: “If in fact, we allow the gospel accounts to inform our understanding of the Pharisees’ religion, rather than selling out to the scholarship of E. P. Sanders, we must come to the conclusion that the old perspective of first-century Pharisaism is the correct one”¹¹

The Gospel

Martin Luther said that the church stands or falls on this one doctrine – justification by faith. If that is so, and conservative Christians down through the ages have agreed with Luther, then an examination of the NPP’s gospel message should be very instructive. So what is the gospel according to this school of thought? In “older theology,” N. T. Wright tells us, “‘the gospel’ is supposed to be a description of how people get saved,” or how “Christ takes our sin and we his righteousness” or something along that order.¹² To Wright this is not what Paul meant by the gospel. The gospel instead is “the narrative proclamation of King Jesus;”¹³ [Paul] “is announcing…that Jesus is King, not just of Israel but of the whole world.”¹⁴ Said with greater clarity, “The gospel is the announcement that Jesus is Lord – Lord of the world, Lord of the cosmos, Lord of the earth, of the ozone layer, of whales and waterfalls, of trees and tortoises.”¹⁵ While no thinking Christian would deny the lordship of Christ over all things, nevertheless when the gospel itself becomes the message of lordship rather than the message of redemption and justification, there will necessitate a seismic shift in our understanding of why Jesus came and died and what we are to proclaim as a result. Wright leaves no doubt where he is headed:

As soon as we get this right we destroy at a stroke the disastrous dichotomy that has existed in people’s minds between “preaching the gospel” on the one hand and what used to be called loosely “social action” or “social justice” on the other. Preaching the gospel means announcing Jesus as Lord of the world; and…we cannot make that announcement without seeking to bring that lordship to bear over every aspect of the world… It is bringing the whole world under the lordship of Christ.¹⁶

I see many things wrong with this definition of the gospel; two are outstanding. First, it transfers the focus of God’s people from the proclamation of redemption to social enhancement of the planet. For, as Wright points out, His gospel is not merely the announcement that Jesus is Lord (something true before the cross, by the way) but the rallying point from which the church is to “bring the whole world under the lordship of Christ.” Our mandate under the NPP is not to rescue people “from the domain of darkness, and transfer them to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:13-14). Rather our mandate is to rescue the planet and ultimately to crown Christ as Lord over all earthly systems and structures. God’s people are to set up the kingdom which Christ began. This is a clear “kingdom now” perspective found in postmillennialism. That is, we are in the kingdom now and our job is to advance the kingdom to the point where Christ can declare kingship over the earth and ultimately reign in person. For now this shakes out to be a social agenda.

This becomes even clearer when vital aspects of the true gospel are either minimized or eliminated altogether. Thus, my second concern is even more serious, for in elevating the social agenda the redemption agenda is devalued. Take the all-important doctrine of justification, for example. Conservative Christians have agreed that justification is defined as Christ forgiving and taking away our sin and giving us God’s righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). The NPP rejects this definition replacing it with Christ’s eschatological victory for the nation of Israel. Writ explains,

“Justification” is a law-court term, and in its Jewish context it refers to the greatest lawsuit of all: that which will take place on the great day when the true God judges all the nations, more particularly the nations that have been oppressing Israel. God will, at last, find in favor of his people: he will judge the pagan nations and rescue his true people. “Justification” thus describes the coming great act of redemption and salvation, seen from the point of view of the covenant (Israel is God’s people) on the one hand and the law court on the other (God’s final judgment will be like a great law-court scene, with Israel winning the case).¹⁷

Phil Johnson is correct when he offers the follow summary,

Ultimately, the New Perspective divests the gospel of – or downplays – every significant aspect of soteriology. The means of atonement is left vague in this system; the issues of personal sin and guilt are passed over and brushed aside. The gospel becomes a proclamation of victory, period. In other words, the gospel of the New Perspective is decidedly not a message about how sinners can escape the wrath of God. In fact, this gospel says little or nothing about personal sin and forgiveness, individual redemption, atonement, or any of the other great soteriological doctrines. Soteriology is hardly a concern of the New Perspective – even when they are dealing with the gospel message.¹⁸

It gets even more complicated for, as the NPP leaders seek to foster their new perspectives, it necessitates that they change the meaning of every issue that touches the subject of justification. They start with the covenant, for the big issue with the NPP is being in the covenant. This presents several questions, foremost of which is how does one get into the covenant? Amazingly, considering the covenant’s importance in the system, the NPP proponents do not like to talk about how one gets in. Wright, however, offers a 3-fold process, “They come to believe the message; they join the Christian community through baptism, and they begin to share in its common life and its common way of life. That is how people come into relationship with the living God.”¹⁹ So, people are to believe the message about Jesus, and remember it is not a message of redemption (Christ dying for our sins) but a message of lordship, a belief that Jesus is Lord. This is followed by baptism and joining the church.

Once in the covenant, as we have already seen, one remains in the covenant through obedience. Some, such as Sanders, apparently make this a minimal level of obedience saying that only a “renunciation of God and his covenant can put one out of the covenant.”²⁰

While the NPP gives lip-service to faith it can readily be seen that one enters the covenant by faith plus works (baptism), is sustained in the covenant by involvement in the church, and is maintained in the covenant by obedience. You can understand why many see the NPP as merely a thinly disguised road to Rome. As a matter of fact, under NPP theology, a theology which places no weight in sola fide, all who claim the lordship of Christ, whether Catholic, Protestant or something else, “belong together in the one family.”²¹

In the NPP, justification has nothing to do with salvation and everything to do with the church, or community. Declaring that the evangelical church has misread Galatians from ancient times, Wright assures us that he and his comrades have discovered what Paul really meant,

The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not?... It has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?... Who belongs to Abraham’s family… Justification, in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences, as together they wait for the final new creation… Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.²²

In other words, “it is not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed about staying in’, as about ‘how you can tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology, not so much about salvation as about the church.”²³ According to Wright, Paul is not even concerned with the works-salvation issue; he is concerned about racial equality in the community. Jewish Christians were insisting that Gentile believers take on the badges of Judaism in order to join the community; Paul is saying not that Judaism was wrong but that the “badges” have changed. Under the old covenant the badges were circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath keeping; under the new covenant it is belief in the lordship of the Messiah, baptism and joining the community. All who meet these three criteria belong at the same table.

According to the NPP Paul was not in his epistles concerned with the subject of salvation because that subject was not a major issue. Palestinian Judaism was not a merit-based religion and, therefore, the apostle was not wasting his time correcting their theology. Paul’s concern was the barriers keeping Jewish believers and Gentile believers from participating in a single community. What had to be changed was not the means of salvation but the badges of salvation in order that followers of Christ would know who was in the community. Paul changed the badges from Jewish Torah-keeping, especially circumcism, dietary laws and Sabbath-keeping, to faith, baptism, obedience to the covenant and covenant community involvement. The church would no longer be divided over racial lines but would be united by the new badges.

Thus the NPP devastates sola fide and turns salvation into the very thing it claims it does not do: a semi-Pelagian, faith-plus-human-merit-based religion. This is the identical error the Reformers recognized and battled. Far from getting it wrong, the Reformers were exactly on the mark. They saw in Roman Catholicism the same error they recognized in New Testament Judaism – both being semi-Pelagian.

The NPP system stands or falls on its understanding of Second Temple Judaism. If the Judaism of Paul’s day was acceptable to God, only in need of minor adjustments to accommodate the coming of their Messiah, then we have misunderstood Paul for centuries. But was this the case? Were the followers of Judaism already members of the covenant and only in need of a “badge” upgrade, or were they a people who had become lost in their own muddled theology and human efforts? Going to the rabbinical writings the NPP scholars see first century Judaism as a grace-based, non-legalistic religion while, as we have already seen, other scholars using the same documents disagree. But the final arbitrator should be the New Testament itself. What did Jesus and the writers of the epistles, especially Paul, think about first century Judaism?

Even a quick run through the New Testament reveals a completely different picture of Judaism, especially the leaders within Judaism, than the NPP portrays. John the Baptist called the leaders of Judaism “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7). Jesus described their righteousness as inferior and told his audience, “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). The Gospels record numerous conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders (E. P. Sanders dismisses the ones found in Mark 2:1-3:6; 7 and Matthew 15 by denying the historical accuracy of the Gospels). In Matthew 23 Jesus pronounces eight woes or judgments on the Pharisees – hardly sounds like all is well in first century Judaism. Our Lord even told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil (John 8:44).²⁴ As a matter of fact we would be hard-pressed to find even one positive encounter or description of Jewish religious leaders in the Gospels. It was these very religious leaders who led the people in crucifying their own Messiah. In similar fashion, throughout the book of Acts we find the same adherents to Judaism rejecting the gospel and persecuting Christians.

Things do not improve for Judaism in the epistles. So convinced are the NPP theologians that Judaism was acceptable to God they see Paul’s Damascus road experience as a call, not a conversion. Paul did not change religions so much as changed his focus.²⁵ But that is not how Paul saw it. He accused them of being those who had caused the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles (Romans 2:17-24). He said the Jews had failed in their pursuit of righteousness because they did not pursue it by faith (Romans 9:30-32). He accused them of preaching a different gospel and cursed them for it (Galatians 1:6-9). Paul calls them false brethren who had “sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ” (Galatians 2:4). In Philippians 3:2-11 the apostle recounts his efforts while in Judaism as of absolutely no value in gaining the righteousness of God through Christ.

The picture we get in the New Testament of first century Judaism is of a religion which had morphed from the teachings of the Old Testament to become a system of merit-based legalism repudiated by Jesus and Paul. That some of the rabbinical writings demonstrate faith being a component of Judaism does not significantly change the problem. Faith plus works is essentially the same heresy as works alone. Both Jesus and Paul condemned first century Judaism because it did not teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Somehow the NPP misses the very obvious fact that “if the Jews in the first century had exhibited the spirituality demanded by the OT, they would not have rejected the Messiah and they would not have been judged by exile and dispersion.”²⁶

Miscellaneous Views and Doctrines

In order to make the NPP “work” it becomes necessary to redefine or deny fundamental doctrines of the faith. For example, Wright gives this definition for “the righteousness of God:” “For the reader of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, ‘the righteousness of God’ would have one obvious meaning: God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant…. God’s righteousness is thus cognate with his trustworthiness on the one hand, and Israel’s salvation on the other.”²⁷

This is representative of what Wright does. Actually he believes that the evangelical church has missed the point of Scripture in numerous ways. Not only was Paul not primarily interested in the doctrine of salvation²⁸ but we have misunderstood:

• Judaism.²⁹

• The purpose of the covenant.³⁰

• The definition of justification.³¹

• Eschatology.³²

• The gospel.³³

• Imputation.³⁴

• Justification by faith.³⁵

• Exclusivism.³⁶

Ultimately the NPP is ecumenical in nature. By eliminating and reworking the foundational truths of Scripture the NPP has reduced the requirements to become part of the covenant community to a nebulous belief in Jesus, baptism and obedience. This allows for a set of doctrines, especially that of justification, with “which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor… And which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family.”³⁷ As a matter of fact I have to wonder if Wright in his ecumenism is not flirting with universalism. He writes,

The point is this: the covenant between God and Israel was always designed to be God’s means of saving the whole world. It was never supposed to be the means whereby God would have a private little group of people who would be saved while the rest of the world went to hell (whatever you mean by that). Thus, when God is faithful to the covenant in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and in the work of the Spirit, it makes nonsense of the Pauline gospel to imagine that the be-all and end-all of this operation is so that God can have another, merely different, private little group of people who are saved while the world is consigned to the cosmic waste-paper basket.³⁸

Summary

Robert Thomas, at the end of his article on the hermeneutics of the NPP offers an excellent summary of the NPP teachings. I will close my paper with a selection of a few of these:

• First-century Judaism was not a salvation-by-works religion.

• Until the death and resurrection of Christ, by virtue of God’s election, any physical descendant of Abraham is a member of the covenant people and thereby justified.

• Those who maintain the covenantal nomism relationship by obedience are the ones who will be saved.

• Paul retained his covenantal nomism after his Damascus road experience.

• From that point on, his mission was to dispense with circumcision, Sabbath observance, and dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law as boundaries that limited who could be a member of the covenant people.

• Guilt was not expressed in Paul’s writings, but was introduced by Augustine and Luther.

• Justification by faith and imputed righteousness was read into Paul by Augustine, Luther, Wesley, and Calvin because of their contemporary situations.

• Faith is not the means of justification or of joining the covenant community; it is rather a badge of covenant membership. One joins the covenant community through water baptism.

• Final justification is based on works of obedience to the Mosaic law so that any justification a person enjoys at present is only preliminary and can be reversed.³⁹
  
  

1 Nathan Busenitz, “What Did Saint Paul Really Say?” https://www.gracechurch.org/sfellowship/default.asp?file://C:\DOCUME~1Gary\LOCALS~1\Temp\VXG148AI.htm.

2 See Gary E. Gilley, “The Emergent Church” Parts 1-3 http://svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=122.

3 N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997), p. 19.

4 Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004), p. 61.

5 Jack Hughes, “A New Perspective’s View of Paul and the Law,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 16 #2; p. 272.

6 John H. Armstong, “Do Good People Go to Heaven?” Reformation Revival, the Weekly Messenger/February 10, 2003, p. 1.

7 N. T. Wright, p. 122.

8 F. David Farnell, “The New Perspective on Paul: Its Basic Tenets, History, and Presuppositions, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 16 #2; p. 220.

9 See Guy Waters, pp. 42-57.

10 William W. Barrick, “The New Perspective and Works of the Law,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 16 #2; p. 281.

11 Phil Johnson, “A Defense of the Old Perspective on Paul,” https://www.gracechurch.org/sfellowship/default.asp?file://C:\DOCUME~1Gary\LOCALS~1\Temp\OVLSA294..htm.

12 N. T. Wright, p. 41.

13 Ibid., p. 45.

14 Ibid., p. 53.

15 Ibid., pp. 153-154.

16 Ibid., pp. 154-155.

17 Ibid., p. 33 (emphasis in the original).

18 Phil Johnson, p. 4.

19 N. T. Wright, pp. 116-117.

20 Guy Waters, p. 48.

21 N. T. Wright, p. 158.

22 Ibid., pp. 120, 121, 122, 125 (emphasis in the original).

23 Ibid., p. 119.

24 Robert Thomas “Hermeneutics of the New Perspective on Paul. The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 16#2; pp.299-300, (I have paraphrased Thomas’ excellent section on this subject).

25 Guy Waters, p. 26.

26William Barrick, p. 291.

27 N. T. Wright, p. 96.

28 Ibid., p. 32.

29 Ibid., pp. 32, 35.

30 Ibid., p. 33.

31 Ibid., pp. 33-34.

32 Ibid., p. 34.

33 Ibid., pp. 40-41.

34 Ibid., pp. 98-99.

35 Ibid., pp. 113-114.

36 Ibid., p. 158.

37 Ibid., p. 158.

38 Ibid., p. 163.

39 Robert Thomas, pp. 315-316.