Our Reformed forefathers said that the doctrine of justification is “the main hinge on which religion turns” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.1). Yet while we have been focusing on homeschooling, women’s issues, and the moral decline of our society, the theological elite have been reassessing Luther, Paul, and the Judaism of New Testament times.

The result of this reassessment is that Reformed denominations in North America are now scrambling to muster an apologetic sturdy enough to withstand the tidal wave of literature that is purposing to wash away the very foundation that the Reformation has stood upon for centuries.¹ In other words, what is at stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the Reformation and of our own distinctive existence as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

Every generation has to contend for the gospel. In this we are not unique. But the particular threat to the gospel today is somewhat unique. Although there are many dangers afoot in the theological discourse, there are three recognizable groups engaged in the assault upon the Reformed doctrine of justification that should be of concern to us. These three types of new thinking intersect, overlap, and even feed off each other, but they still can be distinguished from each other.

The New Perspective on Paul—A Different Background

The largest and most prominent attack on the doctrine of justification today has become known as the New Perspective on Paul, or NPP. Scholars associated with this movement include E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright.

The New Perspective believes that the Reformation misunderstood Paul’s historical context, particularly the Judaism of his day. Therefore, the NPP says, we have arrived at wrong conclusions about what Paul was actually saying in regards to faith, works, and justification.

More particularly, the NPP asserts that we have, following Martin Luther, thought that Paul was battling against moral legalists. That is to say, Luther mistakenly thought that the Jews were trying to justify themselves by their good works (like his Roman Catholic enemies were). Therefore, he read Paul’s letters—which seemed to be addressing self-righteousness—as responses to the same battle that he was fighting in Germany in the early 1500s.

An analogy of the alleged problem might be drawn from the game of football. If you find an article written in England about football (what we call soccer) and in your mind you are thinking about American football (what they call “gridiron”) you are going to draw some strange conclusions unintended by the author of the article. In like manner, the NPP contends that Luther got Paul wrong. Since Protestant theology has followed Luther, Protestant theology is considered wrong as well.

As opposed to the caricature imposed on the Judaism of Paul’s day by Luther’s mistaken reading of it as a “works-based religion,” the NPP contends, we must understand that Judaism was a religion of grace and election. Largely following the proposals of E. P. Sanders, the NPP believes that Judaism in the 1st Century was a religion with a gracious scheme of salvation. In other words, according to the NPP, Jews believed that they held a special covenantal status before God owing to God’s unmerited grace and election. That is, Judaism never taught, and Jews did not try, to merit salvation before God by their good works.

A fundamental problem with the NPP reading of Judaism is that it does not seem to see a difference between a totally works-based system (historically known as Pelagianism) and a system that severely compromises the grace of God by mixing human works with grace (known as Semi-Pelagianism). The Reformers never thought or taught that Paul was fighting a false teaching such as Pelagianism in the Judaism of his day. But what they rightly saw was a false teaching in their day (Semi-Pelagian Roman Catholicism) that was mixing man’s works and God’s grace together in salvation—the same error as the “legalized” Judaism that Paul was writing against. The fact is, Paul was dealing with, and his writings are reactions against, the universal human tendency, in the particular form of apostate Judaism, to justify ourselves before God by our works (albeit aided by the grace of God).

The NPP believes that, by proving that Paul was not fighting a totally works-based idea of salvation, they have then established that the Judaism Paul was interacting with was a “grace-based” system. From this naive premise they conclude that Paul was not promoting a new scheme of salvation, different from that of Judaism. In other words, Paul was not preaching faith and grace against works and merit; he was doing something else with his “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28) language.

What was Paul doing with this language? According to the NPP, Paul was not talking about justification in the terms that we have commonly conceived it; rather, he was talking about how we know if one is in the covenant or not. In other words, this is not a statement about how an individual gets saved (“getting in”), but rather about how we define the true people of God in the present (“staying in”).

This takes us back to the point above about the Judaism of Paul’s day being a religion of grace and election. Remember that, according to the NPP, Judaism taught that getting in the covenant was by grace and election. Since Judaism and Christianity thus would be unified on how we get in, then the issue of works of the law that Paul is speaking about cannot be about “getting in” (i.e., needing to be justified before God for my sin), but only about “staying in” (i.e., being justified as, or shown to be, a member of the true community of God). In other words, the works of the law in OT Judaism were the boundary markers of those who are really the people of God; but now in Christianity, faith has replaced the works of the law as the boundary marker of the NT people of God. Opposed to Reformed theology, which understands Paul’s references to “works of the law” as human works of any kind, the NPP understands this same referent to be only concerning those particularly Jewish works that were ordered under the Jewish economy (e.g. dietary laws, Sabbath, circumcision, etc.).

The NPP understands the work of Christ, and therefore justification, as primarily dealing with the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. The national boundary markers must be removed so that Gentiles can also be part of the people of God. Therefore the particularly Jewish things—those national identity markers—are those “works of the law” that Paul sets in opposition to “faith”—understood as faithfulness and loyalty to Jesus. Thus when we read in Paul’s letters that faith and works are opposed to each other, we are not to think of faith as belief, being set against works as obedience to the law, but rather faith/faithfulness as a covenant marker, versus the particularly Israeli, nationalistic, ethnic boundary demarcations as covenant markers.

We can now see why the NPP is asking us to rethink justification, the gospel, and the traditional contrast between faith and works. According to the NPP, justification is a status enjoyed by those who are in the “in crowd” or the right group, which is now, in the NT, only marked by faith/faithfulness versus the works of the law (understood as the ethnic boundary markers). Therefore, since Paul is not dealing with self-righteousness, but rather nationalism, the historic, Reformed, works/faith or law/gospel contrast becomes meaningless. In like manner then, in the NPP, the gospel is not, “You sinners can be justified by faith,” but, as one has put it, “You people want to become Jews [or be part of the people of God—be part of the covenant], but you are afraid of the knife. Have I got an offer for you!” (Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New, p. 258).

In summary, the NPP is a movement believing that the standard Reformed understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification is wrong. It is wrong because it starts from a faulty understanding of Paul and his supposed fight with a works-based Judaism. It asserts that Paul was not fighting a crypto-Roman Catholic foe trying to earn its way to heaven, but rather an overly nationalistic group that was too narrow to accommodate the worldwide design of the new Christian message. Thus Paul was not championing a gospel of justification by faith alone as the solution for the plight of sinners, like Luther thought he was. Rather, Paul preached a gospel of no ethnic barriers, of only faith/faithfulness for being in the covenant people of God.

Anti-Imputationists—A Different Basis

The next group weighing in on the current justification controversy we will label the Anti-Imputationists (AIs). Teachers who would be part of this group are Norman Shepherd and Robert Gundry. AIs are against the doctrine of the legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification. Therefore, they are contending for a different basis for the justification of the sinner.

To appreciate this distinction, we must briefly state the doctrine they deny. Imputation is a legal term or even an accounting term. To impute something to someone is to legally “credit to their account” whatever it is that you impute to them (i.e., the credit belongs to you for something that somebody else has done). For example, if I impute or accredit your checking account with $1,000, you do not have it in your hand or by your work; you have it in the bank by my doing. Historically, Reformed theology has held that a vital part of the doctrine of justification, and therefore a necessary part of our salvation, is that God credits to our account the righteousness of Jesus Christ, understood as the positive (or active) obedience of Jesus Christ to the demands of the law (Rom. 4:6). We are not made righteous formally—that is, we do not actually become righteous people by the action of imputation; rather, we are declared righteous legally—we are found faithful to the law and cleared in the court of heaven (Rom. 4:5).

The New Perspective on Paul also denies the doctrine of legal imputation but believes differently from the AIs. Whereas the NPP believes that justification simply describes the status one enjoys by being in the right group, AIs believe that justification is, in fact, an issue particularly concerning sin and salvation. However, AIs do not believe that part of the plan of God’s salvation is that Christ’s works of righteousness, or Christ’s obedience to the law, is legally imputed to us. AIs, for the most part, believe that justification is complete in the fact and act of the forgiveness of sin. There seems to be a denial in the AI thinking of eternal life as a positive reward.

In other words, AIs would say that we do not need the good works from the life of Jesus credited to us legally for eternal life. The forgiveness of sin we have by His blood is sufficient to put us in a right legal standing before God and thus open the way to eternal life. For example, a 15-year-old boy is caught for driving without a license. He goes before the judge and is forgiven for his law breaking. Does his forgiveness also procure the right to drive?

The biblical and Reformed understanding is that there are two parts to such an issue: 1) the forgiveness of the trespass, and 2) the privilege to drive. The AIs could generally see it as all one act—if he is forgiven, he is also given the right to drive.

Again, the biblical and Reformed view is that Jesus not only bore the penalty for sin (forgiveness of sin), but also merited the privilege of eternal life (obeyed the law).

Even as the AIs deny the positive, active obedience of Christ being given to believers as part of our salvation, they still maintain a place for positive obedience and attribute it to believers and their faith. Faith or faithfulness becomes our righteousness before God, in the AIs’ thinking. Christ’s blood makes us clean again, and our faith, faithfulness, or works of faith make us positively righteous in God’s sight.

Some AIs would say that, instead of our obedience to the law for righteousness being the ground of our justification, as the law demanded, the gospel allows our faith to now be counted as our righteousness. Others would say that instead of Christ’s obedience to the law for righteousness being the ground of our justification, our faith/faithfulness, as has always been the case with God’s covenant, is counted as our righteousness.

Although there are distinctions within this camp, the unifying characteristic that makes one an AI is a denial that Jesus Christ’s active obedience to the law, imputed legally to the believer’s account through belief or faith alone, is a part of our justification and salvation.

The Federal Vision—A Different ‘Blessed Assurance’

The final group involved in the current justification controversy that we will consider in this article is called the Federal Vision (hereafter FVs). This new school of thought is still under construction and seems to be perpetually in flux. Names associated with this group are Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Peter Leithart, and Steve Wilkins. There is a lot that could be said about this movement, but we will confine ourselves to one aspect of it—its understanding of assurance. Assurance is vitally connected to the doctrine of justification; thus the FVs’ revision of assurance has affected their view of justification.

To begin with, the FVs are all about “covenant.” Everything is to be seen as covenantal or from the perspective of the covenant. This characteristic is so dominant that they sometimes identify themselves as “Objective Covenantalists.” Frankly, this is a more accurate label, for one of the things that the Federal Visionists deny is traditional, Reformed “federal theology.” The FVs are concerned that many Reformed churches are unhealthily introspective or too preoccupied with intangible things such as election. They wrongly accuse the Reformed churches of turning Christians away from objective supports of assurance towards subjective or unknowable things for assurance.

It is at this point that the issue of baptism comes into play. The FVs put a very important premium on baptism as it relates to salvation and assurance. Sadly, although there is a beautiful association between baptism and assurance, the FVs have radically misunderstood it.

The FVs say that all who have been baptized with water are really and truly, and, in the same way as the elect, grafted into Jesus Christ. They say that all who have been baptized have the same vital “sap” running through them because by baptism they have been united to Jesus Christ. According to the FV, all who have been baptized and thus are in covenant have been given the forgiveness of sins, adoption, and sanctification. And therefore we must consider all who have been baptized, as long as they stay in the covenant community, to be regenerate, elect, saved. All who are baptized have the same vital stuff flowing from Christ to them by virtue of their union with Him, effected by their baptism.

Yet what is not guaranteed to those who have been baptized is “final salvation”—they can fall away, apostatize, and become un-elect. Therefore, the basic message of the FVs is: Stay faithful in the covenant. If you remain in the covenant community, not getting excommunicated, you are and will be finally justified. That is your assurance.

While this is supposed to be a salve for afflicted consciences—something objective that they can presume upon—in the end, the individual’s performance becomes the basis of his or her assurance. Thus a believer’s assurance is no longer Christ and Him crucified, but rather the quality of one’s own covenantal faithfulness. FVs do not like the (to them) non-tangible legal declaration of right standing before God that the Reformed have taught. Justification by faith alone in Christ is not precious to them. They want something more real and objective than gospel promises received by faith. They want something “you can take a picture of.” Thus baptism becomes the issue, not faith in Christ’s work as the Reformed have understood it. If you have been baptized, you are to assume you are saved. Stay in the community of the baptized—the church—and you have ample evidence for assuming you are OK.

The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone is not, for those who hold it dear, a matter of controversy. We are talking about the very heart of the gospel that we have believed in order to be saved. For centuries Christians have died, both by martyrdom and other reasons, having gone peacefully and triumphantly to the grave, believing the very things we are now being told are not right. Were they really saved? Does it matter, after all, the particulars we believe about salvation?

Contending for the gospel is the responsibility of every Christian. Receiving and loving the truth is what we are called to. God’s Word is clear, history confirms it, and the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone may be under attack today, but it is not soon to fall. As He has been faithful to do throughout the ages, God will contend for His own honor—God will vindicate His truth.

____________________________

Why This Matters

The Bible clearly teaches (Titus 1:9) that overseers in the church are to hold fast the faithful Word of God in order to encourage others in sound doctrine and to refute those who oppose sound doctrine. Truth matters! Doctrine matters!

The church of the living God, according to 1 Timothy 3:15, is the pillar and ground of the truth. Thus the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony rightly says that part of the mission of the church is to preserve the whole counsel of God (chap. 25, para. 2).

None of us wants to have the reputation of always speaking against things that others in the church are teaching or doing. Brothers and sisters in Christ have, and always will have, certain disagreements over the interpretation of passages of Scripture. As much as possible, we want to work with all believers to promote the kingdom of Christ. We do not want to spend all of our efforts attacking the efforts of others who labor in the name of Christ.

Nevertheless, God commands His overseers to refute those who oppose sound doctrine. One of the most important doctrines of the church, one that has eternal consequences for every one of us, is the doctrine of justification. Amazingly, this central doctrine is under attack today even in certain Reformed denominations.

Because of this reality, the Reformed Presbyterian Church is indebted to Pastor David Reese and a few others who have done a tremendous amount of study and research on this subject and are eager to help the rest of us understand the danger of certain teachings now coming into other branches of the church.

I hope that you will read the articles printed in the Witness on the topic of justification. Certain points may seem abstract and difficult to understand. However, the topic is an important one, not just for those of us who work at the RP Seminary, but for the entire Church. May the Lord be pleased to enable us to maintain and defend the great Reformation teaching of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone!

—Jerry O’Neill, president

Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary