By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification

This is a book of scholarly papers by theologians with a traditional Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification. The papers interacts with recent challenges to that doctrine. The papers are well written, the book nicely typeset, and footnotes are where they belong ... at the bottom of the page they are referenced on. There is a Scripture index and a Subject/Name index. The Foreword is by David F. Wells, and in it he argues that there are three streams in contemporary evangelicalism: the orthodox; the marketers (pragmatists who while not denying orthodoxy, often keep it out of sight as they package Christianity for `seekers'); and the emerging church, which seems to be against doctrinal clarity (or denies that it is possible). This is a passionate appeal for the Reformation of evangelicalism, and, perhaps in places, is more passionate than fair. The first chapter is by Guy Prentiss Waters, and is entitled `Introduction: Whatever Happened to Sola Fide?'. This sketches the two principle contemporary challenges to the Reformed doctrine of justification: the New Perspective(s) on Paul, and the Federal Vision. The second paper is by Cornelis P. Venema, and is entitled `What Did Saint Paul Really Say? N.T. Wright and the New Perspective(s) on Paul.' This is a good and fair (if short) treatment of the New Perspective(s) on Paul, focusing in particular on the subtle position of N.T. Wright, who is a powerful advocate of one strand of the `New Perspective on Paul'. Venema sketches the debate, and points out important areas where the New Perspective positions are problematic. Venema is clearly drawing upon the various books he has written on this subject, and such mastery of the debate shows, and makes this an important short treatment of the debate. It is a pity that the timing of this book meant that John Piper's more substantial treatment of Wright's position could not be interacted with. The third paper is by T. David Gordon, and is entitled `Observations on N.T. Wright's Biblical Theology With Special Consideration of `Faithfulness of God'.' Gordon helpfully takes on Wright on his own ground of `Biblical Theology', and shows the inadequacy of Wright's reduction of God's righteousness to `covenantal faithfulness'. The fourth paper is by Richard D. Phillips, and is entitled `A Justification of Imputed Righteousness'. In this, Phillips reviews the recent debate between Arminians and the Reformed over whether justification involves the imputation of Christ's righteousness (passive or active). One good feature of this paper is that Phillips interacts with D.A. Carson's important paper (`The Vindication of Imputation', published in `Justification: What's at stake in the Current Debates', 2004) which responds to the Arminian arguments. Phillips also tackles New Perspective critiques of imputation. An important overview of the current debate, and a helpful rebuttal of the challenges. The fifth paper is by C. FitzSimons Allison, and is entitl

'There are those who see in this the passing of historical orthodoxy, and this is something that they mourn.' David F Wells, Foreword David F Wells sets off to trace the origin of the smoking gun, delivering an introduction that is unputdownable. Making shrewd observations and weaving the intricacies of the post-modern attempt at upending the Reformation principle, By Faith Alone, he persuasively engineers the scope of the book. The incumbent attention to scriptural detail that follows is sure to secure the Reformation position in Scripture alone, thereby placing it beyond all doubt. NT Wright is in the cross-hairs. The bishop of Durham, the home of strange sightings, has epitomized the latitudinarian spirit of the age. His writings are popular, thought-provoking and unconventional, yet sorely lacking a biblical approach to propitiation, imputation and justification. Ecclesiology, or the 'Sitz Im Leben', or cultural setting, is frequently seen to take precedence in his folklore of the unfolding covenants and God's renewed grace. Following the literary success of Guy Prentiss Waters' Justification & The New Perspectives On Paul: A Review & Response a renewed commitment to 'sola fide' is the best remedy. Cornelis P Venema opens fire by challenging the obscure parentage of the New Perspective on Paul: James Dunn and EP Sanders, who substantiated a hypothesis of an intricate legalistic community in Second Temple Judaism fundamentally based on post-modern form-critical scholarship. Yet is it not just Pelagianism cloaked in a new garb? Is Paul not too clear on his position? Venema would seem to think so, making a sound refutation from Romans 1-5, and Galatians 3. T David Gordon makes the astonishing find that NT Wright's estimation of God's wrath only goes as far back as Abraham, and thereby denies sin's origin being in Genesis 3, further denying any concept of total depravity. This fault-line wreaks havoc on the New Perspective's views of 'the righteousness of God', so beloved of Luther and the Reformation fathers. If the imputed righteousness of Christ to saved sinners be denied, on what basis are we to be reckoned justified before a holy God? Richard D Phillips pronounces the flawed teachings of especially Arminian and the NPP academics untenable to our faith, by showing that the perfect obedience of Christ is the ground for our justification before God. Reminiscent of 'the great transaction' terminology of the Reformers, Phillips explains: 'First, we believe that our sins are imputed - that is, transferred by reckoning - to the crucified Lord Jesus. Our sins are recorded under our names before God and we have to answer for them. But God takes our debt and reckons it to Christ's account. This is imputation.' p 76 John Bolt makes perceptive expositions of Scripture, accumulating in what can only be phrased as a question: if God did not institute a creation covenant of works, why did a curse follow Adam and Eve's failure to comply? D

Like most edited works, some chapters are great and some really aren't all that good. But on the whole, it's an excellent read for someone seeking to understand better the current ecclesiastical climate surrounding justification by faith alone. The chapters that are especially good are the two by T. David Gordon. Even if you just bought the book for those to contributions, it would be worth every penny.

This is a very thought-provoking series of theological essays engaging the contemporary challenges to the historic Reformed understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Any book of this sort, with multiple contributors, is bound to be somewhat uneven in quality - but this is one of the better books of this sort that I've seen. Here is the table of contents, interspersed with my brief comments. 1. What did Saint Paul Really Say? N. T. Wright and the New Perspective(s) on Paul - Cornelis P. Venema 2. Observations on N. T. Wright's Biblical Theology with Special Consideration of the "Faithfulness of God" - T. David Gordon These first two chapters engage the writings of N. T. Wright, who is probably the highest profile proponent of the New Perspective on Paul (and is also one of the most renowned contemporary Jesus scholars). Their critiques of Wright are very, very insightful and should be seriously considered. Everything really does seem to fall on Wright's embrace of a certain way of reading Second Temple Judaism (as non-legalistic) and his interpretation of the phrase "dikaiosune theou" as "the covenant faithfulness of God" instead of "the righteousness of God." This second question is adequately challanged in the second chapter of this book. 3. A Justification of Imputed Righteousness - Richard D. Phillips 4. The Foundational Term for Christian Salvation: Imputation - C. F. Allison These two chapters address the recent controversies surrounding the doctrine of imputation. Having read Piper's defense of imputation in Counted Righteous in Christ, as well as Carson's essay in the volume on Justification edited by Husbands, I still found these chapters very helpful and persuasive (I've not yet read Brian Vicker's Jesus Blood AND Righteousness, a recent more in-depth treatment of imputation). These essays were very good. 5. Reflections on Auburn Theology - T. David Gordon This was a little less interesting to me, probably b/c I'm not Presbyterian. 6. To Obey is Better than Sacrifice: A Defense of the Active Obedience of Christ - David Van Drunen As I recall, this was also a good essay, defending the necessity and imputation of the active obedience of Christ to believers 7. Covenant, Inheritance, and Typology: Understanding the Principles at Work in God's Covenants - R. F. White & E. C. Beisner Of all the essays in this book, this one stands out as the most helpful and the one that will repay several re-readings in the future. The authors set out to show why the theological construct of covenant theology (as traditionally understood in Reformed theology) is biblically-faithful and warranted from the texts (even though the language is sometimes extra-biblical). Most helpful was their contrasting the two principles of inheritance, by either personal merit or representative merit, and then tracing these two principles through the various historical covenants. This is the best thing on covenant theology that I've rea