What do you think?
Rate this book
Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ
Recent decades have seen a renewal of interest in the central message of the Christian gospel among contemporary New Testament scholars. 'New perspectives' on Paul's doctrine of justification have emerged and are being offered to the church. This book has been written out of the conviction that Protestant churches need to reacquaint themselves with their rich doctrinal heritage, particularly their understanding of the gospel- the good news of free acceptance with God on the basis of Christ's redeeming work. Before abandoning the 'older perspective' on Paul in favour of the new, evangelical Christians need to understand exactly what it is they are being asked to abandon. Furthermore, evangelicals must take a careful look at the claims of those who propose a newer and ostensibly 'better' reading of the apostle's letters. The newer perspective on Paul makes bold claims for itself, some of which may be rather appealing in an age that favors change and has grown weary with the battle lines of ancient and bitter debates. The newer perspective on Paul demands careful study and assessment, for at stake is nothing less than the gospel itself. In this study the reader will A summary of the older perspective of the Reformation (which understood justification to be the gospel's declaration that sinners are acceptable to God by the grace of Christ alone) A general introduction to what is known as the 'new perspective' on Paul A critical assessment of new perspective claims from both a biblical and a theological standpoint.
- GenresTheology
337 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 1, 2013
The arguments in favour of the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) can be technical and nuanced, and so can the responses in the literature. Author Cornelis Venema believes that though at the time of writing (2006) these discussions were largely contained at the academic and seminary level, it would not be long before they would trickle down to the church level. And when that happens, if those in the pew are not prepared, they could unwittingly be persuaded of this new view, not realizing that its claims are fundamentally at odds with those of the Reformation. This is largely because the language of the NPP seems, at the surface, to be the same as that of the Reformation: both speak, for example, of forensic justification. But when the meanings behind such words such as justification, gospel, faith, and works are examined, real differences emerge. And this is all the more pronounced when they are put together into the coherent whole that is the NPP.
Cornelis Venema's work, with the layperson in mind, thus fills a real need in the church. For "at stake is nothing less than the gospel itself, the church's proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ" (p. ix). These ideas must be engaged, because "if the Reformation misunderstood the gospel, as the New Perspective intimates, things cannot go on as before" (p.2). The Reformation itself would have to be regarded as a massive mistake, something that could have been avoided if only there had been this understanding in 1520.
He correctly perceives that a complicating factor is that if one is to make an informed decision in adopting the NPP, one ought to have a clear understanding of what one is leaving behind (the Reformation view). Unfortunately, many simply do not understand this view, and so Venema has helpfully elected to include an early section reminding us of just what the Reformation perspective is.
This becomes especially helpful when evaluating the foundational claim of the NPP, which is that the Reformation misunderstood Paul's polemic against the Judaizers by drawing a parallel between that conflict and the one between the Reformation and the medieval Roman Catholic church. According to the NPP, the Reformation opposed Rome because it saw in Rome a legalism similar to that which Paul opposed in the Judaism. However, the NPP continues, studies in extra-biblical literature of second-temple Judaism (200 B.C. - A.D. 200) have shown that no such legalism existed in Judaism. Therefore, the argument goes, the Reformation is seriously flawed in one of its foundational concepts and an entirely NPP is necessary.
Venema argues that this is a straw man argument because the Reformation is portrayed as holding a position that it never in fact held. The NPP defines "legalism" as a crass, grace-less, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps Pelagianism. But the Reformation never accused Rome of this, and thus never read Paul as opposing this kind of legalism either. Rather, the legalism that the Reformation was talking about was not Pelagian, but semi-Pelagian, which had a place for grace, but made a necessity for works as part of the grounds of one being acceptable to God.
The pattern of religion that the NPP argues was characteristic of second-temple Judaism is called "covenantal nomism" - the idea that one got into the covenant by grace, but maintained by works of obedience that standing in the covenant. What is ironic is that covenantal nomism is broad enough to be compatible with precisely the semi-Pelagian definition of legalism that the Reformation claimed that Paul was opposing. So it is not correct to say that we need a new perspective on Paul because the old perspective has misrepresented Paul. Rather, a correct understanding of church history will show that the Reformation view had him opposing any mixture of grace and works, and this would include covenantal nomism.
Furthermore, contrary to the NPP portrayal of the Reformation view, Paul was not opposing Judaism per se, but a perversion of Judaism. The old perspective saw grace as underlying both the old and the new covenants. It was a perversion of the old covenant which added works as a requirement to obtaining God's favour.
Venema interacts with the other distinctive claims, the redefinitions of central terms such as "faith," "works of the law," "justification," and "the gospel." He clearly distinguishes the NPP understanding of these terms from the Reformation understanding, and argues that the latter is more true to Scripture.
Where the alarm bells really went off for me, however, was the NPP rejection of what the Reformation claims is the very heart of just what Christ's life and death has to do with us. According to Venema, "one of the most vexing features of the new perspective is its failure to explain the connection between the justification of believers and Christ's atoning work" (p.303). Doctrines which according to the Reformation are absolutely critical, such as the substitutionary atonement and imputation of Christ's righteousness to the justified sinner, are rejected with nothing being offered in their place. And second, many of them believe that justification is not a once-for-all declaration by God in favour of the justified sinner on the basis of this imputation, but that it includes a future aspect which will be based on the entirety of a life lived; in other words, this final justification will be by works.
This is alarming because what is at issue is the nature of grace. To the NPP advocate who denies imputation, you have to ask: if Christ's righteousness, the result of his perfect obedience to the law of God, is not imputed to you, how is it that you have fulfilled the command to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength? And the response to the one who claims that grace is involved in our initial justification, but that the ground of our final justification will be our own works of obedience, is that when you mix grace with works of any kind, you are no longer talking about grace. And if you are no longer talking about grace, you no longer have the gospel. A salvation that is incomplete without the addition of human works is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
According to Venema, the NPP makes primary that which in Paul is secondary: the problem is not primarily exclusion from the community (the NPP claim), but our existence under the wrath of God. The consequence is that the wrath of God, the problem of sin, and the graciousness of grace are diminished.
He does not call the NPP a heresy. But he does conclude that "the new perspective ultimately offers a different gospel than that to which the Reformation bore witness - the gospel of free acceptance with God by grace alone" (p. x).
We don't need a new perspective on Paul, because "the older Reformation perspective on the apostle Paul captures the heart of the gospel in a way that the new perspective does not" (p.306). The NPP says the heart of the gospel is not the good news of how sinners can be saved, but the proclamation that "Jesus is Lord." But what does that mean? The Reformation perspective gives us the answer: "that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3) and he had to do so because otherwise we would be under the wrath of God.
As Christians, justified by grace alone through faith alone on account of the work of Christ alone, we need to recognize anew the glory of what it means that "he made him who knew no sin to be sin in our place so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21).
Cornelis Venema's gracious and thorough treatment of the New Perspectives, and his opening up of the Scriptures in defense of the old, shines a bright light on the riches of the inheritance we already have. May we study and grow to understand the magnitude of mercy and grace revealed here before we turn our backs on it in favour of the new.
Cornelis Venema's work, with the layperson in mind, thus fills a real need in the church. For "at stake is nothing less than the gospel itself, the church's proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ" (p. ix). These ideas must be engaged, because "if the Reformation misunderstood the gospel, as the New Perspective intimates, things cannot go on as before" (p.2). The Reformation itself would have to be regarded as a massive mistake, something that could have been avoided if only there had been this understanding in 1520.
He correctly perceives that a complicating factor is that if one is to make an informed decision in adopting the NPP, one ought to have a clear understanding of what one is leaving behind (the Reformation view). Unfortunately, many simply do not understand this view, and so Venema has helpfully elected to include an early section reminding us of just what the Reformation perspective is.
This becomes especially helpful when evaluating the foundational claim of the NPP, which is that the Reformation misunderstood Paul's polemic against the Judaizers by drawing a parallel between that conflict and the one between the Reformation and the medieval Roman Catholic church. According to the NPP, the Reformation opposed Rome because it saw in Rome a legalism similar to that which Paul opposed in the Judaism. However, the NPP continues, studies in extra-biblical literature of second-temple Judaism (200 B.C. - A.D. 200) have shown that no such legalism existed in Judaism. Therefore, the argument goes, the Reformation is seriously flawed in one of its foundational concepts and an entirely NPP is necessary.
Venema argues that this is a straw man argument because the Reformation is portrayed as holding a position that it never in fact held. The NPP defines "legalism" as a crass, grace-less, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps Pelagianism. But the Reformation never accused Rome of this, and thus never read Paul as opposing this kind of legalism either. Rather, the legalism that the Reformation was talking about was not Pelagian, but semi-Pelagian, which had a place for grace, but made a necessity for works as part of the grounds of one being acceptable to God.
The pattern of religion that the NPP argues was characteristic of second-temple Judaism is called "covenantal nomism" - the idea that one got into the covenant by grace, but maintained by works of obedience that standing in the covenant. What is ironic is that covenantal nomism is broad enough to be compatible with precisely the semi-Pelagian definition of legalism that the Reformation claimed that Paul was opposing. So it is not correct to say that we need a new perspective on Paul because the old perspective has misrepresented Paul. Rather, a correct understanding of church history will show that the Reformation view had him opposing any mixture of grace and works, and this would include covenantal nomism.
Furthermore, contrary to the NPP portrayal of the Reformation view, Paul was not opposing Judaism per se, but a perversion of Judaism. The old perspective saw grace as underlying both the old and the new covenants. It was a perversion of the old covenant which added works as a requirement to obtaining God's favour.
Venema interacts with the other distinctive claims, the redefinitions of central terms such as "faith," "works of the law," "justification," and "the gospel." He clearly distinguishes the NPP understanding of these terms from the Reformation understanding, and argues that the latter is more true to Scripture.
Where the alarm bells really went off for me, however, was the NPP rejection of what the Reformation claims is the very heart of just what Christ's life and death has to do with us. According to Venema, "one of the most vexing features of the new perspective is its failure to explain the connection between the justification of believers and Christ's atoning work" (p.303). Doctrines which according to the Reformation are absolutely critical, such as the substitutionary atonement and imputation of Christ's righteousness to the justified sinner, are rejected with nothing being offered in their place. And second, many of them believe that justification is not a once-for-all declaration by God in favour of the justified sinner on the basis of this imputation, but that it includes a future aspect which will be based on the entirety of a life lived; in other words, this final justification will be by works.
This is alarming because what is at issue is the nature of grace. To the NPP advocate who denies imputation, you have to ask: if Christ's righteousness, the result of his perfect obedience to the law of God, is not imputed to you, how is it that you have fulfilled the command to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength? And the response to the one who claims that grace is involved in our initial justification, but that the ground of our final justification will be our own works of obedience, is that when you mix grace with works of any kind, you are no longer talking about grace. And if you are no longer talking about grace, you no longer have the gospel. A salvation that is incomplete without the addition of human works is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
According to Venema, the NPP makes primary that which in Paul is secondary: the problem is not primarily exclusion from the community (the NPP claim), but our existence under the wrath of God. The consequence is that the wrath of God, the problem of sin, and the graciousness of grace are diminished.
He does not call the NPP a heresy. But he does conclude that "the new perspective ultimately offers a different gospel than that to which the Reformation bore witness - the gospel of free acceptance with God by grace alone" (p. x).
We don't need a new perspective on Paul, because "the older Reformation perspective on the apostle Paul captures the heart of the gospel in a way that the new perspective does not" (p.306). The NPP says the heart of the gospel is not the good news of how sinners can be saved, but the proclamation that "Jesus is Lord." But what does that mean? The Reformation perspective gives us the answer: "that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3) and he had to do so because otherwise we would be under the wrath of God.
As Christians, justified by grace alone through faith alone on account of the work of Christ alone, we need to recognize anew the glory of what it means that "he made him who knew no sin to be sin in our place so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21).
Cornelis Venema's gracious and thorough treatment of the New Perspectives, and his opening up of the Scriptures in defense of the old, shines a bright light on the riches of the inheritance we already have. May we study and grow to understand the magnitude of mercy and grace revealed here before we turn our backs on it in favour of the new.
June 10, 2021
Very comprehensive analysis with exceptionally meaningful counterpoints to Sanders’ historical findings regarding 2nd Temple Judaism (which is the foundation for the New Perspectives on Paul).
November 23, 2024
Interesting book. Comparing reformation truth against the new perspective on Paul. I can really do no better than quote a section from the book. In the reformation view, free justification and the sanctification of believers in union with Christ are inseparable, though distinct benefits of the gospel.The carelessness which writers of the new Perspective speak of a final justification on the basis of works threatens the heart of Paul's gospel which teaches the acceptance and standing of believers before God rests on the work of Christ alone. An unqualified decline if final justification, which is suspended upon the works of believers, is tantamount to another gospel and merits Paul's apostolic anathema of Galatians 1 v 8-9.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 12, 2020
Excellent introduction to the problems with the New Perspective on Paul, and incidentally, an solid refresher on the gospel. Venema is a delight to read. He's a clear writer and builds his case using scriptural exposition and the Reformed Confessions.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews