What do you think?
Rate this book
Justification & the New Perspectives on Paul: A review and Response
Have evangelicals misunderstood Paul? Was the Reformation doctrine of justification a mistake? The New Perspective on Paul has serious implications for that pivotal doctrine of the gospel. Guy Waters lays out the theological, historical, and cultural antecedents to the New Perspective and examines its leading proponents. He offers a trenchant critique of their work and warns us of problems that the New Perspective may pose within the Church.
286 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2004
19 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
About the author
Guy Prentiss Waters
39 books25 followersGuy Prentiss Waters (PhD, Duke University) is James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson. He is the author or editor of fifteen books and numerous chapters, articles, and reviews. He is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
October 3, 2019
Excellent, albeit academic, survey of the history (origin, development, impact) of the New Perspective(s) on Paul as well as a Reformed critique of the NPP. I was looking for a resource to both define what NPP is and provide a Reformed defense - one could probably get this by reading only the final two chapters (8. A Critique of the New Perspective; 9. What's at Stake for Reformed Christianity) but the chapters leading up to those were certainly helpful in comprehension of the NPP and revealing of its philosophical roots.
July 2, 2019
I would have given this 4.5 stars mainly b/c his critique of the NPP as well as an exegetical defense of traditional, Protestant views of justification was weak, in my opinion. But I bumped Waters to 5 stars b/c I suspect his publisher was in part the reason for a more truncated conclusion to the book. That said, the overview and assessment of the NPP was outstanding.
February 24, 2021
In 2003, the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi began hosting the John Hunter Lecture Series. Dr. Guy Waters was the first lecturer, and his topic of choice centered on the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP). Waters briefly describes the focus of the NPP as “. . . fundamentally centered on Paul, and specifically his understanding of the 'law,' 'works of the law,' 'righteousness,' and other related issues" (1). The content of Waters’ lectures was refined into the book Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul. In this thorough examination, he gives his readers a meticulous presentation, not only explaining the history and nature of the NPP, but also the ramifications of it. This brief essay will summarize Waters’ work and offer commentary on what he has put forth.
Waters begins by considering the roots of the NPP, going back as far as the Reformation to see the some of the impact which that revolutionary era had on biblical study. This period in the history of Christianity produced many effects, but one in particular was the new manner in which scripture was being interpreted, often in ways that were contrary to what had traditionally been practiced in the Catholic church. The issues of justification and sanctification as addressed in scripture were just two theological topics that received renewed scrutiny from Protestant Reformers. Due to the fact that the Apostle Paul frequently addressed these issues in his epistles, he was given much attention by leaders such as Luther and Calvin (2). While initially the Reformers had a scriptural, faith-based view of justification and sanctification, their freedom in biblical interpretation unfortunately led to liberties taken by later scholars. Over the decades, the worldview of some grew towards a somewhat works-based model of faith. What came to be known as the NPP was a stance that at times valued covenantal nomism, and viewed Judaism as something that should be examined and interpreted by the intelligentsia. By understanding Judaism, readers would comprehend Paul’s writings, such as his philosophy regarding righteousness. According to the NPP, our current good works are indicators of our inclusion in God’s covenantal family.
Waters details the progression of this trend, illustrating how leaders such as F.C. Baur, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann and others brought about significant changes in how many saw the early history of the church, the authenticity of Paul’s writings, and the nature of salvation. Author E.P. Sanders is given significant attention, as he was a considerable influential figure in the history of the NPP. While Waters takes issue with Sanders’ interpretations of his findings regarding the history of rabbinic Judaism, he appreciates the “fuller portrait of the evidence" than had been seen in the past (55). Sanders’ views on ancient Judaism were of consequence, as they were strongly tied to his Pauline perspective, to which Waters also gives attention. Sanders perceived Paul to be strongly holding onto his Jewish beliefs, especially in the area of soteriology (87). Judaism could “function on its own terms,” but Paul also believed that the “boundary markers” for whom could be saved had been reestablished in the work of Christ (88). Unfortunately, Paul also seems to hold (in Sanders’ view) a position on the topic of righteousness that is more participationist in tone, rather than juristic. This leads Paul to holding a “modified covenantal nomism,” which fuels much of the directive of the NPP.
Along with Räisänen and Dunn, Waters also examines the impact that modern theologian N.T. Wright is having with his role in the NPP. He states that Wright “. . . has done more than any other single individual to mediate NPP exegesis into the mainline and evangelical churches” (119). While this may be the case, Waters sees Wright as inconsistent and vague in some of his positions. For example, he holds that “faith” and “faithfulness” are synonymous terms. This can lead to more nomism, putting a greater emphasis on works, such as requiring the sacrament of baptism for salvation. In another questionable stance, Wright rejects the concept of imputation, but simultaneously believes in the atoning and propitiatory nature of Christ's crucifixion (149).
The NPP and Waters’ examination of it involve far more details than have been offered thus far in this brief essay. That said, this reader can report agreement with Waters in his assessment of the NPP. While the Reformation did bring about many beneficial changes to the Body of Christ, it also opened the door to interpretations of scripture which led some down a path of inaccurate understanding. While many desired to break away from the Catholic church because of its emphasis on works-based salvation, those in the NPP seem to be drifting back to a type of nomism. Waters hypothesizes that this may be due in part to a post-Holocaust era of scholarship, which was a new concept for this reader. In the wake of the second world war, the New Testament endured particular scrutiny, with many in academia desiring to bridge some of the gap between Judaism and Christianity. Pairing this ambition with man’s frequent tendency towards a works-based soteriology, it is no wonder that the NPP has flourished since the twentieth century.
Unfortunately, it seems that proponents of this worldview are attempting to interpose their perspective in a way that sometimes disregards the veracity of scripture. For example, Waters cites Sanders’ interpretation of Romans 9:30-32a, wherein he claims that “Paul did not say precisely what he meant,” implying that Romans 9:31 “should have read” something else (162). The whole of scripture needs to be taken into account when a particular theological topic is being promoted, and implying that scripture “should have” said something else reveals severe bias. The NPP’s understanding of righteousness and how one is justified before God seems to lean toward a manner of striving, doing good works in order to maintain one’s position as “justified” before God, both in the present day and at the final judgment. Righteousness may be infused by grace, but it comes about “on the basis of performance,” according to Wright (171).
While this reader found Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul to be thorough and enlightening, perhaps there could be one area of improvement. Waters does devote his final chapter to the topic, “What’s at Stake for Reformed Christianity?” Indeed, this issue needs to be addressed. The vast majority of Christendom has no awareness of the NPP, nor the impact that it could have on the Body. If its popularity continues to grow, believers need to be prepared to respond. Waters does examine the consequences of this movement, but the observations presented are somewhat academic in nature. For example, he cites resolutions passed by a certain Louisiana church. While his concern over the governing documents of this congregation is legitimate, it would also be helpful to offer some “boots on the ground” suggestions for the layperson and clergyman alike. There are many individuals who struggle with doubt in regard to their eternal security, and those who also battle feelings of legalism. If the NPP continues to flourish, it could have consequences in the life of these types of believers. Offering concrete suggestions in how to respond to this movement within the life of the church would be valuable.
That one criticism aside, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul is an extremely thorough examination of the history of the NPP, the proponents of this movement, the specifics of its philosophy, and the shortcomings of it. This work, while not necessarily suited for the average layperson, is an informative treatise that can educate those in ministry as they may encounter individuals who are adopting some or part of its belief system. While not completely flawed, the NPP does seem to be leading its followers “back to Rome”, and Dr. Guy Waters offers his readers an extensive exploration of this.
Waters begins by considering the roots of the NPP, going back as far as the Reformation to see the some of the impact which that revolutionary era had on biblical study. This period in the history of Christianity produced many effects, but one in particular was the new manner in which scripture was being interpreted, often in ways that were contrary to what had traditionally been practiced in the Catholic church. The issues of justification and sanctification as addressed in scripture were just two theological topics that received renewed scrutiny from Protestant Reformers. Due to the fact that the Apostle Paul frequently addressed these issues in his epistles, he was given much attention by leaders such as Luther and Calvin (2). While initially the Reformers had a scriptural, faith-based view of justification and sanctification, their freedom in biblical interpretation unfortunately led to liberties taken by later scholars. Over the decades, the worldview of some grew towards a somewhat works-based model of faith. What came to be known as the NPP was a stance that at times valued covenantal nomism, and viewed Judaism as something that should be examined and interpreted by the intelligentsia. By understanding Judaism, readers would comprehend Paul’s writings, such as his philosophy regarding righteousness. According to the NPP, our current good works are indicators of our inclusion in God’s covenantal family.
Waters details the progression of this trend, illustrating how leaders such as F.C. Baur, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann and others brought about significant changes in how many saw the early history of the church, the authenticity of Paul’s writings, and the nature of salvation. Author E.P. Sanders is given significant attention, as he was a considerable influential figure in the history of the NPP. While Waters takes issue with Sanders’ interpretations of his findings regarding the history of rabbinic Judaism, he appreciates the “fuller portrait of the evidence" than had been seen in the past (55). Sanders’ views on ancient Judaism were of consequence, as they were strongly tied to his Pauline perspective, to which Waters also gives attention. Sanders perceived Paul to be strongly holding onto his Jewish beliefs, especially in the area of soteriology (87). Judaism could “function on its own terms,” but Paul also believed that the “boundary markers” for whom could be saved had been reestablished in the work of Christ (88). Unfortunately, Paul also seems to hold (in Sanders’ view) a position on the topic of righteousness that is more participationist in tone, rather than juristic. This leads Paul to holding a “modified covenantal nomism,” which fuels much of the directive of the NPP.
Along with Räisänen and Dunn, Waters also examines the impact that modern theologian N.T. Wright is having with his role in the NPP. He states that Wright “. . . has done more than any other single individual to mediate NPP exegesis into the mainline and evangelical churches” (119). While this may be the case, Waters sees Wright as inconsistent and vague in some of his positions. For example, he holds that “faith” and “faithfulness” are synonymous terms. This can lead to more nomism, putting a greater emphasis on works, such as requiring the sacrament of baptism for salvation. In another questionable stance, Wright rejects the concept of imputation, but simultaneously believes in the atoning and propitiatory nature of Christ's crucifixion (149).
The NPP and Waters’ examination of it involve far more details than have been offered thus far in this brief essay. That said, this reader can report agreement with Waters in his assessment of the NPP. While the Reformation did bring about many beneficial changes to the Body of Christ, it also opened the door to interpretations of scripture which led some down a path of inaccurate understanding. While many desired to break away from the Catholic church because of its emphasis on works-based salvation, those in the NPP seem to be drifting back to a type of nomism. Waters hypothesizes that this may be due in part to a post-Holocaust era of scholarship, which was a new concept for this reader. In the wake of the second world war, the New Testament endured particular scrutiny, with many in academia desiring to bridge some of the gap between Judaism and Christianity. Pairing this ambition with man’s frequent tendency towards a works-based soteriology, it is no wonder that the NPP has flourished since the twentieth century.
Unfortunately, it seems that proponents of this worldview are attempting to interpose their perspective in a way that sometimes disregards the veracity of scripture. For example, Waters cites Sanders’ interpretation of Romans 9:30-32a, wherein he claims that “Paul did not say precisely what he meant,” implying that Romans 9:31 “should have read” something else (162). The whole of scripture needs to be taken into account when a particular theological topic is being promoted, and implying that scripture “should have” said something else reveals severe bias. The NPP’s understanding of righteousness and how one is justified before God seems to lean toward a manner of striving, doing good works in order to maintain one’s position as “justified” before God, both in the present day and at the final judgment. Righteousness may be infused by grace, but it comes about “on the basis of performance,” according to Wright (171).
While this reader found Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul to be thorough and enlightening, perhaps there could be one area of improvement. Waters does devote his final chapter to the topic, “What’s at Stake for Reformed Christianity?” Indeed, this issue needs to be addressed. The vast majority of Christendom has no awareness of the NPP, nor the impact that it could have on the Body. If its popularity continues to grow, believers need to be prepared to respond. Waters does examine the consequences of this movement, but the observations presented are somewhat academic in nature. For example, he cites resolutions passed by a certain Louisiana church. While his concern over the governing documents of this congregation is legitimate, it would also be helpful to offer some “boots on the ground” suggestions for the layperson and clergyman alike. There are many individuals who struggle with doubt in regard to their eternal security, and those who also battle feelings of legalism. If the NPP continues to flourish, it could have consequences in the life of these types of believers. Offering concrete suggestions in how to respond to this movement within the life of the church would be valuable.
That one criticism aside, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul is an extremely thorough examination of the history of the NPP, the proponents of this movement, the specifics of its philosophy, and the shortcomings of it. This work, while not necessarily suited for the average layperson, is an informative treatise that can educate those in ministry as they may encounter individuals who are adopting some or part of its belief system. While not completely flawed, the NPP does seem to be leading its followers “back to Rome”, and Dr. Guy Waters offers his readers an extensive exploration of this.
October 3, 2024
AN EXPOSITION FOLLOWED BY A SHARP CRITIQUE OF THE “NEW” INTERPRETATION OF PAUL
At the time this book was published in 2004, Guy Prentiss Waters was a professor of biblical studies at Belhaven College; he is an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America.
He wrote in the Preface, “Many in the churches today are hearing for the first time about ‘the New Perspective on Paul’ (NPP)… From what quarters has the NPP come? Who are its major academic proponents? What are they saying? What biblical, theological, and confessional issues does the NPP raise? Should individuals in the Reformed community have an interest in this movement that is gaining popularity within the evangelical church?...
"Those are the questions that I will endeavor to answer in the next nine chapters. In this work I have at least three objectives. I first want to give an exposition of what leading … proponents of the NPP, are saying about the theology of Paul and related issues… Second, I want to show how the NPP emerges from an academic and theological discussion that predates it by more than two centuries. This ‘historical-critical’ discussion yielded certain interpretative and theological decisions that… have determined the contours of the NPP… Third, I want to illustrate the ways in which the NPP deviates from the doctrines set forth in the Westminster Standards…
"I will finally attempt to explain why officers and congregants within Reformed and evangelical churches find NPP attractive, and why such interest often attends interest in the theology of Norman Shepherd and the theology represented in the September 2002 statement of… the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church.” (Pg. ix-x)
He further explains, “Why, then, is this work largely critical in its assessment of the NPP?... I write from a standpoint of full sympathy with the Westminster Standards… I have accordingly examined the NPP and found it defective on several key points of biblical teaching. A second and related reason is that I write this book primarily for individuals who already find themselves within the Reformed community… I have thought it necessary to underscore these concerns in this work in view fo the potential dangers to the church that are occasioned by enthusiastic and uncritical reception of the NPP.” (Pg. xi)
He reviews and critiques writers from Luther’s day, but particularly focuses on contemporary figures such as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. He says of Wright, for example, the “he has done more than any other single individual to mediate NPP exegesis into the mainline and evangelical churches… he has never intentionally segregated his scholarship and his parish ministry.” (Pg. 119)
He observes, “We… have recognized diversity and divergences among the primary NPP proponents. Nevertheless, there is enough held in common among them to group them as a school. We now turn to an extended critique of the NPP… we will show that … the NPP is flawed hermeneutically… we will show that the exegesis propounded by the Reformers and their heirs is faithful to Paul, while … the theological assumptions and implications of the NPP writings are contrary to good, sound biblical teaching.” (Pg. 151)
He notes that “[Francis] Turretin addresses those who would delimit works of the law to the specifically ceremonial (i.e., Jewish) prescriptions of the Torah, a view that was addressed and dismissed by Thomas Aquinas. The innovation of Dunn and Wright… is in driving a wedge between status and activity in regard to these works of the law and in refusing to restrict works of the law to the ceremonial law of the Mosaic administration.
"While there have been sporadic attempts in the history of interpretation to delimit Pauline works of the law, whether in the thirteenth or the twenty-first century, interpreters throughout the church’s history have generally maintained the traditional view articulated and defended above.” (Pg. 169-170)
He argues, “The NPP mistakenly reinterprets justification as an ecclesiological doctrine, not a soteriological one. The doctrine that Pauline justification is ecclesiological and not soteriological is one of the most remarkable inversions of Paul. No orthodox interpreter of Paul has ever disputed that the doctrine of justification has ecclesiological implications…
"To affirm, however, that Paul’s doctrine of justification was EXCLUSIVELY ecclesiological and not at all soteriological is to force a dichotomy where Paul… has seen none… one wonders whether ecclesiastical proponents of the NPP have forced this dichotomy in order to permit rapprochement with Rome.” (Pg. 189-190)
He also critiques Norman Shepherd, the former theology professor at Westminster Theological Seminary: “The problem with Shepherd’s model is that it functionally supplants the doctrine of regeneration with the sacrament of baptism… there is no overriding concern with the heart, with the religious affections… Shepherd would have us confuse the ‘husk’ (covenantal faithfulness) with the ‘kernel’ (a heart that has been renewed by the grace of God).
"Shepherd, in his zeal to have the covenant swallow regeneration, would have us ignore the vital question of the NATURE of the covenantal faithfulness in view. In this respect we are presented with a stunning departure from Reformed orthodoxy. Shepherd’s model promotes the very externalism that the apostle Paul labored so hard to oppose in early Christian circles. (Pg. 208)
He concludes, “All expressions of Christianity are on the path to one of two destinations, Rome or Geneva. What the NPP offers us is decidedly not ‘Genevan.’ The parallel interest, in some Reformed circles, in the redefined categories of covenant and justification, coupled with a new stress… on baptism and with a consequent diminution of regeneration, does not bode well.
"It seems that there are elements active in the Reformed churches that wish to lead the church into a sacramental religion, all in the name of being ‘more Reformed.’ … what they are really and increasingly saying is that Luther and Calvin were mistaken, and that Trent was right.” (Pg. 211-212)
NPP advocate will not care for this book, obviously; but Waters’ reasonably fair summations of the positions of NPP defenders balance the criticism; in any case, this is an important volume to study for anyone seriously investigating the New Perspective.
At the time this book was published in 2004, Guy Prentiss Waters was a professor of biblical studies at Belhaven College; he is an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America.
He wrote in the Preface, “Many in the churches today are hearing for the first time about ‘the New Perspective on Paul’ (NPP)… From what quarters has the NPP come? Who are its major academic proponents? What are they saying? What biblical, theological, and confessional issues does the NPP raise? Should individuals in the Reformed community have an interest in this movement that is gaining popularity within the evangelical church?...
"Those are the questions that I will endeavor to answer in the next nine chapters. In this work I have at least three objectives. I first want to give an exposition of what leading … proponents of the NPP, are saying about the theology of Paul and related issues… Second, I want to show how the NPP emerges from an academic and theological discussion that predates it by more than two centuries. This ‘historical-critical’ discussion yielded certain interpretative and theological decisions that… have determined the contours of the NPP… Third, I want to illustrate the ways in which the NPP deviates from the doctrines set forth in the Westminster Standards…
"I will finally attempt to explain why officers and congregants within Reformed and evangelical churches find NPP attractive, and why such interest often attends interest in the theology of Norman Shepherd and the theology represented in the September 2002 statement of… the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church.” (Pg. ix-x)
He further explains, “Why, then, is this work largely critical in its assessment of the NPP?... I write from a standpoint of full sympathy with the Westminster Standards… I have accordingly examined the NPP and found it defective on several key points of biblical teaching. A second and related reason is that I write this book primarily for individuals who already find themselves within the Reformed community… I have thought it necessary to underscore these concerns in this work in view fo the potential dangers to the church that are occasioned by enthusiastic and uncritical reception of the NPP.” (Pg. xi)
He reviews and critiques writers from Luther’s day, but particularly focuses on contemporary figures such as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. He says of Wright, for example, the “he has done more than any other single individual to mediate NPP exegesis into the mainline and evangelical churches… he has never intentionally segregated his scholarship and his parish ministry.” (Pg. 119)
He observes, “We… have recognized diversity and divergences among the primary NPP proponents. Nevertheless, there is enough held in common among them to group them as a school. We now turn to an extended critique of the NPP… we will show that … the NPP is flawed hermeneutically… we will show that the exegesis propounded by the Reformers and their heirs is faithful to Paul, while … the theological assumptions and implications of the NPP writings are contrary to good, sound biblical teaching.” (Pg. 151)
He notes that “[Francis] Turretin addresses those who would delimit works of the law to the specifically ceremonial (i.e., Jewish) prescriptions of the Torah, a view that was addressed and dismissed by Thomas Aquinas. The innovation of Dunn and Wright… is in driving a wedge between status and activity in regard to these works of the law and in refusing to restrict works of the law to the ceremonial law of the Mosaic administration.
"While there have been sporadic attempts in the history of interpretation to delimit Pauline works of the law, whether in the thirteenth or the twenty-first century, interpreters throughout the church’s history have generally maintained the traditional view articulated and defended above.” (Pg. 169-170)
He argues, “The NPP mistakenly reinterprets justification as an ecclesiological doctrine, not a soteriological one. The doctrine that Pauline justification is ecclesiological and not soteriological is one of the most remarkable inversions of Paul. No orthodox interpreter of Paul has ever disputed that the doctrine of justification has ecclesiological implications…
"To affirm, however, that Paul’s doctrine of justification was EXCLUSIVELY ecclesiological and not at all soteriological is to force a dichotomy where Paul… has seen none… one wonders whether ecclesiastical proponents of the NPP have forced this dichotomy in order to permit rapprochement with Rome.” (Pg. 189-190)
He also critiques Norman Shepherd, the former theology professor at Westminster Theological Seminary: “The problem with Shepherd’s model is that it functionally supplants the doctrine of regeneration with the sacrament of baptism… there is no overriding concern with the heart, with the religious affections… Shepherd would have us confuse the ‘husk’ (covenantal faithfulness) with the ‘kernel’ (a heart that has been renewed by the grace of God).
"Shepherd, in his zeal to have the covenant swallow regeneration, would have us ignore the vital question of the NATURE of the covenantal faithfulness in view. In this respect we are presented with a stunning departure from Reformed orthodoxy. Shepherd’s model promotes the very externalism that the apostle Paul labored so hard to oppose in early Christian circles. (Pg. 208)
He concludes, “All expressions of Christianity are on the path to one of two destinations, Rome or Geneva. What the NPP offers us is decidedly not ‘Genevan.’ The parallel interest, in some Reformed circles, in the redefined categories of covenant and justification, coupled with a new stress… on baptism and with a consequent diminution of regeneration, does not bode well.
"It seems that there are elements active in the Reformed churches that wish to lead the church into a sacramental religion, all in the name of being ‘more Reformed.’ … what they are really and increasingly saying is that Luther and Calvin were mistaken, and that Trent was right.” (Pg. 211-212)
NPP advocate will not care for this book, obviously; but Waters’ reasonably fair summations of the positions of NPP defenders balance the criticism; in any case, this is an important volume to study for anyone seriously investigating the New Perspective.
January 21, 2009
Quite good, actually.
May 7, 2020
Dr. Waters attempts here, in just over 200 pages, to cover a lot of ground. This volume covers the historical, systematic, biblical and exegetical grounds that serve as the foundation for the New Perspectives on Paul. Dr. Waters starts by giving the historical theological background for the NPP. Starting with the 19th century critical German scholarship, he moves through Bultmann, Kasemann, Stendhal, Sanders, Dunn, and ultimately Wright. These chapters are the most helpful of the book; especially for those, such as myself, who have a limited knowledge of NPP. He then moves to expose the poor exegesis and hermeneutical approaches of the three most popular NPP proponents, Sanders, Dunn, and Wright. My primary problem with this volume is one of antiquation. The book was written in the mid-2000's and therefore has no touch point with the last 15 years of scholarship. This isn't a criticism, it's just a fact. I'm reading this book 15 years after it was published and a lot of scholarship has happened since then. I'm interested to read more of the NPP on their own terms and compare with Waters' critiques. I found the last chapter particularly interesting as he made associations between Norman Shepherd, Auburn Avenue Theology and Federal Vision as they relate to NPP. This was helpful and spurred many questions in my mind surrounding these various theological streams as they conflate the concepts of covenant and regeneration; especially related to the sacraments. Overall, a good read but left me wanting more. I hope he will write a follow up volume.
May 12, 2025
Very helpful explanation and exposure of the confused and erroneous new perspective. Not an easy read but a needed one.
March 23, 2021
This is a good summary and critique of one of the most controversial topics in recent biblical scholarship: the New Perspective on Paul. Prentiss unpacks the history of NPP, which is not really a cohesive tradition so much as a stream of scholarship united by similar assumptions and arguments. He spends whole chapters (and sometimes more) on the NPP's largest voices: Sanders, Dunn, and Wright. His critique is from a Reformed perspective, which unsurprisingly is very critical of NPP's redefinition of justification as a declaration that one is already a member of God's people - one that is repeated throughout a person's life. Prentiss makes the case that this definition essentially means salvation by works. He also critiques NPP's implications for other points of theology, as well as its assumptions about the nature of first century Palestinian Judaism and its insistence on interpreting Paul through the lens of this shaky framework.
Read
August 4, 2011The first five or so chapters are good. The project collapses at that point. Waters is helpful in discussing the shape of Pauline theology from the 18th century onwards. We are blessed that he summarized the worst of German scholarship so that we do not have to. Unfortunately, he should have left the book at that.
His critique of Wright...well, it just doesn't do it. But that field has been firebombed so often, I will address other issues.
Is it really "Rome or Geneva?" Waters suggest that those who do not hold this view are secretly on the road to Rome? It is hard to charitably evaluate this claim. The majority of Pauline scholars are neither Reformed nor Roman and simply do not care either way.
I take issue with his saying Wright doesn't believe in linear logic, but in narratival logic. What I think Waters is saying that Wright denigrates systematics in favor of narrative. Perhaps he does, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.
One should go to the relevant Westminster Theological Journal articles and read the exchange between Waters and Stephen Perrin.
His critique of Wright...well, it just doesn't do it. But that field has been firebombed so often, I will address other issues.
Is it really "Rome or Geneva?" Waters suggest that those who do not hold this view are secretly on the road to Rome? It is hard to charitably evaluate this claim. The majority of Pauline scholars are neither Reformed nor Roman and simply do not care either way.
I take issue with his saying Wright doesn't believe in linear logic, but in narratival logic. What I think Waters is saying that Wright denigrates systematics in favor of narrative. Perhaps he does, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.
One should go to the relevant Westminster Theological Journal articles and read the exchange between Waters and Stephen Perrin.
June 5, 2008
An unfortunate book, this one. The New Perspective(s) on Paul has once again been misunderstood or misrepresented. Waters has over-simplified the issues in the hopes of buttressing the dominant conservative theological positions on justification, imputation, etc. (Working on a formal review.)
March 24, 2012
Helpful overview of the NPP.
April 9, 2013
A good help for understanding the New Perspectives on Paul.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews