You are here: Home › NPP

Tag Archives | NPP

The Vertical Truth

By on in Theology

In Matthew Barrett’s book, The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls, contributing author Andrew Naselli makes a stratospherically important point about the centrality of Paul’s theology on justification. He calls attention to Luther’s notes about the matter.1 Luther wrote of Romans 3:21-26 as follows, “the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle [to the Romans], and of the whole Bible.” Specifically, Naselli uses Moo’s observations about Martin Luther’s notes on Paul’s passage to the Romans. The passage is critical to our study of justification. The heart of the doctrine is “the righteousness of God that empowers the gospel to mediate salvation to sinful human beings.”2

So as a matter of course, this section of Romans 3:21-26 must be carefully parsed. To ruminate on it and let it saturate every part of our capacity to reason and accept truth. 

Romans 3:21-26   Justification by Faith

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ 23 for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Parsed Outline (Naselli, 221-222)

  1. God’s righteousness is revealed from the OT law and the prophets. (Rom 3:21)
  2. All have sinned yet have access to God’s righteousness through exclusive faith in Christ. (Rom 3:22-23)
  3. Source of justification made clear through faith in Christ received as a free gift to people redeemed by His blood to satisfy God’s justice and wrath (propitiation). “In-Christ-redemption is the instrument of grace to bring about justification.… Justification occurs through in-Christ-redemption, which is the instrument of grace.”3  (Rom 3:24-25a)
  4. Integrity of God plus his character as righteous and just to hold back His anger to appease righteous divine wrath against sin. The just and justifier gives righteous status to people as He passed over sins committed and atoned for through the blood of Christ. So here it is revealed the gospel is an expression of God’s attributes of righteousness and justice. (Rom 3:25b-26)

Just as Luther, Moo, and many other expositors have made super clear, Naselli offers the four-point review above of what Morris called the most important single paragraph ever written.”4  

The polemic to a proper understanding and acceptance of the doctrine of justification rests upon a new covenant biblical principle of soteriological meaning.

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is an effort to redefine justification as made clear by the apostle Paul (Rom 3:21-26). Not so much to affect what justification does in terms of its salvific merit but to redirect it toward the interests of cultural Marxism and liberation theology. In the form of Sanders’ covenantal nomism, NPP attempts to necessitate the maintenance of salvation by orienting it toward the cultural well-being of people (a State interest). Justification becomes fundamentally about ecclesiology and not soteriology (Cara, 231). Paul has explicitly and authoritatively informed millions over thousands of years that justification is vertical, not horizontal (Romans 1:17, 3:21-26, 9:30-10:13).

NPP is an effort to detach the meaning and warnings of scripture concerning justification to suit the interests of society, culture, and the State around liberation theology. A theology of grievance concerning the “marginalized” (i.e., feminism, marriage, sex, gender, and abortion activists coupled with ethnic and racial disparities that need attention). That which divides people of truth is diabolical. That which intermingles and draws them to darkness is satanic. 

Cultural Marxists who capture and guide woke social justice ideology shape progressive Christians to form various ecclesiological efforts. Marxism pushes toward a revisionist understanding of biblical justification through cultural pressures for reparational and restorative institutional and theological “justice” to acquire its desire for power. To NPP, justification is about social order toward the interests of liberation theology advocates who want unfettered lifestyles and egalitarian insistence contradictory to explicit biblical language about what’s unacceptable and forbidden to profane the Imago Dei. 

On April 14th, 2022, Carl R. Trueman posted an article entitled “Rowan Williams and our Sentimental Age.” In this article, Trueman makes it completely clear that the esteemed academic scholar (Williams) has advocated for State mandated LGBT lifestyle acceptance within the church. The current Arch Bishop of Canterbury favors same-sex “marriage.” N.T. Wright, a prominent advocate of NPP, is a bishop of the Anglican church. Many pastors and priests across all denominations advocate for the ghetto of theological exploration to recast doctrine toward social interests. Specifically to render people susceptible or trapped by the false social doctrine of NPP.

________________
1 Andrew David Naselli, “The Righteous God Righteously Righteouses the Unrighteous: Justification according to Romans,” in The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. Matthew Barrett (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 220–221. Here Naselli quotes Douglas Moo’s observations in the Luther Bible with Luther’s margin notes (Epistle to the Romans, 1st ed, 281n1). 
2 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 219.
3 Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 114. Campbell skillfully synthesizes justification and union with Christ; see 388–405.
4 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 173.

The Waters of Contention

By on in Theology

In the 1980s, when the notion “New Perspective of Paul” (NPP) was first offered, it intended to reinterpret the soteriological meaning of Apostle Paul’s writings. To shape differently an understanding of justification by faith to include (by necessity) the personal maintenance of salvation by works righteousness. Among NPP interpreters of Scripture who advocate grace and forgiveness by repentance for salvation under the new covenant, NPP advocates insist there is a works righteousness that must accompany initial salvation as an ongoing way to perpetuate a person’s salvific status. Grace through faith to include works of the law as a fully effective performance-based means of sustained justification. Where without observance of the law, or works of righteousness, salvation is unattainable as a born-again believer inevitably lives through dry seasons of faith, devotion, and practice. Fruits of the Spirit are evidence of justification and sanctification, not a prerequisite to holding up salvific favor. Salvation belongs to the Lord.

The NPP was set against the “Old Perspective” of the Reformers’ doctrine Sola Fide (faith alone) by grace as a means of justification. Its objections against Protestant doctrines of salvation by faith alone stemmed from how the Reformers reacted against the RCC’s abuses. NPP wrongly concluded that protestants read their objections of RCC abuse into Scripture and asserts that the “Old Perspective” holds a false understanding of Paul’s Judaic opponents and their view that justification is by grace through faith to include righteousness that comes by further effort and obligations.  

First introduced by E.P. Sanders in 1977, Covenantal Nomism are together terms that claim 2nd temple Judaism accepts salvation by grace as valid, but its maintenance was through Mosaic Law. The Mosaic covenant involved the free grace of God, as shown to Israel. Still, it was necessary to sustain law-keeping and keep oneself in the covenant to inherit salvation. The term nomism (from the Greek nomos, law) originates from the notion that ethical and moral observance of the law involves personal conduct. In his Systematic Theology, Grudem defines Covenantal Nomism as the belief of Jews during the time of Christ who obeyed Mosaic laws out of gratitude to remain God’s people. Still, an initial inheritance of salvation was by election and grace. To remain the people of God, it was necessary to “stay in” or continue in the faith by satisfying the Mosaic law to maintain the covenant. Covenantal Nomism is correlated to a marriage covenant where marriage is maintained by effort, continued intimacy, and consummation once vows are made.

In contrast to Covenantal Nomism, Variegated Nomism involves Jews within 2nd temple Judaism who held that salvation was through law-keeping by various ideas. To attain and maintain salvation, legalism extended through the lives of individuals by different means of covenantal adherence. The distinction between the two rests upon the various forms of Judaism that held a keeping of the law by covenant, gratitude, and faith, to set a person on a path of justification involving progressive sanctification for final eschatological salvation. Both reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and personal belief (union with Christ) as considered righteousness.

The timeline of Paul’s mission work in Asia-minor is historically recounted as a period of church development at Corinth by iterative attention. The church was founded between 50 and 52 A.D., with initial success and stability until Paul heard reports of discipline issues sinful behaviors. In about 55 A.D., Paul wrote initial correspondence to the Corinthian church concerning what he learned about the church’s spiritual condition. In reply, in the Spring of 56 A.D., the Corinthian church writes to pose questions of Paul. After that, Paul writes more comprehensively, 1 Corinthians to immediately return the church to order involving instruction and spiritual correction. The course of 56 A.D. escalated further with Paul’s emergency visit (“painful visit) to Corinth for more direct personal attention toward the fledgling church immersed in sinful Greek culture.

Further along the Spring of 56 A.D., Paul wrote a scathing follow-up letter of contention about the purpose of his visit. His motives were of a position and “abundant love” and “anguish of heart” as his desire would be their joy and obedience according to the Spirit and the teachings entrusted to them. Undue divisiveness, isolation, and alienation of members in the Corinthian Church were especially of deep concern. After a period of anxiety while in Troas (Troy) and Macedonia, Paul wrote again to the Corinthians (Fourth letter; 2 Corinthians) and sent his letter ahead before his third and final visit. Before leaving for Jerusalem to conclude his 3rd journey, he spent time in Corinth to deal with the core of individuals of the Church who were causing problems and divisions.

As 1 Corinthians was written as a letter of various concerns about the Church in Corinth (chapters 1 through 6), Paul wrote at considerable length to answer questions from the body of believers there (chapters 7 through 16). The second part of the Corinthian letter responded to questions that were brought to Paul while he was in Ephesus. Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 7:1, 16:17), were those who delivered the questions answered by Paul as he undertook the completion of the first part of the letter. There is speculation that the questions answered in the latter half of 1 Corinthians were stimulated by the initial letter Paul wrote (letter A) not long after the church was planted.

The literary structure of the letter is further evidence of the clear partitioning between the first and second half of the correspondence between Paul and the Church. The first several chapters (1 Cor 1:10 – 6:20) involve Paul’s concerns about general divisiveness, disorder, and the necessity of church discipline. While the first three chapters involve divisiveness as significant divisions within the church were evident, he addresses the matter with principles as he doesn’t appear to attend to specific disputes or questions. The distinction with the latter half of the letter was a body of disparate matters to indicate responses to particular questions posed by the Corinthian congregation. The interpersonal hardships among Corinthian church members imposed upon one another exerted undue strain that needed resolution. To relieve the strain, the Church leadership, or its body, leaned upon Paul’s authority to resolve specific issues of contention.