Justification: Five Views

Spectrum Multiview

by James K. Beilby (Editor), Michael Scott Horton (Contributor), Michael F. Bird (Contributor)

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). When Paul wrote these words he seemed confident he had made himself clear.But for centuries the Pauline doctrine of justification has been a classic point of interpretation and debate in Christian exegesis and theology. And while in recent decades there have been moments of hopeful convergence among the various traditions of the Western church, the fine print often reveals more facets and distinctions than ever before.This volume focuses on five views of justification and calls on representative proponents to set forth their case and then respond to each other. The five views Reformed (Michael S. Horton)Progressive Reformed (Michael F. Bird)New Perspective (James D. G. Dunn)Deification, or Theosis (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen)Roman Catholic (Gerald OCollins and Oliver Rafferty)In addition, editors James Beilby, Paul R. Eddy and Steven E. Enderlein provide an extensive introduction to the issues informing this important debate. This distinguished forum of biblical interpreters and theologians offers a lively and informative engagement with the biblical, historical and contemporary understandings of justification. Five Views is not only a fascinating probe into Pauls meaning, it is also a case book in theological method.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity

320 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 28, 2011

About the author

James K. Beilby (PhD, Marquette University) is professor of systematic and philosophical theology at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Reviews

[Robert Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a traditional "multiple views" tome, with two introductory chapters by the editors (professors from a generally Reformed Baptist university), followed by each of the five views writing an essay and the other four responding to each essay. There is no overview of the views or conclusion by the editors.
1. Michael S. Horton represents the "traditional reformed" view. (He might prefer the moniker "confessional".)
2. Michael F. Bird writes for the "progressive reformed" view. This might be a party of one, though perhaps Brian Vickers should earn the label as well.
3. James D. G. Dunn (a.k.a. "Jimmy" Dunn) represents the New Perspective on Paul. This man is a powerhouse of scholarship and has been since before I was born. He, Ed Parish Sanders (E.P. Sanders) and N.T. Wright are the triumvirate of the NPP
4. The "Deification" view is not told by an actual Eastern Orthodox churchman, but a Finnish Lutheran with an idiosyncratic take on Luther. The poor man is clearly outclassed and blown away by the preceding heavyweights.
5. Roman Catholic: Two Jesuits wrote the RC part together. They are overly appreciative of Protestant scholarship and not indicative of the main opinions with RCism. Their views are interesting but not helpful in dealing with the priest down the street or even your well-read Catholic neighbor.

I should say right up front that I was expecting Michael Bird to "win" and he did not disappoint. I was pleasantly surprised with how very much of Horton's article I could heartily agree with. He has been very polemical in my experience, i.e. very quick to drop the H-bomb (heretic) on fellow Christians who may be in error though not damningly so.

What Bird does so magnificently is to navigate a middle way between the Confessions and the NPP. Rather than condemn either side, he remains irenic throughout and appreciates the best of both sides. People who identify as Traditionally Reformed may be scared of modern scholarship, but Bird shows there is nothing to fear. We do not need to accept the sum and substance of Sanders, Dunn, Wright to appreciate many of the valuable insights they bring to the table.

Dunn argues forcefully and well, but he is like a(n indestructible) tank in a minefield. He naïvely steps all over sacred cows of the Reformed faith, perhaps genuinely unaware. He claims simply to be broadening the discussion, bringing in other topics to what has become a myopic debate. Can he really be unaware of the toes upon which he dances?!

Obviously, this book is hardly even about justification (to me). It's about camps within scholarship and the Reformed faith. Bird is acting out his belief that we should do exegesis and see exactly where it takes us. There may be some realignment of our historic creeds, but we need not fear that we have things - at root - wrong. We can appropriate the best of scholarship (plunder the Egyptians) without forsaking the faith.

Feel free to stop reading on page 210.

[Ben De Bono · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I found this book quite fascinating, I have to admit I'm also a bit embarrassed by its existence. In a line that resonates deeply with me, Karl Barth writes in Church Dogmatics that every schism in the Church is a scandal. If that's the case then it would appear that this book, along with the others in the "Five Views" series, offers a multiplicity of scandals.

There's a sense where Christians ought to be deeply ashamed that a book like this exists. I wonder, is there any verse more completely ignored by the modern Church than 1 Corinthians 1:10?

Despite the cringe-worthy nature of this volume, I actually found much of this book to be encouraging in terms of ecumenical dialogue. The divided state of the Church may be shameful, but perhaps a somewhat embarrassing book like this can help us move toward the unity we're intended to have.

Of the five views represented here, four of them are actually relatively close to one another. The writers advocating the Progressive Reformed, New Perspective, Deification and Roman Catholic positions all seem to be talking about a similar concept of justification, albeit from very different angles and with plenty of distinctives, significant and minor, that prevent complete unity. The Traditional Reformed view, advocated here by Michael Horton but indicative of the perspective John Piper has taken in his dialogue with N.T. Wright, remains the most divided, due in large part to its inability to see law and Gospel as anything but antithetical.

Of the other positions, I knew the least about deification and as such found that essay the most interesting. It's author, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, takes a great deal from the Eastern Orthodox position and attempts to show the possibility of agreement between East and West on this pivotal issue. He brings an obvious passion for ecumenism into his writings. Because of that I found his essay perhaps the most encouraging. Unfortunately, it's also the most theologically problematic. In his desire to encourage ecumenism, he's too quick to provide easy answers to areas that require greater thought and ends his essay by seeming to suggest that the ecumenical vision should extend not only to uniting the Church but also toward uniting Christianity with other religions, a definite problem from a perspective of orthodoxy.

Overall, I found this volume encouraging and fairly helpful. If you're new to theology, this probably isn't the best place to start as it would like be more confusing than helpful. If you're familiar with theological writing, there will be a lot of ideas here that you've likely already encountered. Despite that, the interactions between the different authors make this one a worthwhile read.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

One of the better multiview books I have read. Excellent contributions from Horton, Bird and Dunn. Thought-provoking essays from the others involved as well, and it was informative to see a Catholic representing Catholicism.

Although I am mostly aligned to Horton (Traditional Reformed) and Bird, I found Dunn's 'New Perspective' contribution equally informative - an attempt to include Paul's missional context without detracting from the forensic nature of justification.

An excellent resource for summaries of perspectives and how they deal with issues related to the 'righteousness of God', 'imputed righteousness' and 'moral transformation'. Included is an excellent introductory essay by one of the editors on the development of the doctrine as well as the recent fresh approach to justification brought on by a new perspective of Second Temple Judaism.

[Kyle McQuinn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is definitely not light reading. This compilation of five views is a great look at justification. However, because it is so rich academically, I would give this 4 stars. Going through the Five Solas with my church right now was a great time to at last wrap this book up.

[Brian Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This multi-view book on justification begins with two historical essays followed by two Reformed views, a New Perspective view, a deification view, and a Roman Catholic view. The opening historical essays by Beilby and Eddy do a competent job of providing the historical background and outlining the terms of the debate. In a multiple views book, this introductory material is helpful, especially for those who are using the book as an introduction to this issue.

The essays by Michael Horton, James Dunn, and Oliver Rafferty make this book a worthy read. Rafferty provides a very helpful historical sketch of the doctrine of justification from Augustine through Trent. Though his scope is more limited than the opening historical essay, I found it to be more insightful. A reader would do well to read Rafferty first, though he appears in the final essay in the book. I found his co-author for the Roman Catholic view less satisfying. He gave his own personal journey of understanding justification. His essay would have been stronger if he had dealt biblically with the work of recent Catholic scholars such as Joseph Fitzmeyer and theologically with various ecumenical initiatives that the Roman church has undertaken with the Lutherans and evangelicals regarding justification.

James Dunn is one of the founding and leading proponents of the New Perspective and was therefore a good choice for presenting that view. Furthermore, N. T. Wright seems to get more interaction in the evangelical world, so including Dunn brings in another voice for that perspective.

It is hard to imagine a better representative for the "traditional reformed view" than Michael Horton. He is exegetically, historically, and theologically competent on this issue. His Covenant and Salvation had already provided perhaps the best theological response to the New Perspective yet published, and many of those insights reappeared here (e.g., the similarity of Sanders's covenantal nomism to the views that Luther and Calvin were combating, the importance of distinguishing between the types of OT covenants, etc.). Horton was also well prepared to respond to Kärkkäinen's deification view, having also addressed that issue at length in Covenant and Salvation.

Kärkkäinen seemed too motivated by ecumenical issues for me to be truly convinced that his (Finnish school) revisionist reading of Luther even approximated Luther's actual beliefs. His ecumenical quest also seemed to be something of a fool's errand. He may have gained something in reaching out the Russian Orthodox, but Rafferty was clear in his response that the deification proposal was not acceptable to Roman Catholics. Nor is Kärkkäinen going to convince the Lutheran orthodox. He may have redrawn the lines regarding who finds his beliefs acceptable, but I'm not convinced any real ecumenical progress was made.

Michael Bird's essay and responses were similarly unsatisfying. I did not find a clear statement of his position such as could be found in both Horton's and Dunn's essays. Furthermore, he seemed to be proclaiming the possibility of rapprochement while the principals of the debate clearly disagreed with one another. Horton, for instance, remained unconvinced that Dunn's position was in fact compatible with Reformation theology despite Dunn's recent insistence that the New Perspective stands not in opposition to the Reformation doctrine but as an addition and reorientation. For his part, Dunn seemed positively angry (I believe he used the term "miffed") in his response to Horton. In any event, in reading the positions and responses, I came away convinced of the real differences between the positions.

One last thought. Many of the contributors argued that Paul's soteriology cannot be reduced to the one metaphor of justification. I'm not convinced that justification is merely one metaphor among many—a metaphor that may be emphasized or de-emphasized as the theological situation demands it. Rather, I think justification is a reality that must be reckoned with as theologians seek to understand God's work of salvation.

[Douglas Beaumont · Rating 4 out of 5]

Multi-view debate books have become a major publication genre, and, as many have noted, it is high time that one was released on the doctrine of justification. That such a publication is sorely needed today is indicated by at least two factors: the subject's importance, and the assortment of disagreements it generates. As to the former, John Calvin said that justification by faith was so important that "wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown," and many would agree today. Concerning the latter, while it may not surprise many readers that various views of justification exist (especially between Roman Catholics and protestants), the width of the range of disagreements and options may come as a shock (especially when one considers that four out of the five views expressed in this book are Protestant).

Overall, Justification: Five Views is not only a very welcome addition to the multi-view book genre, but an excellent example for future publications of its type. The introductory chapters are very helpful, little space is wasted in the position and response chapters, a loving spirit is exhibited by all writers, and helpful tools such as author, subject, and Scripture indices are included as well. Should another publisher deign to publish something similar a few suggestions might be helpful. First, the spectrum of views might be better represented by other positions. For example, a more traditional Lutheran view might be best to include (no Lutheran writers are included in this volume). The mediating view between the traditional Reformed and New Perspective views may not be as helpful as a third, more popular and representative view, as these two fairly represent the spectrum. Further, while including the deification view was very welcome, expressing it as a minority view of a single Lutheran school was probably not as strong as simply seeking representation from a traditional Eastern Orthodox scholar. Second, a stronger voice for Roman Catholicism would be appreciated. As interesting as a (second) history of interpretation by Rafferty, and the biographical details of O'Collins theological journey were, a more straightforward presentation of, and arguments for, current Catholic thinking on justification would better match the tenor of the book.

Full review here: http://souldevice.wordpress.com/2013/...

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Justification: Five Views has been valuable to me in the formation of my theological thinking. That being said, the book does not accomplish its intended goal. One would expect the five contributors to interact with each other in similar styles using terms common to the general theological task. Or at the very least, one would expect that the term “justification” would be defined and the definition held to by the writers.

Instead, the contributions were so varied and used terminology so specific to their traditions that there is little interplay between them. The fourth and fifth contributions were particularly disappointing to me. Horton and Bird seem to be the only writers to have gone out of their way to interact with opponents.

The essays and responses do help highlight the multifaceted nature of salvation, but hardly any talk occurs about justification in particular, while much is said about how justification is multifaceted without truly expounding on the topic.

Ultimately, this is a good read for young theologians who know beforehand to expect to find five alternative formulations to salvation, not justification in particular.

[Benjamin Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to the New Perspective on Paul, traditional Reformed theology and the Finnish School's interpretation of Luther. I found the interaction between the latter as well as the Catholic contributions to be lacking. Michael Horton, Michael Bird and James Dunn all seem to be pre-occupied with their own views on Paul's theology. The gospels as well as writings from James, Peter and John are only briefly treated. The first two chapters of the book do give a very helpful introduction into the history of the doctrine of justification in the Church as well as the issues surrounding the contemporary debate.

[Jeremy Bouma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Several weekends ago I received from IVP to review the much anticipated and recently talked about Justification: Five Views. This is a highly significant book and comes at a highly significant point in Christian theological discourse. For the past decade a conversation has been raging, one that actually had begun several decades beforehand—or several centuries in some ways (i.e. Reformation!). It has to do with the question "How do we become right with God," which is also about the doctrine of justification. More particularly, though for Protestants and especially evangelicals, it's a conversation about the so-called New Perspective on Paul. (you can read more on this HERE.) While the book is a great introduction to the major (especially contemporary) views of the doctrine, it also did something I did not expect: reveals points of consensus as much as diversion.

I wanted to do a more extensive several-post book review, but this will have to suffice as I've been bogged down with ThM thesis work and wanted to get this out there, because I think this book would make a fantastic beginning-of-the-year purchase for those who got amazon or Barnes & Noble gift cards for Christmas.(It's a fairly long review, because there are a lot of issues going on here. Sorry!)

What I love about this book is that it goes beyond simply the NPP conversation, which sometimes I think is a bit tired at this point. Instead, it really is about perspectives on justification (though Michael Horton doesn't seem to think so, judging by his chapter which, curiously and annoyingly, was more a response to NT Wright than simply a defense of the Reformed doctrine of justification!) Yes there is the traditional Reformed perspective by Michael Horton and the "progressive" reformed perspective by Michael Bird and then the NPP voice instantiated in James Dunn (what a catch for this title!). You also have, though, a description and defense of  what is called the "deification" and "theosis" views by the Finish theologian Veli-Matti Karkkainen and then the Roman Catholic view of justification by Gerald O'Collins and Oliver Rafferty. This book, then, is a very contemporary interaction with the doctrine of justification without being bogged down in simply that contemporary conversation (i.e. NPP).

The preface states why such a book is necessary: "Stimulated by various ecumenical conversations and vigorous debates over the 'new perspective' on Paul, the debate over the nature and implications of justification language in Scripture has reached a fevered pitch. And, for most Christians, a lot is riding on this conversation; at stake is nothing less than the understanding of the nature of sin, the atonement, conversion, and salvation itself." (9) Throughout, the book sets the bar high and well for such a conversation using a solid line-up of representative voices. And like most view books, each perspective has a 3-4 page response from the others, the likes of which have been honest, yet irenic.

The first chapter gives a wonderful retrospective on the justification issue, stretching from the early church through the middle ages to the Reformation and then modern theological perspectives from liberals, pietists, and "voices from the margins," like anabaptists, feminist and liberation theologies. This historical theology student was thankful (and impressed!) with a thorough, cogent overview of the historical development of Justification grammar. After this overview, the editors pick up the conversation with a chapter on the contemporary debate, which is the so-called New Perspective on Paul debate. As the editors explain, this new perspective has come not simply to challenge the Reformation interpretation of Paul's concept of justification itself, but their understanding of the nature of first-century Judaism. (53) From here they give a solid introduction to the history of the perspective and the key exegetical flash points in the debate. Both chapters set the stage well for the conversation that follows.

Michael Horton leads the conversation with the traditional Reformed view. His stated purpose for his chapter is "to argue that [the Reformation confessions and catechisms] view of justification is even more firmly established by recent investigations." (83) Horton believes that for Paul the doctrine of justification is central, and spends several pages explaining the history behind the Reformation confrontation of the Catholic view, which views justification as "a processes of becoming actually and intrinsically righteous." (85) In contrast, "All the magisterial Reformers were at one in concluding that justification is a judicial verdict consisting in the gift of an 'alien righteousness' through faith alone because of Christ alone." (86) Rather than a process of transformation from the state of sinfulness to that of justice, justification is the imputation of Christ's righteousness whereby the believer is both simultaneously sinner and justified. (87)

From here, Horton spends the rest of his chapter defining justification exegetically, and in the process he goes head-to-head against NT Wright. I found this to be a curiously odd rhetorical strategy. I understand that Wright is a major voice for the New Calvinist's current foil (i.e. NPP) and for the Reformers the single boogieman (à la Piper's book), but why build your argument in response to someone else? Though I have my own issues with Wright's perspective, why not simply argue your position and let the chips fall where they may? Furthermore, why not instead directly argue against the Catholic position, which is much more contrasted with the Reformed position than Wrights, anyway (though I think his position is more Catholic than he cares to admit...)? Though Horton represents well the traditional Reformed perspective, his constant use of Wright as sparing partner was distracting and unnecessary for what I thought this book was trying to accomplish, mainly each perspective establishing and defending their position.

Michael Bird represents the “progressive” view of justification, progressive in that he wants to be “always reforming” traditions in the face of exegetical and theologica challenges, Bird challenges to the Reformed “theological straightjacket” that reads Paul through a presupposed ordo salutis, and he accuses the Reformed tradition of ignoring “social realism” by glossing over the social and historical context of Paul. (131-132) As an advocate of a “progressive” position on justification, Bird defines it thusly: “it is the act whereby God creates a new people, with a new status, in a new covenant, as part of the first installment of the new age.”(132) He goes on to say that justification is "Paul’s contingent judicial expression of how deliverance is wrought in Jesus Christ, the Righeous One, who’s atoning death and powerful resurrection avails for the salvation of the covenant family.” (132)

In so definining justification in these manners, Bird takes large, obvious cues from both Dunn and Wright. After suggesting better exegesis of the justification passages in Galatians and Romans than traditional Reformed exegesis, rejecting imputation in favor participatory and incorpratory language, and contending the necessity of works for salvation, Bird concludes his chapter with the appeal that justification is multifaceted: it is forensic, in that it denotes a person's status not moral state; it is eschatological, in that the final verdict “not guilty” is declared in the present and is assured by Christ’s and the Spirit’s continuing work; it is covenantal, in that it confirms the Abrahamic covenant and envelopes all people in one people of God; it is effective, in that moral sanctificant and transformation along with justification are rooted in the same reality of union with Christ; and it is trinitarian, in that the Father gave over the Son to die and rise for our justification, we are united with Christ and interceded for before the Father, and justification is activated by the Spirit who creates and supplies the faith necessary for justification. (156) Though I appreciate much of what Bird is doing here, I do have one large reservation, which also happens to coincide with my reservation of the next chapter. Most of Bird's thoughts are revised and extended by the primary NPP voice of Dunn in the "New Perspective" chapter.

The opening salvo of James Dunn's chapter sets the course for much of the NPP debate in general, doing so in a way that's a bit brash: "The 'new perspective' on Paul's teaching on justification by faith is not really 'new.' It is a perspective that Paul himself defended..." (176) One of the key foundations to his and other NPPer's arguments is that NPP isn't new because it is simply reaches back into history to emphasis the historical aspects of Paul's day that gave rise to his formulation of his doctrine. In the words of NT Wright from the 2010 ETS conference on this very subject, NPP is a "demythologization" effort along the lines of the Historic Jesus Quests, in that they are looking to reconstruct the history surrounding Pauline theology generally and justification specifically.

In so doing, Dunn says that NPP simply asks whether all the factors that made up Paul's doctrine have been adequately appreciated in their historical context as articulated in the traditional (read: Reformed) reformulations of the doctrine. (177) There are four aspects that Dunn emphasizes throughout his chapter: 1) NPP arises from a new perspective on Judaism,  á la E.P. Sanders; 2) the significance of Paul's mission to the Gentiles in light of the covenant-expanded gospel is the context for his letters that include discourse on justification; 3) justification by faith in Christ Jesus over against works of the law, where NPP argues Paul didn't have the type of view of the Law we often give to him (i.e. faith good, law bad); and an emphasis on the "whole gospel of Paul must be taken into account." (177)

While I mostly appreciate these course-corrective exegetical considerations by both Bird and Dunn to a centrally important Christian doctrine, I think it's remarkable that they and others—like, and especially, NT Wright—direct their missives at "the Reformed tradition," when the Christian tradition itself has not seem to have joined them in viewing justification in the manner in which NPP proponents propose, especially their 1st century Jewish context push. A glance through early church commentary on key disputed passages (i.e. Rom 3:21-28, 4:6; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:15-16) reveal a remarkable lack of continuity between the type of ideas NPPers say are embedded in Pauline theology—mostly and especially the absolute 1st century Jewish connection, especially regarding covenantal nomism and the faith/works antithesis. Then there is a whole other conversation about Medieval scholastics like Aquinas who have zero connection to the type of meaning NPPers want to give to justification, much less Pauline exegesis. And these early church perspectives on justification—including gospel, faith, imputation of righteousness, repudiation of law—are found in the Reformation writers precisely because they sought to return to the early church fathers.

Granted, there is a historical context surrounding the Reformation that gave rise to their understanding of justification by faith apart from the law by nature of their reaction to the Catholic practice of indulgences and an emphasis on works to make people right with God. I'm not so sure, though, that totally invalidates the Reformers "traditional" understanding of justification, much less their view of Paul. I wish NPPers would account for the incredible lack of connection between their own special 1st century reading of Paul and the rest of Christian tradition, spanning the 2nd century all the way up to the 2oth. I don't believe I've heard of any account by the likes of Wright and Dunn for this lack of historical continuity, which is a major, debilitating problem for their arguments, me thinks.

After this short interlude, we return to our regularly scheduled review...

Three chapters after heavy Protestant considerations of justification, we make the turn East (with the [mostly] Orthodox deification view, or theosis) and then West again (with the Roman Catholic view). Veli-Matti Kärkkäien, a Finish professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, presents a fascination chapter on the deification view, which has usually been associated with the Eastern Orthodox view of justification, but also has resonance with the Catholic view by nature of its "making righteous" understanding of justification. Largely, however, Kärkkäien reveals recent attempts to reconcile the theosis view of justification with Luther's theology, as spearheaded by the so-called Mannermaa School at the University of Helsinki. This New Perspective on Luther, as it could be called, has three claims: 1) Luther's understanding of salvation can be expressed not only as justification but also theosis; 2) his main understanding of justification is Christ present in faith, which means a "real-ontic" participation in God through the indwelling Christ in believers; 3) he doesn't make a distinction between forensic and effective justification, insisting justification includes both (unlike the Lutheran confession); and 4) justification not only means sanctification but food works, since Christ present in faith makes the believer a "christ" to the world. (221-222)

In regards to justification itself, Kärkkäien insists several grammatical features: it is one of many "metaphors" for salvation, insisting it shouldn't be considered  the normative metaphor; it includes union and participation in Christ including actual theosis; and justification isn't simply a declaration, but an act and process of making righteous, resulting in good deeds which are the fruit of becoming righteous. (232) He roots this definition of justification in Luther's own theology along side the Eastern Orthodox view, insisting there is a need for a revised, ecumenical understanding of justification that brings together the thoughts from this Protestant reformer, Catholics, and Orthodox. And he along with this Finish movement insist that justification goes far beyond declaring in the right forensically, but also includes making righteous in the theosis sense by nature of the strong participatory language of Paul.

Though I appreciate recapturing such language, which I think has been lost on Protestants, I'm not convinced of the connection between deification and Luther's own writings. It seems like his famous simul iustus et peccator (at once just and sinner) would rule out such a reading. Kärkkäien himself even challenges the Mannermaa school to do more extensive research on this connection by nature of the scarce mention of theosis in Luther's extensive works. The most troubling aspect of this chapter, however, comes at the end, where the "doctrine of divination" and this ecumenical discussion of justification and theosis has implications "in light of the relation of Christian faith to other religions." He goes on to say, "What if the doctrine of divination were a viable candidate for all Christians to talk about salvation in relation to other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and, say, African spiritualities?" where he then suggests that such discussion could be helpful in situations where other cultures come at "questions of 'salvation'" from "another angle." This final offering is both vague and disturbing, and seems to smack of religious pluralism in the same vein of recent attempts to reconcile the Trinity with modern day polytheism. This was an odd ending to an interesting chapter!

Our fine justification discussion ends with the Roman Catholic view, given by Gerald O'Collins and Oliver Rafferty. Though I've done quite a bit of work in Thomistic studies on justification itself and some ancillary issues—whose theology played a significant role in the Council of Trent—reading through this chapter reminded me of how often Protestants misunderstand the Catholic understanding of salvation generally and justification specifically. Rafferty begins this section with an introduction to the Catholic view, which came by way of the Council of Trent in 1547. After making brief historical commentary on Trent and its reception, he gives the Catholic view, emphasizing: God and God alone justifies the sinner through the merits of Jesus Christ; the image of God in the human person was not obliterated, thus allowing for the will to freely move toward God; the believer can fulfill the moral imperative to live righteously, knowing Christ will come to judge everyone's deeds; and, again, the capacity for men and women to cooperate with God's grace in freedom. (267-268)

Rafferty goes on to explain Augustine's contribution–one aspect of which (his insistence not that righteousness is imputed but that it is inherent/intrinsic to redeemed humanity) would later distress Luther; the early Medieval sacramental view of justification, though there really wasn't a doctrine of justification; and how the late Medieval scholastic view (driven by Aquinas' emphasis on the possession of righteousness as our own as a gift of God) would culminate in the Council of Trent. Rafferty explains that Trent had 2 goals: 1) to present the Catholic understanding over against the Lutheran errors; and 2) uphold the view that justification involved not only the remission of sins but also the sanctification of the individual. (279) Likewise, the final form of Trent emphasized the full cooperation of the human will in freedom with the process of justification, though the will is prepared by God's grace for that process; humans are not passive in the process. (280) This ends a good overview of the historical and current Catholic teachi

[Peyton Mansfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a clear summary of some of the most prominent views on the subject. I learned new things about each perspective. Here's a brief review of each author's contribution:

Michael Horton (Traditional Reformed): 3.5/5. He got the benefit of presenting the position of my tradition, but his essay was not as well-written as some of the others. He almost focused more on responding to other views than defining his own position biblically. That said, his critiques were sharp, and his position is strong and historic.

Michael Bird (Progressive Reformed): 5/5. Not representing a specific historic camp, he had the freedom to work through the text directly (mainly Galatians and Romans). It felt like he found a way to take the best part from each other position, without compromising the core of forensic justification by faith.

James Dunn (New Perspective): 2/5. He gave a concise history of his position, followed by the outworking of its exegetical ramifications. Ultimately, he affirmed forensic justification, which kind of confused the issue. It felt like he was making mountain out of mole hills.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Deification/Theosis): 4/5. Though not quite Orthodox or Lutheran, the mixture he presented was intriguing. His essay was the clearest, using bullet-point outlining and well-defined theses. Aside from that, his desire to see all camps united was laudable, if a stretch at times.

Gerald O'Collins & Oliver Rafferty (Roman Catholic): 1/5. Rafferty's portion traced the doctrine of justification throughout history, only to reveal that it has always been a point of contention. And O'Collins' personal testimony didn't do too much to argue for specifics either. What nuggets they gave demonstrated a well-thought-out theology below the surface, they just didn't present it well (in my opinion).

[Zachary Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A review by a previous reader, Robert Murphy (linked below), summarizes my opinion quite well. This book is well worth the price for the essays and interactions between Horton, Dunn, and Bird. Indeed, if it had been marketed as a conversation between Protestants on the New Perspective, I think it would be top tier. I really struggled to get through the last two views (Deification & Roman Catholic). More detailed review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[David Goetz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very solid intro to the main camps in the debate over the doctrine of justification. It's really indefensible, though, that there's no advocate in this volume for the Lutheran understanding. Karkkainen takes a form of the New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, but that's far from the traditional, confessional Lutheran teaching.

As you might expect, Horton's "Traditional Reformed View" was most convincing to me.

[Chuck Bonadies · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is very good introduction to the modern debates on justification. Five authors present five different views:

* Traditional Reformed - Michael Horton
* Progressive Reformed - Michael Bird
* New Perspective - James Dunn
* Deification - Veli-Matti Karkkainen
* Roman Catholic - Gerald O' Collins and Oliver P. Rafferty

Without giving too much detail, here are my thoughts.

* Eddy and Beilby's (editors) introduction, "Justification in Historical Perspective," is worth the price of the book. This one of the best, concise articles that I have read on the subject.

* Michael Horton is a fine reformed scholar. Though I think he gets the point across fairly well, I would have liked to see him interact more with the biblical text.

* Michael Bird continues to impress me. While I have had opportunity to read a couple of his works on justification (The Saving Righteousness of God and his recent article on Wright and Piper in JETS, June 2011), his view comes across especially clear in this article. While I am not inclined to agree with all that Bird proposes, I do think he captures the intent of Galatians and Romans better than any of the other authors. I should add, in my view, Bird's responses to the other authors are outstanding. Great job Michael!

* Those familiar with the work of James Dunn may be surprised to see that he does not consider the "new perspective" to be antithetical to the "old perspective." Some may say that this has always been Dunn's view; however, I would argue that he is giving up some ground in this article.

* Out of all of the views, I am least familiar with Deification, as presented by Karkkainen. I found the chapter interesting, but unconvincing.

* Finally, the Roman Catholic view was about as I expected: justification is God making us righteous. Horton poses a great question in his response: "[It] would be interesting to know what [the authors] would make of the claim by Roman Catholic scholars such as Karl Rahner, Joseph Fitzmeyer and Raymond Brown, that dikaioo and its cognates belong to the law court as exclusively forensic in character...." (293)

CB

[Andrew Canavan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thanks to some strong chapters (Traditional Reformed, Progressive Reformed, New Perspective), this book is a good overview of the major positions on justification within Protestantism today. Horton, Bird, and Dunn do an excellent job of arguing for their views exegetically and of actually interacting with one another in substantive ways.

The weakest chapters are those by the Roman Catholic and the Deification (Eastern Orthodox) proponents. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen argues that some interpretations of Luther's theology could be made to fit with a deification view of salvation. The two Roman Catholic authors (Rafferty and O'Collins) simply assert the official Roman Catholic position and detail their involvement in ecumenical efforts. Both chapters are interesting as stand-alone articles but are very weak as part of what is supposed to be a written debate on justification.

The introductory chapters by the editors provide a very helpful and comprehensive overview of justification in history and in current debate.

The weak contributions aside, this is a very useful book on a very important doctrine.

[Ryan Linkous · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introduction into the current state of affairs in the justification debate.

Horton has the strongest grasp on historical theology of all the authors. His biggest concern is NT Wright's flavor on the NPP. Hold's strongly to the active/passive obedience distinction with regard to imputation.

Bird is just excellent, providing a good middle way between Old and New Perspectives.

Dunn presents a good summary of the NPP and does the best just incorporating the original context and Jew/Gentiles relations within the 1st century church (Bird does this pretty well too).

Karkainnen's view is pretty strange and doesn't really strike me as anything neat or important.

Rafferty shows the history of justification within the Catholic church. O'Collins shares his journey concerning justification influenced by his church experience, academic study, and other world movements concerning justification.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gained an appreciation for the progressive reformed view through this book. All of the scholars are pretty friendly toward each other, but I could sense a consensus developing against the traditional reformed view.

Some of it is not very engaging or readable. It is interesting to contrast certain writing styles.

[David Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It is a great introduction to the topic of justification, and a must read for anyone who is interested in this subject. See my blog (philosopherdhaines.blogspot.ca) anytime after August 20, 2013 for a full review of this book.

[Eric Sauder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introduction to the issues.

[Jonathan Huggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great overview of the issues and various positions.