What do you think?
Rate this book
Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul
Every generation of Christian believer faces the challenge of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ with integrity and in conformity to the teaching of the Scriptures.
But what do the Scriptures teach with regard to the central message of the gospel? Were the Reformers correct to insist that the good news of God's gracious and free acceptance of guilty sinners, on the basis of the obedience and atoning sacrifice of Christ, lies at the heart of the gospel? Or are we to accept the 'new perspectives' on Paul's teaching, which have been advocated in recent years by those who have made a fresh study of the relevant historical sources?
Since the new perspectives challenge some of the basic features of the traditional Protestant understanding of justification, they require careful study and thoughtful evaluation. Nothing less than the shape of the evangelical church's proclomation of the gospel today is at stake.
But what do the Scriptures teach with regard to the central message of the gospel? Were the Reformers correct to insist that the good news of God's gracious and free acceptance of guilty sinners, on the basis of the obedience and atoning sacrifice of Christ, lies at the heart of the gospel? Or are we to accept the 'new perspectives' on Paul's teaching, which have been advocated in recent years by those who have made a fresh study of the relevant historical sources?
Since the new perspectives challenge some of the basic features of the traditional Protestant understanding of justification, they require careful study and thoughtful evaluation. Nothing less than the shape of the evangelical church's proclomation of the gospel today is at stake.
- GenresTheology
92 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2006
2 people are currently reading
50 people want to read
About the author
Cornelis P. Venema
22 books17 followersVenema is Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Doctrinal Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, Indiana. He gained his doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary for work on the theology of John Calvin and has served as a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church in Ontario, California, and South Holland, Illinois.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 24, 2023
As a loadve bais have said, NT Wright is NT Wrong. Good book.
January 16, 2009
Good book.
October 24, 2016
In his helpful work, Getting the Gospel Right, Cornelis P. Venema offers a condensed summary of the debate regarding justification and the gospel that began in the development of the movement known as the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP). Venema first introduces the historic Protestant understanding of Justification, which is the backdrop for the NPP; he defines justification, its basis, instrument of application (faith), and key features of the Reformed perspective. Venema then presents the New Perspective itself and its development through the impactful works of E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. After explaining its key features, Venema provides a critical assessment of the NPP and “covenantal nomism” and concludes by acknowledging areas of Paul’s theology illuminated and undermined by the NPP.
The NPP has raised several questions in response to the Reformed understanding of the ordo salutis and justification—ideas dominating Protestant theology for centuries: First, is the doctrine of justification really the central theme of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, or is it something else? Second, was the Pauline attitude toward 1st century Judaism as negative as traditional Protestantism holds? One of the three most significant claims of the NPP is that the Reformation view of justification was built on a false picture of 1st century Judaism. E.P. Sanders argued for a new understanding of Second Temple Judaism called “covenantal nomism,” (oversimplified) that Jewish believers got into the covenant people by grace (unmerited gracious initiative of God), but stayed in by works. Not a religion of legalism, but a religion fundamentally of grace. Contrary to the Reformation interpretation of Paul as combatting legalistic Judaism, Sanders sees Paul’s objection to Judaism as that it rejects the new reality of God’s saving work through Christ. According to Sanders, “what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.” James D.G. Dunn argued for the next leg of the NPP, a redefining of the “works of the law.” If the law was given to Israel, not to procure favor with God, but to confirm the covenant relationship received by grace, then Paul was objecting to Jewish exclusivism and not legalism—the real problem was Jewish use of “works of the law” to exclude Gentiles from covenant community membership. Paul clearly dealt with the Jew’s use of the law served as “boundary markers” and a social means to exclude Gentiles in Gal. 2:15-16 and 3:10-14.
Then N.T. Wright came along, tied it up with a bow, and brought the third leg: the new understanding of justification. For Wright, Sanders and Dunn had proved, contra Reformata, that 1) Jewish legalism was not the norm and 2) the problem with “works of the law” wasn’t legalism but perverted nationalism. Wright claimed that the older Reformed tradition, with its Ordo Salutis, had an inappropriate focus on salvation of individual sinners and exaggerated the importance of the doctrine of justification. For Wright, Paul’s gospel wasn’t about individual justification/salvation, but the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To get away from justification several things have to be true: Wright argued that the “righteousness of God” is God’s covenant faithfulness in action, He reveals this righteous/faithful attribute in keeping His promises to Israel. For Wright, the “righteousness of God”, referring to His faithfulness, can’t be imputed to believers—nothing like imputation needs to occur for God to declare in favour of His people. Because of this, justification, for Wright and the NPP, is not about soteriology as much as it is about ecclesiology; it isn’t how you get into the true people of God, but how you tell who belongs in that community and who is a member of that community. Human sin isn’t the issue being dealt with in justification. But what of Faith? Now that Christ has come and realized the covenant promises of God to Abraham, faith is the badge of membership in God’s universal family, composed of Jews and Gentiles. The law can no longer be used as a badge to keep out Gentiles because faith is the badge, and incorporates them. For Wright, justification should be less a church dividing doctrine, more a doctrine demanding an inclusive view of membership in the one family for God for those in the covenant people. It’s important to note that Wright emphasises eschatological vindication of God’s people in that God acknowledges those in membership with the covenant community in anticipation of “final justification.” This final justification even includes a justification by works, drawn from Rom. 2:13. Gal. 3 is not about Christ suffering the curse of the law in place of His people. Christ’s cross is described as “representative death” and His resurrection as vindication by God, it is representative of Israel’s exile and restoration, but it is not penal-satisfactory atonement imputed to individual believers.
After seeking to carefully lay out the primary claims of the NPP, Venema critically asses the material. Venema argues first that the whole premise of the NPP is based on an exaggerated view of Sanders’ achievement. NPPErs have argued that Second Temple Judaism isn’t Pelagian—but this is obvious since rarely do people claim to pull themselves up to God “by one’s moral bootstraps.” Covenantal nomism, the replacement for the historic understanding of legalistic Judaism, accommodates a form of acceptance with God based on grace plus good works. Elastic semi-Pelagianism at root. The Reformers didn’t oppose Rome on the basis that it was fully Pelagianism, it wasn’t, but on the basis of Rome’s salvation being partly of Christ and partly of human cooperation with grace that includes good works. Venema says that, at the very least, Sander’s exposition of Second Temple Judaism doesn’t need the kind of new understanding that NPP authors propose. Despite attempts to draw distinction, Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” is in reality a close equivalent to historic semi-pelagianism.
As to the claim that “works of the law” refers to the use of the law to keep Gentiles out of
the covenant people wrongfully, Venema succinctly shows that, while certainly Paul says faith in Jesus Christ is the only way into the covenant promises (Gal. 3:10-14, Rom. 3:27-31), Paul's argument goes beyond just the inclusion of Gentiles and loudly affirms that no one, whether Jew or Gentile, can be justified by works of the law since no one can do what the law requires (Gal. 3:10-14; 5:2-4; 6:13; Rom. 2:6; 3:20, 28; 4:2-4: 9:32). To say that since Christ has come it is no longer necessary to submit to the law’s boundary markers is inadequate and forgets the fact that faith was always the door. Those who hope to find blessing before God on the basis of their observance of the law will be met with futility (Rom. 7:7-12; Gal. 3:10, 19-22; 5:1-5). The boasting Paul describes as wrong was intimately related to the idea that one’s obedience to the law’s requirements grants one privilege status before God. The idea that Paul opposed Jewish exclusivism and not Jewish legalism can’t be sustained.
As to the “righteousness of God” being characteristic of who He is in keeping His promises rather than a righteousness He gives us, one must ask how this is demonstrated in the text. Venema says that linguistically Paul’s epistles call attention to a judicial nature of God’s action toward His people: He is righteous and He exacts retribution of all His creatures who fail in righteousness (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:21-26). Passages such as Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26: 10:3 indicate that God grants righteousness to believers and that it restores believers to favour with Him. Righteousness acquits believers of condemnation and death and is God’s “gift” (Rom 5:17, Phil. 3:9). And the righteousness of God is closely tied to the righteousness based on faith (Rom. 3:21-26; 10:3). The astonishing part is that the Son would enter into judgment on behalf of the ungodly (Rom. 4:5)—Of course God’s righteousness reveals His covenant faithfulness in securing salvation for His covenant people, but it also reveals the granting of a righteous status to believers on the basis of Christ’s work.
Venema states that while there is undoubtedly an ecclesiastical element to justification, we cannot get away from its soteriological and theological nature, which the NPP denies. Rom. 1-5 isn’t just about who are the covenant people, but how can guilty, culpable sinners subject of condemnation be received by a righteous God. Context helps, and the question Paul goes on to answer is not how can God continue to be righteous when rewarding righteousness, but how can a righteous God be right to justify those deserving only death and condemnation. As Paul describes the courtroom day of wrath before God (Rom. 2) he shows the Jews that they are as guilty as the Gentiles of disobeying the law (2:21-22)—Jews are in just as much trouble as the Gentiles. Ultimately the answer is since no one can be included in the covenant people based on their works of the law, God’s righteousness is demonstrated in providing a savior whose obedience and propitiation becomes the believer’s righteousness, justifying the ungodly (Rom 4:5). In 2 Cor. 5:17 and Rom. 8:1 we clearly see the substitution and imputation of our sins to and from Christ through union with Him. Faith is the instrument of receiving His righteousness (Rom. 3:22; 4:1-5; 5:1; 9:30-10:4; Gal. 2:16). In the final judgment, believers will not be judged by their works, but in accordance with their works—their justification has already taken place, once and for all, their works serve as evidence of this fact.
Venema closes by saying that while the NPP has “helpfully illuminated significant aspects of Paul’s understanding of the gospel,” its claim to be more satisfying than the doctrine of justification returned to at the Reformation is “at best overstated, and at worst clearly wrong.”
The NPP has raised several questions in response to the Reformed understanding of the ordo salutis and justification—ideas dominating Protestant theology for centuries: First, is the doctrine of justification really the central theme of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, or is it something else? Second, was the Pauline attitude toward 1st century Judaism as negative as traditional Protestantism holds? One of the three most significant claims of the NPP is that the Reformation view of justification was built on a false picture of 1st century Judaism. E.P. Sanders argued for a new understanding of Second Temple Judaism called “covenantal nomism,” (oversimplified) that Jewish believers got into the covenant people by grace (unmerited gracious initiative of God), but stayed in by works. Not a religion of legalism, but a religion fundamentally of grace. Contrary to the Reformation interpretation of Paul as combatting legalistic Judaism, Sanders sees Paul’s objection to Judaism as that it rejects the new reality of God’s saving work through Christ. According to Sanders, “what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.” James D.G. Dunn argued for the next leg of the NPP, a redefining of the “works of the law.” If the law was given to Israel, not to procure favor with God, but to confirm the covenant relationship received by grace, then Paul was objecting to Jewish exclusivism and not legalism—the real problem was Jewish use of “works of the law” to exclude Gentiles from covenant community membership. Paul clearly dealt with the Jew’s use of the law served as “boundary markers” and a social means to exclude Gentiles in Gal. 2:15-16 and 3:10-14.
Then N.T. Wright came along, tied it up with a bow, and brought the third leg: the new understanding of justification. For Wright, Sanders and Dunn had proved, contra Reformata, that 1) Jewish legalism was not the norm and 2) the problem with “works of the law” wasn’t legalism but perverted nationalism. Wright claimed that the older Reformed tradition, with its Ordo Salutis, had an inappropriate focus on salvation of individual sinners and exaggerated the importance of the doctrine of justification. For Wright, Paul’s gospel wasn’t about individual justification/salvation, but the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To get away from justification several things have to be true: Wright argued that the “righteousness of God” is God’s covenant faithfulness in action, He reveals this righteous/faithful attribute in keeping His promises to Israel. For Wright, the “righteousness of God”, referring to His faithfulness, can’t be imputed to believers—nothing like imputation needs to occur for God to declare in favour of His people. Because of this, justification, for Wright and the NPP, is not about soteriology as much as it is about ecclesiology; it isn’t how you get into the true people of God, but how you tell who belongs in that community and who is a member of that community. Human sin isn’t the issue being dealt with in justification. But what of Faith? Now that Christ has come and realized the covenant promises of God to Abraham, faith is the badge of membership in God’s universal family, composed of Jews and Gentiles. The law can no longer be used as a badge to keep out Gentiles because faith is the badge, and incorporates them. For Wright, justification should be less a church dividing doctrine, more a doctrine demanding an inclusive view of membership in the one family for God for those in the covenant people. It’s important to note that Wright emphasises eschatological vindication of God’s people in that God acknowledges those in membership with the covenant community in anticipation of “final justification.” This final justification even includes a justification by works, drawn from Rom. 2:13. Gal. 3 is not about Christ suffering the curse of the law in place of His people. Christ’s cross is described as “representative death” and His resurrection as vindication by God, it is representative of Israel’s exile and restoration, but it is not penal-satisfactory atonement imputed to individual believers.
After seeking to carefully lay out the primary claims of the NPP, Venema critically asses the material. Venema argues first that the whole premise of the NPP is based on an exaggerated view of Sanders’ achievement. NPPErs have argued that Second Temple Judaism isn’t Pelagian—but this is obvious since rarely do people claim to pull themselves up to God “by one’s moral bootstraps.” Covenantal nomism, the replacement for the historic understanding of legalistic Judaism, accommodates a form of acceptance with God based on grace plus good works. Elastic semi-Pelagianism at root. The Reformers didn’t oppose Rome on the basis that it was fully Pelagianism, it wasn’t, but on the basis of Rome’s salvation being partly of Christ and partly of human cooperation with grace that includes good works. Venema says that, at the very least, Sander’s exposition of Second Temple Judaism doesn’t need the kind of new understanding that NPP authors propose. Despite attempts to draw distinction, Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” is in reality a close equivalent to historic semi-pelagianism.
As to the claim that “works of the law” refers to the use of the law to keep Gentiles out of
the covenant people wrongfully, Venema succinctly shows that, while certainly Paul says faith in Jesus Christ is the only way into the covenant promises (Gal. 3:10-14, Rom. 3:27-31), Paul's argument goes beyond just the inclusion of Gentiles and loudly affirms that no one, whether Jew or Gentile, can be justified by works of the law since no one can do what the law requires (Gal. 3:10-14; 5:2-4; 6:13; Rom. 2:6; 3:20, 28; 4:2-4: 9:32). To say that since Christ has come it is no longer necessary to submit to the law’s boundary markers is inadequate and forgets the fact that faith was always the door. Those who hope to find blessing before God on the basis of their observance of the law will be met with futility (Rom. 7:7-12; Gal. 3:10, 19-22; 5:1-5). The boasting Paul describes as wrong was intimately related to the idea that one’s obedience to the law’s requirements grants one privilege status before God. The idea that Paul opposed Jewish exclusivism and not Jewish legalism can’t be sustained.
As to the “righteousness of God” being characteristic of who He is in keeping His promises rather than a righteousness He gives us, one must ask how this is demonstrated in the text. Venema says that linguistically Paul’s epistles call attention to a judicial nature of God’s action toward His people: He is righteous and He exacts retribution of all His creatures who fail in righteousness (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:21-26). Passages such as Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26: 10:3 indicate that God grants righteousness to believers and that it restores believers to favour with Him. Righteousness acquits believers of condemnation and death and is God’s “gift” (Rom 5:17, Phil. 3:9). And the righteousness of God is closely tied to the righteousness based on faith (Rom. 3:21-26; 10:3). The astonishing part is that the Son would enter into judgment on behalf of the ungodly (Rom. 4:5)—Of course God’s righteousness reveals His covenant faithfulness in securing salvation for His covenant people, but it also reveals the granting of a righteous status to believers on the basis of Christ’s work.
Venema states that while there is undoubtedly an ecclesiastical element to justification, we cannot get away from its soteriological and theological nature, which the NPP denies. Rom. 1-5 isn’t just about who are the covenant people, but how can guilty, culpable sinners subject of condemnation be received by a righteous God. Context helps, and the question Paul goes on to answer is not how can God continue to be righteous when rewarding righteousness, but how can a righteous God be right to justify those deserving only death and condemnation. As Paul describes the courtroom day of wrath before God (Rom. 2) he shows the Jews that they are as guilty as the Gentiles of disobeying the law (2:21-22)—Jews are in just as much trouble as the Gentiles. Ultimately the answer is since no one can be included in the covenant people based on their works of the law, God’s righteousness is demonstrated in providing a savior whose obedience and propitiation becomes the believer’s righteousness, justifying the ungodly (Rom 4:5). In 2 Cor. 5:17 and Rom. 8:1 we clearly see the substitution and imputation of our sins to and from Christ through union with Him. Faith is the instrument of receiving His righteousness (Rom. 3:22; 4:1-5; 5:1; 9:30-10:4; Gal. 2:16). In the final judgment, believers will not be judged by their works, but in accordance with their works—their justification has already taken place, once and for all, their works serve as evidence of this fact.
Venema closes by saying that while the NPP has “helpfully illuminated significant aspects of Paul’s understanding of the gospel,” its claim to be more satisfying than the doctrine of justification returned to at the Reformation is “at best overstated, and at worst clearly wrong.”
January 29, 2020
A clear, concise, and clear-headed overview and critique of the newer perspectives on Paul through E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and (especially) N.T. Wright.
June 29, 2020
This is a helpful and short summary of the debate between the New Perspective and the Reformation view of the doctrine of justification.
May 18, 2012
This is a fine introduction to and mini critique of the New Perspectives on Paul. Right from the start, Cornelis Venema carefully distinguishes among New "Perspectives," noting that proponents like E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright each make a distinctive contribution to a supposedly fresh view of Paul's doctrine of justification. Venema's approach moves by briefly stating the Reformation view, presenting the arguments of the scholars listed above, and concluding with a thoughtful engagement with the New Perspectives. Venema's book stays clear and to-the-point throughout. The book also helpfully avoids lopsidedness, observing helpful insights in the New Perspectives. The footnotes provide enough relevant literature so that the reader will have a good springboard into deeper study. The strength of Venema's critique lies in its Biblical basis. If you wonder what this controversy is about, start here.
October 24, 2012
Justification has long been, and remains to this day, a hotly contested issue among Christians. Are God’s people justified as the result of Christ’s imputed righteousness or did the authors of the New Testament mean something else by justification? Venema addresses this issue but just barely scratches the surface. While I agree with his position, and the makings of a good book are here, it’s far too short to serve as little more than a primer.
July 23, 2013
Brief and introductory, but a good primer.
March 30, 2017
Helpful, simple to the point introduction to this topic.
October 3, 2014
A good summary introduction to the claims and problems with the new perspectives of Paul
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews