The Modern Assault on Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

In addition to sola scriptura probably the doctrine most characteristic of Protestantism is justification by faith alone. This was what really brought about the break from Rome. Rome has held to a synergistic view of justification faith+works, so the idea that we are saved by faith wasn't repulsive it was the alone (That really is Rome's beef with all the five solas). So were the reformers right in adding the "alone" faith?

Scripture certainly seems to be in favor of a faith based justification as we see in numerous places:

"And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness," (Rom 4:5)

"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." (Rom 1:17)

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Rom 3:28)

These are but a few examples of scriptures that led the Reformers to abandon Rome's system of justification, scripture seems to teach that man is justified by faith apart from works (or alone). It has been held by orthodox Protestantism that by faith in Christ we actually receive the righteousness of Christ (His perfect life lived in our place) while on the cross Christ takes our guilt/sin upon Himself, a double exchange. It is this part of justification that is under attack today, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It is this part of justification by faith that has been challenged in recent years. The challenge is spearheaded by protestant who argue for a "New Perspective on Paul". The most well known New Perspective voice is Anglican theologian N.T Wright.

New Perspective in a Nutshell:

I am trying to be as succinct as possible on the NP issue to make this into a single post. Phil Johnson in a lecture on the NP notes five distinctives of Wright's NP of Paul:

1) We have misunderstood 1st century Judaism.
2) We have misinterpreted Paul's argument with the Judaizers.
3) We have mistaken what Paul meant by "The works of the law."
4) We have misconstrued Paul's doctrine of justification by faith.
5) We have misread what Paul wrote when he spoke of "The righteousness of God."

To clarify this a little more, by saying we have misunderstood 1st century Judaism the NP means that 1st century Judaism really wasn't a works based righteousness system as is often viewed. Rather 1st century Jews had a strong emphasis on divine grace. We misinterpreted Paul's arguments with the Judaizers in the sense that Paul wasn't arguing how one becomes a Christian, the problem he addresses is should X pagan converts be circumcised. "The Works of the law" in Wright's understanding Paul did not mean the moral requirements of the law, rather he meant the ceremonial such as circumcision, feasts etc (What about Romans 7 where Pauls specifically talks about covetousness?). Fourthly, a big one, the NP states that in Paul's mind justification had nothing to do with someone's rightstanding with God, as it was about how we come together as a covenant community. The "righteousness of God" is not an asset that can be imputed, rather it is merely God's covenant faithfulness.

Thus, if Wright is right evangelicals have the gospel all wrong, he says:
"The gospel is not one gets saved in an individual and historical sense."

Justification therefore is based on covenantal unity, God's righteousness to the believer is His faithfulness, this seems to make justification a process, rather than an event which Wright clearly rejects. There is no imputation of righteousness to the believer in the NP, righteousness is not something which can properly be imputed (This of course raises questions about what did Christ's cross actually do? Wright is fairly silent on this although he has endorsed a book which argues that the imputation of our sins upon Christ to appease the wrath of God, is Divine child abuse). It is this one area of the NP that I want to address, if the stuff above has whet your interest to understand this NP more (and arguments against its scholarship) check out this page at Monergism.

How the NP and Wright get Justification Wrong:

I am only going to deal with the erroneous views of justification and imputation here, which in part are:
1) Justification in Paul's mind is not an event so much as a process, 2) Justification in Paul's mind is not having to deal with a sinners standing with God so much as a community. 3) Justification does not involve a transfer of "the righteousness of God" to sinners (imputation).

1) The NP gets justification wrong by describing it in a non-historic fashion, justification is not something that has happened to believers as it is happening. Again this is the New Perspective on Paul, so how does Paul describe justification? I think in two ways, a) As a past event and b) as a future pronouncement at the final judgment.

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:1)

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." (Rom 5:9)

Justification is described by Paul in a past tense, it clearly is an event that has taken place with believers which also has future ramifications. These two verses are also a serious problem to the NP's view on 2).

2) Justification int the NP view is not so much dealing with the sinners standing with God as it does talk about the sinners entrance into the community of the Church and acting as a community member should. Thus, justification is a process not an event. This "process" sort of think looses its footing when we see justification described by Paul in terms of "having been", continuous processes can't be described in a perfect past tense. Anyway, problems from Paul with point #2:

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:1)

I cite Romans 3:20 and 5:1 to show that justification in Paul's mind is vertical not horizontal as Wright asserts, it has everything to do with man's rightstanding with God. Man's sinfulness and guilt and God's wrath and justice, are on a collision course so to speak. Yet if historic prostestantism is right Christ comes and credits His righteousness to those who believe in Him, thus God is just in letting the guilty go free for they deserve nothing less, because in Christ they are not guilty. This brings us to 3.

3) Another major point of departure of the NP from historic Protestantism is a denial of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I will focus on this more heavily than the above two. Does the bible teach that Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who have faith in Him? Wright asserts that the only passage that might seem to teach this is 1 Cor 1:30. I agree that 1 Cor 1:30 certainly seems to teach imputation but that is not the only nor the most clear passage on this issue. There are several passages that deal with this matter:

"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Rom 8:3-4)

Here it seems apparent that based upon Christ's finished work the law is fulfilled in some people (those who have faith in Christ).

"It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." (Rom 4:24-25)

Christ was delivered for our trespasses and raised for our justification and it is counted (imputed) to us by faith.

"He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." (1 Cor 1:30)

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (1 Cor 5:21)

With the last two verses I think it is clear that Christ was delivered to take our sin and impart His righteousness to us. You would have to do some serious exegetical tricks to get around the clear cut meaning of 2 Cor 5:21. Before I end the post though I don't want this to be a mere defense of the right answer, we need to treasure the doctrine of imputation. A good way to do that is to see how this doctrine radically transforms lives. This doctrine is a tremendous freedom giver to the guilty conscience. John Bunyan comes to my mind, Bunyan struggled with a stark uncertainty of his standing with God until the truth of Christ's imputed righteousness broke in upon his wavering soul, Bunyan writes:

"One day as I was passing into the field . . . this sentence fell upon my soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And methought, withal, I saw with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God's right hand; there, I say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, God could not say of me, he wants [lacks] my righteousness, for that was just before [in front of] him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, "The same yesterday, today and, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Now did my chains fall off my legs indeed. I was loosed from my afflictions and irons; my temptations also fled away; so that from that time those dreadful scriptures of God left off to trouble me; now went I also home rejoicing for the grace and love of God." (John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, [Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1978, orig. 1666], pp. 90-91)

The truth that broke Bunyan's bonds of despair as he saw his guilt before a holy God was the truth of Christ's imputed righteousness. The imputed righteousness doctrine teaches that Christ's righteousness is our righteousness by faith. Thus, our consciences can rest for the guilt that we so often see is now covered in the righteousness of Christ given (imputed) to us. We by faith alone in Christ are holy and without blame before God on account of Christ's righteousness in our behalf, this is what it means to be justified by faith.