Post Series
1—Introduction
2—Aquinas
3—Luther
4—Calvin
5—Wright
6—Conclusion

The question “How do we become right with God?” has sat at the heart of the Holy Scriptures from the very beginning of the Story. From the very beginning, God has revealed the manner in which a person could become right with Him post-Rebellion. As the Book of Hebrews explains, there was a time when God answered this question by “speaking through the prophets at many times and in various ways;” now, however, God has spoken to the world through His Son Jesus Christ. ((Heb. 1:1.)) In response to this Story, the Christian faith seeks to answer this question, too. While answers have always centered on Jesus and His work on the cross in some fashion, there have been various iterations on the exact process of becoming right with God throughout the Church’s history. From Augustine to Aquinas, Luther and Calvin to Arminias, and more recently from the likes of John Piper to N. T. Wright, the Church has wrestled with this question, framed in the doctrine of justification. In many ways, this ongoing doctrinal conversation reflects the story of Christian theology in general. As Roger Olson puts it, “the story of Christian theology is the story of Christian reflection on salvation.” ((Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 13.)) For centuries the Church has been reflecting on the nature of salvation, of which the above question is a part, an albeit vital one.

This question of becoming right with God in particular has seen a resurgence in recent years with the advent of the so-called New Perspective of Paul. ((Hereafter The New Perspective on Paul will be refereed to as NPP.)) As one theologian has framed this relatively recent conversation, “Not since the sixteenth century has the doctrine of justification stood so clearly at the center of theological debate as it does today.” ((Bruce L. McCormack, “Preface” in Justification in Perspective(Ed. Bruce L. McCormack; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 8.)) Another considers the subject matter of this debate so “serious” that he wrote an entire book in order to preserve its future and mitigate the threats he sees from those who would offer new perspectives in answer to this most central question to the Christian faith. ((John Piper, The Future of Justification(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 14.)) Others, who are the fountainhead out of which this conversation flows, are frustrated with particular readings of Paul with which the broader Protestant and evangelical church have gone along, ones they say distort how Paul himself would answer our initial question. ((N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul” in Justification in Perspective(Ed. Bruce L. McCormack; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 263.)) James Dunn ((James D.G. Dunn is a New Testament scholar at the University of Durham, England and a major contributor to the New Perspective on Paul conversation. He does not approach our question from a systematic or historical point-of-view, but rather through a biblical studies approach.)) explains that while they affirm the doctrine of justification by grace through faith “is and remains absolutely fundamental for Christian faith,” they are concerned that the doctrine Luther rediscovered and reasserted—a doctrine consistently set forth by Protestantism—has neglected important aspects of Paul’s original intent. ((James D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.). 21, 22.)) Hence, they take a new perspective on Paul.

In short, NPP is providing a significant reevaluation of the central question that triggered the Protestant Reformation and which has remained vital to Christian theology itself. The spark that ignited this reevaluation was provided by E. P. Sanders in his landmark book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. In it he gave NT scholarship a new perspective on Second Temple Judaism by explaining that the Judaism of Paul’s day was not obsessed with works righteousness, as many Protestants had assumed, but rather existed in a relationship characterized by his so-called “covenantal nomism.” ((Dunn, New Perspective, 6. The term “covenantal nomism” is described as “indicating the inter-relationship between divine initiative (covenant) and human response (nomism) which [Paul] saw to be so characteristic of Judaism.”)) “The nub of the criticism is that westerners tended to read Paul in the light of the deeply ingrained assumptions of modern individualism, failing to appreciate that Paul inhabited a significantly different world.” ((Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 419.))

Proponents of NPP contend two very important revisions to the long-held assumptions to the doctrine of justification: 1) Justification cannot be regarded as either the center of Paul’s thought or Christianity; and 2) Contrasting the assumed view post-Reformation that was rooted in Luther’s reaction to Catholicism, the situation envisioned by Paul in working out his doctrine of justification by faith is not a universal human self-righteousness, but a specifically Jewish concern about the covenantal limits of the people of God. ((McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 420.)) Though specific arguments related to the text and its historical background are best handled in a different context by biblical theologians, we can examine how the Church has understood the issue of justification historically. Given the current tectonic affects contemporary Second Temple Judaism and Pauline studies are having on how one understands the doctrine of justification, a historical comparative examination is necessary.

This examination aims to present an historical comparative examination between four theologians that sit at the heart of this discussion: Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and N. T. Wright. These particular four represent some of the greatest iterations in the historical progression of how the Church has answered the vital question, “How can we become right with God?” Thomas Aquinas stands out as the “scholastic thinker par excellence” who had an inestimable impact on Roman Catholic theology and was one of their single greatest theologians, to which the Reformation later responded. ((Olson, Christian Theology, 331.)) Martin Luther is best known for offering a theology in response to how the Thomistic tradition and Catholic Church answered the question, a theology which centered around the “affirmation of the forgiveness of sins through the utterly unmerited grace of God made possible through the cross of Christ.” ((Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1950), 50.)) Likewise, John Calvin’s doctrine of justification, the most significant contribution to the development of early Reformed theology, ((Alaster E. McGrath, Iustitia Die (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 253.))) responded to the prevailing Medieval view by correcting, revising, and extending Luther’s original remarks. ((Karla Wübbenhorst, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification,” in Justification in Perspective (Ed. Bruce L. McCormack; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 100.)) Together these three theologians provide the foundation for contemporary NPP efforts at responding to how the Church has answered our question.

“In all this time the discussion of justification by faith in Christian theology has still been principally determined by the issues posed by the Reformation and the consequent debate between Catholic and Protestant.” ((James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 337.)) Into the fray of this theological debate has stepped a New Testament scholar with a new perspective on Paul, and thus a new perspective on justification and answering our question: N. T. Wright. In one of his newest books that directly establishes his counter perspective, Wright responds to the Reformers and contemporary followers in an effort to reorient the Church around a more first century Jewish understanding of Paul. Ultimately, Wright argues against the prevailing Protestant answer to our question, while borrowing from the Catholic one, in an effort to reorient the Church around what he perceives is a proper biblical understanding of Paul and the nature of justification by faith.