A Key Error in the New Perspective on Paul

The following helpful and informative article was written by ARC staff member Brandon Robbins concerning the NPP, especially in its view of the conditional and unconditional covenants of God. This article will also be published in the latest Areopagus Journal on "Three Apologists Every Christian Should Know."

More often than not, the answer to a theological disagreement comes down to a proper interpretation of scripture. The following article is focused on some of the issues involved in interpreting the concept of “covenant” in Scripture. This question of “covenant” has taken center stage in many theological discussions today. Within reformed circles for example there is a group that calls itself the “Federal Vision.” This group (comprised of mostly North American Presbyterians) focuses on the objective nature of the covenant and the covenant people of God. Seeking to free us from our self-involved individualism, Federal Vision concentrates on the corporate nature of salvation. Some within this group also have loose connections to a broader movement known as the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). NPP goes well outside North American Presbyterians to include academic institutions around the globe. Those who follow NPP claim that the church has misunderstood much of Paul since the time of Luther and the other reformers. At its heart, this controversy questions our traditional understanding of Saint Paul and salvation’s covenantal roots.

My purpose here is to explore the biblical concept of covenant. I will defend one theological point that, if true, overthrows many of the erroneous ideas we find in NPP and some aspects of Federal Vision.

Two Types of Covenant Structures
Michael Horton in recently claimed that the covenants we find in scripture can be understood as falling into one of “Two kinds of arrangements: conditional covenants that impose obligations and unconditional covenants that announce a divine promise.”[1] First, let us look at an example of an unconditional covenant promise:

“When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates…” Gen. 15:17-18

Here God makes an unconditional covenant promise of land to Abram. The interesting point in this passage is that God places all obligations upon himself for Abram obtaining the land. In fact, we see in this passage an image of God as a smoking pot and flaming torch passing through the sacrificed halves of animals representing that God himself will meet the obligation of this covenant. In this passage, God literally states, “If you Abram don’t receive the land, let me (the LORD Himself) be split in half (put to death) like these animals.” This passage is a picture of Christ (by His death) securing our salvation apart from any effort on the part of the individual. According to Horton, this type of covenant promise is a picture of a royal grant.[2] A royal grant is a promise the realization of which is secured by the giver (a king) of the promise. Not only is the covenant with Abraham unconditional but it is also eternal. In Genesis 17:7 we read: “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” (My emphasize)This royal grant is given as an eternal promise and God alone will meet the conditions.

But, is this the only structure or type of covenant we find God making with people in scripture? No. Second, Horton also demonstrates what is called a conditional covenant, as seen in the following passage:

“If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” Deu. 30:16

Here God is calling the people of Israel to obey his commandments if they are to be blessed in the land. The implication is that if they do not obey, they will not possess the land and will not be blessed within it. God provides a covenant here, but only for a time to the people of Israel on the condition of obedience. But they did not obey; they failed to meet the conditions of that covenant. Does that mean that every individual failed to obtain eternal personal salvation? No, because that covenant was never meant to bring individuals to salvation. The covenant of law given to Moses at Sinai was to be a guardian or tutor leading people to the promise that had come to Abraham earlier.[3]

NPP on Covenant Salvation
So, is our hope today conditional or unconditional? To put it another way, is our hope for ultimate blessing based upon the promise and the promise Giver or on our own personal faithfulness to the obligations imposed? What does Abram have to do with Moses? How do we understand the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant? Forgoing the numerous theological considerations involved here, I want to focus on one central issue. If we assume that there are two kinds of covenantal arrangements, we simply need to answer this question: Is the covenantal pattern of eternal salvation: conditional or unconditional?

The NPP believes that “salvation” has always been understood on a conditional model. The following is how NPP interprets salvation under the covenant given to Moses:

“(1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last point is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.”[4]

This pattern shown above is known as Covenantal Nomism, which clearly follows a conditional understanding of one’s “right standing” before God. In the 8th part above you see that mercy only comes to those who are obedient to the covenant. This is believed by NPP followers to be how Paul understands salvation before Christ. What is even more disconcerting is that it is also close to the pattern of salvation they believe for the Christian now. Let us look at N.T. Wright’s definition of justification:

“Those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people, his elect, and ‘the circumcision.’ ‘The Jews’, ‘the Israel of God’. They are given the status dikaios, ‘righteous’, ‘within the covenant.’”[5]

“The whole point about ‘justification by faith’ is that it is something which happens in the present time (Rom. 3:26) as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future (Rom. 2:1-16).”[6]

For Wright and other New Paul theologians, the Christian life is played out much like the life of the Jews of ancient Israel. Being brought out of the bondage of sin (Egypt) we are now obligated to follow the law. If we are faithful covenant members throughout our lives then we will be declared righteous. Yes, they claim that this entire enterprise is of grace. They believe this because the law is only given after we have been brought out of bondage. Yet, it is still based on performance or proper participation in the covenant that is the guarantee of salvation. A person is righteous as long as he/she remains a faithful member of the community of God. Justification is already proclaimed only in the sense that it is an anticipation of a final declaration after one has been faithful throughout his life.

What is the Error?
At the end of the day we have an error in interpreting the concept of covenant. What NPP, Federal Vision, Theonomist and others of the same ilk fail to appreciate and consider is the other kind of covenantal structure we find in scripture. And they attempt to force a conditional structure upon the whole biblical narrative. Paul tells us of the limited nature of the law of Moses: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Gal. 3:23-25). The law as a guardian was to lead us to knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20) and also guide us back to the earlier promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3; Rom. 4). It can be said that by their obedience Israel could have remained in the land and received blessing, but not eternal salvation. Our security in our own personal salvation rests not in our continuing obedience (salvation has never been obtain in that way), but the obedience of our Savior. Christ walked in the midst of the pieces on behalf of those who put their faith and trust in Him. Christ fulfilled the eternal promises given to Abraham and put no condition on them! “It is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is a gift from God” (Eph. 2:8). The author of Hebrews sums it up well:

“But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6).


[1] Horton, Michael, God of Promise, p. 36
[2] Ibid., p. 41
[3] Rom. 3:20 “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” Also see Romans 4:12-16; Gal. 3:23-26.

[4] Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 422
[5] Wright, N.T., Paul, p. 122
[6] Ibid, p. 57

The Da Vinci Code Gets C+

The opening weekend has come...and gone.

The Da Vinci Code ranked first (not surprisingly) for the weekend with $77,073,388 in ticket sales (13th best opening weekend ever in the USA and 2nd best ever worldwide). Interestingly, in spite of the high sales, professional critics and viewers alike are giving the movie low marks. Some say its is boring, some say slow, some say too talky.

Who really cares?

The movie / story / plot is a major side issue. The problem is not that the movie was so popular or that it was deemed forgettable as a movie. The problem has never had anything to do with the part of the story that is obvious fiction. The problem is and will remain the theory about Jesus' life that underlies the story. A theory that author Dan Brown has professed to personally believe to be true.

Christians must be able to see the distinction between the story (Robert Langdon and company) and the theory. How people grade the movie does not change the theory. Keep in mind, this is not the only fairytale (with no historical substantiation) that people are believing about Jesus and the early church. There are many dreamers out there who are promoting made-up views, disguised as scholarly work. Just consider the productions of the Jesus Seminar.

The Da Vinci Code has come and it is now on the way out. Much like buying a new car, the second you drive it off the lot, it begins to dimish greatly in value. So it is with movies and books. However, the impact of teaching theories that have no historical grounding and no truth within will continue to grind upon the minds of those blinded by the god of this age. It will come in waves and in different forms.

Will you be able to discern truth from error, carefully examining and weighing evidence or will you be swept away in the tide of error that leads to destruction?

Craig Branch's Veritas on Logic

The following article is by ARC director Craig Branch describing the content of the latest Areopagus Journal on logic (March - April 2006).

There is a scene early on in C.S. Lewis’s novel The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in which the character Lucy has just returned from her first journey into Narnia and has told her siblings about this magical place.

Peter and Susan come to their guardian, Professor Kirke, concerned about Lucy. The Professor asks, “What were you doing in the Wardrobe?” Peter responds, “You wouldn’t believe us if we told you.” The Professor responds, “Try me.” As they skeptically relate Lucy’s story, the Professor challenges their assumption that Lucy is making it up. Susan asks, “Are you saying that we should believe her story?” He answers, “Why not?” Susan tells him, “Well, logically it’s impossible!” “Logic!” said the Professor, “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it’s obvious she is not mad. For the moment then, and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

Professor Kirke is encouraging his wards to truly apply the principles of logic to the case at hand—in which case, they would see that it is not illogical to believe Lucy’s tale. C.S. Lewis uses a similar logical “trilemma” in Mere Christianity to argue for the deity of Christ – Jesus, he argued, was either Lord, liar, or lunatic.

This issue of Areopagus Journal is about logic. When our staff decided to cover this topic, my apologist’s cynicism gave rise to anxiety. Will our readers even bother to read it? Or worse, will people not renew their subscriptions? Won’t people perceive it to be too dry, too academic, or even irrelevant? But continue to read and I believe you will perceive and understand the vital relevance of this topic.

Who Cares? Let’s begin with a few definitions of logic.

1. Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. [An Argument] is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe a conclusion. (1)

2. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. . . .The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals. (2)

3. Logic is the study of the methods by which the conclusion is proved beyond all doubt. Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true. In technical language, logic is the science of necessary inference. From such and such premises the conclusion necessarily follows. (3)

Why study logic? The use of and the need for logic is unavoidable and indispensable. One cannot not use it. Logic is a fundamental and necessary component of epistemology (the study of knowing how to know anything truly). Thoughts or conclusions usually result in choices and actions. Ideas have consequences for individuals, for relationships, for society and culture. Everyone needs to use basic logical laws to reason clearly and communicate coherently. If logic is disregarded or even disdained, then the ability to discern truth is lost, and the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, will also disappear. The rejection of logic means the end of morality. If one cannot distinguish any of the above categories then there is no basis for morality!

This fact is becoming more and more clear in both Eastern and Western cultures. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and the various “New Age” cults make the truth claim (which in itself is a contradiction) that reality is non-dualistic—i.e. there is no absolute truth, no ultimate right or wrong, evil or good. Likewise, the West’s drift into postmodernism posits the similar idea that our finitude makes it impossible to say for sure what is true.

Without knowledge and use of logic one could not point out the emptiness and irrationality of statements like, “All truths are half-truths,” “There are no absolute truths,” “All truth’s are relative,” or “To claim you are right is intolerant and bigoted.” These statements are as self-refuting as statements about “Square circles,” or sentences like “I can’t speak or write a word of English,” “I only accept statements that are five words or less and no more,” and “All generalizations are false.”

The knowledge of sound logic is necessary for the Christian in two ways. First, we are commanded to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength (Mark 12:30). So, the study of logic is not optional because we are called and expected to seek understanding of God’s revealed truth and live in obedience to that truth.

The second necessity for knowledge and the use of logic is to better engage unbelief, both in unregenerate persons and in the cultural systems that are antithetical to God’s truth. So, logic is a component of apologetics.

Even though God has ordained His elect to be saved, He has also ordained the means by which they are saved. Regeneration and conversion happen at a point in time, but preceding that point there is almost always a process. No one comes to the Father except the Holy Spirit draws him (John 6:44), but that drawing is a process. The means that God has ordained are various: Christians living out their faith as a “sweet aroma” (2 Cor. 2:5, Acts 2:44-48), Christians speaking forth the gospel (2 Cor. 5:17-21; Matt. 28:18-20), and Christians reasoning, persuading, and using argumentation in correcting wrong beliefs (2 Tim. 2:23-26; 2 Cor. 5:11; Acts 18:, 19; 19:8; 28:23-24; 17:17-34).

Because we live in a world full of influences that shape the way we think, reason, and act, we need to take much more seriously the need to develop the disciplines to be good Christian thinkers so that we can be an effective part of the processes God has ordained to bring His elect to saving faith. As J.P. Moreland observes, Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-formed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the make up man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into 30-second soundbites. (4)

In order to help the reader see the practical relevance of a study of logic, let me discuss a specific theological and apologetic issue that a proper understanding of logic can illuminate. I refer to the doctrine of the trinity. Christians believe that the self revelation of the triune nature of God is essential to worshipping the one true God as opposed to the myriad of false, man-made gods.

But most cults, false religions, and skeptics deny and attack our belief in the triune nature of God. Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals and Muslims often display an inadequate understanding of this doctrine. And some of them resort to the twisting of Scripture to undermine the biblical teaching on the trinity. In addition to a thorough understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, we need to be prepared to apply sound principles of logical reasoning to respond to the cultist’s and skeptic’s misuse of logic in attempting to disprove the trinity.

God in His Word reveals that there is only one true God and many false gods. He reveals that His Being is uniquely triune by nature. The classic formulation of this doctrine is that God is one being consisting of three distinct Persons, each person sharing one divine substance (homoousios).

At this point come the attacks. “So you’re saying that the Father is one Person and is one in substance. Then you say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinct Persons. Then they must be each distinct substances—three different gods. Or perhaps you mean that each Person is part of God, so that 1/3+1/3+1/3 =1. Or maybe you are saying 1+1+1= 1—which is irrational. For example John, David, and Bill are each human persons. John is not David, David is not Bill, and John is not Bill, and they are not one human being, but three. So, how can God be three Persons, yet one God? It’s illogical.”

Another attempt to (mis)characterize the trinity as irrational goes as follows:

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
5. There is one and only one God.

According to numbers 1,2,3,5 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one thing. But according to #4, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate things. Unfortunately, Christians often use faulty analogies to try to explain the triune God. For example, you have probably heard the following: “God is like an egg. You have the shell, the albumen (white part), and the yoke, yet just one egg.” But that is a false analogy. You end up with tripartitism (1/3+1/3+1/3=1).

Or another false analogy is: “I am one person, but I am a father, a son, and a brother all at the same time.” This analogy illustrates an early heresy in the Church called modalistic Monarchianism in which God is one Person who appears in three different roles. So is the charge of skeptics and cultists a valid one? Is the revelation of the trinity illogical and irrational, violating the law of non-contradiction (“A” cannot be “non-A” at the same time and in the same way)?

Before I begin to demonstrate the logical coherency of the revelation of the triune God, it is important to note a couple of things. It is one thing to defend the revelatory belief against charges of logical incoherence and another thing to prove it is true. It is still another thing to explain thoroughly or completely how, in this case, God is to be understood. We cannot prove through logic alone that the doctrine of the trinity is true. Nor can we as finite, fallen human beings have a complete understanding of God’s triune nature—there will always be an element of mystery here. Nonetheless, we can know enough, using good logic, to know that the doctrine of the trinity is not illogical or absurd.

God reveals that He is one being. And He has revealed Himself to consist of three distinct Persons (having self-consciousness and other communicable attributes) in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is not three beings (or “things”) but one being. Yet, despite appearances, these truths are not contradictory. We may see this by use of a simple illustration. Consider an individual human being—call him John. How many beings is John? One being, of course. How many persons is John? He is one person. Now consider a chair. How many beings is a chair? One being, of course. (A “being” is defined as something having existence.) But, how many persons is the chair? Zero. The chair is not a person at all. So, if a being can be one person and less than one person at the same time, there is no logical contradiction in saying that a being could be more than one person at the same time. The same argument can be made for three persons existing as one substance. (5)

Contradictions in the Bible? There are many texts in the Bible that critics say are contradictory. The following list provides a few examples of some of these “problem” texts:

Jesus asks the Father not to lead us into temptation (Matt. 6:13) yet God tempts no one (Jas 1:13).
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Matt.7:21), yet whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10:13).
God is all powerful (omnipotent), He can do anything, yet God cannot sin.
Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), yet the Father is greater than Jesus (John 14:28).
Jesus was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), yet Jesus was a man approved by God (Acts 2:22).

All of these alleged contradictions arise because the Bible critic has engaged either in faulty interpretation or faulty reasoning (either bad hermeneutics or bad logic). This is another area where a study of logic can be helpful.

Sometimes, as with the doctrine of the trinity, skeptics seek to undermine Christian beliefs by formulating arguments designed to show our beliefs to be false or unreasonable. Here are some further examples:

The Bible is written by human authors.
Humans err.
Therefore, the Bible has errors.

God is eternal and immortal and therefore cannot die.
Jesus died.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Jesus was a human being.
All humans sin.
Therefore, Jesus sinned.

If God is all powerful, He would be able to prevent or eliminate evil.
If God were all good, He would want to prevent or eliminate evil.
So if God were both all good and all powerful, there would be no evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, there is no all powerful or all good God.

Again, confronted with these challenges, it is incumbent upon the Christian to learn how to think clearly and correctly. ARC has published earlier issues of Areopagus Journal that are foundational to this calling. One is an issue on the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible (“The Breath of God”—January 2002). Another is on epistemology, the discipline of how and why we know truth (“How Do We Know?”—April 2002). The difficult problem of evil and suffering is addressed as well (“Why, Lord?”—May-June 2005). We also have an issue on biblical canonicity (“Do We Have the Right Books?”—November-December 2005). This was followed by our last issue (“Biblical Interpretation”—January-February 2006) which deals with the science and art of proper interpretation of the Bible. The knowledge conveyed in these journals underscore our need expressed by the Psalmist, “Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart” (Ps. 119:34), and the application of Jesus’ prayer for us, “Father sanctify them in the truth, for Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).

This issue of Areopagus Journal will build on the concepts introduced in past journals by giving you the tools to use good logic (think and reason well) and to point out the faulty logic and reasoning of unbelief. The first article is by W. Jay Wood, Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College, entitled, “Virtue & Knowledge.” In this article, Jay explains the connection between the acquisition of knowledge (and avoidance of error) and the development of good habits of thinking known as intellectual virtues.

ARC’s Steve Cowan writes, “Minding Your P’s and Q’s: A Primer on Logic for Christians.” In this article, Steve lays out the basic principles of logic and the most common forms of rational argumentation. He also points out some common fallacies that should be avoided.

Picking up on the theme of fallacies, Roy Massie, a graduate student at Birmingham Theological Seminary, contributes the article, “Don’t Be Deceived: An Informal Introduction to Informal Fallacies.” Roy explains and illustrates several of the most common misuses of human language and rhetoric designed to lead people astray.

NOTES1. Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 4th ed., (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1991), 1.2. Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., (New York: MacMillan, 1986), 3, 5.3. Gordon H. Clark, Logic, 2nd ed. (Jefferson MD: Trinity Foundation, 1985), 1.4. J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997), 21. I would add to Moreland’s list “illogical rhetoric.”5. For a thorough Scriptural exposition on the revelation of the Triune God, ask us for our free information packet on the Trinity (click here to request online, or 866-403-0102), and see the article by Ron Rhodes, “Defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity against the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Areopagus Journal 5:4 (July-August 2005): 23-28.

Dealing with The Da Vinci Code

The interest level in The Da Vinci code seems to be at a high peak. In preparation for the May 19 release of the movie, there is a tsunami of books, articles, videos, and other forms of media both for and against the theory underlying the book. The purpose of this post is to make a couple of unique (I hope) points concerning this event.

First, the hope of all believers in Jesus Christ should not be only to defend our faith and the Word of God, but also to see Dan Brown come to Christ. I am afraid that we sometimes allow our anger to be the driving fuel as we lash out against error. And yes, Dan Brown has made major historical errors, attempting to pass them off as fact. This clear disregard for truth does get under our skin, certainly it gets under mine, especially when unthinking people buy into his theory. Quite frankly, it feels like stepping on a nail and feeling the metal slowly creep up into the flesh, muscle, and bone of the foot.

Nonetheless, our driving conviction should not be to prove Dan Brown wrong or anybody who follows him. We should rather be praying that Brown be saved. Perhaps his encounters with the Word of God (though his motivation is to attack) would be used of the Spirit to reveal the living Christ to Him. Perhaps the Lord Jesus will show Brown that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads" (Acts 26:14).

Second, I want to simply point out the weak nature of the attacks against the Bible and historic Christianity in The Da Vinci Code. To some, it may seem that Brown's attacks are so sophisticated and complex that the average Christian cannot deal with them. This is not so. You do not have to be a trained historian to know that you need evidence before you make an assertion. If, for example, you say that Jesus was married, then you need to have something to back that up. Brown has nothing. He might say, "Oh, but what about The Last Supper." Sorry, Mr. Brown, reading hidden codes out of a centuries old work of art doesn't count - it is too ambiguous. He might say, "What about the Gospel of Philip?" Sorry, Mr. Brown, it was written nearly a century after Jesus' life. Whoever wrote that work was part of a twisted cult group and was using the person of Jesus to support his own religious claims.

You might be asking, "What should I say if I get into a conversation with someone about The Da Vinci Code?" It is simple really. Just make it abundantly clear that there is not a shred of historical evidence for this fantasy-land theory. The factual claims that Brown makes are just as fictional as the fiction itself.