Just in case anyone cares what us PCA'ers think (which most people outside the PCA probably don't), our denominational website hosts a monthly (translate - "monthly or whenever we can think of a new topic to debate) umpired debate. Our current debate is on the topic of justification, with particular reference to the New Perspective on Paul.
These debates always begin with a paper, or a set of papers on the varying positions on the particular issue. This month, the debate is kicked off with a single paper, by the venerable Reggie Kidd, my old New Testament prof at RTS-Orlando. One of the things that Reggie said in his essay was:
Before the older and newer readings of Paul get too quickly set against each other, however, we need to see how the language of "righteousness" and "justification" (in Greek, the same word serves for "justification" and "righteousness") actually works. When it comes to the apostle Paul, we'll find that a logic of "not only, but also" helps us much better than one of "not that, but this."
Jeff Meyers is the pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian in St. Louis and has been involved in the Federal Vision and New Perspective Debates in the PCA. He quoted the above in a comment on the debate, then said:
It seems to me that we have to be open to "fill out" our understanding of Paul's teaching on justification based on a fresh reading of the NT. This does NOT mean that we have to replace what is true in the traditional formulations; but we do have to be open to admit that Paul's understanding of justification included more than simply the status of the individual in relationship to God. It can never be less than this, but it seems to invlove so much more. After all, Paul's letter to the Galatians was called forth because of divisions in the body of Christ in Galatia--they weren't eating together!
Assuming that his statement "This
does NOT mean that we have to replace what is true in the traditional
formulations" does not mean he thinks that the traditional formulations
have untrue statements in them, I find nothing with which to disagree
in that particular comment. I am not familiar with what else Pastor Meyers and others have said about this, and there may be some nuances to that statement of which I am unaware. But in and of itself, I agree with the statement.
Those of us who are in confessional traditions, whether we be
Presbyterian, Lutheran or whatever, affirm that said confessional
statements are true, but not exhaustive. I personally believe that the
Westminster (and several other confessional statements) formulas on
justification are true, but they don't say all that needs to be said
about the matter.
So, I'll be following this closely and encourage you to do the same.
David:
There are a trio of lectures by D.A. Carson available at this site:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/new_perspective.html
In case you didn't already know.
Posted by: Mike | June 11, 2005 at 01:16 AM