The theologians who support the New Perspective on Paul challenge Reformers' interpretation of the relationship between first century Judaism and Paul. According to the Reformers, first century Judaism is a legalism and for the reason, Paul opposes the Judaism and as an alternative, proposes 'Justification by faith alone.' However, the theologians who follow the New Perspective on Paul assert that the Reformers' view has resulted from the misinterpretation of Paul. According to them, first century Judaism is not a legalism but a religion of grace in which believers enter by grace and stay by observing the law. They thus call it covenantal nomism, which is regarded as a religion of grace, because it is initiated by grace. N. T. Wright modifies the traditional doctrine of justification through E. P. Sanders' 'covenantal nomism' and 'the works of the law' by James D. G. Dunn. In other words, covenantal nomism and the works of the law are presuppositions for Wright's modification against the Reformers' justification. Wright claims that justification is not a category of salvation, but as a declaration that one has already entered in the covenantal community. For Wright justification is not a category of soteriology but of ecclesiology. So, Wright excludes justification from Gospel. Gospel is not a method of salvation but only declaration that Jesus is the Messiah and the Lord.
Wright's justification is a dual justification in which an eschatological meaning is connotative. According to him, the present justification which is an anticipation of the future verdict occurs by faith, responding in believing obedience to the call of the gospel and the final justification occurs on the basis of the entire life which has been led in the power of the Spirit in the future. Therefore, the present justification means that a person is given verdict of belonging to a covenantal community at present and the final justification is given to a person on the basis of the works which cooperates with the works of the Spirit in the future.
Wright regards a religious system which implies covenantal nomism and dual Justification as a religion of grace. The reason is that this religious system has a initiative of grace and the works of saints cooperates with the Spirit. I view that this religious system offered by the New Perspective on Paul is not so much a religion of grace as a religion of merit, because covenantal nomism's conditionality and Wright's the cause of justification have the tendency of merit. Therefore, the goal of this dissertation is to prove my thesis that covenant nomism considered as a religion of grace by the New Perspective on Paul is not a real religion of grace, but a semi-pelagian legalism. To achieve my goa, I analyze the conditionality in relation to the covenantal nomism and dual justification and compare the conditionality of the New Perspective on Paul with that of the Reformed in relation to the covenant of grace and justification. This analysis and comparison reveal the heterogeneity of both camps. So through this study, we discover that one side is a 'religion of gratia(grace)' but other side a 'religion of sola gratia(only grace).'
The main argument of this dissertation is centered on Wright's Justification but E. P. Sanders' covenantal nomism and James D. G. Dunn's reinterpretation of 'the works of the law' as presuppositions of Wright's Justification are dealt with against the background of Wright's theology. Especially the analysis of the conditionality is concentrated on the category of the doctrine of justification and of the covenant theology. In other words, my argument in this dissertation is carried out through the covenantal explanation on the doctrine of justification.
In order to prove my thesis this dissertation consists of five chapters. In chapter one, I introduced my motives of study, thesis of my dissertation, terminology, methodology, scope of my study, outline, and recent theological trends.
In chapter two, I surveyed the conception of the covenant nomism and the justification proposed by the most influential three theologians, namely E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. Especially according to my thesis, I analyzed the meaning of the conditionality implied in covenantal nomims and dual justification. This job is the spadework for comparing the conditionality of the New Perspective on Paul with that of the Reformed theology. Through this job, I proved that the covenantal nomism is not a religion of grace and that this system of salvation is a semi-pelagian one.
In chapter three, I analyzed the conditionality of the covenant of grace in the Reformed theology as the center of justificatiou. Through this analysis of the Reformed documents, we understand how the justification in the covenant of grace is interpreted and what is the meaning of the conditionality which represented in the covenant of grace. In this chapter I proved that the conditionality in the covenant of grace exists in Reformed theology but this conditionality thoroughly presupposes the efficacious grace and is harmonized with the slogan of sola gratia(only grace). Justification in the covenant of grace is explained in the inseparable but distinguishable dual grace in the union with Christ. Sanctification is an aspect of salvation but the aspect of the renewal cannot be the cause of justification, because the fruits of sanctification is incomplete. In fact, saints have 'remnants of sin' in them and works cannot be the cause of salvation, because incomplete works of saints cannot fulfill the complete demands of the law. Therefore the only cause of salvation and justification consists only in Christ. We can be justified by the imputation of the Christ's righteousness. The cause of salvation and justification is forensic. Even the incomplete fruits of saints are accepted by God on the basis of justification.
In chapter four, I compared the conclusion of chapter two with the conclusion of chapter three. Then I evaluated and criticized on the conclusion of the New Perspective on Paul, especially Wright. In this chapter subtitles for my comparison and critics were arranged according to Wright's system of justification. This chapter consists of two categories. One is criticized in the system of justification and the other in the system of covenant. Therefore I first dealt with the matter of Wright's system of meritorious justification. After that, I proved that this meritorious tendency is influenced by mono covenantalism. Through this job, we can understand that the explanation of justification is closely related with the views of covenant. Our conclusion in this chapter is that the Reformed conditionality related with the covenant of grace and justification is never meritorious but N. T. Wright's and his supporters' view of conditionality related with the covenant nomism and dual justification is semi-pelagian legalism. Therefore both camps are entirely heterogeneous system. The former is the system of sola gratia(only grace) but the latter the system of gratia(grace).
In chapter five, I concluded the argument of this dissertation. Through this chapter, I confirmed my thesis and summarized the contents of my argument. And I alert to the Wright's and his supporters' theological risk. When we compare the conditionality in the New Perspective on Paul with that in the Reformed theology, we can reach the following conclusions.
First, the covenant nomism is not so much a religion of grace as a semi-pelagian legalism which demands works of saints as the cause of justification and salvation.
Second, the New Perspective on Paul misunderstands the scope of the real religion of grace. It limits the legalism in the pelagianism and stretched the meaning of the religion of grace as the semi -pelagianism.
Third, Wright's dual justification makes an error, because he proposes the fruits of aspect of renewal as the cause of justification.
Fourth, Wright's legalism in his justification results from the mono covenantalism. Wright and his supporters have the conception of mono covenant. They do not distinguish the covenant of works from the covenant of grace or the covenant of the law from the covenant of the promise. As well, the New Perspective on Paul's supporters do not distinguish the narrow meaning of the law in which the grace is excluded from the law from the wide meaning of the law to which the grace and the promise is added(teritus usus legis). They synthesize covenants in the covenantal nomism. As we find in Dunn, Dunn and his supporters lays the unity between old and new covenant on the fulfillment of the law. Therefore they do not regard Abraham as a model or example of the faith and the promise but as a model of the fulfillment of the law. Their unity between old and new covenant does not lies in grace but in works.
Their covenant is a kind of the mixture of the two covenants, namely the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. They do away with the law-gospel contrast through the emphasis on the aspect of renewal in the letter-Spirit contrast. According to the New Perspective on Paul, because of the dwelling of the Spirit, saints can fulfill the demands of the law. So, after conversion, the works of the saints can be the cause of the justification and salvation. Therefore their reward and threat in the covenant are presented with eternal life and eternal punishment. We cannot find this kind of reward and threat in the Reformed covenant of grace but can in the covenant of works. So the covenantal nomism of the New Perspective on Paul is the mixture of the two covenants, namely the covenant of grace and the covenant of works.
This kind of concept of covenant distorts many subjects related with the doctrine of justification. The denial of the law-gospel contrast in mono covenantalism does away with the distinguishing justification from sanctification in the union with Christ. And the aspect of renewal and the forensic aspect are mixed. So, the latter is absorbed into the former. So mono covenantalism makes the fruits of sanctification the cause of the justification and salvation and this overestimates incomplete works. The New Perspective on Paul's supporters introduced in my dissertation believe that saints can completely fulfill the law. So they believe that the works of saints can be the cause of salvation. This thought is very dangerous. In contrast, although the Reformed theology emphasizes on the sanctification and the holy life, they never regard the works of saints as the cause of salvation. Because saints have the remnant of sin and their works are incomplete.
In conclusion, through the survey the concepts of the justification and covenant in regard of both camps, we conclude that the conditionality related with Wright's justification and covenant nomism is clearly meritorious. This conclusion results from the mono covenantalism in which justification and sanctification are mixed.
Simply Proposing the initiative of grace does not mean the real religion of grace. when one system is satisfied with sola gratia(only grace), sola fide(only faith), and sola christus(only Christ), it can be a real religion of grace. But when the works cooperated with grace are regarded as the cause of salvation, this kind of system comes to deny the sufficiency and the completeness of Christ and His redemptive works. If Wright and his supporters continue to regard semi-pelagian legalism as a religion of grace and to add the grace to works, then they will come to despise the complete merit of salvation which Christ obtains only through His sacrifice on the cross and His perfect obedience to the law. Therefore this kind of theology obscures soli Deo gloria(only glory to God).
I expect that this dissertation will be contributed to expose the theological problem on the conditionality related with the covenantal nomism and Wright's Justification and to reveal the heterogeneity between the Reformed theology and Wright's theology. Especially, the covenantal explanation of the doctrine of justification will be contributed to understand the problem of Wright's ordo salutis more accurately and more deeply, because in both camps, the conception of the covenant plays a role as the tool of hermeneutics and the presupposition for the interpretation of the doctrine of justification.