I've been digging into "the new perspectives on Paul" and thinking that many of the "new perspectives" seem like, or lead to, traditional Catholic/Orthodox perspectives on Justification. Specifically, the idea that when Paul refers to "works of the law," he is referring exclusively to the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law. This would seem to shatter all the Protestant go-to verses that supposedly prove sola fide. **TLDR:** If you read "works of the law" to mean works of the ceremonial Mosaic law (i.e., circumcision) exclusively, then what is left to support the doctrine of sola fide aside from Luther's Occam-inspired philosophy?

One of the implications of the [New Perspective on Paul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul) (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in [Galatians 2:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+2%3A16&version=ESV) , for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law. This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation. One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law. For example, [Romans 3:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+3%3A20&version=ESV) : > For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV) Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise. But to me an even stronger passage appears to be [Galatians 3:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+3%3A10&version=ESV) : > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV) Here, quoting [Leviticus 18:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A5&version=ESV) , Paul's use of "*all* things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to *some*, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc. Thus, the question: **How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?**

I understand that N.T. Wright, an Anglican Bishop, has been promoting this teaching in evangelical churches. [*Source*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright) >According to Wright, "Paul in the twentieth century, then, has been used and abused much as in the first. Can we, as the century draws towards its close, listen a bit more closely to him? Can we somehow repent of the ways we have mishandled him and respect his own way of doing things a bit more?" Sounds eminently reasonable to me. However, after reading [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright#Views) re on his theological views, I found myself somewhat confused, and so I would appreciate a simplified summary of what he says about Justification, Righteousness, Covenant and works of the Law. [This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Perspective-Paul.html) from the *GotQuestions* website presents arguments against the New Perspective on Paul, as does John Piper's 2007 book [The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581349645) . I understand that Wright has addressed the issue of Justification in his 2009 book [*Justification: God’s Plan and Paul's Vision*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830851399) , but I do not have access to it. A very brief summary of his reply can be read in a [2009 interview by Trevin Wax](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/) , where he refers the reader to a fuller response in his book [Paul: In Fresh Perspective](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800663578) .

A *Gospel Coalition* short essay ([Justification and the New Perspective on Paul](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/justification-new-perspective-paul/)) by Robert J. Cara, author of the 2017 book [Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology](https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Foundation-New-Perspective-Paul/dp/1781919798) , offers **3 broad critiques of NPP** from the perspective of traditional Protestant view of justification, i.e. against NPP which, **according to Cara** (which maybe a misrepresentation !), asserts that: 1. a believer's works are included as part of final justification 2. imputation of Christ's work to the believer is denied Robert Cara's three critiques are: 1. That NPP selectively excludes Jewish documents that testified that works-righteousness DID exist, thus negating the premise that St. Paul was *not* arguing against a legalistic works-righteousness view. 1. That although Paul's "works of the law" as primarily Jewish boundary markers (Sabbath, circumcision and food law) is what's primarily in view in Galatians, there is Biblical evidence for **a more basic** works-righteousness soteriology that Paul was opposing. This negates NPP assertion that to Paul there was no two soteriology (one OT and one NT) since according to NPP both are the same, i.e. OT/NT saints were finally justified based on faith in God/Christ and works. 1. NPP does not include Eph 2:8-10, 2 Tim 1:8-10 and Titus 3:4-7 as part of their analysis of Paul's view of justification, thus excluding key texts that even NPP agrees how those 3 texts support the traditional Protestant grace soteriology. This shows that opposition against works-righteousness was "in the cultural air" of early Christians, something that NPP claims was non-existent in early Judaism. **How do Protestants who support NPP respond to these 3 critiques?** - A cross-tradition Christian website *Conciliar Post* 2022 article *In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul* by Tim Arrington ([part 1](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-1/) , [part 2](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-2/) , and [part 3](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-3/)) contains a good refutation but not supported by scholarly references from current generation NPP scholars such as N.T. Wright or Nijay Gupta, since E.P. Sanders and James Dunn have retired. - Dr. Matthew Halsted's June 2022 interview [*Playing with Theological Explosives*](https://matthewhalsted.com/2022/06/08/1802/) with Matthew J. Thomas, who wrote the 2018 Mohr Siebeck monograph later published (with improvement) by IVP Academic in the 2020 book [Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830855262/) , contains a response to Cara's essay and Cara's review of his book.

**This is mostly a set of questions that are being asked of Protestant Christians, particularly those that hold to the "New Perspective on Paul."** I have really enjoyed the work of modern "New Perspective on Paul" (hereafter "NPP") authors (now before someone tells me: Yes. I am aware that there are various streams of "new" perspectives on Paul). That said, one thing that has been bothering me as I have read books by these authors (namely Bates, deSilva, McKnight, and Wright) is that they rarely, if ever, acknowledge how Christians are to mentally process experiences of personal sin, or sin related guilt regarding repetitious sinful patterns, as a real presence within the Christian life. For example, Wright has said (in both his written response to Piper, and in numerous interviews and lectures) that Final Salvation (or in his words, "Final Justification") is based upon "*the whole life lived*", but he doesn't understand this to be a type of merit theology, but instead as God "*bringing the future verdict forward into the present*" through faith in Christ. Now, although these NPP authors argue that it is the Spirit which currently affects salvation in the life of the believer and transforms the Christian into really *becoming* righteous (not just *declared* righteous), the issue gets more complex when one considers how the "intentional sins" of Christians, and God's very real demands on his people to be holy, can coexist together in such a way where, on one hand, a Christ follower is joined to Jesus and his people by faith (or "*allegiance*" - Bates), and on the other have very real sin in their daily lives. However, David deSilva adds this in his book *Transformation* that needs to be considered: > “God does not show favoritism” (Rom 2:11). The authors of the Old and New Testaments—and the books in between—affirm this as a core characteristic of the just Judge (see, e.g., 2 Chr 19:7; Sir 35:13–16; 1 En. 63:8; T. Job 4:7; 43:13; Acts 10:34; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25). Paul similarly affirms it concerning God as an absolute, not just as a characteristic about God that is at play for those who don’t know his Son. What the gospel, therefore, cannot mean is this: When God comes to judge the world, God will treat you as righteous when you are not; you’re saved from being judged on that day no matter what you do, how you live, for whom you live; Jesus’ righteousness is enough to get you off the hook with God; God expects nothing from you. If we think this is what Paul’s gospel means for us, we have to be prepared to say that God **does** show partiality. God will judge his Son’s friends according to one set of standards and everyone else by another set of standards—and he will declare innocent those in the first group who would fail the test if they belonged to the second group. Such a view is naive and even unjust on our part. If Paul went to such lengths to negate any claim to privilege before God on the part of the Jewish people, who had a significant pile of scriptural texts to legitimate their claim to enjoy special favor from God, he would not allow us the comfort of believing that God will have a double standard when it comes to Christians at the judgment. and elsewhere... > >"From Paul’s point of view, moreover, there are really only two directions for our investment of ourselves—feeding the agenda of the “flesh” and feeding the agenda of the “Spirit.” Basically, one only seems to have any form of assurance that they can expect Wright's *future verdict* declared of them at the resurrection/ final judgement of Christ, only if their life reflects more holiness than sinful behavior patterns (combined with deSilva's point about God's impartiality here). I haven't read an NPP author who addresses the tension here in a practical way (Wright's book on virtue aside, because he boils sanctification down into virtue ethics in which we become trained by new ways of thinking), but I wonder if any NPP proponents could offer some insight into how they individually process the following questions: 1. Mentally speaking, how is the Christian supposed to think of themselves (currently "a child of God" in concept, but not really until the resurrection/judgement of Christ?) and their present relationship to God if they see more failures in their discipleship than victories? Does God's disposition change towards you when you sin or do good? 2. How should the Christian deal with the mental pressure presented by the idea that the eternal scales seem to tip with each *self-investment* (see deSilva's quote above) they make, and not succumb to throwing up their hands in frustration and giving up on pursuing Jesus when they willingly sin in some fashion? 3. Should the Christian understand the sacrifice of Jesus to cover intentional sins after conversion, or should they see these sins as adding to the "flesh" side of judicial scales weighed upon them at the return/judgement of Christ, and try to do enough good to even off the sin?

Does both the views of the New Perspective on Paul and Catholicism define 'good works' similarly? What is the role of good works towards salvation according to these perspectives? If there are different answers from the various New Perspective on Paul proponents then I am particularly interested in N. T. Wright's view.

What is the *New Perspective on Paul*? It's promoted by numerous New Testament scholars such as N.T Wright, James D. G. Dunn and E.P Sanders. I have read a lot of their articles and books on it. I find it really intriguing, and it has shaped my theology. It does kind of challenge the traditional Protestant interpretation of Pauline theology. Although, the scholars I mentioned above themselves are Protestants. What does the New Perspective say that is different?

To be honest, I'd never heard about the New Perspective on Paul before today. Does anyone know of denominations that subscribe to the NPP interpretation, in part or in full? Specifically, the following concepts, taken from this article : **Covenantal Nomism** > Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s > plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant > requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its > commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression I read this to mean "God saves us by providing atonement, so long as we keep up our end of the bargain." This of course, would be different than Sola Fide . **The righteousness of God** > Proponents of New Perspectivism argue that the righteousness of God, > spoken of by Paul in Romans, is refering to God’s faithfulness rather > than the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness. **Justification** > According to Wright, justification isn’t merely an initial means by > which someone is right with God, but rather a mark of who already is. **Denial of imputed righteousness** > N.T. Wright reinterprets texts classically used as prooftexts for > imputed righteousness. He understands 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example, > to refer to God’s covenant faithfulness. While many still profess > agreement with the substance of the doctrine of imputed righteousness, > the classic (or traditional) interpretations of texts relating to > imputation have more or less been removed

Can you list a simple matrix of the old and new views on the Perspective on Paul from the viewpoint of vetted and at least modestly accepted details based on the New Perspective of Paul? I'm not as interested at this time on the arguments for or against the New Perspective, but simply a list of the main topics (vetted to some extent) of what the new perspectives are and what the old perspective was. I understand that the Old Perspectives probably have different viewpoints as well, please consider using the basic United States Protestant perspective (probably based on Martin Luther's work) or just leave the "Old Perspective" empty and I'll infer it from my own reading. Conceptually what are the hinges of the NPP viewpoint on which the interpretation of the writings of Paul swings? Define the hinges, ignore the position of the door so to speak.

What specially is new and different in the "New Perspective on Paul" movement? How can the differences to the "old" perspective be summarized? Note: Please don't make this question about defending one view over the other, only concisely describing any significant differences between them.