Roman Catholicism And The New Perspective On Paul, Part 4

By Dr. Mike Stallard

[Dean of Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

Ecumenical dialogue has as one of its goals the identification of shared language that can serve as common ground between ecclesiastical parties that are divided from each other by doctrine and tradition. In recent times, the development of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) has provided such shared language for discussions between Roman Catholics and some versions of Protestant theology. The particular doctrinal formulations that supply the shared terminology involve the concepts of justification and imputation.

A detailed summary and evaluation of the NPP has been amply supplied in numerous other forums so it will not be provided here.[1] It is sufficient to note that the general outline of the NPP is that the Reformation fathers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) misread Paul by viewing him as teaching a forensic justification apart from the works of the law.[2] In this view, the Reformers thought wrongfully that Paul was refuting a works-righteousness. Instead, the NPP suggests that Paul was simply affirming that the works which Paul has in mind are ceremonial (and perhaps other elements of the law) which the Jews had overemphasized. However, the scheme does involve the concept that one is brought into the covenant community by faith but stays in the community by good deeds. Such an approach does not sound all that different from traditional Wesleyan teaching and is certainly much closer to Roman Catholic dogma than the traditional understanding of the Reformation. What is different is that the alleged support for the understanding of Paul’s teachings comes from Second Temple literature which supposedly highlights the Jewish understanding of works of the law with which Paul was dealing. In the minds of some, this perspective can be harmonized with Roman Catholic understandings.

Dialog Between Catholics And The New Perspective

As Horton notes, “The main point of the Reformation was to stress the distinction between justification and other gifts of salvation. It was Rome’s confusion of justification and sanctification that the Reformers challenged.”[3] On the other hand, recent statements by other Protestants have demonstrated a softer stance toward the Catholics:

The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains….There is enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that brought them together.[4]

One can readily wonder how a Protestant could speak of such common ground in the important area of how one obtains forgiveness from God.

However, it is possible to claim that the NPP actually provides the most common avenue for bridging the gap between evangelicals and Catholics in the matter of salvation. Roman Catholic Taylor Marshall notes that he recently converted to Catholicism as a result of reading N. T. Wright, one of the major proponents of the NPP.

I started reading N. T. Wright at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and along the way through my hiatus as an Anglican priest. I believe that he provided the necessary paradigm shift for me to appreciate the nuances of the Council of Trent regarding justification.

N. T. Wright is a good enough biblical theologian to realize that Paul didn’t teach personal salvation by way of an imputation of alien righteousness. That’s why the Anglican bishop has received so much attention – he’s a Protestant writing like a Catholic.[5]

However, it is important to understand that Wright, in particular, has said that he has no real interest in becoming a Roman Catholic:

I am sorry to think that there are people out there whose Protestantism has been so barren that they never found out about sacraments, transformation, community or eschatology. Clearly this person needed a change. But to jump to Rome for that reason is very odd.

It reminds me of the fine old German NT scholar Heinrich Schlier, who found that the only way to be a Protestant was to be a Bultmannian, so, because he couldn’t take Bultmann, became a Roman Catholic; that was the only other option in his culture. Good luck to him; happily, most of us have plenty of other options.[6]

Thus, it is important to be fair to Wright who shows no movement in the direction of Rome other than spiritual kinship.[7]

Many other major proponents of the NPP seem to be content to stay in their own denominations although they are sometimes involved in ecumenical dialogue. For example, James Dunn laments:

But behind the Catholic-Protestant debate, and obscured by it, was the more fundamental issue of Christianity’s relation to Judaism, in particular the relation of Paul’s gospel and theology to his ancestral religion. Two factors made it impossible for that situation to persist. One was Vatican II, and in effect the removal of most of the old Catholic-Protestant agenda as no longer at issue. The other was the Holocaust and its continuing reverberations in Christian theology. If post-Vatican II theology could no longer simply restate the old debate between Protestant and Catholic in the traditional terms, post-Holocaust theology could no longer stomach the denigration of historic Judaism which had been the dark-side-of-the-moon corollary to the Christian doctrine of justification.[8]

Dunn, in a strongly worded statement, is concerned about Jewish-Christian dialogue as well as the changing of the debate between Catholics and Protestants. His wording points in the direction of basic doctrines which are at the center of the debate, namely, justification and imputation. As these are studied it will be seen that the reformulations of the NPP move in the direction of how Catholicism has traditionally handled these doctrines.

Justification

Traditional Protestant View

The traditional understanding of justification based mostly upon Pauline thought and highlighted by the Reformers contains many aspects. First, it is a declaration that a person is not guilty of his sin. One example is found in the parable of Jesus in which two men come to the temple to pray (Luke 18:9-14). Jesus tells the parable to those who trusted in their own self-righteousness (v. 9). One of the two men is a Pharisee who brags about his own accomplishments and attempts to stand before God on that basis. The other is a despised tax collector who humbly approaches God and asks him to have mercy. The exact wording of his prayer to God is “be merciful (be propitious) to me a sinner.” Jesus proclaims that the tax collector left the place of prayer and went to his home “justified.” The focus on this kind of justification points to a moment of conversion where an individual passes from a standing of guilt before God to a status of innocence at a point in time.

Luther echoes this teaching of Jesus in his understanding of Paul in Romans 3:28 (“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law” [NASB]), Luther comments, “What the apostle means by the ‘deeds of the law’ are works in which the self-righteous trust as if, by doing them, they were justified and so were righteous on account of their works. In other words, while doing good, they do not seek after righteousness, but they merely wish to boast that they have already obtained righteousness through their works.”[9] In this way Luther sees harmony between Paul’s teaching in Romans and Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of Luke concerning the concept of justification.

Second, while the declaration as discussed above is one of “not guilty,” the concept of justification also contains within it a declaration of positive righteousness, not simply a lack of guilt. This leads to a discussion of imputation which will be dealt with later. For now, the entire discussion of justification as a declaration of right standing before God shows that the concept is a forensic, judicial, or legal term. This is evident from Paul’s teaching in Romans 4:1-9. Luther summarizes the meaning of Romans 4:1-12 with these words: “They [the Jews] labored under the delusion that their father Abraham was pictured to them as an example of work-righteousness. He therefore shows that Abraham was justified solely by faith without works.”[10] In this section of Romans we find the ideas of justification, imputation, and forgiveness applied to an individual apart from good works or deeds. There is no earned status. There is no merit on the part of the individual in the matter of justification. From this we know that there are no braggers in heaven. All is due to what God has done.

Third, the appropriation of the right standing before God is by faith alone. The word alone is important in the statement.

Faith appropriates justification at a point in time (conversion) where an individual is legally declared to be right with God. This teaching that justification is by faith alone was at the heart of the Reformation (note Luther’s statement above). Faith is all that is needed to lead to a right standing before God. Calvin noted it this way:

Now the reader sees how fairly the Sophists today cavil against our doctrine when we say that man is justified by faith alone….They dare not deny that man is justified by faith because it recurs so often in Scripture. But since the word ‘alone’ is nowhere expressed, they do not allow this addition to be made. Is it so? But what will they reply to these words of Paul where he contends that righteousness cannot be of faith unless it be free [Rom. 4:2ff]?[11]

The phrase “unless it be free” shows Calvin’s correct understanding that Paul insisted that there was a separation of works and faith on this question so that there was no intermingling of the two. Faith is not one thing among other things that leads a person to be right with God. Faith is the only thing. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, we are saved by grace through faith. Our salvation is not of works. Further, in Romans 11:6 the apostle teaches us that “if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Faith with grace is separated from good works or good deeds. The latter cannot lead to justification. Faith, which accommodates grace, stands alone. As Paul teaches, “for this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace” (Rom 4:16).

This understanding of the Reformation (traditional Protestant) teaching on justification as declarative, forensic, judicial, complete, and by faith is opposed to the perception that justification is transformative, partial, and by faith and works. In the latter scheme, an individual is made righteous in justification. What remains to be seen is how the Roman Catholic understanding of justification is expressed in the details and to what degree this mirrors the NPP.

Roman Catholic View

In understanding how Roman Catholicism handles the issue of justification, there are several elements to be discussed. First, the role of water baptism with respect to justification must be overviewed. According to the Council of Trent (which is still in effect relative to this teaching), the sacrament of water baptism is the instrumental cause of justification.[12]Within the Roman Catholic system, the moment of water baptism brings a kind of initial justification. According to a Vatican catechism, “Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.”[13] However, such conferral of justification is not the end of the story as will be seen below.

Second, the Roman Catholic understanding of justification affirms that the nature of justification is transformative and not just declarative. Man is made righteous in justification.

Carl Henry, a prominent evangelical of a generation ago, summarized the Council of Trent’s response to the Reformers’ teaching on justification:

The Council of Trent (1547) rejected the Reformers’ view of justification. Contrary to their teaching it held that justification is “not a bare remission of sins, but also sanctification and the renewal of the inner man.” It contended that justification is not only a declarative act of the remission of sins but also a transformist act of inner renewal and sanctification. Justification is therefore viewed as an aspect of sanctification. Salvation allegedly depends in part on an inherent righteousness that can be lost through deadly sins and depends also on good works that must accompany divine grace extended to the sinner.[14]

The language of Trent, to be sure, uses such wording. Notice the quoted statement given earlier. God through justification, in this scheme, “makes us inwardly just.” To speak of an “inward” action where God “makes” us into something is not the forensic understanding of justification envisioned by the Reformers.

Third, justification according to Catholic theology involves ongoing, progressive sanctification. Henry’s statement above alluded to this. The teaching of Trent is clear about ongoing justification. In a chapter whose heading is “On the increase of Justification received,” we find this affirmation:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."[15]

The Reformers believed that justification provided the legal ground upon which the progressive sanctification of the child of God could proceed. But for Luther and Calvin it was the truth of regeneration which provided the experiential or transformational basis upon which progressive sanctification would build day by day. In this way, they kept a separation between legal justification and experiential progressive sanctification. However, as this statement of Trent shows, Catholicism confuses regeneration with justification.[16] In the Catholic system, there is no distinction between justification and sanctification. The believer’s ongoing good works, following the sacramental system, form a basis for maintaining and/or increasing one’s justification in the sight of God. What is declared by God is also made continually to be true in the believer’s experience. However, because a believer may fail to execute the good deeds properly, justification is something that can be lost.

Fourth, the Roman Catholic system has implicit within it the concept of ultimate or final justification. Geisler and Mackenzie state, “In that Trent understands justification in two senses (the second corresponding to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification), good works are required in the second sense as a condition for ultimate justification. Therefore, it is possible and necessary (in this second sense) to keep the law of God.”[17] The ongoing obedience to the commands of God, especially expressed through the sacramental system and allegiance to the church, is necessary so that one can in the end have a right standing before God. This ultimate justification is both a declaration and a final “making” of righteousness in the believer. The Protestant tradition is more likely to use the categories of justification, sanctification, and glorification to discuss the changes wrought in man by God in the process of salvation. Catholicism can be comfortable using the word justification to speak of all of these categories. It can only do so because it treats justification as a non-forensic term.

New Perspective On Paul View

The three major proponents of the NPP are considered to be E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright with Sanders serving as the fountainhead (although discussions in this area preceded him). Sanders argued that Second Temple Judaism could be characterized by 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.”[18] This concept can be characterized by the statement that those in the elect nation of Israel entered the covenant community by faith. However, they stay in the covenant community (i.e., maintain their position in the elect people) by good works (keeping the law). The works that are done to keep the law are considered non-meritorious. Ultimate salvation is by God’s grace according to this scheme.

Sanders argued that the Apostle Paul’s thought, however, was radically different than the Judaism of his day. The Jewish categories of the covenant are not sufficient to exhaust Pauline thought.[19]

Nonetheless, the Jewish pattern found in covenantal nomism could be found in Paul also albeit in a different direction:

Thus one can see already in Paul how it is that Christianity is going to become a new form of covenantal nomism, a covenantal religion which one enters by baptism, membership in which provides salvation, which has a specific set of commandments, obedience to which (or repentance for the transgression of which) keeps one in the covenantal relationship, while repeated or heinous transgression removes one from membership.[20]

Although justification is not mentioned per se by Sanders, one can see the similarities of this approach to the Roman Catholic system already presented.

James Dunn argues that Sanders focuses too much on the differences between Paul and Second Temple Judaism.[21] Consequently, he presses the pattern of covenantal nomism more strongly relative to Paul’s teaching on justification. Notice the explanation concerning Galatians 2:16:

In talking of “being justified” here Paul is not thinking of a distinctively initiatory act of God. God’s justification is not his act in first making his covenant with Israel, or in initially accepting someone into the covenant people. God’s justification is rather God’s acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant—whether that is an initial acknowledgement, or a repeated action of God (God’s saving acts), or his final vindication of his people… “To be justified” in Paul cannot, therefore, be treated simply as an entry or initiation formula…[22]

Dunn notes that the term justify is a legal term as it is in Luther and Calvin.[23] However, the incomplete nature of the concept and the need for continual ongoing justification along with ultimate justification or vindication is clearly counter to Luther and the Reformers. In the NPP justification is seen to be a term that covers God’s work in covenant people from initiation into the covenant community until final victory. Luther did not see the term justification in this expansive way. However, the teaching of the Catholic Church could be harmonized to an extent with such a view.

N. T. Wright (perhaps the most famous of the NPP adherents), like Dunn, notes that “the doctrine of justification is focused on the divine law-court. God, as judge, ‘finds in favor of,’ and hence acquits from their sin, those who believe in Jesus Christ.”[24] This much aligns with the Reformers. However, Wright separates from the Reformers by insisting, “Justification in this setting, then is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community, not the least in the period of time before the eschatological event itself, when the matter will become public knowledge.”[25] Here two things emerge. First, Wright does not envision justification as an event that is an initiation as in the Catholic idea of initial justification. Logically, there must exist something like that, but Wright focuses on the ongoing aspect of justification. Those who follow Christ can have the assurance now (presumably through their following of Christ) that they will one day be vindicated. This aspect of knowing now is the key for Wright’s dipolar understanding of justification: “justification by faith is what happens in the present time, anticipating a verdict of the future day when God judges the world.”[26] Thus, Wright can argue that there is no “clash between present justification by faith and future judgment according to works.”[27] This is only possible because of the link between the two: “this picture of future judgment according to works is actually the basis of Paul’s theology of justification by faith.”[28] Believers will be judged for their works at the last judgment. God will declare them to be justified on that basis, although it is not meritorious in Wright’s system. The last judgment merely vindicates the believer by demonstrating publicly that he is in the covenant community. This dipolar approach does seem to have some affinity to the language of the Roman Catholic approach with its own version of ongoing and ultimate justification.

If the NPP presentation seems a bit obtuse, it is because the language spoken is an entirely different ballgame than that of the Reformation. Wright comments on his desire to change the language of the debate:

What, then, is “justification” about? Most of the difficulties of the ongoing debate have arisen from the fact that the word, as McGrath points out, has regularly been made to do duty for the entire picture of God’s reconciling action toward the human race, covering everything from God’s free love and grace, through the sending of the son to die and rise again for sinners, through the preaching of the gospel, the work of the Spirit, the arousal of faith in human hearts and minds, the development of Christian character and conduct, the assurance of ultimate salvation, and the safe passage through the final judgment to that destination.[29]

Wright believes strongly that the term justification has become too much in the world of theology. However true this might be in some circles, I am not sure he can make such a charge stick with respect to the Reformers. The dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer, who considered himself in harmony with the soteriology of the Reformers, lists justification as just one of thirty-three important theological concepts with respect to divine grace and its outworking in the believer.[30] On the contrary, it is Wright who expands the concept of justification to make it cover too many things, now and in the future. The Reformers limited justification to an act of declaration when a person first trusted Christ as Savior. What followed was sanctification and glorification. However, Wright’s scheme actually allows for other travelers in this world, as we know from experience, to use his system to move to Rome even when it is not his desire to do so.

Imputation

Traditional Protestant View

The idea of imputation is generally considered to be part of or be related to the concept of justification as alluded to earlier. In fact, it is possible to assert that imputation is the way in which or the basis for which God declares a sinner to have a righteous standing in His eyes. Grudem comments:

When we say that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us it means that God thinks of Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, or regards it as belonging to us. He “reckons” it to our account. We read, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3, quoting Gen. 15:6). Paul explains, “To one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). In this way, Christ’s righteousness became ours. Paul says that we are those who received “the free gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17).[31]

This approach is in harmony with the Reformers.[32] Not only is the individual declared not guilty in justification, but there is a positive assessment by God in which he considers the individual believer to be righteous. The believer is not made righteous. The believer is declared righteous. But where does the righteousness come from? It is not the righteousness which the individual possesses in and of himself. It is extrinsic to him. It comes from outside of the individual.

There are a couple of interpretive options on this point. One is the teaching of the active obedience of Christ.[33] In this view, the righteousness which is imputed to the believer is the specific righteousness earned by Christ in his incarnational life. During his life on earth, Jesus earned a meritorious standing that Adam had failed to earn in the Garden. It is this righteous standing before God which Jesus has earned that is laid over to the account of the believer. A second approach is to see that the righteousness of Christ is simply the righteousness which he naturally possessed. The believer receives the righteousness of God in the imputation. There does not seem to be much that is pragmatically different in the two views. The righteousness that is imputed in either case is extrinsic to the believer. It is a simple matter of reckoning.

Roman Catholic View

The Roman Catholic understanding of imputation can best be seen in Canon XI of the Council of Trent under the article “On Justification.”

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.[34]

This statement clearly rules out imputation as an extrinsic, forensic concept. A declaration of righteousness is not in view. Men are made righteous. There is an infused grace that comes from the Spirit of God that is intrinsic (inherent) to the believer.

The Catholic Encyclopedia helps us here in its definition of justification. There is an absence of any view of forensic declaration or simple court-room judgments of innocence:

[Justification is] A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace.[35]

Notice the details of this definition. First, justification involves transformation not forensic declaration. Second, it is something that, once obtained, is inherent in the individual, in his soul. This means that it is not something that is extrinsic to the person. Roman Catholics often complain about a doctrine of alien righteousness which the Reformation view of imputation implies.[36] This is the idea that an imputation of righteousness is made which has nothing to do with the actual spiritual state of righteousness of the human soul. It comes from God alone. Third, from the aspect of ongoing justification, justification can also be considered to be sanctifying grace. Here again is the confusion of justification and sanctification in the Roman Catholic position that was seen earlier.

The New Perspective On Paul View

At this point I will deal primarily with N. T. Wright’s expression concerning the concept of imputation, although, like Catholicism, he rarely uses the word. However, at the outset it must be noted that he sticks to a declarative sense of the term justification rather than a moral transformational sense of the word:

There is indeed a sense in which “justification” really does make someone “righteous”—it really does create the “righteousness,” the status-of-being-in-the-right, of which it speaks—but “righteousness” in that lawcourt sense does not mean either “morally good character” or “performance of moral good deeds,” but “the status you have when the court has found in your favor.”[37]

Thus, similar to the Reformers the declaration of righteousness in justification is forensic. However, remember that for Wright this is not an initial point of justification but something that is in the present (as we go along toward our final vindication).

What about the ongoing life of the believer, the “present” in which he can have assurance of justification? Is there for Wright an eternal security available to the believer? Or is there a real chance that the declaration of righteousness or the imputation of righteousness can be lost? Apparently, Wright affirms the doctrine of eternal security. This appears to be evident (although it needs to be studied further since Wright has said little about this doctrine) in a transcripted conversation between Wright and James Dunn.[38] Wright speaks of agreement with the Reformed doctrine of perseverance while Dunn, as a Methodist, has his expected doubts. This means that Dunn’s approach would fit more neatly with Roman Catholic expectations that real loss of justification, status, or salvation can occur on the believer’s path. It would be harder to mesh what Wright has said on this single point with the Vatican position.

Conclusion

The survey presented here has not been exhaustive of all the pertinent issues that could be raised relative to the comparisons that have been made. The volume of literature in this area is daunting. Yet we have tried to give a fair but brief summary of views of justification and imputation in traditional Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and the adherents of the New Perspective on Paul. The fact that there are many “new perspectives on Paul” makes the comparison a challenging one. However, there is enough in place to see that the NPP yields fertile ground for ecumenical dialogue between Protestants and Catholics. As a result, there is a likelihood that there may be more individuals who decide to go “home to Rome” as the Catholic slogan has it. In the eyes of this author, such a development would not be a positive thing. The true doctrine of justification by faith would be a major casualty along the way.

Notes

1. For example, see Douglas C. Bozung, “The New Perspective on Paul: A Survey and Critique—Part I,” JMAT (Fall 2005): 96-114 and “The New Perspective on Paul: A Survey and Critique—Part II,” JMAT (Spring 2006): 22-43; D. A. Carson, “Introduction” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. I—The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1-5; Stephen Westerholm, “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-five” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. II—The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 1-38.
2. It is best to understand that there are many new perspectives on Paul rather than one monolithic approach which bears the label. However, there is enough commonality to the various writers such as E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright so that the issue can be dealt with in an almost singular fashion in spite of nuances of differences in the details. See Carson, “Introduction,” 1. Note also how James Dunn argues that E. P. Sanders sees too much of a difference between Paul and the Judaism of Paul’s day (Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990], 183-214).
3. Michael Horton, “Justification and Ecumenism,” Tabletalk, February 2010, 17.
4. Timothy George interviewed in Collin Hansen, “Not All Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” Christianity Today, November 2009, 21.
5. Taylor Marshall, “Does N. T. Wright’s Theology Lead to Catholicism?” The Catholic Perspective on Paul, <http://pauliscatholic .com/2009/07/does-n-t-wrights-theology-lead-to-catholicism/> (accessed 4 February 2010).
6. N. T. Wright, “N. T. Wright on Protestant-Catholic Relations,” Kingdom People, October 31, 2009, <http://trevinwax.com/2009/10 /31/n-t-wright-on-protestant-catholic-relations/> (accessed 4 February 2010). This is the website of Trevin Wax who has posted the entire discussion of Wright which was quoted in snippets in Christianity Today. See Collin Hansen, “Not All Catholics and Protestants Together,” cited earlier.
7. The Pope has been invited to speak at a conference in Durham, where Wright serves as Bishop (Department of Theology and Religion: News – Durham University; “Durham Invitation to Pope Benedict,” 30 October 2009, <http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno =894> (accessed 1 March 2010).
8. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 354.
9. Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. J. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 64.
10. Ibid., 65-66. See also Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 203-5.
11. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, III. XI.19.
12. Council of Trent, Sixth Session: Decree on Justification, Chapter 7, <http://history.hanover.edu/ texts/trent/trentall.html> (accessed 2 March 2010).
13. Catholic Catechism, 3.1.3.2.I.1992, <http://www.vatican.va/ archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm> (accessed 1 March 2010).
14. Carl F. H. Henry, “Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis,” JETS 38 (March 1995): 59.
15. Council of Trent, Sixth Session: Decree on Justification, Chapter 10.
16. One Roman Catholic catechism that I looked at does not even mention the word justification as far as I can tell (John A. Hardon, SJ, The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975]). This is only possible because other experiential terms can be used in its place to discuss the process of God making men righteous. I have also found the minimizing of use of the word justification to be true of the statements of Vatican II. See Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
17. Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, “Justification: The Catholic-Protestant Argument over Justification,” Creation Research Institute, <http://www.equip.org/articles/justification> (accessed 1 March 2010).
18. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 75.
19. Ibid., 513.
20. Ibid. Sanders restates his position in more detail in a later work entitled Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
21. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 186-88.
22. Ibid., 190. See also James D. G. Dunn, “The Theology of Galatians: The Issue of Covenantal Nomism” in Pauline Theology, Vol. I, ed. Jouette M. Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 125-46 and James D. G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate, The Justice of God: A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
23. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 134.
24. N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 12.
25. N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 119.
26. N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperCollins, 1989), 140.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 139. The idea of the future judgment in Wright appears to be a general judgment (seen in Revelation 20) common to so much of Christendom. This does not fit the distinctive judgments of dispensationalism. See also N. T. Wright, Paul In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 57, 121-22.
29. Wright, Justification, 86.
30. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 3: 234-66.
31. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 726.
32. There are various nuances among the Reformers concerning the relationship of justification to other aspects of salvation such as regeneration. However, it is my judgment that these are minimal relative to this particular discussion. See Henri Blocher, “Justification of the Ungodly (Sola Fide): Theological Reflections” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2—The Paradoxes of Paul, 465-500.
33. See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, repr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 523.
34. Council of Trent, Sixth Session: Decree on Justification, Chapter 16, <http://history.hanover.edu/ texts/trent/trentall.html> (accessed 2 March 2010).
35. “Justification,” Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent), <http:// www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm> (accessed 2 March 2010).
36. Notice Schreiner’s use of the term alien righteousness in Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, 208. See also Anthony N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (New York: T & T Clark, 2002), 158-67.
37. Wright, Justification, 92.
38. James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright, “An Evening Conversation on Jesus and Paul,” 20-21, NTWrightPage, <http://www.ntwrightpage .com/Dunn_Wright_Conversation.pdf> (accessed 2 March 2010). This conversation occurred on 25 October 2004. Apparently an audio of the event is available.