More from Dunn

When I write my review of The New Perspective on Paul, I won't be able to include his well-aimed shots at the conservative Reformed world that has so badly mischaracterized his work. Knowing, however, that this world is that in which so many of my readers live and move and have their beings, I thought I'd share a few of his rejoinders to the "debate".


After summarizing his own history and his understanding of what "the New Perspective" entails, Dunn turns to answering four criticisms of his work: (1) that the New Perspective is intended to create an alternative to the Reformed understanding of "justification by faith" [take note, those of you leaning on Simon Gathercole's Christianity Today article or the scuttlebutt from denominational gatekeepers--Dunn denies this vehemently!]; (2) that Dunn had reduced "works of the Law" to a few "boundary markers"; (3) that he had reduced Paul's objection to the Law to a mere Jewish attitude toward the Law; and (4) that Dunn thinks Paul's doctrine of justification by faith is a latecomer to Paul's theology.

Maybe we should stick with the first point for this post. Dunn denies that he has tried to establish an alternative to the Protestant doctrine of justification.

First, he maintains that his problem is not with Luther, but with how Luther has been used in the modern period, particularly in Bultmann's existentialist reading of Paul (18-19). Specifically, he has been misrepresented by Carl Trueman and others as saying that Luther reads Rom 7 as referring to the pre-Christian state. Dunn cites places where he explicitly indicates he is following in the footsteps of both Luther and Calvin in reading Rom 7's "I" as a Christian struggle.

Dunn further clarifies that his background is Reformed, not Lutheran, and that he has always been party to the higher level of continuity between the testaments than that afforded in the heirs of Luther.

Turning to the histrionics of Trueman more directly, Dunn responds to the assertion that he has held the Reformers as "more guilty than most in the perversion of the gospel." Dunn wonders aloud whether Trueman has actually read what Dunn has written, reiterating that he "took pains to emphasise at the beginning of the 'Justice of God' essay that the central affirmation of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith is and remains absolutely fundamental for the Christian faith --a point reasserted once again at the conclusion" (20).

The footnotes on p. 20 show that Dunn is also aware of the anti-New Perspective assault launched by the PCA's web magazine, indicating that the movement there and to an even greater extent the subsequent book by Guy Waters are guilty of the same gross misreading of himself and Tom Wright.

And, in case you're wondering, yes, it is possible to read Dunn in such a way that Dunn recognizes himself in one's writing. He cites Mike Bird's book on The Saving Righteousness of God in a much more favorable light.

And, lest you feel compelled to defend Trueman to the death, there is also this footnote: "In a pleasant e-mail exchange (February 2004) Dr Trueman graciously acknowledged that his paper misrepresented my views..." (21 n.83).

Dunn then has a paragraph explaining that his desire was to retie Paul's doctrine to the context of his gentile mission, which means that it justification means more than the Reformed tradition has expressed, but not that the Reformed tradition has gotten it wrong.

Finally, as though to beat the horse which, if not already dead was nonetheless in mortal danger, he says, "I affirm as a central point of Christian faith that God's acceptance of any and every person is by his grace alone and through faith alone... For my own part, even though it is not the language of the Reformed tradition, I have no particular problem affirming that the doctrine of justification (in its fully orbed expression) is articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae; I am astonished by and repute entirely the charge that 'the new perspective on Paul' constitutes an attack on and denial of that Lutheran fundamental" (23).

If so, why the focus on justification and "newness"? To underscore that there are other dimensions of justification and God's justice that have been overlooked, not diminishing or repudiating the doctrine of justification but "to bring more fully to light its still greater riches" (23).

So can we finally be done with the nonsense that the New Perspective is anti-Reformed? Probably not, but at least those who do take the time to read will know better.