• The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

    The third controversy which has arisen among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession is concerning the righteousness of Christ or of faith, which God imputes by grace, through faith, to poor sinners for righteousness. For one side has contended that the righteousness of faith, which the apostle calls the righteousness of God, is God’s essential righteousness, which is Christ Himself as the true, natural, and essential Son of God, who dwells in the elect by faith and impels them to do right, and thus is their righteousness, compared with which righteousness the sins of all men are as a drop … View Resource

  • Of Justification” from “The Defense of the Augsburg Confession” Article by Philip Melancthon

    In the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and, below, in the Twentieth Article, they condemn us, for teaching that men obtain remission of sins not because of their own merits, but freely for Christ’s sake, through faith in Christ. [They reject quite stubbornly both these statements.] For they condemn us both for denying that men obtain remission of sins because of their own merits, and for affirming that, through faith, men obtain remission of sins, and through faith in Christ are justified. View Resource

  • Jesus’ Perspective on Sola Fide Article by John MacArthur

    Many who have embraced “the New Perspective on Paul” are also proposing a different slant on the doctrine of justification by faith. When the text of Scripture is interpreted in the new light, they say, Pauline support for the principle of sola fide [faith alone], the doctrine of imputation, and the distinction between law and gospel doesn’t seem quite so strong. View Resource

  • A Reformed Critique of the New Perspective Article by Richard Gaffin Jr.

    The New Perspective on Paul, as it has been called, raises serious questions for Protestants committed to the doctrine of justification by faith. This school of thought does so in two ways. On the one hand, it questions the Apostle Paul’s relationship to-and understanding of-Judaism. On the other hand, it undermines the Reformation’s understanding of Pauline theology. To put it bluntly, this reassessment narrows the distance between Paul and the Judaism of his day while it widens the gap between Paul and the Reformation. Also, these questions themselves raise other questions, which cast doubt upon the New Perspective’s conclusions. View Resource

  • A Man More Sinned Against than Sinning?: The Portrait of Martin Luther in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship Article by Carl R. Trueman

    To put it bluntly, it seems to me that the current revision of the doctrine of justification as formulated by the advocates of the so-called New Perspective on Paul is nothing less than a fundamental repudiation not just of that Protestantism which seeks to stand within the creedal and doctrinal trajectories of the Reformation but also of virtually the entire Western tradition on justification from at least as far back as Augustine. View Resource

  • A Defense of the Old Perspective on Paul: What Did Paul Really Say? Article by Phil Johnson

    The following is transcribed from a seminar given by Phil Johnson at the London Reformed Baptist Seminary, meeting at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, on 10 January 2004. In this hour, I want to give you a brief critique of a theological trend that began on your side of the Atlantic and is rapidly gaining influence among evangelicals in America. It is a point of view known as “The New Perspective on Paul.” View Resource

  • The “New Perspective” on Paul and the Law Article by Ben Witherington

    There is something of a small war going on in Pauline circles on the issue of “the New Perspective on Paul” which actually also involves “the New Perspective on Early Judaism”. This sometimes heated debate was set in motion by the work of Ed Sanders beginning in 1977 with Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and followed in subsequent years by a series of equally influential studies such as Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, and Jesus and Judaism. View Resource

  • The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul Article by Ligon Duncan

    Many intelligent Christians are puzzling today over what is being called “the new perspective on Paul.” Seminary students run across it in their New Testament course reading and perhaps class lectures. Pastors hear about it from fledgling theologues wanting to impress them with their newfound knowledge of the latest thing in Pauline studies. Laypeople find it being peddled ubiquitously on the internet, on websites, in chatrooms or in various online discussion groups, as well as in numerous books on the Christian market, even from conservative evangelical publishing houses. Why talk about it? View Resource

  • Five Arguments Against Future Justification According to Works (Part II) Article by Richard Phillips

    Argument #4: The future judgment of believers consists only of reward and praise. Those who support future justification according to works will cite the numerous Bible passages that in one form or another state that we must all stand before Christ’s seat of judgment. View Resource

  • Five Arguments Against Future Justification According to Works (Part I) Article by Richard Phillips

    The year 2009 witnessed a publishing event of real interest to many Christians: the publication of N.T. Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Wright is widely considered the most provocative writer on justification today and the arrival of this book has deservedly garnered much attention. My purpose in this article is not to review Wright’s book as a whole or even to assess his overall teaching on justification. Rather, I intend to respond to that part of his teaching that proposes a future justification by works for believers in Jesus Christ. View Resource