One of the easiest things to do is to decide that someone who disagrees with you doesn’t care about the Bible and feels free to disbelieve it. In the case of Liberals this is often true (perhaps that is so by definition for some). But there is always the possibility that the one who disagrees is someone who believes in the trustworthiness of the Bible as strongly as you do but simply understands it differently. For example, in this thread, an interpretation of Romans 9.30ff is used to “prove” that the Jews must have been merit legalists. No one seems aware of how such an interpretation begs the most basic question. The whole point of the New Perspective was that the “by works” refers to a different issue than that of earning or meritiing or “obeying enough” to inherit eternal life.

Currently there are three views on offer among Evangelicals. Before I list them let me offer the following for consideration:

• Sinners are only justified by faith, which joins them to Jesus Christ by the Spirit. Thus, his self-offering both in death, previous life, and current reign is accounted to them. They are given his righteous status. What Christ deserves is theirs even though they don’t deserve it, because Christ was willing to suffer the penalty they deserved and be the representative of all who trust in the God who sent Him. Again, this righteousness which Jesus has is only given to believers and only because they believe (and they only believe by God’s sovereign and invincible electing call).
• All people who hear the Gospel are commanded to believe the Gospel and trust the God revealed in the Gospel in order to be saved. Faith is obedience to a command.
• This faith in sinners, by which they are justified, is never morally perfect. Unbelief taints us and causes our faith to waver. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to join us to Christ so that we are counted as righteous before God.

What these points mean is quite simple. Any Evangelical can be accused of believing and teaching that sinners are justified by their imperfect obedience. By definition, anyone who confesses justification by faith alone confesses justificaton by imperfect obedience alone because faith is commanded and never done perfectly. The Westminster Confession deals with this possible equivocation by declaring that we justified by faith as an instrument of receiving Christ and his righteousness, not as some sort of meritorious cause.

The Apostle Paul contrasts faith and works. But he never defines “works” as obedience in the abstract. If he did so he would be logically incoherent. He is quite willing to speak of faith itself as obedience to the Gospel. Abstract obedience is not the issue, because then justification by faith would be the same as justification by works.

Thus what Paul meant by works is a matter of some debate at this time. Here are the three views currently being taught in Reformed circles.

1. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW This is the view held by Norman Shepherd, Daniel Fuller and many others. It holds that those attempting to be justified by works were Jews (and heretical Christians who adopted that teaching) who believed that one would be pronounced righteous by God on the basis of one’s own meritorious works. Romans 9.30ff basically says that the the Jews insisted on viewing the law as a means of earning or meriting salvation rather than as a description of what faith looks like in covenantal life. The Law as an administration of the covenant of grace rather than a covenant of works simply commanded faith in Christ alone
2. THE “NEW PERSPECTIVE” This is the view held by N. T. Wright and Don Garlington. It holds that those attempting to be justified by works were Jews who believed that their graciously-given standing God’s preChristian covnenants (Abrahamic/Mosaic), and their continuation in that covenant, guarranteed they were accepted and would be accepted as righteous in God’s sight. If one is liberal or non-evangelical, this “continuation” can take on virtually pelagian overtones. But among Evangelical exponents, this is simply a matter of living by faith to fruitfulness (e.g. John 15.1ff). The “works” Paul opposes then, is loyalty to the law that demands one become Jewish to be a true covenant member. Uncircumcised believers are at best second-class citizens in the Kingdom. Paul considers this a denial of the Gospel which asserts that believers are one in Christ and that the Jewish particularism–which the Law of Moses and the covenant of circumcision created–has served its purpose and now must give way to the new creation in Christ.
3. THE ASSENT VIEW This view is a modern aberration. It claims that faith is nothing more than affirming certain propositions in one’s mind. By “works,” Paul means all other actions other than assenting to the proper facts of the Gospel.

What is intriguing about the current level of discourse in the Reformed circles is that both 1 and 2 confess justification only by faith only in Christ on the basis only of his representative death and his righteous standing before God. They both give us a logically consistent presentation of justification by faith apart from the works of the Law. Furthermore, advocates of 2 has always insisted that Luther was right in using Paul’s arguments against his Medieval opponents. In fact, they have insisted that 2 includes all the positive content regarding 1. Paul wasn’t arguing against anachronistic Roman Catholic legalists, but his arguments against torah-idolizing covenantal nomists do in fact cover their errors as well.

So the question between 1 and 2 is simply who does the best exegetical justice to the text. Despite being the “traditional view” the beliefs of First-century Judaism have never been a matter of confessional orthodoxy (though you would never guess that from some innovative condemnations delivered from pulpits). There simply is no reason for any ecclesiastical conflict over this issue. It is a matter of discussion and debate.

On the other hand, in addition to doing exegetical violence to the text, and contradicting all the Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation and of the wider Church, 3 is by it’s own definition a legalistic creed. It asserts that any attempt to define faith as “doing” anything is legalism. Faith is simply assent. But assenting, believing, affirming are all, inescapably verbs. A person who does such things is still doing something. The definition of “works-righteousness” which motivated the development of so anemic a definition of “faith,” still condemns that faith as works-righteousness. By their own stringent definition–which is suddenly, silently, and mysteriously made less stringent for their positive proposal–they teach that one is justified by one’s own imperfect obedience.

There are many strange things about the current tempest-in-a-teapot over position 2. But one of the most bizarre is that advocates of 1, while claiming to be concerned about traditional Reformed theology, are so willing not only to accept advocates of 3, but extoll them for their attacks on 2. If one operates on the premise that our confessional heritage matters, or that Biblical exegesis matters, the current situation is unfathomable. Nothing is said in the Westminster Confession or Catechisms about the theology of first-century Judaism. The idea of faith being nothing more than believing certain propositions, however, is explicilty singled out and rejected.