Cornelis P. Venema, Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006). $$6.00.

Reviewed by Rev. Wes Bredenhof (Guest Reviewer)

This is a short little book dealing with an important, relevant topic. Though not really in the Canadian Reformed churches, the doctrine of justification is under debate elsewhere in the Reformed/Presbyterian community. Most of this debate takes place in connection with the so-called Federal Vision. However, it seems to have roots in what has been called the New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP).

This book is an entry-level introduction to the NPP from a Reformed perspective. The author is a United Reformed minister, a professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary and also president of that institution. Getting the Gospel Right is a shorter, popular version of another book recently published by Banner of Truth, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ.

The book is divided into three parts. In the first section, Venema outlines "the Reformation perspective on Paul." This perspective essentially boils down to five key features: 1) Justification is a principal theme of the gospel; 2) Justification is primarily a theological and soteriological (having to do with the doctrine of salvation) theme; 3) the Reformation claimed that the medieval Roman Catholic doctrine of justification emphasized obedience to the law as a partial, meritorious basis for justification; 4) the Reformers insisted that "works of the law" in Paul refer to any acts of obedience to the law which are then regarded as a ground for acceptance with God; 5) the righteousness of God is something that God freely grants and imputes to believers.

In the next section, Venema outlines the "New Perspective on Paul." He does this by laying out the views of three scholars: E.P. Sanders, D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. The NPP has been critical of the Reformation perspective on Paul. I think Venema fairly lays out their views in this chapter. Because of his influence, Venema spends the most time with Wright. He notes that Wright is unclear and obscure on certain important issues such as his understanding about the work of Christ. When speaking about what the gospel is, Wright emphasizes the Lordship of Christ. Venema notes that this emphasis "suggests that his view has more affinity with what historians of doctrine term the 'classic' or 'victory over the powers' conception than the penal-satisfaction emphasis of the Reformation." (p.56). Because of his emphasis on the question of who belongs to the covenant (as being the question that justification seeks to answer in Paul's writings), "he does not articulate a doctrine of the atonement along the lines of classic Protestant theology." (p.57)

The last substantial section features a longer critique of the views of Sanders, Dunn and Wright. He believes (rightly) that the rejection of the Reformation perspective is partly based on confusion between Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. The Reformers never said that the Roman Catholic doctrine was Pelagian nor (speaking anachronistically) that the Judaists of Paul's day taught Pelagianism. Rather the charge was one of semi-Pelagianism. This is just one problem among several that Venema highlights in this chapter.

Venema concludes, "Though it may be admitted that the new perspective has illumined some significant aspects of Paul's understanding of the gospel, its claims to offer a more satisfying interpretation of Paul's gospel than that of the Reformation seem at best overstated, and at worst clearly wrong." (p.91). I'm looking forward to reading the longer version of this book. I can certainly recommend this one to those looking for a place to start in trying to understand the controversies rocking many North American Reformed churches.

If I have just one small beef, it's the use of Internet sources in some of the footnotes. Though this book was published last year (2006), some of the links no longer work. Since authors like N.T. Wright have a wide following, one can google the titles and find them, but it is a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure how a problem like that can be solved.

Cornelis P. Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth 2006). $20.44.

Reviewed by R. Andrew Compton (Guest Reviewer)

What began as a series of articles in The Outlook and subsequently was printed in an abridged form entitled Getting the Gospel Right (Banner of Truth, 2006) has now been expanded and published as a 300+ page monograph. Cornelis P. Venema, president of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, responds to the teachings of the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) in this book.

In this book, Venema has offers a critique of the New Perspectives on Paul, an erroneous re-tooling of the Protestant doctrine of justification, from the perspective of a confessional, continental Reformed theologian. Though Venema formally holds to the Three Forms of Unity, in this critique of the NPP he utilizes confessional standards from both Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions, making this a fine example of the unity shared by Reformation churches with regard to the doctrine of justification. Venema makes his concern known right up front: “Whatever the gap between academy and pew, ideas tend to have legs that will eventually carry them into the church” (2). He knows full well that what originated as an academic discussion has now leaked into the pulpits of churches all over the world—even, surprisingly enough, into some Reformed churches! This book is aimed as the pastor, elder, or intelligent lay-person in an effort to familiarize them with the terms of the debate, and equip them to defend this most precious of Christian doctrines.

Strengths
Venema has written The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ in a clear writing style. His concise and cogent argumentation is not cumbersome to follow and his experience as a pastor and seminary professor is evident as he mediates the terms of this scholarly debate to an ecclesiastical audience. Venema favors the law/gospel distinction, thought by some in Reformed circles to be merely a “Lutheran” idea. He shows that the proper distinction between law and gospel is crucial for a proper understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification. He also affirms the active obedience of Christ. Though a number of Reformed writers have begun to jettison the idea as un-Biblical, arguing for only Christ’s passive obedience, Venema shows that the Protestant doctrine of justification demands both Christ’s active and passive obedience.

Venema has had the foresight to comment on theological method (145ff). Methodology has been too often taken for granted in the debate with the NPP, and the defense of the Reformation has suffered because of it. The NPP claims to be returning to sola scriptura in their reassessment of Paul. While this is commendable, Venema argues that they have failed to be consistent in this claim. Though NPP advocates assert that they are "simply reading the scripture," their magisterial use of Second Temple literature betrays their claim to sola scriptura. In this way, Venema shows that NPP methodology can actually be used against them. Additionally, though Venema holds to a traditional/conservative view with regard to the Pauline authorship of many of the "contested" epistles (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus), for the sake of argument he intentionally restricts the bulk of his appeal to those Pauline epistles not disputed by critical scholarship. In doing so, he shows that even on their own playing field, the NPP cannot withstand the Reformation perspective. Though not directly related to the discussion, Venema also offers a helpful treatment of how the epistle of James fits with the epistles of Paul in the Protestant view of Justification.

Weaknesses
I was dissapointed to see that though Venema affirmed Christ’s active obedience, he did not defend it within the context of covenant theology. No mention is made of either the covenant of works or the pactum salutis. Venema describes Christ as being obedient to the Father’s will, but does not specify that he did this as the second Adam being faithful to the same covenant of works that the first Adam broke. When speaking of Christ’s obedience to the Father, Venema does not place that in context of the pactum salutis. Along with this omission, not surprisingly, there is no mention of Christ’s work as being meritorious (cf. Canons of Dort, II, RE 1, 3, 4). The merit theology which accompanies Reformed formulations of the covenant of works is absent.

Venema does a good deal of exegetical work, however, his interaction with the Greek text could have been more thorough. To be fair, this may have been an intentional choice as many elders and lay people simply do not have the language skills to benefit from this. Though Venema surveys the major players in the NPP (i.e., Sanders, Dunn, and Wright), his survey leaves out many of the key historical figures who shaped the present day debate—such important figures as Krister Stendahl, Heikki Räisänen, and F.C. Baur. One will have to turn to Guy Waters and Stephen Westerholm for this information. Finally, on a stylistic note, The Banner of Truth has published Venema’s book with endnotes rather than footnotes. Though the endnotes are found at the end of each chapter rather than at the end of the book, the format still make it a bit cumbersome to see Venema’s sources and read his content notes.

Conclusion
In spite of these criticisms, Dr. Venema is to be commended for his very fine critique of the NPP. Pastors are encouraged to get copies of this book in to the hands of their elders. The NPP is not going anywhere anytime soon, and Reformed church leaders must be equipped to defend the Protestant doctrine of justification—not only for the sake of remaining faithful to the Reformed confessions, but for the sake of their parishioners’ consciences! Venema shows that it is the Reformed view that provides the very comfort that is ripped away by adherents to the NPP.