N. T. Wright, The Paul Debate: Critical Questions for Understanding the Apostle (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2015), xi + 110 pages.

I must confess that I am writing this double-review with both volumes of N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress Press, 2013), sitting on my desk, partially open, and partially read. I must also come clean that I have intentionally decided to read first the two books under review in part because I am unsure when I will finish the Wright magnum opus (so far), but I have read and been positively challenged both by Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God series which go back to the early 1990s (to which Paul and the Faithfulness of God adds the fourth installment) and his earlier book on Paul (What Saint Paul Really Said, Eerdmans, 1997). For those who find themselves in situations somewhat like mine, I say up front: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (PRI) and The Paul Debate (PD) are very different books that interface with Paul and the Faithfulness of God (PFG) in contrasting ways, and will not in the end alleviate from those serious about the New Testament the burden of taking up and persisting through the latter books. Let me explain.

Wright tell us in the preface to PRI that as originally imagined, it intended to serve as an introduction to PFG, particularly in terms of mapping the trajectories of Pauline scholarship in the modern era. However, the material “quickly became more complex than I had imagined, to the point where it could no longer be contained within the larger book” (PRI, xvii). One response might be that tacking on the 350 plus pages of PRI to the beginning of PFG would have resulted in an expansion of book 1 to about the current size of book 2; on the other hand, the complicating factors appear to be less about size or length than with conceptuality, and perhaps setting off PRI on its own account can be appreciated only after working through the details of PFG.

What PRI does, then, is situate PFG within the broader landscape of Pauline studies, particularly around the turn of the twenty-first century. The three parts of PRI unfold three dominant conversations about Paul: 1) on the Jewishness of the apostle, particularly as negotiated and disputed after E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1997); 2) on Paul as apocalyptic thinker and theologian from Ernst Käsemann at mid-century through J. C. Beker, J. L. Martyn, and Douglas Campbell more recently; and 3) on the social world of Paul and the apostolic Christians, particularly as initiated and developed by the work of Wayne Meeks and David Horrell. While the discussions are explicated along separate tracks (in the three parts), Wright’s account clarifies the interconnections while also locating how these important issues are relevant to other developments in Pauline scholarship, whether the so-called “New Perspective,” those working in empire studies, or the philosophical-continental Paul. Along the way, we get glimpses about how Wright’s own constructive vision in PFG has been shaped in dialogue with these developments. In particular, we understand better Paul, not to mention Jesus, as Jewish and apocalyptic visionaries, but in ways that make sense given the social and historical world of first century Palestinian life under the shadow of the Greco-Roman empire and amidst Hellenistic culture.

Theologians and pastors alike have come to expect that, as each calendar year turns, Dr. Tom (N.T. Wright) will publish some new work. Such has happened just this week with the release of his most recent book now available, The Paul Debate: Critical Questions for Understanding the Apostle.

It’s not as if Wright hasn’t already written plenty on the topic – he has, perhaps, published more on Pauline studies than any other over the past three decades. Some of his greatest works include What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, Paul: In Fresh Perspectives, and Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. Even more, his massive 1700-page tome, Paul and the Faithfulness of God came out only two years ago. It was volume 4 of his Christian Origins and the Question of God. He has literally racked up thousand and thousands of published pages on the theme of Paul’s theology as found in the New Testament.

Most will know by now, but Wright steps to the plate as a champion for what has been titled the “new perspective on Paul” (NPP), which is in contradistinction to a normal evangelical reading of Paul’s letters, especially his letters to the churches in Galatia and Rome. Following in the vein of folk like E.P. Sanders and James Dunn, Wright argues that the NPP paradigm offers a better grounding in the first-century setting of Paul. The normal Protestant and evangelical readings of Scripture, NPP advocates charge, is to readily run through the lens of a perspective that came along later during the 16th century Reformation.

As expected, with the release of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, much scrutinization of the magnum opus followed, both criticism and praise. In an effort to briefly respond to the reviews (the book’s content weighs in at a mere 107 pages), and probably more the critical responses, Wright has offered this new Baylor Press publication, The Paul Debate. In all, the book serves as a succinct summary of his own insights into the new perspective on Paul.

In particular, the book is broken into five chapters of similar length that address particular criticisms. As he outlines in the Preface:

To read even this summary of the book’s themes easily reminds us that the present work is more suitable to seminarians than a popular audience. To break it down, consider these points being addressed in each chapter.

Chapter 1 – Was Paul simply a Jew who knew Jesus as Messiah or did he carry a more Hellenistic, Greek perspective with only very little Jewish thought remaining? Or, was Paul deeply rooted in his Jewish thinking, but was one who had had his paradigm renewed in the new framework of Jesus as God’s Messiah? Wright is convinced Paul was as Jewish as they come, yet, thinking like the Messiah meant “bringing a whole world of Jewish thinking into a new focus, a new frame, because the Messiah himself, so Paul believed, had brought the whole life of God’s ancient people into a new focus, a new frame.” (p11)

Chapter 2 – This chapter flows on from the first in that Wright gets into the nitty gritty of the Jewish framework on which Paul built his renewed theology. Whereas concepts such as the hypostatic union and Trinity were defined a few centuries later in church history, all in an effort to support the view of Jesus’ divinity, Paul had his own Jewish way of identifying Jesus, the Messiah, with the God of Israel. The divine identity lined up quite well with the way the Hebrew Scriptures particularly spoke about Yahweh and his activity.

Live debate on Predestination and Election
Join us on Friday, January 24, at 4pm-6pm EST for a live debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. They will debate the doctrine of Predestination and ask: Did Christ die for all? The debate will be live-streamed again at 9pm EST.

Live debate on Divine Healing
Come back again on Saturday, January 25, at 4pm-6pm EST for a live debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. They will debate whether the gift of healing has ceased. The debate will be live-streamed again at 9pm EST.

Brought to PneumaReview.com in cooperation with RevelationTV.com.

Click to watch LIVE: http://pneumareview.com/live

This collection of essays presented in 2006-07 to the students and faculty of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary is part of the on-going work of The Forum for Evangelical Theology. D. Stephen Long and George Kalantzis, both the book’s editors and the convenors of the forum, invited a number of scholars from a wide range of Christian theological perspectives—many but not all would identify themselves as evangelicals—to present their views on questions surrounding the idea of the nature of God. In particular, these essays focused on the nature of what it means for God to be sovereign and, more particularly, on the nature of his relationship with creation, especially with humanity. Each author presented their perspective on whether or not God may be affected by the happenings of creation—known theologically as the question of divine impassibility—and, if so, the nature of that affect.

In the opening chapter, Jimmy Cooper introduces the question of divine impassibility, providing for the reader a short history of the debate and an introduction of the authors that follow. From there George Kalantzis, through an examination of a debate between two early church leaders, Cyril and Nestorius, shows that while the question of divine impassibility is important for orthodoxy it is not sufficient; one may hold to God’s impassibility and still be heretical (e. g. Nestorius). D. Stephen Long, on his chapter on the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas, defends Aquinas and his theology from contemporary accusations of being too influenced by a pagan philosophical system. Instead, Long asserts that Aquinas’ theology is biblically grounded. He notes that, instead, it is the conclusions of many contemporary theologies that result in significant theological and practical problems. These problems are the consequences of, on the one hand, a diminished view of God (where is he too dependent upon his creation) and, on the other hand, having an exaggerated view of evil. John Calvin is famous for the prominence that God’s sovereignty has in his theology. Vincent Bacote, rather than appealing to the many theological traditions that look to Calvin as their founder, unpacks the theology of the Reformer himself. In regard to those passages that are often understood to assert the changeability or even the suffering of God, Bacote asserts that Calvin understood these as “divine accommodations”—instances where God represents himself not as he actually is (which is beyond our understanding) but in a way that allows us to understand him. The first contemporary theology represented in this text is presented by Michael Lodahl who asserts that the issue of God’s sovereignty is best dealt with by Process Theology with a little bit of John Wesley thrown in to compensate for the former’s limitations. The author begins by challenging the church’s historic understanding of Christ which, he asserts, sounds more like Caesar than Jesus. Process Theology asserts that given that all things exist in relationship, including God, and therefore He cannot be wholly disconnected from his creation but is, instead, “a fellow sufferer” and that rather than meticulously predetermining the actions of all other beings, God’s power is seen in his ability to persuade. A former student of noted German theologian Jürgen Moltmann provides insights from his theology to address the question of God’s sovereignty. Nancy Elizabeth Bedford notes that Moltmann’s response to this question revolves around his “theology of the Cross.” Consequently, God’s sovereignty must be seen in his ability to limit and humble himself. While God suffers, it must be understood as a consequence of the intensity of the love that he has for humanity. John Sanders presents the view of what is commonly called “Openness Theology;” the theological understanding that re-opened the debate on the nature of the sovereignty of God about twenty years ago. Sanders argues that God seeks to be in true relationship with humanity and that real relationship requires that humanity be able to exercise real freedom (especially in its response to love God or not) and that God truly respond to human action as opposed to meticulously predetermining the actions of all involved. Sanders asserts that Scripture portrays a God who actually takes risks. The final chapter, by Thomas G. Weinandy, places great emphasis on the historic Creator/creature distinction, noting that Scripture affirms both God’s nearness but also, and at least equally, his wholly-otherness from it. He notes that God’s unchangingness does not make God unfeeling or distant; it actually empowers him to be all that the creation needs him to be, including perfectly loving. The book concludes with a series of shorter chapters where each author is given space to respond to the contributions of the others.

This book is well worth investigation as it provides an excellent resource to those interested in investigating and comparing the varied views on the closely related questions of God’s sovereignty and immutability. Each author has done an admirable job of addressing the issue from their perspective. Novices, be warned! This text may prove daunting or , perhaps, out of reach. Much of the language and many of the concepts that are used assume a level of theological familiarity and sophistication. This is understandable, of course, given the audience to which the presentations were originally made.

Reviewed by Bernie A. Van De Walle

Publisher’s Page: wipfandstock.com/store/The_Sovereignty_of_God_Debate

There is a growing debate in theological circles that is challenging doctrines long held by evangelical Christians. The debate is over something called Openness theology: Is the future completely settled or is it open? Soon, this debate will be affecting what is heard from pulpits, and has had such an influence already.

Although this debate is not new to readers of Christianity Today, these two articles in subsequent issues offer a unique exchange between differing viewpoints. CT’s editors have done a good job finding two correspondents who treat each other with respect and candidness often missing from such discussions.

This openness theology in question goes by many names. Gregory Boyd of Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN) prefers to call it “open creationism.” Robert Brow and Clark Pinnock call it “Creative Love Theism.” The basic tenets of this open view theism are developed along these lines: God’s love relationship with creation requires that man have a libertarian free will. If mankind posses a will that can make choices truly independent of or contrary to its nature, than the future must be partially open. God does not therefore have exhaustive, definite foreknowledge because the future would thereby be completely settled and man could not have a will that was completely free. Openness theology is considered a progression in the free-will tradition of Arminius and Wesley.

The format of the discussion between Chris Hall and John Sanders is an E-mail exchange that goes back and forth. John Sanders, author of The God Who Risks (IVP) holds the open view, while Chris Hall, author of Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (IVP), is a classical theist. Their friendliness and mutual respect could well serve as a model of discussion, as the CT editors suggest.

In their conversation, Hall and Sanders address a broad spectrum of theological, pastoral, philosophical, and exegetical concerns. Do our prayers affect God’s decisions? Does God predetermine or even know the future? Is God changed by the choices of free men? If God predetermines all things, does God therefore want every murder, rape and every other evil to occur?

Openness proponents believe they are offering a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God. They are challenging many great Christian thinkers throughout history by saying that God is everlasting, but disagreeing over the traditional understanding of eternity and saying that God has constrained Himself to time. While the philosophical issues involved are vast, this debate must ultimately be decided solely on Scripture. As both Chris Hall and John Sanders have demonstrated in this dialogue, there are some immense exegetical issues. How can predictive prophecy work in Scripture if the future is not completely settled? Is eternity a concept carried over from Plato by early church theologians, or is it a biblical teaching?

While this E-mail conversation has probably only raised more questions than resolved, it is noble of Christianity Today to present two sides of an ongoing debate. And, if history is any indication, the debate about man’s free will and God’s sovereign choices is not going away any time soon.

Reviewed by Raul Mock