Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 68:1 (Spring 2006)
Article: Response Articles: Rejoinder to Nicholas Perrin, “A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective”
Author: Guy Prentiss Waters

---

WTJ 68:1 (Spring 2006) p. 133

Response Articles:
Rejoinder to Nicholas Perrin,
“A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective”

Guy Waters

Guy Prentiss Waters is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Belhaven College, Jackson, Miss.

Nicholas Perrin’s review of Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul (J&NPP) is a fundamentally ambivalent work.1 J&NPP raised the question whether the New Perspective is compatible with confessional Reformed theology, and answered in the negative. Perrin appears to approve the judgment that “the champions of the NPP are not so much creating problems, but seeking to address unresolved ones in new ways” (386). Perrin nevertheless perceives himself to stand in a “theological trajector[y]” whose “framework,” “agenda,” and “emphases” have been drawn from the Westminster Confession (389). Perrin’s review is instructive in manifesting some of the difficulties that attend such efforts to reconcile these two readings of the apostle Paul.

One cannot fault Perrin with a lackluster engagement of J&NPP. It is in this regard, however, that we cannot help but reflect with disappointment upon the balance and tone of the review. At points Perrin attributes perceived deficiencies in J&NPP to weakness in the author’s mind. The author is said, for instance, to have offered at points a non sequitur (384) and a nonsensical argument (385). These examples (to which we shall attend below) appear to manifest Perrin’s perception of the overall tendency of the work, which is variously described in this review as circular (386), lacking nuance and logical cogency (389), and having argumentatively failed “at a fundamental level” (384). To be sure, Perrin concedes “some good points” with respect to the “exegetical sticking points of the NPP” (388). If the exegesis of J&NPP is constituent to its overall argumentative success, should this not temper the reviewer’s severity in his overall assessment of the book’s argument? Is it possible that the reviewer has overstated his case?

Perrin, however, claims to have identified a weakness not only in the author’s mind but also in his character. He cites what he believes to be an “inflammatory assertion” that is “disrespectful, and as such, sub-Christian” (384). Readers who consult the reference in question (J&NPP, 186) will find that it is actually a statement introducing a substantial argument. Wright faults, at several points, the Reformers and their heirs for seeing the apostle Paul training the doctrine of

WTJ 68:1 (Spring 2006) p. 134

justification by faith alone upon Pelagian opponents....

visitor : : uid: ()