New Perspective On Paul - Criticism and Rhetoric

Criticism and Rhetoric

The new perspective has been an extremely controversial subject and has drawn strong arguments and recriminations from both sides of the debate.

In 2003 Steve Chalke, after being influenced by new-perspective writers, published a book targeted at a popular audience which made comments highly critical of the penal substitution theory of the atonement. This caused an extensive and ongoing controversy among Evangelicals in Britain, with a strong backlash from lay-people and advocates of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

Both sides of the debate attempt to claim the higher, and more accurate, view of scripture. New-perspective advocates claim that old-perspective supporters are too committed to historic Protestant tradition, and therefore fail to take a 'natural' reading of the Bible; while old-perspectivists claim that new-perspective advocates are too intrigued by certain interpretations of context and history, which then lead to a biased hermeneutical approach to the text.

The new perspective has been heavily criticized by conservative scholars in the Reformed tradition, arguing that it undermines the classical, individualistic, Augustinian interpretation of election and does not faithfully reflect the teachings of the Scriptures. It has been the subject of fierce debate among Evangelicals in recent years, mainly due to N. T. Wright's increasing popularity in evangelical circles. Its most outspoken critics include Calvinists John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson, C. W. Powell, Mark Seifrid, D. A. Carson, Tom Holland, Ligon Duncan. Barry D. Smith has claimed that the New Perspective's challenge to the traditional view of Jewish faith practice as legalistic is misplaced.