The next chapter in By Faith Alone is by T. David Gordon, and it too is a critique of N.T. Wright. The bulk of the chapter is just fine. Gordon, like Venema, is not hyperventilating over this, and he brings Wright’s approach to biblical theology under scrutiny, and does so in a moderate and fair way. He does this as one who has reviewed Wright’s work favorably in the past (p. 61), and who is not automatically freaked out by him.
Gordon mentions the Auburn theology in passing, and that is what I would like to briefly comment on.
“This explains why some associate the New Perspective with the Auburn theology–neither explicates its biblical theology with reference to the Adamic administration” (p. 62).
A bit later, he says:
“Much of the present debate in some circles is not merely, or primarily, about the relation of faith and works in justification, though it has ramifications for that discussion. The present debate is about whether we can properly handle the doctrine of justification apart from juridical categories, apart from God’s right judgment of his creation in terms of its obedience or disobedience to his rule” (p. 62).
The phrase in some circles is footnoted, and Gordon says, “Regarding not only N.T. Wright, but also the so-called New Perspective on Paul, the views of Norman Shepherd, and the views of the so-called Auburn theology” (p. 62).
First, I think the comment that this is being driven by something deeper than the simple relation of faith to works is an astute one. The dirt clods on the surface aren’t causing the earthquake; the tectonic plates are. But past that intial point of agreement, I think the observation needs serious modification. Put another way, what are those tectonic plates? It is not so much that downstream TR theology is explicated in terms of Adam, and downstream FV is explicated in terms of Abraham. It would be better to say that we relate Adam to the last Adam differently, but everything I have heard in FV circles is a Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 21: theology.
Here is one example. In Back to Basics, my colleague Doug Jones sets the stage of covenant theology this way.
“The most prominent distinction that appears in God’s covenant work is that between God’s covenant before the Fall and His covenant thereafter. Before the Fall, the Lord graciously condescends to covenant with Adam (and humanity) in his condition of genuine righteousness. But after the Fall, the Lord establishes a covenant to redeem rebels alienated by their sin. These two distinct covenants have gone by many names in the history of Christian thought, but we will call them the Covenant of Creation and the Covenant of Redemption. These labels highlight the different conditions of humanity with respect to each covenant. Regardless of the names we apply to these two covenants, the more interesting point is that the distinction between them is prior to, and more foundational than, the distinction between the Old and New Covenants, which sometimes receives undue emphasis. The important distinction between the Old and New Covenants is really between anticipation (the Old Covenant) and fulfillment (the New Covenant) within the Covenant of Redemption. The intricate covenantal chain of redemption runs unbroken through both Old and New Covenants” (Back to Basics, p. 76, emphasis mine).
And amen. In FV circles, you will get various responses to the covenant of works. Some, like the above, insist on the language of covenants, but also insist that the Covenant of Creation was essentially gracious in character. Others, following John Murray, might want to say that there is an Adamic administration, but not an Adamic covenant. Others, like Jim Jordan, speak of two “stages” of intended human existence. Adam rebelled before getting to the second stage, and so the last Adam came to bring us into the maturity of that second stage. Now clearly something is going on here, and despite all the intramural differences in how we put things, it is distinct from a strict merit system which sees Adam as the first failed Pelagian.
And here, I would suggest, is the fundamental difference between our camps. It is not how many covenants there are, or how many administrations. This is a debate over what constitutes the necessary nature of the relationship between God and any one of His obedient servants. One side says that it is always (necessarily) a relationship of favor and gratitude. The other says that the archtypical relationship is one of requirement and obedience. This is not to say that the terms of each side are excluded from the other. The debate is over primacy. One side gives primacy to requirement and obedience, and within that context finds room for favor and gratitude. The other gives primacy to favor and gratitude, and within that context finds room for requirement and obedience. But there it is. In my view, these are the tectonic plates.