Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment by Robert N. Wilkin, Thomas R. Schreiner, James D. G. Dunn, and Michael P. Barber
The Open Volume
Thoughtful Reviews in Theology and Ministry
Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment
Robert N. Wilkin, Thomas R. Schreiner, James D. G. Dunn, and Michael P. Barber
Bibliographic Information
Contributors: Wilkin, Robert N.; Schreiner, Thomas R.; Dunn, James D. G.; Barber, Michael P. Full Title: Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment General Editor: Stanley, Alan P. Series Editor: Gundry, Stanley N. Publisher: Zondervan Academic Year of Publication: 2013 Pages: 234 pp. ISBN: 978-0-310-49033-3 Series: Counterpoints: Bible and Theology
Author Background
Robert N. Wilkin (Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is the Executive Director and founder of the Grace Evangelical Society in Texas, a parachurch ministry devoted to what is commonly called the "Free Grace" or "non-Lordship salvation" position. Wilkin writes from within a particular strand of the Baptist/Free Church tradition shaped by classical Dallas Seminary dispensationalism — the tradition of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Zane Hodges, and Charles Ryrie — and his hermeneutical framework is inseparable from that dispensational eschatology: the conviction that there are two distinct eschatological judgments (the Judgment Seat of Christ for believers and the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers), that faith requires no accompanying obedience or perseverance, and that eternal life is secured by a singular act of mental assent to the gospel. His chapter represents the most theologically idiosyncratic of the four views and the one most resistant to ecumenical dialogue with the other contributors.
Thomas R. Schreiner (Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary) is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament and Associate Dean at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. One of the foremost Pauline scholars in the evangelical world, Schreiner is the author of major commentaries on Romans (Baker, 1998), Galatians (Zondervan, 2010), and a comprehensive Pauline theology, as well as the co-authored The Race Set before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (IVP, 2001), with Ardel Caneday. He writes from the Reformed/Calvinist tradition — his institutional location at Southern Seminary, his covenantal hermeneutic, his insistence on the perseverance of the saints, and his forensic account of justification all reflect his confessional home in the Westminster/London Baptist Confession tradition. His chapter engages the most breadth of New Testament material and provides the volume's most representative expression of confessional Protestant soteriology.
James D. G. Dunn (Ph.D., Cambridge; 1939–2020) was Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, one of the most important New Testament scholars of the twentieth century and the scholar who coined the phrase "New Perspective on Paul" in his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture. His major works include The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998), Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (SCM, 1977), and his magisterial commentary on Romans (Word Biblical Commentary, 1988). Dunn is broadly Protestant — raised within Calvinist tradition, as he notes, but long since resistant to systematic dogmatics as a hermeneutical grid — and his chapter is less interested in defending a confessional position than in modeling the kind of honest exegetical attentiveness to the New Testament's theological diversity that he believed systematic theology routinely suppresses. He is best classified within the Ecumenical/Broadly Christian framework, insofar as his primary loyalty is to the text of Paul rather than to any confessional tradition.
Michael P. Barber (Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary) was at the time of publication Professor of Theology, Scripture, and Catholic Thought at John Paul the Great Catholic University in San Diego and is now Professor of Scripture and Theology at the Augustine Institute Graduate School of Theology. A convert to Catholicism who completed his doctoral work at a Protestant institution under Colin Brown, Barber is deeply formed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the magisterial tradition, while maintaining genuine academic engagement with Protestant scholarship. He writes from the Roman Catholic tradition: his argument draws on the Catechism, the Council of Trent, Thomas Aquinas, and the emerging Catholic biblical scholarship associated with the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and its founder Scott Hahn. His chapter represents the most expansive defense of works as meritorious at the final judgment of any contributor, while grounding that defense in the logic of union with Christ rather than independent human effort.
Alan P. Stanley (Ph.D., Ridley College) was at the time of publication Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Brisbane School of Theology in Australia and is himself the author of two books directly relevant to the volume's topic: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Pickwick, 2006) and Salvation Is More Complicated Than You Think (IVP, 2012). His editorial introductions and conclusion constitute substantial contributions in their own right, particularly his historically grounded framing of the debate through Martin Luther, E. P. Sanders, John Piper, and N. T. Wright.
Thesis and Central Argument
Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment addresses one of the New Testament's most persistent and practically urgent tensions: that Scripture simultaneously teaches justification by grace through faith apart from works (Romans 3–4, Galatians 2–3, Ephesians 2:8–9) and judgment according to works at the end of time (Romans 2:6–7, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Matthew 25:31–46, Revelation 20:11–15). The four contributors present sharply divergent accounts of how these two bodies of evidence are related. The central diagnostic question — around which the volume's mutual engagement is sharpest — is whether perseverance in good works is a necessary condition for final salvation. The four positions arrayed across that question are: (1) Wilkin's denial that works have any bearing on salvation at the final judgment (only on rewards at a separate Bema Seat); (2) Schreiner's Reformed Protestant position that works are the necessary but not sufficient evidence confirming that saving faith was genuine; (3) Dunn's resistance to any systematic harmonization of the New Testament's diverse soteriology; and (4) Barber's Catholic affirmation that works are meritorious at the final judgment because of the believer's union with Christ by grace.
Chapter-by-Chapter Overview
Introduction — Alan P. Stanley
Stanley's introduction is the most historically thorough editorial framing in the series to date for a volume on a soteriology topic. He surveys the doctrine of judgment in both Testaments, situates the debate within the arc of the Piper-Wright controversy (which brought the Pauline tension between justification and judgment-according-to-works into popular evangelical consciousness in the late 2000s), and introduces the four contributors with clear, fair summaries of their respective positions. His account of the Piper-Wright exchange — Piper's charge that Wright made works the "basis" of final justification, Wright's response that they are merely "in accordance with" the Spirit-wrought life, Schreiner's role in pressing Wright at the 2010 ETS meeting, and Wright's subsequent blog clarifications — is the most accessible summary of that controversy available and provides essential context for understanding why the Schreiner-Dunn alignment (and the Schreiner-Barber disagreement) in this volume takes the shape it does. Stanley's introduction also provides a useful taxonomy of the question, noting that Dane Ortlund had identified fourteen "nuanced" views grouped under four headings as recently as 2009 — a figure that establishes the genuine complexity of the terrain readers are entering.
Chapter One — "Christians Will Be Judged According to Their Works at the Rewards Judgment, but Not at the Final Judgment" (Robert N. Wilkin)
Wilkin's argument rests on a hermeneutical decision that is prior to all his exegesis: that there are two distinct eschatological judgments — the Judgment Seat of Christ (the "Bema") at which believers are judged for rewards, and the Great White Throne Judgment at which unbelievers are assigned degrees of eternal torment — and that John 5:24's declaration that the believer "shall not come into judgment" (krisis) applies specifically to the latter. With this division established, every New Testament text that appears to make works a condition for final salvation is redirected to the Bema (where they determine rewards and ruling privileges in the millennium) rather than to the Great White Throne (where eternal destiny is determined solely by whether one's name is in the book of life, which depends only on whether one has believed).
His exegetical case proceeds through the warning passages most commonly cited in this discussion: the parable of the minas (Luke 19:11–27), Matthew 24:13 ("he who endures to the end will be saved"), Matthew 24:45–51 (the unfaithful servant "cut in two"), the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30), the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31–46), Galatians 6:7–9, Colossians 1:21–23, Hebrews 10:36, and Revelation 3:5 and 20:11–15. In every case, Wilkin argues that what appears to be a threat to salvation is actually a threat to rewards: the unfaithful servant is "verbally cut up" at the Bema; "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is grief over lost rewards, not eternal torment; blotting out from the book of life means losing one's "exalted reputation" rather than losing eternal life. He concludes with three arguments that the eternal-security-by-faith-alone position is not merely exegetically defensible but practically necessary — for assurance of salvation, for coherent evangelism, and for motivation grounded in gratitude rather than fear.
Chapter Two — "Justification Apart from and by Works: At the Final Judgment Works Will Confirm Justification" (Thomas R. Schreiner)
Schreiner's chapter is the volume's most substantive, methodologically self-aware, and exegetically comprehensive. He opens by acknowledging that his title contains an apparent paradox — justification apart from works and justification by works — and frames his essay as an honest attempt to hold both biblical affirmations without resolving their tension by subordinating one set of texts to the other. His first movement covers the Pauline texts that exclude works from the basis of justification: Galatians 2:16's triple denial of justification by works of law, Galatians 3:10's argument that the law requires perfect obedience no one can render, Romans 4's argument from Abraham and David that righteousness is given not earned, Romans 3:21–26's atonement theology, and Ephesians 2:8–9 and Titus 3:3–7 as confirming witnesses.
His second movement — the more surprising and exegetically productive section — covers texts that insist works are necessary for final salvation: Romans 2:6–10, 26–29 (with Schreiner's careful argument that the Spirit-produced obedience of Gentiles in Romans 2:26–29 is not merely hypothetical but actual, grounding his reading in the new covenant echoes of Deuteronomy 30 and Ezekiel 36); Galatians 5:19–21 (those who practice the works of the flesh "will not inherit the kingdom of God") and 6:7–9 (sowing to the flesh leads to "corruption," not mere loss of rewards); Galatians 5:6 ("faith expressing itself through love"); and Hebrews 12:14 ("without holiness no one will see the Lord"). His theological resolution is that works are the necessary evidence of saving faith — not its ground or basis — and that those who profess faith but produce no works over a lifetime should be understood as having made false professions of faith rather than as saved-but-carnal believers as Wilkin would have it. The final section addresses James 2 and its implications for how faith and works integrate.
Chapter Three — "If Paul Could Believe Both in Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works, Why Should That Be a Problem for Us?" (James D. G. Dunn)
Dunn's chapter is methodologically the most distinctive in the volume and the most resistant to summarization — partly because his central argument is itself anti-systematic. His opening observation — that the New Testament contains no single, internally consistent theology of salvation, but rather a diverse set of metaphors and contextual pastoral responses that resist harmonization into an ordo salutis — is the essay's governing principle, and everything that follows is an application of it. Dunn argues that Paul's letters themselves present two "justifications": a present one received by faith (Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16), which represents the decisive beginning of the salvation process, and a future one to be rendered at the final judgment on the basis of the whole life lived (Romans 2:13, Galatians 5:5). Rather than resolving the tension between these by making one subordinate to the other, Dunn insists that Paul held them together because salvation is a process — he marshals the "firstfruits/first installment" (arrabōn, aparchē) language of Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 1 to show that Paul consistently describes the Spirit's present work as the beginning of an eschatological process not yet complete.
His most provocative section catalogs the "disturbingly conditional" quality of Paul's pastoral theology — the real possibility of apostasy, falling away from grace, being cut off from the olive tree — as evidence that Paul genuinely entertained the possibility that the salvation process might not be completed in some of his converts. Dunn then addresses the imputed/infused righteousness debate, declining to adjudicate between Reformed and Catholic readings of Paul but insisting that both the forensic (status accorded) and transformative (person transformed) dimensions of Paul's soteriology are genuine and irreconcilable into a single propositional system. His conclusion — that we should hear both the grace passages and the works passages in the contexts that evoked them, rather than forcing them into a system that diminishes one set — is analytically honest but practically frustrating for readers seeking a usable position.
Chapter Four — "A Catholic Perspective: Our Works Are Meritorious at the Final Judgment Because of Our Union with Christ by Grace" (Michael P. Barber)
Barber's chapter is the volume's most constructive and, for many Protestant readers, its most theologically challenging. He opens with the Catechism's statement that "the charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God" and explicitly frames his task as demonstrating that the Catholic position, properly understood, is not a works-righteousness but a grace-righteousness — one in which works are meritorious precisely because they are the work of Christ within the believer. His soteriology is explicitly process-oriented: salvation is a past, present, and future reality (Titus 3:5; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 10:13), and the language of "entering the kingdom," "inheriting eternal life," "being justified," and "being saved" all refer to the same eschatological destination at different stages of the journey.
His most distinctive contribution is his engagement with the economic and commercial language that pervades Jewish soteriology of the Second Temple period and that Barber argues pervades Jesus' own teaching: sins as "debts" (the Lord's Prayer), good works as "heavenly treasure" (Matthew 6:19–20; 19:21), judgment as the weighing of accounts. Drawing on Gary Anderson's work on economic metaphors in Jewish literature and Nathan Eubank's dissertation on Matthew, Barber argues that Jesus' teaching about rewards and salvation employs a coherent Jewish commercial theology in which the language of "reward" (misthon) and "entering the kingdom" are functionally synonymous. The most theoretically sophisticated section of his argument develops the doctrine of meritum de condigno (condign merit) within a theology of union with Christ: because the believer is united to Christ by grace, the works performed by the believer are genuinely Christ's works and therefore genuinely meritorious — not on the basis of human effort but on the basis of the infinite worth of the one who acts within the believer.
Conclusion — Alan P. Stanley
Stanley's conclusion is one of the series' better editorial syntheses. His summaries of each position's handling of "the puzzle" are incisive: Wilkin removes the tension by bifurcating the judgment; Schreiner holds the tension by insisting that grace necessarily produces perseverance in the elect; Dunn names the tension and leaves it standing as the most honest response to the New Testament's diversity; Barber resolves the tension through a theology of grace that is powerful enough to render human works meritorious. Stanley's three "crucial questions" — What is the nature of saving grace and faith? What is the nature of salvation (point in time or process)? How should the biblical texts on grace and works relate to each other? — are a useful organizing frame for further study, even if they do not adjudicate among the positions.
Theological Evaluation and Critique
Exegetical and Hermeneutical Method
The volume's deepest methodological divergence is between Wilkin's system-driven exegesis and Dunn's anti-systematic exegetical pluralism, with Schreiner and Barber occupying a middle position. Wilkin's method is explicitly presuppositional: the two-judgment framework he derives from a particular reading of John 5:24 and Revelation 20:11–15 functions as a hermeneutical grid governing every other text. His interpretations of the warning passages are the most uniformly contested readings in the volume, and Schreiner's pointed challenge — asking what evidence could ever, in principle, change Wilkin's interpretation if even being "cut to pieces" and assigned a place "with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51) does not qualify as a soteriological threat — is a legitimate methodological critique, not merely a substantive one. Dunn and Barber press the same point from different angles.
Schreiner's exegetical method is the most self-consciously calibrated in the volume. His treatment of Romans 2:26–29 as describing actual new covenant obedience rather than hypothetical obedience is a well-developed argument that engages the strongest objections (the hypothetical reading) and grounds its alternative reading in Paul's use of the Spirit/letter contrast in Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6. His handling of Galatians 5:21 and 6:8 — arguing that "eternal life" in the latter text means exactly what it means everywhere else in Paul, not a reward above and beyond salvation as Wilkin contends — models the kind of comparative Pauline argument the letter's warning passages require.
Dunn's methodological contribution is the most philosophically sophisticated but the most resistant to practical application. His argument that Paul's different metaphors of salvation (liberation, reconciliation, justification, participation, transformation) resist reduction to a single ordo salutis is historically important and widely influential in the field. However, Schreiner's response — that the diversity of Paul's metaphors does not preclude the existence of a coherent underlying theology — is equally legitimate, and readers will find themselves genuinely needing to adjudicate between two responsible hermeneutical approaches rather than being given the tools to do so.
Barber's use of Second Temple Jewish economic language to illuminate Jesus' teaching on reward and judgment is the most historically textured argument in the volume, and his use of Gary Anderson and Nathan Eubank represents a productive integration of recent scholarship that the other contributors do not engage. His critics within the volume — particularly Schreiner — press whether the transition from the Jewish concept of "heavenly treasure" to the specifically Catholic doctrine of condign merit involves more theological development than exegetical derivation; this question is not resolved in the exchanges.
Doctrinal Analysis
From a Reformed perspective, the Westminster Confession of Faith provides the most directly relevant confessional benchmarks. Chapter XI ("Of Justification") specifies that justification is received "by faith alone" and is not "for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." Chapter XVII ("Of the Perseverance of the Saints") affirms that the elect "shall certainly persevere" in the faith and in good works as evidence of genuine election. Schreiner's chapter is the fullest available exposition of this confessional position in popular format, and his crucial argument — that all those who are genuinely justified will persevere, so that the absence of perseverance is evidence of false profession rather than evidence of a justified person losing salvation — represents the Westminster tradition's handling of the apparent tension with great precision. His direct challenge to Wilkin's reading of every major warning passage is cogent, and his willingness to acknowledge (against the easy Reformed temptation) that Romans 2:6–10 is not merely hypothetical but describes actual Spirit-produced obedience strengthens the confessional case.
The Canons of Dort, Fifth Head ("Of the Perseverance of the Saints"), Canon VII acknowledges that "God preserves, continues, and perfects" the work of faith in the elect, while also affirming that "believers may fall into serious sins" — a formulation that holds together divine preservation and genuine moral warning in a way that directly addresses the Piper-Wright-Schreiner debate. Wilkin's position is irreconcilable with both the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort on the substance of how perseverance relates to election and final salvation.
From a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective, this volume addresses terrain that lies at the center of the tradition's soteriology. The Wesleyan tradition's account of salvation insists that (1) genuine saving faith produces transforming grace, not merely cognitive assent; (2) believers may fall away from grace (apostasy is a real possibility, not merely apparent); (3) final salvation depends on persevering in faith and the pursuit of holiness; and (4) the assurance available to believers is a present experiential assurance of the Spirit's witness, not a guaranteed inference from the doctrine of election. On each of these points, the Wesleyan tradition stands closer to Dunn than to Schreiner (on the openness of the salvation process), closer to Schreiner than to Wilkin (on the necessity of perseverance and works), and closer to Barber than to Wilkin (on salvation as a present, ongoing, and future process).
The most directly relevant Wesleyan confessional benchmark is the Articles of Religion (1784), Article XII, which affirms that "although we know that we are not justified by our works, [God's] grace ... works in us both to will and to do." Wesley's standard sermons on perseverance and holiness — "The Scripture Way of Salvation," "Working Out Our Own Salvation," "The New Birth" — consistently hold the grace of initial justification and the ongoing requirement of holiness in the kind of tension Dunn names but does not resolve. Thomas Oden's synthesis in John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity (Zondervan, 1994) represents the most systematic available account of how the Wesleyan tradition handles the faith-works-judgment tension — a resource the volume does not engage but which would have enriched the conversation significantly.
From a Roman Catholic perspective, Barber's essay is the most directly relevant, and his deployment of the Catechism alongside Trent (Session 6, Chapters 5 and 8) is the strongest available demonstration that the Catholic position on merit is not works-righteousness but a grace-constituted merit. The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification (1547) affirms both that "none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification" and that the justified, having received grace, "increase in that righteousness received through the grace of Christ and are further justified." This simultaneously Augustinian-sounding account of initial grace and Thomistic account of progressive merit through grace-infused cooperation is the position Barber represents. The Schreiner-Barber exchanges on whether works are merely evidence of justification (Schreiner) or genuinely meritorious within the divine economy of grace (Barber) are the volume's most productive intra-Christian theological discussion and constitute the best accessible survey of the Protestant-Catholic divide on works and salvation available at this popular-scholarly level.
From a Lutheran perspective, the Augsburg Confession's Article IV and Luther's foundational distinction between Law and Gospel provide critical orientation. Luther's own position — as Stanley carefully notes — acknowledged that works without faith cannot justify but that faith without works cannot demonstrate itself genuine, and that appearing at the final judgment without works would be cause for fear rather than confidence. Dunn's chapter, with its invocation of Luther's simul peccator et iustus and his interest in the process character of salvation, is the most sympathetically Lutheran in its instincts. The volume's Lutheran gap is the absence of explicit engagement with Luther's handling of the law-gospel distinction as the hermeneutical key to reconciling the two bodies of texts — a gap that leaves unaddressed the tradition that has most directly grappled with the theological tension the volume aims to resolve.
Engagement with Secondary Literature
Stanley's introduction is the best-referenced section of the volume, engaging the Piper-Wright controversy (including Piper's The Future of Justification, 2007; Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, 2009; and the key ETS meeting exchanges) and providing a substantive bibliography of the scholarly literature on judgment according to works in Pauline studies from the 1970s through 2011. His footnote listing twenty-five relevant scholarly works is unusual for a Counterpoints introduction and provides readers with a genuine research bibliography.
Schreiner's footnotes engage the scholarly conversation responsibly, particularly his citations of Dunn's own commentary on Romans, his interaction with the new perspective literature on works of law, and his references to his co-authored The Race Set before Us (with Caneday) for the fuller biblical-theological argument he can only sketch here. His under-engagement with the history of the Reformed tradition on Romans 2 — particularly the dispute between hypothetical and actual readings of 2:26–29 — leaves some of his strongest exegetical moves without the scholarly support they deserve.
Dunn's references are the most academically wide-ranging, engaging Sanders's Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), Morna Hooker's classic observation about the fit between Paul's pattern and Sanders's covenantal nomism, and the history of the ordo salutis debate across Catholic and Protestant traditions. His under-engagement with the systematic theological literature — particularly the Westminster tradition's handling of perseverance and the Lutheran treatment of the third use of the law — is the most notable secondary literature gap.
Barber's most significant secondary literature contribution is his engagement with Gary Anderson's work on economic metaphors in ancient Judaism and Nathan Eubank's dissertation on Matthew, which had not received extensive treatment in the Counterpoints context before this volume. His under-engagement with the Protestant exegetical literature on the Matthean texts he develops — D. A. Carson's Matthew commentary, Donald Hagner's Word Biblical Commentary — leaves several of his most contested readings without sustained engagement with their strongest scholarly objections.
Strengths
Schreiner's treatment of Romans 2 as actual rather than hypothetical. The volume's most exegetically significant contribution is Schreiner's sustained argument — grounded in Paul's use of the Spirit/letter contrast and the new covenant echoes of Deuteronomy 30 and Ezekiel 36 — that Romans 2:26–29 describes actual Gentile obedience produced by the Spirit rather than a hypothetical condition used to condemn Jewish hypocrisy. This reading, if correct, has significant implications for the theology of judgment according to works in Paul: it means that when Paul says "the doers of the law will be justified" (Romans 2:13), he is not merely describing an impossible standard but the real eschatological situation of Spirit-indwelt believers. The argument is not unique to Schreiner but receives its most focused and accessible articulation here, and Dunn's response — acknowledging significant common ground on the new covenant dimensions of the passage — is one of the exchanges that demonstrates genuine scholarly engagement rather than mere rhetorical sparring.
Dunn's exposure of the systematizing temptation. Dunn's argument that Luther's identification of "justification by faith" as the article by which the church stands or falls has generated a reading strategy that subordinates every other soteriological metaphor to forensic justification is a genuine and important scholarly observation. His catalog of the diverse ways Paul describes the process of salvation — arrabōn, aparchē, transformation, metamorphosis, conformity to Christ's image, the process of being saved — demonstrates that the New Testament's soteriology is richer and less reducible than any single metaphor can contain. Even readers who resist Dunn's ultimate anti-systematic conclusions will find that his exposure of the limits of any purely forensic reading enriches their engagement with the whole range of Pauline texts. For pastors navigating congregations shaped by simplistic "eternal security" theology, his demonstration that Paul treats salvation as a process with genuine uncertainties is practically valuable.
Barber's Schreiner dialogue. The exchanges between Schreiner and Barber constitute the volume's most theologically productive bilateral conversation. Both affirm grace as primary, both insist works are necessary, and both ground the necessity of works in the Spirit's transforming work within the believer. Their disagreement — whether works are merely the evidence confirming justification (Schreiner) or genuinely meritorious within the divine economy because of union with Christ (Barber) — is precisely the Protestant-Catholic divide on this question, presented with more intellectual honesty and mutual respect than most evangelical treatments of the issue manage. Barber's willingness to demonstrate that Trent explicitly rejects the popular Protestant caricature of Catholic works-righteousness, and Schreiner's engagement with that demonstration, model the kind of ecumenical theological dialogue that produces genuine clarity rather than merely confirming prior positions.
Stanley's introduction as a model of editorial framing. Alan Stanley's introduction is the most historically and contextually rich in any Counterpoints volume on a soteriology topic. His account of the Piper-Wright controversy — including the specific blog exchanges between Wright and his critics following the 2010 ETS meeting, and the terminological question of whether works are "the basis" or "in accordance with" the life lived — provides context without which the significance of each contributor's precise formulation cannot be assessed. His taxonomy of fourteen nuanced positions from Ortlund's 2009 JETS article establishes the genuine complexity of the terrain without overwhelming the reader.
Weaknesses and Limitations
Wilkin's systematically unfalsifiable hermeneutic. The volume's most serious methodological problem is the degree to which Wilkin's interpretive framework cannot, in principle, be challenged by any exegetical evidence. Schreiner's challenge — asking what language in the warning passages would constitute a soteriological threat if "cut in two" and "placed with the hypocrites where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51) does not — is not merely rhetorical. Wilkin's responses consistently apply his two-judgment framework prior to exegetical engagement, so that any text that appears to threaten salvation is redirected to the Bema by definition. Dunn identifies the same problem when he accuses Wilkin of "interpretation by canon within the canon." For a volume that stages itself as an open exegetical debate, the inclusion of a position whose conclusions are pre-determined by its framework creates an asymmetry: the other three contributors are genuinely engaging Wilkin's texts, but Wilkin cannot genuinely engage theirs because his framework has already determined their meaning. The volume would have benefited from a fuller discussion of the hermeneutical stakes of dispensational two-judgment eschatology before the exegetical debates begin.
Dunn's practical evasion. Dunn's refusal to offer a positive resolution to the tension he names so precisely is the volume's most intellectually honest limitation — but it is also its most practically unsatisfying contribution. His conclusion — that Paul emphasizes grace when reassurance is needed and works when correction is needed, and that we should do the same — is contextually sensitive but leaves pastors and teachers without guidance about what to tell believers who ask whether their salvation is secure or conditional on their future perseverance. Schreiner's response — that Dunn's position is essentially identical to his own on the conditionality of salvation while lacking the theological framework to explain why — is pointed and largely unanswered. Dunn's aversion to systematic theology is a principled methodological stance, but it results in a chapter that exposes the problem more clearly than any other in the volume while declining to help readers navigate it.
The absence of Lutheran and Wesleyan voices. The volume's four contributors represent a non-Lordship dispensationalist, a Reformed Baptist, a broadly Protestant academic anti-systematist, and a Roman Catholic. The absence of a classical Wesleyan-Arminian contributor — one who would affirm the real possibility of apostasy and the genuine necessity of perseverance while grounding these in prevenient grace and resisting both the Wilkin position (faith as mental assent) and the Barber position (meritorious works) — leaves a significant gap in the range of options presented. Similarly, the absence of a Lutheran voice — whose distinctive handling of the Law-Gospel distinction as the hermeneutical key to the faith-works tension has the longest and most sophisticated engagement with precisely the problem this volume addresses — is a missed opportunity. The effect is to frame the debate as primarily an evangelical-Protestant vs. Catholic dispute, missing the traditions whose exegetical resources are most directly relevant.
Engagement with the Broader Scholarly Conversation
Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment enters a field extensively mapped by the Piper-Wright controversy and by the New Perspective's legacy for understanding judgment according to works in Paul. The most directly relevant scholarly monographs — Kent Yinger's Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds (Cambridge, 1999), Schreiner and Caneday's The Race Set before Us (IVP, 2001), and Chris VanLandingham's Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006) — are all cited in Stanley's introduction, providing readers with research pathways into the technical literature. For the Piper-Wright debate, Piper's The Future of Justification (Crossway, 2007) and Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (IVP, 2009) are the primary sources, both now available in paperback. For the Catholic theological framework Barber represents, Barber's own more detailed work and Scott Hahn's Romans (Baker Academic, 2017) develop the connections between Second Temple Jewish economic language and Catholic sacramental soteriology. Thomas Oden's John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity (Zondervan, 1994) and Mildred Wynkoop's A Theology of Love (Beacon Hill, 1972) represent the Wesleyan tradition's handling of this tension — resources conspicuous by their absence from a volume that aims to represent the breadth of the Christian tradition.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment is a more academically distinguished volume than its popular-format appearance suggests. Schreiner's contribution is arguably his most concise and accessible statement on the necessity of works for final salvation, Dunn's methodological challenge to the systematizing impulse in soteriology is genuinely important, and the Schreiner-Barber exchanges constitute the best available evangelical-Catholic dialogue on this topic at a non-specialist level. The volume is significantly limited by Wilkin's systematically unfalsifiable hermeneutic (which makes his chapter's twelve-page responses less genuinely engaging than the others'), by Dunn's anti-systematic refusal to offer practical guidance, and by the absence of Wesleyan-Arminian and Lutheran voices whose traditions have the most historically sustained engagement with the faith-works-judgment tension. It is a volume that raises the problem with greater precision than it resolves it — but for a question this complex, precision is no small contribution.
Recommended for: Pastors and theologians navigating congregations shaped by easy-believism, Lordship salvation controversy, or the Piper-Wright debates; seminary students in systematic theology, Pauline studies, and soteriology courses needing direct engagement with the major competing positions; Reformed and Catholic readers wanting a serious dialogue between their traditions' accounts of works at judgment; Wesleyan readers who will profit from seeing how adjacent traditions handle the question, even in the absence of their own tradition's representation.
Not recommended for: Those seeking the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition's own account — these readers should supplement with Thomas Oden's John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity or Schreiner and Caneday's The Race Set before Us with attention to the Arminian responses; those expecting Dunn's contribution to provide a usable positive position rather than a methodological challenge; introductory students who need more grounding in Pauline soteriology before navigating the technicality of the exchanges.
Overall Assessment: ☐ Highly Recommended | ☑ Recommended | ☐ Recommended with Reservations | ☐ Not Recommended
Comments
Post a Comment