Featured New Perspective on Paul: Good, Bad, or Neutral?

Almost, the first derivative represents the slope of the tangent line to the graph of a function at some point c. When it is the case that the first derivative is 0, this obviously means that the slope of the tangent line at that point is 0 and thus horizontal. These points are called critical points. Using the Second derivative, we can "find" "crucial points" and "inflection points", points about which we investigate the concavity of the graph helping us to have a more clear picture of local max/mins.

So happy you remember some of your calculus. (A gift of our creator to the mind of mankind)

 

Actually, I made in A in second semester college-level calculus. I would say calculus isn't so much and invention of God but a partial description of God - not calculus specifically - just systematic knowledge in general.

 

Seeing who is extolling the virtues of npp is enough to warn anyone, but lest anyone think this is simply about interpreting Paul, he needs to read again. A new perspective on the message of Paul is, in reality, a new persepective on Christ and His work. It is properly met with skepticism and unyielding scrutiny, and, judging by the subtext of contempt for his critics evident in Wright's verbosity, it is.

The second temple is irrelevant. The Tabernacle is what was revealed and commanded, and to which Paul heavily referred in Hebrews. Christ separated the interpretations of His message from rabbinic tradition in the Sermon on the Mount.

There is no mistaking Paul's message. Everyone from Jews to Feminists have attempted to reinterpret it in order to soften its blows, and that is apparently the agenda here as well.

 

I think I can agree, it is my personal feeling that math/science, when done through the most simplest and honest of motives, is very much like the theologian, that is, a search for understanding some aspect of the overall truth of God's creation. Also for me personally, and I expect "arrows" on this, science is of the much more "observable" and repeatable rather than the metaphysical and philosophical.

 

Guess we'll have to leave this off, but for someone trying to draw a sharp distinction between the creation and the creator, it would seem that metaphysical knowledge or abstract knowledge, pure mathematics and so forth, would bespeak of God more directly than observable physical attributes of the creation. Pure math would not be tied directly to "the creation" but something transcending it. I have no axe to grind here though.

 

No need to create "tension" (between us) when and where none is needed.

 

I agree... Further, it is the (largely hidden) position of some here on the board who infiltrate posts with this sort of RCC nonesense that we disavowed about 500 years ago in the Reformation.

 

I'm not trading barbs with you merely for the sake of doing so, but let me ask a simple question...

Which experiment of science allowed scientists to arrive at the position that stipulates that only experiments of science could arrive at an accurate position?

 

marking......

I wish some of you who understand this topic would educate those of us (ME!) who have not heard of it before. Please?

 

Here is a good start, by my friends D.A. Carson and Mark Seifrid:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/justification-and-variegated-nomism-vol-1/

The actual book requires a fairly high level of theological accumen to process.

Another book of Seifrid's that is a bit easier to process for those not at the level required for Varigated Nomism is this:

Mark Seifrid, "Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification" available at Amazon and CBD among other places.

A letter of response to some criticism of Dr. Seifrid's stance from Mark himself:

 

So these "new perspective" folks are claiming Paul thought we had to add something (works) to what Christ accomplished in order for salvation to be complete? (simply put)

That's not new. I've heard that sort rubbish all my life. All that's new is who they are blaming the heresy on.

Thanks for the links, I'll follow them and look at the books which I assume are defenses against "the new perspective". I've already sent the NT Wright article to my kindle. I'll add this to it. Always something new to learn (or unlearn as the case might be)

 

GL, that is not what I am saying. I am simply attempting to state, that "science and mathematics" at their best attempt to deal with the observable and repeatable, whereas "metaphysics" is not as able to do so, as it deals with the philosophical in nature. Both are equally suited in their pursuit of truth, the quantifiable nature of math and science makes it more "appealing" and meaningful to some. To those, metaphysical arguments and discussions lack a certain sense of credibility. This group is those who would fall within the realm of being strictly naturalists.

 

Would you guys please stop speaking in tongues !!

 

Let's be fair first of all... this is no longer "new". It has been hashed and rehashed in the academic world. It just takes 30 years to leak down to us laymen.

Personally, I find a lot of value in the historical method that was employed to get to the various positions. But honestly, I've not read a lot of material on either sides so far. I was hoping to get to it, but it is hard to access some of the materials outside of the country. I hope to read Wright's Justification soon.

 

Awww, GL, I'm sad. The books you recommended aren't available electronically.

(I love instant gratification but also, I like having the heavy reading material handy to read when I get a moment. I think those qualify as heavy reading too. Ah well, I put in my request to have them made available electronically so we'll see.)

 

I'll stand with Aaron, Iconoclast and others on here who see Wrights teachings as heresy.

One has called those who dismiss the teachings of NT Wright as error as 'intellectually immature.' The same was said of the Apostle Paul, concerning his wisdom, that when compared to others he fell short. It's good to be cast into that same company. Power does not lie within mans intellect, wisdom, or knowledge, but in the Gospel of Christ, and, within NPP the Gospel is corrupted and is no Gospel at all.

One has said (not here) that NT Wright is our friend because he has stood against the Jesus Seminar, against the alternative lifestyle, has written good works on the historical Jesus among other works. I cannot agree with this assessment, and contend these are not the criteria for determining what makes one a friend in ministry of the Gospel, or for clarification an ally in ministry. Instead it is what one has done with the Gospel, it is whether or not they adhere to the Gospel and how it is applied salvificly to man via their teachings, and, to what is their Gospel, and, what is the nature of the Gospel they preach. These are the criterion that makes one either an ally or a foe in the ministry of the Gospel, and frankly NT Wright is preaching a false Gospel.

One of the grave errors in the thinking of NPP (and some of you here are embracing this teaching by the way) is that the righteousness of God cannot be imputed to another person via what Christ accomplished for them on the cross. If this is true, one is not in Christ, nor Christ in them, and they remain in their sins. That's 100% heresy.

But this logically leads into the next error since justification cannot be accomplished, we must do this ourselves. And here is that specific error that is chronologically in order after the above false teaching, that is, Wright teaches justification by works (final justification) and states that is what Paul taught. Since others here are adhering to NPP then I will conclude this is also your belief as well as the above.

By the way, Paul condemned this teaching in Galatians 1:8-10 and didn't mince words, calling it a false Gospel.

 

They are heavy reading...

Below is an accessable paper on the subject that is well done and informative.

And, for the record (conversation above) N.T. Wright is for the new perspective, which as Skandelon let all of us know in another thread, is actually an old Catholic perspective re-hashed for another day.

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj16g.pdf

(Italics in the original)


The thing that seems to make it so appealing to many people is that it does indeed make syncretism more viable. Yet a lot of those around here who argue for a syncretistic process would also argue vigorously against the Catholic view of such, yet they end up in the same place, for their doctrine has the same roots.

Additionally, there is a fairly large contingent here on the board that also disavows the Reformation and the fact that the baptistic movement stemmed from Reformation issues, especially justification. In that these persons simultaneously disavow Calvin, Luther. Augustine, the Reformation, and the doctrines of grace that have been with the church since her inception means that adopting some other variant doctrine such as the new perspective becomes very attractive. They are, however, indeed throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue, for they cannot walk away from the Reformation (and earlier) views on Justification and yet remain biblical Christians. At the end of the day, one arrives right back in the camp of the Pelagians and human effort is the salvific means by which some divine force called God operates -- in other words, the same old rebellion fostered by the enemy of God in the Garden of Eden, Genesis chapter 3, "You can be like God..."

 

The NPP stems FROM the work of the Jesus Seminar and the earlier works in liberal Christianity, i.e., historical higher critical method, that fostered its development. The "search for the historical Jesus" turned into "the search for the historical Paul" with similar issues.

 

I'll admit that I'm still searching and even that I have been greatly influenced recently b/c I have been reading many of Wright's seminal work in NT studies. That said, I don't claim to be an expert in the debate. However, let me offer my conclusions.

To state that Wright is preaching "another gospel" is to equate him as accursed and damned. If that be the case, you are declaring him apostate and not a true follower of Jesus.

But at close examination, he argues his case and it is compelling enough to say that his gospel is not "another gospel." In fact, it sounds like the lordship gospel presentation that you'll hear from Piper, Washer, MacArthur and others. The gospel is Jesus Christ is Lord. He upholds faith in that message which demands a repentant lifestyle of lordship to Jesus.

It is not so much that he is denying justification by faith but defining it differently. But the essentials of the gospel and man's conversion have not changed. Only that your concept of justification related to imputed righteousness of Jesus is his vindication of God's judgment which is based on previous forgiveness and entrance into God's covenant community.

Now his concept of imputed righteousness is a bit difficult for me b/c it is a doctrine that I have taught and been taught many years. But he does make some valid arguments, and they should not be summarily dismissed b/c it goes against a tradition. That is not the reformation theology I have come to know and appreciate.

And he still admits that we have been given a righteousness from God based on Phil. 3:10f. He also admits a union with Messiah. So as the Messiah is, so are we. Only the Messiah was vindicated to be righteous, and thus so are we being crucified with him and raised with him.

The only contention as it relates to imputed righteousness is that he is not talking of that doctrine in relationship to justification. He distinguishes and moves it to another part of the salvation process. So far, he seems fairly orthodox though a bit different from the tradition. But in total, not out in left field.

He also says that justification or vindication is something we do, which Paul says as well. But he, as a reformed theologian, also admits that it is a work still wrought by and through the Holy Spirit. What I appreciate is that he is taking difficult statements in Romans 2 (specifically v. 13) about works related to justification and giving them an answer that fits the context of history and the Jewish audience that it was addressed in chps. 2-3.

Conclusion: I like that Wright is still studying and working at making sense of Scripture. He is doing a fine job of putting Scripture in a good working system that patches up the wholes of Luther and Calvin. Wright's perspective of Paul should be given another day in court. I'm not sure if I'm there, but his views are convincing. I don't see it as heterodoxy at all.

 

Thanks for your fair and objective perspective and the highlighting the issue that some just WILL NOT accept any disagreement with their own ideas and positions without hurling disparaging commentary such as the "H" bomb.