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

What we have here are new teachings. That in itself should be alarming enough.

I'm not surprised by any that believe his false teachings.

No, he's denying justification by faith, not just defining it differently. It's a subtle departure from truth.

Along comes a man who wants to redefine orhtodox truth, and deceives others as he does so. 'It all sounds so good.'

I don't care really what he admits all along the way, it's the consummation of his thought and of his Gospel that matters, that in it, it's not really Christ who gives us final justification, it's self. That is 100% heresy. He also denies that righteousness can be imputed from one person to another, in this case from Christ to us.

So yes, I say he preaches a false Gospel with absolutely no reservation.

 

Interesting...

I'd say that a proper philosophical proposition carries more weight than "quantifiable data". In fact, your point IS philosophical, not quantitatively derived... QED :laugh:

 

I see.

These teachings are subtle and erroneous, as Thomas Schreiner and Mark Seifrid have pointed out.

The thing I see is that this has made the Gospel a works Gospel. At one point NPP teaches we are justified by Christ, or at least it will make that statement as a tenet of belief. Yet, and as always is the case, one must delve into what is actually taught, not what one uses as a statement of belief. In this case there is the desire to play on both sides of the fence with justification, but the final result in NPP is that we are finally justified by works, not solely via Christ. In addition there is the problem of the teaching that righteousness cannot be imputed from one to another.

NPP is subtle yet erroneous. I believe it is a false Gospel.

 

the first one is a short summary...the others are longer

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=1220092346504
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10130684344
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10507193940
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=911081616592


http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4260512165

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=42705192726

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=4260518221
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5707195414
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=7306163741

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=570719926
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=570718191


http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=6300622337
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=7106162435
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=72062739
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=7306163741


for written articles scroll down on left side;
http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ective-on-Paul/General-Essays-Critiquing-NPP/

 

But what you are doing is maintaining your definition of "justification" and applying it to Wright's words as if he means the same thing. Thus he would be saying something heretical, perhaps. But even he would say that justification as a judicial announcement comes from a judge, in this case God. Is that too heretical?

And let's be honest... if you major contention is "a new teaching" when Wright is arguing the rediscovery of an old teaching, then your point is not only anti-reformational (sola tradition not sola scriptura) but self defeating b/c Luther's thoughts on justification were new at that time as well. Though you would probably argue that he was rediscovering them, so would Wright.

The difference is, Luther was culturally coming out of a world where God's righteousness could be merited by adherence to the Law. So Luther was more inclined to come away with the interpretation he did. Paul, as history is bearing out, did not deal with that as much as we have been taught (much of it based on Luther's understanding). So if you argue historically, your contention still fails.

 

Which is absurd. The church at the time held a wrong view under the threat of life and limb to anyone who would challenge it. There was no room for open discussion. So you comparison between Luther and Wright fails. Since Luther the field of discussion has been wide open. So there is no chance he is rediscovering anything. It is a nice ploy to defend the indefensible but it is sophomoric at best. and Luther's view was not new, the view of Wright and his ilk is.

 

He is saying something heretical, there is no perhaps to it. Secondly I am not applying my interpretation of justification and applying it to Wrights words. You're applying a strawman against me here as an convenient excuse.

Biblically, in Christ, alone, we are eternally, supernaturally and instantaneously justified. He says no, we are justified by what we do finally, while attempting to maintain that Christ did it...too. Sound familair? That's false teaching. As Paul says it is either or, not both, as ni Galatians, Php. 3 &c.

So a rediscovery of an old teaching makes it orthodox? Wonder why it didn't remain in the forefront?

Context of Luther doesn't diminish what he was teaching about justification as being Biblically true. What you are doing is saying that Luthers Gospel was only true contemporaneously, but that now it is antiquated. Truth is always truth, no matter what culture or setting it is in. Yet along comes NPP, and you are embracing this error, which says we've all had it wrong. Yet Luther simply preached the truth of the Gospel and believed in its efficacy and ability to save.

I'd be leary of any new wind of doctrines coming along.

Let’s be clear here:

The Gospel is sufficient alone to save one for all eternity, it is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16, 1 Corinthians 1:18.

Taking away from the Gospel or adding to the Gospel is to render it another Gospel, and there is no other, Galatians 1:8-10.

To say that we are justified by Christ is a good and truthful thing to say. But what is added to this? In NPP it is that we make our justification final. This is both adding to and taking away from the Gospel, in that it makes the Gospel insufficient while at the same time attempting to cling to it being sufficient on its own. Either it is or it is not, it cannot be both. This is no different than what the Judaizers did with the Gospel. All false teachings couple truth with error, and in NPP the Gospel is rendered insufficient and incomplete in the ways I've just described. If you want to believe that, that's up to you. I, as many others who are scholars reject this false teaching as another Gospel. Certainly there is an 'intellectual' note that comes with this, and makes it attractive to some, but to be blunt the NPP Gospel is false.

Again, it is what a person does with, and how far and to what extent the person applies the Gospel that makes the person a foe or an ally in this ministry. NPP is no ally in the truth of the Gospel. The NPP Gospel is incomplete, as it takes away from and adds to it, and makes the Gospel insufficient for salvation on its own.

 

Quick comment before I go and do a lengthier one later:

You are misrperesenting Wright. He is saying that our works justify us. But what he means by justification is not how you are defining it. So I'm not making the straw man. I am presenting his views as correctly as possible. I'm using his definition of justification (vindication). Apply that to his words and then go from there.

 

When did this NPP originate? How new is it?

 

Not so. Other scholars have pointed out his same error.

Your strawman has duplicated itself, as you misrepresent Wright and me.

 

It's been around a few decades from what I've read. Some say the 60's.

 

Well of course you would "say that" GL, you operate more in the metaphysical realm, I know you have a "broader" education, but your emphasis, being your role as a pastor is much more involved in the metaphysical (philosophical). I operate more in the quantifiable domain, but I am not entirely devoid of the philosophical. And as you know, mathematics itself can be thought of being entirely philosophical.

 

Thanks for the gentle poke...

But my larger point was that your point about empirical evidence is in fact, in itself, a philosophical argument. Difficult to escape the queen of all disciplines, ey? :laugh:

 

:applause::applause::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I am just a little bit "lost".. I did not intend a poke. Give me an equation!!!!

 

This misrepresentation of justification IS the issue... There is no application that makes it all right. RCC sees justification as a process -- precisely the way it is applied in the NPP -- hence the issues with a throwback view of the doctrine.

 

Exactly.

It is a distortion of Gospel truth.

 

Wow, well its always nice to go to bed and then come back and see we've got labels like heresy and false teacher running around.

Until we get some sanity to these posts I'm not going to get too invested outside of my original two posts, which I still stand by as germane. Perhaps the biggest issue is that too many people are jumping on bad understanding of the NPP work.

NPP doesn't just have to do with justification. (I've said this before)

There is a whole historiographic aspect to this discussion which brings in relevant discussions about the setting and context of Pauline theology given his predispostions and formulations within his theological context. It is technical but informed lay people can understand what is going on. The contribution of NPP has been, primarily, that we are better understanding why and how Paul navigated theologically during the formative years of Christianity. It is helping biblical theology and not hurting it.

As for our good brother in Christ, Tom Wright...he's a brilliant, orthodox, profound scholar who has contributed the foundations for a better understanding of the historical context in which Paul, and the other NT writers, wrote. His views on justification aren't new and they aren't heretical. I disagree with them but do so reasonably and without resorting to churlish libels. I was recently at a forum discussing the nature of the first century environment which led to the creation of the NT. My part was giving a view informed by Wright, Bauckham, Hurtado, etc about the growth of Christianity so quickly as a good argument for its viability. One of the other panelist (an agnostic who doubts a lot of my positions) actually commended others to read Wright because he is so good at his historiography.

Essentially, and I'll try to close with this, the conversation that is going on here is misindentifying NPP. GreekTim is helpful in offering a corrective in more detail than I care to go into right now. The issues are complicated and, frankly, have been settled for about a decade now. There is a lot to be gained from NPP research and, honestly, a lot of the translations you hold in your hands (or use electronically) are the beneficiaries of this. There are some aspects of NPP which should give us pause and that we can certainly say that isn't helpful. But there isn't just one NPP position out there.

Finally, and I can't say this enough, Wright's views of justification are his and not indicative of NPP work. If you think this is all there is you're wrong and I really can't help you understand otherwise. I can list about ten scholars who identify with NPP and disagree with Wright on justification. So get over it and let's move on to the issues germane to the discussion...what NPP actually is.

 

Thanks Preachinjesus. Give us (me) a broader and please a "laymans" perspective on the other issues that NPP touches upon. One that I have in mind, correct me if I am wrong, is the "attitude" of Jews being smug in their "election" and totally against the inclusion of the pagan gentiles.

 

Someone mentioned that NPP was akin to teachings of John MacArthur.

Not even close. To TSM it is considered a heresy, and rightly so.

Here is a good read:

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