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

I have not followed this much but I always understood the NPP to be primarily about how Paul addressed the (commonly called) Legalistic Jews. I thought that is was the contention of the NPP folks that rather than see the Jews as being legalistic as many have thought they were actually filled with grace and their focus on works was about living out their salvation not acquiring it.

 

I loathe it. It is dangerous heresy. I am sick to high heaven of so-called theologians trying to turn the nature of justification and sanctification into carnal, sacramentalist perspective. The ordinances of the Law were types and shadows of Christ. It is all about Christ and He fulfilled the Law. Stop descending back into the mindset of the Pharisees and putting a "Jewish" view of the Law of God above the God of the Law.

I agree with the hypercovenantalists that the "Law of God" is eternal, but the outward ordinances of the Law are not what is eternal. The Law of Christ is eternal.

 

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

http://theresurgence.com/2012/03/01/heresy-and-a-call-for-humility

 

Here's a challenge (to hopefully get this discussion back on track)...

Without going to Wikipedia or any other external source...right now, off the top of your head...name five scholars who aren't NT Wright associated with NPP.

 

I don't know five but I do know two:

Saunders, Dunn

 

The discussion is on track with the OP.

Maybe you just don't like the track? :laugh:

Dunn and Sanders are two, why do we need 5, what's it prove? It's still heresy.

 

Dunn and Sanders are not w/ Wright. They may have some overlap, but then again, you do as well w/ Wright.

Now, I'd like to see if you could explain Wright's view of justification. That would be helpful.

 

They don't simply overlap, they're all proponents of NPP. You're incorrect here.

Did you look at the links, listen, learn? There's enough for you there to learn the errors of NPP. Somehow you come across as there is a minority against this, and that NPP being denounced and condemned as heretical is stemming from a minority view of those without much theological acumen. This is far from the truth.

In addition, it is becoming a rabbit trail as you haven't actually addressed any of the info provided. And now you want more?

Tell you what, explain his view of justification yourself. I've given you enough info to take in.

I already know what it is. It's neo-Judaism, and (according to this heresy) the Jews were under grace in the NT era of Christ.

Wonder why Jesus went ahead and told Nicodemus he must be born again if 'his identity under Covenantal law' already placed him under grace? Paul also had to be born again. All men are to repent, something else NPP teaches doesn't need to take place. For this, we have several lifstyle churches here, who believe the same, and they will not repent. I'm certain there are more churches teaching the same heresy. No need to wonder what's at stake under this falsehood.

 

Folks in NPP are largely emergent and like to remain obscure and not able to pin down. They find some virtue in doing that. They fight to be pinned down to any exactness and will tell you you don't understand the issues when you criticize their view. And then of course they will, in their defense, pull out the old "how much of it have you read?" or as we see here " do you even know who are the main proponents of this view?"

It is a smoke screen to keep from being pinned down.

 

What I've addressed came from Wright's article specifically. In that very article he explains how he is different from Sanders or Dunn.

And frankly, since I was the one that read his article (not sure if you did), the onus is on you to display that you understand his view to which you vehemently denounce. Instead of dodging, just answer what you think his view is. I've already explained it a bit towards the beginning when I started posting on this thread. I just want to see if you can reproduce his argument. I have my doubts.

And it would do you well not just to examine 1 side of the issue. Perhaps if you took the time to read Wright, you would not be so hasty to throw the first stone.

Now I know Wright is in the minority here. But what is unfortunate is not that his view is not more widely accepted but that more people don't even give him a fair hearing. Judgment is passed and heresy is the verdict quicker than it should be. I feel like you have demonstrated as much by your willingness to call him a heretic along w/ your UNwillingness to try and explain his view rather than to state what it is not.

As far as info you want me to address, just pose the question so it can be addressed. Don't shoot links at me as if that solves the problem. Discuss, debate, dialogue. If nothing else, that will better sharpen your opinions on the matter.

 

This is curious. Can you back up the equation of emergent theology w/ the NPP. I'd like to look into that.

 

You need to go back and reread what I posted.

 

Sorry I missed it. Which post exactly?

 

Maybe you didn't understand my point. So let me say it again, hopefully more clearly.

What I was saying was addressing the fact that Wright's view is shot down mainly b/c it appears new. Wright's entire point is that it is not new, just rediscovered through historical evidence (which no one seems to address btw).

The same accusation could be posed against Luther. His view of justification was new enough at that time that it could be labeled as a complete creation from his mind. In fact, it was so different, it probably could not be conceived of that it was a rediscovery of the original apostolic faith.

So here is what is happening. Wright and Luther are doing the same thing. They are presenting an interpretation and arguing that it is not new but a rediscovery of what is old. Those that deny Wright's rediscovery is that it doesn't fit into your interpretation. To cast aspersion upon it simply for being different than your view is the SAME as the RCCs for rebuking Luther.

The difference between Luther and Wright, however, besides the obvious different interpretation of "justification" is that Luther's interpretation was positing a view that was eerily similar to the world around him. Legalism reigned surpreme. You have to admit that it would be easier for Luther to read back his own context of RCC legalism back into the Jewish mindset of Paul. That doesn't make him wrong. That just makes him in one sense reactionary. Wright, is not reacting to anything. He has studied Romans and Galatians and found the Lutheran interpretations of the Law (both positive and negative statements in Scripture) to be lacking. So he sought a better understanding.

Now... I doubt you will read all of this b/c this is a lot to read. But before you accuse me of absurdity and sophomorism, please hear me out. You missed the comparison I was making. Instead, you only saw contrast.

 

OK. Don't shoot off supposed understandings of your readings of NT Wright that remain ghosts as if it solves something. OK?

Yes, yes, it must be all those quoting him, and refuting him in the info I've given you that are in error. Please.

I'll be awaiting your presentation.

I've explained enough, now, go to the info I've given and rebut it since you have what he believes, and refute what I've given, or that others have said about his false teachings. The burden of proof is on you, you're the one espousing his teachings which I KNOW are heresy. Perhaps you just don't understand him after all.

By the way, Mandym is correct, they attempt to make it diofficult to pin them down. This is a well known fact.

I find it interesting you want documentation, but have provided nothing but your own subjective understanding, which has not been elaborated upon, nor documented. Hmmmmm.

Yet you want others to prove things.

 

Reply to OP

I have not read every post in this thread, but I would like to offer these observations.

The New Perspective or Perspectives on Paul should be defined before they are attacked.

Lets just mention some of the issues.

1. Does grace mean "bestowal of define favor." I say yes. In my view of the salvation formula, we have faith + grace = salvation plus works. So works accompanies salvation, and results from salvation rather than works results in salvation. This is the Baptist view!

2. Faith as used by Paul means a faith from which faithfulness flows, i.e a full commitment to Christ, and could be better translated in Paul's usage as "faithful faith." This in no way suggests salvation is through faithfulness over our lifetime until death, which might seem Arminian to a degree. If God credits our full blown faith as righteousness, a one time event and not a process, then God puts us spiritually in Christ and we are saved forever. Our faithfulness post salvation earns rewards or not, but if not we would still enter heaven as one escaping from a fire, rather than "abundantly."

3. The stalking horse Calvinism uses for Limited Atonement is called "Penal Substitution" where Christ died only for the elect and paid the penalty for each and every sin of the elect, but did not pay for the specific sins of the non-elect because that would result in "double payment" when the sinners consigned to Hell are punished for those same sins. However, the New Perspective, or one of them rejects Penal Substitution and endorses some sort of "Satisfaction" theory where Christ's sacrifice becomes the propitiation for the whole world but only those spiritually placed in Christ receive the reconciliation.

4. The Old Perspective holds that when Paul refers to "works of the Law" he is referring to any effort on the part of the lost to earn salvation through obedience to the Law. The New Perspective says the works of the law refers to the practices of circumcision. dietary rules and observance of special days. Contrary to the assertions posted above, this new perspective does not assert we can merit salvation, but also does not cast aspersions on our efforts to seek God and Christ through faith, consigning those efforts wrongly to a work of the Law.

And now, 12 Strings, you know why the NPP was attacked and slandered by the usual suspects, because it provides a well studied rejection of some Calvinist eisegesis.

 

I understood what you said. And my point still stands.

 

Gonna have to break this one up... sorry.

What exactly do you want from me? As far as I can tell, you want me to reply to your links. That is a long and tedious process. I'd rather converse with you, not your links.

Dude, I'm not defending him as if everyone else arguing against him is a moron. I'm defending him b/c many here are throwing the first stone calling him a heretic, apostate, or other wordy derds. I'm not even convince of his position myself.

Well... I guess you haven't been reading me b/c I already posted it here in post #39: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1812492#post1812492
A show of good faith is to admit that I've already given my presentation and you simply missed it or were unaware of it (i.e. say you made a mistake).

In my opinion, all you have explained was what you believe to be Wright's view of the NPP. I've taken you to task on your presentation of Wright, and you didn't like that. I've pointed out that you are not presenting his definition of justification. So then I asked to present his definition of justification which you refuse. And you've explained enough? You are border line pontificating here. I think the comparison between Wright and Luther is becoming clearer.

By "they" you have to mean someone else other than Wright and honestly admit that Wright has been very vocal about his position and where it differs from others. He even wrote a response to Piper's book. If you think that it is difficult to pin Wright down, then it is only b/c you refuse to read him.

I haven't asked for any documentation. I actually asked for the opposite. I don't want you shooting links at me as if it is my job to read the stuff you've collected. I would rather discuss your findings together.

And to call my understanding subjective can only be a claim from someone who considers his own understanding as objective. I'd be willing to bet that I've read more of Wright than you. Wouldn't that make me the more objective authority on Wright's view than you? Admittedly, you may have read more against him than me. But that's not really the issue I'm making. I'm not arguing that his view is right so much as you are misrepresenting his view to the point that you are willing to say he is accursed. And so I will take up his banner to demonstrate his orthodoxy.

I have to say, the gall in this last post is striking. You speak ex cathedra about your objectivity and my subjectivity. Who do you think you are to put yourself in the judgment seat of what is correct Bible interpretation? You "KNOW" no more than me or Wright, that is unless you have some special relationship w/ God whereby he sends you extra-biblical revelation. If not, then you are certainly pontificating. This is protestant popery at its worse.

 

About to eat here. The fact that NPP teaches we have got salvation wrong for the past say 2000 years should raise a red flag.

Or maybe not.

(that's me being facetious above) :thumbsup: