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

Excellent Post, PreachingJesus.

 

I had said earlier that seeing those in defense of npp is enough to warn anyone. Gold Dragon, our resident tree-hugger and global-warming devotee has entered the fray hungry for new liberal fodder. I expect to see Magnetic Poles soon.

And this by notpreachinjesus:

This conversation has helped reinforce how difficult it is to have complicated conversations about nuanced theological views in this kind of a forum.
​

"Nuanced?" You mean too subtle for the boy who drives the plow—something truly understood only by theological academes, from whom the plowboy should eagerly accept instruction.

This is not the nature of the Gospel. There are no nuances. All things are naked and opened. The plowboy receives the same Spirit as the academe, and the Gospel is communicated in simplicity and godly sincerity...a sincerity I note lacking in the cited page on npp. In fact nuance is the name of the game there. Sola Scriptura is cited often enough, but only as the Marxist cites equality. Appeals to Calvinism are there as the Socialist appeals to the rights of the people. The abandonment thereof is masked as their long-awaited full and final realization.

quantum asserts that Adam had subhuman parents. Scandal's views on inspiration flip-flop between a shade of JEDP and Harry Potter's incantations, notpreachinjesus asserts Obama is a Christian.

And they're going to correct us in the matter of Justification?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

And SOMEONE here is a hyperistic determinist who doesn't ever evangelize because he figures its all predetermined. He also doesn't ever really have intimate and personal conversations with God because he still thinks of Him as one big impersonal theological concept, rather than an actual person to known and love.




-------------------------------------




How does it feel to have a label stuck to you by someone who isn't dealing with your actual arguments? Welcome to the world of those who attempt to have a discussion with you.

 

If this so called "revelation" or whatever you want to call it is only a few years old, why would anyone even listen to it? After 2000 years have we suddenly been enlightened to understand what Paul really meant?? Please.

 

This has been addressed many times in this thread - what Luther was saying was new in Christendom as well when he started saying it.

I think everyone should at least read the following piece from Wright before commenting further - already provided by QuantumFaith I believe - so we will all be on the same page:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm

You can skip the long intro and skip directly to the main section entitled
"Understanding Righteousness in Paul: The Central Issues"

I have started to respond many times but stopped because I found I was too undecided overall.

Its ironic to me he would single out Galatians and Luther's supposed faulty interpretation of it, as I happen to have been reading John Bunyan's autobiography, and Bunyan mentions it was specifically Luther's writings on Galatians that finally caused him to see the light. I haven't actually gotten to where Bunyan discusses Galatians yet.

But what is clear to me, (or somewhat clear) is that when Galatians talks about the law its talking specifically about the ceremonial law. This is clear I think from the following:

(Gal 5:19-21) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So when Wright says for example that, "Final Judgment [is] According to Works", I can't immediately rule it out.

Except now that I think of it, in Christ's addresses to the Seven Churches in Revelation, he talks about all sorts of punitive repercussion on earth for all the sins they're committing but he never says anyone's in danger of going to hell.

I am intrigued by Wright's contention that the Gospel is merely the statement, "Jesus is Lord", and that there are political overtones to that statement as well. I have heard pastors in the past say it means you have to agree to make Jesus Lord of your life, but I find Wright's explanation more compelling.

But, I by no means am proselytizing for the guy either. I'm just writing the above to show that I read the piece provided, which is the least anyone should do before posting in this thread.

 

'Nuanced.' Please. It's a word used to not face that something has been twisted. Now it's just 'nuanced.'

Many notable scholars have exposed this false doctrine plainly and correctly. I as well as others have provided ample information to show the errors of this new system.

Sometimes I feel this place is an ostrich ranch. :thumbsup:

Wright and others have taken Pauls soteriological defense, that is, of the saving power of the Gospel, in his book of Galatians, which he defends in chapter 1 showing the issue at stake is soteriological, and then they twist and wrest it to being about sanctification. Then, we have the fact that we had it all wrong for 2000 years. That's an outright lie, and these NPP teachers are simply Judaizers in new garb.

Another problem is the fact of what they teach: They attempt to say forensic justification is true...as well. But then they corrupt its efficacy through false teachings. This is always the case with false teaching, the lure of truth laden in a lie.

Then we have one on here who implies Luther only found relative truth to fit his needs. I wonder where that came from? Relative truth? Truth is not static?

I thinks it's hilarious I show one the truth of what they teach, and only after I've done this over and over and over, and I finally get him to address facts that he purposely overlooked, he responds with name calling and character assassination, and then says that he's not talking to me 'no more!!!' Took his marbles and left...lol :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I will revisit and reply to some of these points later. This is a busy weekend (and maybe busy Monday too.)

However, I do ask that we refrain from impugning each other's usernames. Let's be civil and extend grace to each other, even in our disagreement.

 

Ostrich Ranch, why don't you and a few others then come up for a little fresh air. Oh how I would hate to be so narrow as some of you so confidently portray. Oh how wonderful it might be to make no attempt to be fair and balanced, how wonderful things would be if I KNEW I was correct ALL the time and I had NO need to consider or learn something new.

 

A plowboy could easily understand the issues at hand if he took the time to inform himself.

The real issue here is not intelligence or learning, but close-minded arrogance, fear and lack of humility.

If you won’t take the time to inform yourself of the issues by reading things in context from primary source, not just the opinions of people trying to sway your opinion, then you really have no ground on which to make a credible claim.

Yes, there is a great simplicity to the Gospel, especially as one enters into the Kingdom of God, but there is also an enormous depth and profundity to it which the plowboy (and the rest of us) will spend the rest of our mortal lives trying to comprehend and master, that is, if we are truly faithful disciples of Jesus.

Not so. If the gospel were simple, God would have given it to us in a form of something like a "Four Spiritual Laws" tract and left it at that.

But instead, God gave us an extensive body of scripture which is enormously complex and spans thousands of years and many cultures. Furthermore, we have to filter our communal understanding of the gospel of the Kingdom of God through 2,000 years of insights, errors, reactions, counter-reactions, abuses, affirmations, misplaced emphases, and the infusion of ideas from the ever-present kingdoms of the world which attempt to infiltrate the church.

Moreover, even the Apostle Peter, who trained at the right hand of Jesus for at least three years and was a powerful leader of the early church struggled to understand Paul’s writings... and he lived in the same culture and context as Paul!

Who are you to assert that the writings of Paul are easy to understand, have “no nuances” and are “naked and opened”?

Perhaps you are smarter and wiser than Peter?

Yes.

Ultimately, these discussions are fairly simple and sincere if you have prepared yourself for the discussion. The problem is, most non-theologians have not prepared, and frankly, don’t need to be prepared because they have ministers who will help them with these issues.

I don’t have to go to law school and get a law degree so I can properly review a contract before I sign it... I instead retain the services of an attorney who knows all of the ins and outs of contracts. However, if I want to discuss contract law and make grand pronouncements about what is valid and what is not, I would be an arrogant fool not to immerse myself in extensive study in order to speak legitimately and helpfully in that context.

In the same way, if I am not interested in immersing myself in theological studies and familiarize myself with the intricacies of what someone means and doesn’t mean by their assertions, then I am acting as an arrogant fool if I condemn the whole field of study and the specific people involved.

Of course, that doesn't stop people from making faulty and condemning attacks on others simply because it "sounds different" than what they have heard before or it conflicts with their religious tradition or deeply cherished beliefs. We see that here.

Proverbs 29:9

 

No, this isn't about conflicting views against our tradition. Give it a break, that's a complete strawman. In addition to this, we are to hold fast to the traditions we've received, 2 Thess. 2:15. The main one? It's the Gospel message, the faith only one time delivered to the saints.

This is about a false Gospel, as much as N.T. Wright and NPP have fooled some of you into thinking this whole thing is not soteriological, and has you casting off traditions like you're being wise in doing so.

My tradition is that the Gospel saves. Romans 1:16, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 15:1-10, Ephesians 1:13 and more. I'm certain that these passages will not suffice most of you, as you've placed scholarly thinking above defending the Gospel of truth which N.T. Wright has clearly rejected. What I see here are folks wanting to pretend to be wise scholarly thinkers, 'on the cutting edge', looking for 'new' truth, who want to and wish to reframe truth into equations that go against truth.

You've been hoodwinked.

Does the Gospel save? Is it the power of God unto salvation? Yes, it certainly is, and I will eternally hold to that and believe it.

Looks like someone else has apostatized from that truth.

N.T. Wright? He says the Gospel doesn't save, doesn't show us how to be saved. Not surprising in the least coming from an Anglican Bishop.

I'm not amazed that some of you here are following him, lending him an ear, and are enthused with his heresy. I mean, it sure sounds smart and scholarly and 'wow' unless you face it with truth.

Like I said, he preaches another false gospel, and as we know, there is no other.

Proof? OK:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...ication-a-response-to-n-t-wright#/listen/full

 

:applause::applause::applause:

 

Yes,,,you have it.....
19For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

 

Does Justification=the gospel???

Is Paul's gospel only justification by faith, or is there more to it???

Where is this gospel=justification in Jesus' ministry??? I know where people will point, but vindication makes better sense there.

Where is justification in Jesus' ministry???

Just some questions I pose.

 

:BangHead::tear::sleep:

 

It's the "gospel" commonly taught in Baptist churches... It reduces Jesus to simply the Lamb of God and generally ignores His teaching, instead focusing upon certain parts of Paul's teaching that fits well with certain Western values, completely taken out of the context of Paul being a disciple of Jesus.

Good questions.

The sooner we take seriously that we must interpret Paul's writings in the context of what Jesus taught (that is, that Paul affirmed and expanded upon the teachings of Jesus and Paul's writings do not stand on their own), the better off we will be.

 

Wrong questions, and you're frustrating the grace of God.

Is the Gospel salvific, or not? My Bible says IT is the Power of God Unto Salvation. I'll add nothing to that, nor discount anything away from that for the sake of ANYTHING, including sounding scholarly in so doing.

Wrights gospel is not salvific in his own words. He's frustrated the grace of God and distorted the truth and power of the Gospel.

 

That's quite an accusation!

Obviously salvation comes through Christ and the good news ("the gospel") of Christ provides the means for people to come to know Him.

No one is asking you to add or subtract anything... just define it.

Our brother here is simply asking if the totality of the gospel is simply a certain view of justification, expressed in a very specific way. That is as easy as a yes or no.

I've been listening to a number of podcasts in recent weeks by Wright, most are not specifically about New Perspectives on Paul subjects, but Wright presents a clear gospel message of salvation by grace through faith. Furthermore, I haven't heard him say anything about works-righteousness. I find it hard to believe he would hold and advocate two contrary views.

You keep making this claim but you don't seem to explain what Wright specifically says/does from primary sources. I may have missed it, but I would appreciate it if you would state it in your own words (not a link to someone else's words) and then provide a recent to one of Wright's works which documents your accusation.

 

amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Aaron was correct as well with his plow boy comment, and his laughter to conclude? Wise.

You keep refusing to look at evidence when the evidence quotes exactly what Wright said about the Gospels inability to save.

Look who doesn't want a link to anothers words who actually quotes Wright, but won't listen unless it comes from me. :laugh: :laugh:

Please, go pull your Proverbs 29 out on me as well, OK? And remain willfully ignorant and don't look at what I've provided. I mean, it can't be correct when Wright is quoted, ''cause it came from a site and not me', yes?

Yeah, you've missed it. I find it hilarious and entertaining those who play blind when facts are handed to them, yet in spite of looking at evidence still make conclusions. Hmmm. Wonder what Proverbs says about this?

NT Wright says the Gospel doesn't save, and you're still finding reasons to support him? Wow. What did Paul say about that?

Anyhow, what do I care. Go for it, I couldn't care less. Since you don't want to face facts and look at the evidence I've given because 'it didn't come from me' (which is quite a lame excuse) and choose rather to bury your head in the sand, cool.

Perhaps you're scared to go listen to what Wright actually says? No?

:thumbsup:

 

Things are busy here, apologies for not catching up...

However, perhaps it is wise to note the difference between justification and salvation.

Salvation is the umbrella term for what happens in the process of redemption. Salvation has parts, or aspects to it:

Justification
Sanctification
Glorification

One isn't truly saved until all the parts, or process, is complete. However, for many of us goodly Baptists (this is a Baptist board afterall...and since that is a clearly defined doctrinal category...) justification is a punctiliar act wherein the individual is sealed into the process of salvation (not to fall away) and is on a journey in sanctification, that is growing holiness, which eventually leads to glorification which is accomplished, in full, at the eschaton.

Justification is part of salvation, it isn't the only thing in salvation. A biblical understanding of salvation is that it is process (sealed from the start) which is accomplished by God in us for us.

Salvation, historically/theologically is properly defined this way. Salvation is done by faith in Christ which is a gift from God (Eph 2:8f.)

Now as one approaches the act of justification there has always been a diverse array of views concerning what that looks like (monergistic, synergistic) and how it applies to the believer and then relates to sanctification. If you are a sacramentalist justification is the welcoming act that priviledges the believer to enjoy the fulfillment of Christ through the participation in the sacramental grace offered by the Church that awaits its ultimate glorification. Sacramental views have always been considered legitimate and orthodox. Just like Baptistic views of justification in line with the process of salvation have been.

It is a complicated topic, yes, but one that needs an honest discussion.

But again, NPP isn't just limited to one view of justification in the process of salvation...