A different gospel?

[Carbon]

Show me anything that is not biased. That too is an empty defense or disqualifier as to the accuracy or truthfulness of something. It is like on another forum civic was stating the doctrine of penal substitution all wrong as a way to denounce it.

That's civic. He is one of Wrights' puppets. Wright will claim he is not against PSA, but once you get into the teaching you can see he is very much against it. PSA is also an essential doctrine, take that away and you take the gospel away.

 

[Carbon]

Well you summarily dismissed @Sereni-tea 's videos labeling the guy as an NP/Wright supporter when he actually doesn't agree with everything Wright says

What guy? civic? And how would you know that?

 

[TB2]

Alright, obviously a lot of NT Wright haters and inability to separate deep emotional feelings from the man, so let's kick NT Wright out and discuss the meaning of "works of the law"

 

[TB2]

What guy? civic? And how would you know that?

The guy in the video link

 

[Carbon]

Alright, obviously a lot of NT Wright haters and inability to separate deep emotional feelings from the man, so let's kick NT Wright out and discuss the meaning of "works of the law"

You have to understand friend, we have to be ready in season and out of season. There could be some here who are not familiar with the man, and he can be very deceptive. Just as if Finney was around, he would have to be exposed as well.

Please understand, it must be this way. But you have a chance to defend him if you wish.

So don't think of it as emotional on our part.

Although I have heard much emotional vomit from those who fight for Finney, and such.

 

[TB2]

You have to understand friend, we have to be ready in season and out of season. There could be some here who are not familiar with the man, and he can be very deceptive. Just as if Finney was around, he would have to be exposed as well.

Please understand, it must be this way. But you have a chance to defend him if you wish.

Well I have posted extensive links (post 78, 79) and @Sereni-tea has posted videos for a point of discussion that apparently not everyone has had the opportunity to go through. I have also cited recent scholarly work on the subject. I'm less interested in Wright and more interested in the actual theological points of the NP.

Let me ask you this: You obviously think the New Perspective view of "works of the law" as identifying marks of covenant membership is wrong. Now are you saying it is a heretical doctrine (just the "works of the law" part)? And are you saying that that interpretation never existed before? And that it is simply a made up doctrine that was made up for the express purpose of introducing heresy and distorting the gospel? Is that your claim/position?

 

[Arial]

Well you summarily dismissed @Sereni-tea 's videos labeling the guy as an NP/Wright supporter when he actually doesn't agree with everything Wright says

No I didn't. I said that I couldn't wade through the video because he spent too much time using the wrong things to prop up what he was about to say. It began with logical fallacies as support and it took him too long to get to the point.It was easier to read about it. So I DID. And not just from one source.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, we are.

Looks to me like the New Perspective has a problem in the definition of "justification," if I'm understanding things correctly.

In the Greek, the definition of "justification" (dikaiosis) is a declaration of not guilty, a sentence of acquital, a legal finding of right standing with God's court.
It is a forensic righteousness, not an actual righteousness, as in sanctification.

That being the case,

"initial" justification = forensic righteousness, and
"final" justification = actual righteousness (works of obedience in the Holy Spirit).

However, justification excludes actual righteousness, for it is by definition forensic only, simply a legal standing.

What am I messing up here?

 

[Arial]

Alright, obviously a lot of NT Wright haters and inability to separate deep emotional feelings from the man, so let's kick NT Wright out and discuss the meaning of "works of the law"

Actually it is the false teaching that is being exposed, not hate of the man.

Put "works of the law" into a context in the Bible and we can go from there.

 

[Eleanor]

Looks to me like the New Perspective has a problem in the definition of "justification," if I'm understanding things correctly.

In the Greek, the definition of "justification" (dikaiosis) is a declaration of not guilty, a sentence of acquital, a legal finding of right standing with God's court.
It is a forensic righteousness, not an actual righteousness, as in sanctification.

That being the case,

"initial" justification = forensic righteousness, and
"final" justification = actual righteousness (works of obedience in the Holy Spirit).

However, justification excludes actual righteousness, for it is by definition forensic only, simply a legal standing.

What am I messing up here?

 

[Carbon]

Actually it is the false teaching that is being exposed, not hate of the man.

Put "works of the law" into a context in the Bible and we can go from there.

True, true, even though he is arrogant and annoying

 

[TB2]

Actually it is the false teaching that is being exposed, not hate of the man.

Put "works of the law" into a context in the Bible and we can go from there.

Please see post 186 above. I'm curious of your answers too and want to make sure I'm properly understanding your position (posts 79 also lay out the NP vs OP difference on "works of the law"). Best

 

[TB2]

I guess you guys missed the news: apparently NT Wright is dead. Burned at the stake. Yep burned to a crisp that heathen heretic. And to think he had the nerve to claim miraculous experiences in his life from God (obviously those were of the devil). But now that he's gone (may he RIP in, where exactly is he? Hell? Is that what people here are claiming?).

At any rate, the haters don't have to worry about Wright now that he's been thoroughly murdered here But I am genuinely interested in people's answers to these questions about the New Perspective itself (while avoiding a similar medieval stake burning fate):

The Reformed theologian J.V. Fesko gives a helpful shorthand summary of the two views: “According to some New Perspective scholars, “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews. According to the Old Perspective, “works of the law” represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort

1. Who thinks the NP view of "works of the law" is wrong/in error?

2. For those who think it's wrong, can you please clarify: Are you saying it's simply wrong, or that it is actually a heretical doctrine (just the "works of the law" part)? Also, are you saying that that interpretation never existed before? And that it is simply a made up doctrine that was made up for the express purpose of introducing heresy and distorting the gospel? Is that the basic gist of the claim/position of those who think the NP view on "works of the law" is wrong? (again, just the "works of the law" part)

 

[David1701]

There is legitimate disagreement among believers over whether Genesis intends to teach modern science and how modern scientific conclusions about human-primate ancestry fit in. There are believers who recognize human-primate common ancestry and believers who abhor and reject it. But both sides agree Adam was a real historical person and there was a real fall. If someone denied Adam's existence altogether I'd be inclined to agree with you. But when believers are affirming the same theology that's another matter. You say the theology can't be true unless sole progenitor. They disagree while affirming the same theology. You don't think it works. I get that. But that is entirely different from denial of Adam's existence altogether

This is nonsense. The Bible does not have to be a science textbook (it's not), in order for its narrative to be true as written.

Adam was created directly from earth. He did not evolve from an animal. Any teaching claiming that Adam evolved from an animal is anti-Christian and those who proclaim it are heretics.

There can be no "agreeing to disagree" about this. I will not fellowship with people who claim that man evolved from animals.

Death is the result of sin and sin entered the world through Adam.

 

[Carbon]

I guess you guys missed the news: apparently NT Wright is dead. Burned at the stake. Yep burned to a crisp that heathen heretic. And to think he had the nerve to claim miraculous experiences in his life from God (obviously those were of the devil). But now that he's gone (may he RIP in, where exactly is he? Hell? Is that what people here are claiming?).

At any rate I am genuinely interested in people's answers to these questions (while avoiding any medieval stake burning):

The Reformed theologian J.V. Fesko gives a helpful shorthand summary of the two views: “According to some New Perspective scholars, “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews. According to the Old Perspective, “works of the law” represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort

1. Who thinks the NP view of "works of the law" is wrong/in error?

2. For those who think it's wrong, can you please clarify: Are you saying it's simply wrong, or that it is actually a heretical doctrine (just the "works of the law" part)? Also, are you saying that that interpretation never existed before? And that it is simply a made up doctrine that was made up for the express purpose of introducing heresy and distorting the gospel? Is that the basic gist of the claim/position of those who think the NP view on "works of the law" is wrong?

 

[TB2]

Ikr

 

[TB2]

This is nonsense. The Bible does not have to be a science textbook (it's not), in order for its narrative to be true as written.

Adam was created directly from earth. He did not evolve from an animal. Any teaching claiming that Adam evolved from an animal is anti-Christian and those who proclaim it are heretics.

There can be no "agreeing to disagree" about this. I will not fellowship with people who claim that man evolved from animals.

Death is the result of sin and sin entered the world through Adam.

Got it. That's not the basis for Christian fellowship, but understood. You’ve made your position clear. I assume believers who accept human-primate common ancestry are going to hell too? Or no?

 

[Carbon]

Ikr

Do yourself a favor. Listen to this.

 

[TB2]

Do yourself a favor. Listen to this.

Please answer my questions when you get the chance in Post 193. Thanks.

 

[Carbon]

Please answer my questions when you get the chance in Post 193. Thanks.

When you get a chance listen yo this.