A different gospel?

[TB2]

When you get a chance listen yo this.

Done

 

[David1701]

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?

You don't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. You refuse to believe the Bible and, instead, you declare a lie.

Adam had no ancestor, since he was created directly from earth. Man did not evolve, he was created, within a period of 24 hours, with an evening and a morning.

Do habitual liars go to hell? If they don't repent, then they do, yes.

 

[Carbon]

Done

Your not suppose to keep skipping ahead

 

[Carbon]

Adam had no ancestor, since he was created directly from earth. Man did not evolve, he was created,

Yep.

He don’t agree?

 

[TB2]

You don't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. You refuse to believe the Bible and, instead, you declare a lie.

Adam had no ancestor, since he was created directly from earth. Man did not evolve, he was created, within a period of 24 hours, with an evening and a morning.

Do habitual liars go to hell? If they don't repent, then they do, yes.

Got it. Thanks for telling me what I "refuse to believe." I love it when people tell me what I 'really' believe. However, I cannot express similar thanks nor can I condone your distortion of the gospel message of salvation.

 

[Eleanor]

The "New Perspective on Paul" is not a single idea or unified "camp." Wikipedia is a good place to start. The three notables are EP Sanders, Dunn, and NT Wright. Though their views are not identical the basic gist is that historical evidence requires a re-evaluation of the traditional Reformed perspective on Paul and Judaism (it's important to understand they are not advocating a wholesale rejection of Reformed understanding--there is much overlap between the "Old" & "New," but a correction of certain interpretations.

Here are some helpful quotes from (links in my post #78):

"A major distinction between these sides is their understanding of “works of the law.” In Galatians 2–3 and Romans 3, Paul engages conflicts between Jewish and Gentile parties related to faith and justification (like the dispute with the Judaizers supposedly sent from James at Antioch), and each perspective differs quite a bit on what exactly Paul is reacting against. 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.”[/B]

As Fesko states, for the “old perspective,” Paul’s target here is works in general, which the Jews are performing on an individual basis to try to earn salvation.
For the “new perspective,” Paul is referring to the practices of a specific law, the Torah, and within it particular works like circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance. These practices have a communal significance: adopting them makes one part of the Jewish nation and covenant (which, according to this perspective, Paul is saying doesn’t make one righteous before God). Depending on which interpretation you go with, you can end up with quite different senses of what Paul means by faith and justification, which are so central to the Christian message."

A brief summary of extrabiblical evidence:

"This reading, standard within Protestant circles for 450 years, began to be questioned toward the end of the 20th century. Criticism focused not directly on the reading of St. Paul as such, but on the presuppositions outlined above that are required to support that reading. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and advanced studies of Second Temple Judaism produced a very different picture of what the Judaism of the first century AD in general, and pharisaism in particular, from Luther’s presumptions. Pharisaism was not a legalistic system in which one earned personal salvation or eternal life. There was a lively sense of forgiveness and grace. Second Temple Judaism understood that the Torah contains means of dealing with human sinfulness, ways of purification and repentance. This then required that what St. Paul is calling “works of the Torah” couldn’t be referring to keeping the commandments or doing good. Further, the numerous places where the New Testament, and St. Paul himself, speak positively of the Torah never jibed well with the Lutheran reading. This school of thought became known as the “New Perspective on Paul.” It argued that the “works of the law” which St. Paul describes specifically refer to the works that were commanded to Israelites, and only Israelites, within the Torah. These particular commandments, for example circumcision and keeping kosher, were never given for Israel to enforce them upon their neighbors. Rather, they were commandments that distinguished Israel from her neighbors. These were the commandments which St. Paul would not see enforced upon Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel through Jesus Christ."

-----------

To this can be added Matthew J. Thompson's (2022) book Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

Amazon description:

"What did Paul mean by "works of the law"?

"Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from "works of the law," a disputed term that represents a fault line between "old" and "new" perspectives on Paul. Was the apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second-century readers understood these points in conflict, how their readings relate to "old" and "new" perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the "new" perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both modern viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ."

The issue insisted on by the Judaizers was that salvation required circumcision, a work of the law, and that without it the Gentiles were not saved (Ac 15:1).
And since without salvation there is no justification, it is all the same issue.

There is no misunderstanding in the "Old Perspective," the issue is clearly stated in Ac 15:1.
And that issue is likewise the false gospel of Gal 1:6, 9.

The "New Perspective" is a seriously deficient understanding of "works of the law" in the "Old Perspective,"
which is clearly stated in Ac 15:1.

 

[TB2]

The issue insisted on by the Judaizers was that salvation required circumcision, and without it the Gentiles were not [/I]saved [/I](Ac 15:1).
And since without salvation there is no justification, it is all the same issue.

There is no misunderstanding in the "Old Perspective," for it is simply stated in Ac 15:1.
It is likewise the false gospel of Gal 1:6, 9.

The "New Perspective" is a seriously deficient understanding of "works of the law" in the "Old Perspective."

Thanks. Your answer to question 1 below is that's it's wrong/in error. How would you respond to question 2? Thanks


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)

 

[TB2]

Your not suppose to keep skipping ahead

Huh?

I'll take a stab at answering the questions for you and you can correct me where I go wrong. Based on how your responses in the thread and the Sproul video you posted I assume that you hold the same view. That you (1) think the NP on "works of the law" is in error; and (2) you believe like Sproul that it's heretical and a "brand new discovered" doctrine (Sproul says sarcastically of course). Do you believe it's just a made up doctrine with 0 support? Do you think the motive behind the NP view is expressly to introduce heresy? (Again, just referring to the "works of the law" part)

 

[Eleanor]

Thanks. Your answer to question 1 below is that's it's wrong/in error. How would you respond to question 2? Thanks


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)

I need the "New Perspective" doctrine stated in order to answer your question.

 

[TB2]

I need the "New Perspective" doctrine stated in order to answer your question.

Too many moving parts, so thought I'd go one at a time. Just wondering your thoughts on only the "works of the law" part. Here's what I posted in full to people.

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)

 

[TB2]

Crickets... <sigh>

 

[Arial]

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?).

Who is running on high octane emotions now?

 

[TB2]

Who is running on high octane emotions now?

I guess you missed the winky

 

[TB2]

You don't "accept" that humans and primates, allegedly, had a common ancestor, since it's not true. You refuse to believe the Bible and, instead, you declare a lie.

Adam had no ancestor, since he was created directly from earth. Man did not evolve, he was created, within a period of 24 hours, with an evening and a morning.

Do habitual liars go to hell? If they don't repent, then they do, yes.

Got it. Thanks for telling me what I "refuse to believe." I love it when people tell me what I 'really' believe. However, I cannot express similar thanks nor can I condone your distortion of the gospel message of salvation.

You are actually promoting a false gospel

 

[TB2]

More crickets.... the questions weren't meant to be difficult.

 

[Eleanor]

Too many moving parts, so thought I'd go one at a time. Just wondering your thoughts on only the "works of the law" part. Here's what I posted in full to people.
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)?

Sabbath, circumcision and food laws were "works of the law." We have to decide what that "doctrine" is.

Also, are you saying that that interpretation never existed before?

Matters not. What the NT presents is what matters.

And that it is simply a made up doctrine that was made up for the express purpose of introducing heresy and distorting the gospel?

Depends on what it means:
If it means the things which identified Jews are necessary for salvation, that is false.
If it means the things which identified Jews are necessary to enter the people of God, that is false.
If it means the things which identified the Jews were necessary for entrance into the Jewish community, which entrance was required for salvation or justification, that is false.

And that it is simply a made up doctrine that was made up for the express purpose of introducing heresy and distorting the gospel?

I suspect it is somewhat of an offshoot of another false doctrine which does have a goal in mind.

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)

Actually, it's the claim/position of NT teaching.

 

[Arial]

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

Gal 2-3 Would take a long time and much space to dissect. In summary it is helpful to know why Paul was writing what he did and to whom. The book itself, as well as the Acts account of Paul's first and second missionary journeys into the Roman province of Galatia, tells us much. Agitators had come in. They were discrediting Paul and began to preach their own brand of the gospel which included the need for the Gentiles to be circumcised in addition to faith in Christ. Paul's purpose was to persuade them otherwise. There was no need for them to be circumcised in order to be justified and belong to God's covenant people. The "truth of the gospel"(2:5,14) is that justification comes by faith in Jesus Christ. Anyone who seeks to violate that sacred sphere of faith by adding other requirements corrupts the gospel and must be resisted at all costs.(1:8.9)

So the NP is way off base when they say that by works of the law Paul only means Jewish ceremonies, and therefore attempt to destroy justification by faith alone, is amateurish. It just happens to be the particular thing he was dealing with in his letter. Especially with all the other words of the apostles and Jesus' own words on the matter. If works of any sort are added as meritorious for justification (salvation) grace is no longer grace but works. It is a different gospel.

 

[Arial]

Also, are you saying that that interpretation never existed before?

Calvin and Luther had to deal with it.

And that it is simply a made up doctrine that was made up for the express purpose of introducing heresy and distorting the gospel? I

We can't really judge the motives but it does distort the gospel.

 

[TB2]

Calvin and Luther had to deal with it.

We can't really judge the motives but it does distort the gospel.

Thanks for your response

 

[Carbon]

Calvin and Luther had to deal with it.

We can't really judge the motives but it does distort the gospel.

@Eleanor

I think you both will enjoy and appreciate this if you have a chance.

What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul by Phil Johnson

My assignment in this hour is to give a critical review of an influential book by Anglican author N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham. The book is titled What Sai

www.ligonier.org