A different gospel?

[Dave_Regenerated]

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?

The theory of evolution is not to be found anywhere in the Bible aside from some claims that it appears in the first few pages of Genesis. It's hard to believe you can derive evolution from the Bible and actually claim that Adam came from a previous ape like creature. I didn't say "common ancestor". There has to be a cut off point from one species to another species where there is no natural way of reproducing any longer in their species chain. Also, I asked you in other threads to explain the almost complete lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. You haven't done that yet. I wonder why.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

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.

You think TB2 is not saved then? Or do you believe that Christians that have been born again can lose their salvation?

 

[TB2]

Well, Paul's meaning is not up for debate, for it is clearly stated in Ac 15:
v. 1 - "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." And to that end is

Correct, following the "custom taught by Moses" of circumcision--the identifying mark of a Jew---does not save us. But notice that circumcision is not an ethical issue of works morality. It is what a male did to identify himself as a member of the nation of Israel God's people. It was most certainly an identifying mark.

v. 5 - "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.'

Correct, and we see in the NT that those identifying marks of Torah obedience--which remember is a covenant relationship to identify oneself as a member of God's people--those "works of the law" mentioned most by Paul are circumcision (also in the two verses you cite), dietary restrictions, and Sabbath observance.

Context. . .whether it means circumcision only, or the ceremonial law only, or all Mosaic law, or all works of merit.
That is not a negation of Paul's meaning of "works of the law."

? But that is, in fact, what the question turns on: whether by "works of the law" Paul meant the identifying marks of Torah-covenant relationship. Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.”

Because Calvin correctly understood it to be allworks of merit, with or without God's enablement, as the NT shows it to be; e.g., 2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5, Ro 4:2, Eph 2:8-9,

First, no one is arguing that we can earn salvation through meritorious works (we can't!). The issue is whether Paul means something more specific than just a general no-salvation-by-righteous-works blanket sweep when he speaks of the "works of the law" and it seems that he is. The fact that he qualifies these are works specifically *of* the Law/Torah is significant right there. The further fact that when he speaks of the "works of the Torah" he's also specifically addressing circumcision further reinforces.

He doesn't need to cite anyone. It is clearly stated by Paul, and that is authoritative to the church.

It was Calvin’s characteristic practice to back up his view by citing the early patristic fathers. Here he cites that their views are against his.

If it was "clearly stated in Paul," then Calvin himself wouldn't point out that it is "a matter of doubt even among the learned what 'the works of the law mean.'"

The only difference Calvin asserts is that "works of the law" refers to all works of merit, whereas the early church's "quite different view of works" is limited to the ceremonial law (if, in fact, that is even the case).

It does indeed seem to be the case

And Calvin's view of "works of the law" is the same as Paul's; i.e., all works of merit (2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5, Ro 4:2, Eph 2:8-9).

Calvin's view is the same as Calvin’s. You're reading Paul through the lens of Calvin and claiming that's the clear teaching of Scripture, when it's just the clear teaching of Calvin. We all read through the lens of a certain denomination or tradition or background. You're reading through the lens of Calvin. I think it makes more sense to read through the lens of first and second century patristic church fathers because they were closer in time and more likely to understand what Paul meant that Calvin 1500 years later.

Again, no one's disputing the other passages. The question is when Paul speaks not simply of works but "works of the Torah" is he speaking of something more specific? Indeed it seems he is and the earliest Church witness to this agrees.

Yes, boasting is precisely the issue, going all the way back to Abraham whose righteousness was not merited, but imputed (Ro 4:2, 1 Co 1:29, Eph 2:9).
It's about removing all means of boasting and taking credit for God's work of salvation and justification (Eph 2:8-9, Ro 3;28) ,
it's about rendering mankind powerless to share in his glory, justly due to him, and him alone (Isa 42:8, 48:11).

Not denying works-for-salvation bad. "Works of the Torah" is just something more specific than a general pronouncement of you-can't-earn-your-way-to-heaven. Look at the passages in Romans and Galatians. Look at Romans chapter 2, 3, 4 where Paul talks about "works of the Law". It's all about circumcision. Paul brings up circumcision about 9 times and about 5-6 times in Galatians. Even the verses about the "works of the Law" you cite in Acts is tied to circumcision.

We still can't earn our way to heaven through righteous moral living (that is a false teaching). But "works of the Torah" is something more specific and always seems to be tied to circumcision (as the literal "boast in the flesh"). Circumcision, circumcision, circumcision. It's an epidemic of circumcision in those passages. Paul gets so mad he even says in Galatians he wished the knife slipped and everything was cut off! Circumcision on the brain in these passages. We still can't earn our way to heaven. But Paul clearly seems to be speaking of something very specific with the "works of the Torah"---circumcision which was not a moral ethical thing but an outward identifying mark that you belong to the People of God. The Judaizers were saying you have to bear the identifying marks of the Torah covenant to be saved which is false! (Saved by moral works also false!).

It matters not what early Christians believed if it does not correspond to what can be demonstrated from Scripture.
And that "works of the law" means all works of merit is clearly demonstrated in the NT

Agreed, and in the Romans and Galatians passages the "works of the Law" are clearly tied to circumcision. Saying that by "works of the Torah" "what Paul 'really' means to say is ANY system or doctrine of trying to earn salvation through righteous meritorious works is wrong [which is true, that's still wrong!]" but that is actually reading *more into Scripture* than the immediate context allows (works-salvation still wrong! I agree).

 

[TB2]

But you are leaving out the major part of evidence, your thorough grasp of Paul's teaching.
Is your Biblical understanding of Paul thorough enough to evaluate Wright's assertion?
Are you in a position to see all the things impacted and/or contradicted in the NT by Wright's assertion?
Are you having to take Wright's word regarding this NP?
As long as you are bouncing one man's word off another, you are not in a position to correctly evaluate NP.

Didn't you hear? Wright has been ceremoniously burned at the stake We're just trying to focus on specific NP claims (which is not limited to Wright)

 

[Carbon]

I'm a scientist, my friend, and so I'm skeptical by nature, not given to flights of fancy, and have a pretty thick skull lol so change doesnt come fast to me but only after careful meticulous study. I will respond the same way I did in post 244:

"Honestly, I know enough to know I don't know nearly enough about this subject lol But I always try to stay open to the chance that I could be wrong. As I said I've believed the Old Perspective for over forty years, and only now am reconsidering in light of the new evidence coming out. I just got the new book I mentioned in Post 236. I will let you know what I think after I finish. Blessings"

That said, I am very, very committed to following the evidence where it leads even if it goes against long time cherished beliefs that I have held

Okay

 

[TB2]

This is a curious verse...

1 Corinthians 7:19 NAS
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

 

[Carbon]

Didn't you hear? Wright has been ceremoniously burned at the stake We're just trying to focus on specific NP claims (which is not limited to Wright)

You have a great imagination. But we want to talk about the facts. But I suppose, you can keep playing if you like.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

This is a curious verse...

1 Corinthians 7:19 NAS
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

Paul is talking about the 10 commandments or the moral law, not the ritual law of circumcision, as is also clear from his saying that disputes about sabbaths and new moons and food rituals he lumps into the same category.

 

[Arial]

The New Perspective on Paul, is like taking out the Checkerboard; and only using the red Checkers. It excludes the black Checkers of Saint Peter; red can't Lose...

Sound Hermeneutics. This stuff is pretty simple...

Yes. It makes Paul the center of the gospel, not Christ. It ignores a great deal of the OT, particularly the Messianic prophecies and Psalms.

In reading the link that @Carbon posted, I think the new, new perspective which would include White, is at least to some extent, part of the ecunemical movement of the "80's and 90's. Where the biblical meaning of unity of the body became watered down to not mean unity of teaching but everyone get along. What a person says is more important than what they actually believe or think. I.e. if the RCC will say that you don't have to be a member of the Catholic church, then we will welcome you as one of us.

In addition doctrine, which was already teetering on the periphery of church gatherings, fell off the edge. Truth became subjective and irrelevant. All beliefs are equal. And Jesus became primarily a moral teacher. If we keep to His moral teachings, we are a Christian. Be nice became the standard of unity.

 

[TB2]

Also, I asked you in other threads to explain the almost complete lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. You haven't done that yet. I wonder why.

Because I've already addressed it or I missed seeing your comment or a combination of reasons. I'm certainly not avoiding the topic if that's what you're implying. See "Arguments creationists should stop using" fifth bullet point from bottom where Creation International advises against claiming there are no transitional forms. See also "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

There has to be a cut off point from one species to another species where there is no natural way of reproducing any longer in their species chain

Empirically there doesn't seem to be beyond developmental constraints and pleiotropic effects

The theory of evolution is not to be found anywhere in the Bible aside from some claims that it appears in the first few pages of Genesis. It's hard to believe you can derive evolution from the Bible and actually claim that Adam came from a previous ape like creature

You're right! It's not there! You can't derive it! I'm actually more of a Scriptural purist then you may realize. I have a strict no modern science policy when interpreting the Bible. The problem is BOTH YECs and OECs and evolutionary creationists and what have you---ALL concordists commit the same error of anachronism by incorrectly trying to read twentieth first century modern science into 3-4,000 year old OT Scripture where it doesn't belong. Genesis no more talks about evolutionary biology than the YEC claim that Day 3 is describing plate tectonics. I'm sorry, someone in Bible times would never read Day 3 and think "Oh, God's talking about Alfred Wegner's theory of plate tectonics" and so that can't be a correct interpretation. I am a strict by the Hermeneutics 101 handbook follower of the principle that Scripture must always be interpreted in the proper historical context of the time. What was the original intended meaning of Genesis to the intended audience? Such questions are not always easy to answer, but they are the only correct hermeneutic principles to follow. Scripture and modern science are for the most part apples and oranges that speak to different questions. In addition, Genesis 1 clearly teaches prescientific view of the earth that are incorrect. Does that mean the Bible has errors? NO, not unless Genesis was intended to teach modern science. Scientific Concordism (which I reject as anachronistic) of OECs, YECs, etc. doesn't work and only "works" by twisting science into non-science or twisting Scripture to say something else, which we can never never allow. The only way I can see to maintain divine inspiration and inerrancy is Divine Accommodation. See "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"

 

[Arial]

I find a lot of problems and errors in Phil Johnson's analysis. I just don't know if I have the time to do a detailed rebuttal <sigh>

I will note this much, however, Phil's article was written in 2010 prior to the latest evidence (2022) we have on the subject. See the new book I mentioned in Post 236.

No "evidence" you produce will change the Bible or justification by faith alone. Alone means no other thing added to it as meritorious. The scale by which something should be weighed as to its truthfulness or not, does it alter the character of God? Does it alter the power of the cross and lessen it or Jesus in any way? Our plumb line is not "evidence" from outside sources, scholarly achievements, volume or eloquence of writings, used with the purpose of changing what exists as historical Christianity. It is not somebody else's book. It is God's book by which we judge.

 

[TB2]

You have a great imagination. But we want to talk about the facts. But I suppose, you can keep playing if you like.

You're way too serious. My comment was meant in good humored jest. You know. Some comic relief to relieve the palpable tension on this thread. It obviously backfired. I won't crack a smile from this point on darn it. OK starting now

 

[TB2]

No "evidence" you produce will change the Bible or justification by faith alone. Alone means no other thing added to it as meritorious. The scale by which something should be weighed as to its truthfulness or not, does it alter the character of God? Does it alter the power of the cross and lessen it or Jesus in any way? Our plumb line is not "evidence" from outside sources, scholarly achievements, volume or eloquence of writings, used with the purpose of changing what exists as historical Christianity. It is not somebody else's book. It is God's book by which we judge.

Good thing I'm not arguing against justification by faith whew
(Interesting fact did you know Luther added "alone" in his translation of Romans)

 

[TB2]

Paul is talking about the 10 commandments or the moral law, not the ritual law of circumcision, as is also clear from his saying that disputes about sabbaths and new moons and food rituals he lumps into the same category.

There was no moral vs ritual law division in 2nd Temple Judaism that is a modern construct

 

[TB2]

Sorry guys, Honey-Do list calls. I will have to return later. Have a blessed day everyone

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Because I've already addressed it or I missed seeing your comment or a combination of reasons. I'm certainly not avoiding the topic if that's what you're implying. See "Arguments creationists should stop using" fifth bullet point from bottom where Creation International advises against claiming there are no transitional forms. See also "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

Empirically there doesn't seem to be beyond developmental constraints and pleiotropic effects

You're right! It's not there! You can't derive it! I'm actually more of a Scriptural purist then you may realize. I have a strict no modern science policy when interpreting the Bible. The problem is BOTH YECs and OECs and evolutionary creationists and what have you---ALL concordists commit the same error of anachronism by incorrectly trying to read twentieth first century modern science into 3-4,000 year old OT Scripture where it doesn't belong. Genesis no more talks about evolutionary biology than the YEC claim that Day 3 is describing plate tectonics. I'm sorry, someone in Bible times would never read Day 3 and think "Oh, God's talking about Alfred Wegner's theory of plate tectonics" and so that can't be a correct interpretation. I am a strict by the Hermeneutics 101 handbook follower of the principle that Scripture must always be interpreted in the proper historical context of the time. What was the original intended meaning of Genesis to the intended audience? Such questions are not always easy to answer, but they are the only correct hermeneutic principles to follow. Scripture and modern science are for the most part apples and oranges that speak to different questions. In addition, Genesis 1 clearly teaches prescientific view of the earth that are incorrect. Does that mean the Bible has errors? NO, not unless Genesis was intended to teach modern science. Scientific Concordism (which I reject as anachronistic) of OECs, YECs, etc. doesn't work and only "works" by twisting science into non-science or twisting Scripture to say something else, which we can never never allow. The only way I can see to maintain divine inspiration and inerrancy is Divine Accommodation. See "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"

So now I know you are lying. You will not address the almost complete lack of transitional species in the fossil record. I want you to say after me, "Yes, there is a massive lack of transitional fossils species" and then you can talk about some ancient fish hybrid or something!

 

[Arial]

I wonder if that's part of the problem/misunderstanding. From what I can tell, no one (in the NP) is saying that we can earn salvation through righteous works. From what I can tell everyone still rejects that. We can't earn our way to heaven! Amen? I think the issue is whether the salvation by works controversy of the Reformation against Catholic Church was inadevertently (and anachronistically) read back into the Bible when Paul was talking about something else. The more we learn about Pharisaic belief of the time the more it seems like the long time assumption that the Pharisees were just legalists trying to earn their way into heaven is an incorrect one or at least an oversimplified and caricatured view, and that they did believe in grace and forgiveness. Their views were certainly more nuanced than the common assumptions give them credit.

So it's not that we can earn our way to heaven through righteous works (that's still false!), it's just to say that it's possible that Paul was talking about something else in the first century than the Catholic-Protestant works controversy 1500 years later (and indeed the first and second century church understanding of Paul seems to back this up).

More word salad.

The subject is how we are justified. And if it is said that Paul was only talking about Jewish ceremonies etc. when he said "works of the law" therefore that changes justification by faith alone, then what does justification become? If justification by faith alone is changed, what is it changed to?

The traditional Protestant view is that no work brings justification. That having been reconciled to God through faith in the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross, that justifies us. Nothing more, nothing less. Why? Because our sins had a sentence upon them of death and the wrath of God, the Just Judge. Jesus took that penalty in our place on the cross. Defeated sin and death as our enemies. Therefore those who put their trust in His person and His work, are justified. Made the righteousness of Christ in Him.

So if justification is not yet for any but only a future event, how are our sins forgiven now? We would be racking them up day by day. Must Christ die again? Or did He already take care of and settle the matter?

The Bible is really pretty plain and simple. Written in everyday language and easy to understand as to what it is saying. NP, like all false teachings, must learn and use great acts of contortion to undermine and change it, to be more bad news instead of good news. They must hunt high and low, leave no stone unturned to come up with what sounds plausible, and support it with all manner of logical fallacies that many cannot see through the carefully crafted camouflage. NP uses the scriptures that contain "by the works of the law" , nothing else of scripture, and base the rest of their arguments on scholars, historical discoveries, credentials etc. Does that sound like the use of the whole counsel of GOD?

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Pharisees were legalists or not in the book of Galatians. That is a red herring.

 

[Carbon]

You're way too serious. My comment was meant in good humored jest. You know. Some comic relief to relieve the palpable tension on this thread. It obviously backfired. I won't crack a smile from this point on darn it. OK starting now

Who is way to serious, me?
No you missread me.

I’m good. Trust me

Don’t be afraid to smile

 

[Arial]

Good thing I'm not arguing against justification by faith whew
(Interesting fact did you know Luther added "alone" in his translation of Romans)

Then why do you defend White? He is arguing against it when he says justification is not judicial (forensic) but eschatological.

Whether or not Luther added alone to his translation does not change that the Bible also teaches that in many places. I don't read his translation as I don't speak German.

 

[Eleanor]

Correct, following the "custom taught by Moses" of circumcision--the identifying mark of a Jew---does not save us. But notice that circumcision is not an ethical issue of works morality. It is what a male did to identify himself as a member of the nation of Israel God's people. It was most certainly an identifying mark.

Non-Biblical thinking.
It's a matter of obedience, and obedience is a moral issue.
Scripture does not think in terms of "moral" issues, it thinks in terms of God's law, obedience and the consequences of man's diobedience.

Correct, and we see in the NT that those identifying marks of Torah obedience--which remember is a covenant relationship to identify oneself as a member of God's people--those "works of the law" mentioned most by Paul are circumcision (also in the two verses you cite), dietary restrictions, and Sabbath observance.

This is all smoke and mirrors until the issue is identified to which"works of the law" is relating.

? But that is, in fact, what the question turns on: whether by "works of the law" Paul meant the identifying marks of Torah-covenant relationship. Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.”

And until the significance of its meaning can be presented, its meaning is all smoke and mirrors.

First, no one is arguing that we can earn salvation through meritorious works (we can't!). The issue is whether Paul means something more specific than just a general no-salvation-by-righteous-works blanket sweep when he speaks of the "works of the law" and it seems that he is. The fact that he qualifies these are works specifically *of* the Law/Torah is significant right there. The further fact that when he speaks of the "works of the Torah" he's also specifically addressing circumcision further reinforces.
It was Calvin’s characteristic practice to back up his view by citing the early patristic fathers. Here he cites that their views are against his.
If it was "clearly stated in Paul," then Calvin himself wouldn't point out that it is "a matter of doubt even among the learned what 'the works of the law mean.'"
It does indeed seem to be the case .
Calvin's view is the same as Calvin’s. You're reading Paul through the lens of Calvin and claiming that's the clear teaching of Scripture, when it's just the clear teaching of Calvin. We all read through the lens of a certain denomination or tradition or background. You're reading through the lens of Calvin. I think it makes more sense to read through the lens of first and second century patristic church fathers because they were closer in time and more likely to understand what Paul meant that Calvin 1500 years later.
Again, no one's disputing the other passages. The question is when Paul speaks not simply of works but "works of the Torah" is he speaking of something more specific? Indeed it seems he is and the earliest Church witness to this agrees.
Not denying works-for-salvation bad. "Works of the Torah" is just something more specific than a general pronouncement of you-can't-earn-your-way-to-heaven. Look at the passages in Romans and Galatians. Look at Romans chapter 2, 3, 4 where Paul talks about "works of the Law". It's all about circumcision. Paul brings up circumcision about 9 times and about 5-6 times in Galatians. Even the verses about the "works of the Law" you cite in Acts is tied to circumcision.
We still can't earn our way to heaven through righteous moral living (that is a false teaching). But "works of the Torah" is something more specific and always seems to be tied to circumcision (as the literal "boast in the flesh"). Circumcision, circumcision, circumcision. It's an epidemic of circumcision in those passages. Paul gets so mad he even says in Galatians he wished the knife slipped and everything was cut off! Circumcision on the brain in these passages. We still can't earn our way to heaven.

But Paul clearly seems to be speaking of something very specific with the "works of the Torah"---circumcision which was not a moral ethical thing but an outward identifying mark that you belong to the People of God.

The Judaizers were saying you have to bear the identifying marks of the Torah covenant to be saved which is false! (Saved by moral works also false!).

Agreed, and in the Romans and Galatians passages the "works of the Law" are clearly tied to circumcision. Saying that by "works of the Torah" "what Paul 'really' means to say is ANY system or doctrine of trying to earn salvation through righteous meritorious works is wrong [which is true, that's still wrong!]" but that is actually reading *more into Scripture* than the immediate context allows (works-salvation still wrong! I agree).

Correct, and we see in the NT that those identifying marks of Torah obedience--which remember is a covenant relationship to identify oneself as a member of God's people--those "works of the law" mentioned most by Paul are circumcision (also in the two verses you cite), dietary restrictions, and Sabbath observance.[/quote]
Authority of a Biblical principle is not based on the number of times it is stated.