A different gospel?

[Marilyn C]

He is wrong when he says that the people of the first century didn`t have the words to write about `Principalities and Powers.` Who does he think wrote the Bible. He also said that in regard to the writers of the 4 gospels as though it was just them writing and not the Holy Spirit.

Once you go down that path then all scripture is up for grabs as to what he or others decide.

 

[TB2]

I am truly interested in understanding what people here consider the boundaries and contours of the "true" gospel vs "a different gospel." How technically accurate does one's theology need to be? How does the heart and faith belief, loyalty, allegiance factor in?

I am truly interested in fleshing this out. I'll start:

1. Christ's deity-- non-negotiable
2. Profession/confession of faith in Christ as the one, and only Lord and Savior
3. Belief in Christ's atoning death for sins
4. Bodily resurrection

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"

What do people think needs to be added and/or qualified?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

No seriously that's a serious charge to make about a person that we all should think twice before pronouncing such judgments

We are not children here, TB2, and I have no fear in stating such things outright. We are commanded to judge rightly and, as I said, I am in very good company stating that he ( Wright ) is in the wrong.

Unless you are also going to make the proclamation that NT Wright is the Anointed and we shouldn't touch him.

Here is a rather long article on Mr. Wright. Most amusing too me is that the author of the article almost immediately seizes on the same simple ( correct ) argument that I put forth.

There is an amusing story I heard elsewhere of a new pastor in training who preached his first sermon to a group of other pastors. At the end of it said trainee went too his peers and professors and exclaimed "Bet you never saw that in there!". To which he received "Why no...no-one has. Because what you interpreted has never been there!".

 

[Eleanor]

I am truly interested in understanding what people here consider the boundaries and contours of the "true" gospel vs "a different gospel." How technically accurate does one's theology need to be? How does the heart and faith belief, loyalty, allegiance factor in?

I am truly interested in fleshing this out. I'll start:

1. Christ's deity-- non-negotiable
2. Profession/confession of faith in Christ as the one, and only Lord and Savior
3. Belief in Christ's atoning death for sins
4. Bodily resurrection

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"

What do people think needs to be added and/or qualified?

 

[Eleanor]

The above post was a misfire.

I am truly interested in understanding what people here consider the boundaries and contours of the "true" gospel vs "a different gospel." How technically accurate does one's theology need to be? How does the heart and faith belief, loyalty, allegiance factor in?
I am truly interested in fleshing this out. I'll start:

1. Christ's deity-- non-negotiable
2. Profession/confession of faith in Christ as the one, and only Lord and Savior
3. Belief in Christ's atoning death for sins
4. Bodily resurrection
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"
What do people think needs to be added and/or qualified?

Paul says if you add works to grace, you fall from grace; i.e., grace is not your salvation, works is.
And there is no salvation by works. Paul anathematizes (condemns) such a "gospel."
The conclusion seems clear.
To believe that your works plus grace saves you, is not salvation. You are not saved, you are still in your sins.

So "faith alone as necessary for salvation" needs to be added.

 

[Carbon]

The above post was a misfire.


Paul says if you add works to grace, you fall from grace; i.e., grace is not your salvation, works is.
And there is no salvation by works. Paul anathematizes (condemns) such a "gospel"
The conclusion seems clear.
To believe that your works plus grace saves you, is not salvation. You are not saved, you are still in your sins.

So "faith alone is necessary for salvation" needs to be added.

Actually, grace alone is necessary for salvation, through faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[Eleanor]

Actually, grace alone is necessary for salvation, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Okay, I go with that, for faith is necessarily of grace.

 

[TB2]

We are not children here, TB2, and I have no fear in stating such things outright. We are commanded to judge rightly and, as I said, I am in very good company stating that he ( Wright ) is in the wrong.

Unless you are also going to make the proclamation that NT Wright is the Anointed and we shouldn't touch him.

Here is a rather long article on Mr. Wright. Most amusing too me is that the author of the article almost immediately seizes on the same simple ( correct ) argument that I put forth.

There is an amusing story I heard elsewhere of a new pastor in training who preached his first sermon to a group of other pastors. At the end of it said trainee went too his peers and professors and exclaimed "Bet you never saw that in there!". To which he received "Why no...no-one has. Because what you interpreted has never been there!".

Did I call you a child? Since we're speaking frankly then you may drop the condescension. There is growing evidence that the "New Perspective" view of "works of the law" is actually the original (first century) perspective and closer to second century understanding of Paul. See, e.g., Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

 

[Carbon]

Did I call you a child? Since we're speaking frankly then you may drop the condescension. There is growing evidence that the "New Perspective" view of "works of the law" is actually the original (first century) perspective and closer to second century understanding of Paul. See, e.g., Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

False teachings have been trying and trying. The church has an enemy that just doesn't quit.

 

[Eleanor]

Did I call you a child? Since we're speaking frankly then you may drop the condescension. There is growing evidence that the "New Perspective" view of "works of the law" is actually the original (first century) perspective and closer to second century understanding of Paul. See, e.g., Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

In a nutshell, what is this "new perspective"?

It has a lot of Scripture it must be in agreement with.

 

[Carbon]

Consider R. C. Sproul. It's only a couple of minutes.

 

[Eleanor]

Consider R. C. Sproul. It's only a couple of minutes.

Thanks! That was perfect.

You're quite a useful fella'.

NT Wright is espousing the very thing Paul worked to overcome from Judaism.

Mesuspects the whole Jewish/dispensational thing gives it its origin.

 

[Carbon]

Another thing that really bothers me about him is his thoughts on the power of God and the gospel.

He teaches because we have child abuse in this world, and people see that, and if they consider God, sending His Son to die for us, they may relate God to cosmic child abuse. Oh good grief, it may hinder or stop people from believing the gospel and being saved. This is actually one of the most foolish things I ever heard.

Scripture teaches we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Not through thinking and reasoning. If God through grace regenerates a lost sinner, will this new person in Christ run from God because suddenly he/she thinks God is a child abuser?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Did I call you a child? Since we're speaking frankly then you may drop the condescension. There is growing evidence that the "New Perspective" view of "works of the law" is actually the original (first century) perspective and closer to second century understanding of Paul. See, e.g., Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

No but you are speaking down to me. /shrug

There is nothing new under the sun, TB2. Just different mixtures of the same old heresies with the serial numbers removed and new paint.

The author of the article hits all the high points including what you are proposing here.

 

[Eleanor]

Another thing that really bothers me about him is his thoughts on the power of God and the gospel.

He teaches because we have child abuse in this world, and people see that, and if they consider God, sending His Son to die for us, they may relate God to cosmic child abuse. Oh good grief, it may hinder or stop people from believing the gospel and being saved. This is actually one of the most foolish things I ever heard.

Scripture teaches we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Not through thinking and reasoning. If God through grace regenerates a lost sinner, will this new person in Christ run from God because suddenly he/she thinks God is a child abuser?

It's hard to believe the mind of an informed Christian could be so shallow.

 

[Carbon]

It's hard to believe the mind of an informed Christian can be so shallow.

I probably shouldn't say some things but...

Sometimes when people deny certain truths and pursue these things to share and teach, God gives them over to it.
It's unfortunate. It's easy to see, from all sorts of evidence, once someone drifts away from an essential truth, they start interpreting from that perspective, and they hit that slippery slope.

 

[Carbon]

I probably shouldn't say some things but...

Sometimes when people deny certain truths and pursue these things to share and teach, God gives them over to it.
It's unfortunate. It's easy to see, from all sorts of evidence, once someone drifts away from an essential truth, they start interpreting from that perspective, and they hit that slippery slope.

There are a few of us here, who used to know a person who at one time claimed to be a Calvinist. For years we posted with him. Throughout these years I noticed a couple of things that just didn't mix well with the Reformed faith, but, everyone is different. I know what the reason was more so, now, but I won't mention it exactly because I do not want to offend anyone. I will say, it was his eschatological belief and I'll leave it there.

However, he finally fell away from Calvinism. It was a hard fall. And a very slippery slope. He denies the wrath of God on Christ at the cross. He denies the biblical view of PSA. There is a bunch he denies now. Which includes essential Christian doctrines. I pray he will recover.

Now, he pretty much has a, Reformed theology (Calvinist) hate site.

 

[TB2]

No but you are speaking down to me. /shrug

There is nothing new under the sun, TB2. Just different mixtures of the same old heresies with the serial numbers removed and new paint.

The author of the article hits all the high points including what you are proposing here.

Phil Johnson does not address the extra biblical evidence (including archaeological), but simply dismisses it without attempting to engage with the evidence. He also errs in speaking of the "moral Law" vs "ceremonial Law." Those were not distinctions in Second Temple Judaism. Johnson's (2010) article also predates Matthew J. Thompson's (2022) book Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception. Here's an interview of the author, a positive review, and a negative review, and author's response.

 

[TB2]

In a nutshell, what is this "new perspective"?

It has a lot of Scripture it must be in agreement with.

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.”

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."

 

[Eleanor]

I probably shouldn't say some things but...

Sometimes when people deny certain truths and pursue these things to share and teach, God gives them over to it.
It's unfortunate. It's easy to see, from all sorts of evidence, once someone drifts away from an essential truth, they start interpreting from that perspective, and they hit that slippery slope.

I absolutely agree.