Justification and the new perspective on Paul.

[Carbon]

What are your views on Justification and the new perspective on Paul?

 

[Carbon]

What are your views on Justification and the new perspective on Paul?

The view I hold is the same view that has been held by Protestants since the Reformation. Which is God's legal declaration that we are not guilty, but righteous Because Christ bearing our sins, and the punishment for our sins and having a record of perfect righteousness for us, we have Christ's perfect righteousness imputed unto us.

The New Perspective on Paul I totally disagree with. Which has a different view of justification. They claim it is not that we are declared legally righteous, but that God declares us to be a part of His people and members of the body of Christ.

 

[donadams]

The view I hold is the same view that has been held by Protestants since the Reformation. Which is God's legal declaration that we are not guilty, but righteous Because Christ bearing our sins, and the punishment for our sins and having a record of perfect righteousness for us, we have Christ's perfect righteousness imputed unto us.

The New Perspective on Paul I totally disagree with. Which has a different view of justification. They claim it is not that we are declared legally righteous, but that God declares us to be a part of His people and members of the body of Christ.

"a part of His people and members of the body of Christ"

is this not the same as union with Christ?

Rom 6:3 died with Christ
Col 2:12 risen with Christ
1 cor 12:13 baptized into the church
Gal 3:27 by baptism put on Christ

once we are justified by faith & baptism we must abide in Christ Jn 15:1-4
endure to the end Matt 24:13 mk 13:13

thks

 

[Carbon]

"a part of His people and members of the body of Christ"

is this not the same as union with Christ?

Rom 6:3 died with Christ
Col 2:12 risen with Christ
1 cor 12:13 baptized into the church
Gal 3:27 by baptism put on Christ

once we are justified by faith & baptism we must abide in Christ Jn 15:1-4
endure to the end Matt 24:13 mk 13:13

thks

Don, I'm glad you replied here, but I am not 100% sure where you side. I think you are on the side of Christ taking our sins and His righteousness imputed unto us. God's wrath was poured out on Him, in our place? If not, would you explain a bit? Thanks.

 

[donadams]

Don, I'm glad you replied here, but I am not 100% sure where you side. I think you are on the side of Christ taking our sins and His righteousness imputed unto us. God's wrath was poured out on Him, in our place? If not, would you explain a bit? Thanks.

yes but a difference in how the blood or merits of Jesus are applied to our souls and how we have union with God and His grace.

justification by:

"faith alone"!

as opposed to my belief in "faith & baptism"!

Effects of faith & baptism!

Ez 36:25-27 washed in baptism, with a new heart and the Spirit
Matt 28:19 faith & baptism
Jn 3:5 born again in baptism
Mk 16:16 faith & baptist
Acts 2:38 repentance & baptism
Acts 8:36-38 faith & baptism
Acts 22:16 baptism washes away sin
Rom 6:3 died with Christ
Col 2:12 risen with Christ
1 cor 12:13 baptized into the church
Gal 3:27 by baptism put on Christ
2 Tim 1:10 eph 2:1 and 5 brought to life
2 cor 5:17 new creation
Eph 1:13 eph 4:30 sealed by the Holy Spirit
Eph 4:5 one faith, one baptism
Eph 5:26 faith and baptism
Titus 3:5 baptismal regeneration
1 pet 1:2 washed in Christ’s blood
1 pet 2:9 the kingdom of light
1 pet 3:20-21 baptism saves us!
Rev 1:5 washed in His blood
Faith and baptism are required Mk 16:16 eph 4:5

Faith alone even all faith avails NOTHING! 1 cor 13:2

Not called to “faith alone” Phil 1:29

thks

 

[CrowCross]

The view I hold is the same view that has been held by Protestants since the Reformation. Which is God's legal declaration that we are not guilty, but righteous Because Christ bearing our sins, and the punishment for our sins and having a record of perfect righteousness for us, we have Christ's perfect righteousness imputed unto us.

The New Perspective on Paul I totally disagree with. Which has a different view of justification. They claim it is not that we are declared legally righteous, but that God declares us to be a part of His people and members of the body of Christ.

Why can we not have Christ's perfect righteousness imputed unto us..and...be a part of His people and members of the body of Christ?

 

[makesends]

What are your views on Justification and the new perspective on Paul?

I must be missing something. I'm familiar with "Justification", but what's this "new perspective on Paul"?

 

[Carbon]

N.T. Wright claims since Augustine, the discussion of justification got off on the wrong foot and has been in that error ever since. He claims, since then the church has been wrong on justification.

We are justified on the basis of Christ's redemptive work he took our penalty for our sin, and his righteousness was given to us, imputed to us.

But Wright disagrees and goes on to say: that righteousness, the basis in the future, on the last day will be on the basis entirely for the entire life. Meaning, that God works in us, makes us righteous, then we produce a righteous life and He judges us on the last day on the basis of our whole life lived.
But isn't that really just justification by works?

I believe N. T. Wright teaches a different gospel.
Wright denies Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, he says: "It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge in a law court, imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness unto the plaintiff or the defendant. It's a category mistake to suppose that Jesus obeyed the law so he would obtain righteousness which could be reckoned to those who believe in him.

That there again is a denial of Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Which is something the NT Church has taught for centuries.

 

[Carbon]

Why can we not have Christ's perfect righteousness imputed unto us..and...be a part of His people and members of the body of Christ?

Well according to scripture, we do. Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us, we have no righteousness of our own.

 

[Carbon]

I must be missing something. I'm familiar with "Justification", but what's this "new perspective on Paul"?

Brother. If you check into it, I believe you will find it very disturbing. Many Christians follow after it now.

 

[Carbon]

I must be missing something. I'm familiar with "Justification", but what's this "new perspective on Paul"?

I believe it is a very serious enemy of the Christian church

 

[Carbon]

@makesends
A clear NT teaching about Justification:
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Cor 5:21.
Our sin was transfered to Christ and Christ's righteousness was transfered to us. That's an accurate view of justification.

You will not see this accurately taught in the New perspective on Paul.

 

[prism]

What are your views on Justification and the new perspective on Paul?

N.T. Wright, whenever a person yammers on and on and on, (and leaves you scratchin your head), chances are they are a theological liberal, not to be trusted.

 

[makesends]

Brother. If you check into it, I believe you will find it very disturbing. Many Christians follow after it now.

Wow. Not sure I'm reading right from Wiki, but "New Perspective on Paul" sounds like all 5 solas are gone right out the window, though they double-speak.

There's no denying that scripture speaks of rewards and even positions in keeping with our obedience and works, but as far as judgement, we are all still going to fall flat on our faces, but for Christ's righteousness imputed to us. It is not OUR righteousness that figures into that. Sounds like a new kind of synergism, not about decision but post-resurrection judgement. Am I reading it right? Or is it more about something else I missed?

Now that you mention it, I'm thinking I have seen it, or something like it, in several different presentations in these debate sites. They are either adamant about the necessary 'actual' righteousness, or work in abstract terms, intellectual and long-nosed about the ability of man to do his part as over against the practical fact of Christ's righteousness imputed.

 

[Carbon]

Wow. Not sure I'm reading right from Wiki, but "New Perspective on Paul" sounds like all 5 solas are gone right out the window, though they double-speak.

There's no denying that scripture speaks of rewards and even positions in keeping with our obedience and works, but as far as judgement, we are all still going to fall flat on our faces, but for Christ's righteousness imputed to us. It is not OUR righteousness that figures into that. Sounds like a new kind of synergism, not about decision but post-resurrection judgement. Am I reading it right? Or is it more about something else I missed?

Now that you mention it, I'm thinking I have seen it in several different presentations in these debate sites.

R. C. Sproul called it heresy.

 

[makesends]

The view I hold is the same view that has been held by Protestants since the Reformation. Which is God's legal declaration that we are not guilty, but righteous Because Christ bearing our sins, and the punishment for our sins and having a record of perfect righteousness for us, we have Christ's perfect righteousness imputed unto us.

The New Perspective on Paul I totally disagree with. Which has a different view of justification. They claim it is not that we are declared legally righteous, but that God declares us to be a part of His people and members of the body of Christ.

Wow. Not sure I'm reading right from Wiki, but "New Perspective on Paul" sounds like all 5 solas are gone right out the window, though they double-speak.

There's no denying that scripture speaks of rewards and even positions in keeping with our obedience and works, but as far as judgement, we are all still going to fall flat on our faces, but for Christ's righteousness imputed to us. It is not OUR righteousness that figures into that. Sounds like a new kind of synergism, not about decision but post-resurrection judgement. Am I reading it right? Or is it more about something else I missed?

Now that you mention it, I'm thinking I have seen it, or something like it, in several different presentations in these debate sites. They are either adamant about the necessary 'actual' righteousness, or work in abstract terms, intellectual and long-nosed about the ability of man to do his part as over against the practical fact of Christ's righteousness imputed.

I'm not sure whether they deal with this at all, but it seems to me they miss the whole reason for God creating us. Not that we don't have it also in this life, but The Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, The Children of God, The Dwelling Place of God —and that, in every particular concerning each member— is not a result of how well we behave, but, rather, a result of what God does to us. This is not at all about us, but about Christ!

 

[makesends]

@makesends
A clear NT teaching about Justification:
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Cor 5:21.
Our sin was transfered to Christ and Christ's righteousness was transfered to us. That's an accurate view of justification.

You will not see this accurately taught in the New perspective on Paul.

For sure! God won't have anyone there dressed in filthy rags.

 

[makesends]

N.T. Wright, whenever a person yammers on and on and on, (and leaves you scratchin your head), chances are they are a theological liberal, not to be trusted.

Anything that suddenly shows up is automatically suspect. But itching ears love it.

 

[makesends]

R. C. Sproul called it heresy.

For sure. Like in Open Theism, the unnecessary intellectualism reeks of human pride.

Reminds me of something I've noticed about modern liberalism (not classical) in how they delight in the counter-intuitive because they think their attendance to it elevates them above the common plebs. (You should hear my buddy mimic their hoity-toity language )