New Perspective on Paul

[Ladodgers6]

Here's an excellent resource to refute the New Perspective on Paul. And it also clarifies the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, the crux of the Gospel.

https://www.christianstudylibrary.o...hty-have-Fallen-From-Luther-to-Schweitzer.pdf

 

[Josheb]

Have you read any of the sources mentioned in this treatise?

What do you make of this passage?

"At this point, a reader might raise an objection: “Does the author have nothing good to say about the NPP? Is there nothing for a Reformed person to appreciate?” To this I answer, “By no means!” I greatly appreciate, to take but one example, N. T. Wright’s pressing the lordship of Christ as a focal point of Christian belief and proclamation. He is correct, furthermore, to point to the eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles within the people of God as an important concern of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. To take another example, E. P. Sanders, under whom it was my privilege to study as a doctoral student, has rightly questioned the adequacy of the reigning model of first-century Judaism that has circulated among New Testament scholars for at least a century. Scholarship was long overduefor refinement and correction, and Dr. Sanders has helpfully provoked the kind of academic discussion that is needed to produce a more balanced portrait of first-century Judaism"​

He commends (at least partly) Sanders and Wright. Although not normally included in the NPP, have you ever read Vos' view on Pauline eschatology?

I, personally, wouldn't put Schweitzer in the NPP category but it was right to note him as a significant turning point in Christian theology, or perhaps better to say he's a point of divergence. Schweitzer believed Jesus was mistaken! In Schweitzer's pov, Jesus thought he was going to return within the lifetime of the apostles, and he did not return then. Therefore, all the apostles' writings to that effect are mistaken. I have often wondered if Schweitzer read any partial-preterist povs punctuating Christian history because there's plenty of reason therein for him NOT to arrive at his pov.

And (off-topic) sadly, I suspect it was his view and the increasingly popular Dispensationalism that influenced Bertrand Russell leading to his rejection of Christianity. Had he read more orthodox sources he may have reached an entirely different conclusion.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Have you read any of the sources mentioned in this treatise?

What do you make of this passage?

"At this point, a reader might raise an objection: “Does the author have nothing good to say about the NPP? Is there nothing for a Reformed person to appreciate?” To this I answer, “By no means!” I greatly appreciate, to take but one example, N. T. Wright’s pressing the lordship of Christ as a focal point of Christian belief and proclamation. He is correct, furthermore, to point to the eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles within the people of God as an important concern of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. To take another example, E. P. Sanders, under whom it was my privilege to study as a doctoral student, has rightly questioned the adequacy of the reigning model of first-century Judaism that has circulated among New Testament scholars for at least a century. Scholarship was long overduefor refinement and correction, and Dr. Sanders has helpfully provoked the kind of academic discussion that is needed to produce a more balanced portrait of first-century Judaism"​

He commends (at least partly) Sanders and Wright. Although not normally included in the NPP, have you ever read Vos' view on Pauline eschatology?

I, personally, wouldn't put Schweitzer in the NPP category but it was right to note him as a significant turning point in Christian theology, or perhaps better to say he's a point of divergence. Schweitzer believed Jesus was mistaken! In Schweitzer's pov, Jesus thought he was going to return within the lifetime of the apostles, and he did not return then. Therefore, all the apostles' writings to that effect are mistaken. I have often wondered if Schweitzer read any partial-preterist povs punctuating Christian history because there's plenty of reason therein for him NOT to arrive at his pov.

And (off-topic) sadly, I suspect it was his view and the increasingly popular Dispensationalism that influenced Bertrand Russell leading to his rejection of Christianity. Had he read more orthodox sources he may have reached an entirely different conclusion.

Wright's books and theology is so convoluted it's hard to make out what he believes exactly. After researching and studying the NPP, Wright, Dunn and Sanders, are not all on the same page. One can easily discern what Wright does not believe, which is, 1) that the Gospel is not individualist Salvation, 2) Penal Substitution Atonement, and 3) Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation of Christ's Righteousness). But oddly enough, when Wright comes to Romans 4:1-8, he admits that this is a courtroom setting. Where the guilty are declared righteous, but cannot explain how they are declared righteous, because they are guilty sinners. He then brushes this aside because it goes against his paradigm of first century Judaism.

Wright's mission is to do away with Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation), by trying to sell car warranties to a broken down car that doesn't run. Saying those who possess boundary markers are Covenant members. Instead of saying those who believe in him who justifies the "ungodly" apart from works are saved through Faith Alone! Wright's lack of personal relationship with God before and after conversion is warranted, but missing. In other words, heralding Christ as Lord, while the ungodly do not have peace with God is not good news, quite the opposite. Heralding Christ as Savior and justifying the ungodly through Faith Alone apart from works, makes peace with God. Then they can build piety toward God and worship and obey him as Lord!

Wright has deliberately removed the crux of the Gospel. The justifying of the ungodly apart form works of the Law. Why does he do this? It's Biblical teaching. Does he have a hidden agenda? To remove how a sinner is justified before God, leaves no good news in what makes the Gospel, the Gospel. The Promise is replace by Exhortation, leaving the sinner to perform, instead of receiving the sweet waters of the Gospel given Freely as a FREE GIFT to the ungodly. Doesn't this sound familiar? No sinner can perform any works to gain favor or incur a debt owed by God.

Wright has poisoned the sweet waters of the Gospel, turning it into Law-keeping, a long-lived that will merit a final justification, instead of the merits of Christ promised in the Gospel that brings free-gifts. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.​

 

[Josheb]

Wright's books and theology is so convoluted it's hard to make out what he believes exactly. After researching and studying the NPP, Wright, Dunn and Sanders, are not all on the same page. One can easily discern what Wright does not believe, which is, 1) that the Gospel is not individualist Salvation, 2) Penal Substitution Atonement, and 3) Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation of Christ's Righteousness). But oddly enough, when Wright comes to Romans 4:1-8, he admits that this is a courtroom setting. Where the guilty are declared righteous, but cannot explain how they are declared righteous, because they are guilty sinners. He then brushes this aside because it goes against his paradigm of first century Judaism.

Wright's mission is to do away with Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation), by trying to sell car warranties to a broken down car that doesn't run. Saying those who possess boundary markers are Covenant members. Instead of saying those who believe in him who justifies the "ungodly" apart from works are saved through Faith Alone! Wright's lack of personal relationship with God before and after conversion is warranted, but missing. In other words, heralding Christ as Lord, while the ungodly do not have peace with God is not good news, quite the opposite. Heralding Christ as Savior and justifying the ungodly through Faith Alone apart from works, makes peace with God. Then they can build piety toward God and worship and obey him as Lord!

Wright has deliberately removed the crux of the Gospel. The justifying of the ungodly apart form works of the Law. Why does he do this? It's Biblical teaching. Does he have a hidden agenda? To remove how a sinner is justified before God? Leaves no good news in what makes the Gospel, the Gospel. The Promise is replace by Exhortation, leaving the sinner to perform, instead of receiving the sweet waters of the Gospel given Freely as a FREE GIFT to the ungodly. Doesn't this sound familiar? No sinner can perform any works to gain favor or incur a debt owed by God.

Wright has poisoned the sweet waters of the Gospel, turning it into Law-keeping, a long-lived that will merit a final justification, instead of the merits of Christ promised in the Gospel that brings free-gifts. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.​

I will agree 1) the NP authors from Sanders to Wright differ in their views, 2) Wright is much different, and 3) Wright is often asserting something different. I think it is important to understand Wright is writing about Paul almost exclusively from Paul's being a Pharisee (which is a limiting pov, imo). Wright's view of salvation as historical-redemptive has a long history in Christian thought. His belief salvation is God's work to save all creation and humanity as a constituent element of creation is unusual soteriology but it reminds me of Vos' tying soteriology to almost exclusively eschatology. I've never read anyone do so to the degree Vos does so (and if you think Wright is difficult to follow then don't try Vos' "Pauline Eschatology" ).

I'm not sure why Schweitzer is relevant to Wright. I don't recall Wright ever sourcing Schweitzer (but maybe he does) and I don't see him as a Liberal Theologian; certainly not in the vein of Funk, Crossan, Spong, etc. Schweitzer's view occur at the same time (approximately) as the rise of Dispensationalism, but also the rise of Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism. People like Spurgeon, Warfield, the Hodges, Vos, Machen, and later Barth and Van Til had their hands full confronting these influences.

I gotta go, but I'll return later. It's been awhile since I read Wright so maybe I'll peruse some of my books.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I will agree 1) the NP authors from Sanders to Wright differ in their views, 2) Wright is much different, and 3) Wright is often asserting something different. I think it is important to understand Wright is writing about Paul almost exclusively from Paul's being a Pharisee (which is a limiting pov, imo). Wright's view of salvation as historical-redemptive has a long history in Christian thought. His belief salvation is God's work to save all creation and humanity as a constituent element of creation is unusual soteriology but it reminds me of Vos' tying soteriology to almost exclusively eschatology. I've never read anyone do so to the degree Vos does so (and if you think Wright is difficult to follow then don't try Vos' "Pauline Eschatology" ).

This is not apples for apples, because Vos doesn't deny Justification by Faith Alone.

When Christians talk about “grace alone” in the context of justification, we mean with Scripture that a sinner is justified before God apart from works. A sinner is justified not by works but by God’s grace alone (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7). Here’s how Geerhardus Vos explained this in a paragraph of his Dogmatics:

Not only the works that we do in our own strength, or that we do before regeneration, or that we do without the merits of Christ, but all works, of whatever sort, are excluded from justification. This is so repetitively certain in Scripture that proof is almost superfluous. Galatians 2:16 reads, “… nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by law-works [ἐξ ἔργων νόμου].” In no way is the reference here to works prescribed by one or another specific law, because the article is missing. All law-work as such is excluded from justification. According to Paul, faith and works form an absolute contrast in the matter of justification (Rom 11:6). This must be maintained against the Roman Catholic teaching about the instrumentality of works in justification, as well as against Pelagians, Rationalists, and Remonstrants. The first two mentioned, the Pelagians and Rationalists, maintain that Scripture excludes only the works of the Jewish law, that is, the ceremonial law, but that the moral law certainly has to be observed by us for justification. The last, the Remonstrants, go one step further, and in place of the moral law in all its severity put a lighter form, the law of the obedience of faith. They speak of a fides obsequiosa [submissive faith] and of an obedientia evangelica [evangelical obedience], which, while in itself not perfect, is accepted by God as perfect.​

Vos, Geerhardus, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. & trans. by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016) (vol. 4, p. 142).

I'm not sure why Schweitzer is relevant to Wright. I don't recall Wright ever sourcing Schweitzer (but maybe he does) and I don't see him as a Liberal Theologian; certainly not in the vein of Funk, Crossan, Spong, etc. Schweitzer's view occur at the same time (approximately) as the rise of Dispensationalism, but also the rise of Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism. People like Spurgeon, Warfield, the Hodges, Vos, Machen, and later Barth and Van Til had their hands full confronting these influences.

I gotta go, but I'll return later. It's been awhile since I read Wright so maybe I'll peruse some of my books.

Read Machen, Christianity and Liberalism.

 

[Josheb]

This is not apples for apples, because Vos doesn't deny Justification by Faith Alone.

When Christians talk about “grace alone” in the context of justification, we mean with Scripture that a sinner is justified before God apart from works. A sinner is justified not by works but by God’s grace alone (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7). Here’s how Geerhardus Vos explained this in a paragraph of his Dogmatics:


Vos, Geerhardus, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. & trans. by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016) (vol. 4, p. 142).


Read Machen, Christianity and Liberalism.

So we're not going to have discussion on this op's article, are we? Not a word I actually posted was addressed (despite the likelihood we'll have enormous agreement, much more agreement than difference. I never said Vos and Wright were equal in all areas or any given subject. Taking a passage from Vos' "Reformed Dogmatics" that was written to address the poles of RCCism and Pelagianism while ignoring his "Pauline Eschatology" and Wirght's specific and unique context for his views on justification is the false equivalence! Why ignore what was quote in Post #2. Post 2 is directly related to the opening post but very little, if anything, in Post 3 is relevant to Post 2. If there is no interest in the conversation I brought to the op, then just say so.

For the record: I have read both the Vos and Machen books. Have you read Vos' "Pauline Eschatology"?



Is the article a facade for ragging on Wright? I justification as a whole the intended subject or is the thread specifically about Wright's view(s) or Waters' views of Wright's views, or our views of Wright's views? If Wright was found "convoluted and hard to make out....," then what makes you think the article's author has Wright correct? How are your views of Wright going to be discussed if Wright was found difficult to make out? Or is the original plan to discuss others' views of Wright with only Wright-ragging intent? Just let me know. Are we going to discuss the article cited in the op or not?

 

[Ladodgers6]

So we're not going to have discussion on this op's article, are we? Not a word I actually posted was addressed (despite the likelihood we'll have enormous agreement, much more agreement than difference. I never said Vos and Wright were equal in all areas or any given subject. Taking a passage from Vos' "Reformed Dogmatics" that was written to address the poles of RCCism and Pelagianism while ignoring his "Pauline Eschatology" and Wirght's specific and unique context for his views on justification is the false equivalence! Why ignore what was quote in Post #2. Post 2 is directly related to the opening post but very little, if anything, in Post 3 is relevant to Post 2. If there is no interest in the conversation I brought to the op, then just say so.

I am not accusing you of anything, but pointing out the obvious. For me, if someone distorts the Gospel, then they are false teachers, period. Denying that the Gospel is an individualist Salvation goes against Scripture. Wright states that the Gospel is not how people get saved. But Paul states, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved" (1 Cor. 15). There is no good news for the ungodly in Wright's so-called Gospel. He dresses up the governmental theory of Arminianism in different clothes, but it's the same thing. Josheb he's so convoluted and has a mosh posh theology it's hard to make out what he believes.

As you can tell, I am not a fan of Wright. Because he distorts the Gospel that Paul preached. His monocovenantalism says a lot about his works-righteousness paradigm. Law & Gospel in relation to our eschatological consummation in Christ, being justified by Faith Alone apart from works. Is how a sinners is declared righteous before God. "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1). The only way a sinner can have peace with God, and have the relationship restored is being justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ through Faith Alone apart from works.​

For the record: I have read both the Vos and Machen books. Have you read Vos' "Pauline Eschatology"?

Of course, I do. Do you have Kingdom Prologue by Meredith Kline? If not, I highly recommend it. Or the tale of the Two Adams by Kline. I believe you can download it for free.
​

Is the article a facade for ragging on Wright? I justification as a whole the intended subject or is the thread specifically about Wright's view(s) or Waters' views of Wright's views, or our views of Wright's views? If Wright was found "convoluted and hard to make out....," then what makes you think the article's author has Wright correct? How are your views of Wright going to be discussed if Wright was found difficult to make out? Or is the original plan to discuss others' views of Wright with only Wright-ragging intent? Just let me know. Are we going to discuss the article cited in the op or not?

It's an academic side of hand. He contradicts himself; he's very vague and ambiguous. But where he has clarity is on things he doesn't believe in. As I have already pointed out. I can provide the references if you like.

Sure, I will discuss the OP, no problem. BTW, saying to someone that you get in by Grace, but stay in by works, is not the Gospel Promised, but exhortation, needing human efforts. Either you are saved by Christ and his merits or you're not. There is no middle ground. It's either by Grace or works, but it cannot be both.
​

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Grace is good news for the guilty! Sorry but your boy is wrong on Justification by Faith Alone.​

 

[Josheb]

I am not accusing you of anything​

Never said you were.

....but pointing out the obvious.​

I disagree. Post 3 is entirely non sequitur to Post 2.

For me, if someone distorts the Gospel, then they are false teachers, period.​

And what does that have to do with the Waters' article? Would you apply the same standard to the Waters' article because if Waters has misrepresented anything in any way then he's run the risk of bearing false witness and evidencing him as a false teacher. That, then, may have bearing on you , all of which can be avoided by simply sticking to the actual content of the op, the article it cites, and what others bring to bear on them.

Why was that comment necessary?

Denying that the Gospel is an individualist Salvation goes against Scripture.​

Who has been proven to do that?

Wright states that the Gospel is not how people get saved.​

Wright's NPP is not addressing that kind of soteriology. This has ALWAYS been one of the failures of his critics. It is very much like those who pit Paul against James. Paul and James are writing from different contexts, and they do not disagree. Wright has written extensively from the context of Paul's Pharisaical origins and a certain perspective on the historical-redemptive hermeneutic (common in Reformed theology) Wright does not generally write about the rest of Pauline soteriology. Apples and oranges.

But Paul states, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved" (1 Cor. 15).​

And what did Wright say about those two specific verses?

There is no good news for the ungodly in Wright's so-called Gospel.​

Prove it.

He dresses up the governmental theory of Arminianism in different clothes, but it's the same thing.​

Prove it.

Josheb he's so convoluted and has a mosh posh theology it's hard to make out what he believes.​

Prove it.

As you can tell, I am not a fan of Wright.​

Yes, and given the self-claim of finding Wright convoluted and difficult to make out I respectfully suggest you're not a valid judge of Wright's views - al the more so if the only means by which he can be discussed is a biased second-hand witness and abject refusal to discuss the actual content of Post 2.

Because he distorts the Gospel that Paul preached.​

Begging the question.

His monocovenantalism says a lot about his works-righteousness paradigm.​

Lots of Reformed theologians are monocovenantal (Murray, Robertson, Palmer, and all the Progressive Covenantalists). That does not make them Wrightian. Nor does it make Wirght correct.

Law & Gospel in relation to our eschatological consummation in Christ, being justified by Faith Alone apart from works.​

Is something entirely outside the Pharisaic paradigm.

Is how a sinners is declared righteous before God.​

Yep.

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith...​

You are wasting both our time.


Is this op intended as a discussion of justification by faith, or a discussion of the New Paul perspective? I made a series of comments in Post 2 and 4 that were all ignored. I asked a pile of questions in Post 6 that were all ignored and remain unanswered. Should I expect anything in the article or Post 2 and 4 to be discussed or not?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Sure, I'll provide the evidence. There's even video of him saying this, you know this right? I am addressing what he blatantly denies, which is Imputation; PSA; and that the gospel saves on an individual level.

Give a little time to gather the data.​

 

[Josheb]

Give a little time to gather the data.​

 

[Josheb]

Sure, I'll provide the evidence. There's even video of him saying this, you know this right? I am addressing what he blatantly denies, which is Imputation; PSA; and that the gospel saves on an individual level.​

What does that have to with NPP? Or Waters' article?

 

[Ladodgers6]

What does that have to with NPP? Or Waters' article?

This is the area of my concern with Wright and the NNP.

 

[Josheb]

This is the area of my concern with Wright and the NNP.

Would you please state the thesis of this op? What is the specific point of comment or inquiry you would specifically like discussed?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Would you please state the thesis of this op? What is the specific point of comment or inquiry you would specifically like discussed?

Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation); Monocovenantalism. We can start with this.

 

[Josheb]

Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation); Monocovenantalism. We can start with this.

Great. Thx

Now tell me WHAT about justification by faith alone it is you want to discuss.

Tell me how WHAT you want to discuss about justification by faith and how it is relevant to the Waters article refuting NPP. What does Post 14 have to do with the Waters article? Are you aware that N. T. Wright is mentioned only once in that article and Waters states Wright is correct?

"At this point, a reader might raise an objection: “Does the author have nothing good to say about the NPP? Is there nothing for a Reformed person to appreciate?” To this I answer, “By no means!” I greatly appreciate, to take but one example, N. T. Wright’s pressing the lordship of Christ as a focal point of Christian belief and proclamation. He is correct, furthermore, to point to the eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles within the people of God as an important concern of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans."[/i]​

​

This is what Waters said of E. P. Sanders:

"E. P. Sanders, under whom it was my privilege to study as a doctoral student, has rightly questioned the adequacy of the reigning model of first-century Judaism that has circulated among New Testament scholars for at least a century. Scholarship was long overdue for refinement and correction, and Dr. Sanders has helpfully provoked the kind of academic discussion that is needed to produce a more balanced portrait of first-century Judaism"​

Waters is supportive of Sanders, too!

​

​

In other words, the opening posts says the Waters article is an excellent source for refuting NPP, but the only time Waters mentions Sanders or Wright is to affirm and agree with both. The phrase "justification by faith" is found seven times in the Waters article and not a single mention has anything to do with Sanders or Wright. All but one or two of those mentions have to do with Baur and the shift to liberalism found in Schweitzer and the German scholarship. The phrase "New Paul" isn't found once in the article. Imputation is nowhere mentioned in the Waters article. Neither is monocovenantalism.


You want to discuss justification by faith alone, by which you, apparently, mean imputation, and somehow monocovenantalism is relevant but how remains unstated.

The op states,

Here's an excellent resource to refute the New Perspective on Paul. And it also clarifies the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, the crux of the Gospel. [link to Waters article]

But that is not what the Waters article does.

Waters gave a brief summary of how justification by faith alone became a focal point in the Reformation and then skipped ahead 300 years to when F. C. Baur, "formulated a reconstruction of the history of the apostolic period that dominated New Testament scholarship until the twentieth century and that consciously rejected such key tenets of historical Christian orthodoxy as revelation and miracles." Waters is critical of Baurs, not Wright.

And Wright would agree. Wright calls Bauer, "discredited"! Baur is mentioned 13 times in Wright's book, "Paul and the Faithfulness of God," and not a single one of those mentions is positive. Wright is wholly critical of Baur. He mentions Baur 8 times in "Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978-2013" and not a single one of those mentions is positive. Wright is again wholly critical of Baur AND Schweitzer.


This thread is titled, "New Perspective on Paul," and the opening post claims the Waters article refutes the New Perspective on Paul, when it does nothing of the sort! Waters repudiates the German scholasticism (oxymoronic) and agrees with Sanders and Waters the German school was wrong.



So.....

This thread is titled, "New Perspective on Paul," and the opening post claims the Waters article refutes the New Perspective on Paul, and you want to discuss justification by faith alone, but....

Justification by Faith Alone (Imputation); Monocovenantalism. We can start with this.

....is not a thesis statement. It is a list. Justification is not the same as imputation and neither is the same as monocovenantalism. Pick one. Make a statement about whatever it is you pick. If it is not Waters-relevant then say that so I understand we're not discussing Waters' article. If the article is to be discussed, then I recommend you re-read it in its entirety because Waters is not critical of Sanders or Wright. He is critical of Baur and Schweitzer. Sanders and Wright agree with Waters. After re-reading the Waters article go back and re-read Post #2 because what I posted is correct and relevant to both the title of the thread and statements made in the opening post.


Brother, maybe what I am asking is new to you. I am not baiting or trolling you. I am just trying to understand the point of comment or inquiry to be discussed.

State the thesis to be discussed.
Let me know if the Waters article is to be discussed.
If we're discarding Waters, then clarify why specifically you think justification by faith is a problem in NPP.







For the record: Waters is critical of NPP, but the summary of his book contained in the op's article does not do his criticism justice.
.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Great. Thx

Now tell me WHAT about justification by faith alone it is you want to discuss.

Is it by Imputation?

Tell me how WHAT you want to discuss about justification by faith and how it is relevant to the Waters article refuting NPP. What does Post 14 have to do with the Waters article? Are you aware that N. T. Wright is mentioned only once in that article and Waters states Wright is correct?

"At this point, a reader might raise an objection: “Does the author have nothing good to say about the NPP? Is there nothing for a Reformed person to appreciate?” To this I answer, “By no means!” I greatly appreciate, to take but one example, N. T. Wright’s pressing the lordship of Christ as a focal point of Christian belief and proclamation. He is correct, furthermore, to point to the eschatological inclusion of the Gentiles within the people of God as an important concern of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans."[/i]​

Josheb, as I said before, this is very misleading on Wright's part. Of course Christ is Lord, but how is this good news for the ungodly who are not redeem by a Savior? Justification/Imputation is how a is sinner has peace/reconciled with God. Furthermore, Wright says, the Gospel is not about how a sinner is saved.

First, it is striking to read not just what Wright says the gospel is, but what he says it isn't. "'The Gospel' itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world" (N.T. Wright, "Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1 Conference Jan. 3, 2005). For Paul, this imperial announcement was "that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead; that he was thereby proved to be Israel's Messiah; that he was thereby installed as Lord of the world" (What Saint Paul Really Said, pg.46). Yes! This is an essential announcement of the Gospel. But Wright also says, "'The Gospel' is not an account of how people get saved" (What Saint Paul Really Said, pg. 133). "Paul's Gospel to the pagans was not a philosophy of life. Nor was it, even, a doctrine about how to get saved" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 90). "My proposal has been that "the gospel" is not, for Paul, a MESSAGE about 'how one gets saved'" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 60). "'The Gospel is not an account of how people get saved. It is...the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 133).

I'll address this post in parts if you don't mind.

Wright lacks the personal relationship being restored on an individualistic level.​

 

[Josheb]

Is it by Imputation?

If I am being asked if faith, the faith that justifies is a gift from God and not a natural product of the sinful flesh then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

Josheb, as I said before, this is very misleading on Wright's part.

I don't care. You have not established a clear thesis for this thread. Until you do I'm not entertaining wanton commentary. This op is titled, "New Perspective on Paul," and uses an edited version of Waters' book in which Waters' agrees and commends Wright.

I asked about that.

How can article commending Sanders and Wright be said to refute NPP? Do you see the problem there? Do you now understand my inquiry? If this op is intended to be a refutation of NPP - and specifically a refutation of NPP's view of justification by faith alone - then using an article commending the chief contemporary NPP theologians is questionable. Yes? There's more. In preparation for this discussion, I got out my Sanders and Wright books and started checking up on their views. Sanders and Wright do not always agree. I do not believe Sanders knew Christ. I'm not the judge of anyone's eternal disposition but I read/hear Wright and suspect he does know Christ as Lord and therefore Savior (but who knows). That alone is going to be very important.

You noted Wright is difficult to understand. I agree. For example, Wright believes Judaism is a salvation by grace religion and not a salvation by works religion as Christian interpreters of Judaism and Paul have (wrongfully) construed. For some (many?) it is easy to understand the words I just wrote, but difficult to accept them and difficult to apply them. No one who hasn't grasped the premise is NEVER going to correctly understand Wright. There are other presuppositional concerns to NPP (and Wright) but we can take them as they arise. One of the biggest challenges for any two (or more) people discussing NPP is that of false equivalence. Wright is not usually writing about justification in the same sense as classic reformers and because similar language is used they end up talking past one another. That's why I mentioned the comparison between James and Paul. James and Paul are not in conflict, but neither are they writing about justification from the exact same context.

That is not to say I agree with Wright. I don't. He does say a lot that is good and correct, but not everything.

So...

I don't know how you're going to refute NPP if you do not understand that which you attack... but I am willing to have the conversation. If you want to discuss justification by faith alone then that's a worthy topic but you need to start with a thesis. WHAT is it about justification by faith alone that you think is germane to NPP? If you were do a search of the phrase in Wright's books you would find he afforms the classic Reformed position BUT you would also find he asserts a second "version" that has more to do with first century Judaism and the Pharisaic mindset of Paul that doctrinally precedes the Reformation. Failing to know that fact of the two-versions and failing to correctly apply them is going to lead to a lot of misunderstanding, and a lot of errors.

Articulate your thesis.

Of course Christ is Lord, but how is this good news for the ungodly who are not redeem by a Savior? Justification/Imputation is how a is sinner has peace/reconciled with God. Furthermore, Wright says, the Gospel is not about how a sinner is saved.

Great question. I disagree with your answer. Justification is a legal term and not the means of having peace with God. Furthermore, there are at least three means of justification in the New Testament, only one of which is by faith. Calvary justifies. The cross justifies. The blood of Christ justifies. This is very, very, important because Calvary and the shedding of Christ's blood is not only entirely monergistic, it occurred prior to anyone ever having knowledge of their justifying significance.

I'd like to see the evidence Wright says the gospel is not about how a sinner is saved. I can understand that he might because for Wright the gospel is about Jesus being victor, Jesus being the prophesied king and priestly priest who overcame death and fulfilled Judaic prophesy - all of which is true, but most of which escapes modern laymen's sensibilities. Most Christians think a euagelion is "good news" but are ignorant of the fact it is a very specific kind of good news. The term is a Roman term appropriated by the New Testament writers. I can quote Wright plainly stating the gospel is about, "'the freedom we have in the Messiah,' of the loving and saving death of the Messiah."

So if this discussion is about you using second-hand critical (biased) sources and I'm using first-hand source material you should adjust your thinking accordingly. If you're going to use Wright's own words that's preferable, but if they are read/heard through a context from which he is not speaking they are going to be misconstrued and you'll end up arguing strawmen. You're not going to like what I post in dissent.

• I will agree with anything I read that agrees with scripture and an accurate presentation of Wright (or Sanders, or Schweitzer - I don't know Baur in his own words).
• I will ask you questions about anything that either is not clear or I do not adequately understood.
• I will correct and possibly refute anything that does not accurately reflect scripture or whatever extra-biblical source material is used.
• I will expect you to practice the exact same standards.

Yes?


So....


1) State your thesis about justification by faith alone AND how you think it applies to NPP.

2) Show me the evidence of Wright saying the gospel is not about how a sinner is saved.


I'll address the rest of Post #16 later.

First, it is striking to read not just what Wright says the gospel is, but what he says it isn't. "'The Gospel' itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world" (N.T. Wright, "Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1 Conference Jan. 3, 2005).​

Which is true and correct.

For Paul, this imperial announcement was "that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead; that he was thereby proved to be Israel's Messiah; that he was thereby installed as Lord of the world" (What Saint Paul Really Said, pg.46). Yes! This is an essential announcement of the Gospel.​

It is an essential announcement of the gospel, Wright is correct and, apparently, you agree with him .

But Wright also says, "'The Gospel' is not an account of how people get saved" (What Saint Paul Really Said, pg. 133). "Paul's Gospel to the pagans was not a philosophy of life. Nor was it, even, a doctrine about how to get saved" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 90). "My proposal has been that "the gospel" is not, for Paul, a MESSAGE about 'how one gets saved'" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 60). "'The Gospel is not an account of how people get saved. It is...the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 133).​

Coming from Wright's perspective that is completely correct. When you try to force Wright into a paradigm from which he is not writing false equivalences and straw men are created. Wright also stated, "Paul can use it (koinonia with the divinity) in all these senses, drawing together the deeply personal and theological experience of 'sharing' the very life of the Messiah..."

I will note every error of quote-mining I read. I expect you to do the same.

I'll address this post in parts if you don't mind.​

I wait with anticipation.

Wright lacks the personal relationship being restored on an individualistic level.​

You mean his writing lacks focus and attention of that specific aspect of the gospel. I agree. It's a problem, but it is not his purpose, either. Don't fall prey to the apples and oranges fallacy.







Remember: Wright is Anglican and, therefore, Reformed. Perhaps not to the degree you and I are, or to the degree we would like, but approaching Wright as Pelagian or any other doctrinally misguided pov is a mistake. Do you ever read Mackie, Heiser, or any of the other current batch of "Jewishly-informed" Christian teachers? If so, what do you think of their approach?
.

 

[Ladodgers6]

If I am being asked if faith, the faith that justifies is a gift from God and not a natural product of the sinful flesh then my answer is an unequivocal yes.

I am asking if you hold the Doctrine of Imputation? Our sins being imputed to Christ and his Righteousness being imputed/credited to us. Here is R.C. Sproul on Imputation:

Don’t you just love it when good things come together? Ham and eggs. Batman and Robin. Macaroni and cheese. So, how about chocolate chip cookies and the gospel? That might be a new one for you.

In the 1990s, a group of evangelical theologians and church leaders held talks with a group of Roman Catholic theologians and church leaders, and together they produced a statement titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). In the aftermath of ECT, much discussion ensued regarding the Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel and how it relates to the understanding of the gospel historically affirmed by evangelicals, the heirs of the Protestant Reformation. The subject of justification by faith alone came up. This was, of course, one of the central issues of the Reformation.

We see how essential the doctrine of justification by faith alone was in the Reformation planks of sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and solus Christus (Christ alone). These solas stress that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We must also see, however, that the Reformers emphasized a word that they found to be absolutely essential to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which they in turn saw as essential to a right understanding of the gospel. That word is imputation.

During some of the talks around ECT, the historic differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics over imputation came to the surface. Reformed theologian Michael Horton likened imputation to chocolate chips in the making of chocolate chip cookies. If you set out all the ingredients to make chocolate chip cookies but leave out the singular ingredient of chocolate chips, then you don't have chocolate chip cookies when you pull the tray out of the oven. Likewise, you can have most of the key ingredients of the gospel. You can have the understanding that we are sinners. You can have an understanding of God as holy and just. You can have an understanding of Christ and His work on the cross. But if you leave out imputation, you don't have the gospel. This is why the Reformers considered this word absolutely essential to a biblically faithful proclamation of the gospel. But what does this word imputation mean?

The word imputation comes directly from the Latin. It is an accounting term; it means “to apply to one’s account.” Expenses are debited and income is credited. The old King James word is “reckon.”

In theological terms, we speak of a double imputation that takes place in justification. This double imputation is taught in texts such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul says plainly, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Here we read that our sin is imputed to Christ. We are the offending party. He is guiltless. He perfectly kept the law. Yet, on the cross, God poured out His wrath on Christ. Why? Because our sin was imputed to Christ. Christ took upon Himself our sin. Our great debit was put on His account. Christ paid the horrific penalty as the cup of God's wrath was poured out upon Him.

There is also a second imputation. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. He not only takes our debit, but we also get His credit. Christ paid the penalty we could never satisfy, but He also kept the law perfectly, which we can't do either. Consequently, God credits to us His righteousness. We stand before God clothed in Christ's righteousness. We can actually say that we are saved by works—not at all by our works, but instead by Christ's works, His perfect obedience, on our behalf. One theologian said that two of the most beautiful words in the Bible are for us. Jesus lived and died—and rose again—for us. All of His work was done on our behalf.

We express this essential doctrine of imputation in The Word Made Flesh: The Ligonier Statement on Christology because the doctrine of double imputation has suffered significant attacks by self-professing evangelicals in our day. Remember, imputation is essential to a right understanding of justification, and a right understanding of justification is essential to a right understanding of the gospel. The doctrines of imputation and justification were challenged in moments like ECT. The doctrines of imputation and justification have also been challenged in contemporary movements such as the so-called New Perspective on Paul. To respond to this dangerous theological drift, we want to draw a clear line in the sand. Additionally, we want to remind believers of what good news the gospel is. Christ took our filthy rags of sin and gave us His righteous robe. This is a beautiful picture. We express the work of Christ in accomplishing our redemption in the fourth stanza of the statement:
​

For us,
He kept the law,
atoned for sin,
and satisfied God's wrath.
He took our filthy rags
and gave us
His righteous robe.​

The necessity of the doctrine of imputation is one of the chief reasons we have offered this statement. At Ligonier, we take every opportunity to point people to the great creeds of the past. Dr. Sproul’s first book was on the Apostles’ Creed, and a new edition of this book was recently released titled What We Believe. We also recognize the great value of the Nicene Creed. Speaking personally, I greatly benefit from those occasions when the Nicene Creed is recited in public worship. I wrote a book on Christology in the early church, titling it For Us and for Our Salvation after that great phrase in the Nicene Creed. I think it is one of the most beautiful phrases in all of theological literature. We are quick to point the church of today to these great texts and riches of our past.

We also recognize that the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed are recited by evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. In other words, these historic creeds are recited by those who affirm justification by faith alone, and they are recited by those who belong to churches or communions that deny justification by faith alone. These creeds, while giving essential teaching on the person of Christ, do not speak with the precision on the work of Christ and our justification before God that is needed in this present era. But we are convinced that justification by faith alone, including the doctrine of imputation, is essential to the gospel and therefore essential to the church’s identity. So we have sought to offer the church a statement that is in the spirit of the Apostles’ Creed, concise and even recite-able. We also have endeavored to pick up the emphasis on the work of Christ for our right standing before God that was so beautifully put forward by the Reformers. How delightful and refreshing it is to stand in the rich traditions of the early church and the Reformers.

The doctrine of the person and work of Christ is the gospel. Thus, the doctrine of imputation—the crediting of our sin to Him and of His obedience to us—is essential to this gospel. It shows us why the gospel is such good news—Christ really has done it all. He has met our Creator’s standard of perfection for us, so we never need to fear the Lord's wrath if we are in Christ by faith alone. This doctrine of imputation can lead us only to praise the glory and grace of God. This doctrine of imputation tells us that salvation truly is of Him and of Him alone.​

 

[Josheb]

I am asking if you hold the Doctrine of Imputation? Our sins being imputed to Christ and his Righteousness being imputed/credited to us.

No, you are wasting my time.

I was asked if justification by faith was by imputation (go back and see for yourself). It's an odd question that confuses imputation but I answered the question. Then I got asked a different question which I will now answer as directly and concisely as possible:

Yes, I hold to the doctrine of imputation.​

What does that have to do with NPP, Waters' article, or justification by faith alone?

Read through the thread. Every post i get is something different. They are all over the place, unfocused, and inattentive to the op.

Here's an excellent resource to refute the New Perspective on Paul [and] it also clarifies the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, the crux of the Gospel.

One sentence. Nothing about imputation. The subject was changed in the middle of the thread.

https://www.christianstudylibrary.o...hty-have-Fallen-From-Luther-to-Schweitzer.pdf

I've made several observations about that article, about NPP and justification by faith alone, and not a single one of them has been addressed.


One last time. What's your thesis statement? What's the point of comment or inquiry to be discussed in this thread?

Don’t you just love it when good things come together? Ham and eggs. Batman and Robin. Macaroni and cheese. So, how about chocolate chip cookies and the gospel? That might be a new one for you.

Never mind.


Thank you for your time.

 

[Ladodgers6]

You need to relax. Okay, now, does Wright or the NPP?