The New Perspective on Paul

[canadyjd]

No. Romans 4:2-5, ". . . For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory;……… This took place 430 years before the law.

Which is Paul’s point. The “works of the law” were not available to Abraham.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

No. Romans 4:2-5, ". . . For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. . . ." This took place 430 years before the law.

nothing in this post is contrary to my post. You make up your own definition of works apart from scripture then try to hold everyone else to that definition and pretend that God said it.

 

[37818]

Which is Paul’s point. The “works of the law” were not available to Abraham.

peace to you

No. The Apostle's point was no one is justified by means of one's works. Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23.

 

[37818]

nothing in this post is contrary to my post. You make up your own definition of works apart from scripture then try to hold everyone else to that definition and pretend that God said it.

So according to your understanding of Scripture how is belief different from a work? What does Scripture define a work as?

 

[Revmitchell]

So according to your understanding of Scripture how is belief different from a work? What does Scripture define a work as?

sigh i already told you go back and read my post

 

[JesusFan]

I am opening this thread because a member, @JesusFan , seems fascinated with the NPP but at the same time confuses the "classic view" of Atonement with the NPP.

I figure others here more knowledgeable than I may be able to help him. I know some of the NPP, but the topic has not really sparked my interest as it seems problematic at the start.

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is a movement (with many different views) focused on the writings on Paul. The NPP is primarily associated with E.P. Sanders and James Dunn (Krister Stendahl in the 1960's, prior to Sanders).

The primary idea is that the Reformers read their situation with the Catholic Church into Paul's use of works - that Paul's use of "works" primarily referred to works of the Law rather than general Christian works or good behavior.

This changes things a bit. The idea is that we are justified by faith rather than works of the Law, but that this faith produces works in the present which points to a future justification.

Personally I think the NPP gets somewhat too much in the weeds and does not come out very coherently. I agree that Paul often used "works" to mean "works of the Law", but at the same time this seems (IMHO) to assume a Jewish audience. I think the simple truth is we do not earn salvation, but that good works accompany salvation.

So good works can be a sign of a future justification (at the day of Judgment) but they are fruits of a present justification (salvation, justified in Christ).

NPP redefines Pauline Justification as stating to us that Paul was not addressing how a lost sinner gets justified and saved by God, but how they are to be identified once already saved, so really another Gospel!

 

[37818]

sigh i already told you go back and read my post

Romans 10:9-17. Confession with the mouth is a work.

 

[Revmitchell]

Romans 10:9-17. Confession with the mouth is a work.

that verse doesn't say its a work.

 

[37818]

that verse doesn't say its a work.

So because Mark 16:16 doesn't say baptism is a work . . . . It is not a work?

 

[Revmitchell]

So because Mark 16:16 doesn't say baptism is a work . . . . It is not a work?

It doesn't matter. Regardless of if it is a work or not its not required for salvation. Don't need that argument to prove its not required. In fact its a bad argument to make. It can be proven that it is not required for salvation without it. That said it is irrelevant to your made up definition of work.

 

[37818]

It doesn't matter. Regardless of if it is a work or not its not required for salvation. Don't need that argument to prove its not required. In fact its a bad argument to make. It can be proven that it is not required for salvation without it. That said it is irrelevant to your made up definition of work.

Prove I am wrong. Merely saying I am making up what a work is does not make it so. Certain Calvinists what to claim if belief is a prerequisite for salvation that makes such a belief to be believing in a works salvation.

 

[Van]

2 Thessalonians 2:13 …. “because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification by Holy Spirit and belief in the truth”.

You just literally re-wrote scripture, pretending to quote it directly, to make it fit your beliefs while accusing me of not understanding scripture.

This verse doesn’t say we were “chosen through faith”. It says God chose us for salvation from the beginning through sanctification of Holy Spirit and belief in the truth.

Such dishonesty is unworthy of debate

Thanks for the conversation

Peace to you

Note you are charging me with a false charge as the verse says what I said it says. But did you address that? Nope.

When God says three things, each one of them is true.

But rather than admit you deny what scripture says, you complain I did not address the whole verse, but just the point at issue. Pathetic.

 

[canadyjd]

Note you are charging me with a false charge as the verse says what I said it says. But did you address that? Nope.

When God says three things, each one of them is true.

But rather than admit you deny what scripture says, you complain I did not address the whole verse, but just the point at issue. Pathetic.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[Van]

A work has a cause and effect. Faith is a reason which can be considered a cause. But they are not the same kind of cause. That is why I have argued that faith does not cause anything, being it is not a work. To insist faith to be a cause is to insist it is some kind of work. A cause and effect is a work.

You are making up a distinction non-existent in reality. God's word says faith provides our access into the grace in which we stand. That means our faith (if credited by God) causes us to have access to His grace. In other contention is false doctrine.

 

[Van]

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

You can run but you cannot hide:

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we also have obtained our introduction [or access] by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we celebrate in hope of the glory of God.

You do not go "into this grace in which we stand" by being already within God's grace.

As far as your unreferenced claim faith is the result of God's grace in choosing the person for salvation, that once again is the opposite of what scripture teaches, and I will reference 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says [in part] we are chosen "through faith in the truth." Thus, if you accept scripture means what it says, then our faith preceded being chosen for salvation.

The fact God's unmerited favor continues after salvation is not an issue.

 

[37818]

You are making up a distinction non-existent in reality. God's word says faith provides our access into the grace in which we stand. That means our faith (if credited by God) causes us to have access to His grace. In other contention is false doctrine.

I am not making anything up. Belief in God's grace is not a work. Grace is not merited. Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:2-5, Romans 11:6.

 

[Van]

I am not making anything up. Belief in God's grace is not a work. Grace is not merited. Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:2-5, Romans 11:6.

You are making up a distinction non-existent in reality. God's word says faith provides our access into the grace in which we stand. That means our faith (if credited by God) causes us to have access to His grace. In other contention is false doctrine.

No need to change the subject, no one said or suggested God's grace is a work. No one said Grace is merited. Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:2-5, Romans 11:6 are non-germane to the actual issue.

You claim our faith, if credited by God, does not provide access into God's saving grace. Scripture says otherwise. That is the issue.

 

[37818]

You are making up a distinction non-existent in reality.

False.

 

[JesusFan]

I am opening this thread because a member, @JesusFan , seems fascinated with the NPP but at the same time confuses the "classic view" of Atonement with the NPP.

I figure others here more knowledgeable than I may be able to help him. I know some of the NPP, but the topic has not really sparked my interest as it seems problematic at the start.

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is a movement (with many different views) focused on the writings on Paul. The NPP is primarily associated with E.P. Sanders and James Dunn (Krister Stendahl in the 1960's, prior to Sanders).

The primary idea is that the Reformers read their situation with the Catholic Church into Paul's use of works - that Paul's use of "works" primarily referred to works of the Law rather than general Christian works or good behavior.

This changes things a bit. The idea is that we are justified by faith rather than works of the Law, but that this faith produces works in the present which points to a future justification.

Personally I think the NPP gets somewhat too much in the weeds and does not come out very coherently. I agree that Paul often used "works" to mean "works of the Law", but at the same time this seems (IMHO) to assume a Jewish audience. I think the simple truth is we do not earn salvation, but that good works accompany salvation.

So good works can be a sign of a future justification (at the day of Judgment) but they are fruits of a present justification (salvation, justified in Christ).

Very good counter to NT Wright view here
https://document.desiringgod.org/the-future-of-justification-en.pdf?ts=1446648273

 

[Van]

False.

You can post taint so till the cows come home, God's word repudiates your bogus view. God's word says faith provides our access into the grace in which we stand. That means our faith (if credited by God) causes us to have access to His grace. In other contention is false doctrine.

No need to change the subject, no one said or suggested God's grace is a work. No one said Grace is merited. Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:2-5, Romans 11:6 are non-germane to the actual issue.

You claim our faith, if credited by God, does not provide access into God's saving grace. Scripture says otherwise. That is the issue.