A video on the New Perspective

[Greektim]

Michael Allen gives a reasoned perspective of the NPP. Give it a watch (8 mins). It is helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1cwbpA1BCE

 

[The Biblicist]

Michael Allen gives a reasoned perspective of the NPP. Give it a watch (8 mins). It is helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1cwbpA1BCE

Yes, he says the New Perspective is wrong in a nice way!

 

[quantumfaith]

I appreciated and liked the video, but I do not share the conclusion of NPP being necessarily unworthy of pursuit. He focused, as I remember, a good deal on Sanders but NPP as I know you are aware is MUCH broader than he alone.

But I must say, his "criticism" was accomplished in a quite polished and positive way.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, he says the New Perspective is wrong in a nice way!

The premise determines the conclusion. The premise of N.T. Wright and Sanders is wrong and there conclusions are wrong. Whatever else their studies my add to the Biblical studies, neither their premise or conclusion add anything but rather repudiate the essential truths of justification.

 

[quantumfaith]

The premise determines the conclusion. The premise of N.T. Wright and Sanders is wrong and there conclusions are wrong. Whatever else their studies my add to the Biblical studies, neither their premise or conclusion add anything but rather repudiate the essential truths of justification.

I know VERY little about Sanders, and only slightly acquainted with NT, but I think you are the wrong about NT Wright.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know VERY little about Sanders, and only slightly acquainted with NT, but I think you are the wrong about NT Wright.

I assure you that I am completely right about Wright! I have read him thoroughly in many areas. His premises are completely and entirely wrong. He is a sacramentalist when it comes to salvation, as he explicitly states that the sacraments are NECESSARY MEANS for salvation. Hence, the proof of what he really believes is in the pudding of his own complete soteriology. We could stop right here and go no further and be completely satisfied his system is false.

If it is "of grace, then it is no longer of works or grace is no more grace" and that is the principle definitive line that Wright not only blurs but violates in his final definition of justification before God when he replaces Spirit wrought works in the life of the believer with Spirit wrought works in the life of Jesus Christ. The Law requires a SINLESS LIFE (that is why blood must be shed unto death, as it represents giving of the WHOLE SINLESS LIFE - from birth to death) whereas, the saved person does not have a WHOLE SINLESS LIFE. Prior to conversion HIS LIFE is sinful and after conversion his life is not sinless. That is the difference between Christ's life and the believer's life. Only the former LIFE can be justified under the Law, as it does not "come short" (Rom. 3:23) at any "point" (James 2:10), whereas, the latter life can NEVER BE JUSTIFIED under law. Indeed the subjective righteousness performed by the Spirit in the life of the saints vary as extreme from the life of Daniel to the life of Lot. That is why justification is not by a sliding rule but has one perfect standard "be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Therefore, the life of Christ is sinless in regard to every point of the Law and the only fit basis for justification by the Law. So it is the "UNGODLY" that is justified before God by faith not the "godly" as Wright's theory ultimately demands.

So the bottom line is really what kind of righteousness does the Law require to be justified in God's sight? Is it a sliding rule of righteousness that varies between the manifest extremes of Daniel's life of good works to the manifest extremes of Lot's (or the thief on the cross) life of good works? Or is it the kind of life lived by Christ in His own body that satisfied every point of the Law between his birth and death? Is it a complete life that satisfies God's law at every single point between birth and death or is it a partial life that never satisfies God's law at every single point between birth and death? Thus is it imputed righteousness by faith or imparted righteousness by faith? Whose life justifies us in the final analysis - Christ's life or our life? However, the saved "shall not come into judgement" (Jn. 5:24) in regard to justification for entrance into heaven, only in regard for rewards in heaven.

Furthermore, his view denies that Christ's life obtains eternal life NOW (not temporal life) thus secures entrance into heaven versus our life which may or may not obtains rewards in heaven according to our works (1 Cor. 3:11-14).

Wright does not believe that the righteousness performed in the physical body of Jesus Christ is SUFFICIENT as the sole and final basis for justification. He believes the Spirit wrought righteousness in the physical body of the professed believer is essential to reveal final justification for those who were justified by faith. Hence, ultimate justification is not for the "ungodly" but for the "godly." Thus he has extended justification from the moment of faith to the judgement day so that only the "godly" are justified. However, Abraham was justified "in uncircumcision" NOT "in circumcision." Only before men was his justification extended in the manifest sight of others.

It makes no difference that he explains that such Spirit produced righteousness did not justify them but only declares they are justified and thus proves they are only worthy of final justification. The issue is that he has REPLACED Christ's worthiness as the sole basis for justification with their manifest worthiness through Spirit produced works. The issue is that he has replaced the objective personal righteousness of Jesus Christ with the subjective personal righteousness produced in the life of the believer as the final manifest basis for justification so that it is the "godly" who are justified. Men may need "manifest" righteousness to determine if other men are truly justified, however, God needs no such manifest evidence to know His own NOW (Jn. 10:28-30), much less convene a final judgement to reveal such. The lost religious man can do no righteousness in God's sight, but only in his own sight (Mt. 7:22-23) and thus judgement will be convened to manifest their righteousnesses did not measure up to God's standard - the Law - as interpreted By the life of Christ. Christ's life will be the final measurement of who keeps the law in the judgement of the lost.

This is a very sly deceptive way for making final justification based upon your works instead of the works performed in the physical body of Jesus Christ. The issue remains that his view is not Paul's view - justification of THE UNGODLY.

I might also add that his view of justification is shaped by wrongly assuming that Romans 2:6-15 is inclusive of those saved by grace - It is not. This is a description of the judgment of those who expect entrance into heaven solely by their own works under the Law of God without Christ. The final interpretation of the meaning of the Law as the basis for justification will be the life of Christ which perfectly conformed to that Law.

Bottom line is what does the Law of God require to be justified? (1) A life that never fails even one point (James 2:10-11) or (2) A life that never keeps one point as to fail in one point is to fail in all points (the ungodly).

Christ's whole life has completely satisifed all the demands of the Law for justification before God, therefore, God can reward his saints according to piece meal aspects of their life by the DEGREE of imparted righteousness of Christ manifested in their lives.

 

[quantumfaith]

I assure you that I am completely right about Wright! I have read him thoroughly in many areas. His premises are completely and entirely wrong. He is a sacramentalist when it comes to salvation, as he explicitly states that the sacraments are NECESSARY MEANS for salvation. Hence, the proof of what he really believes is in the pudding of his own complete soteriology. We could stop right here and go no further and be completely satisfied his system is false.

If it is "of grace, then it is no longer of works or grace is no more grace" and that is the principle definitive line that Wright not only blurs but violates in his final definition of justification before God when he replaces Spirit wrought works in the life of the believer with Spirit wrought works in the life of Jesus Christ. The Law requires a SINLESS LIFE (that is why blood must be shed unto death, as it represents giving of the WHOLE SINLESS LIFE - from birth to death) whereas, the saved person does not have a WHOLE SINLESS LIFE. Prior to conversion HIS LIFE is sinful and after conversion his life is not sinless. That is the difference between Christ's life and the believer's life. Only the former LIFE can be justified under the Law, as it does not "come short" (Rom. 3:23) at any "point" (James 2:10), whereas, the latter life can NEVER BE JUSTIFIED under law. Indeed the subjective righteousness performed by the Spirit in the life of the saints vary as extreme from the life of Daniel to the life of Lot. That is why justification is not by a sliding rule but has one perfect standard "be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Therefore, the life of Christ is sinless in regard to every point of the Law and the only fit basis for justification by the Law. So it is the "UNGODLY" that is justified before God by faith not the "godly" as Wright's theory ultimately demands.

So the bottom line is really what kind of righteousness does the Law require to be justified in God's sight? Is it a sliding rule of righteousness that varies between the manifest extremes of Daniel's life of good works to the manifest extremes of Lot's (or the thief on the cross) life of good works? Or is it the kind of life lived by Christ in His own body that satisfied every point of the Law between his birth and death? Is it a complete life that satisfies God's law at every single point between birth and death or is it a partial life that never satisfies God's law at every single point between birth and death? Thus is it imputed righteousness by faith or imparted righteousness by faith? Whose life justifies us in the final analysis - Christ's life or our life? However, the saved "shall not come into judgement" (Jn. 5:24) in regard to justification for entrance into heaven, only in regard for rewards in heaven.

Furthermore, his view denies that Christ's life obtains eternal life NOW (not temporal life) thus secures entrance into heaven versus our life which may or may not obtains rewards in heaven according to our works (1 Cor. 3:11-14).

Wright does not believe that the righteousness performed in the physical body of Jesus Christ is SUFFICIENT as the sole and final basis for justification. He believes the Spirit wrought righteousness in the physical body of the professed believer is essential to reveal final justification for those who were justified by faith. Hence, ultimate justification is not for the "ungodly" but for the "godly." Thus he has extended justification from the moment of faith to the judgement day so that only the "godly" are justified. However, Abraham was justified "in uncircumcision" NOT "in circumcision." Only before men was his justification extended in the manifest sight of others.

It makes no difference that he explains that such Spirit produced righteousness did not justify them but only declares they are justified and thus proves they are only worthy of final justification. The issue is that he has REPLACED Christ's worthiness as the sole basis for justification with their manifest worthiness through Spirit produced works. The issue is that he has replaced the objective personal righteousness of Jesus Christ with the subjective personal righteousness produced in the life of the believer as the final manifest basis for justification so that it is the "godly" who are justified. Men may need "manifest" righteousness to determine if other men are truly justified, however, God needs no such manifest evidence to know His own NOW (Jn. 10:28-30), much less convene a final judgement to reveal such. The lost religious man can do no righteousness in God's sight, but only in his own sight (Mt. 7:22-23) and thus judgement will be convened to manifest their righteousnesses did not measure up to God's standard - the Law - as interpreted By the life of Christ. Christ's life will be the final measurement of who keeps the law in the judgement of the lost.

This is a very sly deceptive way for making final justification based upon your works instead of the works performed in the physical body of Jesus Christ. The issue remains that his view is not Paul's view - justification of THE UNGODLY.

I might also add that his view of justification is shaped by wrongly assuming that Romans 2:6-15 is inclusive of those saved by grace - It is not. This is a description of the judgment of those who expect entrance into heaven solely by their own works under the Law of God without Christ. The final interpretation of the meaning of the Law as the basis for justification will be the life of Christ which perfectly conformed to that Law.

Bottom line is what does the Law of God require to be justified? (1) A life that never fails even one point (James 2:10-11) or (2) A life that never keeps one point as to fail in one point is to fail in all points (the ungodly).

Christ's whole life has completely satisifed all the demands of the Law for justification before God, therefore, God can reward his saints according to piece meal aspects of their life by the DEGREE of imparted righteousness of Christ manifested in their lives.

I equally assure you that I think you are wrong about Wright being wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

I equally assure you that I think you are wrong about Wright being wrong.

I did not simply make an assertion as you have, but I supplied it with substance. Substance that you simply ignored while making a completely unsubstantiated assertion. I could have done the same thing, just asserted you were wrong, but this is a debate forum is it not? What good is a mere assertion except as an expression of pride?

So let me ask you a question. What kind of life do you believe satisfies the demands of the Law to be declared righteous? (1) A whole life that has not violated a single point; (2) A Life at best with MIXTURE of obedience and disobedience? (3) A mixture of a sinless and sinful life?

Was Abraham justified "in uncircumcision" or in both "uncircumcision" and "circumcision" before God?

Is Justification inclusive of sanctification?

 

[The Biblicist]

Wright as a sacramentalist, has designed a system of soteriology that makes works essential, and thus inclusive to ultimate justification. The slight of hand occurs at the point of defining necessity. He simply makes it a necessary consequence rather than a necessary cause. However, by making it a necessary conseqence it ultimately is made a necessary cause for final justification.

Furthermore, his system required him to redefine the phrases "justified by works" or "works of the Law" or "deeds of the Law" to refer only to becoming a Jew under the Law of Moses in contrast to be coming a Christian by faith, rather than a contrast between personal commandment keeping for justification versus substitutionary commandment keeping by Christ for justification.

He then extends justification from the initial point of faith to include the whole life thus merging justification into sanctification. Hence, the final analysis is that God only ultimately justifies those proven to be "godly" rather than the "ungodly."

However, Paul's treatment and presentation of Abraham as the pattern for justification for "all who are of faith" exposes and condemns Wright's system from A to Z.

1. Paul defines "works" from a Pre-Mosaic perspective in the life of Abraham rather than from a Mosaic perspective. Hence, "works" cannot refer to becoming a Jew in contrast to becoming a Christian by faith - Rom. 4:1-6. Indeed, he classifies "works" to be a "law" or that "rule" which characterizes "works" in contrast to the "law" of faith or that "rule" which characterizes faith - Rom. 3:27-28.

2. Paul restricts justification as a completed action within the confines of "uncircumcision" while DENYING it extends to his life "in circumcision" - Rom. 4:9-11

3. Paul restricts justification to the "ungodly" rather than making godliness the final criteria of true justification - Rom. 4:5-6 - this destroys Wright's whole premise

4. Paul denies that initial salvation is inclusive of works - Eph. 2:10 but rather works is an undefinable consequence in regard to quantity except in regards to reward rather than entrance into heaven.

5. Jesus denies that the works of Christians are essential to obtaining and sustaining eternal life obtained by faith (justification) - Jn. 5:24; 1 Cor. 3:11-15.

Wright's theory is merely a revamp of Roman Catholicism soteriology at is core and the most deceptive teaching by Satan presented today as it is the ultimate redefinition of grace to include works as essential for entrance into heaven.

 

[Deacon]

… when we see them [the Jews of Jesus' day] actually defining grace, they often times define it antithetically to how Paul will define grace.
John Barkley for example in his various writings on Paul and the Jews of his day is showing that they often times in Jewish thought define grace precisely as what we as Christians define as a work based religion.
Grace was a gift given to one who was fit to use it well, one who would put it to best use. Paul is not arguing then that they don't use the word grace. He is rather arguing that they have exactly the wrong definition of grace. And that they can't affirm that God justifies the ungodly, those who aren’t fit to put God's blessings to the best use, those who need resurrection from the dead, those who need new life in the Holy Spirit…

I'd guess this video clip is from the Logos Mobile Ed course Systematic Theology I and II, yet to be released.

I've picked up a few of the courses and have a few more on order.
Clips usually run between 4 to 10 minutes.

Seminary Education taught by top scholars, at a fraction of the cost - but without credit of course.

There are quite a few samples on the net.

Rob