New Perspective on Paul: Good, Bad, or Neutral?

[Greektim]

About to eat here. The fact that NPP teaches we have got salvation wrong for the past say 2000 years should raise a red flag.

Or maybe not.

(that's me being facetious above) :thumbsup:

I don't get it... but I hope we can keep this light-hearted.

I don't know if there is a Lutheran understanding of justificaiton pre-Luther. I'd be interested to see how other early church fathers talk about justification to see if Wright's view could be consistent with them.

 

[quantumfaith]

OK. Don't shoot off supposed understandings of your readings of NT Wright that remain ghosts as if it solves something. OK?

Yes, yes, it must be all those quoting him, and refuting him in the info I've given you that are in error. Please.

I'll be awaiting your presentation.

I've explained enough, now, go to the info I've given and rebut it since you have what he believes, and refute what I've given, or that others have said about his false teachings. The burden of proof is on you, you're the one espousing his teachings which I KNOW are heresy. Perhaps you just don't understand him after all.

By the way, Mandym is correct, they attempt to make it diofficult to pin them down. This is a well known fact.

I find it interesting you want documentation, but have provided nothing but your own subjective understanding, which has not been elaborated upon, nor documented. Hmmmmm.

Yet you want others to prove things.

You do NOTHING but antagonize, criticize and offer diatribes. He asked you a simple question as to YOUR understanding of NT Wright. It seems you only wish to parrot someone else. I will say AGAIN, there is ABSOLUTELY no problem with you disagreeing, the problem is the MANNER in which you simply and casually dismiss someone else as simply deficient and errant, as if your declaration is supposed to make that so.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't get it... but I hope we can keep this light-hearted.

I don't know if there is a Lutheran understanding of justificaiton pre-Luther. I'd be interested to see how other early church fathers talk about justification to see if Wright's view could be consistent with them.

You don't get what? That NPP says for 2000 years we got salvation wrong? Or my being facetious (maybe not = maybe they're right) which they're not, so no worries there.

Oh, there was understanding of justification pre Luther. Luther rediscovered truth.

So, are you justified by Christ alone through faith alone or not?

 

[Iconoclast]

When did this NPP originate? How new is it?

It caught fire at what was called the Auburn Avenue bible conference.[around 2001..or 2002....the teaching had been cooking before that...I do not remember all the details

I heard the messages......these men who have been useful ...have gone off the track...many have reached out to them....

 

[Iconoclast]

Here's a challenge (to hopefully get this discussion back on track)...

Without going to Wikipedia or any other external source...right now, off the top of your head...name five scholars who aren't NT Wright associated with NPP.

doug wilson
steve schlissel
ep sanders
steve wilkins

 

[glfredrick]

doug wilson
steve schlissel
ep sanders
steve wilkins

Add James D. G. Dunn, Funk, Malina, John Elliot, and Esler to the list.

And, our very own Skandelon, although calling him a "scholar" is obviously a stretch... :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Greektim]

You don't get what? That NPP says for 2000 years we got salvation wrong? Or my being facetious (maybe not = maybe they're right) which they're not, so no worries there.

Oh, there was understanding of justification pre Luther. Luther rediscovered truth.

So, are you justified by Christ alone through faith alone or not?

I don't think Wright would have a problem w/ your final statement. The problem is the way we are defining "justification". I wonder if you could explain Wright's view of justification, which is why I asked.

 

[glfredrick]

I don't think Wright would have a problem w/ your final statement. The problem is the way we are defining "justification". I wonder if you could explain Wright's view of justification, which is why I asked.

Indeed, the Catholic understanding (that underlies the NPP) is that justification is a process (akin to an Evangelical or Protestant view of sanctification) that requires works to complete. It is that, primarily, that separates RCC from Protestant and Evangelical doctrine.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't think Wright would have a problem w/ your final statement. The problem is the way we are defining "justification". I wonder if you could explain Wright's view of justification, which is why I asked.

IF you know anything about Wrights position on justification, you WILL know he sees justification as not being forensic (judicial) and final as declared by God, or complete, but as an analytical state, completed by man. Thus the first position above (forensic) would be monergistic; final, eternal, completed. The second position above is synergistic and the position of NPP making righteousness dependent upon mans work, not upon Gods declaration. It's one of their first heresies. It's also something I would say you agree with as you embrace NPP teachings.

You have yet to address anything I've given you, including your wrong and relative misinterpretation of Luthers rediscovery of the biblical truth of justification. I'll take that as you cannot answer. Your interpretation denies truth as being static, and causes truth to have to be reinterpreted in the light of the times, contemporary cultures, relativism &c. Thus by your implication truth is not eternal, but changes with the times we are in.

So, again, are you justified by Christ alone, or not?

Furthermore NPP denies the efficacy of imputation, in that NPP teaches sin/righteousness cannot be imputed from one to another. You're aware of this heresy as well, right?

 

[Greektim]

Not to beat a dead horse... but this is simply false.

IF you know anything about Wrights position on justification, you WILL know he sees justification as not being forensic (judicial) and final as declared by God, or complete, but as an analytical state, completed by man. Thus the first position above (forensic) would be monergistic; final, eternal, completed. The second position above is synergistic and the position of NPP making righteousness dependent upon mans work, not upon Gods declaration. It's one of their first heresies. It's also something I would say you agree with as you embrace NPP teachings.

First, I have never admitted to embracing the NPP. That's is your first strawman. I am simply defending your misrepresentation of Wright.

Second, Wright affirms a forensic understanding of justification (but a justification that is post-conversion, i.e. vindication). In that article that was posted early on in this thread, Wright was quoted explaining how justification understood as a Jewish-court scene word. So you are simply mistaken about his view.

You can see this most clearly if you remember the context of the Jewish lawcourt which forms the background for Paul‘s forensic use of the dikaiosune theme. Despite some odd recent attempts to deny this, if you want to understand forensic justification you must go to the law-court and find how the metaphor works. In the Jewish lawcourt Paul would have known, there is no Director of Public Prosecutions; there is a judge, with a plaintiff and a defendant appearing before him. When the case has been heard, the judge finds in favour of one party and against the other. Once that has happened, the vindicated party possesses the status ‗righteous‘ – not itself a moral statement, we note, but a statement of how things stand in terms of the now completed lawsuit. As someone said to me yesterday, it all depends what you mean by ‗righteous‘. But this status of righteousness has nothing to do with the righteousness of the judge. For the judge to be righteous, it is necessary that he try the case fairly, refuse bribes or other favouritism, uphold the law, and take special note for the helpless, the widows, and so on. When either the plaintiff or the defendant is declared ‗righteous‘ at the end of the case, there is no sense that in either case the judge‘s own righteousness has been passed on to them, by imputation, impartation, or any other process. What they have is a status of ‗righteous‘ which comes from the judge. Let me stress, in particular, that when the judge finds in favour of one party or the other, he quite literally makes the righteous; because ‗righteous‘ at this point is not a word denoting moral character, but only and precisely the status that you have when the court has found in your favour.

Then you say

You have yet to address anything I've given you, including your wrong and relative misinterpretation of Luthers rediscovery of the biblical truth of justification. I'll take that as you cannot answer. Your interpretation denies truth as being static, and causes truth to have to be reinterpreted in the light of the times, contemporary cultures, relativism &c. Thus by your implication truth is not eternal, but changes with the times we are in.

What have you given me? Your mistaken view of Wright? You have clearly missed everything I say b/c you are too narrow minded to consider the possibility that you are wrong (your popery) or too thick to follow what I say (your ignorance).

Seriously, what have you given me to address? I've asked you to discuss this with me and all you do is talk about the things you've addressed. When asked, you simply accuse me of dodging instead of giving me something to address. This is madness.

Then you throw out the thing with truth. Can you build any more strawmen???

So, again, are you justified by Christ alone, or not?

Furthermore NPP denies the efficacy of imputation, in that NPP teaches sin/righteousness cannot be imputed from one to another. You're aware of this heresy as well, right?

Yet again, you miss Wright's point altogether. He doesn't deny the efficacy of imputation. He says that the imputation associated w/ justification is wrong. So he is not denying its efficacy but its reality. Again, you have no clue what he says. You make strawmen. For instance:

This is fine as it stands; God does indeed ‗reckon righteousness‘ to those who believe. But this is not, for Paul, the righteousness either of God or of Christ, except in a very specialised sense to which I shall return.

Game set match... read up on Wright before you act like you know something about Wright. I'll give you the last word b/c frankly I don't care what you say any more. It is impossible to have a cogent conversation with you. You accuse w/out info. The comparison between Luther and Wright is obvious. You are standing in the place of the RCC.

 

[preachinjesus]

This conversation has helped reinforce how difficult it is to have complicated conversations about nuanced theological views in this kind of a forum.

When we arrive at our positions with preconceived notions, and those among who have actually studied (academically) the issues and personalities offer us correctives (which we dismiss) we do nothing to advance a serious conversation.

Not to speak for GreekTim or anyone else, but while I appreciate NPP for its total commitment to NT theology I am not an advocate of the position nor in deep theological cahoots with individuals like Tom Wright (whom I infinitely respect and enjoy reading and conversing with.)

I'll try to reply to a few good points later on, but I am deeply disappointed at the nature of this conversation (the OP was a good btw) and how it has isolated around one issue and not the broader conversation. Thanks for those who have been charitable.

 

[preacher4truth]

Not to beat a dead horse... but this is simply false.


First, I have never admitted to embracing the NPP. .

:laugh:

Why the pejorative laden post?

First off, you're not being honest and are angry using name calling. What I've stated about NPP and forensic justification within this systen, and their rejection of this is absolutely true.

Secondly, what I've stated concerning the view of NPP is well known fact.


Here's your comment on this accepting NPP, then you act as if you don't:

Let's be fair first of all... this is no longer "new". It has been hashed and rehashed in the academic world. It just takes 30 years to leak down to us laymen.

Personally, I find a lot of value in the historical method that was employed to get to the various positions. But honestly, I've not read a lot of material on either sides so far. I was hoping to get to it, but it is hard to access some of the materials outside of the country. I hope to read Wright's Justification soon.

This is accepting this position as true. In your own words.

And more:

I'll admit that I'm still searching and even that I have been greatly influenced recently b/c I have been reading many of Wright's seminal work in NT studies. That said, I don't claim to be an expert in the debate. However, let me offer my conclusions.


To state that Wright is preaching "another gospel" is to equate him as accursed and damned. If that be the case, you are declaring him apostate and not a true follower of Jesus.

But at close examination, he argues his case and it is compelling enough to say that his gospel is not "another gospel." In fact, it sounds like the lordship gospel presentation that you'll hear from Piper, Washer, MacArthur and others. The gospel is Jesus Christ is Lord. He upholds faith in that message which demands a repentant lifestyle of lordship to Jesus.

It is not so much that he is denying justification by faith but defining it differently. But the essentials of the gospel and man's conversion have not changed. Only that your concept of justification related to imputed righteousness of Jesus is his vindication of God's judgment which is based on previous forgiveness and entrance into God's covenant community.

Now his concept of imputed righteousness is a bit difficult for me b/c it is a doctrine that I have taught and been taught many years. But he does make some valid arguments, and they should not be summarily dismissed b/c it goes against a tradition. That is not the reformation theology I have come to know and appreciate.

And he still admits that we have been given a righteousness from God based on Phil. 3:10f. He also admits a union with Messiah. So as the Messiah is, so are we. Only the Messiah was vindicated to be righteous, and thus so are we being crucified with him and raised with him.

The only contention as it relates to imputed righteousness is that he is not talking of that doctrine in relationship to justification. He distinguishes and moves it to another part of the salvation process. So far, he seems fairly orthodox though a bit different from the tradition. But in total, not out in left field.

He also says that justification or vindication is something we do, which Paul says as well. But he, as a reformed theologian, also admits that it is a work still wrought by and through the Holy Spirit. What I appreciate is that he is taking difficult statements in Romans 2 (specifically v. 13) about works related to justification and giving them an answer that fits the context of history and the Jewish audience that it was addressed in chps. 2-3.

Conclusion: I like that Wright is still studying and working at making sense of Scripture. He is doing a fine job of putting Scripture in a good working system that patches up the wholes of Luther and Calvin. Wright's perspective of Paul should be given another day in court. I'm not sure if I'm there, but his views are convincing. I don't see it as heterodoxy at all.

You agree with what you THINK are his teachings. They're compelling to you because you've been hoodwinked to accept his errors.

He rejects the completion and eternality of forensic justification. It's a proven fact.

Nothing I have said is strawman. At all. But dealing with you has proven to be dealing with one who won't be honest about what NPP and especially what Wright actually teaches.

Just because Wright had some good NT studies doesn't turn his false teachings on justification/imputation into truth.

Of course he attempts to move justification apart from salvation. But it's too late. He needs to recant his position that judicial justification falls short.

Leave off your pejorative insults of thick, ignorant, popery and other strawman comments. It's rather childish banter.

What I've offered of Wrights view is truth.


I ask again, are you completely and eternally justified forensicly, by God or not?


A simple yes or no is sufficient, minus the name calling and character attacks. OK? Thanks.

In addition, a red flag is raised whenever someone goes against the finality and eternality of one being declared righteous by God Himself. Simply allowing false, nonbiblical doctrines, and doctrines that go against this traditional truth is a bad sign to say the least. This is not following the rule of Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15.

 

[preacher4truth]

One more greektim strawman: The statement that MacArthur (and another?) is in essence preaching the same thing. That's totally untrue. This shows you truly don't understand the implications, teachings, falsehoods, nor what is at stake with this false teaching, and the fact that TMS calls this NPP doctrine an insidious heresy.

You are incorrect here as well.

 

[quantumfaith]

:laugh:

Why the pejorative laden post?

First off, you're not being honest and are angry using name calling. What I've stated about NPP and forensic justification within this systen, and their rejection of this is absolutely true.

Secondly, what I've stated concerning the view of NPP is well known fact.


Here's your comment on this accepting NPP, then you act as if you don't:



This is accepting this position as true. In your own words.

And more:



You agree with what you THINK are his teachings. They're compelling to you because you've been hoodwinked to accept his errors.

He rejects the completion and eternality of forensic justification. It's a proven fact.

Nothing I have said is strawman. At all. But dealing with you has proven to be dealing with one who won't be honest about what NPP and especially what Wright actually teaches.

Just because Wright had some good NT studies doesn't turn his false teachings on justification/imputation into truth.

Of course he attempts to move justification apart from salvation. But it's too late. He needs to recant his position that judicial justification falls short.

Leave off your pejorative insults of thick, ignorant, popery and other strawman comments. It's rather childish banter.

What I've offered of Wrights view is truth.


I ask again, are you completely and eternally justified forensicly, by God or not?


A simple yes or no is sufficient, minus the name calling and character attacks. OK? Thanks.

In addition, a red flag is raised whenever someone goes against the finality and eternality of one being declared righteous by God Himself. Simply allowing false, nonbiblical doctrines, and doctrines that go against this traditional truth is a bad sign to say the least. This is not following the rule of Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15.

Are you completely blind? Pejorative? If any, it is in RESPONSE to YOUR PEJORATIVE laden and off point responses.

 

[preacher4truth]

An excellent rebuttal of NPP. This also shows that Galatians is defending soteriology, not sanctification (as Wright has twisted this passage from soteriology to sanctification. The intent of soteriological defense is clearly shown in the first chapter) and shows how those imposing the Law upon others are false brothers &c. Sanders, Dunn and Wright are refuted as preaching a false Gospel.

http://www.tms.edu/MediaPlayer.aspx?id=0f53d515-b2bd-489a-b8e5-270fd8d92680

 

[Skandelon]

I'll give you the last word b/c frankly I don't care what you say any more. It is impossible to have a cogent conversation with you.

Hmmm, where have I heard this before... :tear:

 

[Baptist boy]

I think it's bad. As with any type of False doctrine! They really think the last 1,900 plus years of Christins perspectives on Paul has been wrong all along and that thy've got it right. That's pure arrogancy and should be fought against.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My understanding of NPP is very limited but I have been meaning to reseach this area for a long time.

I have some questions for Greektim and preachinjesus.

What is the historical "rediscovery" that NPP proponents use to base their views? Are there specific documents from 1st century Jewish thinking that have informed these views and what are the main concepts from those documents that have been particularly influential to NPP thinking?

 

[preacher4truth]

Hmmm, where have I heard this before... :tear:

Oh, I know where. It's been said about and to you several times on here.

No need to tear up, it happens in debate.

I find it interesting that a mod pulls a quote out of a response to me. Namely an inflammatory post filled with pejoratives, name calling, and character attacks against me, for no reason whatsoever, nor as a retaliation for the same, because none of that came from me. Anyone can take note it was uncalled for, yet a mod uses it to cast ridicule. :wavey:

Yes, very interesting that it wasn't snipped, but just used conveniently. I really couldn't care less, just noting his behavior. Again. :thumbsup:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My understanding of NPP is very limited but I have been meaning to reseach this area for a long time.

I have some questions for Greektim and preachinjesus.

What is the historical "rediscovery" that NPP proponents use to base their views? Are there specific documents from 2nd Temple Jewish thinking that have informed these views and what are the main concepts from those documents that have been particularly influential to NPP thinking?

Wright's historical argument is based on his assertion that 2nd Century Judaism was not legalistic, but grace-orientated and that therefore all those who have taken Paul (or indeed the Lord Jesus- eg. Mark 7:8-9) to be opposing Justification by faith against Judaism's justification by works (Acts 15:5) have got it wrong.

However it's Wright who is wrong (pun intended!). There have been enough publications of Inter-testamental Jewish writigs to show that much of it was legalistic and works orientated. I heard a lecture on the subject by Sam Waldron and came away with a print-out containing four such quotes. I put it away somewhere for safe keeping and now I can't find it! :tonofbricks:

I would advise brethren on this board to be very suspicious of NPP. It is part of an attmpt to get an ecumenical understanding on Justification that will satisfy the Church of Rome and it changes the meaning both of God's righteousness (Wright says it is His faithfulness to His covenant) and justification. It does away with the imputation of the obedience of Christ (Rom 5:19).

The problem is not that NPP is a blatent attack on Christian doctrine. There is a lot of good stuff in Wright's books. The problem is that it's a subtle attack on Christian doctrine. If you take a glass filled with healthful Florida Orange juice and put just a drop or two of cyanide in it, it will kill you just as surely as a glassful of pure cyanide. In fact, it's more dangerous because it's harder to spot. Who is the more dangerous? The maniac who comes rushing at you with a knife, or the friend who puts one arm around you and then slides the same knife in between your ribs with the other hand (2 Sam 20:9-10)? I think Wright is more to be feared than the previous Bishop of Durham who denied the Resurrection and a host of other fundamental doctrines.

Steve