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

[quantumfaith]

cliff notes: Wherever the slope is zero the curve is bottoming or topping out. (One of the few things I remember from calculus)

Almost, the first derivative represents the slope of the tangent line to the graph of a function at some point c. When it is the case that the first derivative is 0, this obviously means that the slope of the tangent line at that point is 0 and thus horizontal. These points are called critical points. Using the Second derivative, we can "find" "crucial points" and "inflection points", points about which we investigate the concavity of the graph helping us to have a more clear picture of local max/mins.

So happy you remember some of your calculus. (A gift of our creator to the mind of mankind)

 

[Mark_13]

Almost, the first derivative represents the slope of the tangent line to the graph of a function at some point c. When it is the case that the first derivative is 0, this obviously means that the slope of the tangent line at that point is 0 and thus horizontal. These points are called critical points. Using the Second derivative, we can "find" "crucial points" and "inflection points", points about which we investigate the concavity of the graph helping us to have a more clear picture of local max/mins.

So happy you remember some of your calculus. (A gift of our creator to the mind of mankind)

Actually, I made in A in second semester college-level calculus. I would say calculus isn't so much and invention of God but a partial description of God - not calculus specifically - just systematic knowledge in general.

 

[Aaron]

Seeing who is extolling the virtues of npp is enough to warn anyone, but lest anyone think this is simply about interpreting Paul, he needs to read again. A new perspective on the message of Paul is, in reality, a new persepective on Christ and His work. It is properly met with skepticism and unyielding scrutiny, and, judging by the subtext of contempt for his critics evident in Wright's verbosity, it is.

The second temple is irrelevant. The Tabernacle is what was revealed and commanded, and to which Paul heavily referred in Hebrews. Christ separated the interpretations of His message from rabbinic tradition in the Sermon on the Mount.

There is no mistaking Paul's message. Everyone from Jews to Feminists have attempted to reinterpret it in order to soften its blows, and that is apparently the agenda here as well.

 

[quantumfaith]

Actually, I made in A in second semester college-level calculus. I would say calculus isn't so much and invention of God but a partial description of God - not calculus specifically - just systematic knowledge in general.

I think I can agree, it is my personal feeling that math/science, when done through the most simplest and honest of motives, is very much like the theologian, that is, a search for understanding some aspect of the overall truth of God's creation. Also for me personally, and I expect "arrows" on this, science is of the much more "observable" and repeatable rather than the metaphysical and philosophical.

 

[Mark_13]

I think I can agree, it is my personal feeling that math/science, when done through the most simplest and honest of motives, is very much like the theologian, that is, a search for understanding some aspect of the overall truth of God's creation. Also for me personally, and I expect "arrows" on this, science is of the much more "observable" and repeatable rather than the metaphysical and philosophical.

Guess we'll have to leave this off, but for someone trying to draw a sharp distinction between the creation and the creator, it would seem that metaphysical knowledge or abstract knowledge, pure mathematics and so forth, would bespeak of God more directly than observable physical attributes of the creation. Pure math would not be tied directly to "the creation" but something transcending it. I have no axe to grind here though.

 

[quantumfaith]

Guess we'll have to leave this off, but for someone trying to draw a sharp distinction between the creation and the creator, it would seem that metaphysical knowledge or abstract knowledge, pure mathematics and so forth, would bespeak of God more directly than observable physical attributes of the creation. Pure math would not be tied directly to "the creation" but something transcending it. I have no axe to grind here though.

No need to create "tension" (between us) when and where none is needed.

 

[glfredrick]

It is a dangerous heresy....leading to a mixing of grace and works for justification and sanctification...against which the old perspective on Paul clearly teaches.... were another gospel. It leads back to RC theology

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/collections/doctrine-of-justification-and-new-perspectives-paul/

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=105

I agree... Further, it is the (largely hidden) position of some here on the board who infiltrate posts with this sort of RCC nonesense that we disavowed about 500 years ago in the Reformation.

 

[glfredrick]

I think I can agree, it is my personal feeling that math/science, when done through the most simplest and honest of motives, is very much like the theologian, that is, a search for understanding some aspect of the overall truth of God's creation. Also for me personally, and I expect "arrows" on this, science is of the much more "observable" and repeatable rather than the metaphysical and philosophical.

I'm not trading barbs with you merely for the sake of doing so, but let me ask a simple question...

Which experiment of science allowed scientists to arrive at the position that stipulates that only experiments of science could arrive at an accurate position?

 

[menageriekeeper]

marking......

I wish some of you who understand this topic would educate those of us (ME!) who have not heard of it before. Please?

 

[glfredrick]

marking......

I wish some of you who understand this topic would educate those of us (ME!) who have not heard of it before. Please?

Here is a good start, by my friends D.A. Carson and Mark Seifrid:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/justification-and-variegated-nomism-vol-1/

The actual book requires a fairly high level of theological accumen to process.

Another book of Seifrid's that is a bit easier to process for those not at the level required for Varigated Nomism is this:

Mark Seifrid, "Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification" available at Amazon and CBD among other places.

A letter of response to some criticism of Dr. Seifrid's stance from Mark himself:

Professor Dr. Mark Seifrid on Justification

In the summer of 2004, an Internet site publicly charged Professor Mark A. Seifrid with holding views of justification that are outside the doctrinal parameters of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Abstract of Principles on the doctrine of justification.​

Because Southern Seminary takes seriously our responsibility for confessional fidelity, the Administration thoroughly investigated the views and writings of Professor Seifrid. This investigation included extensive interviews with Professor Seifrid, along with careful attention to his books and writings, in consultation with the faculty and officers of the board of trustees of Southern Seminary.​

On August 26, 2004, President R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and Russell D. Moore, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the School of Theology, reported to the board officers that they find Professor Seifrid within the parameters of the Abstract of Principles and The Baptist Faith and Message.​

Professor Seifrid affirms the forensic justification of an alien righteousness to the believer in Christ. In Professor Seifrid's view, this means the imputation of the obedience of Christ to all who are in Christ. Professor Seifrid further affirms that this righteousness is received through faith alone. Below is Professor Seifrid's clarification of his views on the doctrine of justification.​

XI. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners, who believe in Christ, from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made; not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith. [Abstract of Principles, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]

I was absolutely shocked and dismayed to learn in recent days that someone has so misconstrued my writings that they imagine that I have abandoned a Reformational understanding of justification. Nothing could be further from the truth. The heart and thrust of my writing and teaching on the justifying work of God in Christ has been the defense and elaboration of a proper biblical and Reformational understanding of the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.

From my work on my doctoral dissertation until the present hour, I have been a decided opponent of the so-called New Perspective on Paul, which I regard as a serious deviation from the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. Anyone who has read my work will recognize that no one has been more adamantly opposed to the New Perspective than I have been and continue to be.

It is highly regrettable that someone who professes to be a Christian made no effort to ensure that he understood what I have written before he brought serious charges against me in a public forum.

Nevertheless, I am glad to express my convictions about justification. I affirm from the heart the article of the Seminary's Abstract of Principles on justification, which summarizes very well the essential message of the Bible on God's justifying work in Christ. I therefore affirm that Christ's righteousness is imputed to all who believe.

I further offer the following elaboration of this article:

First, it rightly speaks of justification in terms of acquittal from sin, making it clear that justification entails God's declaration of sinners as righteous in Jesus Christ. Justification is not a process of infusion or impartation of righteousness, but a forensic act on God's part. The brief statement that we are acquitted "from all sin," bears the implication that this pronouncement is final and complete: all our sins, past, present, and future, are included in it. Justification is the final judgment brought into the present time through Jesus Christ. Nothing may be added to the righteousness pronounced by God in him. No essential distinction may be drawn between an initial justification and a final justification: it is one and the same act of God in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the article rightly makes clear that justification takes place through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. He willingly died in our place, bearing our punishment. The mercy of God is given to us only in the judgment of Christ's cross. In believing in him, not only are we justified, but also we acknowledge the justice of God in his judgment against us.

Thirdly, the article makes it clear that the righteousness of God pronounced on us in Christ is fully and entirely extrinsic. God justifies the ungodly, and only the ungodly. Justification is not based on any transforming effect of grace in us, nor on any works which we do. For the sake of clarity it must be said that this is also true of our "final" justification. Justification is granted to us as sinners for whom Christ died. We receive Christ and rest on him and his completed work alone. He alone is our righteousness.

My concern here is essentially that of the Reformers in their controversies with the Roman Church; namely, that our justification is found outside of us in Christ and in Christ alone.

I would hasten to add that the mere affirmation that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers does not in itself secure a Reformational understanding of justification: there are sufficient examples past and present of the relativizing of "justification" to make this danger apparent. One of the burdens of my writing has been to show that if we are to maintain the biblical and Reformational conception of justification, and thus avoid such errors, we must understand justification fundamentally and primarily in terms of God's work in Christ, a work which is forensic, extrinsic, complete and final in nature.

The reality of justification is not so much like a bank account which is credited to us, as it is like a marriage in which we possess a righteousness which properly belongs to another, because he has made us his own. The first image is not without value, in that it conveys the gratuitous, and extrinsic nature of justification. But it leaves out much of the biblical picture.

The biblical doctrine of justification entails nothing less than the understanding that Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe. But it entails much, much more. Our age is plagued not only by moral confusion, but also by confused moralism. If we are to stand, and remain Reformational, we shall have to grasp the biblical teaching on justification in its fulness. Otherwise, we and our churches shall surely fall.

Mark A. Seifrid
Louisville, Kentucky
August 11, 2004

 

[menageriekeeper]

So these "new perspective" folks are claiming Paul thought we had to add something (works) to what Christ accomplished in order for salvation to be complete? (simply put)

That's not new. I've heard that sort rubbish all my life. All that's new is who they are blaming the heresy on.

Thanks for the links, I'll follow them and look at the books which I assume are defenses against "the new perspective". I've already sent the NT Wright article to my kindle. I'll add this to it. Always something new to learn (or unlearn as the case might be)

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm not trading barbs with you merely for the sake of doing so, but let me ask a simple question...

Which experiment of science allowed scientists to arrive at the position that stipulates that only experiments of science could arrive at an accurate position?

GL, that is not what I am saying. I am simply attempting to state, that "science and mathematics" at their best attempt to deal with the observable and repeatable, whereas "metaphysics" is not as able to do so, as it deals with the philosophical in nature. Both are equally suited in their pursuit of truth, the quantifiable nature of math and science makes it more "appealing" and meaningful to some. To those, metaphysical arguments and discussions lack a certain sense of credibility. This group is those who would fall within the realm of being strictly naturalists.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Would you guys please stop speaking in tongues !!

 

[Greektim]

What specifically, excites or worries you about the new perspective on Paul?

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Awww, GL, I'm sad. The books you recommended aren't available electronically.

(I love instant gratification but also, I like having the heavy reading material handy to read when I get a moment. I think those qualify as heavy reading too. Ah well, I put in my request to have them made available electronically so we'll see.)

 

[preacher4truth]

I'll stand with Aaron, Iconoclast and others on here who see Wrights teachings as heresy.

One has called those who dismiss the teachings of NT Wright as error as 'intellectually immature.' The same was said of the Apostle Paul, concerning his wisdom, that when compared to others he fell short. It's good to be cast into that same company. Power does not lie within mans intellect, wisdom, or knowledge, but in the Gospel of Christ, and, within NPP the Gospel is corrupted and is no Gospel at all.

One has said (not here) that NT Wright is our friend because he has stood against the Jesus Seminar, against the alternative lifestyle, has written good works on the historical Jesus among other works. I cannot agree with this assessment, and contend these are not the criteria for determining what makes one a friend in ministry of the Gospel, or for clarification an ally in ministry. Instead it is what one has done with the Gospel, it is whether or not they adhere to the Gospel and how it is applied salvificly to man via their teachings, and, to what is their Gospel, and, what is the nature of the Gospel they preach. These are the criterion that makes one either an ally or a foe in the ministry of the Gospel, and frankly NT Wright is preaching a false Gospel.

One of the grave errors in the thinking of NPP (and some of you here are embracing this teaching by the way) is that the righteousness of God cannot be imputed to another person via what Christ accomplished for them on the cross. If this is true, one is not in Christ, nor Christ in them, and they remain in their sins. That's 100% heresy.

But this logically leads into the next error since justification cannot be accomplished, we must do this ourselves. And here is that specific error that is chronologically in order after the above false teaching, that is, Wright teaches justification by works (final justification) and states that is what Paul taught. Since others here are adhering to NPP then I will conclude this is also your belief as well as the above.

By the way, Paul condemned this teaching in Galatians 1:8-10 and didn't mince words, calling it a false Gospel.

 

[glfredrick]

Awww, GL, I'm sad. The books you recommended aren't available electronically.

(I love instant gratification but also, I like having the heavy reading material handy to read when I get a moment. I think those qualify as heavy reading too. Ah well, I put in my request to have them made available electronically so we'll see.)

They are heavy reading...

Below is an accessable paper on the subject that is well done and informative.

And, for the record (conversation above) N.T. Wright is for the new perspective, which as Skandelon let all of us know in another thread, is actually an old Catholic perspective re-hashed for another day.

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj16g.pdf

Recent decades have witnessed a change in views of Pa uline theology. A growing number of evangelicals have endorsed a view called the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) which significa ntly departs from the Reformation emphasis on justification by faith alone. The NPP has followed in the path of historical criticism’s rejection of an orthodox view of biblical inspiration, and has adopted an existential view of biblical interpretation. The best-known spokesmen for the NPP are E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. With only slight differences in their defenses of the NPP, all three have adopted “covenantal nomism,” which essentially gives a role in salvation to works of the law of Moses. A survey of historical elements leading up to the NPP isolates several influences: Jewish opposition to the Jesus of the Gospels and Pauline literature, Luther’s alleged antisemitism, and historical-criticism . The NPP is no t actually new; it is simply a simultaneous convergence of a number of old aberrations in the late 20th and early
21st centuries.

One will see through this faculty series of articles that when all the dust clears and the issue is seen for wh at it really is, the NPP supp orts a m ixture of faith and works for justification, thereby violating the sole fide principle, so long held by orthodox Protestantism (as well as by the faithful church from the earliest centuries, e.g., Augustine). It truly is a revisionist hermeneutic that fatally undercuts this vital doctrine. Not only is the NPP, “ at heart, a counter to the Reformational view,”6 but it constitutes an assault on the gospel of God’s grace (cf. Gal 1:8-10). This is at heart the definition as well as a description of the NPP.

(Italics in the original)


The thing that seems to make it so appealing to many people is that it does indeed make syncretism more viable. Yet a lot of those around here who argue for a syncretistic process would also argue vigorously against the Catholic view of such, yet they end up in the same place, for their doctrine has the same roots.

Additionally, there is a fairly large contingent here on the board that also disavows the Reformation and the fact that the baptistic movement stemmed from Reformation issues, especially justification. In that these persons simultaneously disavow Calvin, Luther. Augustine, the Reformation, and the doctrines of grace that have been with the church since her inception means that adopting some other variant doctrine such as the new perspective becomes very attractive. They are, however, indeed throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue, for they cannot walk away from the Reformation (and earlier) views on Justification and yet remain biblical Christians. At the end of the day, one arrives right back in the camp of the Pelagians and human effort is the salvific means by which some divine force called God operates -- in other words, the same old rebellion fostered by the enemy of God in the Garden of Eden, Genesis chapter 3, "You can be like God..."

 

[glfredrick]

One has said (not here) that NT Wright is our friend because he has stood against the Jesus Seminar, against the alternative lifestyle, has written good works on the historical Jesus among other works. I cannot agree with this assessment, and contend these are not the criteria for determining what makes one a friend in ministry of the Gospel, or for clarification an ally in ministry. Instead it is what one has done with the Gospel, it is whether or not they adhere to the Gospel and how it is applied salvificly to man via their teachings, and, to what is their Gospel, and, what is the nature of the Gospel they preach. These are the criterion that makes one either an ally or a foe in the ministry of the Gospel, and frankly NT Wright is preaching a false Gospel.

The NPP stems FROM the work of the Jesus Seminar and the earlier works in liberal Christianity, i.e., historical higher critical method, that fostered its development. The "search for the historical Jesus" turned into "the search for the historical Paul" with similar issues.

 

[Greektim]

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.

I'll stand with Aaron, Iconoclast and others on here who see Wrights teachings as heresy.

One has called those who dismiss the teachings of NT Wright as error as 'intellectually immature.' The same was said of the Apostle Paul, concerning his wisdom, that when compared to others he fell short. It's good to be cast into that same company. Power does not lie within mans intellect, wisdom, or knowledge, but in the Gospel of Christ, and, within NPP the Gospel is corrupted and is no Gospel at all.

One has said (not here) that NT Wright is our friend because he has stood against the Jesus Seminar, against the alternative lifestyle, has written good works on the historical Jesus among other works. I cannot agree with this assessment, and contend these are not the criteria for determining what makes one a friend in ministry of the Gospel, or for clarification an ally in ministry. Instead it is what one has done with the Gospel, it is whether or not they adhere to the Gospel and how it is applied salvificly to man via their teachings, and, to what is their Gospel, and, what is the nature of the Gospel they preach. These are the criterion that makes one either an ally or a foe in the ministry of the Gospel, and frankly NT Wright is preaching a false Gospel.

One of the grave errors in the thinking of NPP (and some of you here are embracing this teaching by the way) is that the righteousness of God cannot be imputed to another person via what Christ accomplished for them on the cross. If this is true, one is not in Christ, nor Christ in them, and they remain in their sins. That's 100% heresy.

But this logically leads into the next error since justification cannot be accomplished, we must do this ourselves. And here is that specific error that is chronologically in order after the above false teaching, that is, Wright teaches justification by works (final justification) and states that is what Paul taught. Since others here are adhering to NPP then I will conclude this is also your belief as well as the above.

By the way, Paul condemned this teaching in Galatians 1:8-10 and didn't mince words, calling it a false Gospel.

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.

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

Thanks for your fair and objective perspective and the highlighting the issue that some just WILL NOT accept any disagreement with their own ideas and positions without hurling disparaging commentary such as the "H" bomb.