The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Theology > Federal Vision/New Perspectives

Federal Vision/New Perspectives Discussion of the various innovations regarding justification (New Perspective on Paul, Federal Vision, Shepherdism)

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 10:59 AM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
Posts: 1,299
Thanks: 655
Thanked 375 Times in 208 Posts
John Piper and N.T. Wright

Can you guys give me a general break down of what N.T. Wright views are? I know John Piper wrote a book debating one of Wright's books. I don't really have time to read all of that right now and I would like to have an idea.
__________________
[B]Manley Beasley[/B]
Southern Baptist Convention
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 11:13 AM
greenbaggins's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 3,063
Thanks: 981
Thanked 2,453 Times in 841 Posts
Put briefly, here are his views.

1. The people of Israel are viewed as still in Exile, since the promises of the OT were not fulfilled as gloriously as they should have been.

2. Jesus came to usher in the inauguration of the complete fulfillment.

3. Part of the fulfillment of that promise is that the nations would be blessed by the (S)seed of Abraham.

4. This involves the elimination of the Jew/Gentile distinction within the people of God.

5. Some Jews, when they became Christians, did not leave behind those things that distinguished Jew from Gentile, and were, in fact, trying to make the Gentiles do them as well.

6. These Jews were not legalistic (this comes from E.P. Sanders's book Paul and Palestinian Judaism), but exclusivistic.

7. Therefore, Paul was not reacting against proto-Pelagians, but against Jewish exclusivism.

8. Hence, justification is not so much about salvation, but about ecclesiology. He does not exclude salvific categories from justification, but rather foregrounds the church and backgrounds the ordo salutis.

9. This involves the implicit premise (sometimes stated, and sometimes made hazy) that the Reformation (and especially Luther) got justification wrong.
__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post:
A5pointer (09-17-2008), Backwoods Presbyterian (09-17-2008), Blueridge Believer (09-17-2008), DMcFadden (09-21-2008), Kevin (09-17-2008), ManleyBeasley (09-17-2008), Scott1 (09-17-2008), turmeric (09-17-2008)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 11:14 AM
FenderPriest's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 602
Thanks: 120
Thanked 206 Times in 129 Posts
If you're looking for a brief synopsis, this may help you: Interview with John Piper About The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. He gives a general over view there.
__________________
Jacob
Sovereign Grace Ministries
Covenant Fellowship Church
WTS M.A.R. in Theology student
West Chester, PA

"Grace renews nature; glory perfects grace." ~ John Owen
"Grace tried is better than grace, and more than grace. It is glory in its infancy." ~ John Flavel
Blog - The Strasbourg Inn
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to FenderPriest For This Useful Post:
ManleyBeasley (09-17-2008)
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 11:41 AM
Kevin's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Moncton NB Canada
Posts: 4,574
Thanks: 1,579
Thanked 929 Times in 484 Posts
Thanks Lane. That was helpful.


__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 01:52 PM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
Posts: 1,299
Thanks: 655
Thanked 375 Times in 208 Posts
Thanks for the explanation Lane! And thanks for the article Jacob! Both were very useful
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 02:18 PM
greenbaggins's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 3,063
Thanks: 981
Thanked 2,453 Times in 841 Posts
You're welcome, Manley. There are a couple of technical points that should be added here. One is the definition of the phrase "righteousness of God" in Paul. Wright argues that the phrase means God's covenant faithfulness, rather than adherence to God's own moral standard. as a result, when we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, he takes that to mean Christ's covenant faithfulness, not our belief in Christ, taking Christ there as the subject of the faithfulness, not the object.

The second point that should be brought up here is the phrase "works of the law." Paul says we are not justified by works of the law. What works? Wright and the other NPP guys interpret that phrase as including primarily Jewish boundary markers (circumcision, dietary laws, festivals), things that marked Jews out as Jews. In other words, the only works that are excluded from justification are exclusivistic works. So Paul (according to the NPP) is not excluding all works from justification, only some works. This is, of course, exactly the same thing that the Roman Catholic Church argued in the time of the Reformation, only they used the term "ceremonial works."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post:
Backwoods Presbyterian (09-17-2008), ManleyBeasley (09-17-2008), TimV (09-20-2008)
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 02:27 PM
Jimmy the Greek's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,188
Thanks: 700
Thanked 818 Times in 448 Posts
Thanks, Lane. Your added points are very important to the issues of Wright and the NPP issues.
__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmy the Greek For This Useful Post:
greenbaggins (09-17-2008)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 02:33 PM
Scott1's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,870
Thanks: 1,906
Thanked 1,845 Times in 1,095 Posts
Yes, thank you Rev Keister for explaining this in fair and concise summary.

It is comforting to know that a layman can readily recognize that for all the sophistication of argument, the "New Perspective" is not that complicated. It is serious error, and it distorts and confuses the Gospel (and there is nothing new about that).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Scott1 For This Useful Post:
greenbaggins (09-17-2008)
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2008, 02:36 PM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
Posts: 1,299
Thanks: 655
Thanked 375 Times in 208 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins View Post
You're welcome, Manley. There are a couple of technical points that should be added here. One is the definition of the phrase "righteousness of God" in Paul. Wright argues that the phrase means God's covenant faithfulness, rather than adherence to God's own moral standard. as a result, when we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, he takes that to mean Christ's covenant faithfulness, not our belief in Christ, taking Christ there as the subject of the faithfulness, not the object.

The second point that should be brought up here is the phrase "works of the law." Paul says we are not justified by works of the law. What works? Wright and the other NPP guys interpret that phrase as including primarily Jewish boundary markers (circumcision, dietary laws, festivals), things that marked Jews out as Jews. In other words, the only works that are excluded from justification are exclusivistic works. So Paul (according to the NPP) is not excluding all works from justification, only some works. This is, of course, exactly the same thing that the Roman Catholic Church argued in the time of the Reformation, only they used the term "ceremonial works."
As I read your post here and you talked about the NPP claiming works of the Law as being "Jewish boundry markers", BIG WARNING lights went off. I knew that was RC dogma...then you said it yourself! This has me very agitated. Thanks for the info brother!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to ManleyBeasley For This Useful Post:
greenbaggins (09-17-2008)
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2008, 09:15 AM
Grace Alone's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: western NC
Posts: 1,833
Thanks: 828
Thanked 447 Times in 320 Posts
Thanks from me, too, because I did not understand what this meant before.

So you then saying that they believe we are justified at least partially by works? As in, we can lose our salvation if our works aren't good enough? That is very depressing.

(I need a similar brief explanation of FV, too!)
__________________
Janis
Christ Church ARP, NC
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." Eph. 1:3-6 ESV
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2008, 12:18 PM
R. Scott Clark's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,012
Thanks: 13
Thanked 752 Times in 266 Posts
FWIW, some of us were reading and discussing a portion Abelard's commentary on Romans (ch 3) and we noted that he anticipated the NPP by more than 800 years! His definition of "the works of the law" was identical to that of the NPP. His view of the fall and its consequences and of human ability relative to grace was also not too far similar. As Mike Horton (see vol 3 of his series from WJKP) has argued, turns out that the N in NPP is false advertising.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to R. Scott Clark For This Useful Post:
DMcFadden (09-21-2008), ManleyBeasley (09-20-2008)
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2008, 06:37 PM
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Encino, California
Posts: 1,555
Thanks: 620
Thanked 425 Times in 222 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark View Post
FWIW, some of us were reading and discussing a portion Abelard's commentary on Romans (ch 3) and we noted that he anticipated the NPP by more than 800 years! His definition of "the works of the law" was identical to that of the NPP. His view of the fall and its consequences and of human ability relative to grace was also not too far similar. As Mike Horton (see vol 3 of his series from WJKP) has argued, turns out that the N in NPP is false advertising.
Now that is what the study of Histotical Theology is all about to the Church.
__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA

"Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." - Calvin's successor


"By the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning...?"
-Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69