Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: N.T. Wright responds to John Piper

  1. #1
    SolaGratia's Avatar
    SolaGratia is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Encino, California
    Posts
    1,550
    Thanks
    615
    Thanked 425 Times in 222 Posts

    N.T. Wright responds to John Piper

    According to IVP N.T. Wright new upcoming books is also a respond to John Piper book on Justification.


    About the Book
    Few issues are more central to the Christian faith than the nature, scope and means of salvation. Many have thought it to be largely a transaction that gets one to heaven. In this riveting book, N. T. Wright explains that God's salvation is radically more than this.

    At the heart of much vigorous debate on this topic is the term the apostle Paul uses in several of his letters to describe what happens to those in Christ--justification. Paul uses this dramatic image from the law court to declare that Christians are acquitted of the cosmic accusations against them. But justification goes beyond this in Paul's writings to offer a vision of God's future for the whole world as well as for his people.

    Here in one place Wright now offers a comprehensive account and defense of his perspective on this crucial doctrine. He provides a sweeping overview of the central points in the debate before launching into a thorough explanation of the key texts in Paul's writings. While fully cognizant of tradition and controversy, the final authority for his conclusions is the letters of Paul themselves.

    Along the way Wright responds to critics, such as John Piper, who have challenged what has come to be called the New Perspective. For Wright, what Paul means by justification is nothing less than God's unswerving commitment to the covenant promise he made to bless the whole world through Abraham and his family.

    This irenic response is an important contribution for those on both sides of the debate--and those still in between--to consider. Whether you're a fan of Wright's work or have read his critics and would like to know the other side of the story, here is a chance to interact with Wright's views on the issues at stake and form your own conclusions.


    Link: IVP - Justification
    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!

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to SolaGratia For This Useful Post:

    BJClark (06-25-2009), BlackCalvinist (07-01-2009), christianyouth (04-30-2009), Classical Presbyterian (02-27-2009), JM (05-11-2009), Mark Hettler (07-02-2009), PresbyDane (05-10-2009)

  3. #2
    steven-nemes is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    906
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 169 Times in 117 Posts
    What, in brief, is the New Perspective on Paul, according to N.T. Wright? I have a 3-lecture series from RTS by D.A. Carson on it but I haven't listened to it...
    Steven Nemes
    Phoenix, AZ

    Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  4. #3
    Scott1's Avatar
    Scott1 is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    6,039
    Thanks
    2,389
    Thanked 2,297 Times in 1,376 Posts
    I am not a theologian.

    My impression of "new perspectives" is that it is an offshoot of the serious error of "federal vision" (or, I think the latter came off of the former).

    It is disappointing that Inter varsity would publish this kind of material, especially in the kind of relativist tone used in its promotion.
    Scott
    PCA
    North Carolina



    "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
    Hebrews 10:23
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  5. #4
    ManleyBeasley is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas
    Posts
    1,286
    Thanks
    642
    Thanked 375 Times in 208 Posts
    Sorry Wright, I won't follow you back to the RC "church"!
    [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!

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ManleyBeasley For This Useful Post:

    ChariotsofFire (06-30-2009), discipulo (02-27-2009), PresbyDane (02-27-2009), w (04-30-2009)

  7. #5
    wsw201's Avatar
    wsw201 is offline. The BOOOOT
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Hurst, Texas
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 164 Times in 111 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by steven-nemes View Post
    What, in brief, is the New Perspective on Paul, according to N.T. Wright? I have a 3-lecture series from RTS by D.A. Carson on it but I haven't listened to it...
    In short, Wright takes the position that for the past 2,000 years the church has been looking at Paul and his writings the wrong way. Paul needs to be considered in the time that he lived, ie; based on what is called Second Temple Judaism. Looking at Paul through the lens of second temple judaism he comes up with a whole "new" perspective on Paul. Wright is basically following in the foot steps of Dunn and E. P Sanders, but with his own twists. I'm sure listening to the series you have from Carson will be well worth your while.
    ~Wayne Wylie~
    Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
    Ruling Elder
    http://www.mcopc.org
    Bedford, TX

    Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  8. #6
    Knoxienne's Avatar
    Knoxienne is offline. Puritanboard Graduate
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    3,699
    Thanks
    2,155
    Thanked 997 Times in 591 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post
    Sorry Wright, I won't follow you back to the RC "church"!
    Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
    Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS


    "Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  9. #7
    Prufrock's Avatar
    Prufrock is offline. Arbitrary Moderation
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    3,086
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 1,929 Times in 836 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by steven-nemes View Post
    What, in brief, is the New Perspective on Paul, according to N.T. Wright? I have a 3-lecture series from RTS by D.A. Carson on it but I haven't listened to it...
    You may also be interested in in ordering from your local library a copy of the book, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, by Guy Prentiss Waters. It is a short, highly accessible work that, while avoiding both technicality and great detail, nevertheless gives a fairly thorough conceptual introduction to the topic and the reasons why the Reformed are and should be so opposed. It's also worth noting that Waters studied under Sanders for many years.
    Last edited by Prufrock; 02-27-2009 at 02:43 PM.
    Paul Korte
    OPC
    Flint, MI

    They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Prufrock For This Useful Post:

    Montanablue (04-30-2009), Romans 8 Verse 28 (07-01-2009), SolaGratia (02-27-2009)

  11. #8
    SolaGratia's Avatar
    SolaGratia is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Encino, California
    Posts
    1,550
    Thanks
    615
    Thanked 425 Times in 222 Posts
    Trevin Wax: How does this robust discussion on justification between you and John Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world?

    N.T. Wright: How does the robust discussion between me and Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world? Well, I hope it will, and that’s part of the main point of what I’m saying.

    My anxiety about what has now been seen as the traditional Reformed view (though there are many traditional Reformed views!) is that it focuses all attention on ‘me and my salvation’ rather than on ‘God and God’s purposes’, which – as we see in the Gospels, and in e.g. Romans 8 – are much wider than just my salvation. This book, for me, thus follows from Surprised by Hope and the other things I’ve been writing in the same vein.

    More generally, I hope that the book will alert people to the fact that the underlying discussion is really about taking Scripture seriously – (a) the whole Scripture, not just selected parts, and (b) Scripture as the final arbiter, over against all human traditions including our own! That cannot but help the church in its purpose in the world .


    Here is the full interview link: Interview with N.T. Wright - Responding to Piper on Justification Kingdom People
    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!

  12. #9
    discipulo's Avatar
    discipulo is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Coimbra Portugal
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    380
    Thanked 317 Times in 209 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post
    Sorry Wright, I won't follow you back to the RC "church"!
    Right on the issue, Manley!

    Wright has been, with more or less discretion, pushing the Anglican Church back to Rome.


    The Catholic Herald - 16 January 2009 - Title of the Article

    N T Wright on how we can make the quest for unity exciting again

    The Bible can put new zest into ecumenism - Catholic Herald Online

    quote

    Three months ago I had the privilege of being the Anglican Fraternal Delegate at the Synod of Bishops in Rome.
    The topic was "the word of God", and it quickly became clear that it carried enormous ecumenical implications.
    N. T. Wright
    César Proença

    there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

    Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) http://www.gkv.nl/main.asp?intTreeviewID=954

    Igreja Reformada em Massamá Portugal http://www.igrejareformada.pt
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to discipulo For This Useful Post:

    ManleyBeasley (02-27-2009), SolaGratia (02-27-2009), w (04-30-2009)

  14. #10
    DMcFadden's Avatar
    DMcFadden is offline. Meum cerebrum nocet
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Gabriel, CA
    Posts
    8,193
    Thanks
    1,902
    Thanked 3,930 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Because of Wright's stature among believing scholars, many have been led down the primrose path of NPP through his writing. I am concerned that his work ends up revoking the Reformation, denying imputation, and turning justification into little more than a plea "can't we just get along" with others. If the use of "Dike Dikaios Dikaiosyne" is NOT about justification in our salvation and standing at the bar of God's justice, I'll eat my hat.
    Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
    Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
    First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DMcFadden For This Useful Post:

    discipulo (02-27-2009), ManleyBeasley (02-27-2009)

  16. #11
    Michael Turner's Avatar
    Michael Turner is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Atlanta Metro
    Posts
    1,967
    Thanks
    511
    Thanked 540 Times in 322 Posts
    Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now.
    · Michael Turner
    · Christ Reformed Church | Independent [WCF]
    · Georgia

    forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit

    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  17. #12
    SolaGratia's Avatar
    SolaGratia is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Encino, California
    Posts
    1,550
    Thanks
    615
    Thanked 425 Times in 222 Posts
    Below is an excellent panel discussion with Guy P. Waters on Christ for Center audio porgram.

    Reformed Forum N.T. Wright’s Doctrine of Justification, Part 1
    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!

  18. #13
    armourbearer's Avatar
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    7,903
    Thanks
    979
    Thanked 6,108 Times in 2,233 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DMcFadden View Post
    If the use of "Dike Dikaios Dikaiosyne" is NOT about justification in our salvation and standing at the bar of God's justice, I'll eat my hat.
    I think Wright would eat his hat too: "Those who believe the gospel are declared to be 'in the right.'"
    Yours sincerely,


    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  19. #14
    AndyS's Avatar
    AndyS is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel16 View Post
    Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now.
    I feel uneasy buying these kinds of books, but I feel like I have to do so in order to keep up with the issues. I try to buy used copies on Amazon, but often it's more cost-effective to buy them new.

    I hate putting more money in their pockets, though. I feel like I'm supporting the enemy, in a sense.
    Andy
    Pastoral Intern
    PCA
    Escondido, CA
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to AndyS For This Useful Post:

    charliejunfan (08-10-2009)

  21. #15
    CharlieJ's Avatar
    CharlieJ is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    952
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked 584 Times in 308 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel16 View Post
    Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now.
    I feel uneasy buying these kinds of books, but I feel like I have to do so in order to keep up with the issues. I try to buy used copies on Amazon, but often it's more cost-effective to buy them new.

    I hate putting more money in their pockets, though. I feel like I'm supporting the enemy, in a sense.
    Or, try inter-library loan. I can usually get a book for $1 that way. A lot of times I don't even want to keep the book.
    Charlie Johnson
    Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
    M.A. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
    My Blog: Sacra Pagina
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  22. #16
    chbrooking's Avatar
    chbrooking is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ellicott City, MD
    Posts
    779
    Thanks
    243
    Thanked 400 Times in 180 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel16 View Post
    Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now.
    I feel uneasy buying these kinds of books, but I feel like I have to do so in order to keep up with the issues. I try to buy used copies on Amazon, but often it's more cost-effective to buy them new.

    I hate putting more money in their pockets, though. I feel like I'm supporting the enemy, in a sense.
    That's what libraries are for.
    Clark Brooking
    Pastor
    Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
    Clarksville, MD
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  23. #17
    AndyS's Avatar
    AndyS is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by chbrooking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel16 View Post
    Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now.
    I feel uneasy buying these kinds of books, but I feel like I have to do so in order to keep up with the issues. I try to buy used copies on Amazon, but often it's more cost-effective to buy them new.

    I hate putting more money in their pockets, though. I feel like I'm supporting the enemy, in a sense.
    That's what libraries are for.
    I guess I have an irrational desire to keep a copy on-hand for reference. And I tend to mark them up (highlighting, notes in margins, etc.).
    Andy
    Pastoral Intern
    PCA
    Escondido, CA
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to AndyS For This Useful Post:

    BlackCalvinist (07-01-2009)

  25. #18
    whitway's Avatar
    whitway is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    2,039
    Thanks
    894
    Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
    Wayne Whitmer
    Member, Rio Rancho OPC
    Albuquerque, NM
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  26. #19
    Rich Koster's Avatar
    Rich Koster is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Browns Mills NJ
    Posts
    2,828
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks
    720
    Thanked 856 Times in 506 Posts
    I used to try to keep up on the cults and the latest "heresy of the week". I have found out, there are not enough hours in the day for me to do so. Now I try to unpack a chunk of scripture per week for my Sunday School lesson and keep it in line with the Reformed tradition as per LBC1689.
    Last edited by Rich Koster; 05-10-2009 at 05:46 PM.
    Rich Koster
    Browns Mills NJ USA
    Member of Covenant Baptist, Lumberton NJ (1689ers)
    http://cbclumberton.wordpress.com/

    The Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
    Romans 7:14-25
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rich Koster For This Useful Post:

    christianyouth (06-24-2009), Houchens (07-01-2009)

  28. #20
    Richard Tallach's Avatar
    Richard Tallach is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Thanks
    384
    Thanked 614 Times in 413 Posts
    It's worth going through e.g. the talks by Don Carson here

    http://www.monergism.com/directory/s...spective&B1=Go

    or some other material by a sound guide.

    I'll probably also get round to reading Cornelis Venema's material.

    What struck me in my limited exploration of this is that some of the stuff that Wright has come up with when properly understood will strengthen and further confirm the Reformed understanding of justification as being by faith alone.
    Richard
    communicant member, FCoS
    Perth, Scotland UK

    His Name forever shall endure;
    last like the sun it shall:
    Men shall be blessed in Him,
    and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  29. #21
    puritanpilgrim's Avatar
    puritanpilgrim is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 239 Times in 119 Posts
    Because of Wright's stature among believing scholars, many have been led down the primrose path of NPP through his writing. I am concerned that his work ends up revoking the Reformation, denying imputation, and turning justification into little more than a plea "can't we just get along" with others. If the use of "Dike Dikaios Dikaiosyne" is NOT about justification in our salvation and standing at the bar of God's justice, I'll eat my hat.
    I think he's the Karl Barth of our time.

    -----Added 5/13/2009 at 05:32:25 EST-----

    I used to try to keep up on the cults and the latest "heresy of the week". I have found out, there are not enough hours in the day for me to do so. Now I try to unpack a chunk of scripture per week for my Sunday School lesson and keep it in line with the Reformed tradition as per LBC1689.
    That's good advice. He's not the heresy of the week. He has great influence, and he is very intelligent.
    Aaron Josh Wright
    Deerbrook Baptist Church, Humble Tx
    New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  30. #22
    PuritanCovenanter's Avatar
    PuritanCovenanter is offline. Norseman Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Speedway, Indiana
    Posts
    11,761
    Blog Entries
    36
    Thanks
    2,004
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,258 Posts
    For Wright, what Paul means by justification is nothing less than God's unswerving commitment to the covenant promise he made to bless the whole world through Abraham and his family.
    This comment alone should show us this man is out of accord with God's word.

    Norseman Moderator

    R. Martin Snyder

    1689er
    http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

    "Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
    William Symington
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  31. #23
    pepper's Avatar
    pepper is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Taylors, SC
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 22 Times in 10 Posts
    NT Wright either fails to see the unfolding history of redemption and covenant theology or he purposely desires to lead protestants back to Rome. This is not new. William Pemble took on Robert Bellarmine in the early 1600's on the matter of justification. His work on the subject was reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria "The Justification of a Sinner" A treatise on justification by faith alone
    Pepper
    Pastor/Elder
    Southern Baptist
    Taylors, South Carolina
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  32. #24
    pepper's Avatar
    pepper is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Taylors, SC
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 22 Times in 10 Posts
    NT Wright's main problem is that he rejects imputed righteousness.
    Pepper
    Pastor/Elder
    Southern Baptist
    Taylors, South Carolina
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  33. #25
    dr_parsley's Avatar
    dr_parsley is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    439
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 199 Times in 99 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pepper View Post
    NT Wright's main problem is that he rejects imputed righteousness.
    It's well known that NT Wright is seen as "one of the enemy" by both sides of the argument (or maybe "all sides"!). I have a strong feeling that he would roll his eyes and chuckle at most of the summaries given about his work, because they tend to reveal far more about the commentator than about Wright's ideas.

    I respect Wright because he successfully avoids bitter sniping at his opponents, which is a thing that seems to infest this area of scholarship. So as well as appearing to be godly, he's extremely intelligent, in the top rank of genuine Pauline scholarship and so deserves to be read seriously. I would summarise Wright's contribution as "Yes, justification is what you think it is, but it's also so much more, so much richer than we have previously recognised and here's how..." I don't agree with all his ideas (I don't know enough to do so!) but they are certainly good food for thought.
    Paul
    No denomination, affiliated with FIEC
    "Deliver me from worldly dispositions, for I am born from above and destined for glory" - Valley of Vision
    "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation" - Peter
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  34. #26
    Archlute's Avatar
    Archlute is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sandy, Oregon
    Posts
    2,196
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 978 Times in 443 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_parsley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pepper View Post
    NT Wright's main problem is that he rejects imputed righteousness.
    It's well known that NT Wright is seen as "one of the enemy" by both sides of the argument (or maybe "all sides"!). I have a strong feeling that he would roll his eyes and chuckle at most of the summaries given about his work, because they tend to reveal far more about the commentator than about Wright's ideas.

    I respect Wright because he successfully avoids bitter sniping at his opponents, which is a thing that seems to infest this area of scholarship. So as well as appearing to be godly, he's extremely intelligent, in the top rank of genuine Pauline scholarship and so deserves to be read seriously. I would summarise Wright's contribution as "Yes, justification is what you think it is, but it's also so much more, so much richer than we have previously recognised and here's how..." I don't agree with all his ideas (I don't know enough to do so!) but they are certainly good food for thought.
    Paul,

    Having read Wright, and having had lectures on NPP from a good seminary faculty, I am not certain that your remarks are either accurate or helpful. One can be well-tempered and still be quite in error on an important point(s) of doctrine. One can appear to be godly, can be intelligent in an academic sense, and can be a top rank scholar in within the eyes of many in the field of biblical scholarship, and still be quite in error. In fact, all of those characteristics can be said to have been true about many, many liberal scholars of the past who also denied the virgin birth, the divinity of the Scriptures, etc, etc.

    You should be aware that Wright's views are not actually "well, yes, justification is 'all that', but it is also so much more". Wright is a subtle writer, but he clearly is attempting to overturn (through downplay/belittling, and other ways) the historic Protestant doctrine of justification and imputation when he is read as a whole.

    That is not to say that he does not write well on other topics, but his ecumenical Anglican temperament, and liberal-leaning scholarship, taints too much of what he writes far too often to for him to be of use as a reliable theological source.
    Rev. Adam J. Myer
    Estacada Christian Church
    Sandy, Oregon
    ChBOLC

    Soli Deo Gloria
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Archlute For This Useful Post:

    charliejunfan (08-10-2009)

  36. #27
    greenbaggins's Avatar
    greenbaggins is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hague, North Dakota
    Posts
    3,204
    Thanks
    1,009
    Thanked 2,619 Times in 897 Posts
    The New Perspective on Paul is not an offshoot of the Federal Vision, as it has been around far longer. Some say it had its beginnings with Krister Stendahl's article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," published in the Harvard Theological Review in 1963. There were other forerunners of Sanders as well. One might point to W.D. Davies' book Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, as well as the much older three volume history of Judaism by George Foote Moore. But undoubtedly, the watershed was the publication of Sanders's book Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.

    The basic idea of the New Perspective on Paul is that the Judaism of the first century against which Paul was arguing was not a legalistic religion, but rather an exclusivistic religion. In other words, according to the NPP, Judaism's problem (according to Paul) was not legalism, but rather the fact that they could not tell what time it was (that the promises to Abraham were being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and thus the promise could now go out to the Gentiles). They have several ways of saying this. One is "Paul's problem with Judaism is that it is not Christianity" (Sanders). Or, one could talk about faith as the now-appropriate badge of the true community of God (Dunn and Wright), that replaces circumcision (as if faith didn't always mark out the true Israel, even in the OT!).

    This view of things means that Paul's problem was not a wrestling with his conscience as to whether he had done enough good works, and then coming to the realization that he needed an alien righteousness imputed to him (as Luther thought; NPP advocates claim that Luther was reading into Paul his own agonized conscience), but rather that the primary issue was how the promise made to Abraham about all the nations of the earth would be fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. All NPP advocates reject the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, even if some say they are not. This is because they do not eliminate all works from justification. Whenever Paul says that one is not justified by the works of the law, NPP advocates say that he is rejecting primarily (not exclusively) the badges of circumcision, dietary laws, things that marked out Jews as Jews. Paul was not rejecting all works from justification, but only some.

    Justification itself is also redefined, especially in Wright. In his recent book (I'm about halfway through) on justification, Wright argues that there is a way past the impasse between old and new perspectives on Paul. That is to argue that justification is the solution both to the problem of Genesis 3 and the problem of Genesis 11, and that justification refers to a person being included in the family of Israel as headed up in Christ for the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. He does not (any longer!) deny that our sin problem is taken care of in justification, but how that happens is different. It is not clear, for instance, whether Wright holds to penal substitutionary atonement in the same way that the Reformed faith has always formulated it. He would definitely say, for instance, that the guilt of our sin is laid on Christ as our substitute. But he does not like the word "imputation." And he certainly does not advocate the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us in any way, shape or form, although he claims that what imputation was designed to say is something you get in his theology, just in another way. I do not agree with his assessment, and I also have trouble believing his descriptions of the old perspective when they are manifestly out in left field. This is something that Doug Wilson has actually showed pretty well in his review of Wright's book, and it comes out even more clearly in Guy Waters's review over on Reformation 21.
    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!

  37. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post:

    AltogetherLovely (07-01-2009), BlackCalvinist (07-01-2009), charliejunfan (08-10-2009), CNJ (09-30-2009), Jerusalem Blade (07-03-2009), Mark Hettler (07-02-2009), rbcbob (07-01-2009), Robbie Schmidtberger (06-25-2009), tellville (06-25-2009), TimV (06-24-2009), ubermadchen (06-24-2009)

  38. #28
    dr_parsley's Avatar
    dr_parsley is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    439
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 199 Times in 99 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Archlute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_parsley View Post
    I respect Wright because he successfully avoids bitter sniping at his opponents, which is a thing that seems to infest this area of scholarship. So as well as appearing to be godly, he's extremely intelligent, in the top rank of genuine Pauline scholarship and so deserves to be read seriously. I would summarise Wright's contribution as "Yes, justification is what you think it is, but it's also so much more, so much richer than we have previously recognised and here's how..." I don't agree with all his ideas (I don't know enough to do so!) but they are certainly good food for thought.
    Wright is a subtle writer, but he clearly is attempting to overturn (through downplay/belittling, and other ways) the historic Protestant doctrine of justification and imputation when he is read as a whole.
    I agree with that. This area is all about ones array of emphases and their strengths. Wright advocates a different set of emphases than Luther, but I'm not aware that he contradicts Luther. In Westerholme's "Perspectives Old and New on Paul" he describes NT Wright's position: "Justication by faith is not itself Paul's gospel, though it is implied by that gospel." (page 182) That's why I said that for NT Wright, "What you think is right, but Paul's doctrine is much richer than that..." i.e. Justification by faith is a subset of Paul's doctrine of justification.

    It seems to me that people have a healthy paranoia about the agenda of liberal theology and they group liberals together to make it easier. I'm not convinced that N.T. Wright belongs in the category "should be paranoid about their agenda even though we can't pinpoint grave explicit error". To put him on the "heresy shelf" suggests to me an unhealthy paranoia rather than a healthy one.

    That is not to say that he does not write well on other topics, but his ecumenical Anglican temperament, and liberal-leaning scholarship, taints too much of what he writes far too often to for him to be of use as a reliable theological source.
    It goes without saying for me, that there is only one reliable theological source... Parts of other sources are interesting and inspiring to different degrees but they are all works of men.
    Last edited by dr_parsley; 06-25-2009 at 12:55 AM. Reason: double post
    Paul
    No denomination, affiliated with FIEC
    "Deliver me from worldly dispositions, for I am born from above and destined for glory" - Valley of Vision
    "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation" - Peter
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  39. #29
    tellville's Avatar
    tellville is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,250
    Thanks
    264
    Thanked 239 Times in 113 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by greenbaggins View Post
    The New Perspective on Paul is not an offshoot of the Federal Vision, as it has been around far longer. Some say it had its beginnings with Krister Stendahl's article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," published in the Harvard Theological Review in 1963. There were other forerunners of Sanders as well. One might point to W.D. Davies' book Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, as well as the much older three volume history of Judaism by George Foote Moore. But undoubtedly, the watershed was the publication of Sanders's book Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.

    The basic idea of the New Perspective on Paul is that the Judaism of the first century against which Paul was arguing was not a legalistic religion, but rather an exclusivistic religion. In other words, according to the NPP, Judaism's problem (according to Paul) was not legalism, but rather the fact that they could not tell what time it was (that the promises to Abraham were being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and thus the promise could now go out to the Gentiles). They have several ways of saying this. One is "Paul's problem with Judaism is that it is not Christianity" (Sanders). Or, one could talk about faith as the now-appropriate badge of the true community of God (Dunn and Wright), that replaces circumcision (as if faith didn't always mark out the true Israel, even in the OT!).

    This view of things means that Paul's problem was not a wrestling with his conscience as to whether he had done enough good works, and then coming to the realization that he needed an alien righteousness imputed to him (as Luther thought; NPP advocates claim that Luther was reading into Paul his own agonized conscience), but rather that the primary issue was how the promise made to Abraham about all the nations of the earth would be fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. All NPP advocates reject the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, even if some say they are not. This is because they do not eliminate all works from justification. Whenever Paul says that one is not justified by the works of the law, NPP advocates say that he is rejecting primarily (not exclusively) the badges of circumcision, dietary laws, things that marked out Jews as Jews. Paul was not rejecting all works from justification, but only some.

    Justification itself is also redefined, especially in Wright. In his recent book (I'm about halfway through) on justification, Wright argues that there is a way past the impasse between old and new perspectives on Paul. That is to argue that justification is the solution both to the problem of Genesis 3 and the problem of Genesis 11, and that justification refers to a person being included in the family of Israel as headed up in Christ for the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. He does not (any longer!) deny that our sin problem is taken care of in justification, but how that happens is different. It is not clear, for instance, whether Wright holds to penal substitutionary atonement in the same way that the Reformed faith has always formulated it. He would definitely say, for instance, that the guilt of our sin is laid on Christ as our substitute. But he does not like the word "imputation." And he certainly does not advocate the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us in any way, shape or form, although he claims that what imputation was designed to say is something you get in his theology, just in another way. I do not agree with his assessment, and I also have trouble believing his descriptions of the old perspective when they are manifestly out in left field. This is something that Doug Wilson has actually showed pretty well in his review of Wright's book, and it comes out even more clearly in Guy Waters's review over on Reformation 21.
    I just have to say this was an excellent concise summary of the NPP.
    Mark Maney
    Dovercourt Baptist Church (Associate Pastor)
    Master of Theological Studies
    Master of Arts (Cross Cultural)
    Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to tellville For This Useful Post:

    greenbaggins (06-25-2009)

  41. #30
    Robbie Schmidtberger's Avatar
    Robbie Schmidtberger is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 60 Times in 38 Posts
    What are your thoughts on Piper's book? Piper is my homeboy, but is he out of his league vs. Wright?
    Pittsburgh, PA
    New Covenant PCA, a church replant that you could read about here.
    Co-Director of Children's Ministry
    Bible Teacher - Trinity Christian School
    M. Div Candidate at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
    Blogger, Relentless Grace
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  42. #31
    Prufrock's Avatar
    Prufrock is offline. Arbitrary Moderation
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    3,086
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 1,929 Times in 836 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_parsley View Post
    I agree with that. This area is all about ones array of emphases and their strengths. Wright advocates a different set of emphases than Luther, but I'm not aware that he contradicts Luther. In Westerholme's "Perspectives Old and New on Paul" he describes NT Wright's position: "Justication by faith is not itself Paul's gospel, though it is implied by that gospel." (page 182) That's why I said that for NT Wright, "What you think is right, but Paul's doctrine is much richer than that..." i.e. Justification by faith is a subset of Paul's doctrine of justification.

    It seems to me that people have a healthy paranoia about the agenda of liberal theology and they group liberals together to make it easier. I'm not convinced that N.T. Wright belongs in the category "should be paranoid about their agenda even though we can't pinpoint grave explicit error". To put him on the "heresy shelf" suggests to me an unhealthy paranoia rather than a healthy one.
    If you're basing your assessment of Wright off of that Westerholm quote, you should be aware that Wright intends something entirely different by the word "justification." Just because Wright talks about justification by faith being part of the gospel, this does not mean he has anything in common with either Luther or the Reformed understanding of the gospel. Even Pope Benedict could recently claim "We are justified by faith alone."

    I can assure you that I don't group all liberals together; and I can certainly pinpoint "grave explicit error" in Wright with no paranoia present.
    Paul Korte
    OPC
    Flint, MI

    They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  43. #32
    greenbaggins's Avatar
    greenbaggins is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hague, North Dakota
    Posts
    3,204
    Thanks
    1,009
    Thanked 2,619 Times in 897 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie Schmidtberger View Post
    What are your thoughts on Piper's book? Piper is my homeboy, but is he out of his league vs. Wright?
    On most things, I think Piper nailed it on the head. I don't agree with Piper's definition of the dikaios word group, and I think Wright correctly called him on that one, although Wright's definition is no closer to the mark than Piper's. No lexicon agrees with either of them, as far as I can tell. But as to the mechanism of how justification works, Piper has it dead on. I am most disappointed that Wright did not return the courtesy extended to him by Piper (Piper let Wright see and critique the manuscript before publication; Wright didn't think Piper's work worth the bother of the same treatment, and who cares about publisher's deadlines?).
    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!

  44. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post:

    Mark Hettler (07-02-2009), Robbie Schmidtberger (06-25-2009)

  45. #33
    dr_parsley's Avatar
    dr_parsley is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    439
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 199 Times in 99 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Prufrock View Post
    If you're basing your assessment of Wright off of that Westerholm quote, you should be aware that Wright intends something entirely different by the word "justification."
    Well I've read a bit of Wright and the Westerholme summary of the different arguments. I can disagree easily with the other people in NPP, but Wright seems a bit different. It sounds like you are more acquainted with it than I am and I wouldn't presume to be an authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prufrock View Post
    Just because Wright talks about justification by faith being part of the gospel, this does not mean he has anything in common with either Luther or the Reformed understanding of the gospel. Even Pope Benedict could recently claim "We are justified by faith alone."
    I'm aghast - would Wright not be able to say that?! Have you got a source for that?
    Paul
    No denomination, affiliated with FIEC
    "Deliver me from worldly dispositions, for I am born from above and destined for glory" - Valley of Vision
    "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation" - Peter
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  46. #34
    steadfast7's Avatar
    steadfast7 is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 56 Times in 36 Posts

    What if Wright is Right?

    without getting into the details of the debate per se (they are extensive and I feel most of us wouldn't be as qualified to comment on the intracasies therein), I was just wondering what might be the implication or consequences of Wright being right??

    I just got his book and am going through it slowly. He makes the consistent point that our allegiance must always be to what Paul actually said, not to Calvin or Piper, or the Reformed tradition, as beloved as they may be.

    Though it may seem unlikely, it is not impossible that later readings of Paul (such as Wright and others) would be more accurate. We can all observe in Church history where a view/interpretation is refined with the passage of time, not necessarily most accurate in its first few rounds.

    Now, I'm not saying that I agree or can even begin to process the specifics of the debate, I'd just like to offer up some discussion regarding the implications of Wright's proposal for theology, Reformed tradition, and the Church (provided he's right).

    what do you guys think? Is his view as dangerous for Christianity like many in the Reformed tradition think? What is at stake?

    -----Added 6/30/2009 at 11:46:42 EST-----

    Quote Originally Posted by greenbaggins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie Schmidtberger View Post
    What are your thoughts on Piper's book? Piper is my homeboy, but is he out of his league vs. Wright?
    On most things, I think Piper nailed it on the head. I don't agree with Piper's definition of the dikaios word group, and I think Wright correctly called him on that one, although Wright's definition is no closer to the mark than Piper's. No lexicon agrees with either of them, as far as I can tell. But as to the mechanism of how justification works, Piper has it dead on. I am most disappointed that Wright did not return the courtesy extended to him by Piper (Piper let Wright see and critique the manuscript before publication; Wright didn't think Piper's work worth the bother of the same treatment, and who cares about publisher's deadlines?).
    Haven't read Wright's whole book yet, but allow me to add some comments in Wright's defence, just to keep things on a level playing field.
    1. In terms of how Justification works, Wright argues that the reformed idea of imputation is no where explicitly stated in scripture; it's certainly not a central idea in Paul's thought, says Wright. I'm not sure if he's correct about that, but it's possible.
    2. Regarding the trading of manuscripts, Wright excuses himself by citing publisher's deadlines and general busyness - hence not having the time to give his manuscript to Piper. I can certainly testify (subjectively) that so far, his comments are highly defensive and a bit sour. I expected there to be a little more graciousness in words. I'm guessing he's worked up about the whole thing.
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  47. #35
    Turtle is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brandon, FL
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 48 Times in 39 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_parsley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pepper View Post
    NT Wright's main problem is that he rejects imputed righteousness.
    It's well known that NT Wright is seen as "one of the enemy" by both sides of the argument (or maybe "all sides"!). I have a strong feeling that he would roll his eyes and chuckle at most of the summaries given about his work, because they tend to reveal far more about the commentator than about Wright's ideas.

    I respect Wright because he successfully avoids bitter sniping at his opponents, which is a thing that seems to infest this area of scholarship. So as well as appearing to be godly, he's extremely intelligent, in the top rank of genuine Pauline scholarship and so deserves to be read seriously. I would summarise Wright's contribution as "Yes, justification is what you think it is, but it's also so much more, so much richer than we have previously recognised and here's how..." I don't agree with all his ideas (I don't know enough to do so!) but they are certainly good food for thought.
    We are blessed that Paul's letters shed a lot of light on the writings of Wright and other Pauline scholars, if we read them. Is that "bitter sniping"?

    bryan
    tampa, fl
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Bryan
    Deacon, PCA
    Tampa, FL
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  48. #36
    PuritanCovenanter's Avatar
    PuritanCovenanter is offline. Norseman Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Speedway, Indiana
    Posts
    11,761
    Blog Entries
    36
    Thanks
    2,004
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,258 Posts
    (Rom 10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

    (Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

    (Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

    (Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
    I have always found it truly troubling how Wright interprets God's righteousness in 2 Corinthians 5 and his exposition of the early chapters in Romans concerning justification being something that looks like Covenant Community membership.

    Another thing that has troubled me is how he views the Reformation and blames it for causing such disunity in the church in 'What St. Paul Really Said'.

    Norseman Moderator

    R. Martin Snyder

    1689er
    http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

    "Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
    William Symington
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  49. #37
    timmopussycat's Avatar
    timmopussycat is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,121
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 328 Times in 233 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by greenbaggins View Post
    The New Perspective on Paul is not an offshoot of the Federal Vision, as it has been around far longer. Some say it had its beginnings with Krister Stendahl's article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," published in the Harvard Theological Review in 1963. There were other forerunners of Sanders as well. One might point to W.D. Davies' book Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, as well as the much older three volume history of Judaism by George Foote Moore. But undoubtedly, the watershed was the publication of Sanders's book Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.

    The basic idea of the New Perspective on Paul is that the Judaism of the first century against which Paul was arguing was not a legalistic religion, but rather an exclusivistic religion. In other words, according to the NPP, Judaism's problem (according to Paul) was not legalism, but rather the fact that they could not tell what time it was (that the promises to Abraham were being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and thus the promise could now go out to the Gentiles). They have several ways of saying this. One is "Paul's problem with Judaism is that it is not Christianity" (Sanders). Or, one could talk about faith as the now-appropriate badge of the true community of God (Dunn and Wright), that replaces circumcision (as if faith didn't always mark out the true Israel, even in the OT!).
    One basic problem with Sander's PPJ is that he does not discuss a critical issue. Whatever second temple Judaism may or may not have been intended to be in God's plan, that's not the real situation the NT addresses, which is the contemporary state of 2TJ. And by the time of the NT it had clearly degenerated into a religion of works righteousness. As Paul tells us, the Jews "did not pursue righteousness by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Rom 9:32), a Scripture that Sanders does not mention.
    In Christ's love and service

    Mr. Tim Cunningham,
    BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
    Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
    Member, First Baptist Church
    Vancouver, BC
    ------------
    "I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
    I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
    I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
    Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
    – John Deacon -
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  50. The Following User Says Thank You to timmopussycat For This Useful Post:

    Mark Hettler (07-02-2009)

  51. #38
    Prufrock's Avatar
    Prufrock is offline. Arbitrary Moderation
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    3,086
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 1,929 Times in 836 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by timmopussycat View Post
    One basic problem with Sander's PPJ is that he does not discuss a critical issue. Whatever second temple Judaism may or may not have been intended to be in God's plan, that's not the real situation the NT addresses, which is the contemporary state of 2TJ. And by the time of the NT it had clearly degenerated into a religion of works righteousness. As Paul tells us, the Jews "did not pursue righteousness by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Rom 9:32), a Scripture that Sanders does not mention.
    Tim, the whole purpose of Sanders' book is to discuss Second Temple Judaism as it actually was. He examines three "sets" of literature from the period: Tannaitic material, the DSS and Apocalyptic Literature. The work has little (if any) concern for knowing what STJ was supposed to be. I think you may have this book confused with another work.
    Paul Korte
    OPC
    Flint, MI

    They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  52. #39
    PuritanCovenanter's Avatar
    PuritanCovenanter is offline. Norseman Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Speedway, Indiana
    Posts
    11,761
    Blog Entries
    36
    Thanks
    2,004
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,258 Posts
    Just some quotes from N. T. Wright in his book 'What Saint Paul Really Said'.

    In his new book does he change any of his stances or define them any differently concerning justification?

    … ‘justification by works’ has nothing to do with individual Jews attempting a kind of proto-Pelagian pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps, and everything to do with definition of the true Israel in advance of the final eschatological showdown. Justification in this setting, then, is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community, not least in the period of time before the eschatological event itself, when the matter will become public knowledge.

    What Saint Paul Really Said, p.119.
    ‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sander’s terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ‘staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in’. In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.

    What Saint Paul Really Said, p120
    Many Christians, both in the Reformation and in the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by supposing that it describes that system by which people attain salvation. They have turned the doctrine into its opposite. Justification declares that all who believe in Jesus Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their cultural or racial differences.

    What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 158-9

    Norseman Moderator

    R. Martin Snyder

    1689er
    http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

    "Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
    William Symington
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  53. #40
    William Price is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 146 Times in 46 Posts
    Please forgive the noviceness of this man, but one would think that justification is being in right standing of God. In my eyes, and please correct me if I am wrong, but this is about what God has done for His glory, not for covenants.

    As I said, if I am wrong, please tell me.
    William Price
    Attending [URL="http://www.millsroadbaptist.org"]Mills Road Baptist Church, Houston, Texas[/URL]

    [url]http://www.commandmentsandjudgment.com[/url]

    [URL="http://www.gcast.com/u/CJMinistries/main"]The Reformed Voice Radio Broadcast[/URL]

    LBCF 1689
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

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