NPP (New Perspective on Paul): Heresy?

[Vox Oculi]

So, in this recent thread, someone mentioned NPP and I realized I didn't know enough to understand what the connection was to the discussion, so I read some. My first hit was 'theopedia,' and after getting a basic but not very clear overview, I jumped to the trusty GotQuestions website and found this:

complete quote:

Question: "Is the New Perspective on Paul biblical?"

Answer: Any time a “new perspective” on some biblical doctrine arises, red flags should go off warning Christians of possible danger. In many cases such “new” ideas, teachings, or perspectives are not new at all. Rather, they are the same old lie from the Garden of Eden when Satan first cast doubt on God’s Word: “Did God really say…” (Genesis 3:1). In that sense, the “New Perspective on Paul” is ancient in that it tries to deny what the Scriptures clearly teach and what has been accepted by Christians for centuries. The “New Perspective on Paul” is not biblical and appears to be an attempt to redefine and even deny key biblical doctrines that are the foundation of the Christian faith.

Sadly, however, the teachings propagated by the few who champion the “New Perspective on Paul” are gaining ground, even among evangelical churches, despite the fact that some of its leading proponents are liberal New Testament scholars from secular universities. Most well-known among the “New Perspective on Paul” proponents is N.T. Wright, a noted Bible scholar and Bishop in the Anglican Church, whose books seem to be influencing the spread of this troublesome teaching in evangelical churches.

The heart of this teaching is that for hundreds, if not thousands, of years Christians have seriously “misunderstood” the apostle Paul and his teachings—thus the need for a new perspective on Paul. The idea that these latter-day scholars are so wise that they can figure out the correct perspective on Paul, when biblical scholars from the time of Christ on could not, is founded upon audacity and even borderline arrogance. The “New Perspective on Paul” is not unlike the Jesus Seminar group, who several years ago decided they could determine what Jesus actually said and did not say by voting on which words of Christ in the Bible should be attributed to Him and which should not. The implied arrogance of these types of “wiser than everyone else” attitudes should be clear when they claim that Christians for almost 2,000 years have been wrong about Paul.

There are four basic tenets of “New Perspective on Paul.” First is the belief that Christians misunderstand Judaism of the first century. They say that Paul was not battling against Jews who were promoting a religion of self-righteousness and works-based salvation and that the Pharisees were not legalists. Yet the Bible describes the Pharisees as those who “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness,” “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel,” and ones who “cleaned up the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:23–25). The view that first-century Pharisees were not legalists and their religion was not one of self-righteousness and works-based salvation directly contradicts Jesus’ own words in this and numerous other passages.

The second tenet of this false teaching is that Paul really did not have a problem with the doctrine of salvation taught by the Jewish leaders of his day. His disagreement with them was simply over how they treated the Gentiles and not a fundamental difference over how one is saved or justified before a holy God. However, in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans, Paul clearly and solidly condemned the works-based system of righteousness promoted by the Judaizers who were trying to lure the Galatians away from the true gospel message. In fact, he said that anyone who preached a gospel other than the one he preached should be “eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8–9). Once again, Scripture shows that the “New Perspective on Paul” is not based on the testimony of Scripture but instead is contrary to it, making it an unbiblical teaching with serious consequences for those who follow it and are led astray by it.

The third unbiblical tenet of the “New Perspective on Paul” teaching is that the gospel is about the Lordship of Christ and not a message of personal salvation and individual redemption from the condemnation of sin. Certainly, the Lordship of Christ is an important part of the gospel truth, but, if that is all it is, how is that good news? No one can make Christ Lord of his life without first being cleansed of sin and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Only the Spirit of God can empower us to yield to the lordship of Christ. Clearly the hope of Christians is that Christ is first and foremost a Savior whose atoning sacrifice has personally and completely made atonement for their sins. It is for this reason that the gospel is the good news, because “it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Romans 1:16).

This leaves us with the fourth and the most serious unbiblical tenet of the “New Perspective on Paul” teaching—the denial of the doctrine of justification by faith, a central and non-negotiable Christian doctrine. According to proponents of this unbiblical teaching, when Paul wrote about justification, he was not speaking of personal and individual justification whereby a guilty sinner is declared righteous on the basis of his faith in Christ and Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the sinner. Instead, they claim, when Paul wrote about justification, he was speaking of how one could tell if a person was “a member of the covenant family.”

According to N.T. Wright, “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.” The problem with this tenet of the “New Perspective on Paul” is that it distorts the biblical teaching on justification by faith and instead teaches that Paul’s doctrine of justification was only concerned with the Gentiles’ standing in the covenant community and not at all about a guilty sinner being declared just before a holy and righteous God. Simply put, we cannot disregard or redefine justification and still be considered Christian or biblical. In his writings, N.T. Wright often argues against the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is the heart and soul of the true gospel (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Just as Satan called into question the Word of God to Eve, the “New Perspective on Paul” calls into question the basic doctrines of the Christian faith as revealed by the Bible and, because of this, the “New Perspective on Paul” should be rejected.

So....the opinion of the board is, I presume, that N.T. Wright is either outside the faith or in some tragically severe error? And that NPP is heretical at best?

Final question: what did that reference have to do with the other thread I back-linked to? I still am not sure.

 

[Gforce9]

N.T. Wright is a very smart man.....and slippery. In every case I'm aware of that he is confronted with his NPP, he does a back-pedaling show any BMX rider would be exceedingly proud of. I think it is safe to say that, 1) to veer from accepted Pauline doctrine, and/or 2) to say the church has misunderstood Paul completely for 2000 years is a scary road to go down. I don't think that I would say he's not a Christian, but I would insist he submit to the church universal with his novelties.....

 

[Contra_Mundum]

NPP is guilty of the mis-prioritization of corporate dimensions of salvation over the individual's self-standing before God, as either a covenant-breaker (in Adam) or covenant-keeper (in Christ). He baptizes a good bit of his political-socialism in the name of Paul, and his supposed opposition to Empire (Christianity being the via media between Judaism and Rome).

NTW states that "justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology." That is a perfect inversion of reality. Granting he is addressing the imbalance of too many churches and communions which have ignored practically the whole place of ecclesiology relative to soteriology; the answer is not to resuscitate corporate concerns to supplant personal salvation.

Raise up ecclesiology relative to soteriology (which remains primary), and find the place of corporate concerns in a covenant-framework. This is the truth.

NTW continues to be untaught as to historical theology. He knows relatively little of the history of doctrine, and only a little of the history of the Protestant (and narrowly, CoE) tradition in which he functions. He writes and speaks as if certain exegetical insights he has gained as a NT scholar are novel recoveries lost since Paul and the 1C; putting him on par with Luther, Calvin, and others (little aware of how self-consciously those important Reformers attached themselves to prior streams of historical interpretation).

And having dug out neglected (by his own tradition) truths from Paul, he forges a new armor with the collected relics. He ends up with another Anglican via media, neither Reformation nor Roman; but which errors will lead most back to Rome eventually.

 

[arapahoepark]

While asking on something tangentially related in that thread, the NPP is a hodge podge of stuff. I could write so much on what I have learned about it and how it is flawed.
Wright, I do not think is a heretic. The more I read the more I like him. He has a firm grasp, I think of the unfolding story of salvation, mostly anyway. But I dislike when he caricatures Reformed theology. He thinks modern pop evangelicalism is the direct heir. That being said he can be overly ambiguous in what he says and writes. His views of justification in some ways are close but no cigar, and that's not enough to be considered reformed. He has admitted to it being an ecumenical doctrine.
Like I said there is just so much the NPP touches.
It is right in what it affirms (a sociological aspect to the Antioch incident and justification) but wrong in what it denies (being made right with God by no works whatsoever).
Rev. Buchanan has very succinctly stated what is wrong with it, I am not sure I can add much more without ranting or writing a dissertation.
Michael Horton in his Covenant and Salvation brings out the good and bad of the NPP.
Michael Bird does the same in his Saving Righteousness of God, as does Tom Holland.
Justification and Variegated Nomism is excellent, the best contribution of what exactly is wrong with the main and most well know Proponents (Dun and Wright) are answered in O'Brien's essay 'Was Paul and Covenant Nomist.'
Francis Watson, though I have not read him has changed his mind. His is a former NPPist.

Let me just say please get your self grounded in proper doctrine before jumping into polemics. Please do that first and foremost.

 

[jwithnell]

"Outside the faith" is a strong statement. It would be fair to say that many in reformed circles see Mr. Wright as being in error, but I don't think his teaching moves him into the realm of unbelievers. (Though his teaching could even be considered damaging.) BTW, I have generally found Dr. Dick Gaffin to be extremely insightful when considering New Perspectives.

 

[greenbaggins]

Trent raises a VERY important issue: that of getting your doctrine of justification right before you look at the errors. Unfortunately, the failure to do so often results in people going off the deep end because they see challenges to the small amount they know, and since they have no resources to answer the challenge, they capitulate. My advice is this: if you want to read NPP stuff, do so ONLY after reading volume 5 of John Owen's works, Buchanan's outstanding treatise on justification, and J.V. Fesko's recent book on justification. Then you will be well-grounded, and (even more importantly) you will be able to see for yourself what is wrong with the NPP. There are many other excellent books on justification in the Reformed tradition. These three are relatively accessible, well-written, and cover most of the important points.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

My advice is this: if you want to read NPP stuff, do so ONLY after reading volume 5 of John Owen's works

John Owen's work on justification is the best (indirect) refutation of the NPP that you could possibly read. My advice is study it slowly (say 5 pages a week on a Sabbath afternoon) while reading it alongside the other books that Lane mentions and more modern critiques of the NPP.

 

[Vox Oculi]

Trent raises a VERY important issue: that of getting your doctrine of justification right before you look at the errors. Unfortunately, the failure to do so often results in people going off the deep end because they see challenges to the small amount they know, and since they have no resources to answer the challenge, they capitulate. My advice is this: if you want to read NPP stuff, do so ONLY after reading volume 5 of John Owen's works, Buchanan's outstanding treatise on justification, and J.V. Fesko's recent book on justification. Then you will be well-grounded, and (even more importantly) you will be able to see for yourself what is wrong with the NPP. There are many other excellent books on justification in the Reformed tradition. These three are relatively accessible, well-written, and cover most of the important points.

Well, I wasn't planning on starting to study NPP deeply! I don't have seminary in my sights, only seek to be as informed as possible on all things possible because I take my future role as a leader and teacher of my own home very seriously. Also because what you don't know can hurt you. But I will copy down the recommendation in order to build my "to buy" book list.

I think we all agree that studying the Scripture, much like how a specialist can spot fake currency because he knows everything about authentic currency, is of primary importance over studying what is false and what is "almost true." It's useful, and important, but if you lack the help of a book or advisor, knowing the Scripture will be what protects you from error.

 

[RamistThomist]

"Outside the faith" is a strong statement.

Agreed. In that case, Methodists such as Aunt Ethyll, Arminian Baptists, my Assembly of God relatives and a host of others are "outside the faith."

 

[Philip]

Several things:

1) There is no "new perspective" on Paul. There are new perspectives.

2) The revised understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism doesn't necessarily negate traditional readings. Wright's view (broadly) is that the Pharisees understood the law as preserving Israel as a covenant people so as to retain and regain God's blessing. However, many of them ended up focusing so much on the minutiae that the more salient features of the law were neglected and Jesus' (and Paul's) critique maintained that this focus neglected Israel's core mission, which was to bless the nations.

3) Wright's Christology is also important here. His work on Jesus proceeds on the thesis that in terms of covenant faithfulness, all Israel was judged, and only Jesus was found righteous. It's this understanding that informs what he thinks Paul is up to.

4) All of this then means that Wright's soteriology focuses a) on eschatology b) on salvation as a means to vocation.

5) It's also important to note that Wright doesn't necessarily think that the reformation understanding and application of Paul is wrong as systematic theology. For Wright, the reformation position may well be a valid implication of Paul, he just thinks that it isn't explicit. It's also worth mentioning that Wright and Piper have both agreed that each fundamentally misunderstood the other during the justification kerfuffle a few years ago.

6) Wright himself thinks that this is really an old perspective on Paul. The "new" in "new perspective" refers to post-critical NT scholarship, not to church history. We have to remember that Wright is not addressing reformed folks primarily. His primary audience is liberal scholars for whom claiming that Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to him makes him a raging fundamentalist.

7) Don't read the smaller books, like Justification. He's not as careful or clear in those as he is in his more scholarly ones like Paul and the Faithfulness of God. That one is where you'll get him at his clearest.

8) Systematically, his biggest issue is his view of imputation as one way (our sins laid on Christ but not his righteousness attributed to us) rather than double imputation which is the standard reformational position.

Hope all this helps.

 

[Hamalas]

It's also worth mentioning that Wright and Piper have both agreed that each fundamentally misunderstood the other during the justification kerfuffle a few years ago.

Interesting. Do you have a citation for that? I'd be curious to read about that first-hand (not because I doubt you, I'm just curious.)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Volume 5 of Owen also prefigures a lot of the FV formulations as well.

 

[Jack K]

I believe it is a serious error.

But be careful using the phrase "outside the faith" or speaking of "heresy," (which is often used to denote the same thing) especially where the church has not first determined it to be the case. If we truly realized the eternal weight of such a pronouncement and the glory of He who is authorized ultimately to make it, we would be slow to assume that role for ourselves. At times the church must speak in such a way, but always with great reluctance and much prayer and due diligence.

 

[timmopussycat]

Trent raises a VERY important issue: that of getting your doctrine of justification right before you look at the errors. Unfortunately, the failure to do so often results in people going off the deep end because they see challenges to the small amount they know, and since they have no resources to answer the challenge, they capitulate. My advice is this: if you want to read NPP stuff, do so ONLY after reading volume 5 of John Owen's works, Buchanan's outstanding treatise on justification, and J.V. Fesko's recent book on justification. Then you will be well-grounded, and (even more importantly) you will be able to see for yourself what is wrong with the NPP. There are many other excellent books on justification in the Reformed tradition. These three are relatively accessible, well-written, and cover most of the important points.

I found Stephen Westerholm's "Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme" to be a helpful introduction that effectively addresses many of the NPP claims in a small compass.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

5) It's also important to note that Wright doesn't necessarily think that the reformation understanding and application of Paul is wrong as systematic theology. For Wright, the reformation position may well be a valid implication of Paul, he just thinks that it isn't explicit.

In other words, perhaps the Reformation was necessary but it's not explicit from Paul that this is the case...

I've listened to and read enough of NTW to come to the conclusion that the ethics of union with Christ are more important than really getting right what it means to be united to Christ. In an exchange with James White on the Unbelievable Radio program, it seemed pretty clear to me that Wright likes the fact that the Reformed understand of union will produce acts in keeping with repentance but that it's the work that seems most fundamental. Yes, Christ is the Covenant keeper but then union with Christ (as I understand NTW) is about being in Covenant with Christ and being in Covenant with Christ is co-extensive with our baptism and visible membership in the Church. He may not have a system of theology worked out but he is undeniably synergistic.

I don't know why we have to beat around the bush with respect to the Gospel. Can men be confused? Of course. Yet is it the case that it is peripheral or debatable whether or not Paul in Romans 5-8 is contrasting death in Adam vs life in Christ, in the flesh vs in the Spirit. I just preached on Romans 8:1-17. If any care to listen to it you can do so here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=117161754160

I cannot escape the theological conclusions that Paul is making throughout "his Gospel" in Romans. The distinction he draws between men being "in the flesh" (in Adam, dead in sins and trespasses, in slavery to sin) versus being "in the Spirit" (in Christ, alive in Christ, freed from the bondage of sin) are unmistakeable. Take away that distinction and the whole theology of the Gospel simply falls apart. We don't have to damn all other confused Christians into outer darkness but we cannot simply make this point a negotiable point of theology. It arises from the exegesis and is the very basis with which we stand.

I'm very passionate about this subject both in my own personal experience of battling indwelling sin and my life in Christ but also witnessing the destruction that anemic theologies and Churches that don't placard this truth produce in others. I just learned absolutely devastating news about some people that I love dearly. I found that their oldest child is failing college and probably addicted to p0rn spending all his time alone in his room. His parents fear he might be so depressed to the point of suicide. Their daughter, still young, has been involved sexually with both men and women. These are Christian parents who feel helpless and my heart breaks for them partly because I've known for years that the Church they attend communicates none of what Paul is exhorting to us in Romans 3-8. I feel responsible for a "live and let live" attitude and now I have to repent because I didn't want to rock the boat.

As far as I'm concerned, exegetical "insights" that make Paul's theology negotiable are worth less than a pile of excrement.

 

[MW]

Something which struck me as ringing true when it was said over fifteen years ago with regard to the new perspectives -- What is good is not new and what is new is not good.

 

[timmopussycat]

It's also worth mentioning that Wright and Piper have both agreed that each fundamentally misunderstood the other during the justification kerfuffle a few years ago.

Interesting. Do you have a citation for that? I'd be curious to read about that first-hand (not because I doubt you, I'm just curious.)

I am also curious to find out more about where Wright and Piper misunderstood each other so a citation would really be appreciated.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

In seminary, we referred to him as NT Wrong.

 

[Philip]

Interesting. Do you have a citation for that?

I recall hearing it during a lecture last year at Gordon-Conwell, but can't find any further information, so my memory may be failing me here. In my own reading, it's become fairly evident that double imputation is the real issue, not necessarily justification as such.

Yet is it the case that it is peripheral or debatable whether or not Paul in Romans 5-8 is contrasting death in Adam vs life in Christ, in the flesh vs in the Spirit.

I don't know that Wright would disagree. It's merely that his emphasis tends to be on the content and character of that life in the Spirit, which he sees as eschatological. His emphasis is on what we are justified for rather than what he sees as an emphasis on the mere fact of justification.

One more dimension that should not be overlooked here is Wright's role in the church, specifically the Church of England, where he was the bishop of a very prestigious diocese. In emphasizing the life of holiness Wright is, I suspect, meaning to guard against the kind of cheap grace that has characterized large swathes of the CofE, particularly in its proggressive wing. As bishop, Wright was very active both as a public apologist for historic creedal Christianity, as a leader advocating the authority of Scripture, and as a defender of traditional marriage against proggressive attacks, particularly in the church. I suspect that both of these roles have bearing on his reading of Paul, or more accurately, his reading of Paul and the Gospels led him to take those positions.

 

[Vox Oculi]

One more dimension that should not be overlooked here is Wright's role in the church, specifically the Church of England, where he was the bishop of a very prestigious diocese. In emphasizing the life of holiness Wright is, I suspect, meaning to guard against the kind of cheap grace that has characterized large swathes of the CofE, particularly in its proggressive wing.

Are we to believe the CofE has recently had to contend with a severe case of Antinomianism among the membership?

 

[bookslover]

Trent raises a VERY important issue: that of getting your doctrine of justification right before you look at the errors. Unfortunately, the failure to do so often results in people going off the deep end because they see challenges to the small amount they know, and since they have no resources to answer the challenge, they capitulate. My advice is this: if you want to read NPP stuff, do so ONLY after reading volume 5 of John Owen's works, Buchanan's outstanding treatise on justification, and J.V. Fesko's recent book on justification. Then you will be well-grounded, and (even more importantly) you will be able to see for yourself what is wrong with the NPP. There are many other excellent books on justification in the Reformed tradition. These three are relatively accessible, well-written, and cover most of the important points.

Lane, I think that's the first time I've heard John Owen described as "relatively accessible"! Heh.

 

[Philip]

Are we to believe the CofE has recently had to contend with a severe case of Antinomianism among the membership?

I'll put it this way. I was at an academic seminar where various papers were being presented responding to Wright. In the Q&A between Wright and a young Harvard theologian (an episcopal priest) they ended up discussing the Lord's Supper and Wright ended up having to defend the whole concept of church discipline.

 

[RamistThomist]

A guy in my community was a Presbyterian pastor more than a decade ago. He then wanted to become Anglo-Catholic, so he left the church and went to England to study. Wright refused to ordain him.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yet is it the case that it is peripheral or debatable whether or not Paul in Romans 5-8 is contrasting death in Adam vs life in Christ, in the flesh vs in the Spirit.

I don't know that Wright would disagree. It's merely that his emphasis tends to be on the content and character of that life in the Spirit, which he sees as eschatological. His emphasis is on what we are justified for rather than what he sees as an emphasis on the mere fact of justification.

One more dimension that should not be overlooked here is Wright's role in the church, specifically the Church of England, where he was the bishop of a very prestigious diocese. In emphasizing the life of holiness Wright is, I suspect, meaning to guard against the kind of cheap grace that has characterized large swathes of the CofE, particularly in its proggressive wing. As bishop, Wright was very active both as a public apologist for historic creedal Christianity, as a leader advocating the authority of Scripture, and as a defender of traditional marriage against proggressive attacks, particularly in the church. I suspect that both of these roles have bearing on his reading of Paul, or more accurately, his reading of Paul and the Gospels led him to take those positions.

Philip,

There's a part of me that wants to commend N.T. Wright for the kind of stands he takes but the irony is that a focus upon the Law of God and the "discipline" it provides is quite useless if Romans 7 is ambigous. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer a society of well behaved people but I do not believe that Wright has a proper handle on Paul's emphasis that one is either enslaved to sin or enslaved to Christ in the sense that Paul is using it. I believe life in the Spirit is eschatalogical as well but not in the way Wright does. The whole vibe I get from him is that, by participation in the Church, we're united to Christ and ought to stay united to Christ by acts that are keeping with being united to Christ. Synergism sounds like what Paul is preaching but it does not rest on the definitive nature of Sanctification in Romans 6 but upon a conscious choice to cooperate and decide to remain united to Christ by those things that are in keeping with righteousness.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just some thoughts on terminology (and this isn't a criticism or endorsement of Wright). Wright got lumped into the designation "NPP." He didn't come up with it himself. So it isn't entirely fair to say, "If Wright's new perspective, then it ain't true." Truth be told, he's probably advanced more criticisms of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul than anyone here.

Further, I don't think Wright woke up one day and said, "I'm gonna make something up today that ain't nobody ever heard of." No, if you asked him he would say he is getting it from the Bible. If you asked Luther how come Luther's understanding of metanoia didn't mean "do penance," Luther would probably say, "I'm getting it from the Bible."

Mind you, I am closer to Luther than to Wright on this point.

 

[arapahoepark]

Just some thoughts on terminology (and this isn't a criticism or endorsement of Wright). Wright got lumped into the designation "NPP." He didn't come up with it himself. So it isn't entirely fair to say, "If Wright's new perspective, then it ain't true." Truth be told, he's probably advanced more criticisms of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul than anyone here.

Further, I don't think Wright woke up one day and said, "I'm gonna make something up today that ain't nobody ever heard of." No, if you asked him he would say he is getting it from the Bible. If you asked Luther how come Luther's understanding of metanoia didn't mean "do penance," Luther would probably say, "I'm getting it from the Bible."

Mind you, I am closer to Luther than to Wright on this point.

Reading Wright on justification I get the impression he filters it through his flawed construction of first century Judaism rather than the text itself. He shines in other places but not there. He is getting closer I will admit.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just some thoughts on terminology (and this isn't a criticism or endorsement of Wright). Wright got lumped into the designation "NPP." He didn't come up with it himself. So it isn't entirely fair to say, "If Wright's new perspective, then it ain't true." Truth be told, he's probably advanced more criticisms of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul than anyone here.

Further, I don't think Wright woke up one day and said, "I'm gonna make something up today that ain't nobody ever heard of." No, if you asked him he would say he is getting it from the Bible. If you asked Luther how come Luther's understanding of metanoia didn't mean "do penance," Luther would probably say, "I'm getting it from the Bible."

Mind you, I am closer to Luther than to Wright on this point.

I understand all of that Jacob. I'm not trying to simply react as one who is just swinging a bat at everyone who doesn't sound or think like me.

I wish I had the words to express it. I wish I had a mental catalog of the things he's said that I've listened to so I could reproduce them here but he not so humbly accepts the applomb that interviewers lavish upon him as one of the greatest theologians of our time. If interested, search the Unbelievable Radio Program archives where Justin Briarly interviews him asking him a bunch of questions. Inerrantists are pretty much hayseeds but, then again, that seems to be par for the course at the way sophisticated CoE people think of people like me.

It's probably the case that I lack a lot of sophistication. I may get a PhD in some technical discipline some day but will probably never be a respected scholar. That said, there is a reality to the Christian faith that prevents me from being too impressed with N.T. Wright and his Pauline conclusions. I seem to have all my epiphanies while showering but I was thinking this AM: Is Paul really that hard to understand? Does it really require studies of 2nd Temple Judaism to unpack what he's *really* saying? There are some things in Paul that are hard to understand but I find his presentation crystal clear. I think the only thing that scholarship like N.T. Wright does is cast doubt on the perspicuity of Scriptures. He doesn't rebuke the aplomb for him saying: "Please stop. I don't want Christians to think that the Scriptures are some sort of closed book that only those trained in the dark arts of scholarship can understand." Instead, he perpetuates the myth by claiming that it took scholarship like his to really get at the grammatico-historical context of Paul and to truly understand the *main point* of Paul's argument. The Gospel isn't on the surface of Paul's words but, beneath the argument, we need to have Wright's findings to keep us from coming to the conclusions that Paul is talking about one thing when, what really matters, is Covenant inclusion.

 

[timmopussycat]

Just some thoughts on terminology (and this isn't a criticism or endorsement of Wright). Wright got lumped into the designation "NPP." He didn't come up with it himself. So it isn't entirely fair to say, "If Wright's new perspective, then it ain't true." Truth be told, he's probably advanced more criticisms of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul than anyone here.

Wright identifies himself as "one of [the] exponents" of the NPP (Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, Preface Kindle location 39) and as the popularizer of the NPP label (the originator, according to Wright, is Krister Stendhal) in a 1978 Tyndall lecture. (op cit, ch 1 Kindle location 229)

 

[RamistThomist]

Just some thoughts on terminology (and this isn't a criticism or endorsement of Wright). Wright got lumped into the designation "NPP." He didn't come up with it himself. So it isn't entirely fair to say, "If Wright's new perspective, then it ain't true." Truth be told, he's probably advanced more criticisms of the so-called New Perspectives on Paul than anyone here.

Wright identifies himself as "one of [the] exponents" of the NPP (Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, Preface Kindle location 39) and as the popularizer of the NPP label (the originator, according to Wright, is Krister Stendhal) in a 1978 Tyndall lecture. (op cit, ch 1 Kindle location 229)

I understand that, in the same way I am a "Calvinist." It's a fairly useless label in terms of content, but it does help people place one on the map. the problem is that NTW isn't saying the same thing as Dunn, Sanders, or Stendahl.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does it really require studies of 2nd Temple Judaism to unpack what he's *really* saying?

I agree, but every Evangelical hermeneutics text says we have to know the context of the period. I differ with Wright primarily in that I see metaphysics as a good thing and I can't really get on board with his vision.