Lutheran critique of the NPP.

[jwright82]

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2018/05/02/beckett-the-lutheran-perspective-on-Paul/

Interesting article critiquing NPP from a Lutheran perspective, so outside of the statements on baptism I think we can agree.
He also calls it correctly "synergistic" theology, this is how the "Book of Concord" basically labels "semi-pelagianism".
I'm reading Don Garlington right now and he constantly accuses critic's of calling it "Pelagian" which is easy to disprove. But he got his MDiv from Westminster in Philadelphia, so he should know better. The best critic's call it semi-pelagianism/synergistic, which is still works righteousness ultimately.
See "Cracking The Foundations of The New Perspective On Paul", where the author shows from 2nd temple Judaism's writings how semi-pelagian/synergistic it was.
Enjoy the article.

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2018/05/02/beckett-the-lutheran-perspective-on-Paul/

Well that didn't work, let me try to repost it.

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2018/05/02/beckett-the-lutheran-perspective-on-Paul/.

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2018/05/02/beckett-the-lutheran-perspective-on-Paul/

Uh sorry, don't know what to do. I've gotta go to church, so I'll see what I can do when I get back. Unless one of y'all can figure it out, much appreciated.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'm reading Don Garlington right now and he constantly accuses critic's of calling it "Pelagian" which is easy to disprove. But he got his MDiv from Westminster in Philadelphia, so he should know better. The best critic's call it semi-pelagianism/synergistic, which is still works righteousness ultimately.

What of Garlington are you reading?
In my reading, for whatever reason (perhaps influenced by Shepherd?), he collapses faith into faithfulness. His 'exegesis' on Genesis 15 is horrendous. I recall that he (a long with many Wright and his FV fanboys) is one of the most quoted authors in the position papers done by the moralistic cult in here in the Denver area.
What a truly sad legacy to leave.

 

[jwright82]

What of Garlington are you reading?
In my reading, for whatever reason (perhaps influenced by Shepherd?), he collapses faith into faithfulness. His 'exegesis' on Genesis 15 is horrendous. I recall that he (a long with many Wright and his FV fanboys) is one of the most quoted authors in the position papers done by the moralistic cult in here in the Denver area.
What a truly sad legacy to leave.

Yeah, I chose him because of his connections to WTS. I wanted to read a NPP guy first hand (I've read some N.T. Wright stuff and listened to some audio of people). I have his 3rd edition of his Galatians commentary, that I haven't cracked into yet. Because I also got a Galatians commentary by another guy, the name escapes me (at my mom's house for dinner) , who is contemporary and deals with the NPP view.
I also got a book by him (Don Garlington) that is essays on Romans and a contemporary commentary by Schriener who also deals with NPP stuff. Haven't cracked into those yet either. But I also got his "Studies In The New Perspective On Paul: essays and reviews". That's what I'm reading now. The essays are 50/50 good and bad.
But I haven't dug into the commentaries or the exegetical stuff yet because that's a commitment for me, all Greek and stuff. That's what the orthodox commentaries are for.

 

[jwright82]

Just started reading his second book to his dissertation "Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: aspects of Paul's letter to the Romans". I just finished Guy Water's book on NPP. So we'll see, he keeps saying the whole Pelagian thing vs traditional view. Even Water's is clear it's semi-pelagian in nature.
I have to wonder if that's not intentional on some level, the "straw-manning" thing, but he's smarter than that.

 

[jwright82]

To anyone interested, I finished the first chapter of the book and I'm no Greek person but I can't help but say it's weird. He basically wrote on the book ends of Romans 1:5 and 16:26 that use the phrase "obedience of faith".
I found that odd and suspected that he would use that to interpret everything in between, and he did for the most part. He also quoted Davie's and Kaesmann a lot. The only sort of orthodox person he quoted is John Murray, he's related to this by the Federal Vision thing, not weighing in on his involvement with that.
But everyone he quotes is in the book by Waters on the subject, except Murray is quoted favorably by Waters in one place. It's almost as if he is pulling a Peter Enns implying that new testament scholarship says this, ignoring other takes on it.
I'm going to go through the commentary I have by Douglas Moo on Romans to see how he handles the text. The next Garlington chp is on Israel's disobedience. But tomorrow. Got to go to work tomorrow. Enjoy.

 

[arapahoepark]

To anyone interested, I finished the first chapter of the book and I'm no Greek person but I can't help but say it's weird. He basically wrote on the book ends of Romans 1:5 and 16:26 that use the phrase "obedience of faith".
I found that odd and suspected that he would use that to interpret everything in between, and he did for the most part. He also quoted Davie's and Kaesmann a lot. The only sort of orthodox person he quoted is John Murray, he's related to this by the Federal Vision thing, not weighing in on his involvement with that.
But everyone he quotes is in the book by Waters on the subject, except Murray is quoted favorably by Waters in one place. It's almost as if he is pulling a Peter Enns implying that new testament scholarship says this, ignoring other takes on it.
I'm going to go through the commentary I have by Douglas Moo on Romans to see how he handles the text. The next Garlington chp is on Israel's disobedience. But tomorrow. Got to go to work tomorrow. Enjoy.

I've thought Garlington, like Enns, isn't an original thinker. At least he doesn't seem to have the same platform.

 

[Theoretical]

Jordan Cooper wrote his master's thesis on the NPP, especially the patristic side.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...luation-of-early-patristic-soteriology-in-li/ (warning 2CV violation on the book cover)

https://justandsinner.libsyn.com/an-overview-of-the-new-perspective-on-Paul (his podcast episode on NPP from 10 years ago)

 

[jwright82]

I've thought Garlington, like Enns, isn't an original thinker. At least he doesn't seem to have the same platform.

You're absolutely right. He presents, like Enns, "the scholarship" as if it's all basically NPP. Like Enns he pretty much never quotes conservative scholarship, unless critically. In this book at least he has not quoted anyone positively except for Murray.
It could change IDK and it just might be the type of book he's writing. He's upfront about it being NPP, so you know where he's coming from and in that other book he only engages conservative scholarship criticality because that's the nature of the essays.

Jordan Cooper wrote his master's thesis on the NPP, especially the patristic side.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...luation-of-early-patristic-soteriology-in-li/ (warning 2CV violation on the book cover)

https://justandsinner.libsyn.com/an-overview-of-the-new-perspective-on-Paul (his podcast episode on NPP from 10 years ago)

Have that book and read it good book.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I appreciate a critique of NPP anytime I see it. Interesting that Lutheran scholars even bother to interact with it because I'd assume the Lutheran "system" is essentially immune to NPP.

 

[jwright82]

I appreciate a critique of NPP anytime I see it. Interesting that Lutheran scholars even bother to interact with it because I'd assume the Lutheran "system" is essentially immune to NPP.

Did it work for you, the link? No matter what I tried I couldn't get it to work. But it's good.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Did it work for you, the link? No matter what I tried I couldn't get it to work. But it's good.

I just copied and pasted it.

 

[jwright82]

I just copied and pasted it.

Good, I'm horrible with computers (my daughter when she was 10 was showing me how to use my phone after having her first phone for a week). Another "parroting" thing that Garlington does is contrast "works righteousness with getting into covenant/staying in covenant".
The Pragmatist in me says"you're really talking about the same thing ". There's essentially no difference between the two statements. A person can call it what they want but at the end of the day both "function" the same way in that the consequences are the same. Semi-pelagianism can talk about"grace" all they want but it's still up to us to "work" in some contributing way in our salvation.
I don't know about you but if I'm expected to contribute to my salvation one tiny minuscule thing I'm toast, I'll mess it up I promise you. I guess that's why I'm against the whole initial justification vs final justification scheme. If someone wants to use that language than fine but it's Christ and his work that justifies me from beginning to end.
My good works only make sense in a scheme of gratitude and fruit of the Spirit after what God has done for me. I love the Lord my God and my neighbor as myself in humble gratitude of Spirit filled response to the undeserved grace I've been shown, any scheme that trump's that is not biblical in my humble opinion.

 

[arapahoepark]

The best critiques, that I believe have sealed the deal and nailed the coffin, so to speak, on the NPP have been Lee Irons' dissertation (I've only read a bit since I am not completely familiar with the languages), Horton's Justification, who extensively uses Irons, and T. David Gordon's commentary Promise, Law and Faith, especially his appendices which cover similar ground but using original (not piggy backing off of others) research.

 

[arapahoepark]

Oh! Here's another!
Jeffrey Neihaus' three volume work titled Righteousness. He goes through every single passage that has righteousness language and refuses not only the NPP but, it's foundation: Liberal German Hebrew scholarship from last century.

 

[jwright82]

Oh! Here's another!
Jeffrey Neihaus' three volume work titled Righteousness. He goes through every single passage that has righteousness language and refuses not only the NPP but, it's foundation: Liberal German Hebrew scholarship from last century.

Yeah Guy Water's book brings that out too. I've also read many critic's bring out how bad they are at historical theology. They just parrot the phrase "they say we're teaching a pull yourself up by your bootstraps Pelagianism but our theology is full of grace".
That only proves they're either not doing their homework or willfully deceiving people. The majority of pro NPP blogs echo that strawman argument and accuse us of antinomianism. Both couldn't be further from the truth.
That Gordon book you mentioned looks very interesting, read some reviews, thanks for sharing.