New Perspective Help

Status
Not open for further replies.

hhtuck

Inactive User
Hey guys
I know I don't post very much, but I was wondering if someone could help me out a little with the New Perspective. Not sure if anyone's been following the Discerning Reader / AOMin drama, but all this wrangling over words has been really upsetting.

Is it just me, or is the real genius of this movement the profound ability to say absolutely nothing new. So we are found righteous by our union with Christ... is that really new? Is that really contradictory to the Reformers? Am I missing something?

I tried to do a search for other NPP threads, but had trouble finding them.

Thanks in advance,
Jay
 
Jay, you are correct. Basically the NP sets forth a position contrary to the Reformational principles of soteriology. When challenged, they act like the Martin Short character on SNL, you know, the tobacco lawyer that chain smokes and has slicked back hair and answers all accusations with:
"I didn't say that."
"Yes you did"
"NO, I didn't."
"Yes you did."
"No, you said that."

When that doesn't work, they fall back on: "you misunderstood me." Never mind the fact that they can't get clear after dozens of interchanges, or that a teacher/theologian should be able to be clear enough for a 6 year old to understand how to be saved.

The Discerning Reader is totally out to lunch. DO NOT waste your money on them.

The best placed to find a bucnh of stuff on NP is here:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/new_perspective.html


Here is a link to a thread in which I discuss this:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5374

[Edited on 10/30/2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Piper's Counted Righteous in Christis a good read. Fred, isn't Dr Barcley and Ligon Duncan doing something critiquing the New Perspective?
 
Originally posted by Finn McCool
Piper's Counted Righteous in Christis a good read. Fred, isn't Dr Barcley and Ligon Duncan doing something critiquing the New Perspective?

Yes. I will come out soon.

Also, I hear that Guy Waters (a brilliant young theologian at Bellhaven College who studied under E.P. Sanders) is coming out with a book contra the bad justification theology.
 
Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the replies. I've read Counted Righteous In Christ twice (I think it was even better the second time). In fact, it was reading a criticism of it on The Paul Page that prompted me to start this thread.

I've definitely noticed the "Oh, you just don't get it" defense mechanism.
 
Originally posted by hhtuck
Hey guys
I know I don't post very much, but I was wondering if someone could help me out a little with the New Perspective. Not sure if anyone's been following the Discerning Reader / AOMin drama, but all this wrangling over words has been really upsetting.

Is it just me, or is the real genius of this movement the profound ability to say absolutely nothing new. So we are found righteous by our union with Christ... is that really new? Is that really contradictory to the Reformers? Am I missing something?

I tried to do a search for other NPP threads, but had trouble finding them.

Thanks in advance,
Jay


Jay,

Part of the problem is that most people haven't even read Sanders, and have spent very little time with Wright and Dunn, then they lump all these guys to together as if to say that they are a monolithic group, i.e. "The New Perspective Movement". To make things worse they end up lumping "The Federal Vision" and "Shepherdites" into that group and act like they've done their homework.

Don Garlington has responded to Piper *(Edited for content by admin) Also, NT Wright has a commentary on Romans that you can digest. To run with a couple of his lectures, "What Saint Paul Really Said?", and treat it like a comprehensive treatment of Pauline theology isn't real honest. This way you can see Wright's case exegetically and how he ends up where he does.

If you decide to delve into this "controversy", please do your homework. Read the originals and don't rely on Lingon Duncan and others, because I would suggest that these men read "NPP", whatever it is, rather critically, i.e. where can I disagree?, rather than trying to understand their position.

openairboy

~Edited for content
SPB

[Edited on 10-31-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by openairboy
Originally posted by hhtuck
Hey guys
I know I don't post very much, but I was wondering if someone could help me out a little with the New Perspective. Not sure if anyone's been following the Discerning Reader / AOMin drama, but all this wrangling over words has been really upsetting.

Is it just me, or is the real genius of this movement the profound ability to say absolutely nothing new. So we are found righteous by our union with Christ... is that really new? Is that really contradictory to the Reformers? Am I missing something?

I tried to do a search for other NPP threads, but had trouble finding them.

Thanks in advance,
Jay


Jay,

Part of the problem is that most people haven't even read Sanders, and have spent very little time with Wright and Dunn, then they lump all these guys to together as if to say that they are a monolithic group, i.e. "The New Perspective Movement". To make things worse they end up lumping "The Federal Vision" and "Shepherdites" into that group and act like they've done their homework.

This is a classic case of pro-NPP ad hominem. Ligon Duncan has read everything that Wright has written. Everything. I have first hand knowledge of that. Guy Waters studied under E.P. Sanders while getting his Ph.D. at Duke. So between the two of them, they have read more Sanders, Dunn and Wright than almost anyone. If you had ever bothered to really delve into the criticisms of Duncan, Kelly, et al, you would know that they are familiar with Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright and acknowledge the differences between them. They have also done significant work in the Pauline corpus refuting the NPP.

The reason that the NPP gets lumped in with the Auburn Avenue movement and Norman Shepherd is because they have lumped certain aspects of each together. It is not by coincidence that NT Wright is the speaker one year at the Auburn Avenue Conference and then Shepherd the next. It is not a coincidence that Doug Wilson does a review of Wright and says that he agrees with about half of what Wright says.

It is also not a coincidence that these movements are killing churches in the PCA, OPC, etc.
 
Let me see if I understand...we are justified by our union with Christ, but it's the nature of that union and what it effected, not just a union. It's His atoning death that has destroyed our death and His risen life that gives us life, or, maybe better, His righteousness has been imputed to us and our sin to Him. Is that it?
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
If you had ever bothered to really delve into the criticisms of Duncan, Kelly, et al, you would know that they are familiar with Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright and acknowledge the differences between them.

Are you referring to Doug Kelly? If so, what criticism did he give and where can I get it? Ligon Duncan in one of his articels explicitly said taht he had read Wrigght.
 
Originally posted by Finn McCool
Originally posted by fredtgreco
If you had ever bothered to really delve into the criticisms of Duncan, Kelly, et al, you would know that they are familiar with Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright and acknowledge the differences between them.

Are you referring to Doug Kelly? If so, what criticism did he give and where can I get it? Ligon Duncan in one of his articels explicitly said that he had read Wrigght.

It is Doug Kelly. You can find his comments here:
http://tinyurl.com/3r6u8
 
In my humble opinion, the series of articles done by Dr. Cornel Venema for World Reformed Fellowship on the NPP are unmatched in their thoroughness. I have yet to read anything close to an effective response to Venema's critique.

Go to http://www.teachingtheword.org then follow the "justification" link.

Also- remember they don't call it the "New" Perspective for no reason. The advocates, Stendhal, Sanders, Dunn and Wright all think that the "old" perspective is either wrong or at best unhelpful (note - the "old" or unhelpful perspective is the Reformation view of justification.) I just find it bizarre and disturbing that men in our circles who have taken vows affirming the old perspective can at the same time be promoting a view that claims that what they subscribed to is either simply wrong or substantially missed the mark. If Wright is right, then I don't see how a man supporting his view can subscribe to WCF 11 (and other sections) without making known to their Presbytery or Session that they really don't think the confession expresses the doctrine accurately or fully. Is it just me or do others here feel this way too?
 
openairboy-
Don Garlington has responded to Piper *(Edited for content by admin) Also, NT Wright has a commentary on Romans that you can digest. To run with a couple of his lectures, "What Saint Paul Really Said?", and treat it like a comprehensive treatment of Pauline theology isn't real honest. This way you can see Wright's case exegetically and how he ends up where he does.

Thanks for the reply. Garlington's essay is what prompted my disequilibrium (I didn't read the whole thing though). He seems a little over-concerned with the difference between "look upon as" and "credit" in deciding what exactly "justify" means. Now, maybe I'm just a carnal lay-person, but I don't see what the difference is. Of course, it may just be that I'm not trained in the higher art of exegesis (especially from the original language).

If you decide to delve into this "controversy", please do your homework. Read the originals and don't rely on Lingon Duncan and others, because I would suggest that these men read "NPP", whatever it is, rather critically, i.e. where can I disagree?, rather than trying to understand their position.
Ya know, I read a Lingon Duncan essay about NPP several months ago. One thing I specifically remember him saying is that NPP proponents respond to criticism by saying something like "Oh you just read N.T. Wright to criticize him." This is why he made the point to ensure his readers that he'd been reading everything N.T. Wright wrote for a LONG time - including before he acheived his current popularity.

Thanks though, I'll probably check out that commentary you mentioned.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco



Jay,

Part of the problem is that most people haven't even read Sanders, and have spent very little time with Wright and Dunn, then they lump all these guys to together as if to say that they are a monolithic group, i.e. "The New Perspective Movement". To make things worse they end up lumping "The Federal Vision" and "Shepherdites" into that group and act like they've done their homework.

This is a classic case of pro-NPP ad hominem. Ligon Duncan has read everything that Wright has written. Everything. I have first hand knowledge of that. Guy Waters studied under E.P. Sanders while getting his Ph.D. at Duke. So between the two of them, they have read more Sanders, Dunn and Wright than almost anyone. If you had ever bothered to really delve into the criticisms of Duncan, Kelly, et al, you would know that they are familiar with Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright and acknowledge the differences between them. They have also done significant work in the Pauline corpus refuting the NPP.

The reason that the NPP gets lumped in with the Auburn Avenue movement and Norman Shepherd is because they have lumped certain aspects of each together. It is not by coincidence that NT Wright is the speaker one year at the Auburn Avenue Conference and then Shepherd the next. It is not a coincidence that Doug Wilson does a review of Wright and says that he agrees with about half of what Wright says.

It is also not a coincidence that these movements are killing churches in the PCA, OPC, etc. [/quote]

Thanks for proving my point, Fred. This is a perfect case in point about reading to be critical rather than reading to understand. Nowhere is my post an ad hom, but a simple admonition to read primary sources. To believe that people like Duncan have read Wright through a critical lense isn't an ad hom. O'well.

That's alright.

openairboy

P.S. The Garlington link was taken out, is there a reason for that? Click Here for the link.

[Edited on 31-10-2004 by openairboy]
 
Originally posted by hhtuck

Thanks for the reply. Garlington's essay is what prompted my disequilibrium (I didn't read the whole thing though). He seems a little over-concerned with the difference between "look upon as" and "credit" in deciding what exactly "justify" means. Now, maybe I'm just a carnal lay-person, but I don't see what the difference is. Of course, it may just be that I'm not trained in the higher art of exegesis (especially from the original language).

I can agree that there are points that lack clarity, but let me suggest that this is due more to paradigm shifts and "world views" than substantive issues at all points. For those who will read that last sentence and say, "THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES...THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES...YOU DON'T THINK THEY ARE SUBSTANTIVE..." Keep in mind that we work and interpret the world through a certain grid or lense, and, as Kuhn points out, occassionally someone comes along and challenges that paradigm. The "orthodox" are going to scream and shout about person a, b, and c being heterodox, etc., but instead of simply having knee jerk reactions, I think we should listen, especially as you have pointed out, it seems that they are caught up in articulating things a certain way.

Ya know, I read a Lingon Duncan essay about NPP several months ago. One thing I specifically remember him saying is that NPP proponents respond to criticism by saying something like "Oh you just read N.T. Wright to criticize him." This is why he made the point to ensure his readers that he'd been reading everything N.T. Wright wrote for a LONG time - including before he acheived his current popularity.

My point isn't to defend Wright per se, but, I SIMPLY BELIEVE, (NO AD HOM INTENDED) that he quoted selectively from Wright. Intentional or not, I don't know, but selective from my view nonetheless.

openairboy

[Edited on 31-10-2004 by openairboy]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top