Who is the Man in Romans 7:14-25?

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by The Lamb
I found this gem also.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXI/31-8.htm

This is no gem. Dunn is wholly unreliable, being one the of major - and worst - proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. This is an example of his reworking of a text to bolster his own conclusions.

Do not go to the link for anything more than information on how an unorthodox scholar reads Paul.

Fred: AS I look back, the gem was suppose to be put to another link. My apologies. But it presents ideas in a balanced way I thought. I also have to admit that I do nto due a CIA background check on everything I find on the net. I read it, if it appears genuinely humble, I give it an ear. IF it immediately presents a terrible thought, I close the book

[Edited on 3-18-2005 by The Lamb]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by The Lamb
I found this gem also.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXI/31-8.htm

This is no gem. Dunn is wholly unreliable, being one the of major - and worst - proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. This is an example of his reworking of a text to bolster his own conclusions.

Do not go to the link for anything more than information on how an unorthodox scholar reads Paul.

Fred: AS I look back, the gem was suppose to be put to another link. My apologies. But it presents ideas in a balanced way I thought. I also have to admit that I do nto due a CIA background check on everything I find on the net. I read it, if it appears genuinely humble, I give it an ear. IF it immediately presents a terrible thought, I close the book

[Edited on 3-18-2005 by The Lamb]

Joe,

My criticism was meant of Dunn (for whom I have little patience) and not for you. I actually assume that you had stumbed on the link without a knowledge of who Dunn is. While people certainly should not be expected to know who Dunn is, it also is not a far stretch ("CIA check") that I do. Dunn is one of the big three proponents (along with NT Wright and EP Sanders) of a new model of justification that is seeking to take over the Reformed world, the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). The NPP posits, in a nutshell, that Paul was not concerned with Jews who were seeking their own righteousness. Simply, they say, the Reformers were all wrong about Paul's conflict with Judaism and who the Pharisees were. The Pharisees (according to NPP) weren't legalists or semi-Pelagians. They were just too nationalistic.

That is why Dunn's rejection of the classic view of Romans 7 is no surprise. For Dunn, you keep your salvation by obeying, and in order to have any hope of doing that, he lowers the bar on what you have to obey.

Bad stuff.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by The Lamb
I found this gem also.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXI/31-8.htm

This is no gem. Dunn is wholly unreliable, being one the of major - and worst - proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. This is an example of his reworking of a text to bolster his own conclusions.

Do not go to the link for anything more than information on how an unorthodox scholar reads Paul.

Fred: AS I look back, the gem was suppose to be put to another link. My apologies. But it presents ideas in a balanced way I thought. I also have to admit that I do nto due a CIA background check on everything I find on the net. I read it, if it appears genuinely humble, I give it an ear. IF it immediately presents a terrible thought, I close the book

[Edited on 3-18-2005 by The Lamb]

Joe,

My criticism was meant of Dunn (for whom I have little patience) and not for you. I actually assume that you had stumbed on the link without a knowledge of who Dunn is. While people certainly should not be expected to know who Dunn is, it also is not a far stretch ("CIA check") that I do. Dunn is one of the big three proponents (along with NT Wright and EP Sanders) of a new model of justification that is seeking to take over the Reformed world, the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). The NPP posits, in a nutshell, that Paul was not concerned with Jews who were seeking their own righteousness. Simply, they say, the Reformers were all wrong about Paul's conflict with Judaism and who the Pharisees were. The Pharisees (according to NPP) weren't legalists or semi-Pelagians. They were just too nationalistic.

That is why Dunn's rejection of the classic view of Romans 7 is no surprise. For Dunn, you keep your salvation by obeying, and in order to have any hope of doing that, he lowers the bar on what you have to obey.

Bad stuff.

I did not even look at who wrote it...hahahaha That is what i meant. I do not even know what the classical view of Romans 7 is. Reading this thread, it has been debated forever by learned men within the same traditions. So I assumed it was never considered orthodox either way.

 

[fredtgreco]

There is some measure of debate on the passage; that is why I said "classic" (as in held by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the Magisterial Reformers) and not "orthodox" (and therefore implying that Lloyd-Jones was unorthodox).

Dunn's views on justification are decidedly unorthodox. He must of necessity take a position on Romans 7 that allows for him to consistently hold his views on justification. The classic view does not allow that.