# How would you respond to this NPist?



## tellville (Apr 3, 2006)

I have been having a discussion with somebody in my church about NPism for a while on our church message board. I was curious at how people here would respond to his latest post. NPism isn't my forte and will definitely be an area I look into in the coming months. 

tellville wrote:
Which I do. Arminianism and Pelagianism are works based systems. I am firmly and adamantly against both.


tellville wrote:
bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:
But in any case, I'm not even sure whether Judaism at that time could be properly called "a religion involving works" -- I need to read more about it. I will note, however, that Dunn pointed out a common presumptuous Jewish attitude that on the day of judgment God would condemn the wicked pagans yet show special leniency towards Jews. This special leniency and privilege cuts against the idea that the religion involved meritorious "works."

(tellville)
No it doesn´t. It shows that God freely chose his elect people the Jews (notice that God didn´t choose the Chinese? Or the Greeks? Or the Romans? They are all the wicked Pagans). Yet, did you not say that the Jews had to maintain works to remain a Jew? At the very least, Jewish males had to be circumcised, or in most cases, parents had to circumcise their young.

(bioinformaticsIsNeat)
But suppose you talk to your average Arminian, who hasn't really studied theology, and you ask them describe their faith. They'll tell you that we can't earn our salvation, but have to place our faith in Jesus Christ. If you accuse them of having a works-based religion, initially they'll probably be puzzled and confused, and then after some discussion they'll likely say that a free-will choice to accept Jesus doesn't count as a work. It's only if they really think about it and wrestle with the problem that they might become a Calvinist. So from your Calvinist point of view, Arminians have a works-based religion. But in their minds, it is not a works-based religion.

Maybe it was the same thing with most Jews in Paul's day. Whether or not they had a works-based religion (as evaluated from a Calvinist perspective), they did not consider their religion to based on works and would react with puzzlement or objections if told otherwise (this is assuming the New Perspective view is accurate, of course).

tellville wrote:
Back to NPism for a sec: I have a few questions I´ve been mulling over:

1. It seems to me that E.P. Sanders/James Dunn is teaching more of a monolith Second Temple faith then actually existed. Are They?

Not at all. Sanders has harsh words for New Testament scholars who thought of Second Temple Judaism as a monolithic faith. He points out that one of the major scholarly errors was viewing Rabbinic writings at the time as presenting a single coherent and systematic view, which led in part to a serious mischaracterization of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism.

What Sanders tried to do was look at how various forms of Judaism functioned at a basic level, to identify a common pattern of religion that they (generally) shared in common. I haven't read the details of his analysis, but I'm pretty sure he didn't find a systematic exposition of covenantal nomism laid out in the various writings. Rather, Sanders identified the pattern of covenantal nomism, which he saw as a basic assumption that was common to various forms of Judaism.

tellville wrote:
2. What exactly does E.P. Sanders mean by "œgrace". I have a sneaking suspicion his view of grace is the same as the Roman Catholic´s view of grace, which in reality, isn´t anywhere near what traditional Protestants and Reformers would say "œgrace" is.

I'm not sure; I'll need to read more of his work. Keep in mind to distinguish between Sanders' view and the view(s) he identifies in early Jewish writings.

tellville wrote:
3. What is E.P. Sanders/James Dunn view of scripture?

Sanders is a critical scholar and does not believe in the possibility of miracles. Dunn also uses critical methods, but I'm not as clear about his view of scripture. Dr. Page said he wasn't sure of Dunn's theological leanings, but thought that Dunn might consider himself evangelical.

tellville wrote:
4. Leading from the answer of the previous question: Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn use the Gospels to determine what Second Temple Judaism believed? For example, what Jesus had to say about the Palestinian Jews probably has some bearing on what they believed (Matthew 23 immediately comes to mind). Or does Sanders/Dunn not view Jesus as a good source? Or do they not even think Jesus is accurately represented by the Gospel writers?

I forget exactly what Sanders said about this; for Dunn I'm not sure. I forget whether Sanders thinks the gospels present an inaccurate view of the Pharisees, but I think he would at least say that it was slanted or that many Christians and New Testament scholar get an imbalanced view if they only read (often misread) what is said in the gospels.

As an example to consider, if I drew my views of liberal Christianity only from what I've heard you say criticizing them, I would have a slanted or imbalanced view, even if everything that you said was true an accurate.

Where might Jesus' statements lead to a different view of Second Temple Judaism? I don't see anything in Matthew 23 that would suggest that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for having a works-based religion. In verse 23, Jesus does not attack their tithing of spices as a "work", but even says they should continue to do so. The problem is their neglect of "justice, mercy and faithfulness." And of course there's Matthew 5:17-20.

tellville wrote:
5. What does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn actually think Paul wrote? Do they deny that Paul wrote the pastorals (1,2 Timothy and Titus)? Ephesians? Colossians? Will not cutting the Pauline corpus in half radically change "Paul´s perspective"? It´s like these people are saying "Well Paul never really said we were saved by grace through faith alone" and I go "œExcuse me, did you lose Ephesians?!" And then they say "No, we didn´t lose it, Paul didn´t write it". This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe the reason there is a New Perspective on Paul is because there is a New Perspective on what he wrote?

Such skepticism about the authorship of certain Pauline letters is not new, but has been common in New Testament studies since the nineteenth century. It didn't stop scholars from reading Paul in the "traditional" manner. Rudolf Bultmann even thought Paul had rejected Judaism and the Jewish law, adopting many Greek ideas.

The reason for the New Perspective on Paul is really a better understanding of Second Temple Judaism. It is primarily a "New Perspective" on Judaism, and only secondarily about Paul. The main problem was that the view of Judaism in New Testament scholarship had been grossly inaccurate, a fabrication that was not based on a responsible use of the ancient Jewish sources. New Testament scholars almost universally held a view of first century Judaism as a rigid, legalistic religion based on human effort, where believers struggled in fear, uncertain as to whether they had earned enough merit to avoid God´s condemnation on the day of judgment. In 1977, Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and it finally got the attention of New Testament scholars. Just read the first sixty pages of the book, and you'll get an idea of the poor basis for that old view of Judaism.

I'm not sure what Dunn thinks of Ephesians, but I don't think it necessarily contradicts the New Perspective on Paul. I read a passing comment by Dunn where he used Ephesians to bolster his argument about Paul's theology (I forget the exact issue), saying that the letter was written either by Paul or by one of his followers who was sympathetic to Paul's teaching.

Eph 2:8-9 sounds like an argument against "earning salvation through works," but it is a brief and compact statement that would summarize ideas explained more fully elsewhere. Verse 9 might be about boasting that God had chosen the Jews to be saved and not the Gentiles, with the "works" simply marking out who was a Jew, with the emphasis being that people (in contrast to God) could see who was favored by God. Verse 10 places emphasis on "good works", which may contrast with superficial "works" in v. 9 that did not reflect true obedience. More importantly, Eph 2:11-22 is all about how Christ has put an end to the division between the Jews and Gentiles in order to create one humanity in Christ, which according to the New Perspective is the central issue in Paul's view of the Jewish law. Verse 15 says that Christ "abolished the law," but this again is a brief statement that may be a shorthand for a more nuanced position. It is made in the context of the "dividing wall" between Jews and Gentiles, so it may refer to the misuse of the law as a boundary that would keep the blessings of God for the Jews only. Surely you would want to take into account Paul's statement in Romans 3:31 that the law is not "nullified" or "overthrown," but is "established" or "upheld". In addition, one should take into account Eph 5:5.

tellville wrote:
6. Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn believe that Paul can contradict John? And John contradict Peter? And Peter contradicts Matthew? Etc.?

See answer to (3) above.

tellville wrote:
The answers to these questions are going to radically affect E.P. Sanders/James Dunn scholarship and anybody who then uses their scholarship. I don´t really care how respected they are by the world; if they don´t accept the Bible as having any sense of reliability I can´t put a lot of weight into their scholarship. I should be aware of it, and maybe it will open up something to me that I would have never noticed before, but if the results of their scholarship are impossible to achieve from my current presuppositions, then I can´t trust their scholarship.

Christians are not immune to bias and making mistakes. In Romans 3:9-20, Paul reminds Jew in his audience that the scriptures repeatedly tell them how sinful they have been.

Maybe instead of talking theoretically about how the letters that some scholars doubt were written by Paul, it would help to look at particular passages that might be in tension with a New Perspective reading of Paul's other letters.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 3, 2006)

Guy Waters wrote a book regarding the New Perspective that is quite good, especially since he was a student of Sanders. I would highly recommend it since your friend considering Sander's and Dunn's views versus NT Wright.


----------



## tellville (Apr 3, 2006)

I read this review of Guy Water's book:
http://www.rabbisaul.com/watersreview.htm

It doesn't sound trustworthy (the book).


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> I read this review of Guy Water's book:
> http://www.rabbisaul.com/watersreview.htm
> 
> It doesn't sound trustworthy (the book).



Considering that Tim Gallant is a New Perspective proponent, I'm not surprised that he is not too crazy about the book.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tellville_
> ...



A relatively unqualified and uneducated one at that. Being denied ordination by a Reformed denomination isn't usually a good sign, either. But, in this day and age, you can just create a new church if the Church finds you to be outside the bounds of orthodoxy. It's all the rage.


----------



## tellville (Apr 4, 2006)

Well Reformers recommend it, and NPist's hate it, so I think that means I should get it!


----------



## tellville (Apr 10, 2006)

This is what I eventually responded with. 
James White's and Sinclair Ferguson 
were a big and essential help.

What do you guys think? Where could
I have improved? 

This post is seperated into
two sections, one purely replying to David's post [1], and the second
describing some intial problems I have with NPism, with particular
reference to N.T. Wright [2].
<br>

<br>
[1]
<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
But suppose you talk to your average Arminian, who hasn't really
studied theology, and you ask them describe their faith. They'll tell
you that we can't earn our salvation, but have to place our faith in
Jesus Christ. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
If they say this, then they aren´t an Arminian. They don´t need to know
the Calvinistic system to be saved, they just need to know the results
of that system. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> If you accuse them of having a works-based religion, initially they'll probably be puzzled and confused, </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>

Well, in your above example, they haven´t studied theology, so they
wouldn´t call themselves Arminians to begin with. Furthermore, they
have said nothing yet for me to think they are Arminians. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> then after some discussion they'll likely say that a free-will choice to accept Jesus doesn't count as a work. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Which of course, they would be wrong in saying. Go to the "œWTH is a Calvinist" thread to see why. 

<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
So from your Calvinist point of view, Arminians have a works-based
religion. But in their minds, it is not a works-based religion. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
From the Mormon´s point of view he thinks he is going to become a God
when he dies. I guess that must mean he is going to be one. Just
because an Arminian doesn´t think his faith is a work, doesn´t mean it
isn´t. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
Maybe it was the same thing with most Jews in Paul's day. Whether or
not they had a works-based religion (as evaluated from a Calvinist
perspective), they did not consider their religion to based on works
and would react with puzzlement or objections if told otherwise (this
is assuming the New Perspective view is accurate, of course). </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
We are not evaluating Second Temple Judaism from a Calvinistic
perspective. We are evaluating Second Temple Judaism from a Biblical
Pauline perspective. <br>


<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
He points out that one of the major scholarly errors was viewing
Rabbinic writings at the time as presenting a single coherent and
systematic view, which led in part to a serious mischaracterization of
Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
From what I have begun to read, it seems quite obvious that E.P.
Sanders has only a caricature of what the Reformers believed. The
problem with the NPist´s is that they seem to only attack straw men and
caricatures of the Reformed faith. But this is something I will have to
look more into. <br>

<br>

</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
I'm not sure; I'll need to read more of his work. Keep in mind to
distinguish between Sanders' view and the view(s) he identifies in
early Jewish writings. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
How Sanders defines grace will affect how he approaches Second Temple
Judaism´s view of grace. If he doesn´t approach the data with a
Biblical view of grace, he´s going to come up with skewed conclusions. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> Sanders is a critical scholar and does not believe in the possibility of miracles. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">

<br>

<br>
Which instantly should send up about a million red flags that maybe we
should be a lot more critical of E.P. Sanders scholarship then we
currently have been. I´m not saying ignore the scholarship, I´m saying
be very critical of it. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
Dunn also uses critical methods, but I'm not as clear about his view of
scripture. Dr. Page said he wasn't sure of Dunn's theological leanings,
but thought that Dunn might consider himself evangelical. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Dunn grew up in an Evangelical environment. I know this. But from what
I´ve been reading it seems he might be abandoning that framework.
Something to look into. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
I forget exactly what Sanders said about this; for Dunn I'm not sure. I
forget whether Sanders thinks the gospels present an inaccurate view of
the Pharisees, but I think he would at least say that it was slanted or
that many Christians and New Testament scholar get an imbalanced view
if they only read (often misread) what is said in the gospels. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
So, are you telling me that the Bible, which we would hold to be the
Word of God, presents an inaccurate picture of the Pharisees? I don´t
deny that the Gospel writers are polemical, have an agenda in what they
write, and are quite selective in the stories that they choose to tell,
etc. But are you saying that the Gospels have an inaccurate view of the
Pharisees? <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
As an example to consider, if I drew my views of liberal Christianity
only from what I've heard you say criticizing them, I would have a
slanted or imbalanced view, even if everything that you said was true
an accurate. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>

Except there is a difference between what I say and what the Word of
God says. Are you saying that the Bible is leading you astray? <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> Where might Jesus' statements lead to a different view of Second Temple Judaism? I don't see anything in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Matthew+23" target="_blank">Matthew 23</a>
that would suggest that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for having
a works-based religion. In verse 23, Jesus does not attack their
tithing of spices as a "work", but even says they should continue to do
so. The problem is their neglect of "justice, mercy and faithfulness." </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
The whole chapter is Jesus criticizing their works. And while Jesus is
criticizing their justice, mercy and faithfulness this is far from
being the only theme, let alone main theme of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Matthew+23" target="_blank">Matthew 23</a>. Maybe you forgot such verses as these:
<br>

<br>
v.13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you
shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in
yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
(interesting, why were they not "œallow[ing] those who are entering to
go in?" Because these people were not performing the Works of the Law)
<br>

<br> v.14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you
devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers;
therefore you will receive greater condemnation. "
<br>

<br>v.15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you
travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he
becomes one, <span style="font-weight: bold;">you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.</span>

<br>

<br>
v.33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"
<br>

<br>
Again, your point takes into consideration one theme, but one of many only. 
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> And of course there's <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Matthew+5:17-20" target="_blank">Matthew 5:17-20</a>. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">

<br>

<br>
This passage is explaining how Jesus himself encountered many
misunderstandings during his ministry. For example, that he was
continuously disobeying the Law. He was not teaching against the Old
Testament Law per se; rather the very opposite was true. One problem
was that the Jewish religious authorities had added so many human
traditions to the law of God, that when Jesus opposed and disobeyed
these traditions, people mistook him as opposing and disobeying the law
itself. I would imagine Paul is attacking similar ideas, though not
exclusive to these ideas. But I doubt E.P. Sanders or James Dunn would
take things like this into consideration. Maybe they do, but given
their presuppositions, I would find this very unlikely. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">Such
skepticism about the authorship of certain Pauline letters is not new,
but has been common in New Testament studies since the nineteenth
century. It didn't stop scholars from reading Paul in the "traditional"
manner. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
I´m well aware that skepticism about Pauline scholarship has been
around since the nineteenth century. And I would imagine that they
didn't stop reading Paul in the "traditional" manner because it was
quite clear to them that this was the proper manner to interpret him
as. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">The
reason for the New Perspective on Paul is really a better understanding
of Second Temple Judaism. It is primarily a "New Perspective" on
Judaism, and only secondarily about Paul. The main problem was that the
view of Judaism in New Testament scholarship had been grossly
inaccurate, a fabrication that was not based on a responsible use of
the ancient Jewish sources. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Really? Do you even know what the old view on Judaism was? Or do you
know what E.P. Sanders thinks was the old view on Second Temple
Judaism? You are making a grand claim about Judaism against what
Christians alike have been making for centuries. Thus, grand evidence
should be provided. <br>

<br>
Have you read "History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
4 vols." by Emil Schurer? It makes great use of the original sources.
This is still a standard work today as an accurate and thorough history
of Second Temple Judaism. It didn´t stop Emil Schurer from accepting
the Old Perspective on Paul. And I am sure the new set by D.A. Carson
will shed some more light on the issue. <br>

<br>
Now my next point should not be taken too heavily, as it is akin to a
genetic fallacy, but I think it sheds some light on this new movement
(the same way Medieval Catholicism sheds light on Luther). I wonder,
from what I have begun to read, how much our post-holocaust world has
affected this new movement. We live in a world that desires not to
bring offence to the Jews. Thus, Christians feel forced to abandon
speaking about Second Temple Judaism in a negative way. The New
Perspective on Paul transforms our view on Judaism, so that we never no
longer speak in a perceived pejorative way in which we dismiss Judaism
as a religion of works righteousness contrast with the gospel. W.D.
Davies (who was E.P. Sanders Father in Law I believe) wrote a very
similar treaties as Sanders shortly after World War II and yet it
barely registered with scholarship. However, just a little while later,
once the knowledge of the holocaust became full blown, it began to take
off. And with Sanders, it reached the moon and beyond. <br>

<br>
Furthermore NPist´s tend to be large advocates of Ecumenicalism. Thus,
NPism seems to offer a rare hope to them. If only all sides would admit
that we all have gotten it wrong for millennia. If only during the
Reformation Martin Luther had thought like us then we would have never
gotten into this mess. If only they had EP Sanders insights into Second
Temple Judaism, we could have saved ourselves a load of grief, etc. I
really wonder if Ecumenicalism is a stronger motivation behind
advocating NPism then the actual words of Scripture are?
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">Just read the first sixty pages of the book, and you'll get an idea of the poor basis for that old view of Judaism. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">

<br>

<br>But from what I have begun to read, it seems that he attacks
caricatures and straw men that do not actually exist. I will have to
look into this more. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
I'm not sure what Dunn thinks of Ephesians, but I don't think it
necessarily contradicts the New Perspective on Paul. I read a passing
comment by Dunn where he used Ephesians to bolster his argument about
Paul's theology (I forget the exact issue), saying that the letter was
written either by Paul or by one of his followers who was sympathetic
to Paul's teaching. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
But does he use all of Ephesians? 
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Eph+2:8-9" target="_blank">Eph 2:8-9</a>
sounds like an argument against "earning salvation through works," but
it is a brief and compact statement that would summarize ideas
explained more fully elsewhere. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Ah yes, the classic Arminian ploy. 
<br>

<br>
Arminian: "Well, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=John+6:35-45" target="_blank">John 6:35-45</a> can´t mean what your saying because this verse over here contradicts that!" 
<br>

<br>
Calvinist: "But before we go discuss that other verse, can you then
tell me what this verse means without doing horrendous justice to the
text" <br>

<br>

Arminain: "But it can´t mean what your saying because it contradicts this passage over here!" 
<br>

<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;"> ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum </span>
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
Verse 9 might be about boasting that God had chosen the Jews to be
saved and not the Gentiles, with the "works" simply marking out who was
a Jew, with the emphasis being that people (in contrast to God) could
see who was favored by God. Verse 10 places emphasis on "good works",
which may contrast with superficial "works" in v. 9 that did not
reflect true obedience. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">

<br>

<br>
<a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Eph+2:8-9" target="_blank">Eph 2:8-9</a>
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no
one may boast. "
<br>

<br>
Some questions: 
<br>1. Where in the text does it lead us to believe that God had chosen
the Jews to be saved and not the Gentiles when Paul says "œso that no
one may boast"? What reason are we given to reject the plain meaning of
the text? The meaning which states that we have no reason to boast in
our salvation because it is a gift of God?
<br>

<br>2. Where does the text lead us to believe that Paul is talking
merely about superficial works that did not reflect true obedience when
the whole chapter up to this point has been talking about our wretched
sinfulness? <br>
Verses 1-7 state:
<br>

<br>
"<span style="font-weight: bold;">And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world,</span> according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Among
them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the
desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of
wrath, even as the rest.</span> But God, being rich in mercy, because
of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our
transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have
been saved, and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the
heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might
show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ
Jesus."
<br>

<br>
Paul is not critiquing how they use to live as "righteous people". He is explaining how before we became Christians we were <span style="font-weight: bold;"> dead</span>
in sin. And because we were dead in sin we were enslaved to the evil of
this world. Thus, we have no reason to boast about our Christian good
works now because we only do them by the grace of God. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> More importantly, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Eph+2:11-22" target="_blank">Eph 2:11-22</a>
is all about how Christ has put an end to the division between the Jews
and Gentiles in order to create one humanity in Christ, which according
to the New Perspective is the central issue in Paul's view of the
Jewish law. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>

While it is true that Christ has allowed Gentiles to be part of God´s
chosen people, to think this is the central issue of Paul in this
passage does disservice to the previous 10 verses, and really the whole
letter up to this point. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">
Verse 15 says that Christ "abolished the law," but this again is a
brief statement that may be a shorthand for a more nuanced position. It
is made in the context of the "dividing wall" between Jews and
Gentiles, so it may refer to the misuse of the law as a boundary that
would keep the blessings of God for the Jews only. Surely you would
want to take into account Paul's statement in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+3:31" target="_blank">Romans 3:31</a> that the law is not "nullified" or "overthrown," but is "established" or "upheld". In addition, one should take into account <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Eph+5:5" target="_blank">Eph 5:5</a>. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">

<br>

<br>
I would agree that it is clear that the rest of the chapter is talking
about the unity that Gentiles and Jews have in Christ. However, the
first part of the chapter is talking about why we should not boast
about our works and how our salvation is purely a gift of God. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> <table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>tellville wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">

6. Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn believe that Paul can contradict John?
And John contradict Peter? And Peter contradicts Matthew? Etc.? </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody"> 
<br>
See answer to (3) above. </span></td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Again, the answers to these questions should cause major red flags to
go up to warn us that the conclusions produced by these individuals
could very well be impossible to achieve with our current
presuppositions and thus should be read extremely critically. <br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote"> Christians are not immune to bias and making mistakes. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+3:9-20" target="_blank">Romans 3:9-20</a>, Paul reminds Jew in his audience that the scriptures repeatedly tell them how sinful they have been. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">

<br>

<br>
You are right, Christians, just like everybody else are not immune to
bias. Neutrality is a myth. Objectivity is a myth. Thus, why as
Christians should we adopt the presuppositions of the world when we
approach our own Scriptures? Am I to pretend I am an Atheist when I
approach scripture so as to get the true meaning of it? Am I to
presuppose that the Bible is not God´s word to his people? Will that
garner me an accurate understanding of the Bible? Or do I accept the
presuppositions given to us by the Christian faith and Scripture, such
as what Paul states in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=2+Timothy+3:16" target="_blank">2 Timothy 3:16</a>: 
<br>

<br>
"All Scripture is <span style="font-weight: bold;">God-breathed</span> and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
<br>

<br>
[2]

<br>

<br>
Now lets move on to some other distinct problems I already see with the New Perspective on Paul movement. 
<br>

<br>
First, I wish people would first understand the Old Perspective on
Paul, from people who actually support the Old Perspective on Paul,
before they began to embrace a movement that seeks to redefine the
entire history of debate in the Christian Church. This would probably
be the first avenue that I would pursue and emphasize. I think it is
foolish to immerse ones self in a movement before one even has a firm
understanding of the movement they are leaving. Maybe this isn´t you
Dave, but I don´t remember you telling me that you did a major paper on
the Old Perspective on Paul first. <br>

<br>
Second, I would emphasis that the New Perspective on Paul isn´t ALL
bad. Truth is truth regardless of where it is found. For example, I
don´t deny that there will be an eschatological justification like
NPist´s say. We all await for the day where everything God has done is
going to be vindicated. However, I just don´t see ALL references to
justification that way. <br>

<br>
Now, there are some points I would like to immediately address that I think need some serious consideration. 
<br>

<br>
First, this quote from N.T. Wright "œWhat Saint Paul Really Said: Was
Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?" (Grand Rapids: W.B.
Eerdmans, 1997), 133. (bold emphasis mine). A book that I own if
anybody wants to read it. <br>

<br>
"I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by 'the gospel'. It is <span style="font-style: italic;">implied</span> by the gospel, when the gospel is proclaimed people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. <span style="font-weight: bold;">But 'The gospel' is not an account of how people get saved. </span>
It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter the proclamation of the lordship
of Jesus Christ. If we could only get that clear in current debate, a
lot of of other false antitheses, not least than thinking about the
mission of the church would quietly unrivaled before our eyes. Let us
be quite clear the gospel is the announcement of Jesus' lordship, which
works with power to bring people to the family of Abraham now redefined
around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him.
'Justification' is the doctrine which insists that all those who have
this faith belong as full members of this family on this basis and no
other."
<br>

<br>Sorry Tawa, you´re wrong. Southern Baptist Convention, you´re
wrong. Evangelical Protestantism, you´re wrong. Roman Catholicism,
you´re wrong. Reformers, you´re wrong. Augustine, you´re wrong.
Ireaneus, you´re wrong. Entire history of Christendom, you´re wrong.
The Gospel has nothing to do with salvation. It is just about declaring
that Jesus is Lord. I know you don´t deny that declaring Jesus is Lord
is an essential part of the Gospel, but you are completely wrong to
think the Gospel has anything to do with actual salvation besides being
an occasionalist aspect of it. <br>

<br>
Now, maybe we are all wrong. Maybe N.T. Wright is right. He is a
brilliant scholar. We would undoubtedly agree with him on the
resurrection. But given the large weight of Church tradition and
history against him, he better have the best flipping, <span style="font-weight: bold;"> biblical</span>, argument imaginable to humankind supporting him. Does he? 
<br>

<br>
N.T. Wright states: <span style="font-style: italic;">One is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. </span>One
is justified by faith and in Jesus. It follows quite clearly that a
great many people are justified by faith who don't know they are
justified by faith. The Galatian Christians were in fact justified by
faith, though they didn't realize it and thought they had to be
circumcised as well. (N.T. Wright, <span style="font-style: italic;">What Saint Paul Really Said</span>, 159.) [emphasis his] 
<br>

<br>

What are the ramifications of this position? Well the people in
Galatia, who thought they had to be circumcised, they're still
justified by faith. It doesn't matter that they missunderstood this
truth as long as they believed in Jesus. It didn't matter if they were
circumcised or not. Is that what Paul said in Galatians? Is that what
we have taught in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+1" target="_blank">Galatians 1</a>? I seem to remember a certain term used called <span style="font-style: italic;">anathema</span> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+1" target="_blank">Galatians 1</a>. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+1:8-9" target="_blank">Galatians 1:8-9</a> states:
<br>

<br>
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (<span style="font-style: italic;">anathema</span>)!
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to
you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (<span style="font-style: italic;">anathema</span>)!"

<br>

<br>
And then <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+5:2" target="_blank">Galatians 5:2</a> states: 
<br>
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, <span style="font-weight: bold;">oh gosh darn it, you're confused.</span>"
<br>

<br>
Oh, wait, that´s what <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+5:2" target="_blank">Galatians 5:2</a> would <span style="font-weight: bold;">have </span> to say for N.T. Wright´s above statement to be true. What does <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+5:2" target="_blank">Galatians 5:2</a> actually state:

<br>

<br>
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Christ will be of no benefit to you.</span>"
<br>

<br>
Paul then goes on to say in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Galatians+5:3-4" target="_blank">Galatians 5:3-4</a>:
<br>

<br>
"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been <span style="font-weight: bold;">severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace</span>." 

<br>

<br>
Wow. Does N.T. Wright just not believe that this passage is there? I
have his newer book on Paul as well and he makes zero references to
these passages. Zero. Nada. I wonder, what is N.T. Wright´s overriding
authority then on this issue, Scripture, or his devotion to
ecumenicalism? <br>

<br>
Furthermore the New Perspective on Paul is denying that what has been
the classical heart of Gospel experience, that the deep conviction of
sin is actually based on an extra biblical tradition. To say to view
Paul, like Augustine or Luther is totally to misunderstand the teaching
of the New Testament about the experience of the apostle Paul. <br>

<br>
For example, N.T. Wrights says that the Works of the Law are just a
sign of being in the covenant. They are truly about ecclesiology.
Circumcision is wrong purely because it separates Jews and Gentiles.
But does this theory have true explanatory power? Let´s look at <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+3:20" target="_blank">Romans 3:20</a>:
<br>

<br>

"because by the Works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin."
<br>

<br>
Are you telling me telling me that knowledge of sin comes trough
circumcision? Do we gain the knowledge of our own sin and of the wrath
of God through circumcision? How can the Works of the Law be mere
covenant signs and still bring me knowledge of my sin? <br>

<br>
Lets move on now to another major reservation I have about N.T. Wright.
<br>

<br>
It is interesting that N.T. Wright insists that Paul was a Shammaite as opposed to a Hillelain (N.T. Wright, <span style="font-style: italic;">What Saint Paul Really Said</span>, 26.) This is despite the fact that <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Acts+22:3" target="_blank">Acts 22:3</a> indicates that Paul was a follower of Gamaliel who was a leading Hillelian teacher. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJ21&x=0&y=0&passage=Acts+22:3" target="_blank">Acts 22:3</a>:

<br>

<br>
"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, <span style="font-weight: bold;">educated at the feet of Gamaliel</span> according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day. "
<br>

<br>
Paul says that he sat at the feet of Gamaliel and that would have then
made him a Hillelian which would have given a whole different
perspective to Paul´s view on the "œcovenant" that is developed by NT
Wright. But Wright says that it´s not possible for Paul to have been a
Hillelian. And why is that not possible? Well because Hillel would
never have agreed, and Gamaliel would have never agreed, with
persecuting Christians. <br>

<br>
Now lets just think about this for a moment. You don't have to be a
great theologian to stop for a moment and go "Well, maybe something
happened to Paul to cause his to change his behaviour." For example,
how about the stoning of Stephen. Maybe when he saw that this Jesus
movement, this false prophet as he would have viewed Christ at this
time, as a tremendous threat to the Judaism of his day, and that's what
caused them to take the actions that he did? There are all sorts of
possibilities. Paul holds to more Hillelian views than Shammai´s views
in the pastoral epistles even regarding divorce and Paul says that he's
studied under the feet of Gamaliel, but of course that's not possible,
as it conflicts with my little pet theory of the New Perspective on
Paul. Again, where is our ultimate authority here? It seems quite clear
that it is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> the exegesis of Scripture. 

<br>

<br>
Remember, folks, N.T. Wright is the most conservative of the NPist´s.
If you can´t even agree with him on these issues, how do you think you
could agree with the likes of Sanders and Dunn? These people are coming
from radical different presuppositions then those of us who try to
conform to Biblical Christianity. <br>

<br>
I am not saying to ignore these scholars. Neither am I saying not to
read these scholars. However, I would be very skeptical of your reasons
in supporting these scholars as opposed to scholars who actually accept
good Biblical and Christian presuppositions. Debating NPism is not the
same as say, debating Calvinism and Arminainism. When Tawa and I (or
anybody else) debate these two topics we are both coming from a firm
conviction of the authority and infallibility of Scripture. But when
one is debating someone on the New Perspective on Paul, this person is
using scholarship that comes to conclusions that are impossible to
achieve with sound Biblical presuppositions. <br>

<br>
There is much more that I could say. But time is a luxury I will not
have for the next few months  Thus, I will probably not be able to
reply with any substance on this thread or board for the next few
months. I would strongly encourage people to be very crtical about
embracing the Emergent Church movement as well the New Persepctive on
Paul. Both movements, while clearly stating some truths, taken to their
ultimate conclusions lead to positions that compromise the very Gospel
itself.</span>


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 10, 2006)

Good response!


----------

