# NPP (New Perspective on Paul): Heresy?



## Vox Oculi (Jan 21, 2016)

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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 21, 2016)

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 (Jan 21, 2016)

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 (Jan 21, 2016)

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 (Jan 21, 2016)

"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 (Jan 22, 2016)

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 (Jan 22, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

jwithnell said:


> "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 (Jan 22, 2016)

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 (Jan 22, 2016)

Philip said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

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


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2016)

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 (Jan 22, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

Philip said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

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 (Jan 22, 2016)

Hamalas said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 22, 2016)

In seminary, we referred to him as NT Wrong.


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2016)

Hamalas said:


> 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. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

Philip said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2016)

greenbaggins said:


> 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 (Jan 23, 2016)

Vox Oculi said:


> 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 (Jan 23, 2016)

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 (Jan 23, 2016)

Philip said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 23, 2016)

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_ Perspective_s_ 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 (Jan 23, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> 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_ Perspective_s_ 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 (Jan 23, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> 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_ Perspective_s_ 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 (Jan 23, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> 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_ Perspective_s_ 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 (Jan 23, 2016)

timmopussycat said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > 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_ Perspective_s_ on Paul than anyone here.
> ...



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 (Jan 23, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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.


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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.



I haven't read his Romans commentary, but if Scot McKnight's summary is correct, I don't think it's all that far off-base.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Is Paul really that hard to understand? Does it really require studies of 2nd Temple Judaism to unpack what he's *really* saying?



In the modern academy, yes it does. To be an academic NT scholar, you have to be versed in these things. Otherwise Wright wouldn't have the right to write for academic audiences.* And Wright still gets accused of being a raging fundy who thinks the Bible is crystal-clear in some quarters. Read the first couple chapters of PFG, where he goes into his method: he basically concludes that the Bible is understandable.

It might help to compare his involvement with NPP with his involvement with the so-called "third quest for the historical Jesus." His conclusion is that the church has had it right all along, but to reach that conclusion, he has to do the work of a historian because he's doing work in the academy. It's just that he's also a churchman and so his work has a pastoral edge to it and is meant to be accessible as well as scholarly.

This piece of "perspective" could be illustrated from another anecdote from the Harvard talk: he was presenting on Paul, and a divinity student asked the question, "Which Paul?" And Wright had to present a brief, but also hilarious and pointed, argument for why we should assume that Paul wrote the letters attributed to him. That's the primary context he's addressing.

Another way of putting is this: we seem to be fine with this method of exegeting the Bible in context first when Meredith Kline and Geerhardus Vos do it, but we object when Wright does it. It seems that the difference here is that we dislike some of Wright's conclusions. If that's the case, then what we need is simply better scholarship.

*apologies for the pun, but it was inevitable, really.



ReformedReidian said:


> 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.



Again, read the first couple chapters of PFG and you may be pleasantly surprised.

Part of the challenge for many of us is to read Wright charitably first and then to go back and critique. So many of the articles I've seen on this take sides without really taking notice of Wright's context or his real position. He really is a Christocentric thinker, and many of our disagreements with him actually stem from places where he is inconsistent with the implications of the more basic commitments he has!

And the places to critique are numerous: he's fairly ignorant of what Luther and the reformation actually taught; it's sometimes the case that he claims he's being original when most of us in the reformed camp have been saying something similar for a while.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2016)

Philip said:


> *apologies for the pun, but it was inevitable, really.



None necessary. Well played. I was waiting for you to subconsciously misspell a word.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2016)

Philip said:


> Again, read the first couple chapters of PFG and you may be pleasantly surprised.



Reading them right (sorry!) now. I like what he is saying, but he has this habit of writing off a lot of metaphysical systems as "Platonism."


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> I like what he is saying, but he has this habit of writing off a lot of metaphysical systems as "Platonism."



Well, he was trained in the 70s. What do you expect? Until someone can come up with a way to translate traditional metaphysics into terms that can be understood after the dust has finished settling on ordinary language philosophy, that's going to be typical. OLP was a step in the right direction after logical positivism, but ontology is still a largely dead language.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2016)

Philip said:


> In the modern academy, yes it does. To be an academic NT scholar, you have to be versed in these things.


I wasn't arguing that one should not do historical research. My problem is the method that ignores what an actual argument is and claiming that something is motivating it that the author never hints at. It's quite like the NT "scholars" who claim that Paul is concerned about prostitutes in 1 Corinthians when he explains very clearly that he is thinking of Eve and the Fall. 2nd Temple Judaism is interesting (I very much enjoy Edersheim and others) but it is an abuse of exegesis and hermeneutics to completely overthrow syntax and context and other disciplines to say that the background so controls a text that we must conclude that the author is simply aping a train of thought.

By the way, I've said repeatedly that I have a *big* problem with the fact that Kline (and his disciples) think that finding Hittite treaties in the 50's makes absolutely plain that we have misunderstood the nature of the Covenant because it did not emerge from the text itself.

I find this method theologically irresponsible.


----------

