Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 11:19 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
A Pauline Take on the New Perspective

by Douglas Wilson

www.credenda.org/issues/15-5thema.php

Out of respect for a web-zine I won't make a long quote. This part might garner a few "clicks" though.

quote:
The six concerns with the Old Perspective are listed below. Over against the Old Perspective, the New Perspective wants to deny the following:
1. that justification by faith was a new revelation;
2. that faith replaced works;
3. that law stands in opposition to grace;
4. that Paul’s focus was on the individual’s relationship to God;
5. that Judaism was a religion of merit;
6. that Judaism did not resolve Paul’s burden of guilt.

Points of Agreement

In line with the New Perspective, I also deny the first three points as stated above. But this is simply because I hold to the historic Reformed faith, over against contemporary dispensationalism or historic Lutheranism. Does this make Calvin or Turretin advocates of the New Perspective also?

This problem of anachronistic agreement reveals that a good part of this controversy is simply the resurgence of an old denominational debate. The picture is complicated yet further because many in the amillennial Reformed tradition have been influenced (and more than a little) by Lutheranism. And many conservative southern Presbyterians have been influenced by the same revivalist mentality that gave us fundamentalist and baptistic dispensationalism. This means that a good portion of the contemporary Reformed world challenges the New Perspective for denying these first three points. But this, I want to argue, is the result of Reformed writers drifting away from their own historic confessionalism, and trading it in for something else.

But to the extent the New Perspective has simply got the fantods about Lutheranism, there ought to be no controversy within the Reformed world. Our Reformed forefathers were not Lutherans for a reason. But the issue is made even more complex because some of the reasons the New Perspective denies the last three points above extend to some classical Reformed formulations of the gospel, which we will consider in the second half of this article. And further, some of the confusions resident in the New Perspective critique of the last three points will also spill over into their discussion of the first three. So historic Reformed thought denies the first three points, just like the New Perspective does, but the language of denial is sometimes markedly different. And the historic Reformed position differs significantly from the New Perspective on the last three points.

. . .


If anyone needs a fresh topic, here is one.

PoW
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 11:23 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
More:

quote:
Justification by Faith a New Revelation?

That said, this leads into our discussion of the first point of agreement between the historic Reformed faith and the New Perspective. Justification by faith is in no way a new revelation that finally arrived in our midst at the time of the New Testament.

While this point is correct, there are two issues here that get entangled. Thompson observes, rightly , that “a basic premise of Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is that justification by faith is not something new, but was true for Abraham” (Gal. 3:6-9; Rom. 4).2 But who is Thompson arguing with? Earlier he states, “At the risk of caricature and oversimplification, we can summarize some key points of the ‘old’ (primarily ‘Lutheran’) perspective as follows . . .”3` But even here it would have been nice to cite some Lutherans who were maintaining, for example, that Abraham was not justified by faith. I believe at this point the criticism of the Lutheran position, as Thompson anticipated, is something of a caricature. But if the criticism is then extended to another form of the “old” perspective, that of the Reformed, then it is not oversimplified, but rather simply false. One of the distinctive features of the historic Reformed faith has been its insistence of just this point.

Secondly, even in making the correct point that Paul argues that faith is the biblical instrument of justification, and not just the New Testament instrument of justification, important categories are confused. Thompson says, for example, If the essence of Paul’s way of relating to God changed, what does this say about the nature and value of Old Testament faith? Have there been two ways of salvation? This issue will be treated in greater depth in a subsequent section, but note the significant confusion here. There is a difference between Paul as an individual representing a particular erroneous understanding of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament itself. Paul was a Jew, but this does not mean that he was a faithful Jew, rightly understanding the Old Testament.

The issue here is whether the unconverted Paul was a good representative of that Old Testament faith. Paul tells us that he had been a blasphemer, persecutor, and an insolent man (1 Tim. 1:13). He was therefore not one to be trusted in a spiritual exegesis of the Scriptures. The word rendered injurious in the AV could be rendered as insolent —the word is hubristes. Paul was full of overweening contempt for others, and he was therefore not a reliable guide for Old Testament studies.

So to answer Thompson’s question, what does it say about the nature and value of Old Testament faith if the essence of Paul’s way of relating to God changed? It says nothing . Paul had been an evil man, and the law was holy, righteous, and good. Because Paul was a covenant member, his wickedness meant that he was a hypocrite, not a pagan, but he was wicked nonetheless. He consistently misrepresented the Old Testament until he repented of his sin and began teaching the true meaning of the Old Testament.

But returning to the substance of Thompson’s point, it is fully orthodox in the Reformed sense to maintain that the just in the Old Testament shall live by faith and that the just in the New Testament shall live by faith. From the beginning, the Reformed faith has insisted upon this. The continuity of the covenants was a cornerstone in the argument for infant baptism, over against the anabaptists, for example. Calvin, in arguing against them, says this about the Jews of the Old Testament:

    For they [the anabaptists] depict the Jews to us as so carnal that they are more like beasts than men. A covenant with them would not go beyond the temporal life, and the promises given them would rest in present and physical benefits. If this doctrine should obtain, what would remain save that the Jewish nation was satiated for a time with God’s benefits (as men fatten a herd of swine in a sty), only to perish in eternal destruction?4


Men who have come to God in truth have always come to Him in the same way, by grace through faith, lest any should boast. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews alone settles this question. The gallery of saints presented there throughout the course of the Old Testament (and even the Apocrypha) were characterized by their faith working through love. This has always been the way that God saves.

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 11:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
TOO GOOD!

quote:
But what Paul had left behind was not Judaism, but rather his own wicked perversions of it. Simeon had not twisted his covenant faith in this way, and neither had many others. But Saul had done this, and consequently, he did not know or experience the grace of God. He was an unconverted man. As such, he did what unconverted men always do—attach themselves to something they like and use it to boast before God. When God brought him up short, he learned at that point to rely on the righteousness of another.

    And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (Phil. 3:9).


When this happened, his burden of guilt was removed by Christ. It was not removed by Judaism. It was not removed by Christianity, or by the Westminster Confession, or the Four Spiritual Laws. That Paul came to understand his sinfulness through his encounter with Christ is plain enough.

    This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief (1 Tim. 1:15).


Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

The six concerns with the Old Perspective are listed below. Over against the Old Perspective, the New Perspective wants to deny the following:
1. that justification by faith was a new revelation;
2. that faith replaced works;
3. that law stands in opposition to grace;
4. that Paul’s focus was on the individual’s relationship to God;
5. that Judaism was a religion of merit;
6. that Judaism did not resolve Paul’s burden of guilt.


I honestly don't see what's so new about the so-called "New Perspective." It seems to me that the perennial problems in Xtianity with points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 at least have more to do with a skewed conception of faith, works, grace, individuality, guilt and merit.

As Paul demonstrates in quoting Hab. 2:4 and in illustrating JBF from Abraham's example, true Judaism was never the problem; however, it was the misconstrual by many Jews (like Paul) of how man can be justified before God that brought up all the confusion we see Paul battling with in the churches under his apostolic care. As Paul says in Romans 9, they sought righteousness by works of the law, not by faith.

I simply don't see what's so new about the so-called New Perspective. That said, it's certainly a good thing that these truths are being articulated by whomever articulates them.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 1:54 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets has been disclosed— 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. 3:26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.


Here's how I understand the distinction between OT and NT: Paul says in Galatians that Christ came "under the law" that he might redeem those (OT saints) who had died under the curse. I.e., until Christ's death, those sins were not actually atoned for. Thus, they could not have justification by faith they way we do "in the present time." They were "just" and "elect," but not justified in the way we can be by virtue of living on the other side of the cross. When we die, we don't die under the curse of the law as they did, waiting for a future redemption.


wjs

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 2:09 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Gen. 15:6 And he (Abram) believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Gal. 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.


Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The OT saints were justified by faith, not by works of the law. Gal. 3 explains all of this. The Law was never meant to justify anyone; all it could do is reveal what sin is. Faith in God's promise justifies us, just as it did Abraham and every other OT saint.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 3:00 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John,

quote:
Gen. 15:6 And he (Abram) believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Gal. 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.


What I was saying was not disagreeing with you in principle. Their faith looked forward to the cross, our's doesn't. That's why we don't die under the curse of the law. We are forgiven of all past sin's at the time of conversion and are henceforth righteous (i.e., sinless as far as God is concerned) by virtue of having faith. Faith without the cross can't save anyone. That's why Paul says:

quote:
3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. 3:26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.


He "passed over the sins previously committed" by the OT believers because the redemption had not yet taken place.


wjs

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 3:20 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Jeff,

Thanks. I'm pretty sure now that we agree on this. The problem I find is when some folks try to say that God changed the way he dealt with man between the New and Old Covenants. Contrary to that somewhat common opinion, I find that God's covenant-keeping nature is revealed to be completely unified through both Covenants. Further, the New Covenant is more an expansion and improvement on the Old than a total doing away with it.

Some things that I see that tie together the two Testaments are:

1. The moral law of God (love God, love neighbor) being the unalterable rule for moral action, defining right and wrong.

2. The necessity of blood atonement for forgiveness of sins (the OT typology was fulfilled in Christ's atoning death).

3. The just shall LIVE by faith.

4. They that are led of the Spirit are the children of God.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 4:56 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John,

quote:
Some things that I see that tie together the two Testaments are:

1. The moral law of God (love God, love neighbor) being the unalterable rule for moral action, defining right and wrong.


I could have used your help on the "Help with John 6 and exegesis" thread where Albert was arguing for a distinctively different ethic in the OT. He had to stop the debate to study for final exams, but you might be interested in our exchange. You might want to add some of your own insights in case he returns to that debate.


wjs

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 7:01 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott

"those who had died under the curse". . ."we don't die under the curse of the law"


Help me out here, jefscott. Does the Bible really say "curse of the law?"

As to "curse" it is sin that comes to my mind.

Here's Galatians:
quote:
Galatians 3:10-13 -- For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.


That says that it is not fulfilling the law that makes one vulnerable to the curse. (But again, the curse is death due to sin.)

First glance at this website (I just Googled.) shows some good things. The Law is NOT a curse. www.yashanet.com/studies/romstudy/rom3b.htm

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 7:06 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Jefscott and John, these are for you then. (Bet you caught them the first time.)
  • “a basic premise of Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is that justification by faith is not something new, but was true for Abraham” (Gal. 3:6-9; Rom. 4).

  • The issue here is whether the unconverted Paul was a good representative of that Old Testament faith

  • He consistently misrepresented the Old Testament until he repented of his sin and began teaching the true meaning of the Old Testament

  • the just in the Old Testament shall live by faith and that the just in the New Testament shall live by faith.

  • Men who have come to God in truth have always come to Him in the same way, by grace through faith, lest any should boast

  • But what Paul had left behind was not Judaism, but rather his own wicked perversions of it.

  • his burden of guilt was removed by Christ. It was not removed by Judaism
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 7:11 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.


www.credenda.org/issues/15-5.php
www.credenda.org/issues/15-5thema.php
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 7:13 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Jefscott and John, these are for you then. (Bet you caught them the first time.)
  • “a basic premise of Paul’s argument in Galatians and Romans is that justification by faith is not something new, but was true for Abraham” (Gal. 3:6-9; Rom. 4).

  • The issue here is whether the unconverted Paul was a good representative of that Old Testament faith

  • He consistently misrepresented the Old Testament until he repented of his sin and began teaching the true meaning of the Old Testament

  • the just in the Old Testament shall live by faith and that the just in the New Testament shall live by faith.

  • Men who have come to God in truth have always come to Him in the same way, by grace through faith, lest any should boast

  • But what Paul had left behind was not Judaism, but rather his own wicked perversions of it.

  • his burden of guilt was removed by Christ. It was not removed by Judaism




I would agree with all of the above. I wonder why they are calling this "the New Perspective."



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 6/1/2004 7:15 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
(But, please, don't anyone think that I'm a Calvinist; I'm not. Nor an "open-theist." I'm not that either. Nor an Arminian for that matter.)
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 6/2/2004 1:44 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW,

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott

"those who had died under the curse". . ."we don't die under the curse of the law"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Help me out here, jefscott. Does the Bible really say "curse of the law?"

As to "curse" it is sin that comes to my mind.

Here's Galatians:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galatians 3:10-13 -- For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That says that it is not fulfilling the law that makes one vulnerable to the curse. (But again, the curse is death due to sin.)


My phrase "curse of the law" was referring to just what you argue here. Thanks for finding the passage for me; I was short on time last night.


wjs

Back to Top
 

larris
Registered Member


Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
 
   Posted 6/2/2004 7:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The way I see it part of the problem is the way they put our Bibles together to begin with. For example you get a Bible you open it up to the first few pages and there is this big sign that says

The Old Testament


Then you go towards the end of the same book and you have another sign that says:

The NEW Testament


But is ALL the Old Testment really Old Testament, and is all the New Testament really New Tetament? (Go ahead scratch your head on that one.)

One simple way to tell is to ask yourself this question. WHEN was the Law given that constituted the Old testament (that is the Old Covenant)? Seems to me it wasn't given until about the middle of Exodus there about. So then ask yourself, IF the law, which constitutes the OLD COVENANT (testament) was not given until the time of the book of Exodus, then is Genesis really OLD TESTAMENT?

NO, Genesis would not be OLD TESTAMENT, since the word "testament" stands for "covenant". That little sign in the front of your bible that says "The OLD Testament", is a lie that was placed there by man. Therefore you need to tear that page out and put it in somewhere in Exodus.

Then when you quit looking at Genesis as "The Old Testament" it will start to clear up some of the arguments about the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant or that is the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Now heres another point, what about that little sign that says "The NEW Testament"? Now think about it for a moment, when did the New Covenant actually become established. Or first what was it established with?

Wasn't the New Covenant established by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ? So then really the Old Covenant did not end until the death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore most of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are really written concerning the time when they were still under the Old Covenant. HOWEVER all that Jesus taught regarded the NEW Covneant. And all that he did was to fulfill the Old Covenant, so that the NEW could be established. NOW WHERE DO YOU PUT THAT SIGN?

There is no where to put it because it was ADDED by man, just as the other little sign in the front of the Bible was added by man. So since it was ADDED and it seems to confuse us in our discussions because we wind up attributing what's written in Genesis to the Old Covenant, then both signs should be DONE AWAY WITH, nad we should just look at the book as a WHOLE and call it "SCRIPTURE".

Now I will quote my self to bring out another point about that part of the scriptures before Matthew.

"Therefore most of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are really written concerning the time when they were still under the Old Covenant. HOWEVER all that Jesus taught regarded the NEW Covneant. And all that he did was to fulfill the Old Covenant, so that the NEW could be established."

Now something similar takes place in all the scriptures before Matthew. This is that the OLD Covenant consisted of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Dueteronomy, But the REST of the books after that up to Matthew consist of historical events AND Prophetic utterances pointing towards the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow, that is pointing to the New Covenant.

You see there is no real way to just FLIP a sign in there and say "This is the OLD Testament" and this here is "The NEW Testament", because they overlap, they are just "The Scriptures".

Of course Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could have FAITH and be justified by it, they were NOT under the LAW, they were not under the OLD COVENANT, they were LONG DEAD by that time, WHY THEY WEREN'T EVEN JEWS, THEY WERE GENTILES. And Paul states that the law of FAITH was established in God's covenant with Abraham 430 years BEFORE the Law was given to Moses. So in a sense, what we call the NEW covenant is actually older than what we call the Old covenant, even though it was not fully established until Christ did his redemptive work and established it with his blood.

So anyway just something to think about there. But I mean we get into these debates and blah, blah Old Covenant, New Covenant etc. etc. and half the debate I think would be cleared up if we could just quit using some PRINTERS idea of what might make the bible handier to read and ADDED those two signs, and we been treating them like they were divinly inspired. When I saw this for the first time, it irked me so bad that I just tore both pages out of my Bible, threw them on the floor and stomped on them, because it had kept me from being able to put a lot of things together.

God Bless,
In Christ,
larris




"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31)

Back to Top
 

rsirkel
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
 
   Posted 6/3/2004 7:23 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John
quote:
I would agree with all of the above. I wonder why they are calling this "the New Perspective."


Ron
Hi John, I believe in general they call it the "New Perspective on Paul" for the reason many theologians for a long time contributed to anti-Judaic sentiment due to their using Paul's letters with a supposed anti-Jew teaching in their misunderstanding of his arguments. This new perspective seeks to understand Paul within his Judaic tradition, culture, and how people would understand him at that time. Verses the tension of Luther's revelation within the context of his struggle of conscience in the conflict within his time with the abuses of the Catholic Church.

Cheers
Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads