Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 11/7/2003 5:54 AM (GMT -6)

It is wonderful to see the convergence of thought between Open Theism/Warfare worldview and the so-called "New Perspective" on Paul. For an overview of the latter, see the website "The Paul Page." For example, N.T. Wright, in his What Saint Paul Really Said, states: "I suggest that we give priority--a priority among equals, perhaps, but still a priority--to those Pauline expressions of the crucifixion of Jesus which describe it as the decisive victory over the 'principalities and powers.'" (p. 47) He says this for much the same reasons that Dr. Boyd has an affinity for the "Christus Victor" motif.

The reason for the convergence is easy to explain. The main source of opposition to Open Theism comes from those who draw heavily on an interpretation of Paul which the "New Perspective" criticizes.

It behooves us Open Theists to familiarize ourselves with this new perspective, because it opens up for us a whole cache of ammunition.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

Ochuk
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102

Posted 11/7/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6)

The so called "New Perspective" is a term coined by those who believe NT Wright is calling for the recall of justification by faith as they way to salvation. From what i've read of him, I have no idea how people assume such a thing.

Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 11/7/2003 8:55 AM (GMT -6)

Ochuk,

I'm not sure I followed you. The "new perspective" on Paul I believe was coined by James D.G. Dunn in 1983. Dunn, Ed P. Sanders and N.T. Wright are the main scholars in the new perspective camp, and yes, they do not see "justification by faith" as the center of Paul's theology. The "New Perspective" sees justification as an issue relating to the Jew/Gentile theme. The reformers, so the argument goes, read medieval Catholicism back into first-century Judaism.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted Yesterday 6:59 AM (GMT -6)

The more obvious connection between the new perspective and the open view is the strength that the new perspective gives to corporate interpretation of many of the election passages.

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted Yesterday 8:22 AM (GMT -6)

geebob,

You are absolutely right. I think the dialectic could be stated as follows: the reformers did not emphasize the warfare significance of the cross, therefore, they did not see sin as cosmic, therefore, they defined sin in terms of the individual (which explains why Augustine, Luther et. al. misinterpreted Romans 7), therefore they tended to lose the corporate dimension of Paul's arguments. This is why those who most oppose Open Theism are those who are in the grips of the worldview Augustine, Luther, and Calvin bequeathed to the west.

This is perhaps too simplistic and perhaps the order of causation is different, but I think something like this is the truth.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted Today 2:39 PM (GMT -6)

That sounds great, but I don't know that the thinking of the new perspective folks with regard to corporate election follows those lines so explicitely.

Basically, their arguement is that the issue with Paul in the law is not legalism versus faith since that is a historically bogus way tounderstand Paul's opponents. It's really how one becomes a member of the people of God. Do they become a member through the law of moses or through faith?

And since the NP highlights this corporate aspect in Paul's writing's, we see that individualistic election is not the issue at all.

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 11/10/2003 3:44 AM (GMT -6)

geebob,

Yes, my dialectic above was not meant to pertain to the "New Perspective". I was just pointing out a possible reason for the convergence of two viewpoints. I have doubts about the way things actually happened. The dialectic could go like this: Luther was bugged by a bad conscience, so he found solace in Paul's statements in Romans 7. This led him to define sin exclusively in terms of the individual, which in turn, lost the cosmic dimension of sin. This led to a faulty interpretation of Paul's argument in Romans:

Premise 1: God's standard for salvation is good works (Rom. 2.6-11)

Premise 2: Sin prevents good works (Rom. 3.9)

Conclusion: No one will be justified by good works (of the law) (Rom. 3.20)

If one views sin as cosmic, then Premise 2 can be "remedied" by the defeat of sin by Jesus' cross, making good works possible (Rom. 8.3-4). However, if sin is not viewed as cosmic, then it is hard not to view Paul as arguing against "legalism", and having to resort to "imputation" to cover Premise 1.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/10/2003 5:37 PM (GMT -6)

I have read E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright and have loved both of their writings -- but especially Wright. They have shown how thoroughly saturated the Protestant reading of Paul -- and Jesus -- has been by medieval legal terms and by Luther's bad conscience. When read in their own historical context -- first century Judaism -- they make MUCH better sense.

But I wasn't aware of the cosmic battle motif as part of this "new perspective." That's exciting.

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

PCB
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 1

Posted 11/14/2003 3:55 AM (GMT -6)

Had to register to ask a question,

quote:

Augustine, Luther et. al. misinterpreted Romans 7

Could you expand this a bit for me Kingsaint? Or point me to a source of explanation, thanks.

Peter

Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167

Posted 11/14/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6)

My question is this, then:

What happens to freedom in Christ if good works are now REQUIRED for salvation?

I think I'm reading this thread wrong, because the implications I'm seeing are frightening.

Someone tell me I'm overreacting...

In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love.

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/17/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6)

The old protestant explanation is sufficient here. You are saved by faith, but faith without works is dead.

But recognize that this is coming from James and what James means by works and what Paul means by works are 2 different things. James probably means what we mean by works. effort, action, and so on.

What Paul means by works are the specific works of the law set up for the purpose of marking the people of God, such as circumcision and the kosher laws (like no cheeseburgers Dead

)

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

kingsaint
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80

Posted 11/17/2003 5:09 PM (GMT -6)

Blood Washed Heretic,

Once again geebob says it better than I can, but let me add that for Paul "freedom in Christ" has much to do with "freedom from sin", and freedom from sin has much to do with "good works" (see Romans Chapter 6).

PCB,

As far as I understand, Augustine and Luther interpreted Romans 7:13-25 to refer to a Christian (I think this is in Augustine's Confessions VIII and Luther's comments on Romans and Galatians). A scholar who makes much of Augustine's and Luther's interpretation of Paul is Krister Stendahl (The Apostle Paul and the Intropective Conscience of the West--in his "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles"), though I think most if not all in the New Perspective point it out.

My current "project" is to carefully read Augustine and Luther to determine how they interpreted Paul and how they set the theological agenda for Protestant and evangelical thinking, especially how it relates to Open Theism. Take this as a confession that I really don't know what I'm talking about when I speak about Augustine and Luther.

"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."

--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard"

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:33 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual