NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[Frogster]

He would say that Galatians and some of Romans has commonly been misunderstood in part, but you may well find that what he is saying is not as far from where you already are as you fear.

He would also say that what tends to happen in the Evangelical and Reformed circles is that people read Galatians and Romans, form a system from that, and then try to fit Ephesians, Philippians and the Gospels into that, and that they ought to try seeing what happens if they do it the other way around and start with Ephesians and Philippians instead. What you end up with isn't something completely different, but signficantly different in places and a lot more coherent. Problems that get some people assuming that Ephesians wasn't written by Paul simply evaporate.

Aaaaand what might those be?
Explain what the difference would be,if I read those epistles in a different order.I have to hear this! lol.

 

[Frogster]

I have already given you some basic information about NPP. I don't know why you ignored it.

You were the one who chose to get up on a soap box about intellect, instead of discussing NPP. Because NPP is different from what you say is "revelation," namely, the traditional Protestant reading of Paul, you immediately invalidate all of NPP as "head knowledge."

The controversy will come out sooner or later.You are biased,so no offense but I cant figure you to be a nuetral resource.I understand,no big deal.But really all that happened is the "pro Tom" people are here,so it creates a bias.

 

[dies-l]

The controversy will come out sooner or later.You are biased,so no offense but I cant figure you to be a nuetral resource.I understand,no big deal.But really all that happened is the "pro Tom" people are here,so it creates a bias.

IOW, whoever agrees with Bishop Wright is biased, and whoever agrees with you is neutral? Give me a break!

If you really wanted objective information about what Wright teaches on NPP, you would actually read what Wright teaches on NPP, which interestingly enough, I provided links to in a previous post. Since you seem to be unwilling to go directly to the source, I can only conclude that your claim to desire unbiased information is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[Frogster]

IOW, whoever agrees with Bishop Wright is biased, and whoever agrees with you is neutral? Give me a break!

If you really wanted objective information about what Wright teaches on NPP, you would actually read what Wright teaches on NPP, which interestingly enough, I provided links to in a previous post. Since you seem to be unwilling to go directly to the source, I can only conclude that your claim to desire unbiased information is disingenuous to say the least.

Noooo,lol....Just that so far this thread has had pro Wright people on it,and they are biased..fine.Who isn't biased?
But this forum is not exactly a national survey of Chrisitans is it?

 

[ebia]

Aaaaand what might those be?
Explain what the difference would be,if I read those epistles in a different order.I have to hear this! lol.

It's really an exercise you need to do for yourself, not one I can do for you. (Particulary as I didn't come from that starting point in the first place.)

 

[ebia]

Noooo,lol....Just that so far this thread has had pro Wright people on it,and they are biased..fine.Who isn't biased?
But this forum is not exactly a national survey of Chrisitans is it?

Yes, sure, most of the people with any knowledge of his work have found it useful at least to some degree. That may, or many not, be representative.

But why can't you read some of it for yourself and draw your own conclusion? Why do you need someone else to tell you whether he is right or wrong? Some of his writing is very heavy if you aren't used to reading theology, but he also writes books at a very accessable level. You could listen to some of his lectures on his website for free. Or you could get hold of a copy of one of his volumes on Paul for Everyone - say the one on Galatians if that's a book you know well - and read that. If you are up for the heavy stuff go and read Resurrection of the Son of God or his commentary on Romans in New Interpreter's Bible Volume X.


As I said before, you wouldn't try and have an indepth conversation on Galatians with someone who hadn't read any Paul. Why are you trying to have an indepth conversation of Tom Wright's theology without having read any of his work?

 

[dies-l]

Noooo,lol....Just that so far this thread has had pro Wright people on it,and they are biased..fine.Who isn't biased?

I am glad we agree on that point.

But this forum is not exactly a national survey of Chrisitans is it?

Not at all, but what do you need a national survey of Christians for? If want to know what to think of Bishop Wright's take on NPP, then I would recommend that you start by reading one or two of his brief writings on the topic, carefully reading each of the passages of Scriptures that he references (paying close attention to context to ensure that he is not misusing the Scripture).

You can collect opinions from people who are more familiar with his work (who are going to tend to agree with him to some extents, as unfortunately many people don't invest time exploring perspectives they disagree with). You can also collect opinions from people who know little or nothing about his work, but strongly like or dislike him anyway. But, in the end, all you will have is other people's opinions; you won't have any legitimate basis to form your own opinion until you take the time to explore the topic for yourself.

Honestly, this is a relatively new topic for me, so until I have had my own chance to follow my own advice, I am opting to remain relatively silent on the topic. I do thank you for bringing the topic up, as it sounds like something that is worth exploring.

 

[Frogster]

It's really an exercise you need to do for yourself, not one I can do for you. (Particulary as I didn't come from that starting point in the first place.)

No.You made a statement,back it up please. Why would reading the epistles in a different order ,change one's views if Galatians???? You have been critiquing me personally on each post,and seem to be emotionally involved,rather then having object discussion.Here is your chance.Because I think you may be realizing it was a strange comment,saying the the chronological order,changing ones views of Galatians.

 

[Frogster]

I am glad we agree on that point.



Not at all, but what do you need a national survey of Christians for? If want to know what to think of Bishop Wright's take on NPP, then I would recommend that you start by reading one or two of his brief writings on the topic, carefully reading each of the passages of Scriptures that he references (paying close attention to context to ensure that he is not misusing the Scripture).

You can collect opinions from people who are more familiar with his work (who are going to tend to agree with him to some extents, as unfortunately many people don't invest time exploring perspectives they disagree with). You can also collect opinions from people who know little or nothing about his work, but strongly like or dislike him anyway. But, in the end, all you will have is other people's opinions; you won't have any legitimate basis to form your own opinion until you take the time to explore the topic for yourself.

Honestly, this is a relatively new topic for me, so until I have had my own chance to follow my own advice, I am opting to remain relatively silent on the topic. I do thank you for bringing the topic up, as it sounds like something that is worth exploring.

Do you agree with the comment that ebia made,that the chronological order of the reading of the other epistles,can affect the way one understands Galatians?

 

[dies-l]

Explain what the difference would be,if I read those epistles in a different order.I have to hear this! lol.

It seems to me that the value that this would have for you depends largely on your beliefs about how Scripture was inspired. If you believe, for example, that God was speaking directly through the Biblical authors (Dictation Theory), then you would likely get little benefit out such an exercise.

However, many Christians believe that God allowed each of the Biblical writers to express his or her understandings, personality, as such in the text, with the Holy Spirit guiding the process to ensure that no errors were made (Plenary Verbal Inspiration Theory). For those who accept PVIT (and also for those who accept the Limited Inspiration Theory, which is admittedly frowned upon by most evangelicals, including, I believe Wright himself), it is very helpful to consider chronology. Unless one believes that God directly dicatated His words to Paul, one must consider the ramifications of the fact that Paul likely took some time in understanding the completeness of Grace. Thus, his thought process likely evolved throughout his ministry, as he began to see the reality of how the Church and her individual congregations function and as he had to address the dysfunction of the Church. We see this same type of evolution of thinking occur in Peter throughout the Gospels and the Book of Acts; why would we assume that Paul did not go through similar transitions himself? In fact, I believe that a thorough reading of 1 & 2 Thessalonians makes it quite clear that Paul did go through this process, assuming of course that Paul wrote both letters.

If we accept that Paul very likely went through a transition in his thinking, with God revealing the nuances His truth to Paul gradually rather than instantly, then it would stand to reason that we might want to observe how Paul's thinking on the topic of Grace evolved over time. To do this, we would need to look carefully at chronology of his writings, reading the earlier writings as likley reflecting a more elementary understanding of Grace and his later writings as the completion of God's revelation to Him. This in no way suggests that that the earlier writings are erroneous. Rather, it is much like looking at the development of understanding of math (or any other subject) in a schoolkid. A first grader could likely tell you accurately that 5+2=7, but would likely not even attempt to tell you about multiplication. A third grader might tell you, very accurately that 5+2=7 and that 5X2=10. A fourth grader might tell you, not only these two facts but that 5/2= 2 rem. 1 (if that is what they still teach kids these days). And so on until the child reaches college and can explain complex calculus that is well over my own head. Assuming that Paul went through a similar experience in his understanding of Grace, it is immensely helpful to explore the chronology (and many other contextual factors, including the fact that some of his writings likely reviewed elementary theology for those congregations who missed the point) of his writings for very much the same reason that you would not expect a 1st grader to make sense out of a 12th grade calculus textbook.

 

[dies-l]

Do you agree with the comment that ebia made,that the chronological order of the reading of the other epistles,can affect the way one understands Galatians?

I have not tried it yet, but for the reasons that I stated in my previous post, I don't find the idea nearly as laughable as you seem to. I do believe very strongly that context, chronology, and other factors that may not be directly stated in Scripture are vital elements of Bible Study.

BTW, I am been meaning to tell you that I like your sig.

 

[Frogster]

I have not tried it yet, but for the reasons that I stated in my previous post, I don't find the idea nearly as laughable as you seem to. I do believe very strongly that context, chronology, and other factors that may not be directly stated in Scripture are vital elements of Bible Study.

BTW, I am been meaning to tell you that I like your sig.

Thanks about the sig,ribit ribit!
Gal,Eph,Phil,and Col,were all wirtten about the same time period.Alowing room for Gal.Can you please show me discrepency that would have some substance to show all this expanding revelation in the mentioned books.About the law,and justification.

 

[Frogster]

One more note.Galatians as an earlier book,was just as clear and strong,about not being under law,as a later book,Philippians.Note the wordage of a later book,proving that there was not a "softening" about the issue.I see total consistancy throughout.You have bewitched Galatians,that were foolish to listen the the circumcision party,to then hear about the same evil ones in a later book.

ESV

Phil 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—

 

[dies-l]

Thanks about the sig,ribit ribit!
Gal,Eph,Phil,and Col,were all wirtten about the same time period.Alowing room for Gal.Can you please show me discrepency that would have some substance to show all this expanding revelation in the mentioned books.About the law,and justification.

My understanding (though I am new to this subject myself) is that the main issue concerns the relationship between Galatians and Romans. Romans is often understood as a final treatise by Paul expressing in its fullness the culmination of Paul's teaching and understanding of Grace. In this regard, I think that there is some value in recognizing that Galatians constitutes one of Paul's early writings on the topic of Grace (1 & 2 Thessalonians are believed to have been written prior to, or around the same time as, Galatians, but these do not explore the topic of Grace in the same way as, e.g., Galatians and Romans).

Once again, I really encourage you to read the article that I linked to a few posts back. I believe that it is only about 15 pages or so and would probably help you to understand both Wright's take on NPP and his criticism of other NPP scholars.

 

[Frogster]

My understanding (though I am new to this subject myself) is that the main issue concerns the relationship between Galatians and Romans. Romans is often understood as a final treatise by Paul expressing in its fullness the culmination of Paul's teaching and understanding of Grace. In this regard, I think that there is some value in recognizing that Galatians constitutes one of Paul's early writings on the topic of Grace (1 & 2 Thessalonians are believed to have been written prior to, or around the same time as, Galatians, but these do not explore the topic of Grace in the same way as, e.g., Galatians and Romans).

Once again, I really encourage you to read the article that I linked to a few posts back. I believe that it is only about 15 pages or so and would probably help you to understand both Wright's take on NPP and his criticism of other NPP scholars.

Well in all fairness,you did not show any 'evolution" or change in said books.

 

[dies-l]

One more note.Galatians as an earlier book,was just as clear and strong,about not being under law,as a later book,Philippians.Note the wordage of a later book,proving that there was not a "softening" about the issue.I see total consistancy throughout.You have bewitched Galatians,that were foolish to listen the the circumcision party,to then hear about the same evil ones in a later book.

ESV

Phil 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—

What do you mean by being "not under the Law?" Do you mean that we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law? If so, I would agree with you. Do you mean that we do not earn our salvation by doing a certain amount of good or by not doing a certain amount of bad? If so, I still agree with you.

Or, do you mean that we have no obligation whatsoever to behave in a certain manner (i.e., as followers of Christ, who obey His command) and/or that there is no relationship whatsoever between our conduct and our salvation? If that is what you mean (as some evangelicals do), then I strongly disagree and submit to you that this viewpoint is clearly repudiated by Scripture (See, e.g., Matthew 6:15; Matthew 7:15-23; Matthew 25:31-46; Romans 6; 1 Cor. 5; James 2:14-26 (I could go on, but I think this is sufficient for now)).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Frogster

One more note.Galatians as an earlier book,was just as clear and strong,about not being under law,as a later book,Philippians.Note the wordage of a later book,proving that there was not a "softening" about the issue.I see total consistancy throughout.You have bewitched Galatians,that were foolish to listen the the circumcision party,to then hear about the same evil ones in a later book.

ESV

Phil 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7406453/#post53086557
do I go woof, woof?

 

[dies-l]

Well in all fairness,you did not show any 'evolution" or change in said books.

Once again, I confess to you that I am still in the process of exploring this topic for myself, so I am not the best person to articulate specifics. If you are looking for a more thoroughly researched opinion on this topic, you might begin with this article: [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]New Perspectives on Paul. It is only 17 pages long, so it should not take you any longer than one might normally spend on CF in a day.[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Or, if you prefer the cut and paste method:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf
[/FONT]http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf

 

[Frogster]

What do you mean by being "not under the Law?" Do you mean that we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law? If so, I would agree with you. Do you mean that we do not earn our salvation by doing a certain amount of good or by not doing a certain amount of bad? If so, I still agree with you.

Or, do you mean that we have no obligation whatsoever to behave in a certain manner (i.e., as followers of Christ, who obey His command) and/or that there is no relationship whatsoever between our conduct and our salvation? If that is what you mean (as some evangelicals do), then I strongly disagree and submit to you that this viewpoint is clearly repudiated by Scripture (See, e.g., Matthew 6:15; Matthew 7:15-23; Matthew 25:31-46; Romans 6; 1 Cor. 5; James 2:14-26 (I could go on, but I think this is sufficient for now)).

Wait a minute..lol..that is another topic that I love,but is really another thread.I would like to see this,"change in the epistles".Thanks!

 

[Frogster]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7406453/#post53086557
do I go woof, woof?