The New Perspective on Paul
- Thread starter Hmm
- Start date
fhansen
Oldbie
Oh c'mon- I was Protestant for years, buying into the same nonsense you do now. And few of your interpretations are unimpacted and uninfluenced by past teachings of others BTW. There's lots of different theology floating around out there-and plenty of would-be mavericks who really aren't coming up with anything new.
Upvote
0
- Sep 27, 2019
- 4,866
- 5,027
- 34
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Once again... the topic is the NPP. It's not your personal dislike of Catholicism, riveting though that is.
Upvote
0
- Sep 27, 2019
- 4,866
- 5,027
- 34
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
But is there any one idea in the NPP that you particularly reject? From what you've said so far, it seems to be that you think it's veering towards a justification by works model. I don't know if that's true or not but even if it is, is it still not worth looking at the arguments in case at least some of them have some validity? Presumably you hold the beliefs you do because at one time and another you were persuaded by arguments you heard and you rejected others. I don't think that process ever really ends. Do you?
Upvote
0
- Sep 27, 2019
- 4,866
- 5,027
- 34
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I listened to a discussion on YoiTube on the NPP held by the Dallas Theological College and they said something that I thought was interesting.
They looked at Ephesians 2 8-9 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. A bit of humour - one of the guys called this the Protestant creed and someone else asked whether verse 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do is the Catholic creed.
They asked the questions What is my salvation for? in the light of these verses. Why does God save us and why is salvation by grace? And they thought verse 10 was the answer. We have been shaped by God for good works which God has actually designed for us to walk in before He saves us and equips us to do so by saving us. And then they asked the question So what's the first good work? And the NPP answer they gave was that the first good work is to bring down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles and create a new people where Gentiles come in as equal members of the commonwealth of Israel.
And, making this relevant to today, they said that this means that a major goal of salvation is to change the way we relate to each other, not just how we relate to God. I think that's a commendable move made by the NPP.
They looked at Ephesians 2 8-9 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. A bit of humour - one of the guys called this the Protestant creed and someone else asked whether verse 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do is the Catholic creed.
They asked the questions What is my salvation for? in the light of these verses. Why does God save us and why is salvation by grace? And they thought verse 10 was the answer. We have been shaped by God for good works which God has actually designed for us to walk in before He saves us and equips us to do so by saving us. And then they asked the question So what's the first good work? And the NPP answer they gave was that the first good work is to bring down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles and create a new people where Gentiles come in as equal members of the commonwealth of Israel.
And, making this relevant to today, they said that this means that a major goal of salvation is to change the way we relate to each other, not just how we relate to God. I think that's a commendable move made by the NPP.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fhansen
Oldbie
Now more than ever I believe that this question, of whether or not man must actually be righteous, must actually possess righteousness that’s been given as a result of justification resulting from faith, is a crucial one for Christianity. I witness much confusion and concern over this matter on these forums alone. IMO Romans can easily be understood to support that very requirement, which also aligns that letter best with many other statements in Scripture. And might it not be that this “commitment to Christ” results in or equates to a life lived by the Spirit and under grace as the Trinity indwells us? And, if so, can that not guarantee justice/righteousness in us to the extent that we remain in that relationship? Sorry if I’m wordy again but here goes:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13
Sin is lawlessness, injustice, and disobedience. And this would seem to align well with Romans in other places also:
“Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.” Rom 1:5
Rom 1:17 says:
“For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
And then continues on for the rest of the chapter describing the sort of acts that constitute unrighteousness, and how those acts deserve death. Chap 2 begins by asking if we think that we’ll escape judgment for such acts if we stay unrepentant, and then goes on to say:
“God “will repay each person according to what they have done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”
And verse 2:13 actually directly connects personal realized righteousness with a declared righteousness
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”
Then the rest of the chapter elevates obedience of the law above being a Jew and being circumcised. In Chap 3 Paul tells us that no one is righteous and will not be declared righteous by works of the law but that:
“now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.”
And while chap 4 speaks much of righteousness being credited again, does it also reveal what “credited” actually amounts to in verse 13?:
“It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.”
then:
“He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” Rom 4:25
Is “credited” more than merely declared or imputed? Is being justified perhaps being made truly, personally, just? And I think chap 5 follows along in the same vein:
“For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!” 5:17
“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” 5:19
“…so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 5:21
Chap 6 instructs us to stay free from the slavery of sin as we’ve been raised from the dead into newness of life,
“For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” 6:14
Rom 6 is also emphatic that we must consciously decide how we’ll live, even as grace is available in order for us to live rightly. It goes on to say,
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” 6:22
Rom 7 tells us that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” And also spiritual, but that we’re not spiritual. So the law can do nothing to justify us, only to kill us, only to inform us that we're dead in our sins. And what’s the answer? The answer is God, who delivers us through Christ. The answer has always been God, an answer that Adam dismissed and that we’re to now learn (as Adam presumably has by now) not to dismiss. And Chap 8:1-6 might almost seem vague as to whether or not we’re merely declared righteous now or actually given righteousness until we get to v12-13:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”
Chap 9 deals with election but in any case affirms at the end that righteous is achieved by faith rather than by pursuit of the law. The grace given is not only forgiveness for unrighteousness/ injustice, but righteousness/justice are also received. Then chap 10:4:
“Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
And then 10:5-13 do not conflict with a faith-born justification consisting of a real justice/righteousness received. Chaps 11 & 12 don’t add much to this discussion while chap 13:8-10, defines man’s actual righteousness IMO, that righteousness being love even as it otherwise gets relatively little focus in this letter.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Of course we should be righteous. But Paul's concept of righteousness is complex. It's a status before God based on faith / faithfulness. It is not moral perfection. But it's also not independent of morals, because being accepted by God as a member of his people his moral implications.
I think most Christians understand this. Legalism has generally been a bigger danger than libertinism for Christians The problem in Christianity today isn't a disregard for morals but a disagreement on issues involving gender and sex, not to mention treatment of immigrants. This forum, and possibly CF as a whole, isn't a place for this argument. I think I agree with most Catholics about this, but not with the Catholic hierarchy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 27, 2019
- 4,866
- 5,027
- 34
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I'll quote your first paragraph as hedrick did. It was a very thoughtful post which I'm still trying to digest.
I read something today, again by the Bird guy who I quoted in the OP, on this subject of incorporated righteousness/justification which I'm still trying to absorb too. I thought I'd post it verbatim because you and others may find it interesting and I'd like to read any comments on it as well as any further comments on your post. It may seem lazy just copying and pasting it but it's fairly condensed anyway and I'd probably miss something important if I tried to summarise it. It's taken from a talk he gave on The New Perspective on Paul and the Local Church and is quite informal and jokey in parts. During the talk he was asked, “What are we finally declared righteous for: our good works via the Holy Spirit, or Jesus’ good works?” Here’s his response:
OK, let me give the two indications of how it doesn’t happen. This will probably equally offend everybody. I don’t think it’s the case that God established with Adam a covenant of works to be the opposite of a covenant of grace, that would that would be an expression of a pactum salutis so that we could be Simul justus et peccator at the eschaton. I don’t believe that Jesus through his life of active obedience fulfils a covenant of works so his active obedience is imputed to us. The problem with that scheme is that you’re still stuck in the medieval period, where salvation is by merit; and the only difference between Protestants and Catholics becomes whether merit is imputed or merit is imparted through the sacraments. So, I would say I do not believe merit exists.
So, if there is no such thing as merit, what is Jesus doing? Well, in his life, he is not fulfilling a covenant of works. He is, rather, fulfilling the role of the Messiah to be the New Adam and the true Israel, which qualifies him to be a sacrifice for our sins; and what the New Testament emphasises is not his active obedience, it’s his passive obedience – that’s what it emphasises when he goes to the Cross. So, that’s one model I am ruling out.
I also don’t think it’s the case that Jesus and the Holy Spirit just inspire us to do good works so we are justified on the basis of our works. The New Testament constantly talks about judgement according to works, so that our life, our faith our deeds of love and faith are meant to accord with what God has already declared to be true of us in the Messiah. So, justification by faith; judgement according to works. so, they are the two things I am going to rule out.
Let me tell you what I actually think happens now. I believe when you believe in Christ that faith is animated by the Holy Spirit, and through the Spirit you have union with Christ. You have union with the crucified and resurrected Messiah. And God’s verdict against our sin at the Cross is transformed to God’s verdict for us at the resurrection. So God’s verdict against our sin executed on Christ becomes God’s verdict for us in the resurrection. So, in the resurrection, God justifies Jesus; and when you believe in him you are incorporated into the justification of the Messiah; and what is true of him is true of you. So, you are justified by virtue of the fact that you have union with Christ. That is why you find justification language in the New Testament. It is virtually always, virtually always (which means sometimes); virtually always, or most of the time, connected to union with Christ. So that, in him, we might become the righteousness of God, therefore being justified in Christ.
So, you could say union with Christ is a forensic category within which justification happens; and that means the idea that imputation as some kind of abstract… like ‘righteous’ molecules floating through the air and landing on you; or like Jesus giving you his frequent flyer points, or something like that. That is ruled out, ok? It means that it is [through] union with the crucified and risen Messiah that we are justified.
But this is where I would disagree a bit with Tom. Tom Wright would say that union with Christ does everything which imputation was normally thought to do. I see what he is saying, but I would do it a little bit differently: Union with Christ is where justification happens. But if you ask the question, “How does union with Christ cause justification?”, I think you can say imputation is an implicate of that. In other words, if you take the language of ‘righteousness’, which I think is forensic status, you take the representative status of Adam and Christ, the language of reckoning, the idea of righteousness also as a gift, you take that all together, the best way to hold it together is some kind of theology of imputation.
But, there is no explicit text that says Christ’s righteousness is imputed to you. There is no explicit text that says that; and this is why Leon Morris – peace by upon him – said that imputation is a corollary of the identification of the believer with Christ. So, I would say with people like Tom Wright and others, “Yes, union with Christ is where justification [happens], but if you want to know how union with Christ works to create a forensic status, then something like imputation, or, as I would prefer to say, being incorporated into the righteousness of Christ is a better way of holding that together.”
So, you need a really full-orbed understanding of union with Christ to hold to justification. That’s the kind of way I have put it; and I am glad to say a number of other scholars like Vanhoozer, Scott McKnight and several other chaps have got on board with that way of articulating it. Rather that thinking of imputation along the lines of a covenant of works versus a covenant of grace in a medieval idea of merit, think union with Christ, being incorporated into his righteousness and configuring imputation that way – as an implicate of our union with Christ. I think that makes a lot more sense Biblically, theologically, exegetically… culinarily… it makes me hungry thinking about it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
fhansen
Oldbie
Well, he traveled in circles quite a bit there LOL- and maybe eliminated a few options, I think, but he ended up basically with an imputed righteousness position. And I don't believe for a minute that Paul had in mind to separate actual righteousness or justice from justification, as if personal righteousness for man suddenly no longer mattered.
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” 6:14
Why would being under grace mean that we're no longer slaves to sin, which is lawlessness?
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13
Why would obedience of the law be equated with being declared righteous? Our entire faith is based on and necessitated by the fact that man sinned and thereby separated himself from God, becoming lost, dead, and in need of a Savior. And God patiently worked with man for centuries to bring him to a point where he might be ready for reconciliation, he might finally be ready for the truth, the light, the "knowledge of God" that Jesus revealed. The author is right, man needs union-reunion-with God. Communion is another term for it, describing a state of being that man was made for, the just and right order of things. Subjugation to God is a choice for man and angels, whereas it's not a choice for the rest of creation. But that choice is only honestly and authentically made to the extent that man loves God, something that Adam hadn't yet arrived at in Eden, something that arguably comes easier to the extent that we also gain the wisdom to realize how much we miss without Him in this relatively godless world.
Adam's act was essentially an act of unbelief. He didn't trust God for whatever reason, preferring other opinions above God's, thereby denying God's authority, and therefore his very godhood. Man had no God after that; he became his own "god", or looked elsewhere for gods.
Faith is the reversal of this disordered position, this sin. Faith puts man back into right orientation, back into union with God, even if the union might be relatively weak to begin with. That union is the basis of man's justice, and righteousness and obedience are accomplished as an intrinsic part of it. To the extent that we remain in the union, that we remain faithful even when the cost becomes high, the union is strengthened and our own justice or righteousness grows. Faith is the first step, the root or basis of man's justice and the beginning of salvation for man.
Faith and the justification it results in is inseparable from righteousness. The law describes righteousness for man, while the virtues of faith, hope, and, most importantly love, define it.
Faith as a supernatural gift is more than belief or trust even, because it constitutes or opens the door to union/relationship with God. It places us under grace rather than under the law which means that it can accomplish in us, with God, what the law cannot, by ourselves.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fhansen
Oldbie
At the end of the day I think most Christians live as if what they do counts -regardless of professed theology perhaps. And, generally speaking, most at least know that this behavior is meant to be Spirit-led. Either way, yes, there may be more pertinent issues right now but better theology is still always better than "less better" as I see it.
Upvote
0
Which law is St Paul talking about? Here is the context:
Rom 2:13 for the hearers of the law are not justified before God, but the doers of the law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts,
Who are the Gentiles and which law is written in their hearts? Are they pagans or are they Christians?
Wesleyans distinguish justification and sanctification, which I find that conceptually useful.
Upvote
0
fhansen
Oldbie
All men start with the law, aka the “natural law”, written in their hearts. This is an objective morality in our consciences that we all possess but that has been dimmed, weakened, overridden, and otherwise compromised by the Fall. As Augustine put it, speaking of the ten commandments, "God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart." Ushering in the New Covenant, however, God is saying that man is finally ready to receive the most basic truth: man needs God first of all in order to be able to fully and consistently "read" the law inside himself and act on it, in order to regain the moral integrity he was made for IOW, in order to fulfill the law. He cannot do this on his own, whether he hears the law or not incidentally. "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). God, as we enter communion/relationship with Him based on faith, directly places His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts (Jer 31:33). This justice/righteousness is received as a free gift in more or less seedling and untested form as the virtues of faith, hope, and love, as an aspect of being made into new creations. And as we welcome and further embrace them and the life of grace that provides them, they will be challenged, tested, exercised, refined, and grown-or not; we can always dismiss fellowship with God all over again.
Rom 2:14-15 tells us that even Gentiles will be judged on their actions. 2:13 speaks for itself; whether or not we hear the law, we’ll be judged by it; our own consciences, even, testifying about it as verse 14 tells us. A related way to state this, as the Church has in the past, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love”. Love acts, rightly, and fulfills the law by its nature. Anyway, at the end of the day we all know better; we all know that sin is wrong- even as culpability may be mitigated by many factors.
I was commenting on the nature of justification resulting from faith and saying, basically, that one is sanctified or made actually righteous as a result of faith. Protestantism generally separates justification and sanctification as I’ve understood the matter while Catholicism does not. And I find the Catholic position to be more consistent with the whole concept of justification to begin with and then God‘s continuous work in us, of growing, strengthening, increasing that justice/righteousness/sanctity.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 27, 2019
- 4,866
- 5,027
- 34
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Yes, Bird did end up with an imputed righteousness position but an imputed righteousness which is a corollary of becoming a member of God's new covenental family because, according to him anyway, there is no explicit text in the Bible that says Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.
The only sense I can make of this and to tie
faith and works together is like this, and I'd welcome any comments on how it is obviously wrong!
When we believe in Jesus we become part of God's new covenental and forgiven family. This means that we are justified before God and God's righteousness is imputed to us. This imputation is declared in a legal way by God and happens as an implicit part of our joing His family. This is similar to what happens if we join a new human family by marrying someone who already has kids or getting adopted - there is a legal element to this. So we're now in union with Christ and then the question of works comes in. The only answer I've found that answers this in a way that keeps faith and works together is that when God declares or say that we are justified and righteous His words really change us. When we join God's new family we really do become new creations and this is bought about by the actions of the Holy Spirit. And it is the Holy Spirit that brings about good works. It's not us and, as the NPP says, it's not the actions of ethnic Jewish boundary markers (Sabbath, food laws and circumcision).
IOW, a genuine faith will always lead to good works and this makes God's judgement of us according to our works equivalent to a judgement according to our faith.
As i say, I'd welcome any thoughts you or others may have about this (or anything else!).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fhansen
Oldbie
Yes, I like this. I'd just say that I think we can get too caught up in the "imputed righteousness" idea-and the idea that God doesn't want us to be personally righteous-and/or that we cannot be. While true righteousness might actually look and taste quite differently from the legalistic brand where rules are merely mechanically followed, either way we were not created to be sinners after all and sin is what the drama-and the pain and misery of this life- has been about ever since Eden! So does God now say that He no longer cares about sin, or that all this fuss about lawlessness for centuries has been a matter of over-scrupulosity or something-like we just need to chill out a bit? Or does He now say that the only way to resolve the matter and overcome sin is for man to come back into the relationship, the union that man was made for? Maybe "back into the relationship" doesn't really work tho-because Adam never really entered or participated in the family to begin with-or he foolishly and easily opted out as soon as a tempting idea came along. And we may well prefer to carry on Adam's rebellious tradition until we gain enough wisdom via grace- with the help of experience, perhaps- to turn back to God. And it's not that God's angry with us so much as that He wants the very best from and for us.
From the big picture the whole endeavor of creation since before the Fall is about God producing and perfecting something, something great, rather than just saving a certain bunch of otherwise worthless and sinful wretches. And that endeavor necessarily involves us, His beloved though wayward creation. And this goal is accomplished-man is perfected-to the extent that he loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself. A much loftier goal than we might at first think BTW-it's to be transformed into the very image of God. He loves us that much. We just don't easily and readily recognize the supreme value or worth of love-until we begin to hunger and thirst for the righteousness that's so lacking in this world and so might all the better respond to revelation and grace as they're received. And this patient endeavor of His always necessarily involves our participation; love is a choice- or it's not love. The church has taught that, at the Fall, man became divided in some manner from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and even from himself. Pride, properly understood, is the root of all of that division. Pride means that nothing is ever good or satisfactory enough except or unless for some often nebulous and ultimately undefined, changing and elusive goal of an extreme, disordered state of love of self.
Either way, I think we should look at justification as the free gift of forgiveness, first of all, and of making us new creations by actually granting us righteousness as sins are removed or taken away and forgotten. From there we can invest what's been given-or not. We're not forced to remain on the righteous path that God has set us on. We must act, we must follow, we must do our part in this vital relationship with what's been given us, we must act like Gods kids, we must work out our salvation with He who works in us, making our calling and election sure- and that's not guaranteed because God increasingly challenges us; because He wants more for us. Even this verse alone tells us that something more is expected from us:
"But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:15
And while I know that love will automatically lead to good works, I'm not so sure about faith doing that directly. I think faith will lead to love, though, because it connects us to love's Source, but, again, remaining with that Source who can realize that love in us is both a matter of His work/grace-and our cooperation. Love still always involves choice. And that's the point. Perhaps the most we can know is that Adam willed to sin. And we're here to learn how and why not to will to sin. Anyway, I appreciate this quote from Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop:
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
