Hilariously funny -- at least if you like N.T. Wright as much as I do.

GraceSeeker · Sep 11, 2013

Hitler's Rant on N.T. Wright and John Piper

(and remember folks, this is satire, not serious commentary)

Joykins · Sep 11, 2013

That link doesn't work.

GraceSeeker · Sep 12, 2013

Joykins said:
That link doesn't work.

My apologies. I hope I have fixed it.

dayhiker · Sep 12, 2013

That was pretty funny .. tho I'm not up on the theology of it all.

Rubiks · Mar 17, 2018

love it!

hedrick · Mar 17, 2018

You're right. It's wonderful. Wright is also right on this subject, although the video didn't get the issue quite right. The problem isn't imputed righteousness, which Paul certainly taught. The problem is that it isn't Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us. Rather God accepts our faith as showing that we are righteous. He does in fact impute righteousness to us, on the basis of faith.

Tigger45 · Mar 17, 2018

Although this is a zombie thread, Pr Jordan Cooper does a great job refuting NT Wright’s new perspective on Paul in his book The Righteousness of One. Showing how Martin Luther was inline with not only proper biblical exegesis but early patristic soteriology.

hedrick · Mar 17, 2018

The problem is that Cooper is dealing with Wright's understanding of Luther, not with the question of whether Wright is right about Paul. If Cooper is right, then Luther takes essentially the same position as Calvin, whose core concept is our mystical union with Christ. Wright thinks Calvin is very nearly right, but objects to the concept that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. It's not clear from Cooper's treatment whether Luther actually asserts this. None of what he quotes from Luther quite says it, and the approach to justification that he attributes to Luther would work without it.

I know Calvin better than Luther. Calvin does, indeed, seem to assume that righteousness is moral perfection. Because we can never be perfectly righteous in this sense, Christ's must be imputed to us.

The point Wright makes is actually a classical Reformation one: righteousness isn't about being morally perfect. It's a status before God. Justification is God's declaration that we are right with him, i.e. righteous, even though we aren't morally perfect.

Calvin certainly says things like this. Luther may well also. However Calvin also has the continuing misunderstanding that righteousness is moral perfection. Thus when Paul says that righteousness is imputed to us, Calvin assumes that must be because Christ's righteousness is credited to us. In fact, because righteousness is simply the status of being right with God, we don't need Christ's to be imputed. We are ourselves right with God. When Paul says that righteousness is imputed by faith, he means that God considers anyone who has faith to be right with him.

In fact the idea that Christ is present in us, Calvin's mystical union, can be seen in Paul. See Rom 6. It does transform us. But our justification isn't based on that success of our transformation -- that would be the idea that the Reformers were rejecting.

Dave-W · Mar 17, 2018

Tigger45 said:
Although this is a zombie thread, Pr Jordan Cooper does a great job refuting NT Wright’s new perspective on Paul in his book The Righteousness of One. Showing how Martin Luther was inline with not only proper biblical exegesis but early patristic soteriology.

IMO the "new perspective" falls far short of the truth: Paul was a lifelong Pharisee who testified toward the end of his life that he not only obeyed Moses, but also the Jewish oral traditions which he called the customs of the fathers. See Acts 28.

Anto9us · Mar 26, 2018

Did Paul actually DO THAT though?

Or did he not send Onesimus back to his master Philemon -- in violation of Torah?

Anto9us · Mar 26, 2018

◄ Deuteronomy 23:15 ►

New International Version
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.

New Living Translation
"If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters.

English Standard Version
“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.

New American Standard Bible
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.

King James Bible
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

Anto9us · Mar 26, 2018

Act 28:17
And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Though what Paul SAID in Acts 28:17 might lead one to think he was a"lifelong Pharisee" -- what he DID in sending Onesimus back to Philemon directly conflicts with Deuteronomy 23:15

-- and Paul had eaten with Gentiles, as did Peter until "certain of James" arrived, and Peter renigged, and Paul called him on it.

Doesn't seem like a "lifelong Pharisee" after all.

Actions speak louder than words.

Anto9us · Mar 26, 2018

The Hitler skits were some of the funniest stuff I have ever seen on a message board.

But pitting N T Wright against Piper is not the same as pitting an outright Arminian against an outright Calvinist -- Piper is recognized as a Calvinist scholar, Wright is not really seen as an Arminian

Anto9us · Mar 26, 2018

This site is a good resource for Methodists, Nazarenes, and other Arminians.

Ed Jarrett, “An Introduction to Arminianism”

Dave-W · Mar 27, 2018

Anto9us said:
Though what Paul SAID in Acts 28:17 might lead one to think he was a"lifelong Pharisee" -- what he DID in sending Onesimus back to Philemon directly conflicts with Deuteronomy 23:15

Not if Onesimus went back voluntarily.

Anto9us said:
-- and Paul had eaten with Gentiles, as did Peter until "certain of James" arrived, and Peter renigged, and Paul called him on it.

Paul was from the school started by Hillel. (led at the time by Hillel's grandson Gamaliel) The other school started by Shammai was much more strict.

Tradition holds that James headed up a school of Pharisees, and since we know Gamaliel led the school of Hillel, it had to be the school of Shammai.

dayhiker · Mar 27, 2018

I've not thought about Paul and how strict an observant Jew he was or not. But its seems pretty clear to me that his writings in the NT are mostly to Gentiles and they are pretty clear that our righteousness doesn't come from obeying the law and that we aren't under the law. To me that applies to Jews as well, yet they are free to observe those laws to retain and feel their Jewishness.

Anto9us · Mar 27, 2018

Gal 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Anto9us · Mar 27, 2018

Dave, if you are determined to see Paul as a lifelong Pharisee, then you will see him that way.

Anto9us · Mar 27, 2018

The whole point of the OP seems to be "does N T Wright have a VALID 'new perspective on Paul' or not?"

Arminianism vs Calvinism and "whether Paul always remained a Pharisee" seem to be offshoots of the OP

Hilariously funny -- at least if you like N.T. Wright as much as I do.

Senior Member

free Crazy Liz!

Senior Member

Mature veteran

proud libtard

Senior Veteran

Mt 9:13..."I desire mercy, not sacrifice"...

Senior Veteran

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Mature veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency