NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[ittarter]

Thanks for your post!

As I understand it then Galatians isn't about justification by faith in the theological sense but a question of whether or not a Gentile had to become a Jew in order to become a member of the community (to stay saved?!?); it doesn't seem to make much sense for a Gentile to become a Jew just to enter into the community.

That makes a ton of sense, I think.

Otherwise you get this strange disconnect between chaps. 1 and 2, and chaps. 3 to 6.

 

[Frogster]

Paul NEVER met Jesus. Paul never sat down and had a chat to Jesus. Paul never walked with Jesus. Paul never lived with Jesus.

But James, the brother of Jesus, did all of those things.

If anyone knew Jesus it would have been his family and James was the eldest.

Perhaps James knew better than Paul what Jesus was really on about.

Good thing that Paul,confronted the one who walked physically with Jesus,to set him straight.The kingdom of God is revelation,not a carnal connection.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

Even Peter,had to see a sheet,a revalatory experience,so that puts an end to your ideas that they had an advantage.

 

[Frogster]

I would hope it blatantly obvious that the 'it' in my sentence meant 'Luther's definition', not Paul.

If this is the kind of game you are reduced to.... I'm forced into one of two conclusions, and neither of them are ones I wish to conclude about anybody. And neither of them are compatible with continuing a conversation.

Really should be easy.What are the improvements Wright seeks to make?I would think that a devoted person,to a teaching would be happy to elaborate a bit.Thank you.

 

[Frogster]

Thanks for your post!

As I understand it then Galatians isn't about justification by faith in the theological sense but a question of whether or not a Gentile had to become a Jew in order to become a member of the community (to stay saved?!?); it doesn't seem to make much sense for a Gentile to become a Jew just to enter into the community.

Exactly.The whole idea was no circumcision,which meant obligation to Jewish law.That is what Paul was apposing.He had fought the circumcision party,not defend it.

Gal 5:2-3 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

 

[Frogster]

Paul may not have met Jesus according to the flesh but I can assure you Paul knew Jesus. Saul before he was Paul met Jesus on the road to Damacus.. To know Jesus is not to know Him according to the flesh. All though Paul states that he knew Jesus accoring to the flesh.

2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

 

[ebia]

I never said one led to the other. I was explaining two things, one he said the other he believes. Yes Jesus is Lord, in that Wright is correct. It's the all that he leaves out about salvation and justification that is the trouble.

It's not that those things are left out, but they are packed into the statement that Jesus is Lord. If one says it that concisely it needs some serious unpacking to use. The primary point Wright is making is that the Gospel itself is a proclamation about an event, and that it is about Jesus.

When one starts to unpack "Jesus is risen and is therefore Lord" and ask well, what sort of Lord bringing what sort of peace you go back to the Gospel stories and Isaiah and see - the one who heals and redeems the world. All of that flows out of "Jesus is Lord" or is there within the fuller statement that makes up, say, Luke's Gospel. Saviour is implied by the word Lord - whether the Lord one has in mind is YHWH (remembering that YHWH is translated Lord in the LXX) or Caesar (who has "God's Son, Saviour") printed on his coins.

The Gospels are the Gospels because that's what they are - and that's where people should go to find out what the gospel is, not a bit of them, not one verse pulled out of Mark, not a view verses out of Paul, but the whole of one of those narratives - which you can pack down to suitcase size in the phrase "Christ is Risen" or "Jesus Christ is Lord", or better "Jesus Christ is risen and is therefore Lord".

 

[Seeking Him]

For Wright and other NPP"s justification is about diversity, inclusiveness and social justice, more than it is about how we are jusrified by Christ's work and atonement.

For Wright justification is more about inclusion in the covenant community and relationships with one another more than our relationship with God.

 

[ebia]

For Wright and other NPP"s justification is about diversity, inclusiveness and social justice, more than it is about how we are jusrified by Christ's work and atonement.

I do not agree that is a good summary of Tom Wright's position at all.

For Wright justification is more about inclusion in the covenant community and relationships with one another more than our relationship with God.

That is certainly not a true representation of his position. Covenant community has to be about relationship with God and with each other.

 

[Frogster]

[/size][/font]

The "cheirographon" (handwriting) isn't the moral law. It is the record of our sins. The Moral Law remains to point out to us that we are sinners, in need of a saviour and to point us to Jesus Christ who will saves us if we confess our sins (transgressions of the law that is holy just and good (Rom. 7:12)).

Well,interesting because Colossians seems to cover both,granted the Sabbath (ceremonial law)is mentioned a few verses down,but keep in mind,that prior to this..

Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

It says this,all our sins,so that would mean moral too.

2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

Which again concurs with this,a moral law.

Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

 

[Frogster]

That makes a ton of sense, I think.

Otherwise you get this strange disconnect between chaps. 1 and 2, and chaps. 3 to 6.

? Lets see it,show the disconnect,post the scriptures please,show what you mean.

 

[Frogster]

e

I do not agree that is a good summary of Tom Wright's position at all.


That is certainly not a true representation of his position. Covenant community has to be about relationship with God and with each other.

Hi.Are you going to post the "improvements" on Paul?

 

[dies-l]

Nope,you are ducking.You never showed how the chronological order of reading the epistles,would affect ones views.Not on a substantial way
Your wrong,the law increased the sin,when Paul tried to be 'moral"

Romans 7:5
For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for deathIt is not a notion,it is scriptural,unless YOU CAN POST SCRIPTURE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

Gal 2;16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

because...

Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” He said it himself..John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,Sorry,you cant mix law and grace.

Romans 11: 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Unless you think you can use a little law,which means you think you are being perfected by the flesh!

Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected bythe flesh? What is so hard yo understand what the law is?? It was added to increase the sin! Romans 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

In fact,it is the power of sin,

1 Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

It was a tutor,which is no longer.

Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Incorrect.Paul said he would not know sin,right from wrong,apart from the law.
Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”Prove It. show me scripture.It us clearly telling the church not to walk under law,a false gospel.That is a bit more than you are implying.Like it was all about the "community".

Galtians 6:1I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel.Then show me scripture where Paul tells Christians to walk under law.In fact,he says the law is NOT FOR CHRISTIANS.

1 Tim 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers.The answer was not the law though was it? Paul always knew some would misunderstand grace.Ortwist it.He often would raise a question,then answer it,but unless you can show mw a change in the justification/grace message,then you still have not made much of a case.Paul knew what the carnal mind might perceive,so he asked this,then answered.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

And notice how he said it did not come by law,the destroying of flesh.

Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Which is confirmed here,Sin dominates under law,NOT GRACE.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.You will have to post scripture to show that it is not by faith alone.Show me where Paul said that please?

Romans 3:28
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Show the contradicitonsshow all this pleaseNo,your just "expounding" but not proving.

The Scriptures that you reference here prove two things: (1) we are saved by faith and (2) that we are not saved by the Law. I don't disagree with either of these things and neither of them supports the notion that salvation has nothing to do with our conduct. The Law that Paul refers to is the Mosaic law, and I agree that Scripture clearly teaches that we are not saved by it. Also, I have already posted several Scriptures that demonstrate that faith, as it is regarded as a means of salvation in Scripture, implies subsequent action. As James says, faith without works is dead. I would post more Scripture (such as Hebrews 11) but for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the passages that I have already discussed.

Furthermore, your continued resistance to actually reading a brief article on the topic that you inquired about, written by the very person you inquired about, indicates to me that your question was asked disingenuously, and that there is no point in discussing this issue with you any further. It is clear to me that you have no desire to explore this issue. Rather, you only want to have people tell you why you are right in dismissing the opinions of someone whose writings you refuse to read.

 

[Frogster]

The Scriptures that you reference here prove two things: (1) we are saved by faith and (2) that we are not saved by the Law. I don't disagree with either of these things and neither of them supports the notion that salvation has nothing to do with our conduct. The Law that Paul refers to is the Mosaic law, and I agree that Scripture clearly teaches that we are not saved by it. Also, I have already posted several Scriptures that demonstrate that faith, as it is regarded as a means of salvation in Scripture, implies subsequent action. As James says, faith without works is dead. I would post more Scripture (such as Hebrews 11) but for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the passages that I have already discussed.

Furthermore, your continued resistance to actually reading a brief article on the topic that you inquired about, written by the very person you inquired about, indicates to me that your question was asked disingenuously, and that there is no point in discussing this issue with you any further. It is clear to me that you have no desire to explore this issue. Rather, you only want to have people tell you why you are right in dismissing the opinions of someone whose writings you refuse to read.

Stop getting personal,and post scripture.

 

[dies-l]

Stop getting personal,and post scripture.

I did; you chose to ignore it, which is why this discussion is getting frustrating.

For example:

From Post# 118 -- 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)).

From Post# 149 -- Although this point can be understood by a proper contextual reading of Galatians, the point is made much clearer in Romans, especially in Romans chs. 2 and 6. This idea was further clarified by James and John in their epistles (See e.g., James 2 and 1 John 3).


From Post #192 -- As James says, faith without works is dead. I would post more Scripture (such as Hebrews 11) but for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the passages that I have already discussed.

Everything that is underlined and bolded are references that I have made to Scripture in this discussion, which I found during a very quick review of this thread. Please, read these passages. If you still disagree with me, that is your right. If you have questions that pertain to these Scriptures, and you sincerely want an answer, feel free to PM me. Either way, I am unsubcribing to this thread, as it is fruitless and an imprudent use of my time.

 

[djconklin]

The Scriptures that you reference here prove two things: (1) we are saved by faith and (2) that we are not saved by the Law. ... The Law that Paul refers to is the Mosaic law, and I agree that Scripture clearly teaches that we are not saved by it.

No one has ever been saved by keeping the Law--its function is to point out to us where we sin, and thus our need of a Saviour, and thus points us to Jesus Chriust who died for our sins.

From Westerholm's Israel's Law and the Church's Faith, page 9:

"The law's primary and indispensable function is to serve as a "mighty hammer" (26:336) with which God may crush human selfrighteousness and thus prepare otherwise complacent sinners to receive divine grace.

[quoting Luther:]
If someone is not a murderer, adulterer, or thief, and abstains from external sins . . . he develops the presumption of righteousness and relies on his good works. . . . The proclamation of free grace and the forgiveness of sins does not enter his heart and understanding. . . . Therefore this presumption of righteousness is a huge and horrible monster. To break and crush it, God needs a large and powerful hammer, that is, the Law. (26:310)
Therefore the Law is a minister and a preparation for grace. For God is the God of the humble . . . , of those who have been brought down to nothing at all. . . . When the Law drives you this way, so that you despair of everything that is your own and seek help and solace from Christ, then it is being used correctly. (26:314-316)
The picture which Luther frequently paints in this context is of the Israelites leaving the tents which represented their "peace and selfconfidence" (26:150), having washed and made themselves as righteous, pure, and chaste as they could, now summoned into the presence of God to hear his law on Mount Sinai. To them in their holiness the law brought such terror, such recognition of their unworthiness to stand in God's presence, that they cried out for a mediator. The law had done its proper work (26:149-150, 311-312)!"

The sad fact is that far too many Christians haven't been brought to the same point. And some downright don't want to--they think that they are good enough to be saved right now.

 

[djconklin]

Well,interesting because Colossians seems to cover both,granted the Sabbath (ceremonial law)is mentioned a few verses down,but keep in mind,that prior to this..

Paul isn't talking about the Sabbath in Col. 2:16. Interestingly in order for the verses to make any sens ethe believers had to be keeping the ceremonial feast days, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths that were not feasts--otherwise, the ascetics who were judging them couldn't have done so. For more info see the study at A Study on Col. 2:16-17

 

[Frogster]

I did; you chose to ignore it, which is why this discussion is getting frustrating.

For example:

From Post# 118 -- 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)).

From Post# 149 -- Although this point can be understood by a proper contextual reading of Galatians, the point is made much clearer in Romans, especially in Romans chs. 2 and 6. This idea was further clarified by James and John in their epistles (See e.g., James 2 and 1 John 3).


From Post #192 -- As James says, faith without works is dead. I would post more Scripture (such as Hebrews 11) but for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the passages that I have already discussed.

Everything that is underlined and bolded are references that I have made to Scripture in this discussion, which I found during a very quick review of this thread. Please, read these passages. If you still disagree with me, that is your right. If you have questions that pertain to these Scriptures, and you sincerely want an answer, feel free to PM me. Either way, I am unsubcribing to this thread, as it is fruitless and an imprudent use of my time.

Until you can show that the clear intent of Galatians is smoehow,not what Paul meant,you posting but not proving.God bless.

 

[Frogster]

Paul isn't talking about the Sabbath in Col. 2:16. Interestingly in order for the verses to make any sens ethe believers had to be keeping the ceremonial feast days, new moons and ceremonial sabbaths that were not feasts--otherwise, the ascetics who were judging them couldn't have done so. For more info see the study at A Study on Col. 2:16-17

It says Sabbath.There was alot going on,as Jewish gnostics were pushing error,like angel worship,asceticism,false visions etc.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

 

[wayseer]

Paul may not have met Jesus according to the flesh but I can assure you Paul knew Jesus. Saul before he was Paul met Jesus on the road to Damacus.. To know Jesus is not to know Him according to the flesh. All though Paul states that he knew Jesus accoring to the flesh.

I wonder how all those who are busy looking for 'personal relationships' would look upon your 'assurance'.

The rather more obvious point is - if Paul 'met' this Jesus it must have been a very different Jesus to the one who had met with James, Peter, John et al.

 

[wayseer]

Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rockI will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

When you lay a foundation,that is for something new.

So, tell me, what do you think this 'new foundation' is exactly? A rock?

Jesus Peter Paul reasoned from the scriptures,so how about you.Anyone can come on a thread,and just proclaim higher knowledge.Lets see scripture

Open the Bible - in the OT you will find all the 613 commandments which Jews must met.

Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul, as was James et al.

Here is clear obvious scripture,that Paul did not want a yoke of bondage(the law) put on the church.

What church? What yoke?

For all your quoting of scripture it appears you don't know what Paul is talking about.

So what is this 'yoke'?

[Hint - it is NOT the 'law']

PS. IF you are so concerned with scripture how is it you are interested in what Wright might say at all? Or do you subscribe to the 'literal' interpretation of scripture and what anyone else says is consigned to the 'silly bin'?