The New Perspective on Paul

[StAnselm]

From another thread:

Some of the [Orthodox Presbyterian] congregations that have broken away because of the New Pauleen Perspective, NPP (which is heresy), are using the title "Reformed Orthodox Presbyterian" which is what you should look for.

I'd like to talk about this. Being in Australia, I didn't fully understand what's going on. Then again, I'm not sure if very many people do - there seems to be a lot of talking at cross purposes.

For what appears to be a balanced view of the NPP, see Bryan Chapell's Explanation, available at http://www.covenantseminary.edu/news/newperspective.asp. In looking for the article just now, I've discovered a response - http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/chapell-response.php - which I'm just about to read.

But is the controversy in the OPC more about the so-called "Federal Vision"? This is distinct to the NPP, and I'm not sure if the arguments against the NPP apply to FV theology as well.

Please, tell me what you think. But if it all goes over your head, don't worry about it.

 

[Elderone]

Seeing your post started me wondering if I had mixed up the OP's problems with some other group, and I had. As you said, Federal Vision is what the OP's are wrestling with.

 

[StAnselm]

By the way, this wasn't addressed to you, ElderOne:

But if it all goes over your head, don't worry about it.

I'm hoping a few people will reply - but some may find the issue a bit overwhelming. And even if the FV guys are wrong, I really don't think they're heretical - as some make them out to be.

 

[Elderone]

By the way, this wasn't addressed to you, ElderOne:

I didn't think it was, don't give it another thought.

 

[Jon_]

I just read this article by John W. Robbins, who isn't my favorite author, but nonetheless, is very much on target with regards to Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology. I recommend it.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=207

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I just read this article by John W. Robbins, who isn't my favorite author, but nonetheless, is very much on target with regards to Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology. I recommend it.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=207

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon,
I've read Robbin's on theonomy, Bahnsen, Shepherd etc and he has been dead wrong flame thrower in those cases. I expect no better on this issue.

I am in Louisiana presbytery (the home of Auburn Ave. PCA) and have meet and spoken with Steve Wilkins and other FV people. I think this is a case of gross misunderstandings and speaking past one another. I recently purchased the Auburn Ave. book defending/explaning their position and I've purchased the Book from Knox Seminary which is pro and con. I plan to read both soon.

If you want to have a somewhat objective look at this issue I hiighly recommend looking at someone besides John Robbins.

There are stron articles on the web on both sides, by solid men. Robbins has proven to be an unreliable source of objectivity on items he disagrees with.

Just my two cents.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

One more thought, even if Bishop NT Wright's view are as bad as some say, he is still well within orthodox Christianity. He is not a liberal. He believes in salvation by grace through faith. At worse he would be some sort of Arminian (which I don't think he is).

I read his New Perspective book and need to read it again because I am not clear on a number of items, but it ain't as bad as some of the things I've read about it would suggest.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Jon_]

I'll take a closer look into the opposing views. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, as I deduce what Robbins has from what I have read thus far.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I'll take a closer look into the opposing views. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, as I deduce what Robbins has from what I have read thus far.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I appreciate that. There are differences between the FV guys and non-FV folk but I don't think it is as great as some think. THe FV folk have said some things that have sent up read flags. But on further clarification I think most flags should have come down. This does not mean that there are not differences. The FV folk are much more focused on the covenant and believe that some of their Presbyterian critics have drifted (unknowingly) toward Baptist thinking and are therefore less covenantal.

THe critics of FV think the FV people are moving toward an Arminian (even Roman Catholic) position.

I've spent hours talking with a staunch anti-FV (former member of my church) and if all his criticisms are true than the worse that can be said is they are tainted with arminianism.

I have also spent a number of hours speaking with a local pastor (not my own) and members of the church he was at (he has since moved to church in Kentucky) and after speaking with them, I found that some of the things they stressed made me a bit uncomfortable, but I saw no heresy or anything that is not Reformed.

One thing I have noticed is the FV people seem to look to a lot of pre-Westminster Reformed writings and the anti-FV folk seem to stress post Westminster Reformed writings.

I have been reading some older Reformed works (Calvin's Institutes) to understand things better.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[reformedfan]

I have been reading some older Reformed works (Calvin's Institutes) to understand things better.

this is always an excellent idea

 

[Jon_]

Maybe you can help me out with this, Kenith. I was wondering why the FV and AA camps see the need to distinguish themselves by asserting theirs is an entire new theology. That is, if Reformed Theology, at its heart, is fundamentally sound (in their eyes), why take such a drastic departure from it? Most of their works seem pretty polemic, taking aim at traditional Reformed view. It seems that they are almost desperate to point out the differences.

If FV and AA are really Reformed at their core, why the distinctions and the new theological label? Why not simply point out the places where Reformed Theology needs to improve or realign itself?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Maybe you can help me out with this, Kenith. I was wondering why the FV and AA camps see the need to distinguish themselves by asserting theirs is an entire new theology. That is, if Reformed Theology, at its heart, is fundamentally sound (in their eyes), why take such a drastic departure from it? Most of their works seem pretty polemic, taking aim at traditional Reformed view. It seems that they are almost desperate to point out the differences.

If FV and AA are really Reformed at their core, why the distinctions and the new theological label? Why not simply point out the places where Reformed Theology needs to improve or realign itself?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I agree that statements have been made that pushed the envelope. I don't know why people do that. I think the conversation started out way on the wrong foot. The FV folk think other Reformed folk have been slowly slipping away from the early Reformation thought.

For example some of what Calvin says on Baptism and the Lord's supper would make more than a few Presbyterians raise an eyebrow. A FV pastor friend (the one in Kentucky) gave me a copy of a book by Cornelius Burges (one of the main guys at The Westminster Assembly) whose title would make the hair on the back of many Presbyterian necks stand on end. The title of the book is The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants. (BTW: Burges either wrote or was head of the committee that wrote the section of the Confession on Baptism).

I still have a lot of reading to do, I am not comfortable with some FV stuff, but I want to see the shrill die down so godly men can talk, reason and pray together and resolve the issue without another schism.

THe folks at Knox Seminary have started a dialog and Auburn Ave. has published their book. I think these will be more reasoned then much of what I've read on the web. I will get back to you when I've read them.

Keep this in your prayers.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

One more thought, even if Bishop NT Wright's view are as bad as some say, he is still well within orthodox Christianity. He is not a liberal. He believes in salvation by grace through faith. At worse he would be some sort of Arminian (which I don't think he is).

This simply is not true - I read an editorial article in the Erie Times last July in which Wright was quoted as saying that there are many ways to God - Christianity only being one. Doesn't get more liberal than that.

I new I should have saved that article because I figured it would come up here at some point. I was on a trip visiting my parents however - so I forgot to save it. I hate to say this - but ya'll will have to take my word on this (though I'll do a quick search to see if it comes up).

Regardless - the minute Wright made that statement all credibility as a teacher/theologian/Bishop went right out the window as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

This simply is not true - I read an editorial article in the Erie Times last July in which Wright was quoted as saying that there are many ways to God - Christianity only being one. Doesn't get more liberal than that.

I new I should have saved that article because I figured it would come up here at some point. I was on a trip visiting my parents however - so I forgot to save it. I hate to say this - but ya'll will have to take my word on this (though I'll do a quick search to see if it comes up).

Regardless - the minute Wright made that statement all credibility as a teacher/theologian/Bishop went right out the window as far as I'm concerned.

That is a new one on me. My understanding has always been that he was in the Reformed?evangelical wing of the Church of England. I going to have to get on google and see what I can find there. If you find the source please let me know.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Hi Kenneth -

The article was in the Erie-Times News - late June or early July - that might help you. It was an editorial - I've already done a google search without much luck

 

[Bulldog]

Behe,

to your new avatar.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Behe,

to your new avatar.

Considering the latest politically correct junk coming from the NCAA I think its good. OF Course I am a LSU Tigers fan (I am sure PETA will be trying to get animals mascots banned soon too.)

Kenith
Geaux Tigers.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hi Kenneth -

The article was in the Erie-Times News - late June or early July - that might help you. It was an editorial - I've already done a google search without much luck

Thanks I will be looking into this carefully.

Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Considering the latest politically correct junk coming from the NCAA I think its good. OF Course I am a LSU Tigers fan (I am sure PETA will be trying to get animals mascots banned soon too.)

Kenith
Geaux Tigers.

Speaking of LSU - and Louisiana - shouldn't you be running for cover right about now, Kennith?

Seriously - praying for you, man - hopefully it won't reach you!

Bulldog - what can I say bro! I am assuming you are a Georgia fan/alum - just keep in mind I am always pulling for your boys whenever they play Florida - heck I was even happy for them when they beat FSU in the Sugar bowl a couple of years ago - I blame that loss completely on FSU themselves!

Ah yes - its that time of year again....

 

[Bulldog]

Considering the latest politically correct junk coming from the NCAA I think its good.

That's not why it makes me sick, it makes my sick because I am a UM (Maryland) fan. ("fear the turtle!")

Geaux Tigers.

Doesn't "gôt" work as well? (or for that matter "got", "geau", "gos", "gaut", and "gau"?)