The New Perspective on Paul

[9Rock9]

What are your thoughts on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP)?

I think it is interesting and worth exploring further, but I won't say I'm on board with it, yet. There are also a variety of stances within the NPP.

 

[timewerx]

Could you give us a link what it is? First time I heard of it.

Ironically, I do have a unique perspective of Paul. I think many don't really understand Paul's teachings and have grossly misinterpreted them. Paul left a lot of hints of his distinct methods requiring deeper understanding which many failed to notice or too lazy to bother.

 

[Philip_B]

I think it is clearly one of those things that was going to happen. 2Oth Century Reformed Theology has sometimes looked like we were followers of Paul rather than Jesus, and in one thread here I noticed that someone suggested that there was no theology in the gospels, it had to come from the Pauline corpus.

Paul offers us a unique insight in that his primary encounter with Jesus was with the Risen Christ, and in that sense there is something there we relate to and can understand, for he has walked in our shoes. I think we don't get Paul if we dismiss his humanity, or go about assuming he was writing an early version of Systematic Theology.

Of late I have been looking at Paul's writings to test the hypothesis that he may have been philosophically a Pragmatism, although clearly he is too early to wear that tag. Sometimes I reject some people's understanding of Paul, which can be taken to imply that I reject Paul, however that is far from the case. If Paul knew how much sweat we would waste on aorist tenses, he might have written a little more clearly.

 

[com7fy8]

What are your thoughts on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP)?

How about if you share something about what this means to you, so we can answer to what this means to you?

In general, I see how Paul can have very strong requirements which God has given, since God is able to do these things in us and with us. But we can tend to want a way out, since we are seeing and feeling in terms of how we now are not exactly able to do what God's word through Paul says.

In case someone claims that Paul is theological but the Gospels of Jesus are practical or not theological, I keep finding that what God says is a match with what God says . . . theologically and practically. And what is practical is theo-logical.

So, be specific, if you want us to tell you what we think It is possible that ones do not understand what others are saying; so I'm interested in what you are getting.

 

[timewerx]

I was just looking at the NPP narrative.

It seems what they're trying to do is to take a broader context of the study of Paul's writings against other teachings in the Bible and against the cultural setting.

Hmm... Isn't that a good thing??? Isn't how you "dig" or investigate the truth? You leave no stone unturned??

As opposed to the lazy approach of just plain reading of the Bible, no cross referencing of verses, no, further analysis.

Because if you take Paul's teachings in a limited context, without accounting for other teachings on the same subject, you are bound to come across contradictory teachings.

And without considering the cultural influence on the teachings, you might take the teachings entirely in the opposite meaning. Hence, totally missing the context.

We have many examples in history of religion being wrong on some things. Stuck on it, only to be disproven later on with advances in knowledge or science.

It's really best to keep an open mind on these things. Despite what many Christians claim to be "divinely guided" or "called to teach". Many still end up mistaken and misleading many.

 

[9Rock9]

How about if you share something about what this means to you, so we can answer to what this means to you?

In general, I see how Paul can have very strong requirements which God has given, since God is able to do these things in us and with us. But we can tend to want a way out, since we are seeing and feeling in terms of how we now are not exactly able to do what God's word through Paul says.

In case someone claims that Paul is theological but the Gospels of Jesus are practical or not theological, I keep finding that what God says is a match with what God says . . . theologically and practically. And what is practical is theo-logical.

So, be specific, if you want us to tell you what we think It is possible that ones do not understand what others are saying; so I'm interested in what you are getting.

Here's a link to it: https://www.theopedia.com/new-perspective-on-paul

It's different from the traditional Protestant view that I'm used to, but so far I see nothing that is too objectionable. Trying to keep an open mind before dismissing it.

 

[com7fy8]

Trying to keep an open mind before dismissing it.

To me, it looks like too many splitting hairs about positions when we can just read the Bible and get what God has for us.

A person needs to first trust in Jesus, in order to start salvation > Ephesians 1:12.

Then obey how God takes us from here, including > Ephesians 2:10.

And New Testament scriptures give us plenty about how to be corrected, then how to live in God's love.

 

[hedrick]

To me, it looks like too many splitting hairs about positions when we can just read the Bible and get what God has for us.

When you're reading Paul, it really does matter what you think he is protesting against. Is it any idea that what we do matters in salvation, or is it a specific problem with the Jewish Christians that were opposing him?

Also, many Protestant ideas of the atonement are tied in with Paul's supposed statement that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. But Paul never says that. He says that our faith is treated as righteousness.

Luther's initial insight was about God's righteousness. He had seen it as God's determination to punish sinners. His new idea was that God's righteousness was shown in justifying sinners. But that idea never really stuck in Protestant theology. A lot of writing on the atonement and justification assumes that righteousness is moral perfection. But Luther's insight is really more consistent with the NPP position that God's righteousness is his commitment to carry out his covenant, and our righteousness is to be in good standing before God.

 

[Butch5]

What are your thoughts on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP)?

I think it is interesting and worth exploring further, but I won't say I'm on board with it, yet. There are also a variety of stances within the NPP.

I'm not real familiar with it. However, some of the things I've heard of it are positions I already hold. I believe many have missed what Paul is saying. Take the faith alone teaching, this is so far from what Paul taught that it's amazing it's still accepted.

 

[hedrick]

I will say that I think N T Wright's treatment of Paul deemphasizes the personal aspect of salvation a bit too much. He's trying to correct a historical imbalance, but I think his emphasis on the covenantal aspect goes too far. Paul's teaching really has both.