New Perspective on Paul

[2404]

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

 

We may look at that era and see scriptural short falls but it was a large step in its time.

Aside from what man did with it to justify their own agendas.

Do you not feel that it was a moving of God's Spirit?

 

With what I know of Luther and Calvin I find it hard to believe that it was of the Lord.

 

Do you think we are where we should be?

I'm thinking when we are ready we're out of here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

I believe there is typology in scripture. The parable of the seed going down and coming up again I think also applies to the historical church. The first church going down in the dark ages and starting to come up again as God worked through the reformers each one a step closer, grace, sanctification, restoration of the gifts until it will be that the hearts of the children will be turned to the faith of the fathers. Since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever I believe the church will again be a refection of the Book of Acts. Not for a show but the same relationship with her Lord. Then she will be ready to meet Him in the air. I don't think scripture supports a rapture where the sky splits open and God grabs us by the collar and drags us up.

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure whether this is a doctrinal topic, but this seemed the most suitable domain for it.

 

I also apologize to any who are utterly unfamiliar with what has been dubbed the "New Perspective".  I simply cannot give a full description of it here; but hopeful a discussion will fill in the blanks.

 

The New Perspective challenges the Old Perspective on Paul.  The Old Perspective (traced primarily back to Luther) saw the decisive difference between Christianity and Judaism as that between Grace and Works (or faith and Law).  Judaism was a "works-righteous" religion, in which one had to accrue sufficient merit to obtain admission to heaven; Christianity declared that no amount of merit was sufficient, and yet, via Jesus, we can obtain admission all the same.

 

The New Perspective looks at Jewish texts of the period "on their own terms".  It finds that ancient Judaism knew all about Grace and faith.  The "laws" which needed to follow were a result of salvation (in their case the Exodus---God saved them first from Egypt, and only then gave them the laws).  There are numerous prayers not only from the New Testament but from non-canonical texts demonstrating that Grace was no foreign concept to Jews before Christ....

 

...the question arises, if the problem with Judaism was not its "works-righteous" bent, then what was the problem with Judaism? And what are we to make of those passages which seem to condemn Judaism as a "works-righteousness" religion?

 

Some theories have been put forward by scholars:

1) there was no problem; Paul didn't understand his own religion.

2) the problem was that Judaism was exclusive; it didn't include Gentiles

3) the problem was that the Law could not produce righteousness.

 

Of course, this topic is very broad: it can lead to an outright rejection of the New Perspective; it can lead to an examination of contrary passages hoping to justify the NP.  It can lead to almost anywhere BUT a discussion of how old the earth is (which I have gotten tired of elsewhere).

 

clb

Hi clb,

 

The New Perspective is actually an old reality. Luther's arguments on works are way off base. I don't know if he didn't understand or deliberately went to far, after all he was trying to oppose the Catholic Church. Many times when one sees a wrong they go to far the other way in trying to correct it. However, Luther's "Faith Alone" cry was way off base.

 

We may look at that era and see scriptural short falls but it was a large step in its time.

Aside from what man did with it to justify their own agendas.

Do you not feel that it was a moving of God's Spirit?

 

With what I know of Luther and Calvin I find it hard to believe that it was of the Lord.

 

Do you think we are where we should be?

I'm thinking when we are ready we're out of here.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

I believe there is typology in scripture. The parable of the seed going down and coming up again I think also applies to the historical church. The first church going down in the dark ages and starting to come up again as God worked through the reformers each one a step closer, grace, sanctification, restoration of the gifts until it will be that the hearts of the children will be turned to the faith of the fathers. Since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever I believe the church will again be a refection of the Book of Acts. Not for a show but the same relationship with her Lord. Then she will be ready to meet Him in the air. I don't think scripture supports a rapture where the sky splits open and God grabs us by the collar and drags us up.

 

Why do you think that?

[MelanieJoyelle]

 

I believe there is typology in scripture. The parable of the seed going down and coming up again I think also applies to the historical church. The first church going down in the dark ages and starting to come up again as God worked through the reformers each one a step closer, grace, sanctification, restoration of the gifts until it will be that the hearts of the children will be turned to the faith of the fathers. Since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever I believe the church will again be a refection of the Book of Acts. Not for a show but the same relationship with her Lord. Then she will be ready to meet Him in the air. I don't think scripture supports a rapture where the sky splits open and God grabs us by the collar and drags us up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think there is a difference between the organized church [denominations, Calvin, Luther, etc] and the body of Christ as the church of Jesus Christ [as spoken of in Eph 2 - a spiritual habitation]?  I understand that the body of Christ includes believers from all Christian religious affiliations. 

 

Are you saying that the body of Christ did not survive past the first century? 

[2404]

 

 

I believe there is typology in scripture. The parable of the seed going down and coming up again I think also applies to the historical church. The first church going down in the dark ages and starting to come up again as God worked through the reformers each one a step closer, grace, sanctification, restoration of the gifts until it will be that the hearts of the children will be turned to the faith of the fathers. Since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever I believe the church will again be a refection of the Book of Acts. Not for a show but the same relationship with her Lord. Then she will be ready to meet Him in the air. I don't think scripture supports a rapture where the sky splits open and God grabs us by the collar and drags us up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think there is a difference between the organized church [denominations, Calvin, Luther, etc] and the body of Christ as the church of Jesus Christ [as spoken of in Eph 2 - a spiritual habitation]?  I understand that the body of Christ includes believers from all Christian religious affiliations. 

 

Are you saying that the body of Christ did not survive past the first century? 

 

I believe that Jesus Christ's mystical body of believers is not bound by any denomination in fact I believe that God has kept His church despite that which has transpired through the ages. I think we are living in the time were we will see that which all the ages have longed to see i.e. the catching away. If it is time for the harvest than the grain (believers) must be about ripe - similiar to that which went into the ground, those of the first age. As has been said 'Christ's church is not an organization but an organism'.