Sounds good to me too.
A few further complications:
The question of whether Paul’s citation is a valid rendition of the Hebrew original seems to me to point to a need to rethink prooftexting rather than rethinking justification by faith. It seems difficult to credibly argue that Paul was not advocating justification by faith as a key part of his overall message. But his citation may summarize the overall conclusion that can be drawn from meditating on the passage, rather than being intended as exact quotation in the way we would today. In turn, that highlights the importance of considering the overall biblical message, rather than excerpting a single phrase.
In arguing against one error, the emphasis can be misread as advocating an opposite error. The Bible is occasional theology - written in response to needs at the time of writing, rather than systematic theology, as if it were a theology textbook. Paul certainly shows a conversion from persecuting Christianity to endorsing it as the correct interpretation of Judaism. But he saw Christianity as providing a continuity that he had missed as a legalistic Pharisee (in contrast to those Pharisees who were more sympathetic to the new movement).
In general, what is “new” versus just tidying up the old is a matter of individual perspective.
I wasn’t impressed by Wright’s argument that Colossians is talking about typical Judaism as if it were a pagan cult. Given the varied syncretism then and now, Colossae probably had a few fairly orthodox Jews, many people with assorted views with no significant Jewish influence, and assorted individuals with varied mixed ideas, not necessarily coherent. The latter category would probably be particularly likely to take an interest in a novel sect of Judaism but also particularly likely to need some correcting. But I have not followed the NPP particularly closely.
3 Likes
Yes. It also calls into question what is meant by “faith”, leaning strongly towards “faithfulness”.
That strikes me as a really bizarre claim!
2 Likes
Wow. If you really want to maintain this, you are of course welcome to do so… But all this does is to convince me that the NPP is so devoted to a particular narrative that they can’t see what’s right in the text in front of us…
as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish…
I’m not sure how one doesn’t describe this as “a sharp break”?
That said, if I follow you correctly, if your objection to using the term “conversion” is that, at the end of the day, Paul didn’t “leave” his Judaism or commitment to the inspired truth of the Old Testament, but rather he “simply” recognized that Jesus was indeed that promised Messiah, OK, fine, then it isn’t a “conversion.”
(But then, using that definition, no Jew in the last 2,000 years ever “converted” from Judaism to Christianity, either.) I hardly think using the language of “conversion” is a Reformation framework being foisted onto the text, as much as it is just the colloquial language for such a significant change, not to mention a move from death to life, from condemnation into salvation. of making such a transformation as could be described as preaching the faith he had once tried to destroy. But whatever, if you don’t like the term conversion I’ll refrain from it, and I fully recognize and acknowledge that it is beyond obvious in the text that Paul continued and maintained the truth of the OT Scripture and the God-ordained legitimacy of OT worship.
But again, this is non-controversial. I doubt Luther, Calvin, or any of the Reformers would have had much quibble with that understanding, nor any modern Lutheran or Reformed Christian either. OK, Paul didn’t “convert” from Judaism, he just recognized that Jesus was that promised Messiah and remained just as committed to the truth of the OT Scripture and its (true) religion as he always had. But this is hardly controversial, so this can’t be the main issue of the NPP, no? In other words, neither Lutherans nor Reformed Christians are dispensationalists.
OK, if you agree with those 6 points I laid out, here is my next proposal:
-
Paul, in his ministry before his
conversionrecognition of Jesus as the true messiah, would have been in that class of Jews that did not have a “circumcised heart” and who, regardless of the stated beliefs of 1 century Judaism, was in fact trusting in his works for his righteousness before God. Paul would have been one of those in #6 above potentially affirming nominally of covenantal nomism, but was in real practice in his heart trusting and finding confidence in his outward conformity to the “works of the law”. -
Even regardless of the above, when Paul was writing his letters, and warning against people finding righteousness in works of the law, finding personal, individual righteousness and hope for salvation in outward conformity in works of the law, rather than on real personal faith (a circumcised heart), was a real problem in first century Judaism. Encouraging individual people to be justified by genuine faith in God (who is now understood as having been truly revealed and manifested in Christ), rather than by external obedience to works of the law (maintaining their covenant status), seems a natural thing for Paul to have been doing, even in a context of covenantal nomism. It is not categorically different than what the OT prophets had been doing for ages before.
So any chance we also agree on #7 & #8?
1 Like
I like the way that is phrased, and concur - I certainly myself see something I wouldn’t hesitate to describe as a “conversion”, but not one where he jettisoned the entirety of his belief in the Torah as God’s word, and everything else in the rest of the Old Testament, nor of the beliefs about God and religion that it taught.
But as the legalistic Pharisee (presumably with a heart of stone, or an “uncircumcised heart”, to use the OT language), he would have experienced quite a transformation, not just in understanding Christ as the awaited Messiah, but also of the entirety of how he had been trying to live as a Jew of uncircumcised heart.
2 Likes
I don’t think that can be established either way.
That would seem to be fair.
1 Like
What I notice a lot, is Christians getting tied up and confused by the references to justification in Scripture, which are generally interpreted rather legalistically, resulting in a case of the proverbial Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees.
As I see it, justification is, in effect, the means by which we demonstrate our love for God and our desire to be with him in Heaven for eternity. That is what salvation is all about - God saving those who love him. We demostrate that love initially by accepting the gift of faith, then by obeying God’s commandments (repentance).
When Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15), he’s actually referring to the process of justication (and it is a process - a life-long process, in fact - not something that is achieved in an instant).
Keeping his commandments is not only God will for our peace and well-being (Isaiah 48:18), it’s a test of our faith … just as God tested Abraham’s faith by testing his obedience (James 2:21).
To claim that we’re justified by faith alone reflects not only a misunderstanding of Scripture, it amounts to a blantant denial of Scripture, for James clearly states that a man is justified “NOT by faith alone” (James 2:24).
And contrary to myth, Paul didn’t preach salvation thru faith alone: In Gal 5:19-21 and 1Cor 6:9-10, Paul sternly warns believers (ie, those with faith) that their sins can result in them not inheriting the kingdom of God. That is obviously not preaching salvation thru faith alone! It is, in fact, preaching salvation thru faith and obedience (aka faith and works).
So there is no contradiction between Paul and James - they both preached salvation thru faith and works.
When Paul refers to being saved/justified thru faith in Romans 3:28 and Eph 2:8-9, he’s evidently referring to the first stage of salvation, which is thru faith (notice that he doesn’t say “faith alone” in those verses).
Neither does Paul preach that works (obeying God’s commandments) are irrelevant to salvation:
In Eph 2:9, he’s referring to works done by those without faith.
In Romans 3:28, by “works of the Law”, he could also be referring to works done without faith, or to useless ritual works of Mosaic law, such as circumcision and diet, not the moral laws of Moses, which are eternal and binding on Christians (see Romans 13:8-10).
A concise formula for justification is provided in
Rev 14:12 (and 12:17):
“the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus”.
Justification thru faith alone is simply unbiblical and incorrect.
It would probably be better to say that Paul peached that you could not be saved by the Law or adherence to it. That is what he spells out. The law cannot save, and neither can obedience to it alone save.
Justification by faith is almost certainly a flawed summary of Romans 1-8. I reckon Paul would be turning in his grave if he saw how his words have been corrupted and misused
In Ephesians Paul talks about running for the prize and beating his body into submission. There is no doubt that Paul is claiming that what he does will affect his destination.
The problem would seem to be that Paul expects perfection, both for himself and anyone who would follow (with) him. Such an emphasis on action and works deminishes the Gospel of forgiveness (IMO)
Paul is right when he claims that our actions are not enough, be they according to the law or any other code of practice, but he still seems to insist that we must try to achieve that impossibility. That is where his Judaism remains. He cannot get past the legality of laws and obedience to what God wants. He cannot see that there is a difference between what God wants, and what God will accept (or forgive). He sets goals that are out of our reach, and as such, some people feel that makes Christianity unworkable or beyond them.
Richard
Then if so, I still have trouble seeing what is “new” about this new perspective… or what exactly Luther and the other Reformers were supposedly so erroneous on…
Sanders was trying to say, essentially, “No, First century Judaism wasn’t legalistic, look at all the statements of their beliefs in grace and forgiveness… So the Reformers must have misunderstood Paul, since he wasn’t trying to claim that there was legalism or works-righteousness in first century Judaism…”
But it sounds like you and I agree that, although the religion was on paper one of grace through faith (as Paul himself demonstrates by going back to the OT and Abraham, etc.)… in practice, there was plenty of legalism and works righteousness that was pervasive in the religion.
If so, then what exactly was so new about this new perspective? Again, Reformation theologians both past and present, both in Lutheran and Reformed branches, are typically not dispensationalists… they don’t perceive some “different” manner of salvation between OT & NT… specifically, they recognize that OT religion was one of grace through faith, a faith that was confirmed and demonstrated as genuine by the works of the law, but those works in themselves did not in any way save the individuals.
Lutheran and Reformed Theologians similarly recognize enormous continuity between OT & NT religion as well - especially in this context… They reject the Dispensationalist idea that OT Jews were saved by their works, and the NT came along and displaced that works-based religion with a new religion based on grace. Quite the reverse…
“The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.”
So I have trouble understanding what exactly is new about this new perspective, or what exactly was this supposed error of Luther & Calvin, and those that followed them up until this present day? I for one recognize both that A) the Judaism proper as written in the Law and the Prophets was indeed a religion of grace, and that B) the actual practice of many first century Jews (not unlike those of the preceding centuries, and not unlike that of many individual Christians today) did indeed fall into legalism and works-righteousness.
So when Paul is describing Jewish legalism, Sanders’s claim that there wasn’t such a thing just doesn’t hold water… of course there was legalistic works-righteousness pervasive within Judaism in the first century, even if they should have known better by reading their own Scriptures… hence I don’t see any reason to follow the rest of his argument when the very foundation of his thought is so faulty.
1 Like
Tell me Daniel. What is your understanding of a circumcised heart?
Richard
I appreciate much of ehat you said above, and the interconnectedness of faith and works is indisputable. however, the statement above i fear is a bit simplistic… Paul must have meant something when he said what he did…
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law…For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works
1 Like
In Eph 2:8-9, Paul is referring to the first step on the road to salvation, which is faith.
By “not by works”, Paiul is referring to works alone - works done without faith - which don’t save, as it’s impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6).
He’s not saying works (ie, obeying God’s commandments) are irrelevant to salvation for believers. If that were so, believers would be free to sin, which is illogical, not to mention unbiɓlical.
Romans 1-8 is about the faiure of the Law, not the failure of works, Read it as a whole, not in bits. It is a complete argument not several. That is why all this rubbish about Original Sin is misreading. Pau was not interested in the nature of sin, or even why we do it. He only pointed out that humans sin, and Jesus heals it. (with the forgiveness of God)
The problem with Chapters and verses is that people accept the artificial spits as being individua or set alone and not part of the whole. Paul spent ages explaining only to have his arguments fractured and misinterpretted.
Why not jut reinterpret that so that we have to do something? Hey?
Grace is freely given. That is it. That does not mean that works are not expected, It actually means the opposite. We respond to the grace with works!
Salvation is a red herring. Only God saves, so we have nothing to do with it either way.
Richard
Right, and no one who affirms “justification by faith alone” would dispute any of that.
1 Like
I hope you were being ironic.
What is forgiveness if it is not offering the freedom to sin?
But you want human justice, not forgiveness.
Richard
I stand by the 5 Solas. But it is because they don’t mean to me what some people might say.
By Grace alone
By Faith alone
By Christ alone
By Scripture alone
Glory to God alone
But stated simply like this would easily be a contradiction. So clearly some explanation is needed. What is by grace alone and what is by faith alone? What is by Christ alone and what is by scripture alone?
Grace: Matthew 19. How can any be saved? With man this is impossible but with God all things are possible.
Faith: This does not mean that what we do is not important. On the contrary, faith is only made real by what we do. So to say we are saved by faith alone is simply the other side of salvation by Grace alone. It is by what God does and faith is what is required of us. And faith means doing all the good we can for its own sake, knowing that it will earn us nothing.
Christ: Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.
Scripture: This is the only authority given into our hands for Christian teaching.
Glory: We only glorify God and raise up Jesus, because we know that we ourselves are blind guides and poor examples to follow.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.