Skip to main content
Christianity

Return to Answer

added 6 characters in body
Source Link
Caleb
Caleb
  • 37.5k
  • 25
  • 154
  • 297

The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day.

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion -- as most Reformed teachings show,claim -- but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have Worksworks and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.

The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day.

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion as most Reformed teachings show, but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have Works and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.

The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day.

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion -- as most Reformed teachings claim -- but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have works and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.

added 85 characters in body
Source Link
Caleb
Caleb
  • 37.5k
  • 25
  • 154
  • 297

First of all, theThe NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for PaulPaul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and attemptspurports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that isn'taren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who oldhold the old view find itthe new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I thinkbelieve that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectiveperspectives to offer Christianity, some of it'sits premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my conclusions my treatment of the facts of the case isn'tare not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in ana different understanding of the religious culture of his day. 

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood Judaism about the 1st century Judaism to be a works based-based religious system whereunder which people crossed their t's anand dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor.

  NPP submits that Judaism at thein Paul's time was actually more about Gracegrace than weReformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace foras the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising thatthat as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religiousreligion as most Reformed teachings show, but one of contrasting two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have Works and Faithfaith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With Worksworks and Faithfaith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole thingitem to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. WriteWright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing butstanding; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.

First of all, the NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul, it also re-examines several other historical issues and attempts to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that isn't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who old the old view find it to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I think that while the NPP has some valuable perspective to offer Christianity, some of it's conclusions are heretical. I will try to answer here carefully. If my conclusions my treatment of the facts of the case isn't fair feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in an different understanding of the religious culture of his day. Historically most of Protestantism has understood Judaism about the 1st century to be a works based religious system where people crossed their t's an dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor.

  NPP submits that Judaism at the time was actually more about Grace than we give it credit for: that it taught grace for salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religious as most Reformed teachings show but one of contrasting two parts of the same right religious understanding. Hence the NPP would have Works and Faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With Works and Faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole thing to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Write does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing but their own righteousness will be based on their own works.

The NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul's works, it also re-examines several other historical issues and purports to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that aren't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who hold the old view find the new to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I believe that, while the NPP has some valuable perspectives to offer Christianity, some of its premises are invalid and some of its conclusions are heretical. Still, I will try to answer here carefully. If my treatment of the facts of the case are not fair, feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in a different understanding of the religious culture of his day. 

Historically, most of Protestantism has understood 1st century Judaism to be a works-based religious system under which people crossed their t's and dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor. NPP submits that Judaism in Paul's time was actually more about grace than Reformation era Protestants give it credit for: that it taught grace as the basis of salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works, then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religion as most Reformed teachings show, but one of two parts of the same right religious understanding being contrasted. Hence, the NPP would have Works and faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With works and faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole item to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Wright does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing; their own righteousness will still be based on their own works.

Bounty Ended with 50 reputation awarded by David Stratton
Source Link
Caleb
Caleb
  • 37.5k
  • 25
  • 154
  • 297

First of all, the NPP includes more than just a new set of interpretations for Paul, it also re-examines several other historical issues and attempts to throw a different light on them. In reading through material from both sides, I find that much breath seems to be wasted on detailed analysis of issues that isn't actually new or different in any way, but that a few key issues (particularly the definition of Justification) are substantially different. While some NPP adherents claim that their new view of Justification is compatible with the old, most who old the old view find it to be incompatible.

Full disclosure: I think that while the NPP has some valuable perspective to offer Christianity, some of it's conclusions are heretical. I will try to answer here carefully. If my conclusions my treatment of the facts of the case isn't fair feel free to comment.

Was 1st Century Judaism so off track?

The basis for the "new" understanding of Paul's life and teachings is really rooted in an different understanding of the religious culture of his day. Historically most of Protestantism has understood Judaism about the 1st century to be a works based religious system where people crossed their t's an dotted their i's in accordance with a vast set of laws and regulations in order to earn or deserve God's favor.

NPP submits that Judaism at the time was actually more about Grace than we give it credit for: that it taught grace for salvation and works as a basis of judgement, not works as the basis of salvation.

What goes around comes around.

If 1st Century Judaism wasn't a religion of works then Paul's discourses on it must not have been raising that as an objection. If he was actually in agreement with Judaism on the issue of works vs. grace, then the contrasts we find in his teachings between works and grace must not have been a matter of right vs. wrong religious as most Reformed teachings show but one of contrasting two parts of the same right religious understanding. Hence the NPP would have Works and Faith working together in the effecting of salvation.

How impudent!

With Works and Faith working together rather than one being the result of the other, Wright and others from the NPP movement must also recast the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Rather than Christ's work being the sole thing to the credit of our accounts, our own works will be part of our judgement. Write does not believe that God's righteousness can actually be transferred to anyone, only that he can declare (law court terminology) people to be in good standing but their own righteousness will be based on their own works.