Romans4 And The New Perspective

[dberrie2000]

There has been a shift in the way the faith alone theology is applied to Paul's writings with regard to the term "works"--"works of the law", etc.--by a number of scholars.

 

The problem, in part--is how Paul's use of term "works" applied to Biblical NT theology. IE--works is excluded from the instance of salvational grace. The problem is manifested in the fact Paul establishes the doctrine we are judged according to works--and those who by patient endurance in well doing receive eternal life--and those who do not obey God are rejected from salvation.

 

The two approaches just do not collate one to another--but present the problem of somehow meshing those two views in harmony one to another.

 

The "New Perspective" now has the term "works of the law"--as a designation for the Mosaic Law--or certain rituals under the Mosaic Law--and not obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ--as James might use the term.

 

That would place the age-old argument of Romans4 in a different light:

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

The new perspective on Paul is a significant shift in the way some scholars, especially Protestant scholars, interpret the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians' good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to this "new" perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.

[JLHPROF]

And slowly but surely Mormonism and Traditional Christianity moved closer together...now if we could just get past the Nicene Creed....

[Anakin7]

       Perhaps our Lutheran Missouri Synod friend/critic coolrok7 can share !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[halconero]

The New Perspective is the approach currently held by biblical scholars. A lot of it has to do with semantics and linguistics.

Paul's use of the word "Pistis," is better translated as Piety, Faithfulness, and Devotion in our modern age. Faith and belief, the words used in place of Pistis, have been affected deeply by modernity to the extent where they denote intellectual assent rather than deep commitment.

Paul's issue wasn't with good works, he definitely considered an intrinsic part of salvation. His issue was when works, and largely the law of Moses, did away with the need for a divine patron providing salvation.

[dberrie2000]

And slowly but surely Mormonism and Traditional Christianity moved closer together...now if we could just get past the Nicene Creed....

 

That's a great observation.

[dberrie2000]

       Perhaps our Lutheran Missouri Synod friend/critic coolrok7 can share !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

 I find the faith alone like to avoid some discussions. The fact is--what the Bible contains--is also found in the LDS church. I have found those outside of the LDS church have a hard time collating their salvational theology with the Biblical text.

 

I wish there were more discussions centering around the Biblical NT text--that is where the LDS church shines--IMO.

Edited October 22, 2014 by dberrie2000

[dberrie2000]

The New Perspective is the approach currently held by biblical scholars. A lot of it has to do with semantics and linguistics.

Paul's use of the word "Pistis," is better translated as Piety, Faithfulness, and Devotion in our modern age. Faith and belief, the words used in place of Pistis, have been affected deeply by modernity to the extent where they denote intellectual assent rather than deep commitment.

Paul's issue wasn't with good works, he definitely considered an intrinsic part of salvation. His issue was when works, and largely the law of Moses, did away with the need for a divine patron providing salvation.

 Very good post. Thanks for sharing.

[Vance]

Perhaps our Lutheran Missouri Synod friend/critic coolrok7 can share !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Nah!

He would touch this subject with a 10 foot pole.

[Damien the Leper]

Recommended reading:

Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders

The New Perspective on Paul by James D.G. Dunn

I wish the LDS church could fully implement the New Perspective into its theology. That would get the church caught up with Jesus Christ.

[dberrie2000]

Recommended reading:

Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders

The New Perspective on Paul by James D.G. Dunn

I wish the LDS church could fully implement the New Perspective into its theology. That would get the church caught up with Jesus Christ.

 

Hi Valentinus.

 

 Wow--what a truth. Are you the same Valentinus who use to post on the Walter Martin forum?

[Michael Sanders]

It would be nice to compare Joseph Smith's bible revisions to see if any of them compare more favorably with the research of the "new perspective" scholarship.

The Paul Page

http://www.thepaulpage.com/new-perspective/

Mike Sanders

Book,of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Anakin7]

    That would be an interesting read is someone or a group would format that into a Book/Journal .

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 24, 2014 by Anakin7

[seriously honestly]

I find the faith alone like to avoid some discussions. The fact is--what the Bible contains--is also found in the LDS church. I have found those outside of the LDS church have a hard time collating their salvational theology with the Biblical text.

 

I wish there were more discussions centering around the Biblical NT text--that is where the LDS church shines--IMO.

Au contraire, dberrie--I've had great fun discussing the topic with you on the other forums. I quite like the subject.

[The Nehor]

And two thousand years later someone finally figures out what Paul was trying to say. Paul must have been terrible at communicating.

[dberrie2000]

Au contraire, dberrie--I've had great fun discussing the topic with you on the other forums. I quite like the subject.

 

 Hi Contraire. I like the subject also--it allows one to harmonize the scriptures--or even Paul--to himself.

[seriously honestly]

Hi Contraire. I like the subject also--it allows one to harmonize the scriptures--or even Paul--to himself.

Contraire! I think I'm going to request my screen namd be changed to that.

As I've said before, I have no problem with faith alone and the roll works play, which I know up front sounds a bit contradictory, but I think you know where Im going with this (assuming you do know who this is, yes?)

[dberrie2000]

Contraire! I think I'm going to request my screen namd be changed to that.

As I've said before, I have no problem with faith alone and the roll works play, which I know up front sounds a bit contradictory, but I think you know where Im going with this (assuming you do know who this is, yes?)

 

I haven't a clue who you are. But I like the term Contraire.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

...... to the extent where they denote intellectual assent rather than deep commitment.

 

I keep saying that it is a " mental exercise".  I am going to start saying intellectual assent. Because that is really what a lot of Evangelicals mean when they say "You just need faith alone".

Edited October 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[halconero]

And two thousand years later someone finally figures out what Paul was trying to say. Paul must have been terrible at communicating.

 

Even one of the epistles (I believe one of the Johns) says that people in Paul's era had difficulty understanding Paul.

 

On another note, a large part of the difficulty came from the Reformers and the Counter-Reformers of the Renaissance era churches trying to develop theological concepts from scripture while being largely ignorant of linguistic nuances and cultural context while trying to push their own agenda.

[mfbukowski]

There has been a shift in the way the faith alone theology is applied to Paul's writings with regard to the term "works"--"works of the law", etc.--by a number of scholars.

 

The problem, in part--is how Paul's use of term "works" applied to Biblical NT theology. IE--works is excluded from the instance of salvational grace. The problem is manifested in the fact Paul establishes the doctrine we are judged according to works--and those who by patient endurance in well doing receive eternal life--and those who do not obey God are rejected from salvation.

 

The two approaches just do not collate one to another--but present the problem of somehow meshing those two views in harmony one to another.

 

The "New Perspective" now has the term "works of the law"--as a designation for the Mosaic Law--or certain rituals under the Mosaic Law--and not obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ--as James might use the term.

 

That would place the age-old argument of Romans4 in a different light:

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

The new perspective on Paul is a significant shift in the way some scholars, especially Protestant scholars, interpret the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians' good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to this "new" perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.

Oh well.

 

As always, it comes down to semantics.  I don't think that ANYONE thinks that a unrepentant serial killer will get into heaven because he is a "Christian".

 

Even if you just have to "try to be good" that is an act of the will in the direction of repentance and constitutes a "good work" and a change in the course of letting the natural man rule supreme.

 

It all comes down to what qualifies as a "good work" which is why I have always thought that the distinction made no sense.  Even "accepting Christ" is a "good work" if you want to see it that way, or not a good work of you don't want to see it that way.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

As always, it comes down to semantics.  I don't think that ANYONE thinks that a unrepentant serial killer will get into heaven because he is a "Christian".

 

Not sure that anyone has ever claimed that an unrepentant would go to heaven.

 

I mean it is a funny game that happens. When you get down to it there are those that don't believe you need to repent. It is a work. Oh well it is a semantics game.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[mfbukowski]

It would be nice to compare Joseph Smith's bible revisions to see if any of them compare more favorably with the research of the "new perspective" scholarship.

The Paul Page

http://www.thepaulpage.com/new-perspective/

Mike Sanders

Book,of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Independence, huh?

Uh oh.    Apostate heathen!!  (just kidding)

Welcome.

[mfbukowski]

Not sure that anyone has ever claimed that an unrepentant would go to heaven.

 

I mean it is a funny game that happens. When you get down to it there are those that don't believe you need to repent. It is a work. Oh well it is a semantics game.

Yes, I was just stating it in an extreme manner, as usual.

 

My point was that the fact that no one even claims that, shows that ultimately, it is a distinction without a difference, and a very blurry, shades-of-grey distinction to start with.

 

One way to show that is to push distinctions to the point where they obviously break, and then try to backtrack to find the breaking point.  This distinction is broken from the beginning in my opinion, and just depends on what wants to arbitrarily call a "good work" as you point out.

[Vance]

Even one of the epistles (I believe one of the Johns) says that people in Paul's era had difficulty understanding Paul.

It was Peter, but your point is valid.

 

On another note, a large part of the difficulty came from the Reformers and the Counter-Reformers of the Renaissance era churches trying to develop theological concepts from scripture while being largely ignorant of linguistic nuances and cultural context while trying to push their own agenda.

Kind of like the worship of the English translation of the Bible by some of our Modern, American, Protestant, Evangelicals.

[seriously honestly]

I haven't a clue who you are. But I like the term Contraire.

So do I. Anyway, Im Girl_4_God over on the other site.