dberrie2000 Posted October 24, 2014 Author Posted October 24, 2014 So do I. Anyway, Im Girl_4_God over on the other site. Hi Girl_4_God--over on the other side.
3DOP Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 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. I would suggest that the so-called new perspective on Paul is nothing less than a rejection of the truly new perspective on Paul, Luther's heresy of sola fide, salvation by faith alone, rejected from day one by the Roman Catholic Church, and well articulated at the Council of Trent. I find it ironic that the "old perspective on Paul" which was never abandoned by the Catholic Church, is now called new according to modern evangelicals! 2
3DOP Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 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. Yeah mola, maybe nobody goes to heaven except unbelievers because faith is a work too? "They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent." (John 6:28, 29) 1
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 The whole concept that one can go around sinning and not worry about repentance, not worrying about even trying to get it right, and still be fine with God because I had the good fortune of hearing of Jesus Christ and for some strange reason - not personal revelation- believing the entire hard-to-believe-story that He is my personal savior- that whole conceptual framework, is just incomprehensible to me. I just do not understand how anyone could accept the idea. So I guess I am going to hell for sure. 1
Stone holm Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Paul, I am sure was a wonderful man and critical to selling Christianity to the Gentiles, especially the Romans, but he managed to also spread confusion and doctrinal misunderstanding because of his verbose and convoluted writing style which transformed clear and understandable doctrine into a bundle of contradictory and perplexing verbiage that has plagued Christians for centuries and sent various sects running off the rails. We would be better off neglecting to read him.
3DOP Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Paul, I am sure was a wonderful man and critical to selling Christianity to the Gentiles, especially the Romans, but he managed to also spread confusion and doctrinal misunderstanding because of his verbose and convoluted writing style which transformed clear and understandable doctrine into a bundle of contradictory and perplexing verbiage that has plagued Christians for centuries and sent various sects running off the rails. We would be better off neglecting to read him. You don't think that would be over-reaction? Paul's writings have always been accepted by all Christians. Whatever problems there might be with his writing style, nobody that I have ever heard of that calls themselves Christian has advocated that..."we would be better off neglecting to read him." Yours is a "new perspective on Paul" that in my opinion would claim every Christian church from Catholic to Orthodox, and from LDS to Protestant, as apostate, and in need of a Restoration. In my opinion, no viable (to say nothing of true church!) church can get way with canonizing writings that "we would be better off neglecting to read". If I believed what you say, I would quickly bypass Mormonism and start looking much harder at the Koran than I have hitherto done in two readings of it to wonder if some Koranic community might offer the true Restoration of all things in Christ. Failing there, I wouldn't be anything except a Restorationist-In-Waiting. According to the theories of those who accept an apostasy of the Catholic Church, it seems like there is little reason to assume that the true Restoration has to be present in my life. I would hope for God's mercy in anticipation of a future manifestation of a Restoration that doesn't make bonehead mistakes that involve canonizing literature that is not merely wrong, but "we would be better off neglecting to read". Edited October 26, 2014 by 3DOP
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Paul wrote some brilliant verses highly relevant to our understanding of the temple, and I don't think that LDS can for a minute ignore what he has taught us. The most obvious references we use are 1Cor: 15 and Hebrews 9 and 10. I know that the authorship of Hebrews is controversial, but whoever wrote it got it right on the money. Whoever wrote it understood the temple the way we understand it, and to me it is evidence of that knowledge being ancient Edited October 26, 2014 by mfbukowski 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Hi Valentinus. Wow--what a truth. Are you the same Valentinus who use to post on the Walter Martin forum?Yes. Then I wised up. 1
Vance Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Paul, I am sure was a wonderful man and critical to selling Christianity to the Gentiles, especially the Romans, but he managed to also spread confusion and doctrinal misunderstanding because of his verbose and convoluted writing style which transformed clear and understandable doctrine into a bundle of contradictory and perplexing verbiage that has plagued Christians for centuries and sent various sects running off the rails. We would be better off neglecting to read him.I suspect he was much better at preaching the word, than writing the word.
halconero Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 You don't think that would be over-reaction? Paul's writings have always been accepted by all Christians. Whatever problems there might be with his writing style, nobody that I have ever heard of that calls themselves Christian has advocated that..."we would be better off neglecting to read him." Yours is a "new perspective on Paul" that in my opinion would claim every Christian church from Catholic to Orthodox, and from LDS to Protestant, as apostate, and in need of a Restoration. In my opinion, no viable (to say nothing of true church!) church can get way with canonizing writings that "we would be better off neglecting to read". If I believed what you say, I would quickly bypass Mormonism and start looking much harder at the Koran than I have hitherto done in two readings of it to wonder if some Koranic community might offer the true Restoration of all things in Christ. Failing there, I wouldn't be anything except a Restorationist-In-Waiting. According to the theories of those who accept an apostasy of the Catholic Church, it seems like there is little reason to assume that the true Restoration has to be present in my life. I would hope for God's mercy in anticipation of a future manifestation of a Restoration that doesn't make bonehead mistakes that involve canonizing literature that is not merely wrong, but "we would be better off neglecting to read". Agreed. I read Paul, and the only thing the critical (yet faithful) eye perceives is a man who was learning the Gospel as he preached. The simple, and somewhat incomplete theology of Thessalonians is the foundation for the crowing jewels of epistles like Corinthians. His writings help us understand the nature of the apostolic ministry, revelation, and the recording of revelation just as much as they teach about the Resurrection, the Atonement, grace, and works. 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I believe we must take into consideration that Paul didn't write six of the epistles attributed to, as well. I don't believe a solid theological argument can be made without being textually critical; especially where Paul is concerned. Recognizing the pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal letters as uniquely standing apart from the 7 authentic writings can go a long way. 1
halconero Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I believe we must take into consideration that Paul didn't write six of the epistles attributed to, as well. I don't believe a solid theological argument can be made without being textually critical; especially where Paul is concerned. Recognizing the pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal letters as uniquely standing apart from the 7 authentic writings can go a long way. I agree wholeheartedly. The few times I've brought this up with church members I've had many respond with an almost fanatical defense for a Pauline origin of the pastoral and the deuterocanonical epistles, throwing to the end the belief that "we believe" the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Now, I believe that there is some theological and ecclesiastical value in those epistles, but recognizing that they weren't penned by Paul is important in establishing a more accurate translation. As confusing as some of the members of this forum find Paul, it might seem far less so if they put the pseudonymous letters aside for a moment and just study the authentic letters. You still see a developing theology and doctrine, especially concerning resurrection and the 2nd coming in the authentic letters, but it really is far more cohesive as such. 2
Vance Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I believe we must take into consideration that Paul didn't write six of the epistles attributed to, as well. I don't believe a solid theological argument can be made without being textually critical; especially where Paul is concerned. Recognizing the pseudonymous and pseudepigraphal letters as uniquely standing apart from the 7 authentic writings can go a long way.Perhaps you could expand on this, ie, which epistles were authored by Paul and which were not, (at least according to current scholarship, which of course, could change at some point in the future). For us rubes.
halconero Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 The pastoral epistles: The Timothy's & Titus are generally considered pseudopigraphal, meaning that someone other than Paul wrote them, but used his name. The deuterocanonical epistles: Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians are more contested, with scholarship being more or less evenly split on whether they were written by Paul. Hebrews is disputed outright, given the fact that the letter itself is anonymous and its attributing to Paul being a much later addition. 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Also, Vance, in one of the earliest collections of the Pauline corpus, P-96, the pastorals are not present.As for Hebrews, I like the Priscilla argument.And Vance...you're no rube. I love your witty snark...even when it has been directed at me. Edited October 28, 2014 by Valentinus 1
halconero Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 As for Hebrews, I like the Priscilla argument. Ohhh, I like that. Heck, I don't see any argument from scripture, either Biblical or Latter-day Saint that prohibits it either. It's easily one of my favourite writings in the New Testament as well. By the way, Valentinus. Have you ever read in Kloppenborg in your studies? I had him as a prof last year and we've developed a pretty good relationship this year and it was only recently I realized how extensive his writings on early Christianity and their writings are. 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I've heard of him but haven't read his work. I'll have to check into it.
dberrie2000 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 Yes. Then I wised up. Seems most everyone has. Good to find you here.
dberrie2000 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 I would suggest that the so-called new perspective on Paul is nothing less than a rejection of the truly new perspective on Paul, Luther's heresy of sola fide, salvation by faith alone, rejected from day one by the Roman Catholic Church, and well articulated at the Council of Trent. I find it ironic that the "old perspective on Paul" which was never abandoned by the Catholic Church, is now called new according to modern evangelicals! That's a great perspective--there really isn't anything new under the sun. I have always thought the Protestants, for the main--- have precious little in common with the Bible.(speaking of the doctrines--and not the people themselves)
Recommended Posts