Taking the New Perspective Seriously

[Tercel]

Anyone who's serious about studying NT theology can't afford to ignore the recent movement called "the New Perspective".

Nearly 30 years ago, E.P. Sanders wrote the mammoth work Paul and Palestinian Judaism in which he argued that standard theology misunderstood what Paul had to say about "works". He argues that by "works" Paul does not mean good works, but rather, Paul means the rituals of the Mosaic Law.

Since that time an ever-increasing number of Biblical scholars have been convinced by this position. Today, it is widely estimated, that the majority of academic biblical scholars now accept this position, and the number who do is still increasing. The New Perspective could now be called the "mainstream" position within academic New Testament theology.

So, in a nutshell the New Perspective is the position that Paul is not criticising good works as a means to salvation, he is criticising a following of the rituals of the Mosaic Law as a means to salvation.


SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS?
In these forums people seem to just have their own Calvinism or Arminian beliefs and want to argue them out. But the New Perspective (NP) implies something far more radical that we ought to be discussing.

If the NP is right, as most scholars think it is, then the Bible never criticises good-works based salvation. We were told by Luther and Calvin that Salvation was by Faith Alone, because they thought Paul was criticising good-works-based salvation. They thought Paul was criticising the idea that we could earn salvation by doing good works. The NP now says that Luther and Calvin were 100% wrong about this.

We can either shut our ears to this, stick our heads in the sand, and chant "No, modern scholars can't be right about what the Bible says, I'm going to believe Calvin", or we can take the New Perspective seriously. What are the implications of the NP being true? If the NP is true then the Bible says nothing against good-works-based salvation.

So what does the Bible have to say about the place of good-works? In fact, it seems to say they are very important indeed.
They are the cause of justification:
"a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
They are the cause of eternal life or punishment:
"[God] will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury." (Rom 2:6-8, cf Mat 25:31-46, Mat 7:21)

If the NP is right then both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong. Both systems stress the importance of "faith" (belief) in justification and salvation, and claim good works aren't part of either and that good works are just something God works in us in our sanctification. If the NP is right is seems that these systems are hugely flawed, that modern day Christianity has severely departed from Biblical Christianity in its understanding of the place and importance of good works.

[geebob]

It doesn't seem to me that calvin or luther were %100 wrong in light of the new perspective. Of course Paul wasn't argueing against meritorious salvation, but that doesn't then mean that meritorious salvation is the right view.

The first and foremost difference that the new view makes is that the issue is not about merit as the basis of our salvation vs. passive belief as the basis of our salvation, but rather belief (ie whole hearted trust in Christ) as our basis and not the mosaic law. And considering that paying an indulgence to the catholic church doesn't cut it for following Christ, it is out as a requirement of faith. It is like the works of the pharasees (we don't want to lose the cultural context of Luther's objections which is why I mention the catholic church and indulgences). alot of the rituals of the catholic church are (or for many of them, were) questionable in terms of there necessity to following Christ.

So is Christianity effortless? no, trusting Christ involves obedience to him. Of course the first step isn't much of a meritorius act and it isn't much in effort. The thief on the cross had no good works to his name but he still found salvation.

[yxboom]

I havent studied it as i promised geebob i would but the NP has impressed me a great deal. but of course it follows beautifully within the Openness, inclusivist framework.

yxboom the purveyor of Calvinist anathemas :teeth:

[Tfbandie]

I'm not really noticing any new idea here. Notice in your james quote it says not 'faith alone' therefore implying faith is integral. and I think this is well established elsewhere. I also think the bible supports the notion of good works coming from faith, and that good works without faith are not pleasing.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

So, in a nutshell the New Perspective is the position that Paul is not criticising good works as a means to salvation, he is criticising a following of the rituals of the Mosaic Law as a means to salvation.
We have to be careful with this as there is no single "New Perspective"
My NP readings are far from exhaustive, but I've never read any NP advocate that stated good works are a means to salvation. However, good works are certainly not the opposite of faith, as some here may suggest.


Justification is "through faith alone," in the sense that additional customs and rituals are not necessary to delineate the boundaries of the new Christ-centered body of believers. But salvation (the process by which we are saved) should not be reduced to justification (the declaration that we have been saved) -- and thus the rejection of specific "works" (in the narrow sense of ritualistic observances) as mandatory, in the context of the justification debate, should not be taken as a blanket rejection of any positive relationship between faith and works (in the broad sense of applied ethics and obedience to God), as if they were mutually exclusive polar opposites.
http://www.thepaulpage.com/What.html

The NP has helped remind us that Pauls issue with the Jews was not the same as Luthers was with the RCC.

[Tercel]

It doesn't seem to me that calvin or luther were %100 wrong in light of the new perspective. Of course Paul wasn't argueing against meritorious salvation, but that doesn't then mean that meritorious salvation is the right view.Agreed. I meant they were 100% wrong in claiming that Paul was arguing against meritorious salvation.

So is Christianity effortless? no, trusting Christ involves obedience to him. Of course the first step isn't much of a meritorius act and it isn't much in effort. The thief on the cross had no good works to his name but he still found salvation.Agreed, the situation is not simple. But we need to SERIOUSLY AND CAREFULLY reinvestigate the importance and place of good works in theology. We can bicker here about God's foreknowledge until the cows come home, but what does it really matter? But it is very important what we tell people about good works. Do we say to them that "good works aren't enough to get you to heaven"? Do we say "you don't need good works or self effort, only faith (belief) in Jesus"? Are either of those statements true? etc.

I suggest that we spend some time in this forum asking the question: If the NP is true, what ought we to say is the Christian position on good-works?

I havent studied it as i promised geebob i would but the NP has impressed me a great deal. but of course it follows beautifully within the Openness, inclusivist framework.I happen to be an Open Viewer, but I haven't a clue what that has got to do with the NP. Care to explain?

We have to be careful with this as there is no single "New Perspective"True, but if there's one thing that can be said to be the NP then it's the recognition that Paul is attacking the rituals of the Mosaic Law rather than Good Works.

My NP readings are far from exhaustive, but I've never read any NP advocate that stated good works are a means to salvation.I think NP advocates have been afraid of dealing with this subject and/or blinded to the existence of this question due to their established evangelical beliefs. Regardless of what advocates say themselves, I want to explore here the logical outworkings of their views.
1) Advocates of the NP deny that Paul attacked Good Works. (Agreed?)
2) The belief that Paul attacked Good Works as a means to salvation caused the Reformers to create certain doctrines regarding the relationship between faith and good works. (Agreed?)
3) If the NP is correct, the Reformer's evidence for their views was faulty. (Agreed?)
4) Thus we ought to ask the question: If the NP is true, what can be correctly said about the subjects the Reformers were dealing with: Faith and Good-Works, and their relationship to salvation and justification etc.

[Nang]

Anyone who's serious about studying NT theology can't afford to ignore the recent movement called "the New Perspective".




There is nothing "new" under the sun.

Men either believe in self-salvation (humanism) . . .

Or men believe solely in the grace of God for salvation.

It is an either/or antithesis between truth and error that has existed since the garden of Eden; exemplified in the contrasting forms of worship performed by Cain and Abel.

So this latest heresy is not new. It is an ancient re-run.

The enemy has just given it a new slant with a new name.

Nang

[seer]

There is nothing "new" under the sun.

Men either believe in self-salvation (humanism) . . .

Or men believe solely in the grace of God for salvation.

It is an either/or antithesis between truth and error that has existed since the garden of Eden; exemplified in the contrasting forms of worship performed by Cain and Abel.

So this latest heresy is not new. It is an ancient re-run.

The enemy has just given it a new slant with a new name.

Nang

Except Augustine (the real father of Calvinism) taught that man was saved by both faith and works. Both being caused by the grace of God. So that would not be humanism...

[yxboom]

I happen to be an Open Viewer, but I haven't a clue what that has got to do with the NP. Care to explain?
it fits well within the OV/inclusivist framework was the extent of my comment.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Nang
Are you willing to anathematize all Christians who lived before the first determinist, Augustine?

Remember, many times when Paul mentions "works", he is referring to works of the law, not generic good works.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Tercel
I agree with your 3 points, I guess we'll be discussing point #4, eh?
regards

[Tercel]

Potentially important to the discussion, I think, is the idea of being good vs doing good.

Someone who is good, is a good person, and will do good works, and perhaps make a few mistakes and will do some evil things.
Someone who is wicked, is an wicked person, and will do a lot of evil works, and perhaps will also do a few good things.

I think many modern Christians object to the idea of "salvation by works" because they are thinking of a doing/being distinction. The thief on the cross has already come up as an example. It's an example of someone who repented and never had time to do good works, but would have done them if he had time.

A lot of Christians would be much more happy to say that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. But the idea that people who do good works go to heaven and people that do bad works go to hell is unpopular, because we can see the importance of making a distinction between doing and being, and can think of cases of the thief on the cross who didn't have a chance to do good works.

But in ancient times the distinction between doing and being was significantly less than it is now. (This is a well-known phenomena among classical scholars) I suggest that the Bible uses both "doing" and "being" language and that it means the same thing by both. If you study the different verses that talk about goodness being related to salvation (I have) then you'll see that about half of them talk about doing good and half about being good, and no significant distinction gets made between the two. So when I say I believe in works based salvation, I don't mean that I think God will count up our number of good works and compare them to our number of wicked deeds, I simply mean that good people will go to heaven and bad people to hell. And I think that's what the Biblical language is meaning when it speaks of judgement by works.

[studyhound]

:popcorn:

[Tercel]

I agree with your 3 points, I guess we'll be discussing point #4, eh?Excellent, well then let's start with the question:

Why shouldn't we believe in good-works based salvation?

The answer the Reformers gave was wrong. So what is the correct answer?

Perhaps we should believe in works-based salvation? Personally, I think we should. Look at Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus spells out clearly how it will be decided whether a person goes to heaven or hell, and he never uses the word "faith" once, it is good works (or lack of them) all the way. I also referenced James 2:24 and Rom 2:6-8 in the OP. They seem to spell out that justification and eternal life are by good works. What more could we want? Now that the NP tells us that Paul's not arguing against salvation by good works, isn't it correct to take these three passages at face value?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

What else could we want?? We are justified by our trust in Christs faithfullness, for one. We do good works because we've already been declared righteous, just, etc. There's a middle ground which you may not have considered. We'll continue this tomorrow (I hope). I'm going to bed. I'm beat.

Oh yeah. One more thing. The NP most certainly does not teach that Paul is stating that salvation is by good works.

[Tercel]

NT Wright on the New Perspective (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf):

3. Final Judgment According to Works
The third point is remarkably controversial, seeing how well founded it is at several points in Paul. Indeed, listening to yesterday’s papers, it seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16.

[Nang]

Nang
Are you willing to anathematize all Christians who lived before the first determinist, Augustine?

Heh :sigh:

No reason to, friend.



Remember, many times when Paul mentions "works", he is referring to works of the law, not generic good works.

There is no such thing as "generic" good works apart from God's holy Law.

The Law of God defines what is good. God's Law is an objective and universal standard by which all creation must function; else be condemned as corrupted.

And no works performed apart from God (in a state of rebellion or unbelief) are considered "good." (Isaiah 64:6)

Man cannot function in goodness autonomous from God, which relationship is exactly what Adam lost when he sinned.

Nang

[Kevin Wayne]

Whatever any of you want to say regarding Good Works, please remember to balance it out with the fact that followers of Christ are forbidden from Lording it over others:


25 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."


1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. 6 They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. 9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.


24 I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy, because you stand firm in the faith.


2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

[BenK]

I find it helpful to make analogy from human relationships. To see a couple's love for each other as 'works-based' would be to miss the point; if the husband has some sort of mechanistic quota of romantic acts he has to perform each day to command his wife's affection we can hardly say that they love one another.

However, to take the opposite line and say that their relationship is 'faith-based' in that he can love his wife is nonsense if his actions consistently fail to show it. Love is the attitude of one person's entire being towards another.

[geebob]

Agreed, the situation is not simple. But we need to SERIOUSLY AND CAREFULLY reinvestigate the importance and place of good works in theology.

sure, to that end I do have two points. I do recall one NP author suggesting that works do not save us, but it is analogous to the functioning of the law in that they help maintain our position in the people of God. Secondly, works have always been important to protestants, inspite of Luther's move to make James an appendix. Many theologians have recognized that faith without works is dead, hence even if they reject that works is directly relevent to salvation, it is necessary (if not imeadiately necessary) to faith.

It's been a while since I've studied the NP, but at any rate, I believe that there was a significant difference between two authors, I'm not sure which but I believe it is NT Wright and EP Sanders. I think EP Sanders (or someone else) held that the scandal of Jesus teaching was that Jesus not only made a way for one to enter the kingdom of God without being a Jew or following the law, but that he didn't expect them to change. NT Wright argued that they could get in easy but Jesus did still expect them to change. In light of that range, there is plenty of room for the more traditional protestant view of the sufficiency of faith alone, not that I'm saying that the traditional view should remain untouched, especially in light of the fact that I highlighted that that really hasn't been the consistent protestant position.

One more thing I'd like to point out is the danger of "works" based salvation is in terms of what it could do to soteriology. We are saved because of the work of Jesus. Of course we will never merit our salvation because our salvation is based on the merit of Jesus. That said, of course the work of the cross is for the followers of Jesus, and followers obey. that further said, Jesus is saving us from our sins, ie our disobedience, so is not the cross enough to save us from any momentary backsliding? I would hope so.

We can bicker here about God's foreknowledge until the cows come home, but what does it really matter?

we could have that discussion, but it isn't very relevent to your specific topic here. But it is of much importance nevertheless. But I'm not bringing it up here.

But it is very important what we tell people about good works. Do we say to them that "good works aren't enough to get you to heaven"? Do we say "you don't need good works or self effort, only faith (belief) in Jesus"? Are either of those statements true? etc.

I'd tell them that they first and foremost have to trust in the work of Jesus and repent and follow him thus causing them to enter into God's choosen people, and of course to continue in consistency with that membership by following Jesus teaching and filling a niche in the people of God even if that niche may seem small and unimportant.

I happen to be an Open Viewer, but I haven't a clue what that has got to do with the NP. Care to explain?

The New Perspective does two things for the open view (often at the same time). One is it unravels popular calvinist prooftexts showing them to be about something significantly different (Romans 9 is the best example) and the second is that it strongly supports corporate election which is the only view of election that the open view coheres with.

[Tercel]

Whatever any of you want to say regarding Good Works, please remember to balance it out with the fact that followers of Christ are forbidden from Lording it over othersI don't understand your point. What does the one have to do with the other?

I find it helpful to make analogy from human relationships. To see a couple's love for each other as 'works-based' would be to miss the point; if the husband has some sort of mechanistic quota of romantic acts he has to perform each day to command his wife's affection we can hardly say that they love one another. However, to take the opposite line and say that their relationship is 'faith-based' in that he can love his wife is nonsense if his actions consistently fail to show it. Love is the attitude of one person's entire being towards another.Yes, I agree. I totally agree that we ought to live in love. Love for God and others, were after all ranked the two most important commandments by Christ.

But while this is a nice analogy but a bit imprecise when it comes to theology, as people want answers to questions like "what do I need to do to get into heaven?", "Do faith, or works justify?" etc which the analogy doesn't really reveal.

One more thing I'd like to point out is the danger of "works" based salvation is in terms of what it could do to soteriology. We are saved because of the work of Jesus. Of course we will never merit our salvation because our salvation is based on the merit of Jesus.True, it does have an impact on soteriology. Is that a problem? I would simply say that the soteriology you've just outlined is wrong, and just another part of the Reformers' mis-reading of Paul. So I think the NP demands a revised and reconsidered soteriology.

The New Perspective does two things for the open view (often at the same time). One is it unravels popular calvinist prooftexts showing them to be about something significantly different (Romans 9 is the best example) and the second is that it strongly supports corporate election which is the only view of election that the open view coheres with.Good point.

[Kevin Wayne]

Whatever any of you want to say regarding Good Works, please remember to balance it out with the fact that followers of Christ are forbidden from Lording it over others.

I don't understand your point. What does the one have to do with the other?





I think by now it's pretty obvious that even the RC church agrees that the Indulgences and other things that had crept in were wrong. That’s Lording it over your brother. Unfortunately correcting that problem didn't seem to be an issue for Luther & Calvin, and they focused on wrong issues. Only the Anabaptists seems genuinely aware of where the church had gone wrong and made an effort to get things back on track.

[Tercel]

I think by now it's pretty obvious that even the RC church agrees that the Indulgences and other things that had crept in were wrong. That’s Lording it over your brother.That seems stretching things to me.
Indulgences = Lording it over your brother?
I really don't think that's a reasonable connection.

Sure indulgences were wrong, but they were wrong because the whole idea is theological nonsense and is a selfish way of making money that has nothing to do with actual Christianity.

[7thangel]

Anyone who's serious about studying NT theology can't afford to ignore the recent movement called "the New Perspective".

Nearly 30 years ago, E.P. Sanders wrote the mammoth work Paul and Palestinian Judaism in which he argued that standard theology misunderstood what Paul had to say about "works". He argues that by "works" Paul does not mean good works, but rather, Paul means the rituals of the Mosaic Law.

Since that time an ever-increasing number of Biblical scholars have been convinced by this position. Today, it is widely estimated, that the majority of academic biblical scholars now accept this position, and the number who do is still increasing. The New Perspective could now be called the "mainstream" position within academic New Testament theology.

So, in a nutshell the New Perspective is the position that Paul is not criticising good works as a means to salvation, he is criticising a following of the rituals of the Mosaic Law as a means to salvation.


SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS?
In these forums people seem to just have their own Calvinism or Arminian beliefs and want to argue them out. But the New Perspective (NP) implies something far more radical that we ought to be discussing.

If the NP is right, as most scholars think it is, then the Bible never criticises good-works based salvation. We were told by Luther and Calvin that Salvation was by Faith Alone, because they thought Paul was criticising good-works-based salvation. They thought Paul was criticising the idea that we could earn salvation by doing good works. The NP now says that Luther and Calvin were 100% wrong about this.

We can either shut our ears to this, stick our heads in the sand, and chant "No, modern scholars can't be right about what the Bible says, I'm going to believe Calvin", or we can take the New Perspective seriously. What are the implications of the NP being true? If the NP is true then the Bible says nothing against good-works-based salvation.

So what does the Bible have to say about the place of good-works? In fact, it seems to say they are very important indeed.
They are the cause of justification:
"a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
They are the cause of eternal life or punishment:
"[God] will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury." (Rom 2:6-8, cf Mat 25:31-46, Mat 7:21)

If the NP is right then both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong. Both systems stress the importance of "faith" (belief) in justification and salvation, and claim good works aren't part of either and that good works are just something God works in us in our sanctification. If the NP is right is seems that these systems are hugely flawed, that modern day Christianity has severely departed from Biblical Christianity in its understanding of the place and importance of good works.


The law is good if a man use it lawfully, so how then could we differ “doing the law” to “good works” as if doing the law does not amount to good works? We need sure to use it lawfully though, but then isn’t that what we’re intended to do to the law? The fact is the law is not just good, for Paul even said, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”



Corinthians say that without charity(love) anything done will not amount to anything? And how would we say that the law, being fulfilled in love, be different from any other good works?



And most of all, the law is our schoolmaster to faith, will it not make it that the law exceed that which is good? The Jews which have the law, are considered guides to the blind about the perfect will of God(Romans 2:17-20). So how can then we set aside the law into good works when the law is not just good but even exceeding good? Are there other thing good rather than doing the perfect will of God which can be understood from the law?



Perhaps we need to understand what really “good” is, for there is none good but God. And how can we know good better except through the law which reveals us the perfect will of God?



So for anyone to say that there is good works outside of the law, is probably misunderstanding what good works is.



Yet, it is not doing the law that makes the law good, but of if we use the law lawfully? What is good works is of the purpose/reason why we do the law. If the law is just for to save our asses, what good is that for everyone ought to save themselves. But how to use the law to guide others unto God, to show His perfect will through the law, those are what good works in the law is. Unfortunately, ignorance of what truly is the law all about is causing most Christian to use the law unlawfully. Especially when one thinks that there are good works outside of God.

[Colossians]

Nang,

The Law of God defines what is good.
Provided you understand that God's law is to not look at the law. Which you don't understand.

The first law ever given is the primary law which he that is born of God is not under.
Being then not under such law, he cannot transgress it: he cannot eat from the wrong tree. Being then not able to transgress such first law, the OT law does not apply to him, for the OT law was only given to them that transgressed the first law.

Thus you are in serious error when you promote the law, and are found militating against the gospel of the Spirit which you say you declare.

[Tercel]

Let's tackle this from another angle:

"mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works." - N.T. Wright (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf)

In other words, the Jews of Jesus' time believed that whether you went to heaven or hell depended on whether you were a good person, or not. That was the standard Jewish belief.

Does the NT give us any reason to think this doctrine is wrong?

No, it doesn't seem to. N.T. Wright, in the context of the above quote (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf) states that both Paul and Jesus agreed with this view. If the NT disagreed with this view, it ought to be clear and apparent. However, there seems no reason to believe that the NT's view differs to standard Judaism on this issue.

Jesus says:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.

Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'

Then he will say to those at his left hand, "You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'

Then they also will answer, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

Paul says:
God "will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek." (Rom 2:6-10)

Those, and many similiar statements made in the New Testament, align exactly with the Jewish doctrine that the good people would go to heaven and the wicked to hell. The NP tells us that passages which had previously been claimed as arguments against such a view had been wrongly interpreted. Hence I conclude, with Wright, that the New Testament's doctrine is that good people will go to heaven and the wicked to hell.

[BenK]

I think I agree, but I'd want to say it a little differently - Those who love God will be saved, those who hate God will not. Now, as Jesus tells us, 'those who love me will do what I command', so it is vital for me to try and be the best person that I can; this is how I choose to love God. It is impossible to love God without loving, say, justice, it is impossible to love justice without trying to live justly.

However, there may be extreme cases where lack of time (consider the thief on the cross) or lack of ability (consider a total quadrilplegic) make the doing of good works impossible, or at least impossible for humans to identify. In these cases a love of God might be without ostensible good works. Likewise, (at least Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 seems to think it worth considering) perhaps it would be possible for someone to perform the actions of a good work without loving God at all; he thinks this would be a waste of time.

The one danger with saying simply that the good will go to heaven and the bad will go to hell is that we might fool ourselves into thinking that we can judge the good from the bad in that deep attitude-of-the-heart-towards-God sense that really matters.

[7thangel]

Nang,

The Law of God defines what is good.
Provided you understand that God's law is to not look at the law. Which you don't understand.

The first law ever given is the primary law which he that is born of God is not under.
Being then not under such law, he cannot transgress it: he cannot eat from the wrong tree. Being then not able to transgress such first law, the OT law does not apply to him, for the OT law was only given to them that transgressed the first law.

Thus you are in serious error when you promote the law, and are found militating against the gospel of the Spirit which you say you declare.

Rather, I say that you are the one who do not understand the law, not understanding even the Mosaic law. For, as you can see, Paul said that the law is good if used it "lawfully." The law is good when used lawfully, put emphasis on the word "lawfully." For instance, The Jews were not saved by the law because they obeyed it not according to faith, but of works. That means they used the law unlawfully, or to put it more appropriately, they obeyed the law out of ignorance. It is not the use of the law that makes us accursed, but on of the reason/purpose of doing the law. Anyone who is doing the law out of ignorance are considered under the law; for they do not know how to use the law lawfully. Also, anyone who thinks the law has any good use are themselves ignorant about the law.

The good works that I speak of the law is not about doing it as those under the law meant the law is. But I speak of the law as good works in terms of it's use, for example, when we use the law to guide the others to know the perfect will of God.

The fact is, anyone who is considered ignorant of God cannot do good works. It requires us to have faith to have good works. And faith is the hearing(understanding) of the word of God. Without understanding God, who is the only good, we cannot do good works.

It is not using/dong the law that makes one accursed, or that makes it good works, but of using the law lawfully, or unlawfully.


Edited to add:

I guess one question to answer is if there are good works outside of faith. On the question we realize that these scholars are missing something big in their studies.

.

[Vivian]

Rather, I say that you are the one who do not understand the law, not understanding even the Mosaic law. For, as you can see, Paul said that the law is good if used it "lawfully." The law is good when used lawfully, put emphasis on the word "lawfully." For instance, The Jews were not saved by the law because they obeyed it not according to faith, but of works.

<snip>

Edited to add:

I guess one question to answer is if there are good works outside of faith. On the question we realize that these scholars are missing something big in their studies.

.

True, 7th, Israel did not obey the law lawfully, but if I may add to what you are defining as lawfully.

In Jeremiah 7 and Isaiah 1, we see Israel being reprimanded not for not following the law, but for following it while their hearts were still evil. While they were still selfish and sinning against others. God did not give them the Law of Moses for them to blindly obey, to purely perform outwardly, but to guide them into an inner obeying of His Higher Law of Love - of dying to self and loving God and others.

It is the same with Jesus. God did not send Him for us to follow superficially, but to guide us into an inner obeying of His Higher Law of Love, to deny self and to let Christ, God's only Begotten Son, Divine Love, live in us.


vivian

[Thomas2003]

Remember, many times when Paul mentions "works", he is referring to works of the law, not generic good works.


Please explain what you are saying here. Can you give an example from Scripture and explain what you believe are the disparate interpretations?

[Thomas2003]

That seems stretching things to me.
Indulgences = Lording it over your brother?
I really don't think that's a reasonable connection.

Sure indulgences were wrong, but they were wrong because the whole idea is theological nonsense and is a selfish way of making money that has nothing to do with actual Christianity.


This is true, however, what is missing is the inescapable conclusion of the Scholastic philosophy whereby the determination of history had been shifted from history to time, from God to man, and where eternity was subject to man.

Hence, man buying salvation is no different than man attaining salvation through faith or works or whatever. What Acquinas taught in the classroom was now manifested in society and is attempting to be re-manifested in the "New Perspective" under the false charge that the Reformers never correctly understood Judaism and hence never correctly understood Paul.

What seems to me, however, is that the problem here is the articulation of a problem where none exists, a misreading of the Reformers is asserted and concluding an error because they rejected the Scholastic philosophy through which Scripture is being read and then concluding - Walla, "A New Perspective on Paul."

What Paul rejected and what the Reformers rejected is what the Jews asserted and what the Roman Catholics asserted and what the "New Perspective" crowd is re-asserting - the Scholastic philosophy of the "scribes and pharisees" that make the law of none effect.

Roman Catholic apologists do not deny the fact of this controlling power flowing from Scholastic philosophy manifested in the indulgence but rather the form of the sale of indulgences in what was in error.

If the Mosaic law was of Mosaic origin then this "reading" of Paul would be correct, but what both Luther and Calvin denied in standing against Scholastic philosophy and hence the whole world order of Roman Catholicism was the same thing that Christ denied and Paul denied - the Law is not of Mosaic origin, but of God.

That is to say God gave the law through Moses, God alone can forgive the sin against the law. The law has a three fold purpose.

1.) Acts as a curb to criminal outbursts of sin and keeps order
2.) Acts as a mirror in which we can see our sin
3.) Acts as a rule in which we learn which works we must do to lead a God-pleasing life.

Christ vindicated God's law against the Pharisee's, Paul vindicated God's law against Rome, and the Reformers vindicated God's law against Roman Catholicism.

While it is true that Luther and Calvin's soteriology derived Justification by faith alone it must also be made clear that this meant establishing God's law. Commenting on Pauls statement "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law:"

We establish the law (3:31). The Law is made void if its validity and authority are denied, so that it is no longer obligatory and men may transgress it. The carnally minded might have accused the Apostle of making void the Law, since he said that sinners are not justified by the Law, but that the righteousness of God is manifested and imparted without the Law. On the other hand, the Law is established and confirmed when its demands or injunctions are heeded. In this sense the Apostle says: "We establish the Law"; that is: We say that it is obeyed and fulfilled through faith. But you who teach that the works of the law justify without faith, make the Law void; for you do not obey it; indeed, you teach that its fulfillment is not necessary: The Law is established in us when we fulfill it willingly and truly. But this no one can do without faith. They destroy God's covenant of the Law who are without the divine grace that is granted to those who believe in Christ. Martin Luther, Commentary of Romans

Luther's assertion against the Roman Catholic Church in indulgences, applies also to this claimed "exemption" of works righteosness: Death puts an end to all claims of the Church."

Whether this is the institutional church or merely a member of it, all works terminate at death and do not reach out into eternity to work anything. The works required for that requires a man that "ever liveth" upon whom death had no hold, that man is Jesus Christ.

The ultimate purpose of this "new perspective," is this: It proposes in the name of the law to destroy the law so that those without the divine grace that is granted to the elect may claim a salvation that is not offered to them.

It is just a reassertion of the old worn out Scholastic philosophy that time governs eternity and testifies to the truth that nothing is new under the sun.

[Ormly]

This is true, however, what is missing is the inescapable conclusion of the Scholastic philosophy whereby the determination of history had been shifted from history to time, from God to man, and where eternity was subject to man.

Hence, man buying salvation is no different than man attaining salvation through faith or works or whatever. What Acquinas taught in the classroom was now manifested in society and is attempting to be re-manifested in the "New Perspective" under the false charge that the Reformers never correctly understood Judaism and hence never correctly understood Paul.

What seems to me, however, is that the problem here is the articulation of a problem where none exists, a misreading of the Reformers is asserted and concluding an error because they rejected the Scholastic philosophy through which Scripture is being read and then concluding - Walla, "A New Perspective on Paul."

What Paul rejected and what the Reformers rejected is what the Jews asserted and what the Roman Catholics asserted and what the "New Perspective" crowd is re-asserting - the Scholastic philosophy of the "scribes and pharisees" that make the law of none effect.

Roman Catholic apologists do not deny the fact of this controlling power flowing from Scholastic philosophy manifested in the indulgence but rather the form of the sale of indulgences in what was in error.

If the Mosaic law was of Mosaic origin then this "reading" of Paul would be correct, but what both Luther and Calvin denied in standing against Scholastic philosophy and hence the whole world order of Roman Catholicism was the same thing that Christ denied and Paul denied - the Law is not of Mosaic origin, but of God.

That is to say God gave the law through Moses, God alone can forgive the sin against the law. The law has a three fold purpose.

1.) Acts as a curb to criminal outbursts of sin and keeps order
2.) Acts as a mirror in which we can see our sin
3.) Acts as a rule in which we learn which works we must do to lead a God-pleasing life.

Christ vindicated God's law against the Pharisee's, Paul vindicated God's law against Rome, and the Reformers vindicated God's law against Roman Catholicism.

While it is true that Luther and Calvin's soteriology derived Justification by faith alone it must also be made clear that this meant establishing God's law. Commenting on Pauls statement "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law:"

Martin Luther, Commentary of Romans

Luther's assertion against the Roman Catholic Church in indulgences, applies also to this claimed "exemption" of works righteosness: Death puts an end to all claims of the Church."

Whether this is the institutional church or merely a member of it, all works terminate at death and do not reach out into eternity to work anything. The works required for that requires a man that "ever liveth" upon whom death had no hold, that man is Jesus Christ.

The ultimate purpose of this "new perspective," is this: It proposes in the name of the law to destroy the law so that those without the divine grace that is granted to the elect may claim a salvation that is not offered to them.

It is just a reassertion of the old worn out Scholastic philosophy that time governs eternity and testifies to the truth that nothing is new under the sun.


You just worded the issue to death. Who can grasp all that?!

The law is summed up in Jesus Christ. The law is also summed up in YOU if you indeed be in Jesus Christ per John 17.

It's that uncomplicated.

[Kevin Wayne]

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.


Looks like he’s talking about the Law to me.


1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith”




6 just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all the nations be blessed. 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them. 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith. 12 But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them. 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 15 To give a human example, brothers:even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


Yup, the law.


1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Still good.


14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Still the law.


1 Brothers,if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5 For each will have to bear his own load. 6 One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.



And here he support the notion of “good works” as part of the Life of the Christian.



Conclusion: The Law of Moses is to be avoided, good works wrought in the Spirit are not.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Thomas
It doesn't really appear that you want me to address what you asked me. You have broadbrushed the NP, and in your eyes, found it lacking. The fact of the matter is that many of the Jews in Christs time were not legalistic. The problem with many of the Pharisees was that they thought that just being Jewish and having the Law was good enough. The opposite of Faith is not works, its non-faith, or unbelief. Luther hated Jews and put the RCC errors onto the Jews of the first century. He couldn't have been more wrong.

[Kevin Wayne]

The ultimate purpose of this "new perspective," is this: It proposes in the name of the law to destroy the law so that those without the divine grace that is granted to the elect may claim a salvation that is not offered to them.



Amen, praise the Living God! The Pharisees in both the Catholic and Protestant churches who stand in the way of the Little Children coming to Christ are finally brought down.

[Kevin Wayne]

Thomas
It doesn't really appear that you want me to address what you asked me. You have broadbrushed the NP, and in your eyes, found it lacking. The fact of the matter is that many of the Jews in Christs time were not legalistic. The problem with many of the Pharisees was that they thought that just being Jewish and having the Law was good enough. The opposite of Faith is not works, its non-faith, or unbelief. Luther hated Jews and put the RCC errors onto the Jews of the first century. He couldn't have been more wrong.



That's why I will never accept the high determinism of the hyper-Augustinians. It's proponents were war mongers & persecutors who trampled the Sermon on the Mount underfoot.

[sowerowrd]

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I love the word of God because it is so counter intuitive to the logic of man. When you really stop and look at this passage we see the means and the purpose of God in salvation.
:doh:
The means is grace through faith, ah but even the faith that is talked about is a gift from God. God not only gives you Christ, He also gives you faith through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (being Born-Again).

Now the purpose is to do those good works that really do please Him, He saves us cleanses us and then gives us the faith to perform Him will.

So we see that it is not works that save us, so no one can boast, but it is grace. Also we see that if one truly is saved, turly is Born-Again, truly has the faith that God gives in Christ, then he or she will perform good works to some extent. This is why James says that faith without works is dead because he understood that a true child of God loves to do good, because we have the Divine nature.

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

[Kevin Wayne]

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

[Tercel]

If anyone (other than the authors themselves) could understand anything of what has been written in this thread by Nang, Thomas2003, or 7thangel could they please summarise it simply for me. It looked to me like they were trying to contribute something, but their words made no sense at all to me. Lacking any clarification, I'm going to assume that this was because what they said was pure nonsense.

Eph 2:8-10
I love the word of God because it is so counter intuitive to the logic of man. When you really stop and look at this passage we see the means and the purpose of God in salvation.And I think you're misinterpreting it. The NP tells us that the "works" in vs 9 are works of the law. So the passage says something typically Pauline:
* Salvation by faith not by works of the law
* Good works are good
So once again, Paul is commending good works not diminishing them.

So we see that it is not works that save us, so no one can boastAgain, the "works" that don't save us are the "works of the law", and this means that there can be no Jew-Gentile racial boasting, which is clearly what Paul has in mind (vs 11-14, especially vs 14). This context shows the NP interpretation is likely correct - Paul has in mind works of the law.

but it is grace.Actually, the "by grace" in vs 8 is better translated IMO as "into a state of grace". The grammar is ambiguous but there are several reasons to prefer the second reading. Paul elsewhere talks of grace as if it's a state in which God is pleased with us and showers us with blessings. The use of the perfect tense later in vs 8 itself indicates state-based thinking ("saved" is in the perfect tense which implies a translation of "in the state of having been saved"). The presence of two causes in the sentence ("grace" and "faith") strongly suggests that one is a final cause (we'd call it a "goal") and the other an efficient cause (we'd call it a "cause", these distinctions of different types of causes derive from Aristotle and were firmly established throughout the greek-speaking world of Paul's time), since the final cause was considered the more important of the two by the ancients it seems likely that the final cause would be named first, implying grace is the final cause (goal) and faith the efficient cause (actual cause) - which agrees with the other points above.

[7thangel]

If anyone (other than the authors themselves) could understand anything of what has been written in this thread by Nang, Thomas2003, or 7thangel could they please summarise it simply for me. It looked to me like they were trying to contribute something, but their words made no sense at all to me. Lacking any clarification, I'm going to assume that this was because what they said was pure nonsense.


Briefly, there are no good works outside of faith(Heb 11:6). And there are no good works outside of the law, for the law is fullfilled in love(1 or 13). The good works in the law is not the performance of the law but of the lawful use of the law. The NP fails because they seem to believe that one can perform good works outside of the law, and/or of faith.

[Kevin Wayne]

Briefly, there are no good works outside of faith(Heb 11:6). And there are no good works outside of the law, for the law is fullfilled in love(1 or 13). The good works in the law is not the performance of the law but of the lawful use of the law. The NP fails because they seem to believe that one can perform good works outside of the law, and/or of faith.


I don't think that's a fair assesment of the NP. It's proponents are broader than you think.

[Tercel]

Briefly, there are no good works outside of faith(Heb 11:6).That depends on your interpretation of that verse.

And there are no good works outside of the law, for the law is fullfilled in love(1 or 13).I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "outside of the law". What is this "outside of the law" such that there are no good works outside it?

The good works in the law is not the performance of the law but of the lawful use of the law.And that just seems to be back to nonsense. The lawful use of the law?!

The NP fails because they seem to believe that one can perform good works outside of the law, and/or of faith.Well I'm still stumped as to what "outside of the law" means. With regard to the idea that I am advocating the performing of good works outside of "faith", I'd say this:

I think "faith" is better translated "faithfulness" and as such is identical with obeying God's commands. God commands us to love and do good works. The person who is faithful to God will do that and the person who is not, will not. Their faithfulness to God is demonstrated by their works - it is their works of faithfulness that make them "faithful" rather than "unfaithful". God told Abraham to move to a distant land, and Abraham obeyed and "his faithfulness was reckoned to him as righteousness", his obedience was his faithfulness.

When Paul speaks of faithfulness he takes for granted that it is connected to and identical with the performance of good works. To him, being faithful to God, means living your entire life as God would have you live it. God, he says, desires us to do good works as our way of life (Eph 2:10). As such anyone who does good works is being faithful and anyone who doesn't do good works isn't being faithful.

We're inclined today to try to internalise faith, using the doing/being distinction I commented on earlier, and say a person who is faithful on the inside will produces works on the outside. It's doubtful any Biblical writers would have had a clue what we were talking about, because they made no such distinction. To them, if a person didn't obey then they weren't being faithful, and if they did obey then they were being faithful. What sense does it make to speak of someone who's faithful on the inside but doesn't act faithfully? When God tested Abraham by seeing if he would sacrifice his son Isaac, God didn't say "Abraham, I've looked into your heart and seen faithfulness inside", rather he let Abraham's actions speak - Abraham's faithfulness was his faithful actions, not simply shown through his actions. All of which, is basically to say that there was no difference between faithfulness and good works in the minds of the NT writers (and James gets upset at people who think they can separate the two).

[Kevin Wayne]

I think "faith" is better translated "faithfulness" and as such is identical with obeying God's commands. God commands us to love and do good works. The person who is faithful to God will do that and the person who is not, will not. Their faithfulness to God is demonstrated by their works - it is their works of faithfulness that make them "faithful" rather than "unfaithful". God told Abraham to move to a distant land, and Abraham obeyed and "his faithfulness was reckoned to him as righteousness", his obedience was his faithfulness.

When Paul speaks of faithfulness he takes for granted that it is connected to and identical with the performance of good works. To him, being faithful to God, means living your entire life as God would have you live it. God, he says, desires us to do good works as our way of life (Eph 2:10). As such anyone who does good works is being faithful and anyone who doesn't do good works isn't being faithful.

We're inclined today to try to internalise faith, using the doing/being distinction I commented on earlier, and say a person who is faithful on the inside will produces works on the outside. It's doubtful any Biblical writers would have had a clue what we were talking about, because they made no such distinction. To them, if a person didn't obey then they weren't being faithful, and if they did obey then they were being faithful. What sense does it make to speak of someone who's faithful on the inside but doesn't act faithfully? When God tested Abraham by seeing if he would sacrifice his son Isaac, God didn't say "Abraham, I've looked into your heart and seen faithfulness inside", rather he let Abraham's actions speak - Abraham's faithfulness was his faithful actions, not simply shown through his actions. All of which, is basically to say that there was no difference between faithfulness and good works in the minds of the NT writers (and James gets upset at people who think they can separate the two).



Interesting point. That makes me recall the following:


28 "Tell me what you think about this: A man had two sons. He went to the first son and said, 'Son, go and work today in my vineyard.' 29 The son answered, 'I will not go.' But later the son changed his mind and went. 30 Then the father went to the other son and said, 'Son, go and work today in my vineyard.' The son answered, 'Yes, sir, I will go and work,' but he did not go. 31 Which of the two sons obeyed his father?" The priests and leaders answered, "The first son." Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you do. 32 John came to show you the right way to live. You did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes believed him. Even after seeing this, you still refused to change your ways and believe him.

[Thomas2003]

Thomas
It doesn't really appear that you want me to address what you asked me. You have broadbrushed the NP, and in your eyes, found it lacking. The fact of the matter is that many of the Jews in Christs time were not legalistic. The problem with many of the Pharisees was that they thought that just being Jewish and having the Law was good enough. The opposite of Faith is not works, its non-faith, or unbelief. Luther hated Jews and put the RCC errors onto the Jews of the first century. He couldn't have been more wrong.


Well, I actually was interested in what you were thinking, but continued reading and responded again to another fellow.

But it seems to me you are using a paradigm that doesn't exist too - the problem at this time was that the Law was posited as the mediator. Opposing Rome and opposing Judaism is on the exact same grounds - they were both proposing the same philosophy and ultimately Caesar was officially declared as the manifestation of the Incarnation by the Jews when they declared: "We have no king but Caesar."

Salvation was seen as mediated by law, there were differences between Pharisees and Saduccess and even Herodian Jews and outright Romanist Jews - but philosophically, there was unity in their social order and undercurrent of belief.

All of Pauls polemics against the Law are against the Law as mediator, not against the Law as Law, the Reformers didn't read Paul as being anti-nomian. He asserted Christ as mediator.

[7thangel]

That depends on your interpretation of that verse.

I agree, and I would say that I have the right interpretation.

My rationale for saying that there are no good works outside of faith is for the reason that provided that in your judgment a person does good, yet if it is without faith and cannot please God, then that cannot be considered good works at all. Same thing when we speak of love, as Corinthians states, even is we give ourselves selflessly, that cannot be a complete work of love. Likewise, any works done selflessly, or intentionally good, if not acted in faith, then it is not actually good.

I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "outside of the law". What is this "outside of the law" such that there are no good works outside it?

Corinthians says, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity....And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." And if we really understand what the law is, the law is fulfilled in love(charity). So how can we say we can do something good without love, or of which is the fulfilling of the law?

And that just seems to be back to nonsense. The lawful use of the law?!

1 Timothy 1:8 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Well I'm still stumped as to what "outside of the law" means. With regard to the idea that I am advocating the performing of good works outside of "faith", I'd say this:

I think "faith" is better translated "faithfulness" and as such is identical with obeying God's commands. God commands us to love and do good works. The person who is faithful to God will do that and the person who is not, will not. Their faithfulness to God is demonstrated by their works - it is their works of faithfulness that make them "faithful" rather than "unfaithful". God told Abraham to move to a distant land, and Abraham obeyed and "his faithfulness was reckoned to him as righteousness", his obedience was his faithfulness.

When Paul speaks of faithfulness he takes for granted that it is connected to and identical with the performance of good works. To him, being faithful to God, means living your entire life as God would have you live it. God, he says, desires us to do good works as our way of life (Eph 2:10). As such anyone who does good works is being faithful and anyone who doesn't do good works isn't being faithful.

We're inclined today to try to internalise faith, using the doing/being distinction I commented on earlier, and say a person who is faithful on the inside will produces works on the outside. It's doubtful any Biblical writers would have had a clue what we were talking about, because they made no such distinction. To them, if a person didn't obey then they weren't being faithful, and if they did obey then they were being faithful. What sense does it make to speak of someone who's faithful on the inside but doesn't act faithfully? When God tested Abraham by seeing if he would sacrifice his son Isaac, God didn't say "Abraham, I've looked into your heart and seen faithfulness inside", rather he let Abraham's actions speak - Abraham's faithfulness was his faithful actions, not simply shown through his actions. All of which, is basically to say that there was no difference between faithfulness and good works in the minds of the NT writers (and James gets upset at people who think they can separate the two).

Actually, faith is about "hearing," it is about understanding(Romans 10:17). One can have faithfulness without hearing(understanding) that which s/he had put his/her faith upon. Compare also what faith is in Hebrew 11:6.

[Kevin Wayne]

It appears to me that this thread has dissolved into arguments over Urban Legends regarding the New Perpective, and I'm left wondering if anyone's bothered to actually read up on the thing itself before making asessments?

It's been awhile since I've read Sanders for myself, but I remember thinking he wasn't all he was cracked up to be.


Once again, here's the main website, which gives us the best compendum of the available scholarship:

http://www.thepaulpage.com/index.html

[sowerowrd]

And I think you're misinterpreting it. The NP tells us that the "works" in vs 9 are works of the law. So the passage says something typically Pauline:
* Salvation by faith not by works of the law
* Good works are good
So once again, Paul is commending good works not diminishing them.

A few things. Firstly, we need to remember that Holy Scripture comes to us from the Holy Spirit and not the will of man (2 Peter 1:20,21). Therefore, we are not trying to find what Paul was saying to the Church, but instead we are trying to find out what God is saying through Paul.

Secondly, with this in mind; we cannot, from the outset, use the NP to interpret Scripture because the NP is the preciese debate we are having. We must start from Scripture and then see if the Spirit moves us twords the NP, and not start from the NP and try to bend Scripture around this teaching.

Thirdly, I agree that the passage is commending good works. But the question is which good works, the good works that God has prepared for His elect to perform, not good works that are an arrogant attempt to earn the grace of God Almighty.

I commend good works as well, do all the good to as many people as you can, but only with faith in Christ and for His glory not our own, because He has redeemed us from the power of sin. There is salvation the redemption we have in Christ's blood. Only Christ's blood can redeem us, and only He can give it to us, and we cannot work or earn it, it has to be given by grace.

Look at the theif on the cross, he was a wicked man his whole life but by the grace of Christ He is now in Paradise with no works of goodness.

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

:solly:

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

A few things. Firstly, we need to remember that Holy Scripture comes to us from the Holy Spirit and not the will of man (2 Peter 1:20,21). Therefore, we are not trying to find what Paul was saying to the Church, but instead we are trying to find out what God is saying through Paul.

Firstly we have to read scripture. 2 Peter 1:20,21
20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The subject here is prophecy, not general revelation from God. Why are you twisting the clear meaning?

We most certainly are trying to figure out what Paul was saying to the church. The author is in control of the text, not the interpreter. What Paul says to the Church is the same thing God wanted him to say. Why the dichotomy?


Romans 9:16

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.


What is it? Whats the context of Romans 9:16?

[Tercel]

But it seems to me you are using a paradigm that doesn't exist too - the problem at this time was that the Law was posited as the mediator. Opposing Rome and opposing Judaism is on the exact same grounds - they were both proposing the same philosophy and ultimately Caesar was officially declared as the manifestation of the Incarnation by the Jews when they declared: "We have no king but Caesar."

Salvation was seen as mediated by law, there were differences between Pharisees and Saduccess and even Herodian Jews and outright Romanist Jews - but philosophically, there was unity in their social order and undercurrent of belief.

All of Pauls polemics against the Law are against the Law as mediator, not against the Law as Law, the Reformers didn't read Paul as being anti-nomian. He asserted Christ as mediator. :lolo: :shrug: :huh:
Each individual word makes sense. But you put them together and you get pure nonsense. It must be quite an art.

we cannot, from the outset, use the NP to interpret Scripture because the NP is the preciese debate we are having. We must start from Scripture and then see if the Spirit moves us twords the NP, and not start from the NP and try to bend Scripture around this teaching.Well, my intention was to assume the NP was true and see what the consequences of it were. I've got no interest in getting into a debate over whether the NP is true or not. They've been plenty of books written on that subject, and I have no desire to repeat them. Suffice to say that most scholars find the arguments convincing, and I myself after studying the bible carefully think it's exceedingly obvious that the NP is true.

But the question is which good works, the good works that God has prepared for His elect to perform, not good works that are an arrogant attempt to earn the grace of God Almighty.I wouldn't have thought seeking to please God was arrogant!

I commend good works as well, do all the good to as many people as you can, but only with faith in Christ and for His glory not our own, because He has redeemed us from the power of sin. There is salvation the redemption we have in Christ's blood. Only Christ's blood can redeem us, and only He can give it to us, and we cannot work or earn it, it has to be given by grace.~Sigh~ the usual parroted doctrine.

Look at the thief on the cross, he was a wicked man his whole life but by the grace of Christ He is now in Paradise with no works of goodness.Except for the fairly major fact that he repented...
"But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?" (Ezek 18:21-23)

[Nang]

Except for the fairly major fact that he repented...
"But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?" (Ezek 18:21-23)

This is not all Scripture has to say about repentance, though.

The Bible teaches that repentance is "granted" to men by God. If left to their own devices, dead sinners are unable to repent.

Repentance is a fruit of faith, which is the gift of God:

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth."
II Timothy 2:25

This applies to all kinds of men:

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31

". . Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." Acts 11:18b

Nang