Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
    Someone forgot about necessary crucifixion, also justification by faith!!!
    Okay then, short answer: I think modern Protestantism misinterprets the bible on both issues because it gets the underlying issues about righteousness and meeting God's standards wrong.

    I think that the greek words translated "justification by faith" in Paul are probability better translated as "righteousness through obedience". For Paul, faithfulness is about obediently loving others, and it is central to him that this is something that can be done by both Jews and Gentiles and doesn't require gentiles to follow specific historical commands in the Jewish law like getting circumcised ("works of the law"). In Paul's view being a good person ("love" / "faithfulness") is something both Jews and Gentiles can do and is what's important, and therefore following the details of the Jewish ritual law ("works of the law") is not required because what matters is one's heart ("righteousness through faithful obedience").

    And I think the idea that Christ needed to die is much overstated.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Considering the genre and cultural background of Ecclesiastes (which tends to the hyperbolic), it's probably not a good idea to take the verse strictly literally. It is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, that a man can be without sin. Jesus was without sin, after all, and not because His mother was immaculately conceived (and not because His human will was subsumed to His divine will).
      Paul would not agree with that.

      Romans 3:10 "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

      Nor would Isaiah: Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        Paul would not agree with that.

        Romans 3:10 "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
        He's quoting from Psalm 14 which says:
        Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one [of them] who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one [of them] who does good, no, not one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the company of the righteous [Israel]… When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob will rejoice; Israel will be glad.
        The Psalm is pretty clear about the fact that righteous people do exist: The Israelites. The Psalm is lamenting that the righteous Israelites are currently being attacked by foolish and evil nations who reject God. It would be pretty weird to use a psalm that specifically uses the word "righteous" to refer to a historical group of Israelites to claim that nobody in history is righteous. A similar thing same can be said for the other passages quoted by Paul in Romans 3:

        Verse in Romans 3 Quoted passage Verses indicating the sinfulness was limited to specific historical groups and not universal in time and space Verses indicating that historical groups of righteous people also existed
        10-12 Psa 14:1-3/53:1-3 14:4/53:4 14:5
        13a Psa 5:9 5:8 5:12
        13b Psa 140:3 140:4 140:13
        14 Psa 10:7 10:2,8 10:12,14,17-18
        15-17 Isa 59:7-8 59:2,9,15,20 59:20
        18 Psa 36:1b 36:1a 36:10
        This is one of the many reasons I don't think the common evangelical reading of Paul's argument is correct. Because it puts Paul's argument in direct opposition to the in-context meaning of the very proof-texts that Paul is using. None of the OT writers that Paul is quoting in Romans 3 believed in the universal unrighteousness of all human beings in history, and all of them in the OT contexts of the quote were saying specific historical groups of people were unrighteous and they all give some sort of indication that they think other specific historical groups of people were righteous. So the choice is either to interpret Paul in such a way that has him using out-of-context proof-texts to try to claim universal human unrighteousness (which is what Evangelical theologians do) that sets him in opposition to the authors he's quoting to make his case... or to take my view that Paul is not misinterpreting his quoted texts and is citing specific historical examples of particular groups of Jews and particular groups of Gentiles being bad and that his point is therefore that both the Jewish and gentile races are capable of doing bad things on occasion and that Jewish people are not exempted from the ability to sin and that when groups of Jews fall into serious sin scripture condemns them just as harshly as it condemns groups of gentiles who fall into serious sin.

        Nor would Isaiah: Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
        Well the suffering servant songs are quite interesting... originally they seem to have been referring to Israel as God's righteous servant among the nations, or possibly Isaiah as God's righteous servant within an (at the time) rebellious Israel, and then of course they were later applied to Jesus who was seen as God's righteous servant who suffered to help others.
        Last edited by Starlight; 04-15-2017, 10:17 PM.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          yes the bible does use the term righteous as a relative term in many places. no argument there.
          So you agree that Jews in general were quite regularly using the term "righteous" to refer to groups of people who are being labeled "righteous" because they're generally good people, and that this usage is reflected in the OT and NT regularly...

          ...so if I then say "well that's how I think Paul's using it. That's how we see Jews using it, and that's how Paul, a Jew, would have used it, and did use it, and that's obviously how the people he was writing to would have understood the word because that's how it was used regularly." Am I making a completely reasonable suggestion, or am I being totally beyond the pale? And how does this impact evangelical protestant theologians who say "no, no, Paul had a completely different definition of the word 'righteousness' to the rest of Judaism, and we assert this based on nothing, and we say that Paul's definition of righteousness is forensic and nobody qualifies as righteous, and we're Totally Not Just Making This Up, we promise!"?
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #20
            First off: so far I like this thread.

            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            (...) And how does this impact evangelical protestant theologians who say "no, no, Paul had a completely different definition of the word 'righteousness' to the rest of Judaism, and we assert this based on nothing, and we say that Paul's definition of righteousness is forensic and nobody qualifies as righteous, and we're Totally Not Just Making This Up, we promise!"?
            Regarding the bolded part: I remember reading a few times recently that ancient Jews in general thought of righteousness as 'forensic', i.e. if they stood in trial, would they be "in the right" or "in the wrong" about a particular matter? If this is so, I think it would apply in both 'interpretations': what you are describing and what you are ascribing to Evangelical theologians. It doesn't seem like an alien concept to either.

            And I do think your interpretation needs more Jesus, more cross, more salvation, etc., else you are not doing justice to Paul IMO. To that end, Jed's quote from Isaiah 53 (even taking into consideration non-Messiah interpretations of the Servant) seems like a point Paul would overall agree with.
            Last edited by Bisto; 04-16-2017, 08:53 AM.
            We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
            - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
            In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
            Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Yep.

              And the 51% thing is just my way of trying to approximate the ideas in language modern people would understand. As I've mentioned, a lot of the ancient Jewish sources are a lot more hand-waving and vague than that, because the Jews believed in things like "repentance and forgiveness", so they didn't necessarily all believe in a literal and mathematical counting up of deeds or balancing the good deeds against bad on a balance scale, what they tended to be more interested in were people's overall inclinations - whether overall their hearts were directed towards trying to do good and trying to follow God's commands or whether overall their hearts were directed away from God's will and toward evil.

              So while some Jewish sources literally use a 'balance scales of justice' analogy where good deeds are weighed against bad deeds in the judgment and whichever's larger wins out, I think that is more legalistic and mathematical than the general Jewish view and is more a helpful metaphor for depicting the idea that people could be overall good or overall bad. E.P. Sanders in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (a milestone work in modern biblical study that is required reading for anyone seriously interested in these topics) is very careful to emphasize that in the minds of most Jews, the fact that they were trying to follow God's laws was enough to make them 'good' and 'righteous' and 'right with God' etc because God looked at the heart. He emphasizes that they didn't view the fact that they occasionally sinned or broke the law as relevant to the fact that they were righteous, because by performing the sacrifices or atonements required by the law for their transgressions they were following the law.
              you are the one who made the point of the 51% and claimed it was taught by the ancient jews. Now you are saying it was just your idea?

              and now you are saying that the jews believed that at judgement their deeds would be weighed on scales? Please show me that from the bible, or from an original jewish source,

              the only religions I know who believe anything like that are the ancient Egyptians and Muslims.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                So you agree that Jews in general were quite regularly using the term "righteous" to refer to groups of people who are being labeled "righteous" because they're generally good people, and that this usage is reflected in the OT and NT regularly...

                ...so if I then say "well that's how I think Paul's using it. That's how we see Jews using it, and that's how Paul, a Jew, would have used it, and did use it, and that's obviously how the people he was writing to would have understood the word because that's how it was used regularly." Am I making a completely reasonable suggestion, or am I being totally beyond the pale? And how does this impact evangelical protestant theologians who say "no, no, Paul had a completely different definition of the word 'righteousness' to the rest of Judaism, and we assert this based on nothing, and we say that Paul's definition of righteousness is forensic and nobody qualifies as righteous, and we're Totally Not Just Making This Up, we promise!"?
                Paul is using "righteous" in comparison with God, who is perfect. Compared to God, we are all unrighteous, filthy bums. We are all sinners and need redemption.

                Learn to read in context.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  In my view the Western Christian tradition has misread Paul's argument here, and misread his statements about races as statements about individuals, and pretended that Paul is saying that every human individual in history has fallen short and wasn't righteous. Obviously such a reading flatly contradicts all sorts of biblical statements that various people were righteous (e.g. "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.", "Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God's eyes, careful to obey all of the Lord's commandments and regulations." etc), and this interpretation also contradicts the proof-texts that Paul is quoting from in Romans 3 which in their OT contexts are not making claims of universal human unrighteousness but are labeling a specific group of people at a specific time as unrighteous and usually contrasting those baddies with other specific historical groups of people who are implicitly or explicitly "righteous".
                  Except all these above mentioned first had faith in the living God. No matter what behaviors follow the first condition of being a righteous person was faith. You shall have no other gods before, Love the Lord thy God with all your heart.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Bisto View Post
                    Regarding the bolded part: I remember reading a few times recently that ancient Jews in general thought of righteousness as 'forensic', i.e. if they stood in trial, would they be "in the right" or "in the wrong" about a particular matter?
                    The job of any court is to determine the truth and discover if a person is really innocent or guilty. We use the word "innocent" for example primarily as a moral status, and a court can "find someone to be innocent" or "determine that a person is guilty" but notice both those phrases have search-out-and-discover-the-truth words in them ("find" and "determine"), as the innocence or the guilt of the person exists primarily as a moral fact that the courts merely try to discover. The court can't really create guilt or innocence by its rulings, and if it tries to do so in contradiction of actual moral facts, then it is a bad court giving bad rulings and the declarations it makes are phony. A similar thing applies to "righteousness", it was primarily a moral term in Jewish usage, and the vast vast majority of times it occurs in Jewish literature are outside of any court, but obviously the courts did attempt to determine whether a person was guilty of what they were being accused of or was in the right, and the word does crop up in that usage in a small minority of cases.

                    And I do think your interpretation needs more Jesus, more cross, more salvation, etc., else you are not doing justice to Paul IMO.
                    Well I was hardly trying to give a complete Pauline theology.

                    But here's a brief outline of how I interpret Paul's thought... Paul as a Pharisee was looking forward to the resurrection, and as a particularly zealous Pharisee was quite obsessed with "what exactly must I do to be right with God?" and was enthusiastically persecuting the followers of Jesus because they were leading people into not following the specifics of the Jewish laws that Paul was convinced were important. Then he had a vision of the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, and became convinced that God had resurrected Jesus and declared he would judge the world through Jesus:
                    "He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:31
                    (On this idea Acts and Paul's writings align well) That's the crucial axiom in his theological view, and from that premise he concluded that Jesus' life had pleased God, and pleased him so much that he had rewarded Jesus with a resurrection. The logic he drew from that was:
                    1. There will be a future resurrection and a final judgment based on people's hearts and/or conduct (which he already believed as a Pharisee).
                    2. The kind of life that Jesus exemplified and taught will be judged positively, since:
                    a. His conduct and teachings had divine approval.
                    b. He will be the final judge.
                    3. Thus, people can obtain a positive final judgement by imitating Jesus and following his teachings.

                    Paul's aim thus became to emulate Jesus in order to achieve a similar reward. This theology of being Christ-like in order to achieve resurrection dominates Paul's thinking.
                    “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus… he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him…" Phil 2:5-9
                    “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Phil 3:10-11
                    (Incidentally 1 John has similar themes "we may have boldness on the Day of Judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.” (4:17) and “everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.” (3:7))

                    To Paul this Christ-likeness is really important and he has a lot of different ways of talking about it. "Salvation" is about becoming Christ-like. He talks about "Christ-like faithfulness" (pistis christou) in Romans. For Paul, Christ's martyrdom on the cross is the ultimate expression of Christ's faithful obedience to God, and in Paul's view it was that outstanding faithfulness even unto death that led God to giving Christ the immediate resurrection and appointment as judge. 'Christ crucified' symbolizes for Paul exemplary faithfulness and steadfast obedience.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                      Okay, I can see when someone spoiling for fight of 'who can quote from big names better'.

                      Will leave you, Adrift and whoever else to it!!!
                      I don't really have much input on the subject. This is all New Perspective of Paul stuff that I don't really find unorthodox, so I don't have that much of a problem with it. Of course, Starlight seems to be adding a bit of his own little twist to the subject, so I recommend going straight to the sources if possible. If you do, one thing you'll notice is that the New Perspective scholars aren't exactly in perfect lock-step with one another. By the way, contrary to some of the framing that seems to be going on here, this view isn't anti-Protestant or anti-Evangelical. In fact, it was mostly formulated by Protestants, and it's popularity is increasing through Evangelicals like NT Wright who is one of the names at the forefront of the movement.

                      In case you're interested the Biblical scholar Ligon Duncan, who has critiqued the New Perspective movement in a number of places, offers a great breakdown about what it's all about here. D. A. Carson, Simon Gathercole, and a number of other prominent Biblical scholars have formulated their own critiques against the New Perspective. Currently one of the most popular critiques, and one that's being described as a major game-changer, is "Paul and the Gift" by Durham University's John Barclay, who doesn't exactly side with either the New Perspective or the older Reformation view; Rather he finds a bit of a middle path, described by one reviewer as an "Augustinian-Lutheran appropriating New Perspective themes, or vice-versa". This is actually on my "to read" list, so I haven't gotten around to it yet. So much great stuff, so little time.
                      Last edited by Adrift; 04-16-2017, 01:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        Paul would not agree with that.

                        Romans 3:10 "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
                        Paul is quoting the Psalms, and is writing from the same culture that produced both Psalms and Ecclesiastes.
                        Nor would Isaiah: Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
                        Again, this can be understood as prophetic hyperbole. While we should, in all humility, apply it to ourselves, this is hardly an affirmative condemnation of everyone, ever. You can't just read verses in the Bible strictly literally, outside the context of which they were written; you have to pay attention to the surrounding scripture, its genre, its immediate audience, and the mileiu in which they lived.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Considering the genre and cultural background of Ecclesiastes (which tends to the hyperbolic), it's probably not a good idea to take the verse strictly literally. It is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, that a man can be without sin. Jesus was without sin, after all, and not because His mother was immaculately conceived (and not because His human will was subsumed to His divine will).
                          Explain it then, how it is to be understood? Weighing genre, the Hebrew culture, present the hermeneutic method to be used.

                          Ecclesiastes 7:20,
                          "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Explain it then, how it is to be understood? Weighing genre, the Hebrew culture, present the hermeneutic method to be used.

                            Ecclesiastes 7:20,
                            "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
                            Generally, that people have a tendency toward sin.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              If you do, one thing you'll notice is that the New Perspective scholars aren't exactly in perfect lock-step with one another.
                              Correct, there are a variety of views among the more thoughtful modern Pauline scholars, which range from almost indistinguishable from Reformation-era Protestant teachings through to very very anti such teachings. I am a very critical reader of the works of scholars and think it's important to judge each and every point they make on the merits. While I enjoy reading someone like E.P. Sanders and think he's a clear and knowledgeable writer, I typically find in any given work that he only manages to present enough evidence to convince me of half to two thirds of his points (which is pretty high for me, so I find him very worthwhile to read). Other decent writers about Paul who have a similar level of convincingness to Sanders include people like Stanley Stowers, Douglas Campbell, David Brondos. There are relatively few authors where I could say that I agree entirely with all the points they make on Pauline theology, and of those Wallace and VanLandingham give the best general overviews, while the best on some specific topics would be Przybylski on "righteousness" (even though this book isn't specifically addressing Paul, the "righteousness" terminology is important) and Harrison on the word "grace" (absurdly expensive, but by far and away the best scholarship on the word). Other scholars like N.T. Wright, Simon Gathercole, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo etc have made their way to my blacklist because I think they are so wrong so often that there's nothing to be gained by working through their dross for the occasional glimmers of good points.

                              By the way, contrary to some of the framing that seems to be going on here, this view isn't anti-Protestant or anti-Evangelical. In fact, it was mostly formulated by Protestants, and it's popularity is increasing through Evangelicals like NT Wright who is one of the names at the forefront of the movement.
                              The origin of the NPP was among scholars raised in the protestant(ish) traditions (Lutherans don't always like to consider themselves Protestant) who explicitly rejected many of the key claims of the Reformation era regarding the interpretation of Paul. The range of NPP scholarship now spans the spectrum from almost indistinguishable to evangelicalism through to decidedly against it.

                              In case you're interested the Biblical scholar Ligon Duncan, who has critiqued the New Perspective movement in a number of places, offers a great breakdown about what it's all about here.
                              Apart from being absurdly long it looks like a pretty terrible summary, so I suggest people don't bother with it.

                              Currently one of the most popular critiques, and one that's being described as a major game-changer, is "Paul and the Gift" by Durham University's John Barclay, who doesn't exactly side with either the New Perspective or the older Reformation view;
                              Conservatives seem to always like to use the term "game changer" every time their apologists mascaraing as theologians churn out yet another unoriginal and pretentious piece of 'scholarship' that explains how the Reformers were right all along and that 500 years ago despite having virtually no decent biblical scholarship at their disposal and a dubious understanding of Greek somehow someway managed to hit the nail on the head with their theology, and they seem to think that deceptively marketing these works as "finding a third way" between the Reformation and the NPP will make them sell. That's Simon Gathercole's typical MO in a nutshell. And they've done this over and over in recent decades.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Correct, there are a variety of views among the more thoughtful modern Pauline scholars, which range from almost indistinguishable from Reformation-era Protestant teachings through to very very anti such teachings. I am a very critical reader of the works of scholars and think it's important to judge each and every point they make on the merits. While I enjoy reading someone like E.P. Sanders and think he's a clear and knowledgeable writer, I typically find in any given work that he only manages to present enough evidence to convince me of half to two thirds of his points (which is pretty high for me, so I find him very worthwhile to read). Other decent writers about Paul who have a similar level of convincingness to Sanders include people like Stanley Stowers, Douglas Campbell, David Brondos. There are relatively few authors where I could say that I agree entirely with all the points they make on Pauline theology, and of those Wallace and VanLandingham give the best general overviews, while the best on some specific topics would be Przybylski on "righteousness" (even though this book isn't specifically addressing Paul, the "righteousness" terminology is important) and Harrison on the word "grace" (absurdly expensive, but by far and away the best scholarship on the word). Other scholars like N.T. Wright, Simon Gathercole, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo etc have made their way to my blacklist because I think they are so wrong so often that there's nothing to be gained by working through their dross for the occasional glimmers of good points.

                                The origin of the NPP was among scholars raised in the protestant(ish) traditions (Lutherans don't always like to consider themselves Protestant) who explicitly rejected many of the key claims of the Reformation era regarding the interpretation of Paul. The range of NPP scholarship now spans the spectrum from almost indistinguishable to evangelicalism through to decidedly against it.

                                Apart from being absurdly long it looks like a pretty terrible summary, so I suggest people don't bother with it.

                                Conservatives seem to always like to use the term "game changer" every time their apologists mascaraing as theologians churn out yet another unoriginal and pretentious piece of 'scholarship' that explains how the Reformers were right all along and that 500 years ago despite having virtually no decent biblical scholarship at their disposal and a dubious understanding of Greek somehow someway managed to hit the nail on the head with their theology, and they seem to think that deceptively marketing these works as "finding a third way" between the Reformation and the NPP will make them sell. That's Simon Gathercole's typical MO in a nutshell. And they've done this over and over in recent decades.
                                I find it interesting that you can simultaneously champion the NPP and castigate one of its leading proponents as so wrong they're not worth reading.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                33 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                421 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X