N.T. Wright: What did Paul really say?

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:47 am

I'm reading over the link you gave (Duncan, from A.C.E. page). (I'm also using large font to make bigger posts so this might go to page 2: (if you can fix yer link...would be nice).... :)


Here's a handy link:

monergism.com 's NPP page

I was sort of surprised to see "pro" NPP and/or NTW @ monergism. I posted Wilder's already, above. I first found found Sinclair Ferguson's talk from Euangelion Blog (C. Michael Patton & Reclaiming the Mind Ministries). Then I googled Sinclair Ferguson and found this monergism link. Ferguson isn't "pro" NTW or NPP but is calm in his descriptions of them (he is a member of A.C.E.)

I've heard several of these lectures and am downloading Duncan's "Justification & the New Perspective" (right now...on diaulp, lol).

Outside of NTW and Bill Wilder (the "pro" lecturers); the rest of the monergism lectures I've heard, while they point out some good things about NTW & NPP (keeping in mind there are several varieties of NPPs out there); for most part, they are critical along traditional Reformed lines. Ferguson is "calm" and informative. Others still, get more negative and on to "condemning"...(I couldn't stomach more than about 3 minutes of John Robbins).

Haas, you should listen to Wilder! ...not that I want to convince you, per se. He gives such an excellent overview (like Steve Gregg's lectures: all views, then his)!! Anyway, though this thread's not really about NPP...but ok, cool, post whatever is related :wink: (since we're not actually discussing "Wright's view on Paul")....

Btw, it wouldn't hurt you to listen to NTW too...(Romans)! I mean, why not hear what the person themselves has to say? rather than opinions about them? (compare & contrast)....

Oh yeah! The "N.T. Wright (3 links)" on the monergism page are the same Romans lectures on NTW's page....so easy downloads from monergism, akshully.

Anyway, this file is almost done loading. Better get off of here!

Thanks some more,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

__id_1887
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1887 » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:45 am

Rick-

I tried to post the link like you said but didn't have any luck. I removed the link, though the page did not look any wider than normal to me.

Haas out
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:08 am

Hey Haas, thanks for trying tho :)
(try one on the other link for practise)....

Link you posted:
The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul
By J. Ligon Duncan
President, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals


(Go to the "how to" page...I'll post something there to make it easy for ya) :wink:

Gtg...listening to that lecture by Duncan now...then bedtime, here.

Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

__id_1887
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1887 » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:45 am

Rick,

Thanks for reposting the link. :D

I will get over to that other spot and practice when I have time.


Joy in Christ,


Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:12 pm

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this, but I'm curious about NT Wright's position on the "gospel." I think I agree with his position from what I've read and heard recently, but when he says that the gospel accounts aren't focused on soteriology and individual salvation, that seems to ignore that John begins with God's love for mankind and His giving of His Son for the individuals' salvation and not just for the larger kingdom purposes that I do agree are the fundamental aspect of the gospel.

Can someone with more familiarity of his writings refine my understanding of his position on this point?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Sean
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:42 am
Location: Smithton, IL

Post by _Sean » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:53 am

darin-houston wrote:I'm not sure this is the right thread for this, but I'm curious about NT Wright's position on the "gospel." I think I agree with his position from what I've read and heard recently, but when he says that the gospel accounts aren't focused on soteriology and individual salvation, that seems to ignore that John begins with God's love for mankind and His giving of His Son for the individuals' salvation and not just for the larger kingdom purposes that I do agree are the fundamental aspect of the gospel.

Can someone with more familiarity of his writings refine my understanding of his position on this point?
Hey, I forgot about this thread. :)
I'm wondering the same thing. If the Gospel does not include and individual call, then why did Jesus go to Nicodemus and tell him "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." and "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

It's almost as if He's saying that unless each person makes a decision to believe, he cannot enter the kingdom, being a Jew is not enough. Or, God "making things right" is not enough...unless you also believe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:14 pm

Darin wrote:I think I agree with his position from what I've read and heard recently, but when he says that the gospel accounts aren't focused on soteriology and individual salvation, that seems to ignore that John begins with God's love for mankind and His giving of His Son for the individuals' salvation and not just for the larger kingdom purposes that I do agree are the fundamental aspect of the gospel.
Afaik, Wright's view of Romans 9 is the essentially same as Steve Gregg's. (Calvinists believe it is about individual election).

"First century Jews, and the first Christians by extension, did not see individual salvation as happening outside of the Community of the People of God," I think NTW would say (my paraphrase).

(I don't know if I understand exactly what you're asking, Darin). But does this help any?
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:52 pm

I'm still working through his Romans in a day lectures -- he seems to sound like he would believe in unconditional election of the individual. He's sort of slippery on the subject and though his view of Justification is clear, his deference of the "salvation question" to Paul's broad understanding of the "calling" is a bit vauge -- he sounds like an Arminian, but he seems to ascribe to an ordo soludis that would place grace and calling before belief, which he sees as a badge of salvation and not the means of salvation. I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what it sounds like.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:31 am

Hello Darin,

The Romans in a Day lectures are good ones, no doubt. But you don't hear much about what Arminians and Calvinists debate over (see my underlined & bold in the below quote).

Here's a somewhat lengthy quote from:
N.T. Wright,
The New Perspectives on Paul, 2003
NTW wrote:4. Ordo Salutis

I refer to the question known as ordo salutis. I take this phrase to refer to the lining up in chronological sequence of the events which occur from the time when a human being is outside the community of God’s people, stuck in idolatry and consequent sin, through to the time when this same erstwhile sinner is fully and finally saved. This question has been closely bound up with that of justification, but I shall suggest in this and the next section that when Paul uses the word and its cognates he has in mind one step only within that sequence, and – critically, as you will see – not the one that the word has been used to denote in much Christian dogmatics. At this point I am implicitly in dialogue with a general trend, at least since the sixteenth century, to make ‘conversion’ and ‘justification’ more or less coterminous; a trend which has been sped on its way when ‘conversion’ is understood as ‘the establishment of a personal relationship with God’, and justification has been understood in a ‘relational’ sense with the meaning, not of membership in the covenant as in the Old Testament, but of this personal relationship between the believer and God.

I have already described how Paul understands the moment when the gospel of Jesus as Lord is announced and people come to believe it and obey its summons. Paul has a regular technical term for this moment, and that technical term is neither ‘justification’ nor ‘conversion’ (though he can use the latter from time to time): the word in question is ‘call’. ‘Consider your call’, he says to the Corinthians; ‘God called me by his grace’, he says of himself. (This is why, incidentally, Krister Stendahl’s suggestion that we should think of Paul’s ‘call’ as opposed to his ‘conversion’ misses the point. For Paul, the word ‘call’ denoted not merely a vocation to a particular task but also, more fundamentally, the effective call of the gospel, applied by the Spirit to the individual heart and life and resulting in a turning away from idolatry and sin and a lifelong turning to God in Christ in believing allegiance.)

But if the ‘call’ is the central event, the point at which the sinner turns to God, what comes before and after? Paul himself has given the answer in Romans 8.29–30. Though he does not often discuss such things, he here posits two steps prior to God’s ‘call’ through the gospel: God’s foreknowledge, and God’s marking-out-ahead-of-time, the mark in question being the mark of the image of the Son. (I translate with a paraphrase because of the problems associated with the word ‘destiny’ within the word ‘predestination’.) These serve to emphasize, of course, the sovereignty of God in the call itself, while Paul never engages with the questions we want to ask about how precisely these things work out. (The closest he comes is of course Romans 9, which simply restates the problem for us; the parallel statement in Ephesians 1.3–14 is a celebration rather than an explanation) (as if I cannot agree any more, mine)!

But what matters for our purposes even more is the question of what comes after the ‘call’. ‘Those he called, he also justified’. In other words, Paul uses ‘justify’ to denote something other than, and logically subsequent to, what we have often thought of as the moment of conversion, when someone who hasn’t before believed the gospel is gripped by the word and the Spirit and comes to believe it, to submit to Jesus as the risen Lord. Here is the central point in the controversy between what I say about Paul and what the tradition, not least the protestant tradition, has said. The tradition has used ‘justify’ and its cognates to denote conversion, or at least the initial moment of the Christian life, and has then debated broader and narrower definitions of what counts. My reading of Paul indicates that he does not use the word like that; and my method, shared with the reformers, insists that I prefer scripture itself to even the finest traditions of interpretation. The fact that the Christian tradition has since at least Augustine used the word ‘justify’ to mean ‘become a Christian’, whether broadly or narrowly conceived, is neither here nor there. For Paul, ‘justification’ is something that follows on from the ‘call’ through which a sinner is summoned to turn from idols and serve the living God, to turn from sin and follow Christ, to turn from death and believe in the God who raised Jesus from the dead. This points on to my fifth and final point, to which we shall come shortly.

But before that, we note that the final verb in Paul’s sequence is not ‘sanctified’. He would say that this has already happened to all baptised believers (see 1 Corinthians 6.10f.). It is ‘glorified’. Paul regards it as a fixed point that those who belong to the Messiah by faith and baptism already share his glorious life, his rule over the world, and that this rule, this glory, will one day be manifest. There is no time to develop this here, but I note, as a point which much dogmatics has yet to come to terms with, the fact that both Paul and John the Seer place great emphasis not just on being saved, not just on being raised from the dead, but on sharing the glorious rule of Jesus Christ as Lord over God’s new world. What this role will consist of, who or what will be in subjection under this rule, and so on, are questions which have fallen off most people’s radar screens. I suggest it’s time we got them back on.

I hope I have said enough in this short section to convince you of two things. First, my understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result. My central point is that this isn’t what Paul is referring to when he speaks of ‘justification’. But the substance of what reformed theology, unlike Paul, has referred to by means of that word remains. Faith is not something someone does as a result of which God decides to grant them a new status or privilege. Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit. Faith is itself the first fruit of the Spirit’s call. And those thus called, to return to Philippians 1.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.

Second, it is simply not true, as people have said again and again, that I deny or downplay the place of the individual in favour of a corporate ecclesiology. True, I have reacted against the rampant individualism of western culture, and have tried to insist on a biblically rooted corporate solidarity in the body of Christ as an antidote to it. But this in no way reduces the importance of every person being confronted with the powerful gospel, and the need for each one to be turned around by it from idols to God, from sin to holiness, and from death to life.
I think this lecture might be on mp3. I'll try to find it.

At any rate, I think it's really difficult to try to "see NTW" in a context of what Arminians and Calvinists debate about. He's more concerned with what the text actually says than any theology--with however many minute details it may have---that doesn't get what it says from the text and the text alone (and this is what I like about the Bishop the best)! He doesn't for example, go off onto wild trails about predestination-theories and the himming-and-hawing-debates over weird ideas that Paul never had any knowledge of.

I consider myself a 'strong' non-Calvinist but not really, or necessarily, an Arminian (unless a Calvinist might call me one by default, which still wouldn't make it true)! All I can say about what NTW says: I think I agree with him.
Be back later to try to list NTW's ordo salutis, which, incidentally doesn't seem incompatible with (Wesleyan) Prevenient Grace! Long quote, hope it helps, I'm going over it again too, :)
Last edited by _Rich on Fri May 02, 2008 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:08 am

I'm sorry, but it sounds like a complete dodge to me. He goes way out of his way to avoid the topic of universality of call or whether the individual can resist it, etc. There may be wisdom in doing so, but I sure wish I understood how he saw these things in light of his views on justification. He does admit that there is individual responsibility, but avoids the question of whether all individuals have the ability to respond to the call.

Maybe I'll see it when I get to his treatment of Romans 9.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”