Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question about the New Perspective on Paul

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

  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    This is good, but I take issue with #4 in light of 1Cor. 8:
    I've read some of Wright's exegesis before in preparation for a long debate with Sam but I'm not prepared to defend it now.

    Just one thing for the moment: you can't just read 1 Cor 8 or 1 Cor 10. 1 Cor 8-10, yes, even chapter nine, make up the complete complex argument with many subtleties and you have to deal with the whole.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scrawly
    replied
    What about 1Cor. 8:10: "For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple.."?
    Last edited by Scrawly; 04-14-2015, 08:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    This is good, but I take issue with #4 in light of 1Cor. 8:

    1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.4Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

    7However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
    This refers to eating meat that may have originally been sacrificed, which was probably the majority of meat that eventually ended up on market in Corinth. 1 Corinthians 10:21 is an explicit warning against eating at actual pagan ceremonies. The meat itself is not tainted, but the ceremony is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scrawly
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Source: PFG

    In the light of this, and of Paul’s own insistence that he took what he calls the ‘strong’ position, I find myself in agreement with those who have maintained that Paul did not himself continue to keep the kosher laws, and did not propose to, or require of, other ‘Jewish Christians’ that they should, either (359).

    Paul’s revising of the Jewish symbol of Torah in terms of food and table- fellowship, then, was clear, if necessarily complex. First, all those who belong to the Messiah, and are defined by Messiah-faithfulness and baptism, belong at the same table: this, as we shall see, is a constitutive part of his most central new positive symbol. Second, Messiah-followers are free to eat whatever they wish, with that freedom curtailed only (but strongly) when someone else’s ‘weak’ conscience is endangered. Third, Messiah-followers are free to eat ordinary meals with anyone they like, but not with someone who professes to be one of the family but whose behaviour indicates otherwise. Fourth (an extra but important point), Messiah-followers are not free to go into a pagan temple and eat there. To do so would be to stage a contest with the lord himself. All this is not just ‘ethics’. It is a matter of a freshly crafted symbolic universe (361).

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscr...t-did-paul-do/
    This is good, but I take issue with #4 in light of 1Cor. 8:

    1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.4Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

    7However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikewhitney
    replied
    Ah. I have not taken Hebrews into account in my analysis. I would have to review Hebrews with possible changes to my analysis.

    One thing vital here is that Paul found actions acceptable where gentiles followed the Jewish dietary and holiday laws (Rom 14) as somewhat of a crutch, an uncertainty how far they could veer from the Jewish laws they had first learned (in the Messianic-accommodating synagogues in Rome). The problem is when they sought to follow the laws in order to be justified by them.

    The Jewish believers might still have adhered to Jewish customs (partly as being their comfort zone, partly for evangelism's sake, and possibly with an obligation to the narrower law of Moses) while recognizing that the laws were not their manner of obtaining justification.

    Generally the problem addressed in Hebrews appears to be that Jewish followers of Christ had, in significant numbers, forsook the assembly as followers of Christ. Maybe also many had become uncertain about the outcome of their faith through Christ. The letter was instruction to encourage each other and persevere in the faith. I don't remember anything of Hebrews suggesting they had become reliant on sacrifices. But it seemed they had to be reminded that the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient. If they had such awareness, I wouldn't think there would be any harm in continued action in accord with the law of Moses. For them there never would have been a drawback for conforming to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law.

    One thing that often seems to be missed... The scriptures showed that judgment would come upon Jerusalem. People's hearts were, at a point in time, going to be far from God yet the people still would be speaking as if God were central to them. Jesus mentioned this prophecy. He also expressed that they followed the traditions of man over against the laws from God. Instead of justification, the law brought wrath (Rom 4:15). As such the law could not continue into the new era.

    Leave a comment:


  • footwasher
    replied
    http://www.google.co.in/search?q=qmm...AcebuQS-vIHgCA

    Quote
    There is a final point in which the parallel between MMT and Paul needs to be nuanced and modified. MMT presupposed obedience to the biblical Torah itself, and added extra commands as a further interpretation of how precisely one should keep Torah. Paul, by placing ‘faith’ at the crucial point of community definition, clearly intends that neither possession nor practice of either Torah itself or particular sectarian halakhoth would be of any importance in defining the eschatological coven ant community. For Paul, in other words, faith is not something which is simply added on to existing Torahobservance; it supplants Torahimportance. At the same time, as Romans 3.31, 8.3observance, denying it any 7 and other passages indicate, Paul does believe that when someone exhibits this faith, that person is in fact fulfilling the Torah in an extended or theological sense, even though he or she may [123] written Torah itself. This is exactly the point of Romans 10.5neither possess nor observe the 10. parallel holds between the ‘works’ co 42 At this level, the structural mmanded in MMT and the faith sought by Paul: both provide the key interpretative grid which explains what Torah really wanted. The fact that in the one case ordinary Torahtension wi observance is presupposed, and in the other it is not required, stands in th this parallel, a tension to be explained exactly by the difference between MMT’s and Paul’s visions of the new community and the events through which it was founded.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    They may have necessarily continued in a dual participation both in the sacrificial temple practices as well as in participation in Christ-focused actions. It is possible that they nonetheless could have shed themselves of Jewish traditions beyond the requirements of the law of Moses.
    One example of a sort of dual participation (though excluding the sacrificial temple practices) might have been Paul's Nazarite vow in Acts 18 (I know some hold that it was not a Nazarite vow but this seems to be the majority view). This was upheld by my professor as an example of Paul following the Jewish law in toto; I found this argument to be weak, and the framework you suggest here provides a perfectly reasonable justification.

    The book of Hebrews seems (to me, at least) to indicate that some Jewish Christians were participating in temple sacrifices, against the wishes of the apostolic author of the book.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikewhitney
    replied
    Here's a thought in a different direction...

    We mainly see discussion of the role of the Jewish law among gentiles who were in the Messianic sect of Judaism. Not as many, if any, scholarly studies (NPP or otherwise) seem to address the relevance of Jewish laws for the Jewish followers of Christ. To some degree Gal 2 and Acts 15 show that Jewish followers of Christ still could be adhering to the such laws. We likely find in this scenario a dynamic set of doctrines which narrowly applied to Jewish believers of the first century. They may have necessarily continued in a dual participation both in the sacrificial temple practices as well as in participation in Christ-focused actions. It is possible that they nonetheless could have shed themselves of Jewish traditions beyond the requirements of the law of Moses.

    I would not figure that Paul saw a need, at least for his own situation, to practice the Jewish laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikewhitney
    replied
    I will give this a try, though I haven't focused on the broad NPP issues.

    EP Sanders originally said that based on 2nd century Jewish writings that Paul's Christianity didn't differ from that 2nd century description of Judaism. The essential thing he presented was that both groups relied on the same formula of grace plus works. Sanders essentially was countering the NT scholars who had found, and argued with use, the 2nd century writings as showing a legalistic works-oriented focus among Jews in their effort to be justified before God.

    Many scholars then tried to find another basis for Paul's promotion of faith in Christ over against works of the law. I think then Krister Stendahl's "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" became the grounds for many scholars to look at Paul's writing not as describing individual's way of salvation but rather as the justification of groups.

    Wright focused on the idea of righteousness being based on one's participation and adherence to the 'group.' Wright then seems to build a whole interpretative system about this focus on group righteousness. But he doesn't seem to require works as a requirement but rather these are evidence.

    Dunn sees the works of the law as an issue of boundary markers. He therefore tends to interpret the works of the law as being promoted by Jews who were trying to still maintain their own distinction as Jews, distinct from gentiles who now followed the Jewish Messiah. I'm not sure what Dunn sees of the Jewish laws themselves.

    These interpretive frameworks begin to allow other scholars to propose, to various degrees, that the Jewish law is still active or pertinent. Although old Paul advocates sometimes have also described a continuation of the Jewish laws ( usually abridged with ideas of segregating the law into ceremonial, priestly and moral laws) such continuation in the NPP has even been promoted (e.g. by John Gager, I think) to the point of saying that Jews could continue in their pre-Messianic form of worship (and obedience) while gentiles were to come to God through the Messianic path.

    I'm not sure which NPP scholars actually advocate, as part of NPP, a continued obedience to the law of Moses. But we can see how Dunn, for one, has opened an avenue for proponents of Jewish laws to envision these laws applying to gentiles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Source: PFG

    In the light of this, and of Paul’s own insistence that he took what he calls the ‘strong’ position, I find myself in agreement with those who have maintained that Paul did not himself continue to keep the kosher laws, and did not propose to, or require of, other ‘Jewish Christians’ that they should, either (359).

    Paul’s revising of the Jewish symbol of Torah in terms of food and table- fellowship, then, was clear, if necessarily complex. First, all those who belong to the Messiah, and are defined by Messiah-faithfulness and baptism, belong at the same table: this, as we shall see, is a constitutive part of his most central new positive symbol. Second, Messiah-followers are free to eat whatever they wish, with that freedom curtailed only (but strongly) when someone else’s ‘weak’ conscience is endangered. Third, Messiah-followers are free to eat ordinary meals with anyone they like, but not with someone who professes to be one of the family but whose behaviour indicates otherwise. Fourth (an extra but important point), Messiah-followers are not free to go into a pagan temple and eat there. To do so would be to stage a contest with the lord himself. All this is not just ‘ethics’. It is a matter of a freshly crafted symbolic universe (361).

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscr...t-did-paul-do/

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    started a topic Question about the New Perspective on Paul

    Question about the New Perspective on Paul

    We've been studying the New Perspective on Paul in my New Testament class. My professor is a proponent. He holds that Paul believed the Mosaic law was still binding on Jewish Christians, and that he held to the law himself. Is this the usual stance for New Perspective proponents? (Does, say, N.T. Wright hold to this?)
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X