Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 193518 | ||
Dear MJH, As I am not antinomian, I wouldn't be adequate to the task of rendering an answer that would properly represent their position. The New Perspective folks argue that the Pharisaic view of soteriology has been misrepresented by Christians, particularly since the Reformation. Championed most notably by N. T. Wright, the assertion is that the Pharisees were not legalistic after all, and that they did not espouse a form of auto-soterism. This is the first of a number of challenges they make to orthodoxy. The shifts in fundamental thinking enables them to reinterpret Christ's teaching with regard to the Pharisees in general, and Paul's teaching in particular. A crooked foundation always results in a crooked building (Psalm 125:5). In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193525 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. I have only touched the very service of the writings of NT Wright and that being the case, can not comment on whether or not I see myself along side him. In response to your statement then, I would say that historically speaking, there were more than on type of Pharisee. Many many were quite legalistic, particularly those in Judea. That being said, there were many who were most defiantly not. I do believe that Jesus lined up theologically more closely with the Pharisees than any other sect (and by that I do not intend to diminish Jesus.) This is probably why He is seen talking with them the most. The Sadducees were a lost sect so far from reality that there was little point in discussion. The same is true of the others to a lesser degree. It may be possible that some (okay it is more than possible) have swung the pendulum of opinion about the Pharisees too far in their favor. That being said, there were most defiantly many Godly Pharisees in His day, and even this can be seen in the Gospels and Acts. And as far as Legalism is concerned, I do think that many on this forum either do not know what the word means, or at the very least miss use it. Legalism is the belief that certain acts or deeds (mostly outward) were required for salvation. You know that I am not of this camp, and nothing I have written would lead one to think this way. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. MJH |
||||||
3 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 193532 | ||
Dear MJH, Much that Wright has to say appeals to conservatives because he tends to stand pretty solidly against liberal teaching. "The enemy of my enemy..." etc. I've even quoted him on this forum, before I really started to look into the NPP. :-( Their error is pretty subtle for most of us because of our shallow grounding in sound doctrine and general ignorance of church history. Consequently, I'm loathe to discuss it lest I draw attention to it! If you want to drop me an email, though, I can give you a brief summary of what I've learned. You're right about the speciation of Pharisaical thought. Although that's interesting and, perhaps, helpful in understanding men like Nicodemus, I think it is a discussion that -- without caution -- can lead us down the wrong trail. Matthew 23 pretty well sums up what God thought of them. But instead of going about the business of justifying them or condemning them, perhaps we should identify with them! I must confess that my own tendency is to listen, arms akimbo, self-righteously, to the pronouncements of Jesus in Matthew 23. "You tell 'em, Lord!" Instead, what I should be doing is noting how much I am like the Pharisees. The gospel is a balm to be applied after the law does its work... and both must be applied to our lives daily. Legalism and antinomianism are like the ditches on opposite sides of the road. Nevertheless, they are still both ditches we are warned to avoid. It wasn't my intention to accuse you of legalism. In Him, Doc |
||||||