NT Wright - Introduction to Paul's New Perspective, Part 1 of 2

continued in part 2 -

1 - God's Covenantal Love in Light of The New Perspective of Paul (Slater),

2 - Further Necessary Observations & Conclustions (Slater),

3 - Understanding the New Perspective of Paul (McKnight)
 

 

 * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cqZYbcvANhM

Uploaded by StJohnsNottingham on Sep 23, 2009

 * * * * * * * * * *

Question. Did the Reformation's theologians mis-appropriate Augustine's grace teachings that would lead to the Lutheran/Reformed faith-emphasis on sin and works-righteousness? (see link here).

Observation. Within Protestantism's New Perspective view is the realisation that good works is the natural outgrowth of faith and a life built on grace, and thus both the Reformed arguments of faith-alone stands affirmed alongside the further statements of Paul's New Perspective of faith-works.

- skinhead

 * * * * * * * * * *
 

New Perspective on Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

The "New Perspective on Paul" is a significant shift in the way some scholars, especially Protestant scholars, interpret the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Description

Artist's depiction of Saint Paul Writing His Epistles,

in the 16th Century

(from the Blaffer Fndn Collection, Houston, TX)

Since the Protestant Reformation (c. 1517), studies of Paul's writings have been heavily influenced by Lutheran and Reformed views that are said to ascribe the negative attributes associated with sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism to first-century Judaism. The said Lutheran and Reformed views on Paul's Writings are called the "old perspective" by adherents of the "New Perspective on Paul". Thus, the "new perspective" is an attempt to lift Paul's letters out of the Lutheran/Reformed framework and interpret them based on what is said to be an understanding of first-century Judaism, taken on its own terms. (Within this article, "the old perspective" refers specifically to Reformed and Lutheran traditions, especially the views descended from John Calvin and Martin Luther, see also Law and Gospel.)

Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the old perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians' good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to the new perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.

Development

In 1963 the Lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl published a paper arguing that the typical Lutheran view of the Apostle Paul’s theology did not fit with statements in Paul’s writings, and in fact was based more on mistaken assumptions about Paul’s beliefs than careful interpretation of his writings.^[1]

In 1977 E. P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism.^[2] In this work he performed an extensive study of Jewish literature and an analysis of Paul's writings in which he argued that the traditional Lutheran understanding of the theology of Judaism and Paul were fundamentally incorrect. Sanders continued to publish books and articles in this field, and was soon joined by the scholar James D. G. Dunn. In 1982 Dunn labelled the movement "The New Perspective on Paul".^[3]

The work of these writers inspired a large number of scholars to study, discuss, and debate the relevant issues. Many books and articles dealing with the issues raised have since been published. The Anglican Bishop and theologian N. T. Wright has written a large number of works aimed at popularising the new perspective outside of academia.^[4]

The new perspective movement is closely connected with a surge of recent scholarly interest in studying the Bible in the context of other ancient texts, and the use of social-scientific methods to understand ancient culture. Scholars affiliated with The Context Group as well as many others in the field, have called for various reinterpretations of biblical texts based on their studies of the ancient world.

Main ideas

It is often noted that the singular title "the new perspective" gives an unjustified impression of unity. It is a field of study in which many scholars are actively pursuing research and continuously revising their own theories in light of new evidence, and who do not necessarily agree with each other on any given issue. It has been suggested by many that the plural title "the new perspectives" may therefore be more accurate. In 2003, N. T. Wright, distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, commented that "there are probably almost as many ‘new perspective’ positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them."^[5] There are certain trends and commonalities within the movement, but what is held in common is the belief that the "old perspective" (the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism) is fundamentally incorrect. The following are some of the issues being widely discussed.

Works of the Law

Paul's letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of "works of the law". The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by "works of the law" is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The old perspective interprets this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God's standards (Works Righteousness). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works (note the New Perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation - the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).

By contrast, new perspective scholars see Paul as talking about "badges of covenant membership" or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship.^[6] It is argued that in Paul's time, Israelites were being faced with a choice of whether to continue to follow their ancestral customs, the Torah ('the ancestral customs'), or to follow the Roman Empire's trend to adopt Greek customs (Hellenization, see also Antinomianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Circumcision in the Bible). (This would be comparable with Westernization and the decision faced by modern individuals such as American Indians to follow their native culture or to adopt Western customs and lifestyle, see also Cultural imperialism.)

The new perspective view is that Paul's writings discuss the comparative merits of following ancient Israelite or ancient Greek customs. Paul is interpreted as being critical of a common Jewish view that following traditional Israelite customs make a person better off before God. Paul identifies customs he is concerned about as circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of special days.^[7]

Human effort and good works

Due to their interpretation of the phrase "works of the law", old perspective theologians see Paul's rhetoric as being against human effort to earn righteousness. This is often cited by Lutheran and Reformed theologians as a central feature of the Christian religion, and the concepts of grace alone and faith alone are of great importance within the creeds of these denominations.

New perspective interpretations of Paul tend to result in Paul having nothing negative to say about the idea of human effort or good works, and saying many positive things about both. New perspective scholars point to the many statements in Paul's writings that specify the criteria of final judgment as being the works of the individual.

"Final Judgment According to Works... 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." (N. T. Wright)^[8]

Wright however does not hold the view that good works contribute to ones salvation but rather that the final judgement is something we can look forward to as a future vindication of God's present declaration of our righteousness. In other words, [according to Wright,] our works are a result of our salvation and the future judgement will show that^[9]. Other [theologians] tend to place a higher value on the importance of good works than the old perspective does, taking the view that they causally contribute to the salvation of the individual.

Old perspective advocates often see this as being "salvation by works" and as a bad thing, contradicting what they see as being fundamental tenets of Christianity. Yet new perspective scholars often respond that their views are not so different. For in the old perspective, God graciously empowers the individual to the faith which leads to salvation and also to good works. While in the new perspective, God graciously empowers individuals to the faith and good works which lead to salvation.

See also synergy in theosis in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Orthopraxy in Christianity.

Faith, or faithfulness

An ongoing debate related to the new perspective has been over Paul's use of the Greek word pistis (πίστις, meaning "trust," "belief," "faith," or "faithfulness"). Old perspective writers have typically interpreted this word as meaning a belief in God and Christ, and trust in Christ for salvation with faith that he will save you. This interpretation is based on several passages from the Christian Bible, notably Ephesians 2:8-9, which reads "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Interestingly, E. P. Sanders, a major figure in the development of the "new perspective of Paul", himself notes that Ephesians 2:9 teaches the traditional (or "old") perspective.^[10]

By contrast, many recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship.^{[11][12][13][14]}

As such, the word could be almost synomymous with "obedience" when the people in the relationship held different status levels (e.g. a slave being faithful to his master). Far from being equivalent to 'lack of human effort', the word seems to imply and require human effort. The interpretation of Paul's writings that we need to "faithfully" obey God's commands is quite different to one which sees him saying that we need to have "faith" that he will do everything for us. This is also argued to explain why James was adamant that "faith without works is dead" and that "a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone," while also saying that to merely believe places one on the same level as the demons (see James 2). The New Perspective argues that James was concerned with those who were trying to reduce faith to an intellectual subscription without any intent to follow God or Jesus, and that Paul always intended "faith" to mean a full submission to God.

Another related issue is the pistis Christou ('faith of Christ') debate. Paul several times uses this phrase at key points in his writings and it is linguistically ambiguous as to whether it refers to our faith in Christ ("objective genitive"), or Christ's own faithfulness to God ("subjective genitive"), or even our faith/faithfulness to God like that which Christ had ("adjectival genitive"). There is wide disagreement within the academic community over which of these is the best rendering.^[15] The NET Bible translation became the first mainstream English Bible translation to use a subjective genitive translation of this phrase.^[16]

Grace, or favor

Old perspective writers have generally translated the Greek word charis as "grace" and understood it to refer to the idea that there is a lack of human effort in salvation because God is the controlling factor. However those who study ancient Greek culture have pointed out that "favor" is a better translation, as the word refers normally to 'doing a favor'. In ancient societies there was the expectation that such favors be repaid, and this semi-formal system of favors acted like loans.^[17] Therefore, it is argued that when Paul speaks of how God did us a 'favor' by sending Jesus, he is saying that God took the initiative, but is not implying a lack of human effort in salvation, and is in fact implying that Christians have an obligation to repay the favor God has done for them. Some argue that this view then undermines the initial 'favor' - of sending Jesus - by saying that, despite his incarnation, life and death, Christians still have, as before, to earn their way to heaven. However, others note this is the horns of a false dilemma (all grace versus all works). Many new perspective proponents that see "charis" as "favor" do not teach that Christians earn their way to heaven outside of the death of Christ. Forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ is still necessary to salvation. But, that forgiveness demands effort on the part of the individual (cf. Paul in Phil. 3:12-16). [1]

The Atonement

See also: Atonement in Christianity

For old perspective writers the atonement theory of Penal Substitution and the belief in the "finished work" of Christ have been central. New perspective writers have regularly questioned whether this view is really of such central importance in Paul's writings. Generally new perspective writers have argued that other theories of the atonement are more central to Paul's thinking, but there has been minimal agreement among them as to what Paul's real view of the atonement might be.

The following is a broad sample of different views advocated by various scholars. E. P. Sanders argued that Paul's central idea was that we mystically spiritually participate in the risen Christ and that all Paul's judicial language was subordinate to the participationary language.^[2] N. T. Wright has argued that Paul sees Israel as representative of humanity and taking onto itself the sinfulness of humanity through history. Jesus, in turn, as Messiah, is representative of Israel and so focuses the sins of Israel on himself on the cross. Wright's view is thus a "historicized" form of Penal Substitution.^[18]

Chris VanLandingham has argued that Paul sees Christ as having defeated the Devil and as teaching humans how God wants them to live and setting them an example.^[19] David Brondos has argued that Paul sees Jesus as just a part in a wider narrative in which the Church is working to transform lives of individuals and the world, and that Paul's participationary language should be understood in an ethical sense (humans living Christ-like lives) rather than mystically as Sanders thought.^[20]

Pilch and Malina take the view that Paul holds to the Satisfaction theory of atonement.^[21] Stephen Finlan holds that Paul uses numerous different metaphors to describe the atonement but that he fundamentally sees Christ as a martyr and holds that humans are to be divinely transformed into the image of God through Christ (Theosis).^[22]

Criticism and rhetoric

The new perspective has been an extremely controversial subject and has drawn strong arguments and recriminations from both sides of the debate.

In 2003 Steve Chalke, after being influenced by new perspective writers, published a book targeted at a popular audience which made comments highly critical of the penal substitution theory of the atonement.^[23] This caused an extensive and ongoing controversy among Evangelicals in Britain, with a strong backlash from lay-people and advocates of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

Both sides of the debate attempt to claim the higher, and more accurate, view of scripture. New perspective advocates claim that old perspective supporters are too committed to historic Protestant tradition, and therefore fail to take a 'natural' reading of the Bible; while old perspectivists claim that new perspective advocates are too intrigued by certain interpretations of context and history, which then lead to a biased hermeneutical approach to the text.

The new perspective has been heavily criticized by conservative scholars in the Reformed tradition, arguing that it undermines the classical, individualistic, Augustinian interpretation of election and does not faithfully reflect the teachings of their founding theologian, John Calvin (as N. T. Wright had asserted). It has been the subject of fierce debate among Evangelicals in recent years, mainly due to N. T. Wright's increasing popularity in evangelical circles. Its most outspoken critics include Calvinists John Piper,^[24] Sinclair Ferguson,^[25][26] C. W. Powell,^[27] Mark Seifrid, D. A. Carson^[28], Ligon Duncan.^[29]  Barry D. Smith has claimed that the New Perspective's challenge to the traditional view of Jewish faith practice as legalistic is misplaced.^[30]

Catholic and Orthodox reactions

The new perspective has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant scholars. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers have generally responded favorably to new perspective ideas,^{[citation needed]} seeing both a greater commonality with their own beliefs and seeing strong similarities with the views of many of the early Church Fathers.

Former Protestant and one-time adherent to the New Perspective, Taylor Marshall, published the first Catholic response to the New Perspective on Paul entitled The Catholic Perspective on Paul (2010). Marshall draws out the continuity and discontinuities between the Protestant New Perspective and the traditional Catholic doctrines of the Council of Trent by emphasizing the doctrine of participation and the believer's union with Christ.^[31] From this Catholic point of view, the New Perspective is seen as a step toward the progressive reality of human salvation in Christ. Moreover, passages in the works of many early Church Fathers show that new perspective-style interpretations were widely held among them.^[32]

One of the many exceptions is the influential Augustine of Hippo. While most in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schools would see him as espousing a view of grace and justification in keeping with this new perspective, Augustine is blamed by some for introducing incorrect ideas^{[citation needed]} (some Orthodox would agree that Augustine erred on these ideas, and introduced novelties into the teachings of the Church Fathers^[33]).

[One could also argue that it was the Reformation's mis-appropriation of Augustine's grace teachings that led to their emphasis on sin and works-righteousness. - skinhead]
See for further regard: http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/understanding-new-perspective-on-paul.html 

The increased importance new perspective writers have given to good works in salvation has created strong common ground with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Historic Protestantism has never denied that there is a place for good and faithful works, but has always excluded them from justification and salvation, which Protestants argue is through faith alone, and in which good deeds are of no account, either within or without God's grace. This has, since the Reformation, been a line of distinction between Protestantism (both Reformed and Lutheran) and other Christian communions.

[Within Protestantism's New Perspective view is the realisation that good works is the natural outgrowth of faith and a life built on grace, and thus both the Reformed arguments of faith-alone stands affirmed alongside the further statements of Paul's New Perspective of faith-works. - skinhead]

See also

• Pauline Christianity

 

References

1. ^ Krister Stendahl, 'The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West' in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1963), pp. 199-215. Republished in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, (Augsburg Fortress Publishers) 1976.
2. ^ ^{a b} E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1977)
3. ^ The Brand New Perspective on Paul by James D. G. Dunn
4. ^ For example, N. T. Wright, "What Saint Paul Really Said" Eerdmans 1997
5. ^ N. T. Wright, New Perspectives.
6. ^ For "badges of covenant membership", see N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans part one (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 35-41. 5. For reliance on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship, see Eisenbaum, Pamela (Winter 2004). "A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans". Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 123 (4): 671–702. doi:10.2307/3268465. JSTOR 3268465. http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1234.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
7. ^ Dunn, James D. 'The New Perspective on Paul', 104, 2005.
8. ^ New Perspectives on Paul, 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25–28, August 2003, by N. T. Wright
9. ^ http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf
10. ^ Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, p. 167, notes "Sanders has conceded to me that Ephesians 2:9 teaches the traditional view."
11. ^ Douglas A. Campbell, "The Quest For Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy", 2005, pp 178-207
12. ^ David M. Hay, ‘Pistis as “Ground for Faith” in Hellenized Judaism and Paul’ JBL 18, 1989, pp 461-76
13. ^ Howard, The 'Faith of Christ', ExpTim 85, 1974, 214
14. ^ Pilch and Malina, "Handbook of Biblical Social Values", 1998, pg 72-75
15. ^ See, e.g.: for subjective genitive: G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42. For objective genitive: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44.
16. ^ E.g., Romans 3:21-22: 'But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. ...' (emphasis added. Also see Gal. 2:20).
17. ^ David A.deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, 2000, pg 117
18. ^ N. T. Wright, "Jesus and the Victory of God"
19. ^ Chris VanLandingham, "Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul", Hendrickson 2006
20. ^ David Brondos, "Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption", Fortress Press, 2006
21. ^ Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, "Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul" Ausgburg Fortress 2006
22. ^ Stephen Finlan, "Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine" Liturgical Press 2005
23. ^ Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Zondervan, 2003)
24. ^ John Piper, Interview with Piper on Wright, October 11, 2007.
25. ^ Sinclair Ferguson, What Does Justification Have to do with the Gospel?
26. ^ Ligon Duncan and Sinclair Ferguson (video resource) Is Wright Teaching Another Gospel?
27. ^ C. W. Powell, Was There Legalism in First Century Judaism
28. ^ D. A. Carson Don Carson on the New Perspective, mp3 file of lecture
29. ^ J. Ligon Duncan, The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul.
30. ^ Barry D. Smith, The Tension Between God as Righteous Judge and as Merciful in Early Judaism; id., What Must I Do to Be Saved? Paul Parts Company with His Jewish Heritage.
31. ^ Taylor Marshall, The Catholic Perspective on Paul, Saint John Press, Dallas, Texas, 2010, ISBN-13: 978-0578050164
32. ^ Irenaeus, "Against Heresy" 4:13-16. Ambrosiaster, "Commentary on Romans". Pelagius, "Commentary on Romans". Origen "Commentary on Romans". Justin Martyr, "Dialogue" Ch 10-11. Clement of Alexandria, "Stromata" 6:6. Ignatius, "Magnesians" 8. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures" 4:33.
33. ^ Fr. John Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, Zephyr Publishing, Ridgewood, NJ, 1998

 

Further Reading

• Badenas, Robert, Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985. ISBN 0-905774-93-0
• Dunn, James D. G., "The New Perspective on Paul", in: Jesus, Paul and the Law, 1990. ISBN 0-664-25095-5
• Gathercole, Simon J., Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1–5, 2002. ISBN 0-8028-3991-6
• Irons, Lee, Seyoon Kim’s Critique of the New Perspective on Paul, 2007.
• Kim, Yung Suk. Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor 2008 ISBN 0-80-066285-7
• Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul 2011 ISBN 978-1608997930
• Marshall, Taylor R. The Catholic Perspective on Paul, 2010.
• Smith, Barry D., What Must I Do to Be Saved? Paul Parts Company with His Jewish Heritage, 2007.
• Thompson, Michael B., The New Perspective on Paul (Grove Biblical Series), 2002. ISBN 1-85174-518-1.
• Wright, N. T., What St Paul Really Said, 1997.
• Wright, N. T., New Perspectives on Paul, 2003.
• Wright, N. T., Paul: Fresh Perspectives, 2005.
• Young, Brad, Paul the Jewish Theologian, 1998

The Gospel as the Story of Jesus

Do We Have the Gospel Wrong? (Review: "The King Jesus Gospel")

http://rachelheldevans.com/king-jesus-gospel

by Rachel Held Evans

September 23, 2011
Comments

“I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say ‘the gospel.’ I just don’t think it is what Paul means.” - N.T. Wright

The guy next to me on my flight from Chicago to Santa Ana last week was the perfect seatmate—chatty during takeoff and landing, asleep for the rest of the flight. I was thankful for the quiet time because I got to spend the four-hour flight completely engrossed in a book that revolutionized my perspective on my Christian faith—The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight.

As we were taxiing around John Wayne Airport, the guy (who at the beginning of the flight told me he spent the summer working for Coca-Cola setting up air-conditioned tents at concerts and amusement parks), asked me what I was reading. “Oh, um. It’s a book about the gospel,” I said, “about how modern Christians have misunderstood it to be all about personal salvation, when it’s more about the story of Jesus.”

The skill and immediacy with which the poor guy changed the subject revealed to me that he’d probably sat next to a well-meaning evangelist in the past, the kind to whom “gospel” means salvation from hell and “evangelizing” means convincing your seatmate to make a decision for Christ before the plane lands.

As McKnight notes in the book, "Most of evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples.”

I didn’t push it. In fact, I was still trying to process what I’d learned upon reading The King Jesus Gospel that day—that somehow I’d managed to be a Christian for twenty-five years without understanding what the writers of the New Testament meant when they referred to the gospel.

The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVUtDs35XDs

The Gospel as We’ve Known It…

Dallas Willard puts it this way: “For most American Christians, the gospel is about getting my sins forgiven so I can go to heaven when I die.” It’s "the gospel of sin management.”

According to McKnight, “the word gospel has been hijacked by what we believe about personal salvation.” It’s been reduced to “justification by faith.” Under such a scheme, the Gospels in the Bible are little more than back story leading up to the cross, and Jesus is little more than a mechanism by which our salvation is attained. The cross is the only part of his story that really matters.

In fact, McKnight argues that modern evangelicals seem to have confused the words evangel (Greek for gospel) and soteria (Greek for salvation). Says McKnight, “We evangelicals (as a whole) are not really ‘evangelical’ in the sense of the apostolic gospel, but instead we are soterians…We (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the world salvation. Hence, we are really ‘salvationists.’ We are wired this way. But these two words don’t mean the same thing…My prayer for this book is that it will revive a generation of evangelicals to become true evangelicals instead of just soterians.” A salvation culture and a gospel culture are not the same, he says.

The Gospel in the New Testament…

I confess I started this book with a bit of skepticism. I’m wary of anyone who claims to have found a succinct summary of something as complex as the good news of Jesus. While I still believe there is an element of relativity to the gospel because the gospel is about Jesus and everyone encounters Jesus a little differently, McKnight reminded me of just how important it is to acknowledge the fact that the writers of the New Testament had something specific in mind when they used the word “gospel.”

And according to The King Jesus Gospel, what they had in mind was “the story of Jesus of Nazareth as the climax of the long story of Israel, which in turn is the story of how the one true God is rescuing the world.”

McKnight summarizes his position like this:

1. The gospel is framed by Israel’s story. The story of Jesus—his life, death, resurrection, exaltation, and return—is the completion of Israel’s story.

2. The gospel centers on the lordship of Jesus. He is Messiah and King.

3. The gospel summons people to respond—to repent, to place faith in Jesus, and be baptized.

4. The gospel saves and redeems.

If this sounds a lot like what NT Wright’s been arguing for years, it’s because it is. But, at least for me, McKnight explains this “story-of-Jesus gospel” in a way that is more accessible and applicable to everyday life.

McKnight really gets on a roll in Chapter 6. When speaking of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he poses the question, “Why did the early Christians call these books ‘the Gospel?”

The answer: Because they ARE the gospel!

“If you want to read the gospel, hear the gospel, or preach the gospel…read, listen to, and preach the Gospels,” he concludes.

This approach broadens the scope of the gospel so that it’s not just about Jesus’ death on the cross. It’s about his life, his teachings, his authority as the Messiah, his death, his resurrection, his lordship over all creation, and his anticipated return. With skill and clarity, McKnight shows how this is the gospel that Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15, the gospel that was shared in the book of Acts, the gospel taught by Jesus Himself, and the gospel we declare whenever we affirm the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. To share the gospel is to share the story of Jesus—the whole story, not just apart.

Is it any wonder, then, that after the woman anointed Jesus with a jar of costly perfume in Mark 14, Jesus declares “Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her”? Her story is as much a part of the gospel as the cross!

This confirms what I only dared suggest in Chapter 15 of Evolving in Monkey Town, that “while I still believe Jesus died to save us from our sins, I’m beginning to think that Jesus also lived to save us from our sins.” Learning that the Bible supports this hope is good news indeed!

A Gospel Culture...

According to McKnight, in the New Testament, “gospeling was not driven by the salvation story or the atonement story” (though that was certainly a part of it). Rather, the gospel was driven by the story of Israel culminating with the story of Jesus.”

So how should evangelicals promote a gospel culture rather than a salvation culture?

We need to tell the whole story of Jesus, he says, not just part. And we need to declare Jesus as Lord.

We must focus on making disciples, not decisions.

I’m still trying to figure out exactly what this looks like in my life, but what I loved most about The King Jesus Gospel was that it helped harmonize so much of Scripture (from the prophecies of Isaiah to the letters of Paul to the teachings of Jesus to the sermons of Peter), and it made me excited about the gospel for the first time in a long time.

You can really sense McKnight’s passion for this subject on each and every page, particularly his desire to see a new generation of evangelicals declare a more robust and exciting gospel that is faithful to Christ and faithful to Scripture. He’s definitely got this young evangelical on board! (I’m already thinking of fun ways in which we can share the story of Jesus more frequently on this blog.)

In short, I can’t recommend this book enough. It will challenge you, inspire you, frustrate you, and wreak havoc on you—all the things that a good book about Jesus should do.

(Get it on Amazon here.)

**********

So what are your impressions of the message of The King Jesus Gospel? Do you think that modern evangelicals are salvation-focused rather than gospel-focused? How do we create a gospel culture?

IS Arminianism the Root of Christian Liberalism?

Dr. Olson calls foul on a blatant example of neo-evangelicalism viewed in bold rhetoric arguing against popular emergent books and discussions in the areas of Universalism, Arminianism, Free Will, Heaven and Hell. Showing again why Calvinism and Reformed Theology has come under emergent scrutiny for upholding a caustic biblicism that is now feeling the heat for its dogmas, judgmental preaching, harsh remonstrations (pun intended) upon the unsaved, while lowering and demeaning the love of God in its richness and fullness. On a recently published youtube video evangelical pastors, preachers and theologians give their one-sided insights to their particular brand of homebrewed theology. But as can be documented here on this website - as well as many other emergent websites and resources - each of their statements have been examined and found libelous and misleading. In recent web articles Dr. Olson has pointed out what makes for proper "heresy and what doesn't"; he also has discussed Liberal Theology, Inerrancy, and generally, the Calvinization of Evangelicalism (all of which may be viewed in this blog under his commentary section). This quasi-Reformed video production clearly falls well out-of-bounds of these definitions and is nothing short of denominational grandstanding for lack of public support and want of attention. Let's call it for what it is... unattractive.

- skinhead

**********

Do we need an Arminian Defense League?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/08/do-we-need-an-arminian-defense-league/

by Roger Olson

posted August 24, 2011

Okay, so I used that title to get your attention. No, I don’t really think we need an Arminian Defense League (although sometimes I feel like the only person doing anything to defend Arminianism from its enemies and could use some help!).

Earlier, here, I talked about a video on youtube.com (it might also exist on DVD or something, but I’ve only seen it on youtube.com) that viciously attacks Arminianism. It’s a slick video–well produced (not a home-made talking head video like so many). I understand it is part of a longer series on Reformed theology.

To view it, just go to www.youtube.com and enter “Arminianism.” It’s usually the first thing that comes up. It’s called “Arminianism: The Root of ‘Christian’ Liberalism?” It’s filled with unsupported innuendos about the seemingly (to them) inescapable results of Arminianism. The producers strongly imply that Arminianism leads to denial of the deity of Jesus Christ. That’s something I want to address here now. Later I’ll take on some other claims of the video.

So, near the beginning of this clip, the narrator talks about Jacob Arminius, the Remonstrants (his followers after his death in 1609) and the Synod of Dort (1618/1619). The narrator (reading from a script) says something about how the Reformed delegates to Dort loved their Arminian brothers and hated to judge them, but it had to be done (to protect orthodoxy). In fact, anyone who reads an objective historical account of Dort knows that many of the leaders of that synod (really a kangaroo court) hated the Remonstrants passionately. Their vituperation against them was personal. They forced them to sit at a table in the middle of their meeting while they berated them. Sometimes some of them were in chains–not because they were a danger but because the real power behind the synod, Prince Maurice of Nassau (the Stadthalter of Holland, the most powerful of the United Provinces) viewed them as enemies of the state (which they were not).

Before I continue, let me cite my immediate source for what I say above and below. It is Socinians and Arminians: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe edited by Martin Muslow and Jan Rohls (Brill, 2005). This is a volume of scholarly historical essays, not theology per se, but it deals with the theological views as well as the political beliefs and motives of all parties in these early 17th centuries debates mostly in the Netherlands (then called the United Provinces).

One of the great historical ironies is that the Remonstrants were accused of wanting the civil authorities (magistrates) to rule the church (the Reformed Church of the United Provinces), but their enemies were the ones who actually relied on the state (Prince Maurice) to enable their synod and enforce its decisions (which included the exile of all Arminians who refused to be silent about their beliefs). Some of the leading Remonstrants were thrown into prison (including Hugo Grotius, a leading European jurist and statesman). One was beheaded.

Somehow or other, some of the leading Reformed divines (pastors, theologians) convinced Prince Maurice that the Arminians/Remonstrants were a threat to the independence of Holland and the United Provinces generally because, allegedly, they were in cohoots with the Jesuits of Spain. Spain had dominated the “Low Lands” (what are now the Netherlands and Belgium) for decades and the United Provinces (now the Netherlands) had just recently thrown them out and become independent. There is, of course, absolutely no evidence of any collaboration between Spain and the Jesuits, on the one hand, and the Arminians/Remonstrants , on the other hand. These were trumped up, false charges, but they swayed the Prince against the Remonstrants. (When Prince Maurice died in 1625 his brother succeeded him and allowed the Remonstrants to return to the United Provinces.)

The particular claim made in the video clip that I want to challenge as tantamount to a lie is where the narrator (again, reading from a script written by someone whose identity I don’t know) strongly suggests that Remonstrant leader Conrad Vorstius denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity (i.e, was a Socinian).VorstiusSocinians or in league with the anti-Trinitarian Socinians (17th century unitarians).

The volume I cited above clears things up beautifully. Apparently Vorstius (not the leader of the Remonstrants but a leading Remonstrant thinker who was recommended to succeed Arminius as professor of theology at Leiden) was not particularly astute with some of his statements. He admitted to “learning from” the Socinians and that was enough to get him condemned as a heretic by the Reformed party leaders. However, he NEVER denied the deity of Christ or the Trinity. What he “learned” from the Socinians related to their arguments against high Calvinism. Nevertheless, he was accused, wrongly, of being anti-Trinitarian and denying the deity of Christ. (This was a false charge brought up against Arminius, as well, but before he died he cleared it up decisively.) And he publicly defended those doctrines.

For the makers of this video to drag out this old canard against Vorstius and use it to IMPLY that Arminianism inclines towards denial of Christ’s deity and the Trinity is simply nothing other than vicious calumny. They should be ashamed of themselves and fair-minded evangelicals of all flavors (including Calvinists!) should shame them for it. They admit that not all Arminians went on to deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity (or, for that matter, the inerrancy of the Bible), but the implication is left that Arminianism leads in that direction. Why else bring it up?

I am publicly calling out the author of the script of this video clip and its producers and asking them to take it down. I’ll talk about other reasons in later posts here. Stand by….

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 
 

 

Comments

Barry says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:07 pm

The video you reference is pure propaganda! As you say, it is slick and had some money and professional production behind it. Of course, it tells just one side of each and every point, but all propaganda is like that. While you are citing scholarly sources, your opponents are cherry picking quotes using pseudo-scholarship. Of course, most of their time is spent passionately pouring out slop fit for swine.

I was not surprised to find that mixed in with the bomb throwing at Arminians was the careful development of the idea that the Republican Party represents God, while the Democratic Party — as you may have astutely guessed — represents every evil in society today. According to this twisted idea, it is impossible to be a true Christian unless you vote Republican.

You are not alone in defending Arminian ideas, but you are certainly the most well known person doing so. A lot of people are afraid to speak out against Calvinism of the rabid type depicted in the video because they don’t want to be attacked. Not that I am telling you anything new!

Keep up the great work, Dr. Olson. Your efforts are having greater effect than you think. Otherwise, your opponents would ignore you.

rogereolson says:

• August 25, 2011 at 12:27 pm

  I truly appreciate your support and encouragement.
  

Tim says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm

I cringe when I hear of such conflicts between Christians (in the past as well as the present). I recently watched an animated retelling of William Tyndale’s story with my wife and kids. We did not discuss how tragic it is when people of the Christian faith misrepresent and abuse good-willed people of the same faith, but the kids are still pretty young.

Maybe my “must believe” doctrines are fewer than these involved – and that gives me the flexibility to embrace both of these groups as co-workers and brothers in Christ.

rogereolson says:

August 25, 2011 at 12:32 pm

• Disagreement is fine; what riles me is dishonesty in slamming those with whom you disagree. That’s what I see in the video–no real attempt to be fair.

Ronnie says:

August 24, 2011 at 9:30 pm

Who knew that Arminianism is responsible for Enlightenment skepticism, Darwinism, statism, tyranny, and the Madonna/Britney kiss? Brilliant!

Dr. Olson, I’d love to agree with you here but I’m compelled to agree with the video’s ironclad chain of logic.... I’m sorry, but sometimes all you can do is laugh at this kind of foolishness.

rogereolson says:

• August 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm

  Yes, my classes laugh out loud at it! But I’m afraid some people will be swayed by it’s logic (however invalid) because there’s no one among evangelicals standing up and saying it’s wrong (except me). I wish some spokespersons for evangelicalism (and it would be especially helpful if it would be Reformed evangelicals) would speak out against stuff like this. That they don’t tells me they are afraid of offending part of their constituency.
  

  Reply

Ross says:

August 24, 2011 at 10:44 pm

Hi Roger, this really isn’t a comment on the above, just a great big thank you for all your posts. In the last month or so, I have most all of the last year of posts. Incredibly helpful, and no exaggeration. I love the thoughtful, referenced, even handed insights. Your thoughts have opened my mind and informed my views on many of the controvercial issues that also plague my faith. I just finished both A Proper Confidence and The Myth of Certainty which you had recommended. Wow. Restorative to me. A thousand thank you’s and may you be blessed.

Leslie says:

August 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm

Roger, I’ve not yet been persuaded to join the Arminian Defense League. I am willing, however, to be counted among those fighting the Calvinization of Evangelicalism. Since both Arminianism and Calvinism are systematic constructs, is it a viable option for me to say that I’m not either one? I am truly wondering whether these are the only two options?

rogereolson says:

• August 25, 2011 at 1:01 pm

  Whether one calls oneself an Arminian or not doesn’t especially matter to me. (Although, I have wondered why some who clearly are Arminians shy away from the term.) But many of us do and have always identified as Arminians (e.g., virtually all Wesleyans and Free Will Baptists) and we bristle when Calvinists misrepresent what we believe. As for whether these are the only two options: I happen to think they are the only two options among Protestants, even though Lutherans don’t identify with either. Still, in my book, anyway, if someone is a Protestant (i.e., embraces sola gratia et fides) and does not accept the U, the L or the I of TULIP, they are Arminian whether they call themselves that or not.
  

Russ says:

August 26, 2011 at 12:21 am

Hi. Unfortunately, I think each of the statements within the film will need further elucidation. You may wish to nudge Scot McKnight and Christianity Today for further response as well.

Too, true emergency will look past these vid clips as pointless rhetoric and continue to seek the lost and establishing justice in the world. Thus, after a response or two I’d recommend moving on. Knowledgable people in the know will understand this clip for what it is, and the rest simply don’t care… they have deeper problems to solve than a denomination’s “clipped” wings.

Russ says:

August 26, 2011 at 12:32 am

I forgot to mention that this video leads to the very statism they accuse Aminians of (ironically witnessed as well in the Calvinist’s STATE court of judgment at Dort). Here they play the republican v. democratic state card on cultural immoralities, creating fear through dis-information, and providing all the hot buttons they can think of to heap on their version of the “truth”.

Steve says:

August 26, 2011 at 6:26 am

Hi Roger
Haven’t visited for a while. I must admit I enjoy finding holes in the ‘iron clad’ logic of any theology but especially Calvinists and those who jump up and down about it. And with Calvinists and the Synod of Dort etc etc it is nice and easy to do. It is possible to carry on about it until the cows come home but I also must admit to being a little jaded over the whole Calvinist v Arminian thing. Calvinist reformed people seem to be almost irrational about their version. Here in Australia it has taken on a personal vitriolic nonsensical shade. Very strange stuff indeed. There are extreme right-wing political overtones where disucssion about gender, sexuality, environmental topics are loony. Oh yes and Catholicism is just a no no. Just can’t talk about anything with them any more. If you aren’t part of Club Calvin then you are not saved. Simple as that.

I asked a question somewhere else on this blog (can’t remember where) about what is a good Arminian Bible. I mean, what do you read? I have recently started to feel uneasy about some of the more popular translations at critical points and thought maybe there was something a little better.

rogereolson says:

• August 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm
  I read the New Revised Standard Version. I don’t need an “Arminian Bible” because the whole Bible is Arminian! (Just thought I’d parody what I hear Calvinists say about their theology and the Bible.)