Just How New is the New Perspective on Paul?

Martin Luther was well aware that 1st century Judaism had aspects of grace and forgiveness in their theology.

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22).  This is a most important addition, and is directed against the rebellious mind of arrogant objectors who say: "Very well, then, we know of ourselves that we are unrighteous; we also know that we are inclined to evil and that inwardly we are enemies of God.  We believe therefore that we must be justified before God, but this we desire to achieve by our prayers, repentance and confession.  We do not want Christ, for God can give us His righteousness even without Christ."  To this the Apostle replies: Such a wicked demand God neither will nor can fulfill, for Christ is God; righteousness for justification is given us only through faith in Jesus Christ.  So God has willed it, and so God is pleased to do, and this He will never change.  And who is there to resist His will?  Now, however, if that is true then there is no greater arrogance than not to desire to be justified by faith in Christ.  (Martin Luther.  Commentary on Romans.  Zondervan 1954.  p77)

So perhaps Luther was the father of the New Perspective on Paul?  But then again, he didn't take the Jews side in their dispute with Paul, but rather he realized they were still legalistic.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more