I am looking for some help with this topic. It seems pretty much the same as what catholics teach which I am used too. Can some one sum up the main points and tell me how they differ from a catholic view? thanks
As far as I can tell, the so-called NPP is close to what the Orthodox (of which I used to be one) believe as well. Looks more like the traditional understanding of Paul reclaimed from Reformation innovations.
That what I thought when reading it, but was wondering if I might of missed something. It made me chuckle.
There has been an ongoing rediscovery of such things since the Reformation took place. We saw that as well in the Caroline divines and in the Oxford Movement in Anglicanism; reclaiming much of what was tossed out by the reformers.
The New Perspective has a whole lot of modernist aspects to it. For example its view on the Jews is tinged by a post-WW2 fear of antisemitism. It's view on Covenants (especially referring to Paul), is that for Paul Justification means being in the Covenant. Jews in the time of Paul, then, were already justified. For us today, Justification is not throwing ourselves unto God, but just belonging to the church. Mere covenantal membership makes us justified. The Jews today are also already justified, since they're "still" in their covenant. Tinged by post-WW2 shadows, proponents of NPP break the Christian system, and omit any Conversion of Jews in their system. Finally NT Wright's books underwent a lot of changes from their initial open hostility to the Reformers; he admitted that he actually knew very little about the Reformation and his scholarship was based on secondary literature. Consequently his most recent book on the NPP actually started to take out his earlier criticism of the Reformers, and he started to say that the early Reformers actually supported his views. At the end of the day, the NPP views on sin, covenants, justification differ sharply not only from Anglican views, but even basic traditional Christian views. Wright used to say that a strong emphasis on sin was Luther's innovation, until having learned about Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/12/st-anselm-on-magnitude-of-sin.html "St. Anselm believes that the least of our sins puts us in an infinite debt to God and is infinitely bad" "In the religious realm Anselm lived in an age consumed by the seriousness of sin and fear of divine wrath" http://books.google.com/books?id=LaXkDstvL1AC&pg=PA127&ots=2ps4I_q4vg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCA If strong forensic, personal justification, sin-centered perspectives weren't invented by the Reformers but actually played a central role in Anselm, Aquinas, John of Damascus, Augustine etc, then the central theses of the NPP have started to fall flat, and it is losing a lot of academic credibility.
Like i said i have not read deeply and only a surface read looks catholic. So does it say the jews are saved with out doing any of the rituals or not having faith in Christ. Now i am more confused.
Yes, salvation (especially justification, stripped of any forensic bits) is, more or less, a membership in the Covenant Community. If we strip away the "anachronisms" of the New testament, or the Reformers, the Jews of the Old Testament were justified merely by being jewish, by circumcision, by participation in the community's rites and sacrifices. Supposedly, so NPP claims. Now, when the NT came, Paul did not revise the divinely established "salvation by community", he merely extended it to all gentiles. All gentiles today, who live like the jews of OT ("in community, justified by membership"), are saved. The jews of course are also saved, since they already have the OT covenant community.
That makes zereo sense fron my limited Christian understanding. If Jews are saved just by being jews without even having the temple anymore than why did God get nailed on a cross? Why did the apostle preach a new convent in christ? So confused
The temple was never part of the covenant initially anyway the temple was built many centuries later by King Solomon (1st temple), and rebuilt after returning from the exile. The new covenant in Christ opened up justification for Gentiles as well.
Ok so why did he send the 12 apostles to the Jews? I was a taught that jews have to convert to Christianity for salvation.
I really need to rethink this thing. I am confused cause I was always taught the Convent in Christ replaced the Jewish convent. I guess I got a lot of reading.
Of course it did what makes yuo think it didnt? Just cus NT Wright wrote a book filled with factual errors fueled by post-WW2 apologia?
Rev all modern writers are worth reading - when we do Bible study and Theological studies we refer to various commentaries to see what others thinking were on a particular passage etc. and that is healthy. Should you take on what others say? Well that is another question all together, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me if something does not feel right or seem right to me. I am not sure any of us will ever be able to answer all the questions after all we are but human and The Trinity is a mystery.
I read plenty of Wright otherwise, including his works on the historicity and 100% accuracy of the historical Jesus per modern historical standards. Their impeccable. It's just his revisionary stuff that rubs people the wrong way. Basically any christology would be suspect today as infected by postmodern philosophies, but new subjects, like historicity of Jesus, or Possible Worlds Semantics / Molinism (in Alvin Plantinga) are great.
The Resurrection and the Son of God, by N.T. Wright http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_reviews.html#wright reading this dispels noxious fumes of skeptics about our lord.