Tom Wright & James Dunn The New Perspective on Paul
100,956
Published 2009-09-23
All Comments (21)
-
On a serious note, I get his perspective 100% on a less serious note, Who else got sent here from something school related?
-
It is just funny to me that people against the New Perspective say "you can't earn salvation!" When Wright and Dunn are pretty much saying "duh." It's almost like they never read or listened to a single thing they've been saying.
-
I'm reading Professor Dunn's books and they are BIG books indeed.
-
This interpretation of the role of the law is exaclty right; we keep the law because that is what God wants us to do, not to earn salvation.
-
Great video to introduce someone to correct understanding of Paul
-
Please please tell me if I’m wrong but: so the disagreement isn’t on the Christian view of works and justification (we agree on that)? it’s actually a dispute about the characterization of Judaism (as legalistic or merit righteousness)?
-
Anytime you hear "new" relating to doctrine you should be suspicious. Its an attempt to historicize and uncover the truth, while implying that everyone else missed it. This is Hegelian, and there's no hope in this because we can never know when we've certainly contextualized it.
-
i was part of reformed view on justification , and i have to say that with that reformed view , i never understand the romans letter, now with this help from n.t wright and npp i can read it more clear and more joy
-
there are two very interesting passages in the new testament that i think strongly support my point: a) 2.peter 3,14-18 and b) acts chapter 21; in 2.peter the author argues that the letters of paul are easy to be misread claiming that there are no ethical norms anymore for the holy people/christians. the reason for that i.m.o. is the named paradox structure of pauls teachings: law/torah no, ethical norms yes. in acts 21 the author tells us that converted jews themselves attack paul...
-
the odd thing is that, the new perspectives on Paul as NT Wright explains, is not new but are similar to the belief of the early Christians but then it isnt really different from the protestant view on good works and of the christocentricity of corporate election
-
Very good point.But can I ask you how you think about Matthew's views on The Torah ? Matt.5:17-18 sure looks to me as if the author of the gospel is making Jesus claim the Torah MUST be observed by Jews (hence Jesus is made to say,''pray that it does not happen on the Sabbath'' when we read Matthew's version of Mark 13).I've read evangelicals try to spin it, but even when I was an evangelical I found their reading of Matt.5:17-18 slightly unconvincing. Would ''Matthew'' and Paul have agreed ?
-
very good point.Would someone who said that observe the Torah laws ? I kinda doubt it, don't you ?
-
I would disagree. James is warning us that dead faith, faith without works, is not faith rather simple belief. This is obvious because of the statement that even the demons believe and shudder. (vs 19) Paul tells us the same thing in Galatians 5 where he contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the spirit and that is true faith produces works and because of James' Jewish audience vs. Paul's gentile audience, it makes since that they differ in terminology.
-
Isn't that the point of Romans 10? The Covenant that came through Moses was stipulated on Leviticus 18:5 (living by the works of the Law) and the Covenant in Jesus is received through faith. I haven't read any of Wright's books, so how does he understand chapters like Romans 10?
-
The link no longer works
-
''Works'' could mean one of 2 things.It could mean ''obeying Torah rules'', or it could mean ''good deeds.'' I'm fairly sure Paul means the former.Could James mean the latter ? But what does the author of Ephesians mean by ''works'' in Ephesians 2:9 ? Since Gentiles are being addressed it could mean ''good deeds.'' How does that fit with Matthew's emphasis on good deeds ?
-
Can someone please edit this video so James Dunn part is separately posted.Leave this video here but can James Dunn speak by himself
-
Quite interesting.
-
Has any of these two men read Pelagius on his commentary on the Romans
-
Well yes, it looks like they would not see 'eye to eye', as we say in England. They would not have agreed, it seems.
