recently I have started looking closely at the issue called the new perspective on Paul.
When I first looked at the issues or actions or whatever you want to call it I saw it as two sided. I saw heroes of mine like John Piper and D.A. Carson on one side and I saw other scholars like N.T. Wright and E.P. Sanders on the other side.
Without even looking at the topic being discussed I automatically sided with the people that I had listened to and had come to trust such as Piper. I found that I categorized the writings of Piper and Carson in the biblical or correct part of my brain and the writings of N.T. Wright into the unbiblical or incorrect section of my brain. Again I did this without any evaluation of my own.
I confess that this is a grievous error on my part.
I find myself sharing the sin of the Corinthians saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”1 Corinthians 1:12
I realize now that I was jumping on a band wagon and did not look to the issue in question or the biblical text itself. I only looked to the opinions of the men I trusted and idolized.
After listening to an interview with N.T. Wright on the subject I realize that I have group all together as if this where a two sided battle. I was wrong. There are many sides to this debate, many more than I can research at the moment.
But what I wanted to talk about concerning this topic, the new perspective, is the debate between Piper and Wright, among others. It seems to me that both of these men are on the same side of the argument. They both want to know what scripture has to say about justification, and though each one thinks the other is wrong they are not enemies.
These men are brothers and we should treat them as such. We can’t pit one against the other. They are both for the Gospel of Christ and because of this grace they are both on the same side. They, like the rest of us, have been unified through the death, resurrection, and reign of Christ and we should be reminded and remind each other of this fact constantly.
I heard you mention this before and I immediately dismissed the whole thing, mostly because of the word new in the name. It seemed, on face value alone, to be just another attempt to justify one’s own beliefs by “rewriting” scripture or at least reinterpereting it in a way that fits their own biases. To some extent, I think that I was right.
However, I feel that the followers of the new perspective(s) have a descent point in that reformed evangelicals tend to hold too tightly to creeds and teachings of dead theologians. Albeit that they were most likely much smarter than you and I are and had greater insight into certain spiritual matters, their writings are NOT scripture and are not devinely inspired to be “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16b-17 ESV)
We must rely on scripture alone to interperet scripture. We must look at the teachings of the OT and the gospels to be able to interperet Pauls context and original intent. We cannot look at our own biases whether they come from Jacob Arminius, John Calvin, or Joel Osteen.
Personally, however, I am not about to turn away from the creeds of old and the teachings of tried and true theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. For to do so would be foolish and short sighted. At least they would be until you could prove to me that the “New Perspective(s)” can still hold true to the gospel of Christ and the teachings of the entirety of scripture (the way the “old perspective” does) and not just some guy’s version of what he thinks Paul said or wants Paul to have said. For the teachings of Paul himself are nothing without the devine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and if they contradict the rest of scripture, then they are worthless (which of course is not true).
You bring up an excelent point FSF, and it is exactly the one that I was trying to address.
We tend to stick to our own side as it were until our side is proven to be wrong. This is a great way to go about things especially when we are looking for the truth.
However, are we looking for the truth or are we reading the works of people we trust like Calvin or Piper or whoever and calling their views correct because they are their views.
I am not saying that we should throw away peoples works. What I am saying is that we should not turn these points of tension into a fight where one side is wrong and the other is right, or at least not without proper evaluation.
That is what I did with N.T. Wright. Piper wrote a response to his work on Paul so I automatically assumed that he was wrong in his conclusions.
Now I see, after some study, that it is not as black and white as that. There are things that we can learn from people that we don’t whole heartedly agree with, and when we start turning issues into fight and start choosing sides we can lose some very valuble information.
So, don’t just choose a side because it is the side you want to be on, look for truth.