Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,562
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,804
Posts54,994
Members970
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,483
Tom 4,562
chestnutmare 3,329
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,869
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 21
Pilgrim 12
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Guns and the Population
by Tom - Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:08 PM
Religion and Politics
by Tom - Sat Jul 06, 2024 8:33 PM
Lex Rex
by Tom - Wed Jul 03, 2024 4:26 PM
The Real Evidence about Scripture and Homosexual Practice
by Pilgrim - Mon Jul 01, 2024 6:40 AM
Economics
by Pilgrim - Sun Jun 30, 2024 5:26 PM
Did Paul go to Spain
by John_C - Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:25 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#50733 Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,869
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,869
We hear a lot about that term lately, especially with the talk about Wright, but I'm a little hazy on the term I know it is a bad thing, but what does it entail in its meaning or description?

For instance, what would be the difference between it and the first temple. I kinda want to say it is about how the 1st century jewish Christians would view the teachings on grace?


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #50734 Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:36 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #50737 Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:29 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,869
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,869
How does NT Wright use Second Temple Judaism in arriving at his theology? What is he saying that we are getting it wrong?


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #50738 Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Originally Posted by John_C
How does NT Wright use Second Temple Judaism in arriving at his theology? What is he saying that we are getting it wrong?
In its most simplified form, Wright elevates Second Temple Judaism above Scripture and thus subjugates Scriptural interpretation to it. Secondly, it is Wright's interpretation of the writings concerning Second Temple Judaism that he uses to interpret Scripture. What he believes is that the Pharisees did not teach justification by works and thus Paul's arguments against justification by works were something entirely different than what has been historically understood.

I highly recommend Cornelis Venema's Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth) which is his popular book on the subject or, his major work which I found to be most valuable, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth).

Also, I would be remiss not to direct you to Philip Evenson's book, The Great Exchange, found here on The Highway.

Last edited by Pilgrim; Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:48 AM. Reason: Added a link to an article.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
John_C #50739 Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:19 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Bishop Wright suggests that the lens through which we should see Paul's writings is not in the legal / forensic sense that we have historically associated with 1st century Judaism, in which the Pharissees "tithed mint, dill, and cummin while neglecting the weightier matters, and strained out gnats while swallowing camels; and cleaned the outside of the cup and dish while all the while eating and drinking filth (Matt 23:23-25)," but rather in a strictly covenantal sense. So the question is not "am I right with God," but "am I in the covenant?" It is this twist, more than anything else I think, that allows Wright to stray so far from historical and Reformed hermeneutics.

-R

Robin #50740 Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,869
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,869
So emphasizing the covenantal aspects is the connection to the Federal Visionists.

I wonder overall, how the FVers would view NT Wright as he subjugates Scripture to Second Temple writings.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #50741 Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:11 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Originally Posted by John_C
So emphasizing the covenantal aspects is the connection to the Federal Visionists.

I wonder overall, how the FVers would view NT Wright as he subjugates Scripture to Second Temple writings.
1. It isn't "the covenantal aspects" that is the connection but more specifically, "covenantal nomism" that is a major foundation for the connection. Do NOT confuse Covenant Theology as it is historically held by Reformed Theology with their twisted and heretical view of the covenant.

2. N.T. Wright is the FV's "poster boy". grin Without Sanders, Dunn and Wright, there would be no Federal Vision.

3. Just a strong reminder which I have repeated on this board countless times... Heretics of all flavors are infamous for redefining oft used theological terms but fail to make known the definition they have devised. For example, they will speak of "faith" but one would be very foolish to automatically assume that they are referring to the biblical and historic understanding of faith. They have redefined many terms which deceive people who are unaware that their defintion of those terms are totally different.

That is one of the major reasons I recommended Venema's books and Eveson's book. They expose the deceit and refute their redefinitions.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #50742 Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:39 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 13
Quote
What he believes is that the Pharisees did not teach justification by works and thus Paul's arguments against justification by works were something entirely different than what has been historically understood.

Are you saying that Wright disagrees with Paul, or that the tradition understanding of Paul is wrong?

Tom

Tom #50743 Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:14 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Originally Posted by Tom
Quote
What he believes is that the Pharisees did not teach justification by works and thus Paul's arguments against justification by works were something entirely different than what has been historically understood.

Are you saying that Wright disagrees with Paul, or that the tradition understanding of Paul is wrong?

Tom
Is that a serious question? hahaha

Wright believes that the historic confessional doctrine of Sola Fide is wrong.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #50745 Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:27 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Tom
Quote
What he believes is that the Pharisees did not teach justification by works and thus Paul's arguments against justification by works were something entirely different than what has been historically understood.

Are you saying that Wright disagrees with Paul, or that the tradition understanding of Paul is wrong?

Tom
Is that a serious question? hahaha

Wright believes that the historic confessional doctrine of Sola Fide is wrong.

Yes it was a serious question. Though your answer to my question is what I thought you meant, I wasn't sure.
I don't even mind that you thought my question was silly, at least now I know for sure what you meant.
In this day and age people disagreeing with Paul on certain issues, doesn't surprise me at all.
After all there are those who believe that Paul was a chauvinist and had a very low opinion of women and that is why he said certain things. Of course, these people are liberals and have a very low view of Scripture.
Different topic, same biblical author.

Tom


Last edited by Tom; Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:35 AM.
Tom #50747 Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:05 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,483
Likes: 58
Tom,

Answers to such questions are thoroughly answered by the two books I recommended above by Cornelis Venema and by the [Linked Image] online book, The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson. The latter is a very easy read which 99% of those who take the time to actually read it will reap great benefits and gain a reasonably good understanding of the errors NPP and FV are promoting, the subtlety used to teach it and the seriousness of it's denial of Sola Fide and thus one's final destiny is at risk.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 299 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
970 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
July
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,525,876 Gospel truth