@@commonschurchWell Kudos! Even Jesus got frustrated with the 12 at times for not getting it quick enough. Knowing that helps me like Jesus even more. You guys are great. One tip: Share vulnerably from your own life. That's what will make your teachings hit home even more. Lead with that. Sorry, that's just the inner Rob Bell coming out.
I've been in class for 5 weeks now trying to wrap my head around all these terms and ideas my teacher has been throwing around. I learnt more in 15 minutes then I have in hours and hundreds of dollars of schooling. Thank-you.
Truly a great summation of justification and simplifies my efforts in understanding the discord between N.T. Wright and John Piper about this doctrine.
impressed by this succinct yet complete introduction to NPP as most are so difficult to crack. and that despite fundamental differences in my faith and conclusions to yours. thanks!
I second all these comments! You did do a great job explaining this. Text critical conjecturing aside, i.e., taking the text at face value, Paul is very clear concerning the stumbling block for non-believing Israelites: shame and scandal. See Rom 1:16; 9:32-33. So yes to the unfortunately named “New Perspective!”
I agree that Christianity has been burdened by the respective burdens of the personal moral guilt of Augustine, Luther, my own mentors and celebrity preachers of justification by faith; it is true also of myself. Their experience of personal guilt seems to have forced and formed the parameters of their hermeneutics and the expectations and experiences of their followers. The elevation of personal morality to such lofty status as eternal decisiveness before God - despite the cosmic dimensions of the cross - has been anything but liberating! “For freedom Christ has set you free…” The shift in interpretation from “my faith” to “his (covenant) faithfulness” is good but there are many signs in the “new perspective(s) on Paul” that indicate it’s not always the New covenant that drives the discussion but the old lineage. Whether our portrayal of the (extent of) the love of God is hamstrung by the emphasis on forgiveness regarding our personal shame or the ethnic framework of Paul’s particular apologetic, hamstrung it appears to remain .
This seems like an interesting church! I disagree quite strongly with many of the more liberal Christian influences, but you all still hold on to the historical creeds. You're also very smart! Thank you for your politeness in this space that tends to have lots of strong emotions
The problem with Ehrman's interpretation of the New Testament is that he completely ignores the dynamic of the inspiration of God, and the power of Paul's transformed life.
Jewish leaders believed they were saved because they were God’s chosen people in covenant with him, but they had also layered man-made traditions on the Tanakh and believed that works synergized what had started at their infant circumcision initiation. This is similar to how Catholic leaders believe themselves to lead God’s chosen congregation in covenant with him, and they’ve layered man-made traditions on the Bible and believe that works synergize what started at their infant baptism initiation. Jesus brought reformation to such false teachings and fulfilled his covenant promise by offering his own life’s blood as a sin sacrifice to bring peace with God for those who believe, then Paul explained that salvation is not by membership (circumcision) or works but faith in Jesus (Romans 3-4). Likewise, reformers overturned parallel Catholic false teachings about salvation being tied to membership and works, restoring the truth that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone in the blood of Jesus Christ.
@Scott Bair, I've heard that Catholics now say that salvation is by faith, but they have not changed their doctrines that are filled with man-made traditions that contract the Bible. And if you are not in the Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox church, Catholics would classify you as a Protestant.
I like this perspective on Paul's writing. I do in fact believe that reconciliation is the high point of his gospel but I'm wondering how to interpret Romans 3:20. Any insight would be greatly appreciated
The marker of "faith in Jesus" is not merely a subjective experience, St. Paul clearly holds this together with the death and resurrection of Jesus via baptism in which the believer participates with Christ in his/her own death and incorporation into Christ. Thus Christian baptism replaces physical circumcision becoming the "circumcision of the whole flesh" for both Jews and Gentiles. Baptism then is the new outward marker of inclusion. Secondly, I think the message of Luke/Acts is indeed that the Hellenized Jewish Christian understanding of Christ's death and resurrection won out over the Hebraic Jewish Christian view which held to the notion that Gentiles needed to be converted to Judaism to become full followers of Christ.
I know I'm late to the party, but is The New Perspective really about approaching Paul through his Jewish identity, or about approaching Paul through his Jewish identity as defined by E.P. Sanders? Can we truly say that his perspective that there is no tension between faith and works in traditional Jewish thought is true? Doesn't the existence of the Sadducee's and Pharisee's militate against such a view, not to mention Paul's acknowledgement of such a tension in places like Romans 7, for example?
So, you’re absolutely right. It is an attempt to read Paul through a Jewish identity, but since none of us are first century, Jewish theologians we are all speculating. I don’t think Sanders, and the new perspective would argue that there is no tension between faith and work, as much as that the tension is located differently than often assumed in protestant Christianity.
I’m not hearing the difference. Not your fault. I’ve tried to understand this “New Perspective” from different sources. I don’t think Paul was that hard to understand, but from what I gather, the New Perspective is barking up the wrong tree.
Not sure your attempt to smoothe off the sharp corners is all that real, though I understand the desire to 'downplay' some pretty major new tangents that Paul drives into very early Christianity. James Tabor in "Paul and Jesus" really gets it closer to home, in my personal view.
I think this is a good representation of the NPP but it leaves out a key critical detail: the NPP advocates hold that obedience to God’s law is actually a condition for remaining a member of the covenant. If you become disobedient, you are no longer a member of God’s household. This view of justification by “faith plus obedience” is precisely why so many Protestants consider the NPP to be repugnant and anathema to the Gospel. I would have liked it if you could have honed in on this more.
Thank you. I also find that it is helpful to also see the first centuary as a transition time. The old covernant was been brought to its propper conclusion and the church was movin into the next age. Hebrews points to this about the letter(Moses Covernant) waxing old and will soon pass away. So I see that those "Born under the Law" ..Jewish believers had an obligations to the law while it was still in affect. This changed when the temple and city were destroyed in the "Day of Judgment". From then on all believers wether they be Jew or Gentile are only counted under the new covernant. We see some hints in the book of acts, the gentiles are not asked to keep the law while paul himself at the end of his time in Jerusalem shaves his head and makes sacrifises according the the Law and in his defense before the Jews he can with a clear concience declare that he did not in any way break the law as he was accused of. This is also the conclusion of what Daniel was given regarding his people and the future. He was also given that the end of God's particular dealings with the Jews would be the destruction of the City.
It's not really a question of whether the new perspective is heretical. None of these perspectives would challenge the creedal expressions of faith. These are just ways to interpret Paul and what he is trying to do in his letters. In technical terms "heretical" is generally used only for ideas that challenge church dogma (creeds) not church doctrines.
Jesus’ teachings are along side object relation theory splitting memetic desire the scapegoat complex and Freudian concepts also… The parallels are there. God is great 😊
@@commonschurch thanks yes I watched them they are very good. I came to understand it intuitively I identify as Christian and knew many masters like Luke 14:26 and you cannot have two masters. heard about Girard from a channel psyche reviews… when I experienced personally a thought that pagan society requires that repetition compulsion to sacrifice others daily, We’ve all witnessed it Then his name was mentioned and I found your content. I thought that confirms my thoughts but I was unable to communicate it clearly as girard has.
I really liked this synopsis. Thank you for taking the time to work through it! Seeing Peter accept Paul's rebuke is important. Especially since Paul brings a lot of baggage from his former persona as Saul of Tarsus and had so much work to do just to get the other Apostles to believe he wasn't going to have them beaten or killed. Its a beautiful progression of movement from distrust to admiration of Paul, particularly by Peter. These men are of such completely different backgrounds within Judaism and are both equally and remarkably changed by their encounters with the risen Christ. Their conflict is settled quite nicely without having to worry that it has been smoothed over to get an artificial harmony in the New Testament. The new perspective on Paul is a "not so new" attempt to discount the Gospel message.
The Muslims consider Paul to be a deceiver or "false teacher " who corrupted the Jewish faith . Now I consider that to be a little ironic considering that their faith is imo basically a total retelling of the Abrahamic/Judaeo Christian faiths . But truth and irony can co-exist and this is one of those times . I myself imagine Paul to have been an insufferable narcissist who only saw things one way - his way . I mean how else are you going to be able to refer to the brother of Jesus - when he isn't quite buying your ideas - as " one of the 'so-called' leaders of the church " if your ego doesn't far outweigh your piety ??
Unless you are born again you cannot even see the Kingdom of God. The Pharisees had twisted the Law to make it a works thing. The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows this.The tax collector called on God to propitiate him for he knew he was a sinner. The thief on the Cross knew he deserved his punishment and he called on Jesus to remember him. You don’ t just join a club but need to repent as in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost in the name of Christ be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit.
Paul did not set the ethnic marker as opposed to faith, he set works opposed to faith (see on Gal 2:16). Paul and Martin Luther were asking the same essential question. How is one commended before God? Faith is the answer. From Gen 15 onward, it has ever been faith as opposed to works. The Jews errored in that they sought the righteousness as if it came by the law and not by faith. They stumbled at that stumbling stone. Rom 9:30f. I have big problems with NPP (once singular but now plural). It belittles substitutionary atonement and throws more emphasis to the Ransom theory but under a different name, Christus Victor. While I love NT Wright, we do not see eye-to-eye here. Also, your Higher-Critical view of the Pauline epistles being smoothed out doesn't show that in the manuscripts, it is only a theory. So my friend, come back to the light side. 😅
@@commonschurch I have a dear friend in my own denomination who sees substitutionary atonement very similar to you. I believe it is the highwater mark of all the variious models
@@commonschurch, I don't understand how it could be this monstrous mistake. Can you elaborate? I know some people, like NT Wright, don't like it, but I've never heard or read a set of reasons that properly explain their stance.
New perspective is needed to renew a Jewish understanding of scripture. Trying to apply 16 century questions and philosophy to 1st century Jewish questions and narrative theology it doesn’t quite fit. Thank God for the story of Israel, and Jesus inaugurating the kingdom unto all the Earth. Gentiles now share in the promises of Israel! Just like the Jew, the gentile shares in the forgiveness of sins and the hope for new creation among all things! (Have to stop straw manning Israel to be “works based.” Luther and Calvin were liberal critics and greatly wrong about that)
Jesus did not ( romanize ) the message . Even he was against Romans theology and was crossed by the Romans . So if paul was right to ( romanize ) the faith . That means that Jesus was wrong . I know Jews did wrong by not accepting Jesus but at least they did not mess things very badly as paul and the roman empire did .
I doubt that. It's a somewhat obscure debate that’s interesting for some for us but certainly not necessary for understanding Paul's key ideas about Grace.
@@commonschurch not sure of your comment since it was equally obscure, but on the off chance that you understand and support the new perspective, let me say this. It’s doctrinal and therefore open to interpretation. Don’t be lulled in to accept it as truth. There will never be, this side of heaven, enough evidence to support the basis of this view. Historical views are just the same as they are today. The Bible in measure was written by Jews for the Jewish people. We don’t have 1st century Jews around to ask about the Jewish mindset at that time. Not all Jews thought the same. Rely on the dogma (absolutes) of scripture and be fluid in regards to doctrine. Your views will change, but not on the basis of hard to understand comments. If you can’t understand a view how can you accept or reject. God will never lead us in confusion!
St Paul had no truck with judaizers (Galatians) or with philosophers (letters to Timothy). I simply checked in to see what the fellows take on it all was. You'd be safer crossing sinking sand since only your body would perish and not your soul as well. Jesus Christ died for our sins and Rose up to give us abundant life in the Holy Spirit and we therefore justified and sanctified and heirs of our heavenly Father.
Why do we need to have all these "interpretations"? We gave the clear Holy Spirit written Bible in the Greek language and Strong's Concordance aids us to understand every single word. This higher critism is of the unbelieving devils of Jude 1: 4. That is ok, you can keep your unbelief.
To read the Bible in Greek you are relying on the work of Textual critics who have compiled the Greek New Testament for us and if you're relying on Strong's concordance you are using the work of James Strong. Most people who rely on Strong's also tend to use the included dictionary which Strong himself said was not meant to replace a proper lexicon. (For Hebrew I suggest BDB or HALOT and for Greek BDAG.) Bottom line, we all need the work of interpreters, scholars and teachers if we intend to really take the Bible seriously.
The internal inconsistency of this comment is hilarious; "How dare you interpret scripture? I only use Strong's to interpret..." BRO this video is a survey of different interpretive tools.
4 yrs had gone by, and your explanation remains clear and helpful to me. Thank you.
Glad it helped!
Dude, your knowledge of liberal Christian thought is super helpful for getting the whole conversation out. Thanks!
I love how graceful, thoughtful and kind y'all are in your replies to folks. Kudos!
We try. But… sometimes the comment section brings out the worst in all of us 🥲
@@commonschurchWell Kudos! Even Jesus got frustrated with the 12 at times for not getting it quick enough. Knowing that helps me like Jesus even more. You guys are great. One tip: Share vulnerably from your own life. That's what will make your teachings hit home even more. Lead with that. Sorry, that's just the inner Rob Bell coming out.
Every preacher has to find the line they are comfortable sharing from their personal story :)
@@commonschurch Just listened to your sermon on your deconstruction experience posted about a month ago. Great job.
:)
INCREDIBLE VIDEO. You might have jsut fixed a massive blockage of faith I was having.
I’m glad. Thanks for watching.
I've been in class for 5 weeks now trying to wrap my head around all these terms and ideas my teacher has been throwing around. I learnt more in 15 minutes then I have in hours and hundreds of dollars of schooling. Thank-you.
Haha glad it was helpful
Truly a great summation of justification and simplifies my efforts in understanding the discord between N.T. Wright and John Piper about this doctrine.
Thanks for watching. Glad it was helpful.
Excellent explanation. Very helpful indeed.
Glad it was helpful!
impressed by this succinct yet complete introduction to NPP as most are so difficult to crack. and that despite fundamental differences in my faith and conclusions to yours. thanks!
Glad it was helpful :)
Thanks for your explanation!
Good job!
Thanks for explaining it so clearly.
Glad it was helpful 👌
I second all these comments! You did do a great job explaining this. Text critical conjecturing aside, i.e., taking the text at face value, Paul is very clear concerning the stumbling block for non-believing Israelites: shame and scandal. See Rom 1:16; 9:32-33.
So yes to the unfortunately named “New Perspective!”
This makes more sense than anything else I’ve heard so far thank you
Glad it was helpful
Thanks for a clear explanation.
Glad it was helpful!
tanks for the clear explanation - and for the "Tubingen School" - this is very interesting ...
Great explanation
I agree that Christianity has been burdened by the respective burdens of the personal moral guilt of Augustine, Luther, my own mentors and celebrity preachers of justification by faith; it is true also of myself. Their experience of personal guilt seems to have forced and formed the parameters of their hermeneutics and the expectations and experiences of their followers.
The elevation of personal morality to such lofty status as eternal decisiveness before God - despite the cosmic dimensions of the cross - has been anything but liberating!
“For freedom Christ has set you free…”
The shift in interpretation from “my faith” to “his (covenant) faithfulness” is good but there are many signs in the “new perspective(s) on Paul” that indicate it’s not always the New covenant that drives the discussion but the old lineage.
Whether our portrayal of the (extent of) the love of God is hamstrung by the emphasis on forgiveness regarding our personal shame or the ethnic framework of Paul’s particular apologetic, hamstrung it appears to remain .
Dude, thank you brotha. This was great!
Thanks for watching
For 15 minutes, I'm impressed.
🤣🤓
You just saved me from reading a whole book, good job
Haha glad to hear it was helpful. You should still read the book though ;)
Love that you held that yawn together @12:52 haha
Sometimes I’m boring to listen to 🤷♂️ what can I say 😅
The conflict outlined in the first 3&1/2 minutes is so artificial as to be ridiculous.
Well, that’s basically what I said in the video.
This seems like an interesting church! I disagree quite strongly with many of the more liberal Christian influences, but you all still hold on to the historical creeds. You're also very smart! Thank you for your politeness in this space that tends to have lots of strong emotions
Thanks for watching. Listening to those we disagree with is the only way we learn. Grace and peace.
The problem with Ehrman's interpretation of the New Testament is that he completely ignores the dynamic of the inspiration of God, and the power of Paul's transformed life.
Thanks for this.
Jewish leaders believed they were saved because they were God’s chosen people in covenant with him, but they had also layered man-made traditions on the Tanakh and believed that works synergized what had started at their infant circumcision initiation. This is similar to how Catholic leaders believe themselves to lead God’s chosen congregation in covenant with him, and they’ve layered man-made traditions on the Bible and believe that works synergize what started at their infant baptism initiation.
Jesus brought reformation to such false teachings and fulfilled his covenant promise by offering his own life’s blood as a sin sacrifice to bring peace with God for those who believe, then Paul explained that salvation is not by membership (circumcision) or works but faith in Jesus (Romans 3-4). Likewise, reformers overturned parallel Catholic false teachings about salvation being tied to membership and works, restoring the truth that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone in the blood of Jesus Christ.
@Scott Bair, I've heard that Catholics now say that salvation is by faith, but they have not changed their doctrines that are filled with man-made traditions that contract the Bible. And if you are not in the Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox church, Catholics would classify you as a Protestant.
Well done!
Thanks for watching 🙌
I like this perspective on Paul's writing. I do in fact believe that reconciliation is the high point of his gospel but I'm wondering how to interpret Romans 3:20. Any insight would be greatly appreciated
We did a big long series on Romans over the course of a few years. We hit 3:9-20 here ruclips.net/video/NTXpAtrG1cQ/видео.html
The marker of "faith in Jesus" is not merely a subjective experience, St. Paul clearly holds this together with the death and resurrection of Jesus via baptism in which the believer participates with Christ in his/her own death and incorporation into Christ. Thus Christian baptism replaces physical circumcision becoming the "circumcision of the whole flesh" for both Jews and Gentiles. Baptism then is the new outward marker of inclusion.
Secondly, I think the message of Luke/Acts is indeed that the Hellenized Jewish Christian understanding of Christ's death and resurrection won out over the Hebraic Jewish Christian view which held to the notion that Gentiles needed to be converted to Judaism to become full followers of Christ.
So good!
I know I'm late to the party, but is The New Perspective really about approaching Paul through his Jewish identity, or about approaching Paul through his Jewish identity as defined by E.P. Sanders? Can we truly say that his perspective that there is no tension between faith and works in traditional Jewish thought is true? Doesn't the existence of the Sadducee's and Pharisee's militate against such a view, not to mention Paul's acknowledgement of such a tension in places like Romans 7, for example?
So, you’re absolutely right. It is an attempt to read Paul through a Jewish identity, but since none of us are first century, Jewish theologians we are all speculating. I don’t think Sanders, and the new perspective would argue that there is no tension between faith and work, as much as that the tension is located differently than often assumed in protestant Christianity.
I’m not hearing the difference. Not your fault. I’ve tried to understand this “New Perspective” from different sources. I don’t think Paul was that hard to understand, but from what I gather, the New Perspective is barking up the wrong tree.
Not sure your attempt to smoothe off the sharp corners is all that real, though I understand the desire to 'downplay' some pretty major new tangents that Paul drives into very early Christianity. James Tabor in "Paul and Jesus" really gets it closer to home, in my personal view.
That’s fair :)
I think this is a good representation of the NPP but it leaves out a key critical detail: the NPP advocates hold that obedience to God’s law is actually a condition for remaining a member of the covenant. If you become disobedient, you are no longer a member of God’s household. This view of justification by “faith plus obedience” is precisely why so many Protestants consider the NPP to be repugnant and anathema to the Gospel. I would have liked it if you could have honed in on this more.
Thank you. I also find that it is helpful to also see the first centuary as a transition time. The old covernant was been brought to its propper conclusion and the church was movin into the next age. Hebrews points to this about the letter(Moses Covernant) waxing old and will soon pass away. So I see that those "Born under the Law" ..Jewish believers had an obligations to the law while it was still in affect. This changed when the temple and city were destroyed in the "Day of Judgment". From then on all believers wether they be Jew or Gentile are only counted under the new covernant. We see some hints in the book of acts, the gentiles are not asked to keep the law while paul himself at the end of his time in Jerusalem shaves his head and makes sacrifises according the the Law and in his defense before the Jews he can with a clear concience declare that he did not in any way break the law as he was accused of. This is also the conclusion of what Daniel was given regarding his people and the future. He was also given that the end of God's particular dealings with the Jews would be the destruction of the City.
Do you have any videos on speaking in tongues?
Not yet. But that could be fun. Thanks
Awesome man!
Thank you for sharing. I got saved
Does anyone still hold to the 1st school of thought
So is New Perspective Heretical? and why/why not?
It's not really a question of whether the new perspective is heretical. None of these perspectives would challenge the creedal expressions of faith. These are just ways to interpret Paul and what he is trying to do in his letters. In technical terms "heretical" is generally used only for ideas that challenge church dogma (creeds) not church doctrines.
Jesus’ teachings are along side object relation theory splitting memetic desire the scapegoat complex and Freudian concepts also…
The parallels are there.
God is great 😊
If you’re interested, we put together an intro to Girard here A Brief Intro to René Girard
ruclips.net/p/PLHvx82XvjDZXbA-pV4kQSHPY57x3BX0A9
@@commonschurch thanks yes I watched them they are very good.
I came to understand it intuitively I identify as Christian and knew many masters like Luke 14:26 and you cannot have two masters.
heard about Girard from a channel psyche reviews… when I experienced personally a thought that pagan society requires that repetition compulsion to sacrifice others daily,
We’ve all witnessed it
Then his name was mentioned and I found your content. I thought that confirms my thoughts but I was unable to communicate it clearly as girard has.
I really liked this synopsis. Thank you for taking the time to work through it! Seeing Peter accept Paul's rebuke is important. Especially since Paul brings a lot of baggage from his former persona as Saul of Tarsus and had so much work to do just to get the other Apostles to believe he wasn't going to have them beaten or killed. Its a beautiful progression of movement from distrust to admiration of Paul, particularly by Peter. These men are of such completely different backgrounds within Judaism and are both equally and remarkably changed by their encounters with the risen Christ. Their conflict is settled quite nicely without having to worry that it has been smoothed over to get an artificial harmony in the New Testament. The new perspective on Paul is a "not so new" attempt to discount the Gospel message.
The Muslims consider Paul to be a deceiver or "false teacher " who corrupted the Jewish faith . Now I consider that to be a little ironic considering that their faith is imo basically a total retelling of the Abrahamic/Judaeo Christian faiths . But truth and irony can co-exist and this is one of those times . I myself imagine Paul to have been an insufferable narcissist who only saw things one way - his way . I mean how else are you going to be able to refer to the brother of Jesus - when he isn't quite buying your ideas - as " one of the 'so-called' leaders of the church " if your ego doesn't far outweigh your piety ??
I can hear the Canadain influence not only in the accent but in the non-binary perspective so refreshing. Speak louder
Your head bobbing made me dizzy 😵💫
I’m Canadian 😜
Unless you are born again you cannot even see the Kingdom of God. The Pharisees had twisted the Law to make it a works thing. The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector shows this.The tax collector called on God to propitiate him for he knew he was a sinner. The thief on the Cross knew he deserved his punishment and he called on Jesus to remember him. You don’ t just join a club but need to repent as in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost in the name of Christ be baptised for the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit.
The coming of the Messiah doesn't diminish the "chosenness" of the Jewish people. In fact, it affirms it!
Paul did not set the ethnic marker as opposed to faith, he set works opposed to faith (see on Gal 2:16). Paul and Martin Luther were asking the same essential question. How is one commended before God? Faith is the answer. From Gen 15 onward, it has ever been faith as opposed to works. The Jews errored in that they sought the righteousness as if it came by the law and not by faith. They stumbled at that stumbling stone. Rom 9:30f. I have big problems with NPP (once singular but now plural). It belittles substitutionary atonement and throws more emphasis to the Ransom theory but under a different name, Christus Victor. While I love NT Wright, we do not see eye-to-eye here. Also, your Higher-Critical view of the Pauline epistles being smoothed out doesn't show that in the manuscripts, it is only a theory. So my friend, come back to the light side. 😅
I am open to different perspectives on Paul but I’m absolutely convinced the penal substitution was a monstrous mistake.
@@commonschurch I have a dear friend in my own denomination who sees substitutionary atonement very similar to you. I believe it is the highwater mark of all the variious models
@@commonschurch, I don't understand how it could be this monstrous mistake. Can you elaborate? I know some people, like NT Wright, don't like it, but I've never heard or read a set of reasons that properly explain their stance.
New perspective is needed to renew a Jewish understanding of scripture. Trying to apply 16 century questions and philosophy to 1st century Jewish questions and narrative theology it doesn’t quite fit. Thank God for the story of Israel, and Jesus inaugurating the kingdom unto all the Earth. Gentiles now share in the promises of Israel! Just like the Jew, the gentile shares in the forgiveness of sins and the hope for new creation among all things!
(Have to stop straw manning Israel to be “works based.” Luther and Calvin were liberal critics and greatly wrong about that)
I would say that God chose the Jews to bring humanity back to The Father, and of course, the redeemer came from Judah.
Jesus did not ( romanize ) the message . Even he was against Romans theology and was crossed by the Romans . So if paul was right to ( romanize ) the faith . That means that Jesus was wrong . I know Jews did wrong by not accepting Jesus but at least they did not mess things very badly as paul and the roman empire did .
Clear as mud! Just in less words than NT Wright. I’m probably too stupid to understand any of this!
I doubt that. It's a somewhat obscure debate that’s interesting for some for us but certainly not necessary for understanding Paul's key ideas about Grace.
@@commonschurch not sure of your comment since it was equally obscure, but on the off chance that you understand and support the new perspective, let me say this. It’s doctrinal and therefore open to interpretation. Don’t be lulled in to accept it as truth. There will never be, this side of heaven, enough evidence to support the basis of this view. Historical views are just the same as they are today. The Bible in measure was written by Jews for the Jewish people. We don’t have 1st century Jews around to ask about the Jewish mindset at that time. Not all Jews thought the same. Rely on the dogma (absolutes) of scripture and be fluid in regards to doctrine. Your views will change, but not on the basis of hard to understand comments. If you can’t understand a view how can you accept or reject. God will never lead us in confusion!
I don’t think you’re stupid. And everything is open to interpretation that’s why I went through some of the major interpretive grids.
St Paul had no truck with judaizers (Galatians) or with philosophers (letters to Timothy). I simply checked in to see what the fellows take on it all was. You'd be safer crossing sinking sand since only your body would perish and not your soul as well. Jesus Christ died for our sins and Rose up to give us abundant life in the Holy Spirit and we therefore justified and sanctified and heirs of our heavenly Father.
Satan's voice it is, all the same- Gresham Machen
Machen was one of the fathers of American fundamentalism so that sounds about right.
Beware of false teachers.
I went through a number of different perspectives in this video which one(S) did you think were false?
Heresy in 15 minutes. Wow!
Wait, all of the different approaches to Paul are heresy?
Why do we need to have all these "interpretations"? We gave the clear Holy Spirit written Bible in the Greek language and Strong's Concordance aids us to understand every single word. This higher critism is of the unbelieving devils of Jude 1: 4. That is ok, you can keep your unbelief.
To read the Bible in Greek you are relying on the work of Textual critics who have compiled the Greek New Testament for us and if you're relying on Strong's concordance you are using the work of James Strong. Most people who rely on Strong's also tend to use the included dictionary which Strong himself said was not meant to replace a proper lexicon. (For Hebrew I suggest BDB or HALOT and for Greek BDAG.) Bottom line, we all need the work of interpreters, scholars and teachers if we intend to really take the Bible seriously.
The internal inconsistency of this comment is hilarious; "How dare you interpret scripture? I only use Strong's to interpret..." BRO this video is a survey of different interpretive tools.