I like this guy. He is a great communicator and actually engages with the new perspective for a Christian audience rather than dismissing it because it doesnt fit with exactly with reformed doctrine
I'm new to getting into New Perspective but hadn't heard of Michael Bird before. I am extremely grateful for this discussion through Southeastern Seminary - thank you for hosting this talk and getting Dr. Bird's answers to these questions out here for the public. I hope Christians can see what Paul is saying on the sociological level, and although soteriology isn't absent, that believers can seek Christian unity above imposing their own views specifically of atonement into Paul's writings.
He is arguably the standard on the topic as well as the standard via media position. He is my "go-to" across the board on Paul. I consult his work on every topic regarding Paul.
A very illuminating discussion. Dr. Bird avoids the emotional rhetoric which as divided prominent leaders of the church. We should all follow his example in our quest to be ministers of reconciliation.
I had no idea that the intellectual class, the seminarian educated. . . Had become so naïve and frivolous. This conquest for “truth” by a rearranging deck chairs on a large boat… Discovering some new truth in the process. I find it hard to believe that Pauline scholars would know so little about the apostle himself. Frankly, I’m shocked.
Dr. Bird's analysis of the orientations of commentators is inspired. Linguistics calls the phenomenon he mentions that separates commentators as networks of linguistic collocates around terms. Excellent views.
On first listen, I thought "Oh this was very helpful" but after diving into the issues that caused all the controversy I was left puzzled. What is justification? What is righteousness? Those seem like the two most important questions as far as what the controversy was all about. The themes mentioned here are good insights but there's nothing controversial about them. Did Wright in particular change his view on justification and righteousness or is he sticking to his guns?
this "talk" is likely the most significant marker, as it were, in my theological development. a truly mind opening introduction to the Post-NPP viewpoint.
@@js1817 - marker = identify point. this interview was a watershed moment in my theological development bc I finally understood what the NPP and Pauline scholarship outside of the Reformed tradition was on about.
@@MatthewHendren the New Perspective on Paul is really just the Roman Catholic view of Paul. The problem is that so many Protestants live in a theological bubble, that they have never been exposed to ideas outside their echo chamber.
@@mosesking2923 - i would disagree re: NPP = RC Paul - but i can respectfully disagree while granting where you might be coming from on this. there are many points that could be interpreted as such, especially when RC scholars are using NPP to create room for RC positions. but, with the NPP, as is the case with most ideas/frameworks, there are many destinations that can be found along wide paths.
No more Jew or nor gentile.. it's either grace not works or works and not grace..Because he is a scholar, doesn't make him right. Let no one confuse you about justification..God bless.. Toni's husband
@@tonimccoy9778 _Jesus (the RISEN Messiah) sent his true disciples to ALL Gentiles:_ Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: *and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.* _And the RISEN Messiah said he would be with them "unto the end of the world. Amen.*_ _If they did not continue in the Messiah's word they would not be his true disciples._ John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;* _But Jesus' disciples did continue in his word._ _And just how is it we can know they continued in his word?_ _The gospel of Mark says they did._ Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mark 16:20 And *they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them,* and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. _Paul falsely claimed they agreed (with Paul) not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word. This is “contrariwise” to what the gospel of Mark says._ Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; *that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.* _Paul falsely claimed that the disciples agreed not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word._ _But the gospel of Mark says they did._ _It is Paul and Paul's gospel that does not continue in the Messiah's word._ _Paul is a false disciple and a false apostle._
One is joined to Christ in a grace relationship, not a covenant relationship. We have covenant benefits via the sovereignty of the executor, not via a covenant relationship.
What the heck please is "loren gospel"? One can't understand what he is saying if he is going to use jargon. And when I google it how it sounds Google has got no bleeping clue.
Bird ought to make a distinction between the Israel of God and National Israel. Like Paul does time and again. Peter was rebuked for placing the Covenantal/Horizontal aspect of Covenant in Wrights terms, over, against the Eschatological/Vertical. There is no covenant community apart from Christ. There is no Israel apart from Christ.
Excellent. The two distinctions are not Biblical, for a reason. People put themselves first. Sociologist can't find it in themselves to believe in a living God.
Acts 15 proves that at least some Jewish Christians were equating law observance and circumcision in particular, with our salvation. (Acts 15 verse 1). Notice how Peter and the other apostles counteract their opponents with talk of God’s grace. This is the Old Perspective loud and clear.
I don't think NPP would disagree with that. But see that in Acts what happens is quite different than the view of the reformers. Roman Catholics never preached law observance and circumcision needed for salvation. More reformed christians would say that catholics believe that is faith+works while reformers belive faith alone saves us. But I believe Paul had slightly different understanding of what "faith" is and his main concern was teaching obedience to the law for salvation instead of teaching obedience to Christ. It looks like for Paul that what we do (like do we walk in sin or holiness) is crucial to our salvation.
@@dimitartodorov4826 I agree with that too. What we do in obedience certainly matters, alongside faith. But I think the order also matters. It's saved by grace through faith which leads to good works. It has to be in that order: grace then works. Ephesians 2 / Titus 2 / Titus 3.
The New Perspective on Paul attempts to undermine the findings of the Jerusalem Council which came down on the side of justification by faith: see Acts 15. especially verses 7-11 We must follow Paul and not let men like Wright dilute the Gospel. Maybe Wright never read Romans 2:16, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Paul's Gospel is laid bare in Phil. 3, which has to mean that Wright companies with the people Paul had in mind in 2 Cor. 11:13-14, " For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.."
Agree- Bird seems to be a disciple of Wright - I am not following what he says at all when he talks about Ephesians 2. It is actually nonsensical - watch out for those peddling something new - it can be similar to LDS and Jehovahs witnesses. Our protection is to stay in the word and discern the truth.
a transformed Israel will transform the world great notice also the distinctive use of 'we' (holy ones, Jews) and 'you' (believers, gentiles) in the letters to Efesians and Kolosians. (see what Mark Kinzer wrote about that.
Saying that a proper understanding of Paul unites Martin Luther and Martin Luther King was a HUGE red flag. Those two have nothing in common because MLK was a heretic who denied several fundamental doctrines including the resurrection of Christ. They cannot be brought together. His expanding the gospel to include a horizontal element results from his confusing the scope of the gospel with its content. This is terribly concerning that a SBC seminary would promote such careless theology.
Matt Fuller. Perhaps rather than "unite" the 2 "Luther's", Bird's post-NPP offers an umbrella that can include the primary concerns of both. Bird is not giving MLK a theological pass. Rather, Bird is including MLK's concern for racial justice and harmony to be among the issues that Justification addresses and includes. So, a full orbed view of justification is inclusive of both personal righteousness (answering: How am I brought into the righteousness of God thru Christ?) AND social ecclesiology (answering: Who are all included in this group representing the kingdom of God and how then do we relate to one another?). Rather than pit these against each other, he is embracing both. Or more accurately, he's allowing the 2nd category to be added to the first.
@@chaddonal4331 to put them together is to get justification fundamentally wrong. Justification is by faith alone. Does it lead to other things? Yes. But to add other things in is to get the gospel wrong entirely.
@@mattfuller651 Perhaps the first is the vertical essence, and the second specifies the horizontal implications. The "problem" of firmly separating the second is that the eccesiastical intention of how a justified people should relate to one another (what Wright is appropriately drawing out from Paul's application). Remember, Wright's POV is always starting from: How would a 1st century hearer/listener of Paul have understood what he meant? Wright is calling us to consider the Jew/Gentile relations that Paul addresses in his context of Justification. There is for sure the vertical emphasis -- of being made right with God through faith. But there is also the expanding movement of the gospel that now includes/envelopes people that didn't previously have the same access. And their (now "our" -- 2k years later) inclusion needed to be recognized and embraced by the Jews -- who were resisting the social implications of a gospel for the whole world. This is not altogether different from trying to embrace both Paul's and James' views on Justification (rather than pitting them against each other). They also have different emphases. Paul generally emphasized being justified before God. James was concerned about social justification before/among others. Wright gives us a way forward in reconciling Paul and James without the common false conclusions (i.e. Luther -- to deny James should be in the Canon. or many other Reformed: try to make James sound like he's repeating Paul, instead of acknowledging his different emphasis.) So, no -- expanding our understanding of Justification and seeing horizontal implications does Not "get the gospel wrong entirely". Rather, it allows us to see a fuller orbed, less reductive gospel. And it allows us to make full sense of Paul's wordings, which otherwise we simply overlook or misinterpret.
He was definitely speaking to MLK's social views, not his theological views....and he followed up to make it very clear. It would be more wise for you not to be so closed-minded to avoid hearing and understanding based on a maybe poor analogy
Wrong. So many are fooled by this. The social reality mostly is, and must be because that is the subject matter-even by these hot shots-almost ALL taken directly from studying Paul and the New Testament. Yet so many are rushing to read this guy as authority on Paul. ??? Any sketchy additional writings and speculation is then given PRIMARY authority to leverage key criticisms like: I don't like Jews being called legalistic in Paul; that gives a bad impression....That must be something American cultural or passe individualism. Just stick with the words of Paul, not a few verses as Mr. Bird does, but work carefully with Paul's complete & complex arguments and points. It must be read as a complete work. Don't let people push you over so easily. What grade is this audience? Can you read for yourself, Paul directly? Yes there indeed is a new religion, ever-new. The actual NEW religion? Paul being called to function as messenger from Christ to interpret the birth, life & death, resurrect & return of Christ. They want to undermine that -in whatever way will work-by undermining Paul's authority, bit by bit. Looked at horizontally? What is missing in THEIR social picture is that the New Testament are the writings, and most closely so Paul's work (divinely inspired writings, new scripture) of the BIRTH of the actual new religion. AND this new religion must define itself relative to Judaism-see the full story, Luke-Acts and then Paul's letters et al-and this religion's birth was exciting and perfectly fit, though at some key points painful & confusing-BUT all in order to explain their CHANGED IDENTITY and new understandings, beliefs, and commitments. So many actually were Jewish (mixed with Greeks already God worshipers in synagogue) Read Romans until you get the arguments over & over: yes, Jews are a central part of the tree, and there will be a Jewish REMNANT. But NEITHER Jew nor Gentile should ASSUME, with any cocky over-confidence, a place. ANY branches at all can be thrown in the fire without a qualm. Of course NONE of these scholarly non-believers will be part of God's redemption, except in a rather deserving way-the very thing they need to hear about they certainly do NOT want to hear. So these secularized wide-open "scholars" claiming to revisit the 1st century JEWS. Many 1st century Jews of Palestine were in transition to Christianity, from a lowly position and these scholars ridiculously & proudly insist THEY can assume a better more correct 1st century JEWISH perspective to protect the Sadducees & the Pharisees from any judgment! Paul was a Pharisee; Jesus was a Jewish teacher. So PAUL'S writing, using OT Scriptural support, is EXACTLY what explains the social, the historical-& more importantly, the demands of this new religious movement, it's commitments & purpose AND full carefully precise NEW THEOLOGICAL position in submission before our shared God! (How arrogant & insane can these modern new scholars be! Funny, but not. It's all lies for their resumes And so, WE STILL as Paul must insist on the authority of our own religion WHICH WILL UNAVOIDABLY, INEVITABLY, be over against Judaism to some extent because it actually WAS historically so. They are not able to bring "new" sociology, & new history to that task; they can only dismantle and undermine the religion to fix it for their new eschaton & their new ecclesia of inclusive authoritarianism and their modern movement condemnations-perhaps with some social redemption & new religious reconciliation tagged on somehow. No, no one should be sitting here tolerating this Slick Willy. PS: These folks are actively working to compromise ("unite" "ecumenically") with ANYTHING & ANYONE! AGAINST obvious established truths of Christ the Savior of the World, in order to support a superior leftist secular vision-a SUPPOSEDLY world-wide lying & sinking love-boat. Meanwhile there are about 1 billion Protestants & growing around the world alive today and many others over the last 2000 years; not to mention Jewish believers who are faith-filled God worshippers. May God save us from this rapidly-spreading false (old, shape-shifty heretical) dance of death & its SELF-arrogant endless infiltration. Seminarians, wake up, don't Woke down.
This sounds like universalism, and not faith through grace for the believing heart while the slave in unbelief is not qualified for the inheritance. I know my bible, and I know it well. You say you are very inclusive, in your jesting, but Hebrews 3-4 , 6 and 10 are crystal clear that only those who repent agree with Jesus on their sin and sin nature of spiritual separation and Spiritual death with GOD, will be born again into the One New Mankind Do OVER in Christ, and that we must believe with faith that GOD is a rewarder of those who seek him, and take his grace pardon, cleansing us of all sin, as we stated on the cross My GOD My GOD, why have you forsaken me? ( Ps 22 and he acts it out in Mathew 27, I believe) The answer you are supposed to understand to his question that perfect man (God) is asking, is "For you". He is taking your place of being forsaken and taking the punishment in his flesh and tasting spiritual death from the Father, as the anointed Last Adam, and offers us glorification eventually, and a sinless nature.
It's not so easy (in fact in most cases its impossible) to fellowship with churches who hold radically different doctrinal beliefs. For example I'm an evangelical and I can't stomach hyper charismatics.
I've found that reading "Source Material" rather than hearing scholars like James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, etc., being criticized by a scholar that has barely touched the scholarship that either of those scholars have, is far more helpful in understanding the likes of Dunn, Wright, etc. I'd encourage anyone who's willing to hear from a critic like Michael Bird, to also read the ones he's critical of, especially when Bird seems to like to entertain his audience with comments like "unholy trio", etc. There's a degree of immaturity to those sorts of comments, in my opinion. It's been my experience to see most readers never touching a volume that's been criticized like Bird is doing. This is typical, but not at all fair to the conversation of matters like the so-called New Perspective on Paul. Try reading the scholars that have done the work that Bird seems not to have done yet.
What are you blathering about? Bird wrote a whole introduction to the New Testament with N.T Wright! He knows more about it than you. You’re not even a scholar. Get off your high horse.
So just to be clear, in Australian culture it is quite common to give a bit of cheek towards people we respect and get along with. I think you're missing some of Bird's humour and perspective on this as he isn't attacking anyone really. Original sources are important though, sure; that's why I think it is crucial to study the words of Paul in his Epistles for yourself. Bird is very balanced here anyway.
In all of these dicussions the words of Paul has replaced the Eternal Word, Jesus Emmanuel as the supreme authority in His Church, when He said teach them to obey every command I have commanded you to obey, in Matthew chapter 28
_Jesus (the RISEN Messiah) sent his true disciples to ALL Gentiles:_ Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: *and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.* _And the RISEN Messiah said he would be with them "unto the end of the world. Amen.*_ _If they did not continue in the Messiah's word they would not be his true disciples._ John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;* _But Jesus' disciples did continue in his word._ _And just how is it we can know they continued in his word?_ _The gospel of Mark says they did._ Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mark 16:20 And *they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them,* and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. _Paul falsely claimed they agreed (with Paul) not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word. This is “contrariwise” to what the gospel of Mark says._ Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; *that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.* _Paul falsely claimed that the disciples agreed not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word._ _But the gospel of Mark says they did._ _It is Paul and Paul's gospel that does not continue in the Messiah's word._ _Paul is a false disciple and a false apostle._
The mystery Paul talks about is the church and no the people of God (Israel). After the transition tome its now mire thst Jews can join the church and not visa versa. We work as missionary. Our message is relationship with God. Being a child of God you also became part of the churcg, the body of Christ. Theis has always been christian conviction.
I find a very narrow understanding of grace and faith expressed here which is typical of Protestants, especially American Protestants; too much cross and not enough resurrection and ascension.
I disagree. The New Perspective on Paul does NOT necessitate the breaking down of a culture's social structures, mores and norms. This is a Cultural Marxist reading of Scripture. In fact, Scripture sets up certain social-hierarchical normals that are diametrically opposed to Cultural Marxism. Ever do a thorough study of the biblical concept of submission? Additionally, there is the "great chain of existence" which is a hierarchy stretching from God the Father down to the sub-atomic elements. St. Thomas Aquinas roots this in the simplicity of God and the convert-ability of goodness and being by which the overflow of God's goodness is expressed in the cacophony of creation with its fantastic levels of the perfection of that goodness. Therefore, a dog has a greater amount of goodness (and perfection) than a slug.
Look, people of God, this is ridiculous. Paul had big problems with "the Jews." We can't downplay the scripture. Yes, there is a horizontal blockade of entrance. Yes, absolutely. But Paul's answer is not horizontal, but vertical, that is faith in the truth, the Gospel story, and some truths which were given only to Paul, what he arrogantly calls "my Gospel, the theological implications of the story: That "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that he was raised from the dead, you shall be saved." As for the law, this is Paul's problem. Christ has "abolished in his flesh the commandments is ordinances," being the "end of the law unto righteousness." In fact, Paul is adamant: "You who are of the law are cut off (separated, divorced) from Christ; you are fallen from grace." Now, we have "fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin" as John puts it. As Paul would say, "we have entrance by this grace in which we stand." And if you won't hear Paul, hear the author of Hebrews: "How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?" Don't be fooled, Galatians of now.
I agree and for what its worth, the traditional view is that Paul is the author of Hebrews. Not until 1800's did this come into question. Other than that...well done.
@@mr.deconcini3262 I don't think he is the author. Hebrews 4:12 clearly divides "soul" from "spirit," and that's not a Pauline dichotomy. He has many: 1. flesh vs spirit 2. outer man vs. inner man 3. new man vs. old man 4. mind vs. body but he never speaks of a soul. ?? The Greek of Hebrews is not Pauline in style either. Thanks for the reply to this old comment. It makes no sense when I read it again.
AVOID The FALSE Teachings of Paul ... He is the Self Appointed Apostle Who Never Met Jesus ,, He Has 3 Different Versions of he Story of Seeing Jesus ,,, Thats Because he LIED About Meeting and Talking to Jesus ... A LIAR Cannot Keep his Story Straight because Paul MADE UP the Story... If Jesus Wanted Paul Then Paul Would have been one of his chosen 12 Apostles and Paul WAS NOT Chosen by Jesus for ANYTHING ...
Right. These folks should stop obsessing over Paul. That would be good. Perhaps just make up their own religion out of whole clothe. That's too much trouble & not as much $$$$$ & status.
_In his letters to the Galatians and Romans Paul falsely claimed to be the apostle of the Gentiles._ _The RISEN Messiah's foretelling given to his true disicples reveals this._
@@Jus4kiks 1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. It appears 1Cor does not believe. He die daily.
I will gladly go to a multicultural church in a black neighbourhood if and when the black neighbourhood has same crime statistics as a majority white neighborhood. check the statistics to see what I'm taking about. there is a reason I don't go strolling in inner cities, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. As a little girl I was taught to stay away from neighbourhoods where I could easily become a victim of a crime. once I saw a drug n cash exchange right in front of a church in a neighbourhood not even a terribly bad one. that alone could get me just for witnessing. car broken into constantly. new glass expensive. even broken glass when car left unlocked. even in a very decent neighbourhood, not being outside a scantily clad young woman in the middle of a night should not be. we should use discernment for our safety at all times. This video was posted three years ago, so maybe this M. Bird guy is a little more up to date by now as to what the real cultural issues actually are? how can someone who claims to have discernment of finer details of historical and theological details have such a lack of discernment of current socio/political state of being? makes no sense.
I think this kind of reading places too much on justification BY FAITH...rather Paul places the emphasis upon having the promised Holy Spirit..(c.f. Gordon Fee) That unity was seen in greater practical ways in the effects of the charismatic movement bring unity amongst different ethnic cultural and denominations... in contrast to ecumenical efforts and theological summits .
I think these are initially different issues you are conflating. Justification IS "by faith". And it has to do with being made right with God (for salvation), and as Wright is adding: being right with other believers (ecclesiology). Gordon Fee's emphasis is on New Covenant realities for those who are now God's people -- that this is the Age of the Spirit. So, Justification has to do with the entrance, the door. The Age of the Spirit has to do with the substance, how we live. But then your practical point is well taken: The Spirit does more to bring unity than all our strategies! Good point.
@@chaddonal4331I think that depends if you have a reading of justification like Calvin or Luther. Luther saw justification not as a "once", an entry point, but on going. For Luther baptism was the entry point. (Though Gordon Fee maintains the Spirit comes thru faith not baptism, though he holds that baptism does something.)
I have followed the NPP since my university lecturer mentioned EP Sanders in 1982. By that time I, a Roman Catholic charismatic, had encountered Reformed Evangelical paulinism at university and was left puzzled by the way that the gospels were relegated to mere ethics or to preparatory reading for paul. I was also puzzled by the continual calls from my Protestant friends to “get saved” (I prayed the sinner’s prayer about 10 times on 10 occasions with 10 different people before I refused to pray it again). Anyway, I’ve gained a lot of insight into the NPP debate since then but…. Nothing has come close to the wonderful unity in the body of Christ during the great charismatic revival of the 1970’s when Christians from different denominations would break bread together, pray and worship together, and tackle social injustice together. The revival was justification by faith in both doctrine and practice; vertically and horizontally; locally and internationally; word and spirit; head and heart…and all of it Jesus-centred. GOD DO IT AGAIN!
@@worshiponpiano3771 as NPP follower I'd recommend you delve into John Barclays two recent books "Paul and the gift" and "Paul and the Power of Grace" . There is even two lectures he gave at the Vatican on the central content of the first book on RUclips. John Barclay is an Anglican, I'd assume a charismatic as he also did a series at a major Assemblies of God Theological college. He actually successfully, I think pushes back against criticisms of Luther and sees Luther as a genius in contextualizing Paul's message to the inner struggle Mediaeval Catholics had. Barclay tried to do the same in our culture over issues of identity. Barclay corrects the Protestant idea that "everyone is seeking to work/ merit their way to heaven" as NPP do, but demonstrates Paul's revelation of the crucified Messiah makes any human or religious worth obsolete. That would include Catholic reliance upon tradition or identity..as any Protestant too. I await it's translation into the pew and in messages of evangelists and the social network. About the sinners prayer...it's only once mentioned (publicans have mercy on me a sinner) .. the issue of salvation is the here and now trust in the person of Christ..and acceptance of what he provided..and delivered in baptism. I was for many years an Anglican and I heard God put on my heart to attend a new Pentecostal church that had 27 people..it not 200 in 18 months. I had to follow where God wanted me for now, not what I liked or where my family wanted me. My experience of Charismatic Catholics is they hold where they are from family expectations which can be a hindrance to being and learning . I might return to my Anglican network one day.. but the allegiance isn't to any church of family but to the living Christ.
The simple truth is Jesus chose Paul to go to the gentiles to correct the mistake Peter made in Acts 10:48 when he water baptised gentiles after receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Peter was acting like a Jew continuing on ceremonial washing old Jewish custom mitzvah. Evidence ...Galatians 2:14 Paul Opposes Peter for forcing gentiles to follow old Jewish customs. The hidden truth of today's Christianity is water baptism was only for John the Baptist to baptised Jesus. John 1:31-35 There's only one baptism today the baptism of the Holy Spirit 😇
_Jesus (the RISEN Messiah) sent his true disciples to ALL Gentiles:_ Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: *and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.* _And the RISEN Messiah said he would be with them "unto the end of the world. Amen.*_ _If they did not continue in the Messiah's word they would not be his true disciples._ John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;* _But Jesus' disciples did continue in his word._ _And just how is it we can know they continued in his word?_ _The gospel of Mark says they did._ Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Mark 16:20 And *they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them,* and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. _Paul falsely claimed they agreed (with Paul) not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word. This is “contrariwise” to what the gospel of Mark says._ Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; *that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.* _Paul falsely claimed that the disciples agreed not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word._ _But the gospel of Mark says they did._ _It is Paul and Paul's gospel that does not continue in the Messiah's word._ _Paul is a false disciple and a false apostle._
@@KeepingWatch95 Hi, The 1st problem today with Christianity is the misunderstanding of Matthew 28:19. This is not the great commission the real great commission is . Acts 1:4-5 These were the last words of Jesus on Earth, he gave the apostles a command. do not leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift my father promised ......the baptism of the Holy Spirit.. You can notice, he does not tell the apostle to water baptize... Matthew 28:19 was Jesus telling the apostles what he was commanded to do . as is what John the Baptist preached for I baptized with water, but the one coming after me will baptized with the Holy Spirit .....Jesus Acts 1:4-5 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water,( Only John) but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
@@artistart55 Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. Matthew 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? Matthew 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. _Jesus sown the good seed. Right after the enemy came and sown the tares among the good seed._ _Good seed = the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John._ _The tares were sown then after._ _Everyone knows Jesus came and sown the good seed._
@@artistart55 _After Jesus' resurrection he sent his eleven disciples to the Gentiles “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”_ Matthew 28:16 Then *the eleven disciples* went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. Matthew 28:18 And *Jesus came and spake unto them,* saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:20 *Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:* and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. _Matthew 28:19 uses the Greek word (ἔθνος) “nations” and is Strong's concordance # G1484_ G1484 ἔθνος ethnos eth'-nos Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people. _ἔθνος is a Greek word which meaning is Gentiles, heathen, nation, people._
I like this guy. He is a great communicator and actually engages with the new perspective for a Christian audience rather than dismissing it because it doesnt fit with exactly with reformed doctrine
I'm new to getting into New Perspective but hadn't heard of Michael Bird before. I am extremely grateful for this discussion through Southeastern Seminary - thank you for hosting this talk and getting Dr. Bird's answers to these questions out here for the public. I hope Christians can see what Paul is saying on the sociological level, and although soteriology isn't absent, that believers can seek Christian unity above imposing their own views specifically of atonement into Paul's writings.
He is arguably the standard on the topic as well as the standard via media position. He is my "go-to" across the board on Paul. I consult his work on every topic regarding Paul.
Checkout Scot McKnight's video on NPP.
A very illuminating discussion. Dr. Bird avoids the emotional rhetoric which as divided prominent leaders of the church. We should all follow his example in our quest to be ministers of reconciliation.
I had no idea that the intellectual class, the seminarian educated. . . Had become so naïve and frivolous. This conquest for “truth” by a rearranging deck chairs on a large boat… Discovering some new truth in the process. I find it hard to believe that Pauline scholars would know so little about the apostle himself. Frankly, I’m shocked.
Dr. Bird's analysis of the orientations of commentators is inspired. Linguistics calls the phenomenon he mentions that separates commentators as networks of linguistic collocates around terms. Excellent views.
On first listen, I thought "Oh this was very helpful" but after diving into the issues that caused all the controversy I was left puzzled. What is justification? What is righteousness? Those seem like the two most important questions as far as what the controversy was all about. The themes mentioned here are good insights but there's nothing controversial about them. Did Wright in particular change his view on justification and righteousness or is he sticking to his guns?
There is a debate between NT Wright and James White titled ' NT Wright Vs James White - St Paul and Justification' which you may wish to check out.
I love the guy who says, 'the text is clear, we believe in faith alone', then read James 2 and start to tap dance on the role of works.
The Bible is not a tossing up of Tarot cards to see which lands. Try reading Paul. That is the topic under discussion.
I really enjoyed Michael Bird. He brought a fun levity to the conversation.
this "talk" is likely the most significant marker, as it were, in my theological development. a truly mind opening introduction to the Post-NPP viewpoint.
A marker? What do you mean by that?
@@js1817 - marker = identify point. this interview was a watershed moment in my theological development bc I finally understood what the NPP and Pauline scholarship outside of the Reformed tradition was on about.
@@MatthewHendren the New Perspective on Paul is really just the Roman Catholic view of Paul. The problem is that so many Protestants live in a theological bubble, that they have never been exposed to ideas outside their echo chamber.
@@mosesking2923 - i would disagree re: NPP = RC Paul - but i can respectfully disagree while granting where you might be coming from on this. there are many points that could be interpreted as such, especially when RC scholars are using NPP to create room for RC positions. but, with the NPP, as is the case with most ideas/frameworks, there are many destinations that can be found along wide paths.
Michael Bird is the man
We love having Michael Bird visit us on our campus! Thanks for watching Akim and make sure to subscribe for more great content like this!
Southeastern Seminary will do, thanks SES!
@A P
Yeah... he seems to be reading 'critical race theory' into the scriptures. Definitely "cringe" as you say
@@eew8060 cRt is DeStRoYiNg tHe gOsPeL
@A P sir this is a wendys
M. Bird is great! His work with N.T Wright is amazing
Heavy weight theologian often misunderstood in the american individualistic theological thinking. Great speaker!!!!!
No more Jew or nor gentile.. it's either grace not works or works and not grace..Because he is a scholar, doesn't make him right. Let no one confuse you about justification..God bless.. Toni's husband
This guy is right on.
Galatians 3 ... The blessings of Abraham: To be right with God, to be declared justified by faith is the blessing.
The cross is both horizontal and vertical.
I would have hated to be in that audience and get asked a question. I am so dumb.
Amen..Imagine how I feel being a Pauline mid Acts dispensationalist.. God bless..Toni's hubby..
@@tonimccoy9778 _Jesus (the RISEN Messiah) sent his true disciples to ALL Gentiles:_
Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: *and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.*
_And the RISEN Messiah said he would be with them "unto the end of the world. Amen.*_
_If they did not continue in the Messiah's word they would not be his true disciples._
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;*
_But Jesus' disciples did continue in his word._
_And just how is it we can know they continued in his word?_
_The gospel of Mark says they did._
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mark 16:20 And *they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them,* and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
_Paul falsely claimed they agreed (with Paul) not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word. This is “contrariwise” to what the gospel of Mark says._
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; *that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.*
_Paul falsely claimed that the disciples agreed not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word._
_But the gospel of Mark says they did._
_It is Paul and Paul's gospel that does not continue in the Messiah's word._
_Paul is a false disciple and a false apostle._
@@tonimccoy9778 can’t imagine, what’s the gospel for today in ur system?
One is joined to Christ in a grace relationship, not a covenant relationship. We have covenant benefits via the sovereignty of the executor, not via a covenant relationship.
Very interesting.. although the title is misleading, it is not a debate !
I think what it meant was Library Talk on the scholarly debate of the New Perspective on Paul rather than saying it is a debate of this topic
What the heck please is "loren gospel"? One can't understand what he is saying if he is going to use jargon. And when I google it how it sounds Google has got no bleeping clue.
law & gospel?
@@arabniga Yes,, Law and gospel. Rightly dividing scripture, knowing the difference between Law and Gospel/old covenant and new covenant.
Aussie accent!
Some segments in the video are stamped not adjacent to each other
AMEN!
Jennifer, we're glad you found this discussion beneficial! Thanks for watching and make sure to subscribe for more great content like this!
Hmmm. Where is was the debate? Seemed very one sided to me.
This Michael Bird is a machine!
Too bad you guys weren't "well instructed." Penal substitution?
Bird ought to make a distinction between the Israel of God and National Israel. Like Paul does time and again. Peter was rebuked for placing the Covenantal/Horizontal aspect of Covenant in Wrights terms, over, against the Eschatological/Vertical. There is no covenant community apart from Christ. There is no Israel apart from Christ.
Excellent. The two distinctions are not Biblical, for a reason. People put themselves first. Sociologist can't find it in themselves to believe in a living God.
N.T.W.s teaching does not heal racism. Its the experience of grace.
Acts 15 proves that at least some Jewish Christians were equating law observance and circumcision in particular, with our salvation. (Acts 15 verse 1). Notice how Peter and the other apostles counteract their opponents with talk of God’s grace. This is the Old Perspective loud and clear.
I don't think NPP would disagree with that.
But see that in Acts what happens is quite different than the view of the reformers. Roman Catholics never preached law observance and circumcision needed for salvation.
More reformed christians would say that catholics believe that is faith+works while reformers belive faith alone saves us.
But I believe Paul had slightly different understanding of what "faith" is and his main concern was teaching obedience to the law for salvation instead of teaching obedience to Christ.
It looks like for Paul that what we do (like do we walk in sin or holiness) is crucial to our salvation.
@@dimitartodorov4826 I agree with that too. What we do in obedience certainly matters, alongside faith. But I think the order also matters. It's saved by grace through faith which leads to good works. It has to be in that order: grace then works. Ephesians 2 / Titus 2 / Titus 3.
13:25
These people are thinking, "Partner with a black church...yeah, right..."
The New Perspective on Paul attempts to undermine the findings of the Jerusalem Council which came down on the side of justification by faith: see Acts 15. especially verses 7-11 We must follow Paul and not let men like Wright dilute the Gospel. Maybe Wright never read Romans 2:16, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Paul's Gospel is laid bare in Phil. 3, which has to mean that Wright companies with the people Paul had in mind in 2 Cor. 11:13-14, " For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.."
So true
Agree- Bird seems to be a disciple of Wright - I am not following what he says at all when he talks about Ephesians 2. It is actually nonsensical - watch out for those peddling something new - it can be similar to LDS and Jehovahs witnesses. Our protection is to stay in the word and discern the truth.
Why would you call this interview a "debate" when you have no representative of the patristic and reformed interpretation?
a transformed Israel will transform the world
great
notice also the distinctive use of 'we' (holy ones, Jews) and 'you' (believers, gentiles) in the letters to Efesians and Kolosians. (see what Mark Kinzer wrote about that.
So basically the implication of all this is to have multi-ethnic congregation?
You needed npp to arrive to that?
We forgot about unity of church regardless of race or class or status. Present churches cluster around these divides. No?
Saying that a proper understanding of Paul unites Martin Luther and Martin Luther King was a HUGE red flag. Those two have nothing in common because MLK was a heretic who denied several fundamental doctrines including the resurrection of Christ. They cannot be brought together. His expanding the gospel to include a horizontal element results from his confusing the scope of the gospel with its content. This is terribly concerning that a SBC seminary would promote such careless theology.
Matt Fuller. Perhaps rather than "unite" the 2 "Luther's", Bird's post-NPP offers an umbrella that can include the primary concerns of both. Bird is not giving MLK a theological pass. Rather, Bird is including MLK's concern for racial justice and harmony to be among the issues that Justification addresses and includes.
So, a full orbed view of justification is inclusive of both personal righteousness (answering: How am I brought into the righteousness of God thru Christ?) AND social ecclesiology (answering: Who are all included in this group representing the kingdom of God and how then do we relate to one another?). Rather than pit these against each other, he is embracing both. Or more accurately, he's allowing the 2nd category to be added to the first.
@@chaddonal4331 to put them together is to get justification fundamentally wrong. Justification is by faith alone. Does it lead to other things? Yes. But to add other things in is to get the gospel wrong entirely.
@@mattfuller651 Perhaps the first is the vertical essence, and the second specifies the horizontal implications.
The "problem" of firmly separating the second is that the eccesiastical intention of how a justified people should relate to one another (what Wright is appropriately drawing out from Paul's application).
Remember, Wright's POV is always starting from: How would a 1st century hearer/listener of Paul have understood what he meant? Wright is calling us to consider the Jew/Gentile relations that Paul addresses in his context of Justification. There is for sure the vertical emphasis -- of being made right with God through faith. But there is also the expanding movement of the gospel that now includes/envelopes people that didn't previously have the same access. And their (now "our" -- 2k years later) inclusion needed to be recognized and embraced by the Jews -- who were resisting the social implications of a gospel for the whole world.
This is not altogether different from trying to embrace both Paul's and James' views on Justification (rather than pitting them against each other). They also have different emphases. Paul generally emphasized being justified before God. James was concerned about social justification before/among others. Wright gives us a way forward in reconciling Paul and James without the common false conclusions (i.e. Luther -- to deny James should be in the Canon. or many other Reformed: try to make James sound like he's repeating Paul, instead of acknowledging his different emphasis.) So, no -- expanding our understanding of Justification and seeing horizontal implications does Not "get the gospel wrong entirely". Rather, it allows us to see a fuller orbed, less reductive gospel. And it allows us to make full sense of Paul's wordings, which otherwise we simply overlook or misinterpret.
I struggle with this with all the denominations and non denominational churches. Theology divides, Christ unites. How do we reconcile the two?
He was definitely speaking to MLK's social views, not his theological views....and he followed up to make it very clear.
It would be more wise for you not to be so closed-minded to avoid hearing and understanding based on a maybe poor analogy
I agree...
Wrong. So many are fooled by this. The social reality mostly is, and must be because that is the subject matter-even by these hot shots-almost ALL taken directly from studying Paul and the New Testament. Yet so many are rushing to read this guy as authority on Paul. ??? Any sketchy additional writings and speculation is then given PRIMARY authority to leverage key criticisms like: I don't like Jews being called legalistic in Paul; that gives a bad impression....That must be something American cultural or passe individualism.
Just stick with the words of Paul, not a few verses as Mr. Bird does, but work carefully with Paul's complete & complex arguments and points. It must be read as a complete work. Don't let people push you over so easily. What grade is this audience? Can you read for yourself, Paul directly?
Yes there indeed is a new religion, ever-new. The actual NEW religion? Paul being called to function as messenger from Christ to interpret the birth, life & death, resurrect & return of Christ. They want to undermine that -in whatever way will work-by undermining Paul's authority, bit by bit.
Looked at horizontally?
What is missing in THEIR social picture is that the New Testament are the writings, and most closely so Paul's work (divinely inspired writings, new scripture) of the BIRTH of the actual new religion. AND this new religion must define itself relative to Judaism-see the full story, Luke-Acts and then Paul's letters et al-and this religion's birth was exciting and perfectly fit, though at some key points painful & confusing-BUT all in order to explain their CHANGED IDENTITY and new understandings, beliefs, and commitments.
So many actually were Jewish (mixed with Greeks already God worshipers in synagogue) Read Romans until you get the arguments over & over: yes, Jews are a central part of the tree, and there will be a Jewish REMNANT. But NEITHER Jew nor Gentile should ASSUME, with any cocky over-confidence, a place. ANY branches at all can be thrown in the fire without a qualm. Of course NONE of these scholarly non-believers will be part of God's redemption, except in a rather deserving way-the very thing they need to hear about they certainly do NOT want to hear.
So these secularized wide-open "scholars" claiming to revisit the 1st century JEWS. Many 1st century Jews of Palestine were in transition to Christianity, from a lowly position and these scholars ridiculously & proudly insist THEY can assume a better more correct 1st century JEWISH perspective to protect the Sadducees & the Pharisees from any judgment! Paul was a Pharisee; Jesus was a Jewish teacher.
So PAUL'S writing, using OT Scriptural support, is EXACTLY what explains the social, the historical-& more importantly, the demands of this new religious movement, it's commitments & purpose AND full carefully precise NEW THEOLOGICAL position in submission before our shared God! (How arrogant & insane can these modern new scholars be! Funny, but not. It's all lies for their resumes
And so, WE STILL as Paul must insist on the authority of our own religion WHICH WILL UNAVOIDABLY, INEVITABLY, be over against Judaism to some extent because it actually WAS historically so. They are not able to bring "new" sociology, & new history to that task; they can only dismantle and undermine the religion to fix it for their new eschaton & their new ecclesia of inclusive authoritarianism and their modern movement condemnations-perhaps with some social redemption & new religious reconciliation tagged on somehow. No, no one should be sitting here tolerating this Slick Willy.
PS: These folks are actively working to compromise ("unite" "ecumenically") with ANYTHING & ANYONE!
AGAINST obvious established truths of Christ the Savior of the World, in order to support a superior leftist secular vision-a SUPPOSEDLY world-wide lying & sinking love-boat.
Meanwhile there are about 1 billion Protestants & growing around the world alive today and many others over the last 2000 years; not to mention Jewish believers who are faith-filled God worshippers. May God save us from this rapidly-spreading false (old, shape-shifty heretical) dance of death & its SELF-arrogant endless infiltration. Seminarians, wake up, don't Woke down.
This sounds like universalism, and not faith through grace for the believing heart while the slave in unbelief is not qualified for the inheritance. I know my bible, and I know it well. You say you are very inclusive, in your jesting, but Hebrews 3-4 , 6 and 10 are crystal clear that only those who repent agree with Jesus on their sin and sin nature of spiritual separation and Spiritual death with GOD, will be born again into the One New Mankind Do OVER in Christ, and that we must believe with faith that GOD is a rewarder of those who seek him, and take his grace pardon, cleansing us of all sin, as we stated on the cross My GOD My GOD, why have you forsaken me? ( Ps 22 and he acts it out in Mathew 27, I believe) The answer you are supposed to understand to his question that perfect man (God) is asking, is "For you". He is taking your place of being forsaken and taking the punishment in his flesh and tasting spiritual death from the Father, as the anointed Last Adam, and offers us glorification eventually, and a sinless nature.
It's not so easy (in fact in most cases its impossible) to fellowship with churches who hold radically different doctrinal beliefs. For example I'm an evangelical and I can't stomach hyper charismatics.
I've found that reading "Source Material" rather than hearing scholars like James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, etc., being criticized by a scholar that has barely touched the scholarship that either of those scholars have, is far more helpful in understanding the likes of Dunn, Wright, etc. I'd encourage anyone who's willing to hear from a critic like Michael Bird, to also read the ones he's critical of, especially when Bird seems to like to entertain his audience with comments like "unholy trio", etc. There's a degree of immaturity to those sorts of comments, in my opinion. It's been my experience to see most readers never touching a volume that's been criticized like Bird is doing. This is typical, but not at all fair to the conversation of matters like the so-called New Perspective on Paul. Try reading the scholars that have done the work that Bird seems not to have done yet.
What are you blathering about? Bird wrote a whole introduction to the New Testament with N.T Wright! He knows more about it than you. You’re not even a scholar. Get off your high horse.
So just to be clear, in Australian culture it is quite common to give a bit of cheek towards people we respect and get along with. I think you're missing some of Bird's humour and perspective on this as he isn't attacking anyone really. Original sources are important though, sure; that's why I think it is crucial to study the words of Paul in his Epistles for yourself. Bird is very balanced here anyway.
Dr. Bird is brilliant but naive. It's clear that he's never pioneered a church in an ethnically diverse area.
In all of these dicussions the words of Paul has replaced the Eternal Word, Jesus Emmanuel as the supreme authority in His Church, when He said teach them to obey every command I have commanded you to obey, in Matthew chapter 28
_Jesus (the RISEN Messiah) sent his true disciples to ALL Gentiles:_
Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: *and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.*
_And the RISEN Messiah said he would be with them "unto the end of the world. Amen.*_
_If they did not continue in the Messiah's word they would not be his true disciples._
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;*
_But Jesus' disciples did continue in his word._
_And just how is it we can know they continued in his word?_
_The gospel of Mark says they did._
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mark 16:20 And *they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them,* and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
_Paul falsely claimed they agreed (with Paul) not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word. This is “contrariwise” to what the gospel of Mark says._
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; *that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.*
_Paul falsely claimed that the disciples agreed not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word._
_But the gospel of Mark says they did._
_It is Paul and Paul's gospel that does not continue in the Messiah's word._
_Paul is a false disciple and a false apostle._
perhaps some day in the future the Protestant crowd will cease to caricature, not only the Jewish faith, but also the catholic faith
New… we don’t need new in a 2000 year old faith. New usually means wrong.
The mystery Paul talks about is the church and no the people of God (Israel). After the transition tome its now mire thst Jews can join the church and not visa versa. We work as missionary. Our message is relationship with God. Being a child of God you also became part of the churcg, the body of Christ. Theis has always been christian conviction.
I find a very narrow understanding of grace and faith expressed here which is typical of Protestants, especially American Protestants; too much cross and not enough resurrection and ascension.
New Perspective sounds like Social Gospel just dressed somewhat differently.
That would be quite a misunderstanding of both the Social Gospel and of the New Perspective.
And so does the POST New Perspective. They just modify what they can't get away with to infiltrate more. They are parasitic.
I disagree. The New Perspective on Paul does NOT necessitate the breaking down of a culture's social structures, mores and norms. This is a Cultural Marxist reading of Scripture. In fact, Scripture sets up certain social-hierarchical normals that are diametrically opposed to Cultural Marxism. Ever do a thorough study of the biblical concept of submission? Additionally, there is the "great chain of existence" which is a hierarchy stretching from God the Father down to the sub-atomic elements. St. Thomas Aquinas roots this in the simplicity of God and the convert-ability of goodness and being by which the overflow of God's goodness is expressed in the cacophony of creation with its fantastic levels of the perfection of that goodness. Therefore, a dog has a greater amount of goodness (and perfection) than a slug.
Look, people of God, this is ridiculous. Paul had big problems with "the Jews." We can't downplay the scripture. Yes, there is a horizontal blockade of entrance. Yes, absolutely. But Paul's answer is not horizontal, but vertical, that is faith in the truth, the Gospel story, and some truths which were given only to Paul, what he arrogantly calls "my Gospel, the theological implications of the story: That "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that he was raised from the dead, you shall be saved." As for the law, this is Paul's problem. Christ has "abolished in his flesh the commandments is ordinances," being the "end of the law unto righteousness." In fact, Paul is adamant: "You who are of the law are cut off (separated, divorced) from Christ; you are fallen from grace."
Now, we have "fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin" as John puts it.
As Paul would say, "we have entrance by this grace in which we stand."
And if you won't hear Paul, hear the author of Hebrews: "How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?"
Don't be fooled, Galatians of now.
I agree and for what its worth, the traditional view is that Paul is the author of Hebrews. Not until 1800's did this come into question. Other than that...well done.
@@mr.deconcini3262 I don't think he is the author. Hebrews 4:12 clearly divides "soul" from "spirit," and that's not a Pauline dichotomy. He has many:
1. flesh vs spirit
2. outer man vs. inner man
3. new man vs. old man
4. mind vs. body
but he never speaks of a soul. ?? The Greek of Hebrews is not Pauline in style either.
Thanks for the reply to this old comment. It makes no sense when I read it again.
@@Typoreal another theory that is seemingly backed up by Peter in 1 Peter is that it is the letter from Paul to the Hebrews but written by Luke.
@@Typoreal haven’t heard that part before. Thank you for sharing it
@@Typoreal Yes, thanks for that correction. He certainly does. The trichotomy threw me. I didn't think of that. Very astute!
God's grace is not synergistic - the way protestant read the Bible and pretend they are right is pretty laughable
AVOID The FALSE Teachings of Paul ... He is the Self Appointed Apostle Who Never Met Jesus ,, He Has 3 Different Versions of he Story of Seeing Jesus ,,, Thats Because he LIED About Meeting and Talking to Jesus ... A LIAR Cannot Keep his Story Straight because Paul MADE UP the Story... If Jesus Wanted Paul Then Paul Would have been one of his chosen 12 Apostles and Paul WAS NOT Chosen by Jesus for ANYTHING ...
You’re accursed from God. Repent and humble yourself.
Right. These folks should stop obsessing over Paul. That would be good. Perhaps just make up their own religion out of whole clothe. That's too much trouble & not as much $$$$$ & status.
... a lot of empty talk.
_In his letters to the Galatians and Romans Paul falsely claimed to be the apostle of the Gentiles._
_The RISEN Messiah's foretelling given to his true disicples reveals this._
Repent and believe.
@@Jus4kiks John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
@@Jus4kiks The Messiah speaks the tuth; "shall never die"
Then he asks; "Believest thou this?"
@@Jus4kiks 1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
It appears 1Cor does not believe. He die daily.
@@Jus4kiks Matthew 22:32 ... God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
I will gladly go to a multicultural church in a black neighbourhood if and when the black neighbourhood has same crime statistics as a majority white neighborhood. check the statistics to see what I'm taking about.
there is a reason I don't go strolling in inner cities, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin.
As a little girl I was taught to stay away from neighbourhoods where I could easily become a victim of a crime. once I saw a drug n cash exchange right in front of a church in a neighbourhood not even a terribly bad one. that alone could get me just for witnessing. car broken into constantly. new glass expensive. even broken glass when car left unlocked.
even in a very decent neighbourhood, not being outside a scantily clad young woman in the middle of a night should not be. we should use discernment for our safety at all times.
This video was posted three years ago, so maybe this M. Bird guy is a little more up to date by now as to what the real cultural issues actually are?
how can someone who claims to have discernment of finer details of historical and theological details have such a lack of discernment of current socio/political state of being? makes no sense.
This guy has serious character issues. Or, maybe it's just a lack of grace.
Hmmm, methinks you project somewhat.
I think this kind of reading places too much on justification BY FAITH...rather Paul places the emphasis upon having the promised Holy Spirit..(c.f. Gordon Fee)
That unity was seen in greater practical ways in the effects of the charismatic movement bring unity amongst different ethnic cultural and denominations... in contrast to ecumenical efforts and theological summits .
I think these are initially different issues you are conflating. Justification IS "by faith". And it has to do with being made right with God (for salvation), and as Wright is adding: being right with other believers (ecclesiology). Gordon Fee's emphasis is on New Covenant realities for those who are now God's people -- that this is the Age of the Spirit. So, Justification has to do with the entrance, the door. The Age of the Spirit has to do with the substance, how we live.
But then your practical point is well taken: The Spirit does more to bring unity than all our strategies! Good point.
@@chaddonal4331I think that depends if you have a reading of justification like Calvin or Luther. Luther saw justification not as a "once", an entry point, but on going. For Luther baptism was the entry point. (Though Gordon Fee maintains the Spirit comes thru faith not baptism, though he holds that baptism does something.)
I have followed the NPP since my university lecturer mentioned EP Sanders in 1982. By that time I, a Roman Catholic charismatic, had encountered Reformed Evangelical paulinism at university and was left puzzled by the way that the gospels were relegated to mere ethics or to preparatory reading for paul. I was also puzzled by the continual calls from my Protestant friends to “get saved” (I prayed the sinner’s prayer about 10 times on 10 occasions with 10 different people before I refused to pray it again). Anyway, I’ve gained a lot of insight into the NPP debate since then but…. Nothing has come close to the wonderful unity in the body of Christ during the great charismatic revival of the 1970’s when Christians from different denominations would break bread together, pray and worship together, and tackle social injustice together. The revival was justification by faith in both doctrine and practice; vertically and horizontally; locally and internationally; word and spirit; head and heart…and all of it Jesus-centred. GOD DO IT AGAIN!
@@worshiponpiano3771 as NPP follower I'd recommend you delve into John Barclays two recent books "Paul and the gift" and "Paul and the Power of Grace" . There is even two lectures he gave at the Vatican on the central content of the first book on RUclips. John Barclay is an Anglican, I'd assume a charismatic as he also did a series at a major Assemblies of God Theological college.
He actually successfully, I think pushes back against criticisms of Luther and sees Luther as a genius in contextualizing Paul's message to the inner struggle Mediaeval Catholics had. Barclay tried to do the same in our culture over issues of identity.
Barclay corrects the Protestant idea that "everyone is seeking to work/ merit their way to heaven" as NPP do, but demonstrates Paul's revelation of the crucified Messiah makes any human or religious worth obsolete.
That would include Catholic reliance upon tradition or identity..as any Protestant too.
I await it's translation into the pew and in messages of evangelists and the social network.
About the sinners prayer...it's only once mentioned (publicans have mercy on me a sinner) .. the issue of salvation is the here and now trust in the person of Christ..and acceptance of what he provided..and delivered in baptism.
I was for many years an Anglican and I heard God put on my heart to attend a new Pentecostal church that had 27 people..it not 200 in 18 months. I had to follow where God wanted me for now, not what I liked or where my family wanted me.
My experience of Charismatic Catholics is they hold where they are from family expectations which can be a hindrance to being and learning . I might return to my Anglican network one day.. but the allegiance isn't to any church of family but to the living Christ.
The simple truth is Jesus chose Paul to go to the gentiles to correct the mistake Peter made in Acts 10:48 when he water baptised gentiles after receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Peter was acting like a Jew continuing on ceremonial washing old Jewish custom mitzvah.
Evidence ...Galatians 2:14 Paul Opposes Peter for forcing gentiles to follow old Jewish customs.
The hidden truth of today's Christianity is water baptism was only for John the Baptist to baptised Jesus. John 1:31-35
There's only one baptism today the baptism of the Holy Spirit 😇
_Jesus (the RISEN Messiah) sent his true disciples to ALL Gentiles:_
Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: *and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.*
_And the RISEN Messiah said he would be with them "unto the end of the world. Amen.*_
_If they did not continue in the Messiah's word they would not be his true disciples._
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;*
_But Jesus' disciples did continue in his word._
_And just how is it we can know they continued in his word?_
_The gospel of Mark says they did._
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mark 16:20 And *they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them,* and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
_Paul falsely claimed they agreed (with Paul) not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word. This is “contrariwise” to what the gospel of Mark says._
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; *that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.*
_Paul falsely claimed that the disciples agreed not to continue in the RISEN Messiah's word._
_But the gospel of Mark says they did._
_It is Paul and Paul's gospel that does not continue in the Messiah's word._
_Paul is a false disciple and a false apostle._
@@KeepingWatch95
Hi,
The 1st problem today with Christianity is the misunderstanding of Matthew 28:19. This is not the great commission the real great commission is .
Acts 1:4-5
These were the last words of Jesus on Earth,
he gave the apostles a command. do not leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift my father promised ......the baptism of the Holy Spirit..
You can notice, he does not tell the apostle to water baptize...
Matthew 28:19 was Jesus telling the apostles what he was commanded to do .
as is what John the Baptist preached for I baptized with water, but the one coming after me will baptized with the Holy Spirit .....Jesus
Acts 1:4-5
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water,( Only John) but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
@@artistart55 _Jesus planted the good seeds. Then the tares where planted among the good seed._
@@artistart55 Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Matthew 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Matthew 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
_Jesus sown the good seed. Right after the enemy came and sown the tares among the good seed._
_Good seed = the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John._
_The tares were sown then after._
_Everyone knows Jesus came and sown the good seed._
@@artistart55 _After Jesus' resurrection he sent his eleven disciples to the Gentiles “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”_
Matthew 28:16 Then *the eleven disciples* went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Matthew 28:18 And *Jesus came and spake unto them,* saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matthew 28:19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:20 *Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:* and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
_Matthew 28:19 uses the Greek word (ἔθνος) “nations” and is Strong's concordance # G1484_
G1484 ἔθνος ethnos eth'-nos
Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
_ἔθνος is a Greek word which meaning is Gentiles, heathen, nation, people._