8 Differences Between the New Perspective and the Old Perspective

Подписаться 6 тыс.

Просмотров 13 тыс.

50% 1

www.patreon.com/user?u=40252988
In this video I continue to summarize the difference between the New Perspective and the Old Perspective. We discuss eight more differences of opinion which have surface since N. T. Wright delivered his seminal paper in 2003. Hope you find this helpful!

Опубликовано:

22 янв 2021

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 80

@iniduoh3791 3 года назад

Perspectives Chart (Issue - Old Per / New Per / Reform Aug) 1. Gospel - Personal / Cosmic / Both 2. Righteousness of God - Attribute or Imputed / Cov Faithfulness / Cov Faithfulness 3. Works - Evidence / Accordance with / Evidence 4. Faith - Not a Work / A Work / Not a Work 5. Justification - Declared Forgiven / Declared Cov Member / Declared Fam Member 6. Works of the Law - Moral Effort / Jewish ID Markers / Social Capitol 7. Grace - Unmerited Favor / Favor with obligations / Gift with relational ties 8. Pistis - Faith in Christ / Faithfulness of Christ / Faith in Christ 9. Imputation - Double / Single / Double 10. Faith - Trust / allegiance / Allegiance 11. Heart - Romans / Gospels / Gospels & Romans 12. Romans - Evangelistic / Church Unity / Church Unity & Doctrine 13. Historical Background - Scripture Sufficient / Background important / In-between

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

Perfect! I was thinking of doing this myself but was too lazy haha

@lydiamadonia8002 Месяц назад

You have a sharp and economic style in explaining complex concepts and ideas. Bravo! Perhaps the best theological explanation I have ever heard. What makes this video special is your opinions are shared with grace, lightness and humour. Really appreciate your work. Thank you.

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

Hey everyone, according to RU-vid analytics I can see people have been sharing my videos on Reddit and Facebook. Thanks so much! My watch time and subscriber rate have increased drastically in the last 6 days. Just wanted to let you know I see and appreciate the support!

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

This channel loves you!

@spn2240 2 года назад

New subscriber here. Great content and love how you explain and break down everything so well. Love it. Keep it up!

@joshsmith1551 3 года назад

The segue non-copyright music keeps getting better and better. Perhaps my favorite part of the video

@kyshadavies7739 3 месяца назад

I'm very grateful for this video and the previous, thank you!

@PMartyStuff 2 года назад

I throughly enjoyed both your videos. In my opinion, you succeeded in what you set up to accomplish, to make both perspectives understandable and to present fair treatments of both while presenting one that seeks to learn from both. I enjoyed your witty, disarming approach. You’d be a fun guy to discuss the scriptures over cups of coffee. Well done.

@josephgudge6685 11 дней назад

Another great video! Thank you!

@inTruthbyGrace Год назад

You did a great job with this series! and I am glad to hear your fidelity distinguishing the "Reformed" position as separate and dissimilar to the _other_ positions held by Bible-believing disciples of Jesus.

@vickers4444 3 года назад

These videos are so good. Thanks for taking the time.

@samchoi4502 2 года назад

Hey Caleb, amazing service to us all. Don’t know many people who could do a bang up job on infinite jest, Gilead, and the new perspectives of Paul. Bravo

@zacdredge3859 Год назад

Thanks for the effort you put into these summary videos. 👍

@IHeIReigns Год назад

Thank you so much for these videos brother and all the hardwork that went into them! God bless you!

@shiranayman Год назад

Wonderful, thank you so much. I love your clarity, erudition, enthusiasm and soul. I greatly appreciate your videos.

@robertknowles2487 3 года назад

Superb job, Caleb!

@bradbrown2168 Год назад

Brother, I am not a Calvinist, but you have truly made a fair presentation. Shalom

@craigsherman4480 Год назад

Great job explaining this! Have you looked at the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of Paul? I would be very interested to learn where they line up in this debate.

@timlatham777 Год назад

Great stuff. The John Barclay reference was brilliant 😂

@wenhari06 3 года назад

I listened once and subscribed. I like how you have summarised. I will share the link to this video definitely. I have seen some really emotional reactions to emotional reactions about one camps view. What makes it sad is that few take time to really study either perspective

@UltraX34 3 года назад

Literally youtube gold. Keep it up

@Tylerstrodtman Год назад

I wish you could have spent more time on issue 5, that wasn't totally clear to me. Other than that, phenomenal video! I really appreciated your approach, this is a topic that I have wondered about but hadn't spent any time actually studying, and if nothing else, I feel like this is a great primer on how to continue thinking about and researching it. I found I had much more agreement with both sides than I thought originally (which would have been to pick one of the mutually exclusive options, which doesn't appear to be necessary). I paused it and haven't seen your conclusion yet, looking forward to where you came down on the issue. Thank you so much!

@Kintizen Год назад

Allegiance or Loyalty. It has to be with idolatry and the Israelite Exile. That's the most simple way I can explain. Also has to do with "Imaging God or Barring the Name of God or Representing God." This would be the deeper rabbit hole on topic.

@sharonlouise9759 Год назад

Appreciate all the work you put into these 2 presentations. I wasn't expecting a redefinition of faith. There are so many passages that have the word faith in them that won't even read correctly when you put the word "allegiance" (as the definition) in place of the word "faith." This really helped me a lot and saved me tons on time. Bless You!

@chrishantla503 Год назад

Love your videos for quick references on key topics. Keep up the good work. In this topic, I wonder if we shouldn’t add to these 8 differences the idea that the old perspective teaches that salvation - that is, what we are being rescued from and to - is primarily about the judgment day in eschatology while many, not all, but many, in the new perspective tend to speak of rescue in terms of rescue from a kingdom of darkness into a kingdom of light, that begins now with apprenticeship to Jesus (following his ways delivers us from current bondage), and lasts into the age to come. In a lot of ways this is where i see the two (or three, if we include augmented”) camps talking past one another. Old and augmented reformed tend to still retain the underlying story that salvation is a convo squarely situated in the afterlife, at judgment, from acquired guilt, from God’s just anger and punishment, and therefore, requiring a savior who will relationally, through faith, move us into or toward an everlasting life with God. While the new perspective seems to teach, and I’ve seen NT Wright explicitly state this, that the context or story in which this word salvation should sit, is in the realm of two kingdoms, one of darkness, ruled by empires, the Satan, deception and death, the other of Christ, which is a totally new way of being human. So we are saved from lies, death, and darkness, delivered into truth, life, and revelation in the Holy Spirit. This seems to be where the two camps and most especially the two most prominent atonement theories in each camp (PSA for the reformed and Cristus Víctor for the New Perspective), also tend to miss one another. Thoughts?

@nigatwadeyessa7893 3 года назад

Thank you so much for your share from your great knowledge

@bradbrown2168 Год назад

Could you examine Orthodox and ante Nicene writers as to these categories or another? I think it’s not a full picture unless we consider early writers as well. Initial thoughts?

@SibleySteve Год назад

Outstanding outstanding outstanding videos

@Macher96_ Год назад

Goated teacher

@AntwanRSmith 3 года назад

Good job!

@Bobballlives 3 года назад

Great video! What passages are you talking about @12:25?

@Kingfish179 2 года назад

Seems like the NP is actually the OP if we rewind the clock past 1517

@thewhyquestions 2 года назад

This is a great video. Ive been re-visiting some of N.T. Wright's Christian origin material and thought I had better brush up on this debate. Do you happen to have any book recommendations that are representative of the augmented Reformed perspective?

@meetchristyandrews 2 года назад

Caleb, would appreciate if you can mention the sources you have used to analyse the study too? Thanks

@DrGero15 Месяц назад

What passages are being said to have been lost? I have never heard that before.

@davidraimundo84 10 месяцев назад

Hey Caleb, thanks for your videos on this issue, great insights and fair treatment. I just struggle to understand what you're talking about when you speak of the historical reformed perspective in between old and new perspectives, and often siding with the new perspective. Who would be the representatives of this perspective? In the circles I move, "reformed" makes me think of The Gospel Coalition, Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, very harsh and unfair critics of the new perspective in general, and NT Wright in particular.

@CarlDi3trich 5 месяцев назад

Sometimes truth comes off as harsh to those looking for something "softer". It can't be helped.

@dylansullivan2767 2 года назад

Do you have any book recommendations for the Historic Reformed Perspective?

@lcfdasoares 3 года назад

🔥

@martinospitaletta8198 3 года назад

Hi Caleb! I really appreciated your presentation of this difficult topic. But if it is only allegiance (what I as slave owe to my master) is counted as covenant faithfulness/dikaiosyne, then I am in big trouble if I choose a lifestyle of rebellion....In the old perspective, I can rely on being declared sinless because of my conviction which imputes Christ's perfect obedience onto my nowhere in the NT mentioned imputed righteousness account. In the reformed version, I prove my conviction by faithfulness. But at the end of the day, a disqualification because of doing the wrong works does not fit into the concept. Only the radical new perspective has the explanation for the "dark passages" in Paul: all works which are not compatible with allegiance disqualify from the kingdom - 1. Cor 6, 9f. Ephesians 5, 5 - simply because people doing them do not have the allegiance Jesus obliged his followers to in the gospels! Only faithful obedient faith will be counted as covenant faithfulness, only if I hold onto this faithful relationship I will inherit the kingdom. My allegiance to Christ makes me an adopted member in the family of Abraham - but it is a family in which members can be disinherited - unbelieving Jews as much as unfaithful Christians (1. Cor 10, Romans 11). What solves the debate for me is the fact that the Augustinean-Lutheran definition of dikaiosyne as "perfect sinlessness" is just Augustines appropriation of righteousness as "supreme virtue" in the Aristotelian sense. So God's righteousness became synonymous with His sinless nature, His supreme virtue in the philosophical sense, and therefore, being declared righteous in Romans was made to mean "being declared to be sinless", and this strange wonder has to be explained by the wonder of imputed active obedience. The old perspective and the modified reformed perspective rely on a FALSE CONCEPT OF GOD'S DIKAIOSYNE which was invented by Augustine on the base of Aristoteles' Nikomachian Ethics. It is polluted by Greek philosophy. And therefore made VOID. We do not have to know every Jewish sect of the first century and have to know exactly how " works righteous" or " covenant nomistic" they were. It is sufficient to know that Greek philosophy is a bad guide in understanding the gospel. But you trust your professor, he trusts Calvin, Calvin trusts Augustine, and Augustine trusts Aristoteles - so basically, your sheep are fed with a 1700 years old misinterpretation when you start explaining them what righteousness/being declared righteous means. They are fed the sour milk of Greek philosophy christianized by Augustine and not the true meaning of "covenant faithfulness".

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

Thanks for the interaction Martino! I want to read more in the field of the radical new perspective on Paul. Do you have any authors you recommend? One thing you might want to take a look at is how no scholars really hold to the "Hellenization thesis" anymore. (The idea that the early Church just drank down Greek thought without appropriating it to true Christian theology.) Remember the Hellenization thesis was originally put forward by German liberals who were actually anti-Semitic. derekzrishmawy.com/tag/hellenization-thesis/ Here's a link to a short blog post going over some key arguments which have lead most scholars to abandon the thesis. Weirdly it's not Augustine who blindly parroted Aristotle, but some German liberals who blindly parrot that thesis. Thanks again for the thoughtful interaction!

@martinospitaletta8198 3 года назад

@@CalebSmith3 Thank you for your interaction and the link about the Hellenization thesis! "But just because Aristotle came up with an idea, it by no means follows that the idea isn’t true. It still has to be demonstrated according to Scripture that some Greek idea is incompatible with the gospel. In other words, “Prove it.”" I will do so just with Matthew 5, 20 and Luke 1, 6. The idea of righteousness as meaning "sinless nature" or "perfect sinlessness" contradicts scripture. If we assume the definition of righteousness as sinless perfection is true, then it is impossible to be more sinless than sinless and more perfect than perfect. The idea of a possible " more of dikaiosyne" or "better dikaiosyne" is incompatible with the definition of dikaiosyne as "sinless perfection" . So Matthew 5, 20 is only to be understood in the sense of "covenant faithfulness" : some servants are more faithful than others. And by this definition of righteousness /dikaiosyne, we can explain Luke 1, 6: neither Elizabeth nor Zachary were sinless or being declared sinless or counted to have a sinless nature or had an imputed righteousness bestowed upon them. But they were faithful to the covenant- the scripture here explains very detailed how they manifested their righteousness. So when the concept of dikaiosyne as "sinless perfection" neither is deductible from the gospels nor from the Jewish theology of Paul's contemporaries, where does ist come from? Where is the spaceship of "dikaiosyne as sinless nature" coming from? Pluto? Or Marsitotle? It has landed on "Area Augustine - 51" and is based on the lack of discernment between God's holiness and his covenant faithfulness in fulfilling his promises. With the definition of righteousness as denoting God's holy, sinless nature, being "declared righteous" becomes essentially: "being declared to be like God". This sounds very similar to "be like God", and therefore I would call the old perspective definition of justification an Edenization of the gospel. There is a new monography about Romans based on the assumption Paul is targeting a "twofold convert" in Romans 1-3 as interlocutor, first he lived as pagan in a pagan lifestyle, then he was as a proselyte a formal Jew by circumcision, but outside of Christ and the regenerating pneuma and the renewed humanity, and then he became as Christian a member in the true Abraham-family, with true renewed humanity and now a "true Jew". I think this assumption is pretty "radical" in the New perspective. A gentile going from pagan lifestyle, to formal Jewishness, to true Jewishness in the Messiah. The link for further reading: www.narr.de/paul-among-the-gentiles-a-radical-reading-of-romans-38656/

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

Cool, thanks for the link, this is an area I'm excited to read more in!

@Bibliotechno 6 месяцев назад

Thanks for this. I only recently looked at this. I certainly don't believe in easy believing, but the one who is able to save is also able to keep. Luke 18 gives a relevant example where the Pharisee was proud of his law keeping and his charity, but in the end it was the one who pleaded for mercy from God was justified. These 2 types of men are not really bound in any specific community. Sincerely looking to God for pardon from sin was the key, Jesus work is, of course, the just basis for God to do mercy justly.

@micahmatthew7104 3 года назад

I’m confused on the first difference between the OP and the NP: wouldn’t the OP say that having good moral effort is done by following the Torah? And vice versa for the NP?

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

Yeah I think my phrase 'torah' was unclear here. The OP sees Paul as talking about the moral rules of the Torah, i.e. don't lie, steal or murder. The NP sees Paul as talking about the ceremonial rules of the Torah, i.e. circumcision, sabbath and kosher. So Paul says "you're not saved by works of the law" - does that mean 'you aren't made right with God through moral rule keeping', or 'you aren't made a covenant member through circumcision, sabbath, and kosher?' OP says the first one, NP says the second. Tom Schreiner has a book '40 Questions on Paul's use of the Law' which has 1 paragraph summaries of topics like this. I think it's really helpful because those summaries are so clear and short.

@micahmatthew7104 3 года назад

@@CalebSmith3 ahh ok gotcha. Makes more sense now

@rajarapuisaac1349 7 месяцев назад

brother is there any book basied on the old perspective. can u suggest book for me

@JackMitchell-li2iw 4 месяца назад

Thank you for your videos on this subject. I think you have done a good job generally. So thanks again. Just three things I would add: #1 The imputation of Christ's righteousness could do with a little more attention. This issue stands on its own and you rightly say that it has been debated in previous generations. Yet there really is little Biblical evidence. Additionally, Romans 4 equates the non imputation of sin with the imputation of righteousness, as Paul speaks about Psalm 32. #2. You could add more on the idea that in the analysis of 1st century Judaism there seems to be too much generalisation. I think this is Wright's biggest mistake He seems to say all of Judaism said these things. His opponents are not much better in the way they generalise. #3 Does the phrase "works of the law" not deserve more time? Surely it is the key to much misunderstanding. Once again, thank you.

@Kintizen Год назад

Issue 6 is astonishing, I didn't realize this was how it was viewed. Letters to the Churches are technically inspired commentary. Using OT and NT. We are supposed to take them at face value and not add theology to them. So bizarre to find out Romans/Galatians in the base for the Gospels for some. No wonder I have seen people hate Paul to the extreme, they advocate Paul to be removed from the Bible.

@sophianikolai8381 2 года назад

I am still extremely troubled and confused. I hold fast to the doctrines that have changed my life and heart for christ Jesus (the reformed positions). I am very anxious that if I don't accept this new perspective- does this mean i'm not actually saved? Is this a matter of saved or not saved by choosing either reformed theology or new perspective theology? Or rather, just nuances in things that don't actually change the fate of a saved person? Would Wright argue that those of the reformed position who don't agree with him cannot be saved then? Does he still hold that those who accept Jesus as Lord and believe on the gospel are justified and whether they do works according to the reformed position or to N.T wright's position... it doesn't matter? I am so confused.

@albertocelaya1597 Год назад

What is the view that you hold to brother?

@bradbrown2168 Год назад

Perhaps New perspective is not received well by most Reform types is that it challenges the notion that God must give new life to a dead man in order to have the faith needed. The Lazarus example. Where better didactic example comes from Jesus parable of the prodigal son. Thoughts?

@soulosxpiotov7280 3 года назад

If there is an "imputation of the righteousness of Christ", it is by union IN Christ, but if this were to exist, it is not this "imputed righteousness of Christ" that justifies the sinner before the Father. There is a righteousness of faith, reckoned by the Father - although this faith was produced by the Son. Wright is correct in that justification includes the removal of the imputation of sin, however he doesn't go far enough - there wasn't an "exchange" from his perspective. At the point of saving faith, the sinner has the imputation of sin removed, But Also, that saving faith is credited unto righteousness.

@psalms3135 2 года назад

2 Peter 3:15-17 "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability."

@zacheaston6727 2 года назад

The first reformers would have held to a single imputation even leading up to the Westminster confessional faith there was still the debate of single versus double imputation

@NickosPhoenix 4 месяца назад

I think it makes sense that Paul was angry with the Galatians due to the same reason Jesus was angry with the Pharisees They tried to justify themselves before God based on excuses and easy short cuts - anything and everything except what matters -> genuine repentance , receiving the forgiveness of God through the blood of Christ , and then living out the golden rule from the heart

@edlicsathiamurthy4520 4 месяца назад

Remember the warning that Paul gave.... whoever even if an angel preach another gospel... let him be damned......

@dd.oliver Год назад

To be honest, I think you should have placed the Reformed Perspective as second on the list. As the New Perspective is the newest one.

@zelenisok 2 года назад

there is another perspective on the word pistis, of translating it as faithfulness in the sense of dedication to doing good, as in the jesus' story about being faithful with unrighteous wealth. and pistis christou would then be faithfulness to christ, ie to his teaching on how to be good. so it refers to basic good works, love, and striving to embody them. dbh hold this view. an even more interesting take is to translate charis as gracefulness, as in the virtue of being graceful and kind, so god such a nature of course, but its about us needing to cultivate that virtue. so being saved by grace means we will be saved in we are graceful. tho idk of prominent theologians who have this view.

@JoshWashington 7 месяцев назад

8:20 Historically speaking that the gospels portray the Gospel has been believed from the early church onwards. The idea that Romans (1-4?) is the gospel is a rather historically new idea. Also, you seem to frame the gospel soteriologically, suggesting you have some undisclosed presuppositions on approaching the definition 'What is the gospel?'

@soulosxpiotov7280 3 года назад

The Gospel of the Kingdom is in the, well, is in the Gospels. The Good News is in both - the Gospels and also the writings of the Holy Spirit through Paul, and all the other books. The book of Revelation is the culmination of the Kingdom - this is obviously the Gospel also. It's ALL the Gospel, and is ALL God's grace.

@soulosxpiotov7280 3 года назад

Actually, the English translation "works of THE law" is incorrect - the Greek article is not there. It is "works of 'law'". There is a distinction from "law" and "The Law," The Law being the Torah. The lower case "law" is similar to the word "Trinity" in that it is not exactly defined, but can be found in Romans 2:7 & 10. It began with Moses, however, "law" is the principle of the written ordinances of the just Law-Giver, the Judge, the Lord, who demands absolute obedience, for "He will render each one according to their work." All will be judged for their works to obtain eternal life - however, however....your works must be PERFECT. Hence the need to enter into union IN Christ.

@matthewluisantero5051 3 года назад

The New Perspective just sounds like The Traditional Roman Catholic Perspective in a lot of ways.

@timhutton6786 2 года назад

Yet it’s really not. It does sound quite a bit like the Pauline epistles.

@JoshWashington 7 месяцев назад

7:50 Your basically implying Bates is second generation NPP here.

@mistressofstones 2 года назад

The hardcore OP perspective on works seems to be exactly the perspective that, for instance, rapist clergy use to claim they are still saved by God. The fruit of it is bad. And probably just as important it seems to contradict the Gospels and a lot of the OT where God seems to be obsessed with showing kindness for those more vulnerable than yourself (the poor, widows, children, the sojourner). And Jesus incorporates loving others as the second part of the distillation of the laws, and gives a new commandment to love one another. That works of no kind are important to salvation just makes zero sense looking at the Bible overall, I see a huge contradiction there. And it makes me suspicious that this is an intentional corruption of Christianity to allow exactly the abuses among clergy that we see all the time, financial exploitation of the poor, political corruption and power grabbing, rape, violence, even murder in the most extreme cases such as where various churches have been involved with the state in killing "undesirable" people.

@soulosxpiotov7280 3 года назад

It is both faith IN Christ, but the Lord Jesus demonstrated His faithfulness to the Father, who looked forward to the cross - and was faithful by PRODUCING the saving faith of the sinner who trusted in Him. Apart from the faithfulness of the Son to the Father, in that the Son would die for those whom the Father had given Him, the Son would never produce that saving faith in us. True believers exercise faith, but we didn't produce it - the Lord Jesus did.

@JoshWashington 7 месяцев назад

1:20 Five times where Paul says 'You are not saved by works of the law'? Really, quote one. Paul no where says 'You are not saved by works of the law'. Not a good start equating salvation with justification. This is quite the conflation.

@TheWillmore Год назад

Team NPP

@daverowe5836 9 месяцев назад

Appreciate the breakdown, but I think the analysis is missing a major piece. For the NP, you have Wright. For the RP, you have various living theologians who have addressed Wright's criticisms. Who is the OP? It is Wright's caricature of all of the reformers who came before him. The OP views you present are phrased the way Wright would phrase them in his initial attacks. Then the living Reformers rebut his view and their view somehow become new because they don't match the original strawman? What I see is that the fruit of Wright's view are confusion within the church and disagreement over core doctrines.

@jamesba-xd7xf 4 месяца назад

the new perspective on paul is simply a return to orthodox JUDAISM which bases salvation on our works and our faithfulness to God and it pushes Jesus and his sacrafice out the window. the NPOP is a return to judaism and a rejection of christ.

@AK-jt7cc Год назад

This is more of an apologetic for reformed theology and acting like it’s the middle ground lol. Reformed theologians most definitely don’t agree that righteousness is linked to covenant faithfulness wspwcially in New Testament lol. In fact I think piper and Wayne gruden might vomit hearing you say that lol. The true “third” perspective would be the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position lol. Also, Wright- as well as many NPP definitely believe the spirit acts in bringing you to faith (covenantal allegiance), and that the spirit aids you daily in your walk with god. NPP can be deterministic as well as free will beliefs doesn’t discuss that. Also arminians definitely don’t call faith a “work,” but I think we all already knew that

@AK-jt7cc Год назад

Reformed theologians definitely link righteousness to holiness/perfect moral standard

@logicalcomrade7606 3 года назад

We all know that you added a third perspective to a video that was supposed to be about old vs new, because you hold to the third perspective. If you don't believe in the third perspective, why not add 4, 5, or 6 perspectives? NT Wright claims to hold to the New Perspective, shouldn't we take him at his word? I know why you don't take him at his word... because he's Calvinistic and you don't want your audience to know that you can be reformed and hold to NPP.

@CalebSmith3 3 года назад

This is so interesting, one guy commented on my videos saying I'm biased because I'm trying to convinced Reformed people to accept NPP and you're saying I'm biasedly trying to stop Reformed people from holding the NPP...

@GanttCarterservant 2 года назад

Wright is Calvinistic?

@gt5512 2 года назад

I don't find your videos helpful on this matter. Sorry but you need to simplify your explanations more. Just too wordy for me.

@1oxyoke 4 месяца назад

Paul's perspective on N.T. Wright. 2 Corinthians 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.