Library Talk: New Perspective on Paul Debate 

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.

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 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.

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?

Too bad you guys weren't "well instructed." Penal substitution?

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.."

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.

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.

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.

I would have hated to be in that audience and get asked a question. I am so dumb.

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.

Martin Barbara Davis Steven Johnson Joseph

God's grace is not synergistic - the way protestant read the Bible and pretend they are right is pretty laughable

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.

New… we don’t need new in a 2000 year old faith. New usually means wrong.

Michael Bird is the man

Hmmm. Where is was the debate? Seemed very one sided to me.

Heavy weight theologian often misunderstood in the american individualistic theological thinking. Great speaker!!!!!

13:25 These people are thinking, "Partner with a black church...yeah, right..."

This guy is right on.

The cross is both horizontal and vertical.

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.

AMEN!

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.

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.

M. Bird is great! His work with N.T Wright is amazing

I really enjoyed Michael Bird. He brought a fun levity to the conversation.

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.

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

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 ...

Some segments in the video are stamped not adjacent to each other

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.

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.

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.

So basically the implication of all this is to have multi-ethnic congregation? You needed npp to arrive to that?

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.

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.

Very interesting.. although the title is misleading, it is not a debate !

I agree...

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.

perhaps some day in the future the Protestant crowd will cease to caricature, not only the Jewish faith, but also the catholic faith

This Michael Bird is a machine!

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.

New Perspective sounds like Social Gospel just dressed somewhat differently.

_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._

This guy has serious character issues. Or, maybe it's just a lack of grace.

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.

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 😇

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 .