www.patreon.com/user?u=40252988 In this video I summarize the top five theological differences between the New Perspective on Paul and the Old Perspective on Paul. Hope this is helpful!
I am a big fan of presenting things in an unbiased way! What a good presentation. And the "Emily" story and analogy was great. Subscribed. Keep up the good work!
Caleb you are smart, intelligent and have a wonderful teaching/communication gift. I learnt more in your video about the new and old perspective debate than I have in five years of self study.
Thanks so much for your continued support and encouragement! I put effort into trying to be as clear as possible when I speak so I'm glad that came off in this video!
Very, very helpful. Thank you. I read NT Wright regularly. Sometimes he is so nuanced in his explanations that I come away unsure of his positions. You have helped me see that there are differences amongst the distinctions.
Thank you very much. NT Wright is so nuanced and detailed that I never understood what he actually believed. I have to say the New Perspective answers a lot of questions and appears to be more comprehensive than the hyper-individualized old perspective.
Your existence is literally a sign that no matter how much bad teaching is out there, there is also clear, concise, unbiased teaching. New subscriber. Bless you bruv.
I am so pleased to have found your channel. You are a masterful communicator, and this is exactly the sort of information I need to help me in my teaching. Thank you!
Hey Caleb, I'm an OT guy who has been interested in this debate for a long time but never quite had my head around it. This is the clearest explanation I've come across of the various positions and their implications. Thanks!
Loved this! You have taken this this subject that I hear about, but don’t know about, and brings some simple understanding about it. Looking forward to the next video.
Thank you Caleb for this very clear presentation. I appreciate so much that this presentation is unbiased. I am looking forward to hear your conclusions. I am a student of NT Wright. This New Perspective does change some old perspectives. It is exciting to study scripture... Glad I found your channel.
Thanks for both the videos in this 'series'. I'm presently working my way through NT Wright's book on justification. I'm fascinated by how crisp his exegesis is. I also enjoy how he delineates his view in as compared to both OP and NP. I really want to thank you because your videos were not only clear, but included a new category for me, Historic Augmented Reformed Perspective. I'm a reformed guy but was not aware that HARP was a thing. I naturally fell into that category (thanks to DA Carson and GK Beale). I've already bought NT Wright's magnum opus, his Christian Origins and the Question of God. I'll be back for your thoughts as I read them. Lastly, as a layperson, I really appreciate that somebody is talking theology that is timely and relevant for the church today. Lord knows it's hard to find at the congregational level. Not impossible, but hard.
Thank you for your lecture. I found it very stimulating - and have subscribed. However, I was amused to hear this described as a 'new' debate. It reminded me strongly of the almost identical debates we were having back in 1960 at Sydney University, Australia. As part of our theological training for ministry (and alongside separate lectures in our own denominational colleges) we had joint lectures at the university itself, where the whole Reformation debate on this subject dominated Second Year studies. (No, we Arminian Methodists would never have described faith as a 'work.' It is simply a grateful response to God's wonderful prevenient grace.) Sixty years later, It is encouraging to see serious thinkers like yourself clarifying the issue for the current generation. I look forward to the next episode.
Well done! This whole debate unfortunately is still all AFTER the 1500’s and misses the ORIGINAL teaching on Paul which is CLOSER to the “new” perspective. As now Eastern Orthodox, I have dove into the writings of the church fathers and councils in the early church and found that they all had clear understandings regarding these things. Read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans for example. That said, I’m glad the “new” perspective is finally challenging the Calvinistic post-renaissance interpretation of Romans!
I am trying to put faith together. I've spent some time on apologetics - WL Craig, John Lennox - and I've started looking into the historical Jesus - NT Wright, Gary Habermas.. So I've watched some NT Wright videos and this led me into hearing about this New Perspective mentioned. So I watched this video to clarify and thought it was helpful. But then looking through all the comments, it seems there are so many people who have commitment to very specifically delineations of doctrine on what seem fairly obscure issues. And they seem to think that what one thinks about these details is very important and they defend and argue in a determined and sometimes fairly graceless manner these apparently minor points. So it gives me some concern. CS Lewis' notion of 'mere' Christianity is about the core classic Christian doctrines that are theologically necessary to establish, articulate, and maintain for the Church to be fulfilling its call, ie. to be able to glorify God, proclaim His gospel, to be a corporate vessel for the Holy Spirit to reflect and glorify God in the world, to be a context for individuals to personally 'get right' with God and to live for Him and to be increasingly sanctified by Him, etc... So, does the minutae of theological / doctrinal stuff matter in a crucial way? Because if it does, what does that say about the chances of the average person who isn't a seminary graduate ever being able to work out a position on these things? Or to be able to critically evaluate different sources / perspectives? And if these things aren't really of consequence, shouldn't we better spend our time finding ways to serve God in obedience to what we know He's explicitly exhorted us to do in Scripture? I'm personally prone to being excessively analytical, so I sympathise with the instinct, but if it's not leading to the salvation of more souls, more glory or obedience to God, or more Christ-like character being formed in His followers, is there a point at which it becomes counter-productive and just a source of infinite points of contention, of pride, division, mean-spiritedness, etc.? (Caleb, I was glad of your video and I repeat, I found it helpful because it gives a complete layman like me a summary. But then I felt a bit despairing of how to keep on putting faith back together again because of the difficulty of knowing what sources I can trust when I see people like NT Wright derided in the Comments)
What is you perspective on the perspective of an old perspective perspective viewing the new perspective from a different perspective than the perspective of the new perspective? Interested in your perspective.
This was outstanding! Thank you so much! With one exception: I believe you have misrepresented the ordu salutis debate and the Arminian position. In brief, the essence of the OS is the logical order of the relationship between faith and regeneration: Calvinists assert that the Holy Spirit regenerates a "spiritually dead" person and gives the gift of faith to the now awakened elect person to believe. Whereas, the Arminian believes that God has granted a prior/preventing grace to everyone who is spiritually separated from God who may respond by faith to become regenerated and join the elect group in Christ. In Arminianism, this faith is absolutely NOT a work! It is a response, a cry or call (according to Romans 10) to the gospel message as the condition of salvation -- apart from and opposed to human works. To seek to contribute to salvation is a "work". To believe that God has accomplished everything necessary through Christ is an expression of faith -- opposed to works (Eph.2).
Your examples are getting better every video! Really concrete and easy to grasp, they indeed clarify the debate. May God keep blessing your work! Ps: Also, what's the name of the transition music?
Thanks man! I'm putting a little more prep time into the scripts so I'm glad it's showing. And the music I used is called "When Johnny Goes Marching" Jazz version by E's Jammy Jams. It's a copyright free song and version.
I appreciate all of this. Well done. However I am not aware of any Arminian that has ever said faith is a work. The Arminian view is that faith is not a work.
I read Romans recently with some brothers and, unaware of this New Perspectives debate, simply noticed how Paul shifts his audience in the early chapters from the Gentiles to the Jews. The first couple chapters seem to say, “Okay you who reject the Mosaic Law, follow nature’s laws. You still fall short.” By the fourth chapter Paul has turned his focus to the Jewish believers among the church in Rome and his criticism is much sharper. That’s my “New Perspective.” I don’t need N.T. Wrong spewing his mush at me.
Hey Caleb! I really miss your videos, thanks for your awesome content- any plans to make more? Also, you did an interview on someone else’s podcast once about the history of how frequently certain books of the Bible were treated with commentaries- do you know where I could find that interview?
Nicely produced and very thorough but on the question of justification I see Justification as more than mere forgiveness. It’s a declarative act of God that makes this person Just in a real concrete way. Forgiveness is a “subtractive” act: it removed guilt. Justification is an “additive” act: God establishes a person in righteousness as a free gift.
Very much enjoyed this video. However, I was viscerally confused when you characterised Arminians as believing that faith is a work. Sounds like something a Calvinist would _say_ Arminians believe, but not something they themselves would actually articulate. Curious to know where you got that idea.
Great video Caleb. Can't wait for the next. Some thoughts on the righteousness of God. Romans 3:25-26 This (propitiation) was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Interesting - it seems God's righteousness here is God defending himself against the accusation that he is unjust. The solution is justifying sinners through propitiation (substitution). His righteousness is defended (in this specific verse) through imputation. It seems to reduce "the righteousness of God" in all of Paul to imputation (Luther), covenant membership (Wright), or God defending his glory (Piper) is to fall into the old DA Carson exegetical fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer (illegitimately transferring the meaning of a word or phrase in one context into another context or every other occurrence). The "righteousness of God" certainly must mean his rightness in punishing sinners in Romans 3:5, but we don't force it to mean that in every other occurrence. As for the term appearing in Romans 1:17, it may simply be referring to God's attribute of being righteous; but if 1:17 is a preview of 3:25-26 and all of Romans 4&5, Luther may have been right (not Wright) to see it as a summary of the concept of imputed righteousness. Whew... thoughts?
I think you have it pretty close there. Romans 2 discusses the God who rightly judges with wrath depending if the requirements for eternal life in verse 7 & 10 are not met. God is a just God. The question, however is, how does God justify a sinner with a just justification? He, that is, God, is a just God who justly justifies sinners, through faith in Jesus Christ. The righteousness of God includes His wrath, the covering of the Old Testament saints, and the propitiation of His Son for the New Testament saints. God is righteous in all of these things, without setting aside His perfect standard.
I have been studying this debate for years now. I came across your video on the "New" perspective on Paul. Have you read The Law is not of Faith by Guy Waters? Anyway, I'll watch your 3 part series and reply to it.
I enjoyed the explanation alot. I think every Arminian would disagree with how you say they believe faith is a work. No orthodox arminian would say that...
You do a great job describing and simplifying difficult topics. Do you have other social media accounts? Do you have a website or email address where someone could ask you questions? Thank you.
Thanks Michael, right now I use this email address for this youtube account- theophile710@gmail.com but I plan of getting more into social media at some point. FYI I am starting a new position at a Church right now so I'm a little slow with emails because a lot is going on, but I love talking theology and biblical studies with anyone so I try to respond quickly!
I didn't realize that the Arminian view had to do with 'lowering the bar' - which means God's justification of the sinner is in fact an unjust justification. God didn't lower the bar at all, although I know that you know that.
Wow! So we’ll presented. So Arminian view says faith is a work? Have not seen this. Faith is simply a response to the grabbing the life line in a torrent sea. Seems different. Thoughts?
There is a real standard of truth to many of Paul's writings but there is also another truth to the specific group Paul is addressing. So you've got to get into the heads of the targeted audience and at the same time get into the head of Paul and how he would uniquely approach that unique situation 🤔. Believe it or not there are ways of doing both. I discovered this back in the late 80's and 90's before any of these new perspectives were brought out (while studying 1 Cor. 14). In retrospect I would say both perspectives on Paul are correct. It may seem inconsistent but Paul is extremely complex.
17:25 Err, no. I feel your a bit muddled up on this whole issue. For starters, assuming the NPP is calling 'faith' a 'work' immediately falls within the OP framework. Wright is quite Calvinist on the order of salvation. For Wright, faith is the evidence of the Spirits regenerative work, the heart needs to be changed by God before it can come to faith. Arminians believe the gospel call is open to all and faith is the free choice of the audience. This faith receives the benefits of the gospel. For them its important that everyone has the free choice to accept the gospel. For Wright and Calvin, God elects, through the gospel and Spirit he brings about faith. Arminians - Free will can bring about faith, Calvinists - God sovereignly chooses who will come to faith.
www.amazon.com/Deviant-Calvinism-Broadening-Reformed-Theology/dp/1451486138/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=oliver+crisp&qid=1615443517&sr=8-9 I'd recommend you read this book. Crisp explains OP and NPP stuff and reminds modern students that there are many differences between Calvinists and Arminians. Many people think the only difference between the schools is the role of the sovereignty of God in salvation but there are actually many more- including whether or not faith is meritorious. It's a good reminder to read the original sources too not just modern summaries! Thanks for interacting with the content though glad to have your thoughts and I'll take a look at your blog!
Faith is in fact a work, although it is a work of God (John 6:29). A saving faith is produced by Christ, who is the Author and Finisher of the believer's faith (Hebrews 12:2). The believer's faith that they exercise is their faith, but they didn't produce their faith - Jesus did.
Old perspective: Paul's opponents made the mistake of adding works to one's personal relationship with god. They claim you are saved by faith in God plus moral law-keeping. This is what Paul was correcting in Galatians. New perspective: The Judaizer's premise is that you were brought into the covenant of God by grace alone. You maintain that relationship by living along the precepts of covenant guidelines. Judaizers were making the mistake of limiting who can access the grace of God based on ethnic and cultural boundary markers. Paul would say that those ethnic and cultural boundaries have been torn down. Ethnic and cultural practices are not required to maintain fellowship.
I’m presuming the presenter is from the Reformed tradition and thus sticking in his wheelhouse, but the silence on the fact that the “New Perspective” is essentially what the Catholic & Orthodox Churches have taught for 2,000 years is deafening
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.
Good teaching because it lays out the different views so we can compare them. This is my take, briefly and simply. In the garden mankind became unrighteous. Christ makes us righteous again, not by keeping the command, because God knows none of us can, so it is done by faith. Having faith in Christ makes us righteous, then and only then, can we be added to the covenant people of God. Even after that, we are still unable to keep all the righteous commands of the law, but as part of God's covenant people we aim at being righteous according to God's order of things. Wright's perspective is nothing new, it is just another attempt to muddle up and undue the Gospel of Grace. He, like so many others throughout history, does this by putting us back under the law and back into the Old Covenant again. It is as simple as that, and is in accordance with what Satan is always attempting to do. That is to put man back under law, thereby taking the power out of the Gospel, to save people, by the only way they can ever be saved, and that is by faith. This is Paul's top argument with the Jews. After 1500 years of law keeping, the Jews thought that idea was nuts, and especially since that same faith could justify the Gentile dogs too. This is what Paul called his Gospel, because he supernaturally got it from the Lord Jesus. Let God judge this man, Wright, but stick with the Calvinistic view of the Gospel, that got us out of the false gospel of the Roman Catholic Church, and do not jump back into yet another false gospel.
bro, actually, it can be be both (1)one on one/vertical and (2) communal/ horizontal and I believe that is the issue- the traditional viewssays #2 follows for all people on the basis of experiencing #1( real relationship with God by grace through faith alone.). I don't care if someone thinks the argument is bias if it's Biblical, I'll take the heat gladly.
The Holy Spirit through Paul is not discussing the Bride of Christ, the true church, in Romans or Galatians. In other words, "a covenant family' is not the priority of discussion, but instead how to have a right standing with God as a sinner, albeit a just justification from the true God who doesn't justify sinners by cutting corners. I know that you know this. Tom Wright is bringing up an old Roman Catholic argument concerning "covenants" and "the family of God" and "final justification". Based on what you're describing concerning N.T. Wright's take on justification, he really does seem to believe in faith + works to be justified, unless I misunderstood him, and I don't I have.
