Comments on: A Response to The New Perspective of Paul (NPP) http://blogogetics.com/2008/08/a-response-to-the-new-perspective-of-paul-npp/ Giving an apologia (defense) for the faith we have Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:43:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Pastor Duane Smets http://blogogetics.com/2008/08/a-response-to-the-new-perspective-of-paul-npp/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Pastor Duane Smets Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:57:38 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=10#comment-21 Hello Thomas, Thank you for your response. I'll give you some hermeneutical responses and then a more pastoral response. I'm am not sure what part of "My Contentions" that you see as confessional and not exegetical? They are most assuredly overtly exegetical. Confessionalism is a red herring in this discussion as it has been presented. You ask who opponents of NPP are within the scientific exegetical community. I did cite D.A. Carson's work "Justification and Varigated Nomism." You will be hard pressed to find a more well established and world renowed and respected scientific exegete. So that make me wonder what you mean by scientific exegesis and who belongs to this world of scientific exegetes. If you mean only people who subscribe to higher criticism, then you prove my point of chronological snobbery. Another red herring in your response is Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism both historically and thematically has nothing to do with this discussion unless you mean it to be objectivity, in which case if you are against such a thing you're whole comment is self-refuting as an attempt at objective statement. Thomas, what is it about justification as substitutionary atonement that you don't like honestly? What are your affections and heart motivations wrapped up in this discussion? I'll tell you mine. I know I am a guilty sinner who deserves the wrathful anger and punishment of holy and just God for my sin. My only hope is a Jesus who can take on that wrath in my place. Jesus gives me hope for a transformation of the rebellion of my heart and satisfaction for eternity. NPP can't give me that but leaves me stuck in my sin. Much love, Duane Hello Thomas,

Thank you for your response. I’ll give you some hermeneutical responses and then a more pastoral response.

I’m am not sure what part of “My Contentions” that you see as confessional and not exegetical? They are most assuredly overtly exegetical. Confessionalism is a red herring in this discussion as it has been presented. You ask who opponents of NPP are within the scientific exegetical community. I did cite D.A. Carson’s work “Justification and Varigated Nomism.” You will be hard pressed to find a more well established and world renowed and respected scientific exegete. So that make me wonder what you mean by scientific exegesis and who belongs to this world of scientific exegetes. If you mean only people who subscribe to higher criticism, then you prove my point of chronological snobbery. Another red herring in your response is Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism both historically and thematically has nothing to do with this discussion unless you mean it to be objectivity, in which case if you are against such a thing you’re whole comment is self-refuting as an attempt at objective statement.

Thomas, what is it about justification as substitutionary atonement that you don’t like honestly? What are your affections and heart motivations wrapped up in this discussion? I’ll tell you mine. I know I am a guilty sinner who deserves the wrathful anger and punishment of holy and just God for my sin. My only hope is a Jesus who can take on that wrath in my place. Jesus gives me hope for a transformation of the rebellion of my heart and satisfaction for eternity. NPP can’t give me that but leaves me stuck in my sin.

Much love,
Duane

]]> By: Thomas http://blogogetics.com/2008/08/a-response-to-the-new-perspective-of-paul-npp/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Thomas Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:44:56 +0000 http://blogogetics.com/?p=10#comment-18 It seems that “chronological snobbery” is most appropriately applied to those who insist on Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Protestant Scholastic categories when reading a First Century Palestinian text. The trouble with those who attack NPP is that – from what I can tell – they are all animated by confessionalist investment. NPP scholars do not agree with one another on much of the detail concerning Paul in his historical context. This is to be expected given the nature of scientific exegesis and the limited knowledge we have outside the biblical text of the religious culture of First Century Jews. It is comparing apples and oranges to oppose a confessional statement against a critical theory like NPP. Whereas the latter is a judgment based upon advanced modern methods of textual analysis, the former is based upon a reading of the text within and subject to the authority of the faith tradition of a particular community. Faith matters. And higher criticism does not replace theological reflection on the biblical sources. However, a first reading of the biblical text that substitutes late medieval theology (i.e., Reformation Theology) for an objective historical-contextual/literary-critical reading is indistinguishable from fundamentalism. Where are the opponents of NPP from within the scientific exegetical community? Why is it all coming from the traditionalist confessional theologians? It seems that “chronological snobbery” is most appropriately applied to those who insist on Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Protestant Scholastic categories when reading a First Century Palestinian text.

The trouble with those who attack NPP is that – from what I can tell – they are all animated by confessionalist investment. NPP scholars do not agree with one another on much of the detail concerning Paul in his historical context. This is to be expected given the nature of scientific exegesis and the limited knowledge we have outside the biblical text of the religious culture of First Century Jews.

It is comparing apples and oranges to oppose a confessional statement against a critical theory like NPP. Whereas the latter is a judgment based upon advanced modern methods of textual analysis, the former is based upon a reading of the text within and subject to the authority of the faith tradition of a particular community. Faith matters. And higher criticism does not replace theological reflection on the biblical sources. However, a first reading of the biblical text that substitutes late medieval theology (i.e., Reformation Theology) for an objective historical-contextual/literary-critical reading is indistinguishable from fundamentalism.

Where are the opponents of NPP from within the scientific exegetical community? Why is it all coming from the traditionalist confessional theologians?

]]>