Dr Bird. You mention above that you agree, half agree, and balk at parts of NPP. You covered the agreement part but what don’t you like or agree with in regards to NPP?
I don't think you can say that Judaism was never ever legalistic. See my book review of Law and Lawlessness in Early Judaism and Christianity. I don't think "works of the law" are purely boundary markers even if they accent social differences between Jews and Gentiles.
Dr Bird. You mention above that you agree, half agree, and balk at parts of NPP. You covered the agreement part but what don’t you like or agree with in regards to NPP?
I don't think you can say that Judaism was never ever legalistic. See my book review of Law and Lawlessness in Early Judaism and Christianity. I don't think "works of the law" are purely boundary markers even if they accent social differences between Jews and Gentiles.
Thank you doctor. Might you have a link for that review or where I might be about to find it?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2021/04/law-legalism-and-antinominiam-in-early-judaism-and-christianity/
Excellent. Asking the reader to finish the sentence written by Paul is a fantastic way to demonstrate systematic bias. Thank you Dr. Bird.
Great overview!! Going to save this for the next time a friend asks me "what is the NPP all about?"
Well said. I wish more Reformed folk got this