For those who don’t know, back in the 1980s and 1990s there was a big deal about the New Perspective on Paul. This was a scholarly view of the apostle Paul associated with E.P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, Terence Donaldson, and Bruce Longenecker. In a nutshell, NPPers argued that Judaism was not legalistic, therefore, Paul’s problem with Judaism was not over salvation by works, but rather that Judaism was ethnocentric, and Jews believed that salvation was limited to the Jews. Paul - so it goes - argued that God, through Jesus, accepts Gentiles as Gentiles without having to convert to Judaism as a proselyte. Gentiles are saved by faith, not by doing “works of the law,” which are the boundary markers of Judaism, i.e., circumcision, sabbath observance, and food laws.
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?
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?
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