Top 5 Differences Between the New Perspective and the Old Perspective

www.patreon.co...
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!

[@ReadyToHarvest]

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!

[@CalebSmith3]

Thanks, I've checked out your channel before actually! I really like your work! Unbiased and content packed seem to be values for us both!

[@midnightdoxology]

Hey ready to harvest!!! My favorite channel! Your comment made me subscribe to this channel :)

[@gordoncrawley5826]

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.

[@michaelharrington6698]

"I never said you stole money"

[@ShonMark]

This is not unbiased, it is an apologetic presentation for "the new perspective", good presentation for new perspective; but certainly not unbiased

[@worshiponpiano3771]

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.

[@CalebSmith3]

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!

[@iniduoh3791]

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.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

That is not the Arminian position.

[@ionut-daniel-iosifmalita8543]

The new perspective makes no sense to me. First, if the new perspective is true, than all Protestants who hold to it have no reason to be Protestant, since Sola Fide is automatically undermined. Secondly, the Bible is clear about the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, through which Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us, so that God can be the just and the justifier. Christ died so that we can be justified horizontally, in the sight of the Church, of the judaizers? No. He died in order to give us His righteousness and to reconcile us with the Father. God is the One who elects, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies. If justification is not vertical, then how do we explain the glorification that we find in the same chain in Romans 8?

[@davet2625]

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)

[@sawyerlake10]

Arminians wouldn't call faith a work, though.

[@Liminalplace1]

The NPP in many ways by passes the Calvinist-Arminian debate, as both Arminians and Calvinists adopt Luther's interpretation. Caleb summarizes John Barclay, who rehabilitates Luther as a genius of missions to medieval Catholicism. If you haven't yet check out Caleb on that

[@michaelpalmer3540]

I appreciate what you are trying to do but it as about as clear as mud. Respectfully, If a normal (unstudied believer) can't understand it, its too complicated. I'm very studied, such as the Mark Nanos camp and while I understand Nanos clearly. I studied NT Wright's stuff for over a year and finally decided he just used a lot of big words and most of it was not necessary. To me simply put, the Old P is viewing Paul's letters when talking about the Law equating to Torah, whereas the NEW P is about custom/rituals which gentiles are not obligated by, but should respect their Jewish brothers and to be careful not to offend. That is my over simplification of the matter.

[@GarrettDavis-t4t]

Agreed. This perspective is also very sneaky in re introducing supersessionism into the picture. It still points to a universal body and throws away the elect.

[@kevinberry9981]

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.

[@ronjones1414]

There are way to many people trying desperately to not have real jobs by convincing regular people that this is way harder than it needs to be.

[@tookie36]

We’d rather talk about Jesus than to Jesus. Or talk about salvation rather than actually picking up the cross. Bc that is a scary road 😢

[@jesseJames6892]

In your video you said that the Reformed perspective agrees with Wright on God's covenantal faithfulness, though is this correct it can be misleading.

[@rubendeleeuw1556]

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.

[@enkuruha6363]

I am from Ethiopia 🇪🇹 keep up the good work!

[@joelsplawn5933]

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.

[@reasoningthroughthebible]

It would seem that if people are brought into the covenant, then logically this would mean either they are thereby made right with God by being in the covenant, or not. If not, then 1) So what? what's the big deal? and 2) the basic question of justification before God still stands. If "sitting at the communion table" is for only people right before God (justification), then NP is just a way of saying the same thing as the OP. If "sitting at the communion table" says nothing about salvation, or for unsaved people, or says works is needed to stay at the table, then at best we have much ado about nothing for does not solve the problem of how to solve the sin problem or at worst just confusingly rehashing old arguments. Right?

[@JoshWashington]

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.

[@CalebSmith3]

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!

[@JoshWashington]

@@CalebSmith3 Thanks for the tip.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

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.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

I was a fan of this video up until the point you claimed that Arminianism believes faith is a work. That is absolutely absurd.

[@johnirish989]

Thee most correct cutting of His word is that between the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of the risen Christ and smack dab in the middle is the most important event in the history of the universe, the cross of Christ. And these two radically different gospels are NOT to be mixed because doing so just causes chaos and confusion and brings great joy to Satan. The basics: The Jews, Circumcisionists v. The Gentiles, Uncircumcisionists (Gal. 2:7 and OF is vital, not to); Under law, good works v. Under grace; Forgiven if you do this this and this v. Justified, declared righteous so no need for forgiveness; Must go through the tribulation v. Not appointed to indignation and thus snatched away before Jacob's trouble commences; A terrestrial destination v. A celestial destination; Peter and his peoplev. Paul and his people; The bride of the Lambkin v. The body of Christ. The latter are not under law but grace, thus under no covenants. The former are not under the new covenant until after the 1000 years when there becomes a new heaven and earth. During the 1000 years the old covenant still exists and earth's inhabitants have to do the law. With the new earth, God changes their hearts of stone to hearts of flesh. Hope this helps. Regarding law, never forget Romans 5:20: yet law came in by the way, so that the offense should be INCREASING.

[@undergroundpublishing]

Paul was arguing against the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Pharisees in Galatians, Sadducees in Romans. Ask if you don't understand.

[@Rbl7132]

New perspective on Paul PURE FALSEHOOD and SALVATION BY WORKS.

[@undergroundpublishing]

Christian Academia will always make a mountain of out a molehill. It's the only way to assure their relevance, and keep people looking to the mystery cult that destroyed Christianity for a lisence to teach and preach the gospel.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. Ezk44 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. Lev24 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all ἔθνος, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Mat28

[@glennshrom5801]

Hasn't NT Wright moved far away from those 5 differences altogether since he wrote that essay? I think that essay was a first step in breaking away from the old perspective, but still using a lot of old perspective philosophical questions and philosophical categories. Doesn't NT Wright's newer body or work move away from those questions and categories altogether to conclude that we shouldn't be in those weeds if we are to understand Paul correctly, but that we should be thinking in terms of altogether new questions and categories?

[@TheologicalQuest]

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...

[@glennshrom5801]

I found this very helpful for understanding what all the controversy is about. I had no idea that it was so complicated for people, nor that all these attempts were made to tie it in to Gentile debates in western Christianity since the Reformation. I thought it was all much simpler, having read NT Wright, and also thought it was all reframing it in Jewish ways that make sense on their own, but that cannot be at all plugged in to or made sense of within those Gentile debates. I have what I think is probably a new perspective on Paul, but I would never frame it in terms of maintaining covenant in Arminian senses, nor anything like that. Maybe I should write more and present how I see it as relates, or doesn't relate, to the things brought up in this video.

[@joshuadieterich7108]

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

[@chadmeidl1140]

We are not saved by a "covenant relationship". We are saved by a Testament. Both the Old Covenant and the New are given to the Jew. A Testament is only of force after a man is dead (HEBREWS 9:16-17) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a *new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:* *Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;* which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: JEREMIAH 31:31-32 Here Jeremiah states He will make a NEW Covenant with the Jew. The Old was with the Jew. *Who are Israelites;* to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the *covenants,* and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; ROMANS 9:4 Here Paul states that the covenants (plural) belong to the Israelites. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, *and strangers from the covenants of promise,* having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus *ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.* EPHESIANS 2:12-13 The blood of Christ is the New Testament. (MARK 14:24, Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 CORINTHIANS 3:6 A Christian DOES NOT "maintain" a "covenant relationship" by "guidelines". COVENANT, noun 2. A writing containing the *terms of agreement or contract between parties;* or the clause of agreement in a deed containing the covenant. TEST'AMENT, noun 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which *a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death.* *This is otherwise called a will.* A testament to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. Notice how corrupt "bibles" destroy the future promise to the Jew by changing "testament" to "covenant", and introducing works for salvation for the Body of Christ/ the Church. He has made us competent as ministers of a *new covenant* -not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (NIV) 2 Cor. 3:6 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the *new covenant* in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (NIV) 1 Cor. 11 Paul's gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: *Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;* *By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.(!)* *For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;* *And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:* (!) See verses 12-17 to see what believing in vain means. It was a MYSTERY revealed to him alone by Jesus Christ: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; *Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations,* but now is made manifest to his saints: Colossians 1:25-26 This gospel of the Grace of God (Romans 5:15, Ephesians 2:8, Galatians 1:6, *Acts 20:24* ) was UNKNOWN before it was revealed to Paul. NOW, it is the way of salvation. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the *revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began* Romans 16:25 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) *Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,* as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Ephesians 3:1-6 The Gospel is very specific in it's application to both Jew and gentile as a means of both Justification and Sanctification. It is not a broad message that Paul learned by other men, apostles or reading the scriptures. Paul warns about preaching "another gospel" in Galatians. He also states this: *But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:* *In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.* 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 The Reformed perspective on scripture is dung. It is a philosophical opinion based on man's tradition. (Calvin, Augustine, Church Fathers, Catholic church, systematic theology, et. al.) Good works are NOT evidence of salvation. Works are our reasonable service. (Romans 12:1) The evidence of salvation are the fruits of the Spirit: Now the *works of the flesh are manifest,* which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. *But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.* GALATIANS 5:19-23 To inherit the kingdom of God, one must have his corrupt flesh perfected. (1 Cor. 15:48-50) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God for this reason. Glorification is the final step of salvation and is done by GOD ALONE. And such were some of you: *but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.* *All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.* 1 Cor. 6:11-12 Romans Chapter 7 explains that in the flesh dwells NO GOOD THING. (v. 18), and he refers to himself as carnal (v. 14), that he serves the law of sin WITH HIS FLESH. (v. 25) but with his mind the law of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. ROMANS 8:28-30 A man is predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. This is Glorification, the redemption of the body, the adoption of sons. (Romans 8:23). A man is NOT predestinated to get saved. If a man is saved (justified by faith) he is PREDESTINATED to be glorified. Salvation cannot be lost, and is not dependent on works. It is not perfected by the flesh: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, *Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?* *Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?* *Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.* GALATIANS 3:1-4

[@dmmusicmusic]

If " works righteousness" was not a significant category in first century Judaism then why did Jesus in Luke 18 construct His parable around that concept? Everyone knows the parables mostly drew from the heat dirt and sweat of common everyday life; Jesus even used the term dikaioo to describe the "state" of the penitent sinner who cried out for mercy, and likewise specifically said this was NOT the state of the pharisee ( who conversely everyone knows would have likely been in a superlative category on keeping "boundary markers," per se. Wright is just wrong.

[@kevinvaughan4596]

In the book of Galatians Paul identifies these Jews as Peter and james the brother of Christ. Why avoid this truth?

[@CurtosiusMaximus828]

These terms are flip flopped. The new perspective is actually kind of like (but not exactly like) the old prospective, and the old perspective is actually a very new prospective.

[@johngirvan5754]

Lets make something simple complicated, confusing and wrong.

[@rsandy4077]

So is the new perspective implying that according to the jews, gentiles do not enter into the covenant by grace like them since they are not the people God elected and enter into a covenant with by grace, but Paul was saying that they can enter and stay in the covenant by grace without having to keep what the jews had to keep to stay? What was wrong about the argument of the jews? They have to do the works but not the gentiles? Why? What Jesus did so that become possible? and what Jesus did to the jews that were in covenant already, what did they need from Jesus?

[@ricardovera116]

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.

[@andrewh35]

Amen

[@gingerjeff6385]

Is there not also room for a Neo-Calvinist “ordo saludis” in the NPP? I think Barth’s theology of election works nicely with the theology of the NPP. It actually ties up some ends on how Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel without being a replacement. And it helps say how the church is also not a replacement, but just the branches connected to the stump.

[@kkwok9]

Sounds like they will openly agree with Romes doctrine in catholic church Guess that's why nt wright has come to be known as nt wrong

[@JeremiahRavindranath]

Would you do a summary of “the theology of the Apostle Paul” by James Dunn?

[@mikecara3271]

Blah blah blah theologians…It’s some…True faith = Faithfulness

[@sbwetherbe]

Not sure how all this squares with Jesus' claim that he came to minister only to the Jews and that 'not one jot' of the law (old testament) was to change. Just adding the 'love one another' bit.

[@itsbradleymullins]

Caleb, this is amazing! Thanks so much for making this video! Great insight & love how you were able to add so much clarity to this!

[@beckybexter95]

Im in school now, and this was by far THE BEST explanation on this. topic. THANK YOU!!!

[@CarlDi3trich]

Eh...so that makes salvation works based ( in order to keep it ) in the new perspective.

[@Phoenixspin]

This guy kinda looks like Paul. Are we sure he is not Paul?🤔

[@jhake67]

THESE SO CALLED OLD AND NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL IS AS COMPLEX AND CONVOLUTED AS THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY...

[@asamanthinketh5944]

Dumb people should not listen tbh... These are complex topics

[@AmalfiCoastinItaly]

@@asamanthinketh5944please have more respect for people who are less educated. This can trigger off for a person to get interested and read up more. Please take note of the Bible “Love thy neighbour”

[@wasilimpeh-sl6nn]

Now there's Paul within Judaism :O

[@GDG-gorthodoxy]

I have a new perspective of NT Wright and it’s not good.

[@sammiller8640]

The New Perspective on Paul was basically protestants coming to the realization that roman catholics were right about justification lol

[@gordoncrawley5826]

And that is what makes him wrong.

[@tricord2939]

Incorrect

[@darkfielddiggermicrosafari]

@@gordoncrawley5826 Exactly!

[@scootanow85]

It’s two very different understandings. The head knowledge one never made any sense to me

[@micahmatthew7104]

We love your opinion Caleb! Unless of course it contradicts mine😆.

[@CalebSmith3]

haha nice!

[@peterhannah8807]

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!

[@ianpaterson4956]

The new perspective of Paul is the old perspective

[@dannyiselin]

Gimme that ole time religion...and let the innovators try to capture the money!

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

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.

[@angelusvastator1297]

tl;dr you only need faith to be a true Israelite not circumcision etc

[@RuskSophia-h8d]

Lewis Patricia Garcia Jessica Gonzalez Carol

[@joshsmith1551]

Who remembers the good ol' days when he was called theophile?!

[@joshmuehlendorf8153]

Hey Caleb, on point four, would you say that someone like NT Wright would sidestep the Calvin/Arminian paradigm and offer that faith is a reference to the faithfulness of Christ rather than faith in Christ? Love your videos. Probably my 5th view of this one.

[@jamesstewart7640]

This was a very helpful video. Thank you for consolidating such intense stuff. 😮

[@MaxMBJ]

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.

[@jackshadow325]

In my humble opinion, Paul never talked about a “natural law.” Romans 1 and 2 are about Israelites who had been alienated from the Mosaic covenant but still had the Mosaic law written on their hearts.

[@russelldavies6322]

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.

[@stephend7420]

Very helpful talk. Thank you!

[@TheGodSchema]

New sounds like Orthodox.

[@sophianikolai8381]

do both perspectives still teach that initial justification comes by hearing the good news and placing faith in christ:?

[@johndodson8464]

People think this kid is unbiased? He's summarizing Wright's own assessment of the debate, using Wright's book!

[@dawsonjarrell]

I would love to look at your notes on this…

[@Kingfish179]

What's funny is that the "New Perspective" is in many ways the old perspective, and is only "new" with reference to Protestanism.

[@rodionkadatskyi182]

Btw i was thinking of this as well. It reminds me a bit of Orthodox Church's teaching tbh

[@youngknowledgeseeker]

Got us

[@GanttCarterservant]

Yes

[@youngrevival9715]

Exactly, the new perspective is how i naturally read all of scripture without being informed in either side. I still hold to the new perspective

[@rsandy4077]

And yet the new perspective comes from protestants?!

[@lcfdasoares]

❤️

[@blairthomastoews]

This was a great video! I’m just now learning about this “new perspective” and found your presentation to be very helpful. Thank you sir!!

[@TheExalider]

This is soooooooo helpful. Did a book review on N.T. Wright, still wasn't sure that I understood it lol

[@blugrave4345]

That's me right now lol

[@cherylsneeringer6655]

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!

[@jamesonmoore1946]

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?

[@alexanderderus2087]

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!

[@stephengreater1689]

This is helpful.

[@chaddonal4331]

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).

[@Iffmeister]

Yup. In Arminianism faith is a gift, you're simply enabled by grace to have faith

[@rubendeleeuw1556]

I had to scroll down for a bit before I found someone else that picked up on this. 100%

[@jesseJames6892]

How can I contact you?

[@andrewh35]

Thankyou!

[@logicalcomrade7606]

This is Not an unbiased presentation.

[@dmmusicmusic]

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.

[@billyhooks99]

I read a lot of NT Wright he has changed my perspective on everything I have heard in church. Thanks for your video. I am a subscriber now.❤

[@iniduoh3791]

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?

[@CalebSmith3]

That's good! I think there's a book in this argument!

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

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.

[@00Recoil]

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.

[@MachrinasKitchen]

Thank you so much for this video. I am a theology student as well and have been blessed by this video.

[@jesseJames6892]

Have you read John Piper book that response to N.T. Wright entitled "Final Justification "?

[@carlosreira413]

There's blunders in these "new" views of justification, possibly more than the "old" ones. The problem lies in using logic with scripture! Instead, glean the clues as you would from a murder mystery. Paul says, "By works OF THE LAW shall no FLESH be justified." He could have said something else, such as, "By earnest efforts toward God shall no person be justified." But he didn't because his beef is always with the Law, and the INTENTION of the "carnal" person to try and be right with God through his own efforts. Paul has no beef with "good" works, and never disparages them. Good is good, because God is good. Self-justification, a la his sect, the Pharisees, is highly bad, not good. He somewhat arrogantly, but probably very accurately, places ALL the Jews in his own category, clueless zealots for something they really don't get! Now, logic is hard to use, because Paul is so infuriatingly contradictory and inconsistent. For example, "To them without law as without law, yet I am not with our law, but am under the law to (or of) Christ." biblehub.com/1_corinthians/9-21.htm Well, that's a bad translation (under the law) and in the Greek it's clearly a play on words--"anomos" (without law, lawless) vs. "ennomos" (literally, in-lawed, within law). biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/9-21.htm We don't find that preposition Paul uses for "under" the law "hypo." His phrasing here suggests and in or out thing, once again appealing to the "in Christ" status and its high obligation--"slave to Christ" as he says later. Paul is almost always rhetorical. There's a logic to him, but it's his own!

[@zacharyspeights8703]

Respectfully... Paul is saying what real saving FAITH is NOT: Old Covenant rituals, ceremonies and circumcision. James is telling us what saving FAITH IS: Obedience to Jesus according to the law of love.

[@dd.oliver]

If you want to simplify even more: The Old Perspective has everything to do with a Theology of religion of Paul. And the New Perspective has everything to do with the Sociology of the religion of Paul. In my opinion, the middle eastern mindset plays a huge role in it. Judaism was not only a religion in Paul's society but a Social-praxis, which a citizen of Israel should abide by. If you don't know the middle eastern mindset regarding borderlines and citizenship according to ethnicity you may be totally alien to the real problem of Paul.

[@mathbeast]

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.

[@CalebSmith3]

Thanks for the encouraging words, I'm glad you find the content helpful! I'm also a fan of Carson and Beale so I'm in the same camp.

[@jesseJames6892]

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.

[@tommarshall3365]

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.

[@Liminalplace1]

The problem with your presentation is you are too filled with NT Wright and his view on justification,but that is just not the New Perspective. It just isn't!!! That's something he has developed from his own reading. James Dunn is a better representative of the New Perspective.. it's a new perspective on 2nd Temple Juadism...without a view on justification.

[@ming887]

This is superb. The best summary out there i think! Would you mind sharing your notes for the video?

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

Seems that all 3 perspectives have it wrong concerning justification. Man justifies himself, justifies his best friend (David & Jonathan), is justified in a court of law (Deut 25), and man....justifies....God (Romans 3:4). If justification is 'entering into the covenant family," then when man justifies himself (say, before a police officer or a court of law), or justifies his best friend, or justifies God - all of these instances has to do with "entering into a covenant family"? .... justification means to "declare", be it "declared righteous" or "declared innocent."

[@jeffengstrom8657]

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.

[@bradbrown2168]

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?

[@IsaacSimmonds]

Love your videos Caleb! Thank you for all your neat summaries! - Isaac

[@CalebSmith3]

Thanks, glad you like 'em!

[@paulkiernan2632]

Being saved for a Christian in Bible has past, present and future tenses. We must be committed to all the verses on the subject. 1 Peter 2. 21 :"Baptism now saves you." We are not saved by works but neither will we be saved without them. We are saved into the Church, into God's Covenant Family, the Body of Christ.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

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.

[@darkfielddiggermicrosafari]

Exactly ! Wright couldn't be more wrong about it (justification). The Old Testament rites and sacrifices and types clearly show the necessity of expiation and propitiation, and unbroken obedience in keeping God's commandments, without which no one could be a member of the covenant community of God. Wright has confused the fact of justification (rectitude & reconciliation) with its fruit (or corollary benefit) and _consequent_ incorporation into God's faith community. One flows from the other, but is not the other. Cannot Wright see that Paul is actually rebutting his (Wright's) position on justification in Romans, as Wright's [wrong] interpretation is actually pretty close to what the Jews of Paul's day believed? From another angle, his position is in some ways reminiscent of Papal dogmas in their assertion that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church.

[@josephgudge6685]

Thank you for a great presentation! Very helpful.

[@kessler19]

12:05 You mentioned Matt Chandler's quotation. Could I get the source to his quotation pls!