The Development of the New Perspective on Paul -- Stendahl, Sanders, and Dunn

In light of the very important debate over the Federal Vision (FV) going on at Scott Clark's Heidelblog (Click here: http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - The Heidelblog (Scott Clark), I thought it might be useful to post a paper which has been mentioned by several of those engaged in the debate.

The paper is entitled, "Reformed Confessionalism and the New Perspective on Paul."  Although now badly outdated--I originally wrote this paper for a Ph.D. seminar with D. A. Hagner way back in 1996--the paper does deal with the formation of what is now called the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) or better, "New Perspectives" on Paul, since there are significant differences among its key adherents.  

"Reformed Confessionalism" was written before N. T. Wright burst upon the public scene, and well before the Federal Vision was a gleam in its Auburn Avenue fathers' eyes.  Unlike several of the versions of this essay posted on-line, this particular version is not abridged and contains all the original footnotes. 

"Reformed Confessionalism and the New Perspective" deals with an important aspect of the New Perspective, namely the shift away from the earlier Bultmannian reading of Paul, largely through the efforts of Krister Stendahl (pictured above).  Stendahl's distinctive interpretation of Paul is often overlooked, but cannot be underestimated.  To some degree, it is Stendahl's attack upon the "Lutheran Paul," which paves the way for Sanders, Dunn, and Wright. 

Understanding the transition in argument from Stendahl, to E. P. Sanders, to James D. G. Dunn, will help the reader see the highly idiosyncratic interpretation of Paul and selective use of Palestinian sources by these men, as well as demonstrate that the NPP collides with several very important Pauline texts--namely Galatians 2:16, Romans 4:5 and Philippians 3:9.

I hope this essay will provide some light, if not on the current debate over NPP and FV, on the history of New Testament studies and the development of the Stendahl-Sanders-Dunn trajectory and its subsequent modification by N. T. Wright.

To read the essay, click here

B. B. Warfield on Arminians and Evangelicals

My Academy lecture (from December 8), "B. B. Warfield, on Arminians and Evangelicals" has been posted on the Christ Reformed Infoblog.

All the fall 2006 Academy classes have been posted.  The Academy schedule for winter-spring 2006, will be posted soon.

Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)

A Calvinistically Warped Mind -- B. B. Warfield on John Miley

In light of Gary Johnson's review of Roger Olson's new book on Arminianism (Click here: Pyromaniacs: Arminianism: Semi-Pelagianism?), and because Dr. Olson chose to respond on this blog to my comments about being "dissed" by him (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Dissed by Roger Olson), I thought that it might be useful to post that section from my Ph.D. Dissertation (The Lion of Princeton) which deals with Warfield's review of John Miley's Systematic Theology.

To read "A Calvinistically Warped Mind -- B. B. Warfield on John Miley, click here

Dissed by Roger Olson

A number of you have asked me about my thoughts on Roger Olson's new book, Arminian Theology:  Myths and Realities (IVP).  I am one of those mean-spirited Calvinists singled out by Olson for supposedly misrepresenting Arminianism and Arminians.  I have not read Olson's book yet, but will certainly get around to it, since it is an important occasion when a noted Arminian theologian, like Olson, enters into direct debate with Reformed theology and its advocates.

According to Dr. Olson, in an article I wrote on Arminianism for Modern Reformation back in 1992 (Vol. 1), I am way over the top when I take Arminianism to task for departing from the evangel, when I state that in Arminianism, God's grace makes people savable, but does not actually save them.  Am I wrong, or is that not what Arminians themselves actually teach? (See, for example, the writings of John Miley, who states that Arminians teach a "genuine conditionality of salvation in accord with the synergism of the truest Arminianism," Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 169).

Throughout my essay, I quote from B. B. Warfield's "Review" of the just quoted Methodist theologian John Miley's Systematic Theology.  As Warfield was supposedly unfair to Miley (complains Olson), I am also being unfair to Arminians when I make comments to the effect that human freedom is fundamental to Arminianism (Olson, Arminian Theology, p. 98).  Olson then disses me in a footnote on page 40 of his book by writing, "I wonder whether the author [Riddlebarger] ever read Miley or only B. B. Warfield his critic." 

I can assure Dr. Olson that I've read Miley's Systematic Theology several times (with great appreciation for Miley's unabashed commitment to the Arminian system and all its consequences).  In fact, my comment about human freedom being the Arminian fundamentum, is a quote from the very same John Miley, who, supposedly, I did not actually read.

When Olson takes B. B. Warfield to task for misrepresenting Miley and Arminians, I am tempted to take up the pen in Warfield's defense, since I am well-familiar with Warfield's critique of Miley (as I am with Miley himself).  I can tell you that Warfield is anything but mean-spirited to John Miley.  In fact, Warfield is most gracious and deferential to Miley, as one scholar reviews the work of another.  Dr. Olson could learn much from Warfield's graciousness, as could we all. 

However, Gary Johnson, pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, AZ, beat me to the punch.  Phil Johnson has posted the first of Gary Johnson's three part review of Olson's book over at Pyromanics (Click here: Pyromaniacs: Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry Arminian).  I highly recommend that you check this out.  Gary Johnson does a stellar of job of defending Warfield, while hoisting Olson on his own petard.  It is patently clear to anyone who has read Warfield's "Review" that Warfield is far more charitable to Miley, than Olson is to Warfield.

Don't you just love it when those who complain about "mean-spirited" Calvinists, behave in such a manner?  Olson does not like Calvinism.  That's fine.  But to be so mean-spirited when complaining about people being "mean-spirited," empties Olson's argument of most of its punch.  Calvinists have no excuse for being mean.  But Calvinists often get back far worse than they dish out.  Olson's treatment of Warfield is a prime example.

Does Anybody Know???

Blogs are a great way of disseminating information.  Blogs can also serve as an important means of gathering information from diverse places.

One of the elders at Christ Reformed asked me a great question which I thought I would pass along to you.

"Are there any Reformed churches with outreach ministries, or parachurch organizations specifically devoted to witnessing to Muslims in America?  Are there any Reformed groups devoted to apologetic issues raised by Muslims here in America (such as groups like CAIR)?"

If you know of any, please leave your answer in the comments section below.  It would be great to learn of people out there laboring in this very important mission field.

Some Dos and Don'ts of Evangelism

Some "Dos and Don’ts" of Evangelism

Taken from lectures on evangelism, "Telling People the Truth in Love," now posted on the Riddleblog (click here)

________________________________

1. Be clear about what you believe and why you believe it. Know the Scriptures and know the confessions and catechisms. The more you know about your faith, the easier it is to talk with non-Christians.

2. The essence of evangelism is communicating the correct information about sin and grace, simply and clearly. Talk about the law and the gospel, not about infralapsarianism and divine simplicity. That comes later!

3. Avoid the use of Christian jargon. Speak about real sin, real guilt, real shed blood!

4. Use tact and be charitable! Don’t talk about reprobation with someone who has just lost an unbelieving family member. Be kind and courteous! Many non-Christians act and speak out of ignorance, not malice.

5. Be sensitive to someone’s past—if they’ve had a bad experience in church, struggle with a particular sin etc., be understanding and compassionate! Non-Christians hate self-righteousness, and they have a right to do so. Do not soft-peddle the law and the guilt of sin, but make sure they understand that you are a justified sinner, not a self-righteous "know it all," who is here to correct them!

6. Stick with the subject—don’t get side-tracked. When the conversation wanders, pull it back to center stage—the law and the gospel.

7. Evangelism is not about winning an argument, but leading people to Christ. Discussions may get heated and intense at times—that’s okay. But the purpose of evangelism is not to show why you are right and they are wrong. It is to communicate the truth of the gospel. The message is to be the offence. Not you!

8. When people are apathetic about sin—use the law. When people have doubts or are skeptical—use basic apologetic arguments. When people express guilt for sin—present the gospel.

9. Evangelism is about leading non-Christians to Christ. Convincing evangelicals that Reformed theology is true, falls under the heading of polemics. Don’t confuse the two.

10. Stick with what all Christians hold in common wherever possible. Leave the internecine fighting among Christians aside when talking to non-Christians. A non-Christian will not care much about why the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper is in error, or why Baptists are wrong about infant baptism. That will come during catechesis.

11. Wherever possible, speak about Christianity as factually true— "Jesus did this," "Jesus said this," "people heard and saw him," etc. Keep away from the subjective line of approach— "it works for me."

12. Pray for wisdom.

13. Trust in the power of God the Holy Spirit working through the word! Cite texts directly from the Scriptures with attribution. Jesus says, Paul says....Not, "I think," or "it seems to me."

14. Don’t rush things. Just because someone is not ready to trust in Christ after one encounter does not mean that effective evangelism has not taken place. Pre-evangelism is equally vital. You may plant, but someone else may have to water.

15. Treat people as objects of concern, not notches in your belt. Establish relationships and friendships whenever possible.

16. Don’t forget that a prophet is without honor in his own home. The chances of you leading your own unbelieving family members [or someone close to you] to Christ are remote. Pray for someone else to come and evangelize your family!

17. Don’t force things. If people balk, ridicule and otherwise are not interested, back off. Find another time and place. If after repeated attempts to communicate the gospel, and someone still shows an unwillingness to hear what you have to say, "shake the dust off your feet and move on to a new town!"

18. Be willing to get people the resources they need: be willing to provide them with a Bible, the right book to read, and certainly an invitation to attend your church or Bible study, etc.

19. Pray for opportunities to evangelize. Pray for your church—that God would bless the preaching of his word, that he would bring non-Christians into our midst, and that he would bless the church with growth.

20. You don’t have to become a practical Arminian to be a faithful evangelist! A Reformed approach to evangelism simply means telling people the truth in love.