In today's world the Christian is constantly being challenged with new teachings. Some of these are particularly dangerous because they are put forward by those with evangelical credentials. Tom Nicholas Wright is one of the leading proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. Wright sees himself as the new Luther, a discoverer of the true biblical understanding of key doctrines like that of justification by faith. According to him, the Reformation misunderstood the nature of justification by faith alone and the role of the law in the Old Testament. Wright maintains that this has continued to be the case for those of the Reformed Faith. He tells us that we are guilty of anachronism, whereby we interpret first-century Judaism in the light of medieval Roman Catholicism. In this work the writer not only defends the Reformed understanding of this vital doctrine but also seeks to show how Wright has misunderstood the nature of the new covenant and the place of ethnic Israel.
Оглавление
Phillip D. R. Griffiths. When Wright is Wrong
When Wright is Wrong
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
Methodology
The Old Perspective
The New Perspective(s)
The Covenant of Works
The Application of Salvation
The Sinaitic Covenant (The Old Covenant)
Galatians and Romans
Wright and Romans
Refutation of Wright’s understanding of Romans
Other New Perspective Motifs
Miscellaneous Verses
Penal Substitution and/or Christus Victor
Conclusion
Bibliography
Отрывок из книги
A Reformed Baptist Critique of N. T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul
Phillip D. R. Griffiths
.....
Continuing Exile and the Law
One of the central planks of Wright’s position is the idea that the Israel of Jesus’ time was still in exile.94 If he means the nation was disqualified from those blessings we read of in Deuteronomy 27–30 because of its disobedience he is unquestionably correct. Wright, however, goes further, believing that when Jesus became a curse, as we read of in Galatians 3:13, he did so with only the Jewish exile in mind. He sees Jesus as having brought to an end Israel’s exile, and in so doing misses the essential fact that any exile Israel may have been under was but a type of the exile which all humanity is born into as a result of Adam’s sin. Holland correctly distinguishes between these two exiles:
