Post by gloryintruth on Sept 4, 2007 18:40:09 GMT -5
In the latest issue of ChristianityToday Magazine, there is an interesting series of articles about New Perspectivisim - a theological movement that attempts to "re-think" and "re-visit" accepted Christian truths.
(For those who do not have the same level of interest in theological ramblings that I do, I have learned that when scholars use the catch-word "re-think" they usually mean by this term that what we all currently "think" and what generations of Christians have "thought" is in actually error, and some heresy is the real deal to be encouraged. On the other hand "re-visit" usually means reproducing the official line on some teaching - as in my trusty college text: Sacraments Revisited, in which a Jesuit scholar simply disgorges tradition.)
The New Perspectives on Paul's writings however are much more interesting than the standard run-of-the-mill perspectivism. These scholars assert that our understanding of what Paul meant by "works" in his writings may actually be in error, because the Reformers read into their interpretation of scripture the old Augustine\Pelagius debate.
Who was Pelagius?
Pelagius, a 4th century British monk, was a much loved man (even by those who accused him of heresy). Even his arch-rival, Augustine, described him as a "saintly man" whose life reflected harsh aestheticism and deprivation. Indeed, to avoid publically condemning him, people preferred to accuse him of lying about his "real" beliefs and teachings.
Pelagius denied the concept of the inheritance of sin and conversion through irresistable grace - he championed free will. It is important to observe that Pelagius did not deny the need for a Saviour, and he did not deny that Jesus Christ is God. (I take a charitable view of the "heretics" of early Church History, believing their views to be wrong, but their salvation in most cases to be assured - I am presently writing a short text on "Heretics through the Ages").
Pelagius knew that Augustine had once belonged to the pagan school of Manicheans (a fascinating group I heard a lecture on a few months ago). The Manicheans were fatalistic, and Pelagius saw in Augustine's concept of grace and predestination a continuation of this fatalistic belief - how can man be sent to hell for sins committed in which he had no moral choice (no "free will").
If, however, man has the free will to sin, he must also have the free will to choose God. If however, God irresistably chooses man and man has no say in his own conversion, then the entire Christian concept of salvation becomes a species of fatalism, and there is no longer any basis for performing good works and living an upright, holy life.
Augustine, on the other hand, was much more stern (I obviously am deeply influenced by Augustine's perspective). Augustine held the concept of Original Sin - we are all born sinners - and that God has predestinated some to eternal death, and others to eternal life - Augustine was the Reformer's Reformer; he held to the whole nine yards of irresistable grace related doctrine.
New Perspectives
It is being alleged that Paul viewed "works" through the membrane of his native Judaism, so that whereas the Reformers, drawing on the old Pelagius\Augustine debate in their interpretation, viewed "works" to mean "moral conduct", Paul may in fact have meant something differently.
The New Perspective views Judaism as a religion of grace, and claims the view that Judaism was a works \ law faith is actually untrue. The free entering of a covenant with God, say the scholars, suggests grace, not a juridical harshness.
(For those who do not have the same level of interest in theological ramblings that I do, I have learned that when scholars use the catch-word "re-think" they usually mean by this term that what we all currently "think" and what generations of Christians have "thought" is in actually error, and some heresy is the real deal to be encouraged. On the other hand "re-visit" usually means reproducing the official line on some teaching - as in my trusty college text: Sacraments Revisited, in which a Jesuit scholar simply disgorges tradition.)
The New Perspectives on Paul's writings however are much more interesting than the standard run-of-the-mill perspectivism. These scholars assert that our understanding of what Paul meant by "works" in his writings may actually be in error, because the Reformers read into their interpretation of scripture the old Augustine\Pelagius debate.
Who was Pelagius?
Pelagius, a 4th century British monk, was a much loved man (even by those who accused him of heresy). Even his arch-rival, Augustine, described him as a "saintly man" whose life reflected harsh aestheticism and deprivation. Indeed, to avoid publically condemning him, people preferred to accuse him of lying about his "real" beliefs and teachings.
Pelagius denied the concept of the inheritance of sin and conversion through irresistable grace - he championed free will. It is important to observe that Pelagius did not deny the need for a Saviour, and he did not deny that Jesus Christ is God. (I take a charitable view of the "heretics" of early Church History, believing their views to be wrong, but their salvation in most cases to be assured - I am presently writing a short text on "Heretics through the Ages").
Pelagius knew that Augustine had once belonged to the pagan school of Manicheans (a fascinating group I heard a lecture on a few months ago). The Manicheans were fatalistic, and Pelagius saw in Augustine's concept of grace and predestination a continuation of this fatalistic belief - how can man be sent to hell for sins committed in which he had no moral choice (no "free will").
If, however, man has the free will to sin, he must also have the free will to choose God. If however, God irresistably chooses man and man has no say in his own conversion, then the entire Christian concept of salvation becomes a species of fatalism, and there is no longer any basis for performing good works and living an upright, holy life.
Augustine, on the other hand, was much more stern (I obviously am deeply influenced by Augustine's perspective). Augustine held the concept of Original Sin - we are all born sinners - and that God has predestinated some to eternal death, and others to eternal life - Augustine was the Reformer's Reformer; he held to the whole nine yards of irresistable grace related doctrine.
New Perspectives
It is being alleged that Paul viewed "works" through the membrane of his native Judaism, so that whereas the Reformers, drawing on the old Pelagius\Augustine debate in their interpretation, viewed "works" to mean "moral conduct", Paul may in fact have meant something differently.
The New Perspective views Judaism as a religion of grace, and claims the view that Judaism was a works \ law faith is actually untrue. The free entering of a covenant with God, say the scholars, suggests grace, not a juridical harshness.