I wonder if you know what N.T. Wright’s answers to your objections are. Naturally, he does have answers to them (I, decidedly less so!), especially given the fact that he is a Reformed Anglican. Knee jerk reactions are those that result from hearing another interpretation and incredulously pitching back your own without really engaging the other’s arguments and alternative understanding of terms and concepts. You treated the NPP as though no one accepting it had ever considered your objections – or worse, that they had and yet decided to just plow on through and wage an “attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and upon the Protestant Reformation”. You did not interact with anything actually offered in defense of your objections, and I for one would like to know what they say because I am sufficiently new to this field that I do not know.

But then again, even if you did read their arguments, I wonder if you’d consider them seriously. I noticed on your blog that you rejected someone’s appeal to Lewis’s beliefs as an authority, and I do the same when considering the Protestant Reformation’s conclusions. I’d encourage you to resist the urge to start your study with the maxim, “Everything the Reformers believed = the very Gospel of Jesus Christ.” What happened to semper reformanda?

I wonder if you know what N.T. Wright’s answers to your objections are. Naturally, he does have answers to them (I, decidedly less so!), especially given the fact that he is a Reformed Anglican. Knee jerk reactions are those that result from hearing another interpretation and incredulously pitching back your own without really engaging the other’s arguments and alternative understanding of terms and concepts. You treated the NPP as though no one accepting it had ever considered your objections – or worse, that they had and yet decided to just plow on through and wage an “attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and upon the Protestant Reformation”. You did not interact with anything actually offered in defense of your objections, and I for one would like to know what they say because I am sufficiently new to this field that I do not know.

But then again, even if you did read their arguments, I wonder if you’d consider them seriously. I noticed on your blog that you rejected someone’s appeal to Lewis’s beliefs as an authority, and I do the same when considering the Protestant Reformation’s conclusions. I’d encourage you to resist the urge to start your study with the maxim, “Everything the Reformers believed = the very Gospel of Jesus Christ.” What happened to semper reformanda?

Clearly, reading Romans and Galatians in context, Paul understood the issue of law as more than mere ceremony and ritual. Dunn himself acknowledges this since the early church utilized the rituals of baptism and the Lord’s supper. The pauline use of “law” includes the moral law, especially in passages like Romans 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8! How could it be otherwise when Paul says that the “law” condemns him? I hardly think the “ceremonial” law has any such guilt producing effects. And when Paul says the law drives him to Christ for mercy, he cannot be referring merely to ceremony. He is talking about the moral law and its crushing indictment against mankind as being rebellious sinners in opposition to God.

Futhermore, the Genesis account has an account of law breaking that brings about the fall and man’s being ejected from the garden of Eden and bringing a curse upon all mankind. Even a child can read this and understand that the issue is a violation of God’s moral law and not merely some empty ritual.

The problem is the NPP is essentially an attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and upon the Protestant Reformation which rediscovered the biblical doctrine of justification. Even more telling is Romans 5 where justification is clearly related to a declared righteousness, not some vague membership in the community of faith.

Clearly, reading Romans and Galatians in context, Paul understood the issue of law as more than mere ceremony and ritual. Dunn himself acknowledges this since the early church utilized the rituals of baptism and the Lord’s supper. The pauline use of “law” includes the moral law, especially in passages like Romans 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8! How could it be otherwise when Paul says that the “law” condemns him? I hardly think the “ceremonial” law has any such guilt producing effects. And when Paul says the law drives him to Christ for mercy, he cannot be referring merely to ceremony. He is talking about the moral law and its crushing indictment against mankind as being rebellious sinners in opposition to God.

Futhermore, the Genesis account has an account of law breaking that brings about the fall and man’s being ejected from the garden of Eden and bringing a curse upon all mankind. Even a child can read this and understand that the issue is a violation of God’s moral law and not merely some empty ritual.

The problem is the NPP is essentially an attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and upon the Protestant Reformation which rediscovered the biblical doctrine of justification. Even more telling is Romans 5 where justification is clearly related to a declared righteousness, not some vague membership in the community of faith.