Tag Archives | New Perspective

The Proper Pronunciation of “Propitiation”

While traveling to OH for my sister’s wedding last weekend, I had the opportunity to listen to D. A. Carson’s (Wikipedia | Theopedia)1 three-part series on the New Perspective on Paul (Theopedia): “The So-Called New Perspective on Paul Critiqued” (Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 also here: Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3).2 He delivered it at Reformed Theological Seminary in 2005. It’s a helpful overview and introduction to the issues.3 If you don’t have a good grasp on the New Perspective, this is a good place to start.

PropitiationBut the New Perspective is not the subject of this post. During the course of the third lecture, Dr. Carson repeatedly referred to propitiation (Theopedia) when working through Romans 3. What struck me as odd was his pronunciation of the term. He consistently said prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn (e.g., 48:54). Perhaps as intriguing was that he pronounced the verb form, “propitiate,” (correctly, in my view) as prō-pĭsh-ē-āte rather than the expected prō-pĭs-ē-āte.

Continue Reading →

Footnotes

  1. See also Andreas Kostenberger’s ten-page biography of Carson.
  2. See Andy Naselli’s nice collection of Carson audio.
  3. See Adrian Warnock’s summary.
Comments { 4 }

Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul | Guy Prentiss Waters

Justification and the New Perspectives on PaulGuy Prentiss Waters. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response. P&R, 2004. 273 pp.

[rate 3]

I just recently came across Perrin’s evaluation of Waters’s Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul (WTSBooks).

“Whatever the merits of Justification and the New Perspectives as a primer on twentieth-century Pauline scholarship, the author has been less than successful in his interaction with the NPP. Indeed, assuming that Waters’s primary goal is to construct a convincing argument against the NPP (and N. T. Wright in particular), the book must be judged to have failed at a fundamental level.”1

Continue Reading →

Footnotes

  1. Nicholas Perrin, “A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective,” WTJ 67:2 (Fall 2005): 381-89.
Comments { 5 }

Garlington’s Galatians Commentaries

An Exposition of GalatiansI previously posted about Don Garlington’s commentary on Galatians being available as a free PDF from the Paul Page. But I wasn’t sure exactly which Galatians commentary it was. So I emailed Dr. Garlington and got the official answer.

As for Galatians, I appreciate that the situation is confusing. The thing has gone through an “evolutionary process.” First there was the manuscript for EBC, which was submitted three years ago and still awaits publication (supposedly in the Fall). That is a very basic commentary aimed at a more general audience.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

A Faith That Is Never Alone

A Faith That Is Never Alone: A Response to the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin and published by Kerygma Press, is due out sometime this fall. It is a response to Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, edited by R. Scott Clark and published by P&R.

Here are the planned chapters and contributors:

CHAPTER 1—John H. Armstrong: “Preaching the Faith That Is Never Alone”

CHAPTER 2—Norman Shepherd: “Faith and Faithfulness”

Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }

“New Perspectives on Paul”

Justification in PerspectiveI just finished reading what is probably the best summary and most mature exposition of the contours of N. T. Wright’s theology of justification that I have read so far: “New Perspectives on Paul” by N. T. Wright, the final essay in the new volume Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (2006), edited by Bruce L. McCormack. Wright responds to the numerous critiques that have been leveled against him over the past several years. The result is a more carefully nuanced and cogently expressed discussion of the central issues.

One thing I found very interesting was Wright’s assertion that the essence of his views on Paul was pre-Sanders. In other words, Wright didn’t rely on Sanders for his ideas. Rather, Wright came to his convictions independently—many of Sanders’s central points merely confirming what Wright had already been thinking (245–46).

Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }