Brief Reply To Michael Halcomb

This is my reply to Michael Halcomb’s most recent contribution to our ongoing bloggersation.

First let me address an apparent misunderstanding. You suggest that I think Paul is addressing legalism, when in fact I asserted (or meant to assert) the opposite. Perhaps I was unclear – indeed, I may have assumed that you would take for granted the classic Protestant understanding of Paul. At any rate, I too am persuaded by the new perspective on Paul. At least we seem to agree on something! 🙂

All I will add in this short post is that the apostle Peter, as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles, seems not to agree with your depiction of the “univocal” expression of all New Testament figures, when he is presented as saying “I now realise how true it is that God does not show favoratism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34-35). In the same work, Paul is depicted as saying “I believe everything that agrees with the Law and the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men [i.e. his Jewish accusers], that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Acts 24:14-15). I’d also be interested to know how you interpret the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew’s Gospel as reflecting the view that “When it comes to right standing with God, the NT writers are univocal: Christ alone!”

I look forward to further clarification of how you understand the new perspective, if you have time, as well as the passages I’ve just mentioned, when you have time. My own treatment of the new perspective can be found here and here (as well as tangentially in other posts on my blog).