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 \u2013 indeed, I may have assumed that you<\/em> would take for granted the classic Protestant understanding of Paul. At any rate, I too am persuaded by the new perspective on Paul<\/a>. At least we seem to agree on something! \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n 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 \u201cunivocal\u201d expression of all New Testament figures, when he is presented as saying \u201cI now realise how true it is that God does not show favoratism but accepts men from every nation<\/a> who fear him and do what is right\u201d (Acts 10:34-35<\/a>). In the same work, Paul is depicted as saying \u201cI 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\u201d (Acts 24:14-15<\/a>). I\u2019d also be interested to know how you interpret the parable of the sheep and the goats<\/a> in Matthew\u2019s Gospel<\/a> as reflecting the view that \u201cWhen it comes to right standing with God, the NT writers are univocal: Christ alone!\u201d<\/p>\n I look forward to further clarification of how you understand the new perspective, if you have time, as well as the passages I\u2019ve just mentioned, when you have time. My own treatment of the new perspective can be found here<\/a> and here<\/a> (as well as tangentially in other posts on my blog).<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3553519670593928844?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"