James Dunn's Heresy

wjbkirk · 02-04-2003, 02:21 PM

James Dunn's "New Perspective on Paul" is the most dangerous theology that is infecting evangelicalism today. It is very subtle in its distortion of justification by faith alone. Let me post a website with many resources that address the teachings of James Dunn, EP Sanders, and others who share in this new perspectivism. You can read part of the book written to address this problem, order a copy of it at a reduced rate, read endcorsements by such respected non-Calvinists as John Hannah of Dallas Theological Seminary, Millard Erickson of Truett Seminary at Baylor, and Paige Patterson recent Presdient of the Southern Baptist Convention.

You can listen to an mp3 of John Piper on why he wrote this book as well.

<http://www.desiringgod.org/store/ind...bcrc_plug.html>

I will post the preface tohis book after this post.

wjbkirk · 02-04-2003, 02:21 PM

Wrong Link -- try this:

<http://www.desiringgod.org/store/ind...rent=51&id=337>

wjbkirk · 02-04-2003, 02:47 PM

Actually I just realized that Piper doesn't mention Dunn until Chapter two of his book, so I won't be able to convince you form Piper's site what Dunn believes. But here are some articles written in response to thie New Perspective concept by James Dunn, EP Sanders, and NT Wright. James Dunn took some ideas by EP Sanders (who doesn't believe the Bible is the Word of God at all) and tweaked it a little, redefining the concept of justification. These articles are about the pastorla implications of Dunn's work.

<http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engli...spective.1.pdf>
<http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engli...spective.2.pdf>
<http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engli...spective.3.pdf>

I'll be back with some more.

wjbkirk · 02-04-2003, 02:57 PM

Here is a fairly readable and understandable article on the issues and the players.

<http://www.soundofgrace.com/v8/n7/newperspective.htm>

BassSlim · 02-04-2003, 03:04 PM

Reading those PDFs made my head hurt. Could you explain this in more layman's terms?

Edit: Never mind. Posted after your last post.

Superman · 02-04-2003, 05:05 PM

This is a note to all those wondering what this is about... Mr. Dunn was mentioned by myself and then supported by someone else in the Book of the Month Club for February.

Im saying all this because the BOTM thread got outta hand with retractors, and I invited wjbkirk to start a thread on Mr. Dunn. This way I can delete the other posts in BOTM and still leave people with a clue as to what wjbkirk is referring to.

I read lots of commentaries. I have as many Calvinist authors on my shelf as I do Arminian. Douglas Moo and John Stott being 2 of my favorites, and they are as Calvinistic as it comes!!!

Point is, if Mr. Dunn does have something erronious in his book, I doubt it will bother me, Im the most likely never to budge, after all...

I have not read the entirety of Mr. Dunn's book (it is very large), only certain topics in particular, and what I have read, I liked and already agrred with. But I have not run into anything heretical myself. At least not yet. But it's a huge book, so maybe I will.

Or maybe I wont.

Although I would not intentionally recommend something I thought was a heresy, I'm not gonna pass judgment on Dunn just like I wont pass judgment on Stott and Moo.

That's all I have to say about Mr. Dunn.

DaveJes1979 · 02-05-2003, 01:13 AM

Any theology, such as that of Dunn, that strips justification of its judicial and individualistic character, has trampled on the gospel and taken away our hope of being right with God.

Superman · 02-05-2003, 08:26 AM

OK, I didnt read all of iit, but I read some. It appears Dunn and others believe in a proactive participation, ie, You may be justified by faith initially, but in order to stay justified, you must do all the things in the Bible that Justified believers do (be obedient)?

Is that what Dunn is saying?

If so, I see no problem with that. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that a person that is not "doing works worthy of repentance" isnt a Christian, whether you believe he was never saved to begin with or just "backslid." So I dont see the problem, although a Calvinist doesnt believe in "backsliding." A Calvinist still believes a Christian will show good fruit though, right? So isnt Dunn's argument a typical Arminian argument? In the end, dont we both agree that the guy in Heaven was a person who was justified by faith and maintained a godly lifestyle on earth? Or am I not seeing all of Dunn's arguments here?

I havent read Dunn's thesis on justification for myself, but Ill se if I can today and get back to you on my thoughts.

As for Dunn's ascertion the Jewish mindset didnt believe in salvation by works, I will disagree with him on that. Jesus and Paul's arguents with lawyer types seems pretty evident it was a works-based salvation. Their faith was in that.

wjbkirk · 02-05-2003, 08:55 AM

He does not come out and say, "I don't beleive in justfication by faith." It is much more subtle, which is why I seriously recommend you read PIper's book against Dunn's theology, since you are having to read this book for school (or someone is).

But Super, you comment here is quite scary:
"You may be justified by faith initially, but in order to stay justified, you must do all the things in the Bible that Justified believers do (be obedient)? If so, I see no problem with that. "

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no "staying justified." Justification is by faith ALONE or it is not of faith at all. You are prescribing the Romanist view of justification:

Faith + Works = justification

This will save no one. It is legalism. It is saying that the cross was not sufficient to save. It is adding to the finished work of Christ. It is a false gospel.

The gospel teaches the following, which I hope you meant:

Faith = justification + works.

And what Dunn is actually saying (at least his protege NT Wright said it in one of his books) is that justification isn't about salvation as much as it is about who is included in the covenant. This is the "covenantal nominism" that Dunn talks about. Again, it completely undermines justification by faith alone, is heretical, and will exclude its adherants from salvation.

Superman · 02-05-2003, 10:54 AM

Well, if I understand Calvin's interpretation of 2 Peter 1:8-10, he said that "if you are doing these things, you are "sure" of your calling and election..." That's a paraphrase of course.

My point is, a Calvinist might argue that if one claims to have faith, and yet there are no works as evidence, their faith has not justified them.

The Arminian might say that if one claims to have faith, and yet there are no works as evidence, their faith has not justified them.

The distinction would be the Arminian would say God has provided the will and the do, now go and do it (free will) or else you will fall. You are not justified if you are habitually disobedient.

A Calvinist might say God has provided it and you will do it, because you cannot fall. If you do fall you were never justified in the first place. You are not justified if you are habitually disobedient.

In both cases, neither groups believe "works" is the process that makes you justified in God's court. But if you are justified, then you should live like it, or you are not justified.

So obviously, the sign of good works shows you are (perfect tense) justified. But the Calvinists claims the Arminians are trying to be justified by their works (by being proactive in the free will sense) but they dont believe that, they believe they have already been justified, and now should act like it. If they stop "doing works worthy of repentance" they have in effect "turned away from the holy command passed on to them" and if they then go and habitually sin, God will not justify that, hence, they fall.

It *appears* Dunn is saying the same thing, again, I need to go read exactly what Dunn said before I can defend him.

Or are you saying one can have faith, and does not have to, or will not necessarily make this known by their works?

wjbkirk · 02-05-2003, 12:18 PM

This really isn't a C/A debate. Dunn is saying that justification is not about how one is saved, but rather who is included in the family of faith.

He does not believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us upon by our faith. Works are evidence of saving, justifying faith. That's not really what Dunn is talking about here. He is saying that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us. This is the heresy. This is why it is so dangerous. Read Piper's book as you read Dunn's and I think you will see the danger in this. As I've said, both Calvanists and Arminians endorse Piper's defense of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. That's why I say this isn't a C/A debate.

Superman · 02-05-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wjbkirk
This really isn't a C/A debate. Dunn is saying that justification is not about how one is saved, but rather who is included in the family of faith.

He does not believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us upon by our faith. Works are evidence of saving, justifying faith. That's not really what Dunn is talking about here. He is saying that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us. This is the heresy. This is why it is so dangerous. Read Piper's book as you read Dunn's and I think you will see the danger in this. As I've said, both Calvanists and Arminians endorse Piper's defense of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. That's why I say this isn't a C/A debate.

Well, if Dunn doesnt think Christ's sacrifice made believers righteous, then I will have to say Dunn missed the boat on that one, and I'm right there with you.

wjbkirk · 02-05-2003, 02:34 PM

Well I'm certainly relieved that you agree with me on this at elast. That is most definitely what Dunn and Wright believe. This is why I say it is so dangerous!!!!!