Romans 5:1 Δικαιωθεντες ουν εκ πιστεως - The Impact of Such a Small Verse of Scripture

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[huckelberry]

My recommendation would be to just ignore the NPP altogether, at least for now. The NPP is a debate (modern day) about a debate (Protestants vs Catholics) about a debate (Augustine vs. Pelagius) about a debate (Paul vs. the Judaizers). Since Mormons have ignored all of that, including the original debate, there really isn't anything there for them. It really is amazing how little Mormons read Romans vs how influential it has been in the whole of Christian history.

If you want to understand Paul, the best way is to just get a modern translation and read Paul. I would also suggest making an outline (your own, no cheating) of Romans. Finally I would make sure you understand the basic terms Paul uses looking them up in some sort of theological dictionary. Terms such as faith, grace, justification, imputation, election, glorification, predestination, etc. Not exhaustive, but you get the picture. For modern translations, I recommend NASB, ESV, NIV or NRSV. Those are listed in order from conservative to liberal translation committees, though there are no significant differences in the texts (the notes in a study Bible will vary wildly).

By all means, don't read the KJV. The KJV is a great translation for 17th century speakers. It does best in the narrative sections. It is VERY hard for modern readers to make it through the KJV epistles or the prophets. I always laugh these days when Mormons complain about how hard Isaiah is. He's much easier in a modern translation. Even more ironic, the worst place to read Isaiah is in the Book of Mormon, where the text is just as bad as the KJV (because it IS the KJV), but it has been removed from its own context. Even more ironic that Mormons seem convinced the Book of Mormon Isaiah somehow clarifies things.

After that, if you really want to, then start reading the historical episodes leading up to the NPP, then start with Sanders. That's a lot of reading just to understand the NPP. To be totally honest, I've done that and I have zero interest in the NPP anymore.

Aristotle, you make good observation. I wanted to second your comment about best way to approach Paul is to read Paul. I will add I feel sure a person needs to read through Romans whole probably more than once before getting lost in studying fragments. It is not clever fragments but an developing interrelated argument from a start to a finish.
I might wonder if that theological dictionary might drag all those old arguments to the fore. I might hope or at least wonder if the best definitions might be found in the way Paul uses the terms.

....now if I could only decide what qualifies as faith and what does not..... I guess it may lie in the living more than in the definition.

[Res Ipsa]

And thanks Aristotle and Huck. Being raised LDS, My knowledge of the history of Christian theology. I did listen to an audio course on the topic a couple years back, and found it really interesting. Once I retire, I may see if I can audit a course.

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[msnobody]

Indeed impactful, Philo. I enjoyed reading your post.

[Don Bradley]

Love your engagement with Romans here, Philo! =) Props for digging deep into the New Testament scholarship and even starting to learn the biblical languages!

Latter-day Saints tend to decidedly under-use Paul, and LDS scholars, as you note, have overwhelmingly failed to adequately grapple with Paul.

For a welcome exception--and a just a dang well informed and sharp exegesis of Romans, check out Joseph Spencer's analysis. Surprisingly his book For Zion: A Mormon Theology of Hope https://smile.amazon.com/Zion-Mormon-Th ... 589585682/ is largely a close reading of Romans.

Don

[Philo Sofee]

Love your engagement with Romans here, Philo! =) Props for digging deep into the New Testament scholarship and even starting to learn the biblical languages!

Latter-day Saints tend to decidedly under-use Paul, and LDS scholars, as you note, have overwhelmingly failed to adequately grapple with Paul.

For a welcome exception--and a just a dang well informed and sharp exegesis of Romans, check out Joseph Spencer's analysis. Surprisingly his book For Zion: A Mormon Theology of Hope https://smile.amazon.com/Zion-Mormon-Th ... 589585682/ is largely a close reading of Romans.

Don

Hey Don! Good to see you my friend! Hope all is well. Thanks for the heads up on the book, I shall check into it. This is a huge topic. Interesting to learn the nuances to be sure.