How does the Latter-day Saint faith fit in to the New Perspective on Paul?

[justinc]

Over a period of time I have come to understand a major aspect of Christianity can be best summed up in the question "Who are the children of Abraham?" to which the Jew might respond "the children of Abraham are those who are his decedent's, who are circumcised and who follow Torah" and to which the Christian might respond "the children of Abraham are those who by their faith and faithfulness to the God of Israel accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord whether they be Jew or non-Jew". Whilst summing up Judeo-Christian religion in a few sentences is no doubt going to be much too simplistic, this will have to suffice for now.

I hope to reach any Latter-day Saints who are familiar with the New Perspective on Paul and probably have read some of N.T Wright or James D. G. Dunn. My question then is how does the Latter-day Saint faith fit into the New Perspective?

If the purpose of Israel was to be a light to all other nations so that they might come and worship the God of Israel (whilst still remaining Jew and Gentile) - doesn't the Latter-day Saint faith run the risk of restricting the grace of God by claiming to be the only way?

I am sincerely interested - I've had this question for a while now :)

Edited November 16, 2013 by justinc

[Speakzeasy]

If the purpose of Israel was to be a light to all other nations so that they might come and worship the God of Israel (whilst still remaining Jew and Gentile) - doesn't the Latter-day Saint faith run the risk of restricting the grace of God by claiming to be the only way?

Paul is an interesting read and reorienting oneself to Paul's writings is quite an undertaking.

Ed Parish Sanders has some interesting ideas about what he believes Paul wrote about and how to make application of his writings.

The interesting thing about anything we do, and this is a good example, is everything is done or accepted by common consent.

Common consent is simply that by which everyone agrees.

It does not matter if it right or wrong. If common consent states that something is right and the minority disagrees then common consent is the majority.

If the minority disagrees with common consent, then ideas are introduced by the minority to persuade the majority to agree with the introduced idea. We have seen this occur time and time again. Society, religious beliefs transition and it looks natural.

If one takes religion of any type and calls it a belief, religion of any type then becomes legitimate. It makes no difference what that believe is as long as it is agreeable to the society in which is established.

When that belief is established by the common consent of a group of people it is then held by that group as a standard of thought and understanding. It makes no difference as to weather the belief is true or not (even it comes of an establish source). One cannot make a truth simply by stating it as such. Giving ones life for what a person or group perceives as being true does not make that perception true.

Common consent weather as a social agreement or a agreement as to religious beliefs will not change reality.

The only reality is the relationship between G_d and man. The difficulty with the relationship with G_d is that men have, by common consent, changed the relationship to what men want it to be. G_d has not changed his relationship with men. (Can there be any evidence to support such a claim?)

Common consent of any religion will take offence at that statement. Because members of a common consent belief have define for themselves that their understanding is correct. They have put together a doctrine that, by common consent, is agreeable to the members of that group. Of coarse, disagreement is allowed within the common consent understanding.

Common consent authority can introduce new ideas to those who perceive that authority as being correct, without disagreement, then it is acceptable. It makes no difference if the accepted change is right or wrong. It only needs to be accepted by common consent. Normally change is subtle and is presented in such away as to appear as if correct (common consent believes this is possible). Sometimes it is up front distortion of things and misleading all together. The original belief can be completely off the mark of what is to be understood from common source, and still be agreed upon. A new religion can adopt an original belief while having a different understanding. Usually by the followers being told of a variation of other common consent beliefs and adding new ideas to the old.

How does this relate to the New Perspective on Paul, you decide? Belief and understanding are common consent.

Is Mormonism "the only way?" This to is a common consent subject agreed upon by the organization members. Ones understanding of what somebody as written does not make it so. Evidence cannot be brought forth to prove that any belief of a Church is anything that it claims. It is by common consent of it members that a Church holds sway by its theology, doctrine and practice.

(Added: Here is an article dated 7/10/2007 with Catholic point of view on being the only true church: Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - International - Catholic Online.)

(As a Christian I believe that I should take up the cross of Jesus, follow him, then by grace I will be saved.)

Edited November 19, 2013 by Speakzeasy
Clarity; add link to Catholic Church article