Talk:New Perspective on Paul

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Perspective on Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919133747/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Perspective on Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829034205/http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6889/paul-and-the-gift.aspx to http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6889/paul-and-the-gift.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

I am adding a new section to the long talk list of this controversial page to underline the non-neutral style and content of this article. Expressions such as "theologians of the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspectives" which keep coming back all along clearly imply that Luther's and other theologians' views are now totally outdated, being overhauled by the "new perspective", which is, of course, "a significant shift in New Testament studies", not just another interpretation or school of thought. Humility doesn't belong here! And Sanders' work is described right away as "pioneering", a qualificative which is attributed... to Sanders himself and to Dunn, another proponent of the "new perspective". Is this a serious article? There is urgent need for independent sources if the aforesaid is to remain in a wikipedia article. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Lutheran responses

Recent revert(s) citing RSs mischaracterized sourced additions as unsourced. Please note that mislabeling cited content can violate WP:POV and may constitute WP:VANDAL if repeated. I encourage constructive engagement and rewording over blanket removal. Collaboration strengthens the article.

Citing Lutheran interpretation from Lutheran apologetics sources is fully appropriate. - MainBody (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding mischaracterized sourced additions as unsourced - that's a mischaracterisation of the objections. Your main sources (wels.net) are not WP:RS, and the content you added reads more like an essay or apologetics than encyclopedical. And no, "Citing Lutheran interpretation from Lutheran apologetics" is not fully appropriate; it's a subjective choice of poor sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely. The Topical Q&A apologetics—one among several sources in my edits—has long been used on Wikipedia. No consensus has been reached that it violates WP:RS, and no compelling reason has been presented to exclude it. - MainBody (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Where is it used? Who is the author? How many cites does it have in scholarly works? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A single, relatively small denomination's website is absolutely inappropriate to cite as a reference for statements generalizing across all of Protestantism. The WELS website has no indication of publishing its own peer-reviewed or even formally edited content. The onus is on you to demonstrate reliability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Your objection misrepresents both the nature and relevance of the source. WELS is not a “relatively small denomination” in any meaningful sense—it operates the fourth-largest Christian Education system in the United States, with a long-standing institutional presence and doctrinal clarity. Size alone is not a criterion for exclusion under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines, nor is denominational specificity inherently disqualifying when the source is cited appropriately and not used to generalize beyond its scope. The Topical Q&A from WELS is not being used to speak for all of Protestantism, but to represent a well-documented theological position within confessional Lutheranism. Unless there is consensus that the source fails WP:RS, blanket removal is premature. If you believe reliability is in question, the appropriate venue is the talk page—not unilateral deletion. -MainBody (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

We're at the talkpage, and WELS Q&A is rejected. If it is a "theological position within confessional Lutheranism" then it should be presented as such. Ablnd if it is "well-documented," then surely there high standard academical sources available. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Catholic diocese I live in has more Catholics in it than the entire WELS denomination, so we can absolutely call it "relatively small". In many cases, size does matter for determining the encyclopedic value of a given perspective (WP:DUEWEIGHT). The manner you are attempting to use the source is incorrect: due to its lower quality and limited scope, it can't verify anything but specifically what WELS holds to be true about this subject. You have also been reported for edit warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Stating “WELS Q&A is rejected” (by User:Joshua Jonathan) without consensus or policy-based reasoning is a rhetorical dead-end. Wikipedia does not operate on personal decrees or anecdotal comparisons—it relies on verifiable precedent, collaborative discussions, and adherence to WP:RS and WP:DUE. A simple search—site:wikipedia.org "WELS Topical Q&A"—reveals that this source has been cited across multiple articles, clearly disproving any claim of blanket exclusion. Once again, Pbritti, the source is being used to represent a specific theological position within confessional Lutheranism, not to generalize across all of Protestantism. That distinction is already acknowledged in the edit. Denominational size is not a criterion for reliability under WP:RS, and invoking local diocesan population figures is irrelevant and misleading. WP:DUEWEIGHT applies to how views are presented—not to whether a source is allowed to verify its own doctrinal stance. If you believe the source fails reliability standards, the burden is on you to present a policy-based argument—not to repeat unsupported assertions or resort to personal metrics. Otherwise, obstructing edits through rhetorical dismissal and mischaracterization only undermines constructive editorial process. - MainBody (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding The source is being used to represent a specific theological position within confessional Lutheranism, not to generalize across all of Protestantism., the source (here) says "What is WELS' view," while your edit says "Confessional Lutherans strongly disagree." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you responding using an LLM? Some of that reply really doesn't add up and frankly misses the point that you have not suggested that there is anything reliable about that website. Regardless, breaking 3RR twice on this article following a warning and a previous EW block does not bode well. I recommend reconsidering your approach to discussion. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Business Ethics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejkim0317 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ejkim0317 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)