Wow...the "New perspective" is just a mixed bag of folks who used to be reformed going back partially to Roman Catholicism and Orthodox church beliefs with some of their own thoughts mixed in as well.
It also redefines what grace "charis" means to favor instead of free unmerited favor....it says God expects something in return.
Also a handful of other terms are redefined.
Kind of concerning.
*******
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul
In 2003, N. T. Wright, distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, commented that "there are probably almost as many 'new' perspective positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them".[8]
****
Wright however does not hold the view that good works contribute to one's salvation but rather that the final judgement is something we can look forward to as a future vindication of God's present declaration of our righteousness. In other words, our works are a result of our salvation and the future judgement will show that.[12] Others tend to place a higher value on the importance of good works than the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspectives do, taking the view that they causally contribute to the salvation of the individual
****
The following is a broad sample of different views advocated by various scholars:
E. P. Sanders argued that Paul's central idea was that we mystically spiritually participate in the risen Christ and that all Paul's judicial language was subordinate to the participationary language.[5]
N. T. Wright has argued that Paul sees Israel as representative of humanity and taking onto itself the sinfulness of humanity through history. Jesus, in turn, as Messiah is representative of Israel and so focuses the sins of Israel on himself on the cross. Wright's view is thus a "historicized" form of Penal Substitution.[22]
Chris VanLandingham has argued that Paul sees Christ as having defeated the Devil and as teaching humans how God wants them to live and setting them an example.[23]
David Brondos has argued that Paul sees Jesus as just a part in a wider narrative in which the Church is working to transform lives of individuals and the world, and that Paul's participatory language should be understood in an ethical sense (humans living Christ-like lives) rather than mystically as Sanders thought.[24]
Pilch and Malina take the view that Paul holds to the Satisfaction theory of atonement.[25]
Stephen Finlan holds that Paul uses numerous different metaphors to describe the atonement; “justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9) means that a cultic substance has a judicial effect. Paul also taught the transformation of believers into the image of God through Christ (Theosis).[26]
*****