So I'm finally sitting down to get a handle on what is the NPP according to NT Wright, not Dunn and Sanders but Wright for if any of these guys is right its going to be Dr.Wright, right? I know, shame on me for not looking into this already. Seriously I’ve read nothing about NPP and it’s probably a good idea I have a working knowledge of what it is. As my usual practice is, I go to the proponents of said doctrine first. It seems backwards to pick up say Guy Waters book then go read N.T. Wright or others.
The following comments are not going to be about the theology itself proposed in the NPP but rather two surprise encounters I had while sifting through Dr. Wright this weekend.
The Surprise:
What is so disarming about Dr. Wright is he claims to be wholly committed and unswayable grounded in maintaining integrity to the Holy Scriptures. He speaks of his “heartfelt and lifelong commitment to scripture.” He believes that as the church better understands the scripture the better she is for worship, preaching, and all of common life.
These kinds of things preface almost every lecture he gives on the subject. He also claims to have not come to these conclusions because of reading Dunn or Sanders but because he was trying to think Paul’s thoughts after him as a matter of obedience to the scripture. All that is to say, this isn’t your “run of the mill” false teacher that so many American Christians claim him to be.
The second surprise was to find that he has spent a good deal of breath and ink in disagreeing with Sanders and Dunn. Dr. Wright, at one point even refers to there being more new perspectives on Paul as there are writers publishing about it and that he disagrees with nearly all of them. Huh? I’ve always been taught that these guys are all in one accord on everything on NPP, they are drinking buddies; i.e. they are NPP. Odd. There seems to be, like in almost everything, poor misrepresentations or to put it rightly, bearing false witness.
In conclusion I post these two surprises because it sure removes the cloudiness from the water so that you can hear what Dr. Wright is saying a little more clearly.
The following comments are not going to be about the theology itself proposed in the NPP but rather two surprise encounters I had while sifting through Dr. Wright this weekend.
The Surprise:
What is so disarming about Dr. Wright is he claims to be wholly committed and unswayable grounded in maintaining integrity to the Holy Scriptures. He speaks of his “heartfelt and lifelong commitment to scripture.” He believes that as the church better understands the scripture the better she is for worship, preaching, and all of common life.
These kinds of things preface almost every lecture he gives on the subject. He also claims to have not come to these conclusions because of reading Dunn or Sanders but because he was trying to think Paul’s thoughts after him as a matter of obedience to the scripture. All that is to say, this isn’t your “run of the mill” false teacher that so many American Christians claim him to be.
The second surprise was to find that he has spent a good deal of breath and ink in disagreeing with Sanders and Dunn. Dr. Wright, at one point even refers to there being more new perspectives on Paul as there are writers publishing about it and that he disagrees with nearly all of them. Huh? I’ve always been taught that these guys are all in one accord on everything on NPP, they are drinking buddies; i.e. they are NPP. Odd. There seems to be, like in almost everything, poor misrepresentations or to put it rightly, bearing false witness.
In conclusion I post these two surprises because it sure removes the cloudiness from the water so that you can hear what Dr. Wright is saying a little more clearly.
AND no I am not going to post what I think of the actual doctrine of NPP...that's never the intent of my personal blog. I'm a student and I'm just cracking the issues with NPP...I would be an idiot to publish my views online.
Come on get a clue! =)
Come on get a clue! =)
4 comments:
Wright or wrong, he sure looks cool. =)
Yeah...by all outward appearances it makes you feel like Presbys are just playing church...or with their suits playing business...in the URC we wear robes...eh a step in the Wright direction.
chris
www.twoth.com
www.rehersfamily.com
Chris, you wrote: "In the URC we wear robes." As I wrote in my comments on an earlier entry, you seem to have a very limited experience of the URCNA. Robes may be relatively common in California, but they're virtually unheard of elsewhere.
I started wearing a clerical collar in my second pastorate, but I could count on one hand -- literally, and I wouldn't need the thumb -- the number of men who wore a collar when I was in the federation.
Yes, my only exp with the URCNA is southern California...so more than "very" limited.
Post a Comment