Skip to content

I want one for Christmas

November 22, 2007

weak-on-sanctification.jpg

weak-on-sanctification_back.jpg

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. November 22, 2007 11:29 pm

    I really like the Simul Iustus et Peccator t-shirt and am thinking about getting one!

  2. November 26, 2007 5:17 am

    I want a “Bishop Tom is my homeboy” with the perhaps most oft-quoted line of WSPRS (“If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . . To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how language works”) on the back.
    If I lived somewhere that Cafe Press ships, maybe I’d try to make one.
    Anyways, Piper has graciously posted The Future of Justification online, and now that I’ve finished a couple other books, I’m going to try and blog through it a bit as I have time @ xanga.com/qing_jiao_tu
    If you have / when you do / if you do read it, I’d welcome input/dialog .

  3. November 26, 2007 10:18 am

    Maybe I’ll read some more NTW. The conventional wisdom says he’s good on Jesus, bad on Paul. Well, if he’s as great on Jesus as he is awful on Paul, he’s got to be pretty dang awesome on Jesus, so I think I better check it out. :-)

  4. November 29, 2007 2:01 pm

    “Well, if he’s as great on Jesus as he is awful on Paul, he’s got to be pretty dang awesome on Jesus, so I think I better check it out.”

    Ha!

    (No comment from the peanut gallery.)

  5. December 4, 2007 3:35 am

    Actually, though I’m on board or “sympathetic” to most Pauline stuff, I’m pretty hotly opposed to some Jesus stuff. Most strikingly, in Simply Christian (I’ve heard – haven’t read it) as well as in lectures, publications, etc., Wright teaches that the primary avenue of Jesus’s “self-knowledge” as deity, God-incarnate, etc. is vocation. That is, he’d say something like “the most important things we know can’t go into test tubes or a check book or be calculated – i know they love me, and i know i love them too” (which is true, and a good response to modernism) “I’ve always known very specifically that my calling was to be blah blah, although that’s not empirical. What we can say, is that Jesus knew that in His vocation and calling He was to do and say things that only YHWH could do and say”
    That’s a totally made-up quote, but, that’s how he talks and that’s nearly exactly what he’d say (p.s., what’s with firefox spell check saying “YHWH” is no good?)

    For some one who fights so hard exegetically for Pauline Theology as strictly and explicitly Trinitarian, I don’t understand how that can be something he’d “sacrifice” (though he doubtlessly wouldn’t see it as such), let alone become a soapbox…

    I have heard (and from the little I’ve read/listened to in talks) the same, though, that he’s generally splendid on historical Jesus / resurrection / etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: