tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post3998531286682875677..comments2024-01-29T14:24:46.852-05:00Comments on Wes Ellis: Piper vs. Wright on Paulwellis68http://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-50411508318051206562007-12-23T18:31:00.000-05:002007-12-23T18:31:00.000-05:00Thanks Danny,I will check it out. Now I want to re...Thanks Danny,<BR/>I will check it out. Now I want to read Dunn.wellis68https://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-49425338022624754922007-12-22T19:26:00.000-05:002007-12-22T19:26:00.000-05:00Hello my sweet Wesley,Last night in my dreams, you...Hello my sweet Wesley,<BR/>Last night in my dreams, you were wonderful...<BR/><BR/>But seriously...<BR/><BR/>I stumbled across Ken Schenck's blog, and he is friends with Oropeza, Reeves, and Dr. Wright at our school. I commented on his blog, and he also mentions Dunn as the one who main people who coined this idea of the "new perspective" of Paul. On there he also makes mentions of E.P. Sanders. Sanders wrote a book on Paul too (Wright mentions it within a quote cited by Piper introduction that I sent you). Anyways, it is interesting because Schenck doesn't seem to think that either Wright or Piper has it right, but Dunn is the best scholar on Paul. <BR/><BR/>He's kind of long winded, but he did something similar to Trevin Was by commenting on each chapter. <BR/><BR/>His blog is:<BR/><BR/>http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>He was really helpful to me, and seems like a stand-up guy. Hope you're having a good break.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468537974498583624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-78215167594637251492007-12-22T17:36:00.000-05:002007-12-22T17:36:00.000-05:00Mike, I agree with you. I think Wright hits the na...Mike, <BR/>I agree with you. I think Wright hits the nail on the head... man, I sure would like to read Wright's rebuttal.<BR/>Thanks for the great insight.<BR/>-Weswellis68https://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-11877389469147931692007-12-22T17:24:00.000-05:002007-12-22T17:24:00.000-05:00So the Piper book is finally out. I talked with Wr...So the Piper book is finally out. I talked with Wright about it while we were in the Bahamas for Soularize. He said that Piper was quite gracious in letting him read the manuscript, and that he [Wright] sent him a 15,000 word rebuttal as to where he felt Piper was incorrect.<BR/><BR/>Two things for everyone to consider. First, the "New Perspective" on Paul, a term coined by James Dunn, is the only vision of Paul's discussions on the Law that is even remotely consistent with Jewish thinking. This vision has been praised by Jewish scholars alike for it's handling of the issues surrounding the law in the Second Temple period.<BR/><BR/>Second, the Amazon description is laughable in that Wright is not chucking out 1,500 years of justification and thus putting the church in "danger." Perhaps it sells books, but it is far from accurate. Wright is calling for a course correction on our thinking of the issues surrounding the law based upon evidence that has been around a lot longer than even the Reformation. He definitely is calling Piper's theology of Paul in to account as it should be. It has it's problems - historically, sociologically, and theologically.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to reading Piper's work - as well as the discussion that should unfold. Perhaps it will be like a version of "theologian smackdown".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com