Thanks for your comments on Wright. Sorry for the late comment. I realize I’m quite late in the discussion. I just have a quick comment.

I’m not sure whether it is fair to require that Wright sift through Piper’s sermons in his critique of his views. As far as I know, Wright was and is critiquing Piper’s views as published on the topic. One could just as easily critique Piper for not listening to all of Wright’s sermons, SBL presentations, interviews, etc…Or we could just assume that it is adequate to expect each party to represent their view accurately in writing.

BTW – I’m NOT one who blindly follows Wright. While I like him on a good number of issues, he, like all of us, is not infallible – as his response to Gaventa’s and Hays’ book this year at SBL showed.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

- Michael

Rather, Wright’s comment was offered as a diagnosis of Piper’s views and various emphases. I understand that you would disagree with the diagnosis, but that does not turn it into a ‘misrepresentation’.

One can diagnose open theism, for example, as having a defective concept of sovereignty. But the open theist cannot reply–that’s a misrepresentation! we affirm divine sovereignty! for what is put forward is not an attempt at representation, but an interpretation–a diagnosis.

Just a thought.

Peace.

Are you talking about this?

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=1960#comment-37231

I still stand by what I wrote there.

Denny

Both the scholars you were speaking of said you misrepresented them. You even apologized to Bock. Why try to hide it and not just admit it?

Well, personally, I think much of the debate on justification for the last 500 years has been mountain out of a molehill. Sometimes I think we are just addicted to be separated. And this is to our great loss.

Wright is significant because I have a bunch of his books on my shelf… and because Denny says he is!

Finally, you’re right about the context of your comments. But regardless of context… even if we were sitting over a pint at the local pub, talking about this for an hour or so… if you were to make a statement like “I’ve never read the guy and don’t intend to”… we would give you a hard time.

You have the right to keep posting away.

We have the right razz you for coming across like a less than fully informed hot-heat… sometimes. In love.

Also, please recall the context in which my comments were made: ON A BLOG COMMENT THREAD. I’m not pretending to be some academic on Wright or his views, just bloviating about my impressions of the guy. If I am way off-base, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. So far, no one has given a very useful defense of his work besides “I’ve read him for 20 years and find him awesome” or “He’s the greatest Biblical scholar in the world.”

Let’s start with my question above…

Could someone PLEASE explain what is so unique or interesting about Wright’s take on justification? After all, his comments above indicate that he doesn’t even understand basic Reformed views on the subject, so I am guessing he’s not saying anything particularly new??? It would seem that this is all a mountain out of a mole hill. You say tomayto, I say tomahto…

My brother, if you don’t want to read Wright, or don’t have time too, that’s cool. I think some of us are just a bit taken aback that in that context you would presume to have so much to say on the subject, and with such strong opinion. Denny posts any number of things on subjects or people that I know little about. I sit those out.