# N.T. Wright and the Gospel of John (NPP)



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 9, 2005)

It is my understanding that N.T. Wright (by his own admission) has not really seriously studied or taken into account the Gospel of John, especially in regards to his studies of Jesus, Paul, pre-Christian Judaism, etc... As a result, he misses quite a bit of extremely significant verses that directly refute his claims in regards to Justification.

Thoughts? Agree/disagree?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 10, 2005)

No one?


----------



## pduggan (Dec 20, 2005)

He has written a "John For Everyone" book. I haven't read it all but flipped through some pages through amazon.com's "search inside the book" feature. It seemed pretty conventional.

If wright's claims are about what Paul's doctrine of justifcation is, then why would John be determinative in that matter?

[Edited on 12-20-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> He has written a "John For Everyone" book. I haven't read it all but flipped through some pages through amazon.com's "search inside the book" feature. It seemed pretty conventional.
> 
> If wright's claims are about what Paul's doctrine of justifcation is, then why would John be determinative in that matter?
> ...



Because Paul wasn't inventing his own doctrine of how one becomes part of the family of God, he was writing by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that penned the gospel according to John. You don't make doctrine from part of the Bible. You use all of it. That is my understanding at least.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> He has written a "John For Everyone" book. I haven't read it all but flipped through some pages through amazon.com's "search inside the book" feature. It seemed pretty conventional.
> 
> If wright's claims are about what Paul's doctrine of justifcation is, then why would John be determinative in that matter?
> ...



Um, because there is no "Pauline" doctrine of Justification, or "Johannine" or "Petrine" but all have the same gospel. If an interpretation of Paul's doctrine does not fit John, or Peter, or Isaiah, or Moses, it is not correct.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pduggan_
> ...





One Spirit, one faith.


----------



## pduggan (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pduggan_
> ...



Well, Paul says he has declared the 'whole counsel of God'. If wright has correctly exegeted Paul, it could hardly be the case that his exegesis of Paul has missed something that comes from John, as WrittenFromUtopia had asked.

I've generally understood that the reformed doctrine of scripture has allowed for different biblical authors to have different emphases than other authors. Much of the argument against NPP and other controversies, though often circle around the matter of who is 'emphasizing' various aspects of biblical teaching 'too much' or in the 'wrong way'. Making an account of Paul's doctrine, and noting, say, that he can account for the Gospel fully while avoiding certain formulations of other apostles means that it is valid to give an account of the Gospel in 'pauline' terms.

Note that in actual fact, I think Paul and John are quite compatible

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]


----------

