# My Overview of What St Paul Really Said



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2005)

This is an overview of the book, not a review or critique of it. I am not endorsing Wright's view of justification. I am in a school debate/discussion of the NPP with an advocate of it who plans to do grad work at Duke Divinity School. I read this book so that I could say that I have read both sides and in doing so, I feel I can critique it more easily, although the critique may be a while forthcoming. Lastly, I read this book because Wright does do a good job of roasting liberal claptrap that Paul invented Christianity. Again, this a brief overview of the book. I am only laying the ideas out:



> Wright completely undoes the liberal charge that Paul invented Christianity. He sees Paul, rightly, as establishing the proper continuity rightly proclaiming the victory of Jesus over the world, thus demonstrating to the principalities and powers of the world a new way of being human (181). However, Paul did not repeat everything Jesus said and did--that would contradict Jesus' role as Messiah.
> 
> To understand Paul, _according to Wright_, one must understand his background into Shammiel Judaism. In short, pre-convert Saul trusted in God's kingdom to break into human history and overcome the whole world, by violence if necessary. He lived on passages such as Daniel 2, 7 and 9. Not only would pagans be put to shame but also compromising Jews as well (This could possible explain the inability for repentance concerning those in Hebrews 6).
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 14, 2005)

(Jacob, I don't think you are promoting this book, so we are OK, alright?)

Despite any good points, in this book, Wright:

1) tries to make this point, "Justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology"
2) denies (or nearly so) the doctrine of hell
3) denies the doctrine of imputation

Taken together, all three, I say that however much good he is at bashing the liberals, how is that materialy different from K. Barth's similar thrashing of Schliermacher's liberalism? Is doesn't make him a safe guide, even if we have similar opponents.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2005)

I am not really promoting this book. 
1) I saw it being referenced left and right in the current debates and decided, "hey, I am confident in my convictions (by the grace of God) and I want to know exactly why people are reacting the way they are,"

2) However liberal he may be in other areas, he does manage a good critique of liberals in this area.

3) I don't go to Wright on the doctrine of hell or justification, so what's the harm? Granted I might not be the most critical of people, but I do know my convictions and they are not easily set aside. To quote the brilliant theologian, Luke Skywalker, "I am not afraid."



> how is that materialy different from K. Barth's similar thrashing of Schliermacher's liberalism?



But Schliermacher was thrashed, was he not?

[Edited on 4--15-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 15, 2005)

To quote another great movie theologian:

"Be afraid. Be very afraid."


----------

