(I removed footnote indicators and the bolding is mine)J&NPP argues that the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) are soteriologically incompatible with the confessional Reformed theology expressed in the Westminster Standards. The NPP´s and the Westminster Standards´ understandings of the doctrines of grace cannot be reconciled. Perrin argued in his review that J&NPP had misunderstood the NPP. "œWe have in Justification and the New Perspectives an author," Perrin claims, "œwho seems to be demanding a methodology from his opponents they would never be interested in using, demanding answers to questions they are not interested in asking, and demanding language they simply do not speak." Had J&NPP been more sensitive to NPP proponents´ methodology, questions, and language, Perrin suggests, it might have been in a position to conceive "œhow implications from NPP research may build upon, modify, challenge, or subvert the confessional stance forged by the Westminster divines." (Of course, J&NPP had no intention of subverting the Westminster Standards. It sought, rather, to uphold them as summaries of biblical truth). Perrin offered examples from J&NPP which he believed illustrated his criticism.
And Waters seems to take that as a fundamental misreading of him, as though he was on board with a confessional revision project (which he obviously is not) --which from the quote doesn't seem to be Perrin's point at all. From that quote it doesn't seem that Perrin is denying that, at least at some points, NPP is unconfessional; just that Waters failed in identifying what those points actually were.If J&NPP had paid attention to what the NPP actually said he could have come up with some accurate information on how it relates to and in some cases subverts the confessional understanding
Ruben,Originally posted by py3ak
Does Waters not misread Perrin here? To me it sounded like, if Waters is quoting Perrin at all fairly, that Perrin could be paraphrased:
And Waters seems to take that as a fundamental misreading of him,If J&NPP had paid attention to what the NPP actually said he could have come up with some accurate information on how it relates to and in some cases subverts the confessional understanding
Everybody "misrepresents" Wright. When a liberal anthology of critical essays was put together Wright said he was misrepresented. At this year's conference of, I think it was the Society for Biblical Literature, Wright was again complaining that the scholars there were misrepresenting him.
The Germans don't believe that NT Wright has done the detailed exegetical work to justify his interpretations.In another of his Ref21 posts, he spoke about another time he was over in Germany for something similar, and spoke with some German liberal. Now that old guy--CRT would probably question whether he was saved, given his theological committments. However, that old historical theology scholar thinks NTW has no idea what "St. Paul Really Said."
He may be...I listened to John Robbins on N.T. Wright. If John is right, N.T. is a heretic 1rst class.