4. Not sure if adoption goes the distance he wanted it to in the final 10 min of the paper, to bring rapprochement between old and new persp's.
5. Good questioning of why the reformers can't be viewed as having profound spiritual and theological understanding of the text even if we have greater historical knowledge today.
6. The most helpful point of the whole talk for me, though I can't remember if kvj said it or if he said something to spin my own mind off in this direction, is that while wright eschews large, stultifying, hegemonious, controlling frameworks from the domain of systematic theology, his own biblical theological (and thus purportedly more historical) framework, which he drives through every text, is just as large, stultifying, hegemonious, and controlling!
3 comments:
I'd love to hear what you think about KJV's paper, if you have the time.
1. Great paper.
2. Respectful but appropriately critical.
3. Love the humor, but at times too much.
4. Not sure if adoption goes the distance he wanted it to in the final 10 min of the paper, to bring rapprochement between old and new persp's.
5. Good questioning of why the reformers can't be viewed as having profound spiritual and theological understanding of the text even if we have greater historical knowledge today.
6. The most helpful point of the whole talk for me, though I can't remember if kvj said it or if he said something to spin my own mind off in this direction, is that while wright eschews large, stultifying, hegemonious, controlling frameworks from the domain of systematic theology, his own biblical theological (and thus purportedly more historical) framework, which he drives through every text, is just as large, stultifying, hegemonious, and controlling!
Thanks!
Post a Comment