<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Evangelical Perspective on NT Wright and Catholicism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/08/an-evangelical-perspective-on-nt-wright-and-catholicism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link></link>
	<description>Taylor&#039;s Marshall&#039;s Next Book &#38; Podcast</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:29:41 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Art Sippo</title>
		<link>http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/08/an-evangelical-perspective-on-nt-wright-and-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-525</link>
		<dc:creator>Art Sippo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=352#comment-525</guid>
		<description>I am sorry, but It hink you deluded yourself.  The Church Fathers knew nothing of Luther&#039;s innovative heresy.  The historical doctrine of Justification from the Patristic period is well documented in Alister McGrath&#039;s 2 volume work &lt;i&gt;Iustitia Dei&lt;/i&gt; and it shows that the Protestant doctrine was a true innovation and neither a recalling of St. Paul&#039;s views or those of the Patristic Church. As Dr. Wright has shown, St. PAul knew nothing of forensic &quot;justification&quot; and as McGrath showed neither did the pre-Luther Catholic Church.  It is time for Protestants to face facts.  The so-called &quot;reformers&quot; were nothing of the sort.  there were revolutionaries who loved their own &lt;i&gt;via moderna&lt;/i&gt; philosophical systems more than the Bible.  The ignored James 2:20-24 and descended intot he apsotasy of man-made religion.

I abjure you in the name of Christ to abandon your religion of mere men and beleive the Gospel:
 
&lt;b&gt;Luk 10:25   And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, &quot;Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?&quot;  
Luk 10:26   He said to him, &quot;What is written in the law? How do you read?&quot;  
Luk 10:27   And he answered, &quot;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.&quot;  
Luk 10:28   And he said to him, &quot;You have answered right; do this, and you will live.&quot;  &lt;/b&gt;

Art Sippo MD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sorry, but It hink you deluded yourself.  The Church Fathers knew nothing of Luther&#8217;s innovative heresy.  The historical doctrine of Justification from the Patristic period is well documented in Alister McGrath&#8217;s 2 volume work <i>Iustitia Dei</i> and it shows that the Protestant doctrine was a true innovation and neither a recalling of St. Paul&#8217;s views or those of the Patristic Church. As Dr. Wright has shown, St. PAul knew nothing of forensic &#8220;justification&#8221; and as McGrath showed neither did the pre-Luther Catholic Church.  It is time for Protestants to face facts.  The so-called &#8220;reformers&#8221; were nothing of the sort.  there were revolutionaries who loved their own <i>via moderna</i> philosophical systems more than the Bible.  The ignored James 2:20-24 and descended intot he apsotasy of man-made religion.</p>
<p>I abjure you in the name of Christ to abandon your religion of mere men and beleive the Gospel:</p>
<p><b>Luk 10:25   And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, &#8220;Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?&#8221;<br />
Luk 10:26   He said to him, &#8220;What is written in the law? How do you read?&#8221;<br />
Luk 10:27   And he answered, &#8220;You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.&#8221;<br />
Luk 10:28   And he said to him, &#8220;You have answered right; do this, and you will live.&#8221;  </b></p>
<p>Art Sippo MD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Broggi</title>
		<link>http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/08/an-evangelical-perspective-on-nt-wright-and-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-506</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Broggi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=352#comment-506</guid>
		<description>Yesterday when reading on Wright I found this review by Brian McClaren: 

&quot;John Piper, it turns out, has done us all a wonderful favor. In writing the critique that invited this response, he has given Bishop Wright the opportunity to clearly, directly, passionately and concisely summarize many of the key themes of his still-in-process yet already historic scholarly and pastoral project. Wright shows--convincingly--how the comprehensive view of Paul, Romans, justification, Jesus, and the Christian life and mission that he has helped articulate embraces &#039;both the truths the Reformers were eager to set forth and also the truths which, in their eagerness, they sidelined.&#039; Eavesdropping on this conversation will help readers who are new to Wright get into the main themes of his work and the important conversation of which it is a part. And it will give Wright&#039;s critics a clearer sense than ever of what they are rejecting when they cling to their cherished old wineskins of conventional thought.&quot;

—Brian McLaren, author of A Generous Orthodoxy

Brian McLaren is a heretic and any believer should be very suspect of some apostate getting excited about Wright&#039;s book.  Certainly many of Wright&#039;s premises are true (i.e. what did the text mean to the original audience) but his presuppositions as to what that meaning is seem totally false.  I read one article by Wright yesterday implying that the modern evangelical church was adopting Luther&#039;s view of justification and not Paul&#039;s.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Luther&#039;s view of justification is echoed by the church fathers, John Chrysostom, , Augustine, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and numerous others right up to the time of the Reformation.  Luther is not new on justification, it is Wright that is new and generally speaking if it is new it is not true.  The church is not just now coming to some enlightened position on justification.  I am always reminded that the Scriptures were given for the common man to be read and understood.  Theologues, educated beyond their own intelligence, have for centuries distorted the meaning of Scripture under the guise of scholarship.  I am not against scholarship or I would never have pursued a doctorate.  But I think T Wright is on very shaky ground and John Piper is correct in his assessment of Wright&#039;s theology. 



 

I will look through my library - - but while in seminary I read a book by Ed Sanders - - I can&#039;t remember the name - - but it seems to me that Wright is a carbon copy of his view on justification.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday when reading on Wright I found this review by Brian McClaren: </p>
<p>&#8220;John Piper, it turns out, has done us all a wonderful favor. In writing the critique that invited this response, he has given Bishop Wright the opportunity to clearly, directly, passionately and concisely summarize many of the key themes of his still-in-process yet already historic scholarly and pastoral project. Wright shows&#8211;convincingly&#8211;how the comprehensive view of Paul, Romans, justification, Jesus, and the Christian life and mission that he has helped articulate embraces &#8216;both the truths the Reformers were eager to set forth and also the truths which, in their eagerness, they sidelined.&#8217; Eavesdropping on this conversation will help readers who are new to Wright get into the main themes of his work and the important conversation of which it is a part. And it will give Wright&#8217;s critics a clearer sense than ever of what they are rejecting when they cling to their cherished old wineskins of conventional thought.&#8221;</p>
<p>—Brian McLaren, author of A Generous Orthodoxy</p>
<p>Brian McLaren is a heretic and any believer should be very suspect of some apostate getting excited about Wright&#8217;s book.  Certainly many of Wright&#8217;s premises are true (i.e. what did the text mean to the original audience) but his presuppositions as to what that meaning is seem totally false.  I read one article by Wright yesterday implying that the modern evangelical church was adopting Luther&#8217;s view of justification and not Paul&#8217;s.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Luther&#8217;s view of justification is echoed by the church fathers, John Chrysostom, , Augustine, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and numerous others right up to the time of the Reformation.  Luther is not new on justification, it is Wright that is new and generally speaking if it is new it is not true.  The church is not just now coming to some enlightened position on justification.  I am always reminded that the Scriptures were given for the common man to be read and understood.  Theologues, educated beyond their own intelligence, have for centuries distorted the meaning of Scripture under the guise of scholarship.  I am not against scholarship or I would never have pursued a doctorate.  But I think T Wright is on very shaky ground and John Piper is correct in his assessment of Wright&#8217;s theology. </p>
<p>I will look through my library &#8211; - but while in seminary I read a book by Ed Sanders &#8211; - I can&#8217;t remember the name &#8211; - but it seems to me that Wright is a carbon copy of his view on justification.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taylor Marshall</title>
		<link>http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/08/an-evangelical-perspective-on-nt-wright-and-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Taylor Marshall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=352#comment-101</guid>
		<description>Thank you Chris.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Chris.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
