I remember watching the Anthony Mundine and Danny Green fight a few years ago. It was a big build up to a great boxing match. As i watched it I was frustrated and disappointed. I was going for Green, i thought he was the better boxer. But he just didnt have anything on Mundine. Mundine was all over Green, it was easily to tell that Mundine won the fight.
I feel like i am watching this match all over again as i read through "The future of Justification" (Piper), "What St Paul Really Said" (Wright), and "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision" (Wright). I want Piper to win, surely he has the better position on justification. But as i read these books i am drawn to Wright as having a better defence and attack.
When Danny Green was fighting Mundine you could tell that if Mundine went toe to toe in close combat with Green then the fight would be over, Green would win most likely by knockout. But Mundine stayed back and made Green come to him. I think Piper is writing like Green fought. Piper is going so much into Wright's territory that he doesnt step back and make Wright come to him. I read through Piper and feel confused as to what he is arguing for. Is it different, where? When i read Wright i know where the differences are and i know where he stands.
So if i judge the books on argumentation i would give it to Wright. But i am feeling like there is something missing even from Wright's 'perspective'. And it is something that i havent seen Piper argue for strongly. Where is the arguement of being 'in Christ'? What has this got to do with Justification? So far in my reading this has not been mentioned much if at all. Wright has mentioned that through Christ our sins are atoned for, Piper agrees. But with such a big issue of Law court metaphor in justification isnt our being 'in Christ' the point of major and clear difference? I hope this will come up soon. As i feel like this is not a point that will be raised.
Even though Piper is losing the argumentative fight, I am still cheering for him. Hoping for a knockdown blow.
I feel like i am watching this match all over again as i read through "The future of Justification" (Piper), "What St Paul Really Said" (Wright), and "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision" (Wright). I want Piper to win, surely he has the better position on justification. But as i read these books i am drawn to Wright as having a better defence and attack.
When Danny Green was fighting Mundine you could tell that if Mundine went toe to toe in close combat with Green then the fight would be over, Green would win most likely by knockout. But Mundine stayed back and made Green come to him. I think Piper is writing like Green fought. Piper is going so much into Wright's territory that he doesnt step back and make Wright come to him. I read through Piper and feel confused as to what he is arguing for. Is it different, where? When i read Wright i know where the differences are and i know where he stands.
So if i judge the books on argumentation i would give it to Wright. But i am feeling like there is something missing even from Wright's 'perspective'. And it is something that i havent seen Piper argue for strongly. Where is the arguement of being 'in Christ'? What has this got to do with Justification? So far in my reading this has not been mentioned much if at all. Wright has mentioned that through Christ our sins are atoned for, Piper agrees. But with such a big issue of Law court metaphor in justification isnt our being 'in Christ' the point of major and clear difference? I hope this will come up soon. As i feel like this is not a point that will be raised.
Even though Piper is losing the argumentative fight, I am still cheering for him. Hoping for a knockdown blow.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment