It seems as though scripture doesn’t paint the picture of unity bourn out of commitment to doctrine per se, but rather out of the shared experience of being in Christ.

…what do you make of that distinction?

The difference between Luther and Wright is that Luther made his controversial arguments and then sought to back them up with church history. However much he believed in Scripture Alone, Luther had enormous respect for the church fathers, and that’s why he sought to win arguments by showing that the true Catholic church had agreed with his teaching all along.

Wright doesn’t do this. Wright has respect for history in that he respects the historical context of the biblical text. But while he doesn’t dismiss the patristics, he doesn’t try to find his own views in the church fathers’ writings. This is what worries Piper.

Piper argues that if someone comes up with something new that hasn’t been said before in church history, warning flags should go up.

Just a quick thought on ‘controversy’:
I see where Piper is coming from, but there seems to be a lot of biblical characters who didn’t mind a bit of controversy! You might even say controvesy is a good one-word summary for the vocation of a propeht!

I would say that a Christian does not love controversy for controversy’s sake. In fact, being bound by conscience and the Word probably even leads people to be controversial… Is this not what Luther was doing? Those 95 Theses weren’t meek and mild! I think it may be easier to accuse Luther of disregard for earlier theologians than it is to accuse Wright of that!

But there’s my bias showing through!

Cheers,

-d-