Comments on: A Bird's Eye View of Paul http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-birds-eye-view-of-paul Kingdom People - Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven Thu, 24 May 2012 20:05:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Kingdom People - April 2009 « Kingdom People http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4674 Kingdom People - April 2009 « Kingdom People Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:18:30 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4674 [...] REVIEWS Unfashionable - Tullian Tchividjian Lost and Found - Ed Stetzer Introducing Paul - Michael Bird Lost in Transmission? What We Can Know about the Words of Jesus - Nick Perrin Fasting - Scot [...] [...] REVIEWS Unfashionable – Tullian Tchividjian Lost and Found – Ed Stetzer Introducing Paul – Michael Bird Lost in Transmission? What We Can Know about the Words of Jesus – Nick Perrin Fasting – Scot [...]

]]> By: JohnGreenview http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4670 JohnGreenview Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:35:22 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4670 A fair review of Bird's book. Like one comment above, I struggle with the view that what cannot be exegetically sustained (biblical theology) can be dogmatically sustained (systematic theology). This seems to be a common belief about imputation promoted by none less than D A Carson. A fair review of Bird’s book. Like one comment above, I struggle with the view that what cannot be exegetically sustained (biblical theology) can be dogmatically sustained (systematic theology). This seems to be a common belief about imputation promoted by none less than D A Carson.

]]> By: RJ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4671 RJ Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:07:39 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4671 2.I believe that Jefferson not only omitted the writings of Paul, he cut out all references to miracles in the gospels. We all know the dangers of picking and choosing parts of the Bible for inclusion…we become god. Comment by Kevin — April 22, 2009 @ 8:49 am To Kevin: Yeah he did eliminate miracles also. I think his belief was that while some, but not all, were true they did not add anything to Jesus' divinity. On the picking and choosing, isn't that what we do everyday when we align ourselves to a particular theologian's interpretations? To some people a particular verse of the Bible can mean an almost opposite thing than someone else believes. We Christians seem to constantly pick a particular thing to cling to while rejecting others. Picking and choosing is just the way it is. Trevin's recent post on Soren Kierkegaard is appropriate for this discussion also. 2.I believe that Jefferson not only omitted the writings of Paul, he cut out all references to miracles in the gospels. We all know the dangers of picking and choosing parts of the Bible for inclusion…we become god.

Comment by Kevin — April 22, 2009 @ 8:49 am
To Kevin:
Yeah he did eliminate miracles also. I think his belief was that while some, but not all, were true they did not add anything to Jesus’ divinity. On the picking and choosing, isn’t that what we do everyday when we align ourselves to a particular theologian’s interpretations? To some people a particular verse of the Bible can mean an almost opposite thing than someone else believes. We Christians seem to constantly pick a particular thing to cling to while rejecting others. Picking and choosing is just the way it is. Trevin’s recent post on Soren Kierkegaard is appropriate for this discussion also.

]]> By: Interview with Michael Bird on Having a Fresh Encounter with Paul « Kingdom People http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4672 Interview with Michael Bird on Having a Fresh Encounter with Paul « Kingdom People Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:16:17 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4672 [...] an interview with Dr. Michael F. Bird, author of the recent book,  Introducing Paul (see my review). Dr. Bird teaches New Testament at the Highland Theological College in Dingwall, [...] [...] an interview with Dr. Michael F. Bird, author of the recent book,  Introducing Paul (see my review). Dr. Bird teaches New Testament at the Highland Theological College in Dingwall, [...]

]]> By: Mich http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4673 Mich Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:13:28 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4673 How do you or Bird reconcile these two statements you quoted: #1: “If the Paul we claim to know looks and sounds a lot like us, then that is probably a good indication that we do not know him as well as we think we do. There is always a temptation to recruit him to our cause, to make our enemies his enemies, our beliefs his beliefs… If we can be mature enough to let Paul be Paul and treat his letters as windows into his world rather than as deposits of theological dogma, then we stand a chance of meeting him anew, letting him speak for himself in his language, on his terms and for his purposes.” #2: “Although no text explicitly says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, nonetheless, without some kind of theology of imputation a lot of what Paul says about justification does not make sense…imputation is the integrating point for a variety of ideas in Paul’s letters.” Without more detailed explanation, quotation 2 seems guilty of what quotation 1 says NOT to do. :-) How do you or Bird reconcile these two statements you quoted:
#1:
“If the Paul we claim to know looks and sounds a lot like us, then that is probably a good indication that we do not know him as well as we think we do. There is always a temptation to recruit him to our cause, to make our enemies his enemies, our beliefs his beliefs… If we can be mature enough to let Paul be Paul and treat his letters as windows into his world rather than as deposits of theological dogma, then we stand a chance of meeting him anew, letting him speak for himself in his language, on his terms and for his purposes.”

#2:
“Although no text explicitly says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, nonetheless, without some kind of theology of imputation a lot of what Paul says about justification does not make sense…imputation is the integrating point for a variety of ideas in Paul’s letters.”

Without more detailed explanation, quotation 2 seems guilty of what quotation 1 says NOT to do.
:-)

]]> By: Trevin Wax http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4669 Trevin Wax Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:24:23 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4669 Hi Billy, Bird argues for a pre-Christian reading of Romans 7. He makes good points, but I still remain unconvinced. Regarding the egalitarian issue, Bird's purpose isn't to set forth a certain viewpoint as the correct one. He doesn't advocate egalitarianism. But he leaves the question open in a way that I don't think the Apostle Paul does. Thanks for reading! Hi Billy,

Bird argues for a pre-Christian reading of Romans 7. He makes good points, but I still remain unconvinced.

Regarding the egalitarian issue, Bird’s purpose isn’t to set forth a certain viewpoint as the correct one. He doesn’t advocate egalitarianism. But he leaves the question open in a way that I don’t think the Apostle Paul does.

Thanks for reading!

]]> By: billy v http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4668 billy v Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:43:50 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4668 This was a very helpful review of a book I've been interested in getting. However, I would like for you to expand on a couple of things for the review to be even more helpful. You stated: "Some of Bird’s views are unconvincing. I disagree with his take on Romans 7. Likewise, though Bird does not advocate egalitarianism or complementarianism, he clearly leaves the egalitarian option open." What was Bird's take on Romans 7 and why was it unconvincing. Also, was Bird's openness to egalitarianism unconvincing to you because you disagree with egalitarianism or because he just doesn't do a good job on the topic. Thanks for the review. I would love to see you expand on those notes if you have time. This was a very helpful review of a book I’ve been interested in getting. However, I would like for you to expand on a couple of things for the review to be even more helpful. You stated:
“Some of Bird’s views are unconvincing. I disagree with his take on Romans 7. Likewise, though Bird does not advocate egalitarianism or complementarianism, he clearly leaves the egalitarian option open.”
What was Bird’s take on Romans 7 and why was it unconvincing. Also, was Bird’s openness to egalitarianism unconvincing to you because you disagree with egalitarianism or because he just doesn’t do a good job on the topic.
Thanks for the review. I would love to see you expand on those notes if you have time.

]]> By: Kevin http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4667 Kevin Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:49:20 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4667 I believe that Jefferson not only omitted the writings of Paul, he cut out all references to miracles in the gospels. We all know the dangers of picking and choosing parts of the Bible for inclusion...we become god. I believe that Jefferson not only omitted the writings of Paul, he cut out all references to miracles in the gospels. We all know the dangers of picking and choosing parts of the Bible for inclusion…we become god.

]]> By: RJ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/04/22/a-birds-eye-view-of-paul/#comment-4666 RJ Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:14:33 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=3019#comment-4666 I have read several books on Paul. This one seems to add a slightly new twist on his writings. For those who believe that the entire Bible is God breathed not covering the inspiration of the letters is probably a major omission to them. Reading this post reminded me of what Thomas Jefferson thought of Paul. Jefferson started out as a deist but later became a became a Christian who diligently studied the Bible. He believed that Jesus Chirst via the Gospels laid out a simple and pure view of what being a Christian is supposed to be about. And then Paul came along and added all kinds of stuff to unnecessarily complicate it. He even went to the point of compiling his own version of the Bible which of course omitted all of the letter of Paul. I have read several books on Paul. This one seems to add a slightly new twist on his writings. For those who believe that the entire Bible is God breathed not covering the inspiration of the letters is probably a major omission to them. Reading this post reminded me of what Thomas Jefferson thought of Paul. Jefferson started out as a deist but later became a became a Christian who diligently studied the Bible. He believed that Jesus Chirst via the Gospels laid out a simple and pure view of what being a Christian is supposed to be about. And then Paul came along and added all kinds of stuff to unnecessarily complicate it. He even went to the point of compiling his own version of the Bible which of course omitted all of the letter of Paul.

]]>