4/22/2021 0 Comments Nt Wright Books Pdf
With clear, accesible language, Wright offers us an entrance into the final book of the New Testament.While the book of Revelation has often been written off as a foretelling of doom, it is much more complex than this and has captured the imaginations of both lay and professional readers.Each short passage is followed by a highly readable discussion with background information, useful explanations and suggestions, and thoughts as to how the text can be relevant to our lives today.
Nt Wright Books Series Is SuitableThe series is suitable for group study, personal study, or daily devotions. He is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and is a prolific author and noted New Testament scholar. If we are not careful, the phrase authority of scripture can, by such routes, come to mean simply the authority of evangelical tradition. First, how can there be such a thing as an authoritative book What sort of a claim are we making about a book when we say that it is authoritative Second, by what means can the Bible actually exercise its authority How is it to be used so that its authority becomes effective The first question subdivides further, and I want to argue two things as we look at it. In church and in state we use the word authority in different ways, some positive and some negative. We say of a great footballer that he stamped his authority on the game. Or we say of a great musician that he or she gave an authoritative performance of a particular concerto. Within more structured social gatherings the question Whos in charge has particular function. For instance, if someone came into a lecture-room and asked Whos in charge the answer would presumably be either the lecturer or the chairman, if any. If, however, a group of people went out to dinner at a restaurant and somebody suddenly came in and said, Whos in charge here the question might not actually make any sense. We might be a bit puzzled as to what authority might mean in that structure. Within a more definite structure, however, such as a law court or a college or a business, the question Whos in charge or What does authority mean here would have a very definite meaning, and could expect a fairly clear answer. The meaning of authority, then, varies considerably according to the context within which the discourse is taking place. It is important to realize this from the start, not least because one of my central contentions is going to be that we have tended to let the word authority be the fixed point and have adjusted scripture to meet it, instead of the other way round. How are things to be organized within church life What are the boundaries of allowable behavior and doctrine In particular, to use the sixteenth-century formulation, what are those things necessary to be believed upon pain of damnation But it has also had theoretical sides to it. What are we looking for when we are looking for authority in the church Where would we find it How would we know when we had found it What would we do with authoritative documents, people or whatever, if we had them It is within that context that the familiar debates have taken place, advocating the relative weight to be given to scripture, tradition and reason, or (if you like, and again in sixteenth-century terms) to Bible, Pope and Scholar. Within the last century or so we have seen a fourth, to rival those three, namely emotion or feeling. Various attempts are still being made to draw up satisfactory formulations of how these things fit together in some sort of a hierarchy. There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition. We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any tradition. This is rather like the frequent Anglican assumption (being an Anglican myself I rather cherish this) that Anglicans have no doctrine peculiar to themselves: it is merely that if something is true the Church of England believes it. This, though not itself a refutation of the claim not to have any tradition, is for the moment sufficient indication of the inherent unlikeliness of the claims truth, and I am confident that most people, facing the question explicitly, will not wish that the claim be pressed. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are reading the text, straight, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using presuppositions of this or that sort. This is simply nave, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase authority of scripture when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology. The assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |