Comments on: Is The Reformation Over? (Part I)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:19:00 +0000

Bill, the point of Part I is to stir up discussion. You should have a pretty good idea of what my stance is when I post Part II tonight.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:06:00 +0000

Roger, could you help me understand your stance better? Your tone seems somewhat critical of the Catholic Church. Is this your stance or are you just provoking discussion? How do you answer your question, “Can we recognize any salvation within Rome?” It suggests the strong anti-Catholic stance I haven't heard since the 1980's baptist church, and chick tracks. Do you believe there is little if any salvation we can recognize whithin Rome, or are you just posing the question?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:11:00 +0000

Yea, there's plenty of resources out there on NPP, such as: http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:40:00 +0000

Reformation 21 had a few articles on the NPP, which I linked to here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:03:00 +0000

Michah,
I guess I would say I know there are Roman Catholics who take doctrine seriously out there (such as Peter Kreeft), I just haven't met them. I don't know how you quantify “many,” but of the people I can remember who I knew for sure were Roman Catholic from high school and college, I can't recall a single one who took doctrine seriously. One girl took Catholicism very seriously, she followed the moralisms, was “religious,” but I doubt she could have explained the doctrinal teaching of the church well.
Part I is simply an overview of the current discussion. In Part II I'll be getting into the inclusivism and Mary as issues that I think have been left out of the discussion.
Glenn,
Unfortunately I haven't read Noll and Nystrom's book, so my analysis is based solely on their article. Based on the article, it does appear to be historical in nature (which is Noll's field), but seems to suggest that since so many Protestants treat Roman Catholics as part of the body of Christ the Reformation must be over.
Also unfortunately, I haven't had any time to put into studying NPP. One of these day's I'll have to, but since I really don't know much about it, I can't intelligently bring it into the discussion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:50:00 +0000

Murdoch,
I'm glad you're keeping this on the radar screen. After the CT/Books and Culture highlighting of Noll's book, I've not personally seen it, or the thesis, given much attention. Maybe the thesis is getting attention and I'm not seeing it. Challies was the last I heard mention of it until your post.
Noll's piece seemed to me mostly about recent history of ecumenical efforts, some theological and mostly as co-laborers on social issues.
While those are interesting, what is more interesting to me is the impact of N.T. Wright and his New Perspectives on Paul. I've only read a little of Wright (not until the dissertation is defended), but from that little bit and from what I read in the blogosphere, it seems that Wright's perspective un-does a significant part of the Reformation.
A camp that seems somewhat novel to me has arisen, “Reformed Catholics.” When I was at RTS, in the wake of ECT 1994, “Reformed Catholic” would have sounded oxymornic. But for those following parts or aspects of NPP, this is a new day.
Because I'm a milimeter deep into this stuff, I may be conflating or misrepresenting people or camps. But from what I gather, the impact on Wright will mean the Reformation is over for some Reformed folks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:14:00 +0000

“I haven