I'd love to read that book, Jesse.

Anytime Kay - you may borrow it. Of course, if you were coming over tonight you could but instead you are being all relational with someone. Oh well.

Yes! I got mentioned!

i am a quarter into this book.

i appreciate what NT had to say. He does not want to fight Piper, but fight the people who are the "dehumanizers".

Yes this statement is true: "Old Timers" do not necessarily need to flex their theological muscles in the mirror.

However like any great old time bodybuilder he needs to know about the develops in the field. For example the new: excersises/workout methods, trends, physiology theory, and supplements. But more importantly the muscle flexer needs to BE OPEN to the advancements despite his buffness.

Also a great bodybuilder knows when his time is done. All I need to say is "I will be back."

My point is that: theological seniority is important, but a fresh vision and imagination are more important.

develops = developments

It's "I'll be back"

Jer -

I think I disagree with you on one point. I don't know if fresh new vision is necessarily better.

I say this because since theology has gone around in circles for so long (little is new) - what seems new now was brought about in the 13th century in early Renaissance humanism, etc.

The old timers know this and see this. I think Hegel's view might be best on this - we take the thesis and see its antithesis and thereofore derive a synthesis. Barth is a good example of this, seeing both hyper-Protestant historical Jesus and the antithesis in modern liberalism in the early 20th century and thusly you get his 3 fold Word.

Anyoo, that's a long way of saying, I see where you are coming, but I have seen the old guys consistently smirk at the new stuff and say that they've seen it before and will see it again.

P.S. The funny thing is that people see the New Perspective as new even though it is 30+ years old. Piper's response, while the traditional view is also the fresh vision on the slightly more fresh New Perspective. Theology is such a fad game.

hahahahahahahahah

you are soo right. theology is like jeans. do you have the diesels or the true religions or better yet, the rockin republics?

you are also right that theological topics come and go.

i think the reformers really did a number on Christianity. they basically wrote the books. they monopolized the Christian theological market. and i think their voice still has a huge influence within 21st century Christianity. this may not necessary be a bad thing? but should we still use their theological language?

also, if the 21st theology was not rooted in the reformation does not necessary mean it is heresy. during Jesus there was no orthodoxy.

my problem is that these reformers constructed their atonement and doctrine of God theologies in their lawyer language. many of the reformers were schooled in law so their theological languages includes: paid, substitution, cost, exchange, and punished.

i think i want the person of Jesus Christ to be more organic, holistic, and in warefare terms rather than primarily in legal terms.

i feel that the reformers rhetoric and language has influenced the theological textbooks and want different language and articulation to theological topics.

it is all semantics for me.

I love it. I'm sure Wright has done his P90X, too. Like Kay says, we'll have to borrow that one from you sometime.