Comments on: Biblical Psychology and the New Perspective on Paul

By: Gus Garcia

Gus Garcia — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:30:23 +0000

I vote for J. Brack to replace Camden altogether as the host that way we won’t have to download certain episodes. Seriously though, great epidsode I love this program thanks guys. Ps. When are new episodes for philosophy for theologians come out?

By: Greg _Tiribulus

Greg _Tiribulus — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:56:01 +0000

Wright has the truly astonishing talent of talking at you for 15 minutes in the most captivating and impressively erudite sounding fashion after which you’re left with this sorta glowing emotional contentment while having no actual idea what on earth he just said. Too much of that and you’ll need counseling just for having subjected yourself to the guy.

He frustrates me because he is the current king of the strawman argument which I’m convinced is not intentional on his part. I honestly don’t think he understands historic reformed orthodoxy very well. Not really.

By: Jordan Cooper

Jordan Cooper — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:53:05 +0000

Really good episode! You may be interested in the book I wrote in response to Stendahl titled “The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul.” I try and demonstrate that Luther’s understanding of Paul is similar to that of Paul’s earliest interpreters, and also disprove Stendahl, Wright, et. al.’s misrepresentation of Luther.

By: Michael M. Rico

Michael M. Rico — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:26:02 +0000

In reply to Camden Bucey.

Dear Camden,

That is helpful.

It is imaginative to think that in a therapy session or environment, even a Christian one, a therapist would use the said proposition to restore spiritual or mental health, but one never knows.

You have spoken fairly and have left Desiring God’s adage intact.

Yours Camden,

MMR

By: Jeff Mindler

Jeff Mindler — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:01:00 +0000

Dear Camden,
Thank you so much for this podcast. I very much enjoyed the chosen topic. As someone who is at a small Bible college, I have seen the problem of reading psychological categories into the Bible in our counseling department many times and it has caused great frustration. I very much appreciated the push for Biblical counseling as this is something I have become convinced of and am seeking to obtain training in biblical counseling from Westminster after I finish my current degree. Thank you for your ministry of producing Reformed theological material for a connected age.

By: CM

CM — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:47:26 +0000

IMHO, it was also quite bold of Dr. Piper to edit the WShC in the introduction of Desiring God as well. He strongly suggests changing “The chief end of man is to glorify God AND enjoy Him forever ” to “The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever.” How ever innocent his intentions were, I think he is mistaken. That subtle change from ‘and’ to ‘by’ shifts the chief end of man from a theocentic to an anthropocentic emphasis. I get what he is trying to say, but I still think that is still a pretty bold move.

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:46:27 +0000

In reply to Michael M. Rico.

Michael,

I think the Desiring God phrase, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him,” is sound if understood correctly. I think in counseling situations, however, it is possible to misuse it as a form of cognitive behavioral therapy. I haven’t heard a counselor do this myself, I was only making the point that the answer to our problem with sin is not as simple as saying “be more satisfied.” Likewise, it is true that we will find joy, peace, and ultimate satisfaction in God alone. But experiencing that reality is the result of something more than a change of mindset or a cognitive replacement of one’s objects of affection.

Is that helpful?

Thanks,

Camden

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:39:20 +0000

In reply to CM.

CM,

I agree. I’d like to do more episodes like this.

Blessings,

Camden

By: Michael M. Rico

Michael M. Rico — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 23:46:12 +0000

Dear Camden,

Please unpack what you meant when you referenced the Desiring God theorem (“God is most….”) and how taken out of context that proposition can be misleading. Is “misleading” a fair way of getting at what you intended?

I didn’t understand the context of what was said because the conversation was moving so quickly.

Thanks Camden,

MMR

By: CM

CM — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:26:21 +0000

Great episode. Back in your groove. Aside from Dr. Oliphint your best episodes are often with journal article authors or Ph.D studs emersed in their material.