In my previous post, Scott Clark chided James Dunn and N.T. Wright for “amateur plunges” into historical studies. From what I’ve read about these things, that was very kind.
Nevertheless, here is Taylor Marshall crowing, in Christianity Today, about how the NPP led him to Catholicism:
He said Wright’s work shifted his assumptions so he could understand the Council of Trent’s position. Marshall does not believe Wright holds to the full Catholic view. But he said Wright’s critique led him to conclude that the Reformers departed from Scripture by teaching “forensic justification through the imputed alien righteousness of Christ.”… “If you buy into Wright’s approach to covenantal theology, then you’ve already taken three steps toward the Catholic Church. Keep following the trail and you’ll be Catholic,” said Marshall…
So Marshall’s “three steps” are based on amateurish plunges. Much of Roman Catholic understanding is built on faulty knowledge. I’m going to put up a posting in the near future about how the Apostolic Fathers misunderstood Paul’s concept of “grace.” This was documented extensively by T.F. Torrance in his work “Apostolic Fathers and the Doctrine of Grace.” Augustine sort of got “grace” right but he misunderstood justification. Aquinas built most of his theology thinking that “Dionysius” was the actual Areopagite from Acts 17; but the Dionysius he was quoting was actually a sixth century Neoplatonist.
Catholics constantly get their sources wrong, and yet they just as loudly cry “infallibility.” That’s a disjuncture that just won’t stand.
By the way, here’s the real N.T. Wright on Catholicism:
In particular, Trent gave the wrong answer, at a deep level, to the nature/grace question, which is what’s at the root of the Marian dogmas and devotions which, despite contrary claims, are in my view neither sacramental, transformational, communal nor eschatological. Nor biblical.