Hans Kung and NPP/FV?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
i have been working my way through Kung's book Justification: the doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic reflection slowly but surely, i am at the catholic reflection part and i finished the Barth part about 6 months ago. number one i am unconvinced that Barth's doctrine represents the logical proggresion of reformed theology, which is Kung's working assumption and one that to my knowledge he never defends. two it seems to me that there may be similaraties between this book and what NPP/FV teaches, although i am not sure. am i completly wrong here or is there a similaraty between Barth/Kung and NPP/FV on the general theology of justification or anything else?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
i am going to go ahead and reply to my own thread. since posting this thread i thought i would pick up kung's book and review the section on barth's theology, i also read the section in vantil's book on barthianism dealing with this book. i googled NPP/FV just see if any initial agreement could be found. i would say at least two areas that seem to have at least a bare agreement are the doctrine of imputation, and the idea of faith and works. i am going to read what i can and try to find an agreement, if there is one. i think that both movements are closer to rome than traditional Reformed theology. i have sparked my own interest by posing this question, at the very least i have acomplished that.

my initial thought was that, if i have this right, NPP/FV teachs a form of works rightousness, or covenant faithfullness. and that justification is the final declaration of God at the judgment seat and those who were found faithful in Christ, or the covenant( i am trying to remember Piper's book N.T. Wright here so please correct me if i'm wrong). so my question is what is the difference between works of covanant keeping, i believe NPP/FV, and inward justifying of the person through active obediance in faith, barth/kung? i would say not much but what about the nuts and bolts here of these two different theologies? are they two different roads up the same mountian or paths seperated by brush only? this is kinda where i was going with this and i kinda thought if there was a connection than this might be a new or different angle of critique on NPP/FV.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
well i found an neat article addressing, somewhat, what i'm talking about.
N.T Wright and Karl Barth in Conversation: Justification and Methodology The Theological Ramblings of an Anglican Ordinand
here is the link. it is a paper that compares/contrasts karl barth's view of justification and n.t. wright's view of justification. it points out some very important differences in these two thinkers. my only compliant is that the author never addressed hans kung's book, which barth himself claimed got at least his theology right and showed that barth agreed with rome on some rather important things.

well i leave it to ya'll to read and enjoy, i'm southern so ya'll is a valid english word. i will still keep this albeit slim and shallow connection between barth and NPP/FV in mind when i study NPP/FV, just to see where it leads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top