# N T Wright



## AV1611 (Jan 17, 2007)

Have you read any of his writings?


----------



## Kevin (Jan 17, 2007)

Do i get kicked off the board if I say yes?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 17, 2007)

In real life, no. In make believe, I have read the following (I went to a liberal college where Wright was considered a fundamentalist. I needed some good stuff on history and the gospels, historiography, etc).

I have read--just pretend now--the three volumes in the Christian Origins series, and other stuff that I don't feel like typing out right now.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 17, 2007)

Yes, I have.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 17, 2007)

Ok, if I admit to reading some of them do I have to say what I thought of them?


----------



## elnwood (Jan 17, 2007)

Yes.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jan 17, 2007)

He spoke at my old church once. I haven't read any of his books, he's a bit of a way down my list.


----------



## QueenEsther (Jan 17, 2007)

From what I have heard (I have not read anything except maybe titles to a couple of his books) he is a very good writer, persuasive and what not. Other than that I could not venture to say anything else about his writings.


----------



## Michael (Jan 17, 2007)

See New Perspective on Paul.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 17, 2007)

*Wright*

Wright has spoken at Calvin College a couple of times. He is well spoken. Wright avoids confronting some issues head on. A lack of clarity is troubling in someone who is well spoken.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 18, 2007)

I own two of his books; "What Saint Paul Really Said" and "Climax of the Covenants" plus I have read a number of articles that he has written. He is a very engaging writer; a very easy style. I would not recommend his works unless you were strong in the Reformed Faith, otherwise you can easily get sucked into his thinking. If you are strong in the faith then its easy to spot his errors.


----------



## travis (Jan 18, 2007)

I am making my way through Evil and the Justice of God and have read Simply Christian. I enjoy his writings even though I do not agree with everything he says.

My qyestion to those who refuse to read his stuff, do you always write off a person's entire stance on everything if you disagree with a couple of things? Do you think that is beneficial? I mean, there are several things that I disagree with Piper on (okay, not the best example) but I enjoy the things I do agree with him on. I have heard that his Christian Origins books are phenomenal... and I plan on eventually getting them and disagreeing with some points and fed by others.

Just seems like a baby with the bathwater type scenario.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 18, 2007)

I believe this is the right approach. Perhaps this is a poor analogy but it seems to me that an outright rejection of anti-Christian and crypto-Christian reading would lead to a similar reaction to alcohol we see in fundamentalist circles: what is forbidden is actually made more desirable to the heart of sinful man. 

Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17). 

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast what is good."

On the other hand, people need to be taught discernment and the best way to do/get that is learn the right and good first and then, maybe, go out and read what is wrong. N.T. Wright is not all wrong but what he is wrong on makes his teaching/writing very dangerous! It might be nice if we spent more time reading our confessions...  



travis said:


> I am making my way through Evil and the Justice of God and have read Simply Christian. I enjoy his writings even though I do not agree with everything he says.
> 
> My qyestion to those who refuse to read his stuff, do you always write off a person's entire stance on everything if you disagree with a couple of things? Do you think that is beneficial? I mean, there are several things that I disagree with Piper on (okay, not the best example) but I enjoy the things I do agree with him on. I have heard that his Christian Origins books are phenomenal... and I plan on eventually getting them and disagreeing with some points and fed by others.
> 
> Just seems like a baby with the bathwater type scenario.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 18, 2007)

Poimen said:


> I believe this is the right approach. Perhaps this is a poor analogy but it seems to me that an outright rejection of anti-Christian and crypto-Christian reading would lead to a similar reaction to alcohol we see in fundamentalist circles: what is forbidden is actually made more desirable to the heart of sinful man.
> 
> Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17).
> 
> ...


----------



## QueenEsther (Jan 18, 2007)

Then it would be wise when one reads his and other works to keep this verse in mind.

Proverbs 4:23 Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. 




Poimen said:


> I believe this is the right approach. Perhaps this is a poor analogy but it seems to me that an outright rejection of anti-Christian and crypto-Christian reading would lead to a similar reaction to alcohol we see in fundamentalist circles: what is forbidden is actually made more desirable to the heart of sinful man.
> 
> Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17).
> 
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2007)

The safest place to start is to listen to some lectures for free that he gave at Harvard University and Calvin Seminary. This way you don't have to spend money and you get a decent overview of his worldview:
Space, Time, and Sacraments

Harvard Lectures 

As to the Harvard lectures, find a way to skip the first ten minutes. Its all introductions which are boring and no one really cares anyway The harvard lectures are cool. He basically says Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are hard-core gnostics (knowing there are darwinists in the audience). I cringed at a few things he said, though, so this isn't a full-fledged endorsement.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2007)

I really would encourage one to listen to the lectures rather than going to a bookstore and blindly buying a book, not really knowing what it is about. Secondly, as a communicator, he couldn't be boring if he tried (I know, I know; I have read Left Behind. The antichrist--Carpathia--is a good speaker, too. I will refrain from drawing the parallels). 

It is also fun to watch Wright in Q&A. I got to hear his debate with Crossan on the Resurrection. Remember the Bahnsen-Stein slaughter? Jump forward 20 years.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 19, 2007)

I believe that the key word in this thread is "discernment". I am very familiar with Wright and he can be very seductive in his writing. That is why I mentioned that one needs to be strong in the faith before tackling Wright and NPP on their own. He is not for the novice. 

Unfortunately, many in the Reformed camp have been attracted to Wright because he can say a lot of "good things". But should he receive kudos for stating the obvious? His stand against the Jesus Seminar folks is an example. But destroying Dominic Crossan is like shooting fish in a barrel. Crossan is not even a Christian.

For what it's worth, these are a few things I have noted about Wright:

1. He is not Reformed regardless of what he says.
2. He denies the Reformed doctrine of imputation, resulting in justification going out the window.
3. But most importantly, his view of Scripture is driven by Second Temple Judism versus allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If he is wrong about Second Temple Judism (and he is) then his whole system of thought falls apart. Whether its the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ or any other Christian doctrines, if the foundation is faulty, the house will crumble.

So if anyone wants to read or listen to this guy, take it with a big grain of salt.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I believe that the key word in this thread is "discernment". I am very familiar with Wright and he can be very *seductive *in his writing. That is why I mentioned that one needs to be strong in the faith before tackling Wright and NPP on their own. He is not for the novice.



Why seductive? Why not just say he has a "good" style. Why use the sinister language? See Carpathia reference above. 



> Unfortunately, many in the Reformed camp have been attracted to Wright because he can say a lot of "good things". But should he receive kudos for stating the obvious?



I think so. I have a Westminster Journal article where they are praising him for stating the obvious. So its not just me.



> His stand against the Jesus Seminar folks is an example. But destroying Dominic Crossan is like shooting fish in a barrel. Crossan is not even a Christian.



Re Crossan: Yes and no. He's tricky. Its more than a matter of saying "He's wrong, have his head and be done with it." The trick in a good debate is to stand within his shoes and say he is wrong because of internal contradictions, bad presuppositions, etc. 

But on those same grounds, why did James White debate Crossan, if there were really no point to it?


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 19, 2007)

Jacob,



> Why seductive? Why not just say he has a "good" style. Why use the sinister language? See Carpathia reference above.



Because that is how I would describe his writing. It's as simple as that.



> Quote:
> Unfortunately, many in the Reformed camp have been attracted to Wright because he can say a lot of "good things". But should he receive kudos for stating the obvious?
> 
> I think so. I have a Westminster Journal article where they are praising him for stating the obvious. So its not just me.



Okay, so you think so and so does the WTJ. That's fine. I don't. Personally I find it rather patronizing to give someone the "left hand of fellowship" while giving him the "right cross for error or heresy". A broken watch is right twice a day, but so what. Its still a broken watch.



> Quote:
> His stand against the Jesus Seminar folks is an example. But destroying Dominic Crossan is like shooting fish in a barrel. Crossan is not even a Christian.
> 
> Re Crossan: Yes and no. He's tricky. Its more than a matter of saying "He's wrong, have his head and be done with it." The trick in a good debate is to stand within his shoes and say he is wrong because of internal contradictions, bad presuppositions, etc.
> ...



It seems you missed my point. This was an example of some of the "good things" he has said or done. I have no beef with either Wright or White debating Crossan. Have at him!! If they can make Crossan look like the baffoon he is then maybe the secular world will stop trotting him out along with the other Jesus Seminar dim wits as representatives of Christianity.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 21, 2007)

I ordered this yesterday to get a taste of his own work


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 21, 2007)

Ezekiel16 said:


> See New Perspective on Paul.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 21, 2007)

Personally, as it were, I love, so to speak, his ability, as it were, when confronted with, so to speak, as it were, a sort, of direct (albeit perhaps from some perspective, less than indirect, as it were) question of the day (or of the, as it were, hour) how he is so, as it were, nuanced and (so to speak) non-direct (as opposed to less direct, so to speak) language. For example on small things like whether the Bible is inerrant (surely an _American_ question, but not a Biblical question), whether you actually have to believe in the resurrection to love Jesus passionately, homosexuality, feminism, women ministers, evangelicals in the Church of England, male headship, and other issues.

Let the blog darts fly in defense of the Uber Bishop.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Personally, as it were, I love, so to speak, his ability, as it were, when confronted with, so to speak, as it were, a sort, of direct (albeit perhaps from some perspective, less than indirect, as it were) question of the day (or of the, as it were, hour) how he is so, as it were, nuanced and (so to speak) non-direct (as opposed to less direct, so to speak) language. For example on small things like whether the Bible is inerrant (surely an _American_ question, but not a Biblical question), whether you actually have to believe in the resurrection to love Jesus passionately, homosexuality, feminism, women ministers, evangelicals in the Church of England, male headship, and other issues.
> 
> Let the blog darts fly in defense of the Uber Bishop.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 21, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Personally, as it were, I love, so to speak, his ability, as it were, when confronted with, so to speak, as it were, a sort, of direct (albeit perhaps from some perspective, less than indirect, as it were) question of the day (or of the, as it were, hour) how he is so, as it were, nuanced and (so to speak) non-direct (as opposed to less direct, so to speak) language. For example on small things like whether the Bible is inerrant (surely an _American_ question, but not a Biblical question), whether you actually have to believe in the resurrection to love Jesus passionately, homosexuality, feminism, women ministers, evangelicals in the Church of England, male headship, and other issues.
> 
> Let the blog darts fly in defense of the Uber Bishop.



That's a nail hit on the head. That's a hole in one. Here in the UK 'Evangelical' has better connotations than in the USA. And he won't associate with the majority of them in the Church of England - see Fred's link above.

JH


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 22, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Personally, as it were, I love, so to speak, his ability, as it were, when confronted with, so to speak, as it were, a sort, of direct (albeit perhaps from some perspective, less than indirect, as it were) question of the day (or of the, as it were, hour) how he is so, as it were, nuanced and (so to speak) non-direct (as opposed to less direct, so to speak) language. For example on small things like whether the Bible is inerrant (surely an _American_ question, but not a Biblical question), whether you actually have to believe in the resurrection to love Jesus passionately, homosexuality, feminism, women ministers, evangelicals in the Church of England, male headship, and other issues.
> 
> Let the blog darts fly in defense of the Uber Bishop.



Don't get me started on his women bishop position!


----------

