# Bishop N. T. Wright-ism



## yeutter

Because Bishop Wright has had an influence on some conservative Anglicans, with whom I interact, I read some of his stuff again. In trying to come to grips with what Bishop Wright is teaching about the atonement; I am confused. 

On the one hand he seems to reject the notion of substitutionary blood atonement as pagan or barbaric, and yet he also says that on the cross Jesus took on that separation from God that is the consequence of man's sin. Wright says that on the cross Jesus identified himself totally with fallen humanity and took upon himself the punishment that sinful humanity deserved. Wright says; that on the cross, Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath to the dregs, and in that salvation is accomplished.

At first I thought Bishop Wright might be progressively moving away from orthodoxy over time. That does not seem to be the case. He seems to have always been inconsistent. 

I notice Bishop Wright does not usually speak of the righteousness of Christ being imputed unto us. Is his error that he is speaking of infused rather then imputed righteousness?


----------



## greenbaggins

I would say that Wright is orthodox on the atonement. In Jesus and the Victory of God, he spends a huge amount of time depending penal substitutionary atonement. He is not orthodox on justification, however, and his position has not move closer to orthodoxy over time. He believes that justification is about the church, not about individual salvation. It is about table fellowship, and how you tell who is "in," and who is not. This is tightly connected to his despising systematic theology, as well as historical theology, actually (he constantly bashes the Reformers hardly ever citing them). I don't think he advocates infused righteousness any more than imputed. For Wright, the righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness, and it is not something we can ever have. He has a lot of systemic errors, ranging from a rejection of the self-attesting authority of Scripture, to his truncated methodology to his desire to contribute something new that no one has ever heard of before.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark

There is little to add to the previous post. Wright seems to believe that union with Christ makes imputed righteousness redundant. Hr has influenced many FV thinkers unfortunately. He says some very good stuff succinctly (like greenbaggins above  ) however, he does not quite get to reformed theology and what may be viewed as a small chasm Wright starts throwing rocks across and wonders why he is critiqued so often.


----------



## jwithnell

Isn't the charge of "barbarism" in a blood atonenent precisely what drove much of the downward spiral in Protestantism in the 1890s to 1930s?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

yeutter said:


> I notice Bishop Wright does not usually speak of the righteousness of Christ being imputed unto us. Is his error that he is speaking of infused rather then imputed righteousness?



Neither. Horton has a pretty good response to him in _Covenant and Salvation_. Wright thinks that imputation means the essential righteousness of the judge being imputed to me.


----------



## arapahoepark

ReformedReidian said:


> Neither. Horton has a pretty good response to him in _Covenant and Salvation_. Wright thinks that imputation means the essential righteousness of the judge being imputed to me.


Horton definitely incorporates the good of Wright while rejecting the bad, all for solid Biblical reasons. I second this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

NTW accepts substitutionary in a sense. He just wants to make sure that "substitution" is never abstracted from Jesus as the New Israel, and the narrative in which he is in. I can go with that. Jesus and the Victory of God is quite good. But he loses much of it on justification. I second what Rev Lane said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Yes, Jean, it is precisely the old charge of "barbarism" that fueled liberalism and made a wreck of mainline Protestantism early in the twentieth century.

Lane and the others here are on target and are right in noting that Mike Horton is spot-on in his engagement with Wright. Just one additional note here in Wright's misunderstanding of and, thus, wrong-headed criticism of, imputation. John Piper has well-addressed such, both in his _Counted Righteous in Christ? _and_ The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright._ I think that these works are both accessible and very clear as to Wright's problems here.

In concert, then, with what Lane said: Wright's problems are not primarily with the atonement (as a part of _historia salutis, _though even here not in the classic sense in every respect--as I infer from Jacob's comment, with which I agree), but with justification (as part of _ordo salutis). _To put it in John Murray's terms: it is not Redemption Accomplished that he fails to understand, but Redemption Applied.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> I would say that Wright is orthodox on the atonement. In Jesus and the Victory of God, he spends a huge amount of time depending penal substitutionary atonement. He is not orthodox on justification, however, and his position has not move closer to orthodoxy over time. He believes that justification is about the church, not about individual salvation. It is about table fellowship, and how you tell who is "in," and who is not. This is tightly connected to his despising systematic theology, as well as historical theology, actually (he constantly bashes the Reformers hardly ever citing them). I don't think he advocates infused righteousness any more than imputed. For Wright, the righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness, and it is not something we can ever have. He has a lot of systemic errors, ranging from a rejection of the self-attesting authority of Scripture, to his truncated methodology to his desire to contribute something new that no one has ever heard of before.


Nt Wright thought does not seem to agree with Pauline Justification, as he denies that God poured His wrath for sinners upon Jesus at the Cross, and more that Jesus died for the Covenant people due to the wrath of Rome on Him. Also, he equates water baptism as being the sign of one now being in the new Community of faith, and yet he still sees God has having to judged their entire life work in order to have them keep eternal life in some sense.
He also does deny that God declares us right in Christ, as in Romans, as his take on that is that the Apostle was addressing not how to get saved and right with God, justified, but in how we now are to be seen as saved in the Community..
I would take his books on thinks such as the historical Jesus as good, not so much his work in this specific area of theology.
He should not be seen as being really reformed in this vital issue.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> NTW accepts substitutionary in a sense. He just wants to make sure that "substitution" is never abstracted from Jesus as the New Israel, and the narrative in which he is in. I can go with that. Jesus and the Victory of God is quite good. But he loses much of it on justification. I second what Rev Lane said.


His entire focus seems to be on the Christ as Victor mode, and yet really denies Penal substitution as defined and outlined by the Apostle Paul regarding Justification.


----------



## Dachaser

Alan D. Strange said:


> Yes, Jean, it is precisely the old charge of "barbarism" that fueled liberalism and made a wreck of mainline Protestantism early in the twentieth century.
> 
> Lane and the others here are on target and are right in noting that Mike Horton is spot-on in his engagement with Wright. Just one additional note here in Wright's misunderstanding of and, thus, wrong-headed criticism of, imputation. John Piper has well-addressed such, both in his _Counted Righteous in Christ? _and_ The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright._ I think that these works are both accessible and very clear as to Wright's problems here.
> 
> In concert, then, with what Lane said: Wright's problems are not primarily with the atonement (as a part of _historia salutis, _though even here not in the classic sense in every respect--as I infer from Jacob's comment, with which I agree), but with justification (as part of _ordo salutis). _To put it in John Murray's terms: it is not Redemption Accomplished that he fails to understand, but Redemption Applied.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan


He seems to be arguing for the Judaism of the time of Jesus was not apostate from God, rather that it was still good, and that we have really misunderstood what Paul was meaning and intended by Justification. He also wants to make Judaism of that type as not teaching works salvation, and that it was really good, and that Jesus was just addressing places where some had taken it astray.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Doesn't Wright also deny the Pauline authorship of any epistle that seems to undermine his argument? Seems to be a questionable method.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> Doesn't Wright also deny the Pauline authorship of any epistle that seems to undermine his argument? Seems to be a questionable method.


He also has stated a view that seems to deny inerrancy of the scriptures.


----------



## JimmyH

Dachaser said:


> He also has stated a view that seems to deny inerrancy of the scriptures.





Bill The Baptist said:


> Doesn't Wright also deny the Pauline authorship of any epistle that seems to undermine his argument? Seems to be a questionable method.



Do you have any specific examples to cite ? I just did a quick re-read of 'The Book God Breathed' in Wright's 'Simply Christian', and from that chapter it would seem to me that he is enthusiastically convinced that the Bible is the genuine word of God. He does discuss various trends of thought throughout history, but names William Tyndale as one of his heroes, quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and so forth.


----------



## greenbaggins

Bill The Baptist said:


> Doesn't Wright also deny the Pauline authorship of any epistle that seems to undermine his argument? Seems to be a questionable method.



Wright doesn't do this, to my knowledge. Dunn does this in his theology of Paul.



Dachaser said:


> His entire focus seems to be on the Christ as Victor mode, and yet really denies Penal substitution as defined and outlined by the Apostle Paul regarding Justification.



David, Wright does not do this. He does not set the two against each other, but argues for both.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> His entire focus seems to be on the Christ as Victor mode, and yet really denies Penal substitution as defined and outlined by the Apostle Paul regarding Justification.



The Christus Victor model is there, and there is nothing wrong with that. Paul uses Christus Victor in Colossians. And to be fair, Wright does see Jesus as the Israel-Substitute.


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> Wright doesn't do this, to my knowledge. Dunn does this in his theology of Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> David, Wright does not do this. He does not set the two against each other, but argues for both.



Agreed. In his new book on Paul he comes out for Pauline authorship (though he doesn't argue the point).


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He also has stated a view that seems to deny inerrancy of the scriptures.



He reads the inerrancy debate within a specific 20th century Evangelical framework, so he won't affirm it because he thinks it will commit him to a certain historiography of American/British evangelicalism. I disagree with him on this point, but he isn't "denying the Scriptures."


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> He reads the inerrancy debate within a specific 20th century Evangelical framework, so he won't affirm it because he thinks it will commit him to a certain historiography of American/British evangelicalism. I disagree with him on this point, but he isn't "denying the Scriptures."


I was not saying that he was, but that he seems to shy around from saying that there are no errors/mistakes in the original scriptures.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> The Christus Victor model is there, and there is nothing wrong with that. Paul uses Christus Victor in Colossians. And to be fair, Wright does see Jesus as the Israel-Substitute.


He does seem though to place a primary emphasis upon the Victor mode, at the expense of the penal substitution aspect, as he really argues against God pouring wrath upon Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> Wright doesn't do this, to my knowledge. Dunn does this in his theology of Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> David, Wright does not do this. He does not set the two against each other, but argues for both.


Wright though seems to really not want to see the atonement in the terms as Paul outlines to us, as he shies away from God pouring His wrath upon Jesus at the Cross.


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> Do you have any specific examples to cite ? I just did a quick re-read of 'The Book God Breathed' in Wright's 'Simply Christian', and from that chapter it would seem to me that he is enthusiastically convinced that the Bible is the genuine word of God. He does discuss various trends of thought throughout history, but names William Tyndale as one of his heroes, quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and so forth.


Wright sees that the scriptures have authority to us , but again, he does not seem to equate them in same fashion as we all do here regarding inerrant scriptures.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He does seem though to place a primary emphasis upon the Victor mode, at the expense of the penal substitution aspect, as he really argues against God pouring wrath upon Jesus.



Not in his _Romans _commentary. In a debate with Gaffin, Gaffin praised Wright for defending the translation of propitiation. And I can turn it around and say a lot of evangelicals reject Christus Victor aspects. I got points marked off in seminary for quoting Colossians 2:15


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Wright sees that the scriptures have authority to us , but again, he does not seem to equate them in same fashion as we all do here regarding inerrant scriptures.



Do you have any specific examples to cite?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I was not saying that he was, but that he seems to shy around from saying that there are no errors/mistakes in the original scriptures.



"Seems to shy around" is vague and misleading language.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Do you have any specific examples to cite?


https://adaughterofthereformation.w...-n-t-wright-summed-up-in-one-chapter-heading/
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-Paul/
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/is-n-t-wright-wrong-on-Jesus
First deals with how he views the scriptures, and second on his overall beliefs.
The final one shocked me, for that would mean that NT Wright has a strange view on the person of Jesus Himself.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Not in his _Romans _commentary. In a debate with Gaffin, Gaffin praised Wright for defending the translation of propitiation. And I can turn it around and say a lot of evangelicals reject Christus Victor aspects. I got points marked off in seminary for quoting Colossians 2:15


He does not seem to view the death of Christ though in a fashion that would be as say a Calvin did, or any other major Reformer.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He does not seem to view the death of Christ though in a fashion that would be as say a Calvin did, or any other major Reformer.



Replace the word "seem" with an actual citation from Wright. That way we can find the nature of the contradiction (yes, he disagrees with Calvin on this point, but that tells me relatively little about his own view).


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> https://adaughterofthereformation.w...-n-t-wright-summed-up-in-one-chapter-heading/
> http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-Paul/
> https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/is-n-t-wright-wrong-on-Jesus
> First deals with how he views the scriptures, and second on his overall beliefs.
> The final one shocked me, for that would mean that NT Wright has a strange view on the person of Jesus Himself.



So no direct citations from Wright himself? I am not reading second hand sources. Rachel did a great job exposing the Doug Wilson sex scandals, but on this issue I would rather go directly to the source. I've read almost everything he is written, but some of it was over a decade ago.

The last article is misleading. He believes Jesus has a divine nature. He is simply attacking a certain post-Enlightenment view of "knowledge." What do we mean by "knowledge?" Do we have in mind Gettier? Plato? Plantinga? Polyani?

If Knowledge = justified, true belief, then we have to ask ourselves, "Did Jesus 'know' he was God?" That means, did Jesus have to continually meet internal criteria to justify his believing the claim he was God? Ironically, that is nigh-blasphemous. Despite himself, NT Wright came out conservative on this one!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stope

ReformedReidian said:


> So no direct citations from Wright himself? I am not reading second hand sources. Rachel did a great job exposing the Doug Wilson sex scandals, but on this issue I would rather go directly to the source. I've read almost everything he is written, but some of it was over a decade ago.
> 
> The last article is misleading. He believes Jesus has a divine nature. He is simply attacking a certain post-Enlightenment view of "knowledge." What do we mean by "knowledge?" Do we have in mind Gettier? Plato? Plantinga? Polyani?
> 
> If Knowledge = justified, true belief, then we have to ask ourselves, "Did Jesus 'know' he was God?" That means, did Jesus have to continually meet internal criteria to justify his believing the claim he was God? Ironically, that is nigh-blasphemous. Despite himself, NT Wright came out conservative on this one!


Brother - would we say that Wright is closer to Kuyper than Piper on the nature and "purpose" of the atonement?


----------



## RamistThomist

Stope said:


> Brother - would we say that Wright is closer to Kuyper than Piper on the nature and "purpose" of the atonement?



In a sense, yes. In a sense, no. Wright sees a cosmic element (creation being recapitulated in Christ, per Ephesians 1:10), and that certainly overlaps with Kuyper in some areas (and with Dutch Neo-Calvinism in general). Nonetheless, Kuyper and Bavinck were a bit more forceful on penal substitution than Wright is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope

ReformedReidian said:


> In a sense, yes. In a sense, no. Wright sees a cosmic element (creation being recapitulated in Christ, per Ephesians 1:10), and that certainly overlaps with Kuyper in some areas (and with Dutch Neo-Calvinism in general). Nonetheless, Kuyper and Bavinck were a bit more forceful on penal substitution than Wright is.


Copy that. Thank you (as always)


----------



## RamistThomist

Stope said:


> Copy that. Thank you (as always)



And I am sure Piper would admit some "renewal" aspect to the atonement. He's read enough of Ladd to see that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> So no direct citations from Wright himself? I am not reading second hand sources. Rachel did a great job exposing the Doug Wilson sex scandals, but on this issue I would rather go directly to the source. I've read almost everything he is written, but some of it was over a decade ago.
> 
> The last article is misleading. He believes Jesus has a divine nature. He is simply attacking a certain post-Enlightenment view of "knowledge." What do we mean by "knowledge?" Do we have in mind Gettier? Plato? Plantinga? Polyani?
> 
> If Knowledge = justified, true belief, then we have to ask ourselves, "Did Jesus 'know' he was God?" That means, did Jesus have to continually meet internal criteria to justify his believing the claim he was God? Ironically, that is nigh-blasphemous. Despite himself, NT Wright came out conservative on this one!


Jesus knew from an early age that he was the Son of God, for he was in the temple, and remarked to his parents was in His fathers house, so he indeed did now that self truth.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Replace the word "seem" with an actual citation from Wright. That way we can find the nature of the contradiction (yes, he disagrees with Calvin on this point, but that tells me relatively little about his own view).


NT Wright does see himself as being outside traditional reformed viewpoint regarding Justification..
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> And I am sure Piper would admit some "renewal" aspect to the atonement. He's read enough of Ladd to see that.


Yes, but he would also see it in terms as first and foremost being individuals sinners being reconciled back to God through the penal substitution death of Christ on their behalf.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> In a sense, yes. In a sense, no. Wright sees a cosmic element (creation being recapitulated in Christ, per Ephesians 1:10), and that certainly overlaps with Kuyper in some areas (and with Dutch Neo-Calvinism in general). Nonetheless, Kuyper and Bavinck were a bit more forceful on penal substitution than Wright is.


Yes, both of them would see Justification much more in the classical reformed sense than Wright does.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Yes, both of them would see Justification much more in the classical reformed sense than Wright does.



Not Kuyper. He held to eternal justification, which is wrong.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> NT Wright does see himself as being outside traditional reformed viewpoint regarding Justification..
> https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/



Of course he is outside the Reformed tradition. Never said he wasn't.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Jesus knew from an early age that he was the Son of God, for he was in the temple, and remarked to his parents was in His fathers house, so he indeed did now that self truth.



That is not what I asked. Did Jesus "know" in terms of "justified, true belief?" Yes, Jesus "knows" he is God, but not because of standard accounts of knowledge, which entail justified, true belief. That means he would have to meet conditions for his knowledge that he is God. 

I think that is what Wright is getting at. NTW is notorious for never defining his terms like that.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> NTW is notorious for never defining his terms like that.



Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Perhaps Wright doesn't understand himself either, or perhaps he doesn't want anyone to understand him.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Of course he is outside the Reformed tradition. Never said he wasn't.


He is outside the reformed tradition, and yet seems that many have taken to his slant on theology.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Perhaps Wright doesn't understand himself either, or perhaps he doesn't want anyone to understand him.


He at times seems to be saying his theology id a way that will pass through others, without alerting them to what his real views are on the issues.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Not Kuyper. He held to eternal justification, which is wrong.


Do you mean eternal justification as say Primitive Baptists would view it?


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Albert Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Perhaps Wright doesn't understand himself either, or perhaps he doesn't want anyone to understand him.



He can explain some things simply. And to be honest, most people would probably trip on Gettiers Problem.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Do you mean eternal justification as say Primitive Baptists would view it?



Probably


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> He is outside the reformed tradition, and yet seems that many have taken to his slant on theology.





Dachaser said:


> He at times seems to be saying his theology id a way that will pass through others, without alerting them to what his real views are on the issues.


He gets the big picture to be sure and has eased his prior views. However, he flips things around and that's where it goes wrong.
No he does not clearly define terms which is what frustrates us confessional folk as well as him and wondering why people get on him. If he talks theology he should be clearer or just not comment. He does neither. And it is unfortunate many of those claiming to be reformed became enamoured with his theology and they broke away to form the FV.
David, this is pretty well-trodden ground especially on this forum and elsewhere. I disagree agree with Wright and think in a lot of writes he is better not read, the Reformed folk get his big picture ideas without the error. He does not however, view the Bible asfull of error..


----------



## RamistThomist

About "knowing he was God." Is knowledge being used in the sense of I know that this reaction happens in a chemical test tube, or I know jet fuel can't melt steel beams?" Or is it being used in a covenantal, relational sense of Father and Son? 

That's what Wright is getting at. I was a big fan of Wright's take on Jesus and resurrection ten years ago. I'm not as impressed now


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> He gets the big picture to be sure and has eased his prior views. However, he flips things around and that's where it goes wrong.
> No he does not clearly define terms which is what frustrates us confessional folk as well as him and wondering why people get on him. If he talks theology he should be clearer or just not comment. He does neither. And it is unfortunate many of those claiming to be reformed became enamoured with his theology and they broke away to form the FV.
> David, this is pretty well-trodden ground especially on this forum and elsewhere. I disagree agree with Wright and think in a lot of writes he is better not read, the Reformed folk get his big picture ideas without the error. He does not however, view the Bible asfull of error..


My main frustration on reading him is that he seems to have bad theology on certain issues, but then runs away from actually stating clearly what he believes , as he would know that doing that would make him seem suspect. Also, seems that he is trying to build a theology that would allow us to come back home to church of Rome in some fashion.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> My main frustration on reading him is that he seems to have bad theology on certain issues, but then runs away from actually stating clearly what he believes , as he would know that doing that would make him seem suspect. Also, seems that he is trying to build a theology that would allow us to come back home to church of Rome in some fashion.



Part of the problem is Wright is talking to different audiences. When he is addressing NT scholars he is remarkably clear and effective. His book on the Resurrection is the best thing ever written on the topic. The danger is when he writes popular stuff. Whether its Sproul or Macarthur or Wright, popular theology is always a step down.

You won't find him "running away" in his _Christian Origins _series. He more or less owns the battlefield.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> My main frustration on reading him is that he seems to have bad theology on certain issues, but then runs away from actually stating clearly what he believes , as he would know that doing that would make him seem suspect. Also, seems that he is trying to build a theology that would allow us to come back home to church of Rome in some fashion.


I agree. I do not think he waffles on inerrancy though he does refer to deutro-Isaiah. He does stick his nose in things he knows nothing about and then wonders why people jump on him. No disagreement there. I think most people feel the same way.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Part of the problem is Wright is talking to different audiences. When he is addressing NT scholars he is remarkably clear and effective. His book on the Resurrection is the best thing ever written on the topic. The danger is when he writes popular stuff. Whether its Sproul or Macarthur or Wright, popular theology is always a step down.
> 
> You won't find him "running away" in his _Christian Origins _series. He more or less owns the battlefield.


His take though on the so called New Pauline Perspective does seem to have more problems within his theology than he lets on when he writes/talks on it. His viewpoint on how the reformation and basically all of have misunderstood the Pauline Justification theology seems to be really strange to me.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> I agree. I do not think he waffles on inerrancy though he does refer to deutro-Isaiah. He does stick his nose in things he knows nothing about and then wonders why people jump on him. No disagreement there. I think most people feel the same way.


His view on inerrancy seems to be somewhat different then what we would normally set it as meaning though. His view on the authorship of certain books seems suspect also.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> His view on inerrancy seems to be somewhat different then what we would normally set it as meaning though. His view on the authorship of certain books seems suspect also.



We've already been over this. He doesn't waffle on authorship. I wish he said "inerrant," but since he doesn't because of certain connotations the word has in 20th century Evangelicalism, I don't lose sleep over it. Further, by Anglican standards he is a fundamentalist.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> His take though on the so called New Pauline Perspective does seem to have more problems within his theology than he lets on when he writes/talks on it. His viewpoint on how the reformation and basically all of have misunderstood the Pauline Justification theology seems to be really strange to me.



Luther said the church had justification wrong for 1,000 years (and the Church did). I thinK NTW is wrong on justification, but the claim "you guys have had it wrong" is also a claim we made 500 years ago.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Luther said the church had justification wrong for 1,000 years (and the Church did). I thinK NTW is wrong on justification, but the claim "you guys have had it wrong" is also a claim we made 500 years ago.


True, but would think that NT Wright viewpoint, as it does conflict with the Reformers viewpoint on Pauline Justification, requires him to be able to support it much better than he has been able to, as still see him as trying to bridge a way back to the church of Rome and unity now.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> We've already been over this. He doesn't waffle on authorship. I wish he said "inerrant," but since he doesn't because of certain connotations the word has in 20th century Evangelicalism, I don't lose sleep over it. Further, by Anglican standards he is a fundamentalist.


He may be seen as being that in his own church circles, but how about as say reformed or Baptists would tend to use that term of Inerrancy?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He may be seen as being that in his own church circles, but how about as say reformed or Baptists would tend to use that term of Inerrancy?



He doesn't hold to inerrancy the way a Baptist does. We've already established that. Yet he believes in the supernatural, virgin birth, resurrection, historical Jesus, etc. I'm not sure what moving from infallibility to inerrancy adds to the package.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> True, but would think that NT Wright viewpoint, as it does conflict with the Reformers viewpoint on Pauline Justification, requires him to be able to support it much better than he has been able to, as still see him as trying to bridge a way back to the church of Rome and unity now.



You didn't use a subject pronoun, so I am not sure what you are asking me. He has written almost 2500 pages on Paul. I haven't read them all. I don't think he is trying to bridge back to Rome. He knows Rome won't have him, given his views on Sola Scriptura, souls Christus, etc.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> True, but would think that NT Wright viewpoint, as it does conflict with the Reformers viewpoint on Pauline Justification, requires him to be able to support it much better than he has been able to, as still see him as trying to bridge a way back to the church of Rome and unity now.


He does call it a great ecumenical doctrine sure. Don't misunderstand that he himself is building that bridge. Unfortunately, others have seen it to be so (FVers, et al). When he argues against imputed righteousness he unwittingly argues against Rome's infused righteousness. Like Jacob, he has too much Protestant baggage even if he is not Reformed.
There are at lewst two foundations of the NPP that have been demolished. That Second temple Judaism was wholely gracious and that righteousness language does not have much to do with righteousness as we see it. The latter was debunked by James Barr (no evangelical himself) long before the NPP got off the ground.
Nevertheless, Wright has moderated his views. If I recall correctly it may have been you in a thread awhile back that I gave advice not to jump on debunking things before you are strong in your views first. Plus, Wright and the NPP seems to be fading due to the backlash that occurred and its subsequent refutations.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> He doesn't hold to inerrancy the way a Baptist does. We've already established that. Yet he believes in the supernatural, virgin birth, resurrection, historical Jesus, etc. I'm not sure what moving from infallibility to inerrancy adds to the package.


I appreciate that he holds to that truths, and just wished that he would go all the way and hold to an inerrant bible.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> You didn't use a subject pronoun, so I am not sure what you are asking me. He has written almost 2500 pages on Paul. I haven't read them all. I don't think he is trying to bridge back to Rome. He knows Rome won't have him, given his views on Sola Scriptura, souls Christus, etc.


His view that we as the new Community of the faithful. and has part of the new creation, should be showing off unity, so do think that he just might be willingly to let some positions get watered down to achieve that end goal, but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> He does call it a great ecumenical doctrine sure. Don't misunderstand that he himself is building that bridge. Unfortunately, others have seen it to be so (FVers, et al). When he argues against imputed righteousness he unwittingly argues against Rome's infused righteousness. Like Jacob, he has too much Protestant baggage even if he is not Reformed.
> There are at lewst two foundations of the NPP that have been demolished. That Second temple Judaism was wholely gracious and that righteousness language does not have much to do with righteousness as we see it. The latter was debunked by James Barr (no evangelical himself) long before the NPP got off the ground.
> Nevertheless, Wright has moderated his views. If I recall correctly it may have been you in a thread awhile back that I gave advice not to jump on debunking things before you are strong in your views first. Plus, Wright and the NPP seems to be fading due to the backlash that occurred and its subsequent refutations.


I am just trying to understand just what makes his NPP so appealing to so many, as it would seem to be denying in some fashion the common held views of the atonement of Christ , as seen by the reformers such as Calvin.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> His view that we as the new Community of the faithful. and has part of the new creation, should be showing off unity, so do think that he just might be willingly to let some positions get watered down to achieve that end goal, but that is just my opinion.



We are the new community and we should show unity. I don't think he is willing to let doctrines get watered down. You would have to show quotes from him where he does that. I think he is wrong, but he isn't saying that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I appreciate that he holds to that truths, and just wished that he would go all the way and hold to an inerrant bible.



Perhaps, but infallibility is a more powerful concept than inerrancy. The following statement is inerrant:

"My name is Jacob."

It's not infallible, though. I can think of a number of scenarios where my writing could be wrong (I could be drunk, under CIA mind-control, etc., and perhaps write something else).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> I am just trying to understand just what makes his NPP so appealing to so many, as it would seem to be denying in some fashion the common held views of the atonement of Christ , as seen by the reformers such as Calvin.


We must paint him correctly and not like the TNIV scenerio.
It is attractive due to its claims; that this is the most original reading. It is not since a lot of ripped put of its context anyway. Also, by us Presbyterians because 'covenant' is made out a lot in the system. However, that is just a ploy with no actual covenant theology. Instead the NPP backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds (either Doug moo or JI Packer originally said that).
I am not trying to defend it by any means I just want it faithfully represented unlike how we are by them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Once you step outside of Reformed circles, he is seen as generic conservative evangelical. Only more suave. And British accent.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> We must paint him correctly and not like the TNIV scenerio.
> It is attractive due to its claims; that this is the most original reading. It is not since a lot of ripped put of its context anyway. Also, by us Presbyterians because 'covenant' is made out a lot in the system. However, that is just a ploy with no actual covenant theology. Instead the NPP backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds (either Doug moo or JI Packer originally said that).
> I am not trying to defend it by any means I just want it faithfully represented unlike how we are by them.


My introduction and reading of Him as been through Baptists authors, and then reformed ones, and several of them have taken him to task mainly his views on the atonement aspect of the Cross of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> We are the new community and we should show unity. I don't think he is willing to let doctrines get watered down. You would have to show quotes from him where he does that. I think he is wrong, but he isn't saying that.


He seems to be building a theology though to unite what he sees as the Community of he People of God, and as he sees Baptism as the entry way into that Community, and sees Justification more as a Catholic Infused righteousness mode, that is why to me at least seems to be going back to Rome in some fashion.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He seems to be building a theology though to unite what he sees as the Community of he People of God, and as he sees Baptism as the entry way into that Community, and sees Justification more as a Catholic Infused righteousness mode, that is why to me at least seems to be going back to Rome in some fashion.



I don't see him using infused righteousness. In fact, he explicitly rejects a lot of the metaphysics (Aristotelian ontology) that makes that possible. Rome sees grace, etc. as a quasi-metaphysical substance. Wright, though wrong elsewhere, does not.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> I don't see him using infused righteousness. In fact, he explicitly rejects a lot of the metaphysics (Aristotelian ontology) that makes that possible. Rome sees grace, etc. as a quasi-metaphysical substance. Wright, though wrong elsewhere, does not.


Thanks for your various postings on Wright, as his writings are quite hard to follow at times. He seems to know that if he states fully what he holds with, that will produce for him a lot of push back on certain issues.


----------



## Philip

I have two comments:

1) Read _Paul and the Faithfulness of God_ before jumping to conclusions based on what you've heard.

2) Some of his attacks are on deliberate straw-men, which I think is a rhetorical strategy to make his more accurate criticisms of liberal scholarship seem less one-sided. 90% of the times he attacks "Protestantism" it's either a gross caricature or else an attack on historic liberal Protestantism (Tillich/Bultmann) which read Luther/Calvin through an existentialist lens.

3) Wright also has a great deal of historical ignorance. He is maybe the best scholar of Second Temple Judaism and Pauline studies writing today, but past the Bar-Kochba revolt, his historical knowledge seems to be limited to broad outlines rather than in-depth readings of primary texts or the history of doctrine.

4) On the 10% where we disagree, half the time Wright is referring to what Paul meant in Paul's context. That is, he doesn't seem open to the idea that Paul might well have valid applications, say, in the context of 16th century debates about imputation. In many of these cases, he thinks the debate is either irrelevant in general, or that Paul's context is so different that Paul can't be said to apply.

5) On the other 5%, I am happy to simply disagree with Wright (on election, for instance).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter

This discussion has given me the context I needed to understand N. T. Wright. Thank you. I continue to be mystified as to why he is viewed as the latest and greatest thinker by people who should know better.


----------



## RamistThomist

yeutter said:


> This discussion has given me the context I needed to understand N. T. Wright. Thank you. I continue to be mystified as to why he is viewed as the latest and greatest thinker by people who should know better.



Because a lot of what he says is correct. His stuff on gnosticism is pure gold (especially when he publicly implied that Harvard University was gnostic, and he was speaking at Harvard at the time). And the British accent helps.


----------



## KMK

Philip said:


> I have two comments:



Good one!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

Philip said:


> I have two comments:
> 
> 1) Read _Paul and the Faithfulness of God_ before jumping to conclusions based on what you've heard.
> 
> 2) Some of his attacks are on deliberate straw-men, which I think is a rhetorical strategy to make his more accurate criticisms of liberal scholarship seem less one-sided. 90% of the times he attacks "Protestantism" it's either a gross caricature or else an attack on historic liberal Protestantism (Tillich/Bultmann) which read Luther/Calvin through an existentialist lens.
> 
> 3) Wright also has a great deal of historical ignorance. He is maybe the best scholar of Second Temple Judaism and Pauline studies writing today, but past the Bar-Kochba revolt, his historical knowledge seems to be limited to broad outlines rather than in-depth readings of primary texts or the history of doctrine.
> 
> 4) On the 10% where we disagree, half the time Wright is referring to what Paul meant in Paul's context. That is, he doesn't seem open to the idea that Paul might well have valid applications, say, in the context of 16th century debates about imputation. In many of these cases, he thinks the debate is either irrelevant in general, or that Paul's context is so different that Paul can't be said to apply.
> 
> 5) On the other 5%, I am happy to simply disagree with Wright (on election, for instance).


The simple basic truth to me is that in the main area of pauline Justification, either NT Wright got it right, and Calvin and others did not, or else he got it quite Wrong.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Because a lot of what he says is correct. His stuff on gnosticism is pure gold (especially when he publicly implied that Harvard University was gnostic, and he was speaking at Harvard at the time). And the British accent helps.


He has good stuff on the resurrection and historical Jesus, and the times in which He lived, and that the Bible is a trustworthy guide to us, but still see his take on Pauline justification as not quite right.


----------



## Philip

yeutter said:


> I continue to be mystified as to why he is viewed as the latest and greatest thinker by people who should know better.



For one, he is probably the best expert on Paul and the world of the New Testament writing today. Also, he's a very good writer who is very quotable. Not to mention the British baritone.



Dachaser said:


> The simple basic truth to me is that in the main area of pauline Justification, either NT Wright got it right, and Calvin and others did not, or else he got it quite Wrong.



I guess my thought is that I don't expect Paul to have a fully-fledged Protestant-Augustinian understanding of justification, any more than I expect him to have a Chalcedonian Christology. I think Wright is wrong in thinking that Paul contradicts the classic reformed position on justification, but he does have a point insofar as the problems that Paul addresses are not precisely the same as the problems that Luther and Calvin were dealing with.


----------



## Dachaser

Philip said:


> For one, he is probably the best expert on Paul and the world of the New Testament writing today. Also, he's a very good writer who is very quotable. Not to mention the British baritone.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my thought is that I don't expect Paul to have a fully-fledged Protestant-Augustinian understanding of justification, any more than I expect him to have a Chalcedonian Christology. I think Wright is wrong in thinking that Paul contradicts the classic reformed position on justification, but he does have a point insofar as the problems that Paul addresses are not precisely the same as the problems that Luther and Calvin were dealing with.


I think that he does miss the main argument Paul was engaged in though, as his theology is how a sinner gets justified and reconciled back to God by the Cross, and not really concerned with how to identify those who are already saved, as Wright seems to have it being.


----------



## Philip

Dachaser said:


> I think that he does miss the main argument Paul was engaged in though, as his theology is how a sinner gets justified and reconciled back to God by the Cross, and not really concerned with how to identify those who are already saved, as Wright seems to have it being.



I think I would disagree with that somewhat. That's one question, but for Paul, the larger question has to do with what we reformed would call Covenant theology and how Jesus fits into the story of Israel and the place of the Covenant people of God in God's plan to restore fallen humanity and creation as a whole. For Paul, the question isn't just what we are saved from and how that works, but what we are saved for (cf. Eph 2:8-10). The question of how the individual sinner can stand before a Holy God is very important (contra Wright) but its answer lies, to a large extent, in the answer to the larger question about the person of Jesus and His unique role in salvation history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Philip said:


> I think I would disagree with that somewhat. That's one question, but for Paul, the larger question has to do with what we reformed would call Covenant theology and how Jesus fits into the story of Israel and the place of the Covenant people of God in God's plan to restore fallen humanity and creation as a whole. For Paul, the question isn't just what we are saved from and how that works, but what we are saved for (cf. Eph 2:8-10). The question of how the individual sinner can stand before a Holy God is very important (contra Wright) but its answer lies, to a large extent, in the answer to the larger question about the person of Jesus and His unique role in salvation history.


I do not think though that was/is the main emphasis of Paul though, as he seemed to really trying to get across to us how we as sinners can be reconciled back to God.


----------



## Philip

Dachaser said:


> I do not think though that was/is the main emphasis of Paul though, as he seemed to really trying to get across to us how we as sinners can be reconciled back to God.



Through Jesus, Israel's messiah, the only faithful Israelite. The reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles and their grafting in to the new people of God (which is really the old people of God) is the main concern of Paul's epistles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Philip said:


> Through Jesus, Israel's messiah, the only faithful Israelite. The reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles and their grafting in to the new people of God (which is really the old people of God) is the main concern of Paul's epistles.


True, but his main emphasis in Romans and Galatians would be just how the sinner becomes part of that Israel, how to be individual justified before Holy God.
Then the aspects of God fixing the curse on creation, and transformation of earth at time of Second Coming. Weights seems to be placing this backwards.


----------



## Philip

Dachaser said:


> True, but his main emphasis in Romans and Galatians would be just how the sinner becomes part of that Israel, how to be individual justified before Holy God.



I'd be careful about that individual focus. It's more a question here of how the promises are received. The Judaizers are insisting that the old way, the keeping of Torah, is still what marks the covenant, whereas Paul argues that it is faith which marks us out as covenant people united to God in Jesus, Israel's messiah who alone has kept Torah. Stressing the individual here is probably anachronistic, strictly speaking. That's not to say that it's an invalid implication (I think it's valid) but the curious thing is that if it's what Paul is after in this context, then it took the church until Augustine to get the point.

Here's the situation: Paul is in a largely pagan context. He's a Pharisee, which means that he understands the rest of the world to be under Divine judgment, while Israel, though currently oppressed, is waiting for restoration, and that restoration will take place if Israel is faithful to Torah. The encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road changes this paradigm to an understanding that Israel's test has already happened and only Jesus, Israel's Messiah, has been judged righteous. Not only that, but Jesus is God incarnate, a messiah beyond Israel's wildest expectations.

What this means is that the new community of Israel is composed of those who are in the Messiah by faith, because Torah has been fulfilled by Israel's Messiah. But it is still supposed to be distinctive. Christians are not to live as pagans. But because so many in the new community are new to monotheism, there's a lot of confusion around about how exactly this works out. Do we celebrate Passover? Do we observe kosher? Do we still have to be circumcised? These are the questions at the forefront of the minds of Paul's listeners, and they're the questions that Paul is trying to answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Philip said:


> I'd be careful about that individual focus. It's more a question here of how the promises are received. The Judaizers are insisting that the old way, the keeping of Torah, is still what marks the covenant, whereas Paul argues that it is faith which marks us out as covenant people united to God in Jesus, Israel's messiah who alone has kept Torah. Stressing the individual here is probably anachronistic, strictly speaking. That's not to say that it's an invalid implication (I think it's valid) but the curious thing is that if it's what Paul is after in this context, then it took the church until Augustine to get the point.
> 
> Here's the situation: Paul is in a largely pagan context. He's a Pharisee, which means that he understands the rest of the world to be under Divine judgment, while Israel, though currently oppressed, is waiting for restoration, and that restoration will take place if Israel is faithful to Torah. The encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road changes this paradigm to an understanding that Israel's test has already happened and only Jesus, Israel's Messiah, has been judged righteous. Not only that, but Jesus is God incarnate, a messiah beyond Israel's wildest expectations.
> 
> What this means is that the new community of Israel is composed of those who are in the Messiah by faith, because Torah has been fulfilled by Israel's Messiah. But it is still supposed to be distinctive. Christians are not to live as pagans. But because so many in the new community are new to monotheism, there's a lot of confusion around about how exactly this works out. Do we celebrate Passover? Do we observe kosher? Do we still have to be circumcised? These are the questions at the forefront of the minds of Paul's listeners, and they're the questions that Paul is trying to answer.


I would still see the main question that Paul answers though is how a sinner can become saved now by God, and the old Judaism and its sacrifices are no longer in force, as we are now under the way of grace alone faith alone in the Messiah who has now come.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

David,

Go back and edit your post above so that it makes for good grammatical sense.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Go back and edit your post above so that it makes for good grammatical sense.


Thank you

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Philip

Dachaser said:


> I would still see the main question that Paul answers though is how a sinner can become saved now by God



Saved from what, though? And for what? For Paul, sin itself is the condemnation of God on the nations, and it turns out that God's own people are no better (Romans 1-3). Therefore we are saved from sin and for righteousness. It isn't simply that we are free from sin and condemnation, but that we are free to accomplish the mission of kingdom-building and blessing the nations for which Israel was intended. We are pronounced righteous so that we may be confirmed in righteousness in the New Heavens and New Earth. The point isn't that the Pauline corpus doesn't have material relevant to the question you are asking (it does) but rather that salvation, for Paul, has a purpose. The people of God have a purpose, as the firstfruits of the new creation. 

It's the question of how to be the New Covenant community of the Messiah (i.e. the Church) that Paul is primarily concerned with. He is writing to particular people in particular circumstances dealing with particular issues. That's not to say that the reformers were wrong to cite Paul for their conclusions (they weren't) but that we shouldn't assume that the questions being asked in the 16th century were the exact same questions as Paul was asking. I really don't think this ought to concern us overmuch. If there's a reformation sola that is front and center in Paul, it's _solus Christus_.


----------



## Dachaser

Philip said:


> Saved from what, though? And for what? For Paul, sin itself is the condemnation of God on the nations, and it turns out that God's own people are no better (Romans 1-3). Therefore we are saved from sin and for righteousness. It isn't simply that we are free from sin and condemnation, but that we are free to accomplish the mission of kingdom-building and blessing the nations for which Israel was intended. We are pronounced righteous so that we may be confirmed in righteousness in the New Heavens and New Earth. The point isn't that the Pauline corpus doesn't have material relevant to the question you are asking (it does) but rather that salvation, for Paul, has a purpose. The people of God have a purpose, as the firstfruits of the new creation.
> 
> It's the question of how to be the New Covenant community of the Messiah (i.e. the Church) that Paul is primarily concerned with. He is writing to particular people in particular circumstances dealing with particular issues. That's not to say that the reformers were wrong to cite Paul for their conclusions (they weren't) but that we shouldn't assume that the questions being asked in the 16th century were the exact same questions as Paul was asking. I really don't think this ought to concern us overmuch. If there's a reformation sola that is front and center in Paul, it's _solus Christus_.


I do not see that Kingdom building as he does though, as think that the main thrust is getting saved and right with God, and then going out to be witnesses, as most Kingdom building will be done by Jesus at His second coming.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I do not see that Kingdom building as he does though, as think that the main thrust is getting saved and right with God, and then going out to be witnesses, as most Kingdom building will be done by Jesus at His second coming.



Then why does Paul spend all that time in Ephesians "creating a new body out of Jews and Gentiles," if the goal is just getting saved?


----------



## Philip

Dachaser said:


> I do not see that Kingdom building as he does though, as think that the main thrust is getting saved and right with God, and then going out to be witnesses, as most Kingdom building will be done by Jesus at His second coming.



In that case, your real problem with Wright is that he's postmillennial.


----------



## RamistThomist

In _Resurrection of the Son of God_, on page 236, when discussing Colossians, Wright says, "the author, whom I shall refer to as "Paul," cheerfully begging the question of authorship."


----------



## fredtgreco

ReformedReidian said:


> In _Resurrection of the Son of God_, on page 236, when discussing Colossians, Wright says, "the author, whom I shall refer to as "Paul," cheerfully begging the question of authorship."


It's statements like this that convince me I am right in not wasting 5 minutes reading Wright. He is obnoxious, arrogant, and pedantic.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins

fredtgreco said:


> It's statements like this that convince me I am right in not wasting 5 minutes reading Wright. He is obnoxious, arrogant, and pedantic.



_Resurrection of the Son of God_ is not a waste to read. It's actually quite good in lots of places, and it is a relief to read something where one can so heartily agree with what he is trying to do: prove the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It has issues in it where we would disagree with him, of course, most notably in his view of Scripture (he lacks any discernible belief in the self-attesting authority of Scripture). However, the shape of his arguments still impacts my thoughts on the resurrection of Christ even today, and that in a positive way. Of course, I don't disagree with your assessment of Wright in general.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Then why does Paul spend all that time in Ephesians "creating a new body out of Jews and Gentiles," if the goal is just getting saved?


I am not speaking on that issue, was more addressing how Weight seems to focus the agenda more on transforming society, having the Kingdom brought in and through us now.
I see the main thrust of Paul to getting sinners first justified to God, and then moving out from there.


----------



## greenbaggins

Dachaser said:


> I am not speaking on that issue, was more addressing how Weight seems to focus the agenda more on transforming society, having the Kingdom brought in and through us now.
> I see the main thrust of Paul to getting sinners first justified to God, and then moving out from there.



I would see the _historia salutis_ (in particular, the overlap of the two ages, as per Vos) as the central message of Paul, of which the _ordo salutis_ is the inevitable result.


----------



## fredtgreco

greenbaggins said:


> _Resurrection of the Son of God_ is not a waste to read. It's actually quite good in lots of places, and it is a relief to read something where one can so heartily agree with what he is trying to do: prove the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It has issues in it where we would disagree with him, of course, most notably in his view of Scripture (he lacks any discernible belief in the self-attesting authority of Scripture). However, the shape of his arguments still impacts my thoughts on the resurrection of Christ even today, and that in a positive way. Of course, I don't disagree with your assessment of Wright in general.


My point would be that there are dozens of others I could read without having to put up with Wright's constant over-qualifications, hedging, and obnoxious language. I'm not sure it is helpful to listen to a man who butchers justification, is pro-women's ordination, pro-homosexual, and who refuses to speak plainly about inerrancy.


----------



## greenbaggins

In general, I would say you're right, Fred, but I found the objectionable things you mention to be on minimal display in _RSG_.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I am not speaking on that issue, was more addressing how Weight seems to focus the agenda more on transforming society, having the Kingdom brought in and through us now.



He specifically rejects that view.


----------



## RamistThomist

fredtgreco said:


> My point would be that there are dozens of others I could read without having to put up with Wright's constant over-qualifications, hedging, and obnoxious language. I'm not sure it is helpful to listen to a man who butchers justification, is pro-women's ordination, pro-homosexual, and who refuses to speak plainly about inerrancy.



Wright rejects homosexuality here. 
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/f...-t-wrights-argument-against-same-sex-marriage

That's largely why the Church of England considers Wright a conservative evangelical (which I don't think he is).


----------



## Dachaser

greenbaggins said:


> I would see the _historia salutis_ (in particular, the overlap of the two ages, as per Vos) as the central message of Paul, of which the _ordo salutis_ is the inevitable result.


I would see Paul as having many themes, and some would be the sinner getting saved, and then becoming more into image of Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit among us, the Church and its operation, and the Second Coming and future eschatology for examples.


----------



## RamistThomist

Even pro-gay people admit Wright is against homosexuality.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/06/23/my-quarrel-with-n-t-wright-about-sex/


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I would see Paul as having many themes, and some would be the sinner getting saved, and then becoming more into image of Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit among us, the Church and its operation, and the Second Coming and future eschatology for examples.



In other words, NT Wright.


----------



## Dachaser

fredtgreco said:


> My point would be that there are dozens of others I could read without having to put up with Wright's constant over-qualifications, hedging, and obnoxious language. I'm not sure it is helpful to listen to a man who butchers justification, is pro-women's ordination, pro-homosexual, and who refuses to speak plainly about inerrancy.


Based upon those views of his, just wondering why he seems to be so much in vogue as a stellar theologian for us today?


----------



## RamistThomist

fredtgreco said:


> It's statements like this that convince me I am right in not wasting 5 minutes reading Wright. He is obnoxious, arrogant, and pedantic.



He is affirming Pauline authorship while indirectly slapping liberals. I was trained by classical liberals and if they hear you affirm traditional authorship, they will get apopletic. NT Wright is triggering them the way Trump triggers CNN. It's glorious. I'm not the NT Wright fan I used to be, but RSG is one of the standard (if not the standard in NT studies) works in the field.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> In other words, NT Wright.


He might be discussing those same issues as Paul did, but his understanding of some of them is not how Paul saw them as being. Central one being Justification.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Based upon those views of his, just wondering why he seems to be so much in vogue as a stellar theologian for us today?



Keep in mind that the Reformed community is 1% of 1% of 1% of American Christianity. And most Reformed people do not like him. He is in "vogue" among broadly Evangelicals because he is a powerful communicator who has more or less destroyed liberal scholarship on Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> He specifically rejects that view.


He does write quite a bot on the Community of faith now doing Kingdom work though for the King, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He might be discussing those same issues as Paul did, but his understanding of some of them is not how Paul saw them as being. Central one being Justification.



Wright sa


Dachaser said:


> He does write quite a bot on the Community of faith now doing Kingdom work though for the King, correct?



I hope we are all doing kingdom work. We are disobedient servants if we are not.


----------



## Steve Curtis

arapahoepark said:


> *Like Jacob*, he has too much Protestant baggage even if he is not Reformed.



Slanderous!


----------



## RamistThomist

kainos01 said:


> Slanderous!



I am Reformed, just not vanilla. I actually have issues with Wright, but I don't think he is the bogeyman people make him out to be. The PCA has a lot more to worry about that is threatening its very existence: male ballerinas, cultural Marxism, etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Keep in mind that the Reformed community is 1% of 1% of 1% of American Christianity. And most Reformed people do not like him. He is in "vogue" among broadly Evangelicals because he is a powerful communicator who has more or less destroyed liberal scholarship on Jesus.


So we Baptists would more likely be the ones getting enamored with him as a scholar?


----------



## Steve Curtis

ReformedReidian said:


> I am Reformed, just not vanilla. I actually have issues with Wright, but I don't think he is the bogeyman people make him out to be. The PCA has a lot more to worry about that is threatening its very existence: male ballerinas, cultural Marxism, etc.



With all the talk about grammar, I was just playfully chiding Trent for what (I suppose!) was a grammatical error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> I am Reformed, just not vanilla. I actually have issues with Wright, but I don't think he is the bogeyman people make him out to be. The PCA has a lot more to worry about that is threatening its very existence: male ballerinas, cultural Marxism, etc.


I not see him as bad, but would also not see him as someone whose theology should be accepted at face value as some seem to want to do.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Iso not see him as bad, but would also not see him as someone whose theology should be accepted at face value as some seem to what to do.



Very few people's theology should be


Dachaser said:


> So we Baptists would more likely be the ones getting enamored with him as a scholar?



I doubt it, since he holds to a strong covenantal theology and accepts infant baptism. Or they might. I don't know. Baptists don't have to worry about institutional shibboleths if they are caught reading Wright at night time with a flash light.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Very few people's theology should be
> 
> 
> I doubt it, since he holds to a strong covenantal theology and accepts infant baptism. Or they might. I don't know. Baptists don't have to worry about institutional shibboleths if they are caught reading Wright at night time with a flash light.



We would respect his work on the resurrection of Christ, and some do find his NPP views interesting, but he still seems suspect in some areas.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> We would respect his work on the resurrection of Christ, and some do find his NPP views interesting, but he still seems suspect in some areas.


Sure. He is no systematician for sure yet tries to weigh in. Again, I thought this was established many posts ago....
From viewing your posts just stick with Reformed authors and you'll get best of Wright without error. I think I may have said this. If you feel compelled to critique Wright read him first. I concur with many that he backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds and vice versa. Sinclair Ferguson has said in a critique of the NPP I found that Wright makes these amazing connections to the Old Testament but then he allows that quote or verse to control the exegesis rather than the context of Paul's letter. Horton also notes, and I have as well, that when Wright says 'not merely' it winds up meaning 'not at all' later on. I am trying to be balanced here.


----------



## yeutter

I found lots of good nuggets in Wright. Many posts ago someone said the big problem with Wright is he does not adequately explain how the redemption Christ accomplished is be applied to His people. But he teaches redemption applies to the Church.
Professor Horton is good at distilling correct insights out of Kline and Wright

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Sure. He is no systematician for sure yet tries to weigh in. Again, I thought this was established many posts ago....
> From viewing your posts just stick with Reformed authors and you'll get best of Wright without error. I think I may have said this. If you feel compelled to critique Wright read him first. I concur with many that he backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds and vice versa. Sinclair Ferguson has said in a critique of the NPP I found that Wright makes these amazing connections to the Old Testament but then he allows that quote or verse to control the exegesis rather than the context of Paul's letter. Horton also notes, and I have as well, that when Wright says 'not merely' it winds up meaning 'not at all' later on. I am trying to be balanced here.


I will continue to try to filter his work, in order to glean from him what would be the gold, and let the bad stuff just filter away.


----------



## Dachaser

yeutter said:


> I found lots of good nuggets in Wright. Many posts ago someone said the big problem with Wright is he does not adequately explain how the redemption Christ accomplished is be applied to His people. But he teaches redemption applies to the Church.
> Professor Horton is good at distilling correct insights out of Kline and Wright


What would be some of the best nuggets of gold gained from his books for you?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> What would be some of the best nuggets of gold gained from his books for you?



Wright or Horton?


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Wright or Horton?


NT Wright


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> NT Wright



He is strong on seeing the covenant unfold throughout the Bible. He has singlehandedly destroyed liberal scholarship on the historical Jesus. He is really strong on metaphysics and ontology (see his wonderful work on the Psalms). He takes Psalm 2 more seriously than most, even if he gets the practical aspect wrong.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> He is strong on seeing the covenant unfold throughout the Bible. He has singlehandedly destroyed liberal scholarship on the historical Jesus. He is really strong on metaphysics and ontology (see his wonderful work on the Psalms). He takes Psalm 2 more seriously than most, even if he gets the practical aspect wrong.


What is his view then on the Messiah/King from that Psalm? And it does seem that he is good to read in areas other then those involving his take on Pauline Justification.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> What is his view then on the Messiah/King from that Psalm? And it does seem that he is good to read in areas other then those involving his take on Pauline Justification.



Jesus King is really king over the nations and the nations should reflect that rule.

He's good on most areas.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Jesus King is really king over the nations and the nations should reflect that rule.
> 
> He's good on most areas.


They will, at the time of His second coming.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They will, at the time of His second coming.



Or they can progressively reflect that rule now.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Or they can progressively reflect that rule now.


Would that then be like a postmil type of Christianity influencing cultures then?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Would that then be like a postmil type of Christianity influencing cultures then?



Not necessarily. Postmillennialism says the majority or most will bow the knee to Jesus King. I just want to see at least several. But if it were postmil that wouldn't make it wrong


----------



## RamistThomist

ReformedReidian said:


> Not necessarily. Postmillennialism says the majority or most will bow the knee to Jesus King. I just want to see at least several. But if it were postmil that wouldn't make it wrong



Temperment wise, I have a good amillennial doom-and-gloom mentality. But I do see a few _nations_ coming to Christ and having a final showdown with Antichrist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Temperment wise, I have a good amillennial doom-and-gloom mentality. But I do see a few _nations_ coming to Christ and having a final showdown with Antichrist.


How do you as an A Mil then view who the Antichrist would be?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> How do you as an A Mil then view who the Antichrist would be?



Amils are divided and while I have a list of good candidates, I have to update the list. Ever since Hillary lost I stopped thinking she would be Antichrist.

And I don't even like to say "amil."

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Amils are divided and while I have a list of good candidates, I have to update the list. Ever since Hillary lost I stopped thinking she would be Antichrist.
> 
> And I don't even like to say "amil."


The classic viewpoint would be one of the Popes, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The classic viewpoint would be one of the Popes, correct?



Among some Reformed, yes, though you will find very few published studies today endorsing that view.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Among some Reformed, yes, though you will find very few published studies today endorsing that view.


So both Amils and Historical premils would see a personal Antichrist at end of Days, and differ on whether the Second Coming brings in either the eternal state, or else the millennium rule of Christ?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So both Amils and Historical premils would see a personal Antichrist at end of Days, and differ on whether the Second Coming brings in either the eternal state, or else the millennium rule of Christ?



Some Amils would. Some would just say it is a spiritual symbol for bad stuff or something.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Some Amils would. Some would just say it is a spiritual symbol for bad stuff or something.


Coming over from Dispensational circles to this now, I was surprised just how many famous Reformed held with historical premil position, as I knew that the A mil is main one, but surprised some on the premill also.


----------

