# N.T. Wright: is he or isn't he orthodox?



## J. Dean (May 10, 2011)

I know he has a view of Justification that is questionable, but does it fall outside of Biblical orthodoxy? Apparently he wrote a book in response to John Piper's challenge of his take on justification, but is he really clarifying or just backpedaling?


----------



## torstar (May 10, 2011)

The battles have been gone over in detail in days passed on the board.

Please type "N.T. Wright" into the search box.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 10, 2011)

Wright is not orthodox. He has odd views of justification and the deity of Christ.


----------



## J. Dean (May 10, 2011)

torstar said:


> The battles have been gone over in detail in days passed on the board.
> 
> Please type "N.T. Wright" into the search box.


 
Ahhhh... I see now... sorry about that. Didn't realize I was treading on familiar ground here (though I should have guessed it would have already been addressed at some point).


----------



## py3ak (May 10, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> He has odd views of justification and the deity of Christ.



What's odd in his view of the deity of Christ?


----------



## torstar (May 10, 2011)

No prob. The topic was hit hard a few years ago. And you have a variance of theological/academic talent on the board at a given time.

I don't recall much sympathy for the man on this issue, but he has other work that is respected... just what I recall...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 10, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > He has odd views of justification and the deity of Christ.
> ...



Someone on PB pointed out that he agrees that Christ was fully God and fully man, just that He did not realize He was fully God.


----------



## py3ak (May 10, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Someone on PB pointed out that he agrees that Christ was fully God and fully man, just that He did not realize He was fully God.



Interesting, thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 10, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



I would like to see a reference to that. I had heard that come out of a mouth of a very prominent man who use to be Reformed at one time but has defected. He loves N. T. Wright. The thought was that he had to learn it. He grew in this knowledge. Even after his encounter in the temple when he was about 12. But I was sure that He knew who his father was and pointed that out very well at that encounter to his earthly parental guardian and his mother.


----------



## Grillsy (May 10, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I had heard that come out of a mouth of a very prominent man who use to be Reformed at one time but has defected.



To which persuasion did he defect? Was it because of his reading N.T. Wright?


----------



## Steve Curtis (May 10, 2011)

Perhaps there is a confusion of "Wrights." 
Christopher J. H. Wright suggests (_Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament_) that Jesus "learned" that He was the Son of God by studying the OT. 
A sample quote: "The Old Testament provided the models, pictures and patterns by which Jesus understood his own essential identity and especially gave depth and colour to his primary self-awareness as the Son of his Father God." 

I've never heard anyone ever say that about N. T. Wright.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 10, 2011)

I will try to find the old thread (it was not that long ago) and post the reference.


----------



## au5t1n (May 10, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I will try to find the old thread (it was not that long ago) and post the reference.


 
I remember it, in any case.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 10, 2011)

Our brother Michael said....



> Yes sir. And I've thought the same throughout the whole justification mess. Wright plainly makes the case in his "Lewis-like" endeavor: Simply Christian. He suggests that though Jesus was indeed divine, if he knew it he would not have been fully human and the magnitude and meaningfulness of his experiences on earth would have been compromised.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------
> 
> ...



The thread is here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/new-translation-new-testament-67228/

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

The quote from Wright is found here:

Jesus AND THE IDENTITY OF GOD by N. Thomas Wright


----------



## Steve Curtis (May 10, 2011)

Interesting! Thanks. I had not heard that.


----------



## Prufrock (May 10, 2011)

I would caution against throwing Wright's Christology too far under the bus - whatever we think about his biblicism and rejection of systematic and traditional dogmatic categories, we at least need to recognize that whatever statements he does make on the topic are made exclusively within his exegetical-, biblical-, narrative-theology framework. He is not addressing the topic of _what_ Christ knew with respect to his human nature as a systematic topic, but _how_ the knowledge of his human nature functioned in the historical continuum. Would I send an inquiring friend to Wright to learn Christology? No. But I'm not yet prepared to say Wright would deny any basic elements of catholic Christology.


----------



## Peairtach (May 13, 2011)

Whether Wright believes that Christ doubted His divinity or not, this seems to be a staple of Liberal thinking.

The idea seems to be sometimes prompted by the record of the temptation by the Devil:


> The devil said to him, "_If_ you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." (Luke 4:3, ESV)



But this assumes: 
(a) That Satan's theology that Christ could be tempted into disbelieving in His deity was correct, and should be elaborated into the notion that Christ was regularly in the habit of doubting His deity, or that most of the time He doubted His deity.

(b) That the purpose of the temptation was to get Christ to doubt His deity, rather than get Him to use His miraculous powers to sinfully help Himself, to sinfully obey Satan and to sinfully "prove" His deity to Satan.

I presume that since it is a sin for us to doubt Christ's deity, it would also have been a sin for Christ to do so, and that since He was sinless He never did so, although He may have been tempted in this respect.

Such a notion about Christ's inner life - that he doubted or disbelieved in His deity some, or most, of the time - may be attractive to Liberals and others as it gives them ample justification for their spending of so much time in doubting or denying Christ's deity - in imitation of the Christ of their imagination.


----------

