# N.T. Wright - Help Me Out



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 25, 2004)

I have searched the thread (interesting past readings!!) I was looking for a book or books that someone (I think Fred) said that I should read in term sof the &quot;heart&quot; of the New Persepctive on Paul (NPP from hence). Is there anything that would be &quot;good&quot; in terms of getting the essentials on NT Wright or Norman Shepherd? i would like to get a few works and then put together a paper contrasting Calvin's view of justification and theirs.

I could not find the books, so any help would be helpful.

Are these some of them:

What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? 
by N. T. Wright

The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is 
by N. T. Wright

Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship 
by N. T. Wright 

The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism 
by Norman Shepherd 

Anything else? Even journal articles if you have them...


----------



## KayJay (Mar 25, 2004)

This link was given to me by a friend (non-theonomic/AAPC) who just graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary who has jumped on board NT Wright's bandwagon.

http://www.thepaulpage.com/index.html


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 25, 2004)

PCA NEWs

has already published a paper contrasting the two views and how they collide

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0%2C%2CPTID23682|CHID125467|CIID1538370%2C00.html

Its a pretty short and to the point paper.
happy reading!


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2004)

The New Perspective stuff on Monergism.com is very good. As far as Shepherd, the best critique I have found is by David Linden. If you have the time, there is gobs of material out there.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:2ac74624f5][i:2ac74624f5]Originally posted by KayJay[/i:2ac74624f5]
This link was given to me by a friend (non-theonomic/AAPC) who just graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary who has jumped on board NT Wright's bandwagon.
[/quote:2ac74624f5]
Which Westminster? Philedelphia or CA?


----------



## KayJay (Mar 25, 2004)

Philly...how come? isn't the CA WTS just an extention of the Philly WTS?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:b9a940dfdf][i:b9a940dfdf]Originally posted by KayJay[/i:b9a940dfdf]
Philly...how come? isn't the CA WTS just an extention of the Philly WTS? [/quote:b9a940dfdf]

No. They are more and more separate campuses. Sadly, Philly is much more friendly to Shepherd (he taught there) and Wright.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 25, 2004)

I have read Shepherd's [u:c96af0661b]The Call of Grace[/u:c96af0661b], and there is nothing in that book representing the views of N. T. Wright on justification.

But as far as what Wright does teach, [u:c96af0661b]What Saint Paul Really Said[/u:c96af0661b] is the best place to begin.

By the way, when a 21st century theologian comes along, and after 2000 years of Christian theology and biblical interpretation, writes a book about what St. Paul REALLY said, that alone should give us reason to pause. Evidently the Spirit-led church is blind and stupid.


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Mar 26, 2004)

Matt,

Having read much of what Wright has said I can tell you that he is a very hard gut to figure out. I wager that the book that best underscorse his beliefs is his &quot;Paul for everyone&quot; series. This is available through most Christian bookstore. At least the ones up here.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 26, 2004)

The following sites have good articles on NPP &amp; Shepherd:

http://www.teachingtheword.org/ under the justification section.

Here are some additional ones:

http://www.crcchico.com/covenant/shepherd.html#links

This site covers Shepherds 34 thesis. Also Mark Horne's site Theologia will have info supporting Wright and Shepherd.

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/norman_shepherd/the_34_theses.htm


----------



## JonathonHunt (Mar 26, 2004)

Phillip R Johnson (Grace to You) was lecturing at the London Reformed Baptist Seminary on this very topic a couple of months ago. If anyone wants to read my notes of what he said, please U2U me. He was very much of the opinion that 'What St Paul Really Said' is the standard text to critique - and he did critique it. Although it is written for the layman and might not contain all the technical detail of other books, it does lay the premises out plainly. (NT) Tom Wright is the only one of the three main proponents of the New Perspective who claims to be an evangelical (he isn't) which makes him the man to concentrate on - he is most likely to be listened to by true evangelicals because of his 'credentials'.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 26, 2004)

And what of E. P. Sanders and James Dunn? Neither of them claim to be evangelical? I had heard that before, but haven't been able to confirm one way or the other. That's very interesting.

Isn't N. T. Wright a minister in the Anglican church?


----------



## daveb (Mar 26, 2004)

[quote:fd6d44070c][i:fd6d44070c]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:fd6d44070c]
Isn't N. T. Wright a minister in the Anglican church? [/quote:fd6d44070c]

Yes, he's the Bishop of Durham.


----------



## unlearnedlearner (Mar 28, 2004)

&quot;What Saint Paul Really Said&quot; is a good place to start, but realize that these are lectures turned into a book. It is much more of a survey. Go with primary sources, because, as someone here just mentioned, Wright is difficult to figure out. Most of the criticism I have read seem to be built upon other criticisms, but not Wright himself. Note: the title isn't to suggest a break with Church history. 

The Paul page is a great place to go. If you really want to know what Wright says, then you can refer to his Romans commentary. There you have his exposition of the texts in debate and contrast that with Calvin's commentary. That will probably be the best way to approach this paper.

ul


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:4b438fa04c]
but WTS west is all into the two/kingdom, cult/culture/ law/gospel dichotomy. They also say they are Van Tilian but they have reinterpreted him and don't even really teach his view of apologetics. 

I would say that the above is more dangerous than being &quot;friendly&quot; towards Shepard. [/quote:4b438fa04c]

You have got to be kidding!!!


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:87379d7798][i:87379d7798]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:87379d7798]
[quote:87379d7798][i:87379d7798]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:87379d7798]
[quote:87379d7798]
but WTS west is all into the two/kingdom, cult/culture/ law/gospel dichotomy. They also say they are Van Tilian but they have reinterpreted him and don't even really teach his view of apologetics. 

I would say that the above is more dangerous than being &quot;friendly&quot; towards Shepard. [/quote:87379d7798]

You have got to be kidding!!! [/quote:87379d7798]

nope...serious as a heartattack [/quote:87379d7798]

I guess that Reformed Theology didn't begin until Van Til and Bahnsen's interpretation of Van Til?

Boy Howdy! You are a hard core presup :hobbyhorse:


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:18e2498d5a]
as a presupp one could say I am Bahnsenian. 

As a Bahnsenian one could say I am a Van Tilian. 

As a Van Tilian one could say I am a Calvanite. 

As a Calvanite one could say I am an Augustinian. 

As an Augustinian one could say I am a Paulist. 

That is, presuppositionalism is just consistant Calvinism, which is consistant Christianity. Van Til may have elaborated on the truths that were not as well worked out before him. Just as Calvin said of Augustine. 
[/quote:18e2498d5a]

One &quot;could&quot; say all of this, but many &quot;would&quot; not. Though Van Til was good, and Bahnsen was bright, it does not mean everyone prior to Van Til were simply inconsistant. I'll take the Historic Reformed Theology of Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen, Hodge and Warfield any day.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 30, 2004)

Wow!

So Warfield is less orthodox than Shepherd?

Last time I checked Paul reserved his anathamas for those who pervert the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Galatians 1-2) and that was what the Reformation was fought for, no apologetics.

Shepherd was fortunate that he ran out of the OPC before another trial could be held. He might not have squeeked by, by 1 vote the next time through.

I'm as serious as a heart attack - Shepherd is a false shepherd who is leading men straight to hell by trusting in their own works for some final eschatological justification by their own works instead of the finished work of Christ.

And by the way - Shepherd is the logical outworking of radical redemptive historical thinking (ever wonder why Gaffin defends him and Kinnard), not Van Tilianism.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:1c5589bf64][i:1c5589bf64]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1c5589bf64]
[quote:1c5589bf64]
So Warfield is less orthodox than Shepherd? 
[/quote:1c5589bf64]

never used the word &quot;orthodox&quot; once.

Re: Warfield: all I said was that he was inconsistant with his defense of the infallibility of Scripture and then his apologetic method.

Re: Shepard. I am still studying this whole issue. There are things I agree with and things I don't. But I am sure everyone here would want me to be responsible and do my homework, before I call someone that Christ may have died for, a heretic.

My whole point was that WTS west has problems too. I think some of them are dangerous. And, I just picked up on the word &quot;friendly&quot; since it is an ambiguous word and said that it was more dangerous than being &quot;friendly&quot; with Shepard.

-Paul [/quote:1c5589bf64]

Paul,

I am glad that you did not use the word orthodox.

I also understand why you are studying the issue and that is a good thing. I have had the chance to study the issue, having read Shepherd, read the 34 theses, seen the materials regarding his dismissal from Westminster, seen the favorable references to his theology by Scott Hahn, seen the materials in the OPC case of John Kinnaird and much more. I have done my homework and he is a dangerous, false teacher on THE central tenet of the faith.

Any friendliness toward Shepherd is to me more problematic (2 John 9-11) than the Klinean tendencies of WTS-CA (which I oppose) .


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:ac82ed7da8]
I did not say this. 
[/quote:ac82ed7da8]

I assume that you mean the comment regarding the inconsistancies of past Reformed Theologians, which is true, you didn't say this. But considering presuppositionalism was not a recognized apologetic method until it was introduced by Van Til, and Classical apologetical methods were the norm, therefore one could conclude that past Reformed theologians were inconsistant, even though I took liberties with &quot;everyone&quot;. But know I can point to Warfield? And I have read his book on the Authority and Inspiration of the Bible and find no inconsistancies. But then again he was not a presup.


[quote:ac82ed7da8]
Again, I am saying that this is not something that came about with Van Til. Even Van Til said that he saw what he did because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. 
[/quote:ac82ed7da8]

Just because Van Til believed it does not make it so.

I am curious as to what WTS West is teaching that is so dangerous?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 31, 2004)

I have also heard that another common view among the seminary (I don't know if that means among the students or the professors or both) is that Baptists are not really Christians because they do not believe in infant baptism. Now I have NO IDEA how true that is, but I have heard it a few times. Have you heard anything like that, Paul?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 31, 2004)

[quote:3c9e23a0c1][i:3c9e23a0c1]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:3c9e23a0c1]
I have also heard that another common view among the seminary (I don't know if that means among the students or the professors or both) is that Baptists are not really Christians because they do not believe in infant baptism. Now I have NO IDEA how true that is, but I have heard it a few times. Have you heard anything like that, Paul? [/quote:3c9e23a0c1]

This would strike me as VERY odd, since WTS-CA is the most Baptist friendly Reformed seminary - ARBCA has its institute there.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 31, 2004)

[quote:debbc6bd34][i:debbc6bd34]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:debbc6bd34]
[quote:debbc6bd34][i:debbc6bd34]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:debbc6bd34]
I have also heard that another common view among the seminary (I don't know if that means among the students or the professors or both) is that Baptists are not really Christians because they do not believe in infant baptism. Now I have NO IDEA how true that is, but I have heard it a few times. Have you heard anything like that, Paul? [/quote:debbc6bd34]

Yes, Fred is correct. WTS west has baptists students there who are going through the reformed baptist program headed by Renehan. They all get along and play ping pong in the break room together. We all hang out in the seminary bookstore owned by a reformed baptist. So, they would NOT say this.

What has been said, though, by Scott Clark. Is that if one denies the law/gospel (gospel=all grace and no commands/demands; law= all demands and no grace), distinction then they are not a protestant. 

-Paul [/quote:debbc6bd34]

Paul,

Where have you seen this in print? That is not my understanding of Scott's position, but I may very well be wrong. If you can point me to something in writing, I can ask him myself.


----------

