# N.T. Wright is awesome.



## WrittenFromUtopia

In my Medieval Philosophy class, I'm being forced to face head-on some pretty staunch atheistic worldviews by some argumentative and highly opinionated people. Not only do they know philosophy/logic very well, but they know how to sound persuasive and "right" about things. They have said a lot of things regarding the origins of Christianity that have caught me a little off guard at times, but thankfully, for the most part, I have been able to see past their smoke screens and misrepresentations and stand firm in my faith. When it comes to the origins of Christianity and Christian thought, especially what Paul did/said, I haven't found anyone as helpful (in refuting atheists and pagan arguments) as N.T. Wright. He has been an immense help in this area of discussion for sure. I may not agree with him on other areas, but for this subject he is the best I have found. His book on the Resurrection is probably one of the best scholarly works I have read. Does anyone else here like his work on these topics or in this realm of discussion?


----------



## RamistThomist

He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection. 

Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I am sure Gabriel knew that. My first response was to just write, HUH?


----------



## Richard King

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.
> 
> Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.



Jacob, do you know how FUNNY this post is when read beside that picture of you?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.
> 
> Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, do you know how FUNNY this post is when read beside that picture of you?
Click to expand...


True! :bigsmile:


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.
> 
> Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, do you know how FUNNY this post is when read beside that picture of you?
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

Umm....coincidence.


----------



## RamistThomist

Seriously,
I have long wanted to do a paper, "What if Tom Wright were a Van Tillian and not a Plantigan." He critiques savagely the Enlightenment paradigms, but doesn't offer anything in its place.


----------



## JohnV

Plantigan? Makes it sound like he's from Antarctica. Let me see: Plantingian? No, that doen't sound right either. Plantigonian? Nah, sounds too close to Eurasian, like Transylvania or something like that. I know, Alvinistic. How's that? Sounds close to Calvinistic, doesn't it?

Of course we know what to call things after Wright, right? 

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Seriously,
> I have long wanted to do a paper, "What if Tom Wright were a Van Tillian and not a Plantigan." He critiques savagely the Enlightenment paradigms, but doesn't offer anything in its place.



It doesn't bother me at all. I love Alan Bloom's insight into the vacuousness of Modernism, but I wouldn't take theological advice from him; I like CS Lewis on many topics, but he is not someopne who can "revitalize Reformed thinking."

I'm glad Wright has made some contributions, especially against the Jesus Seminar.

Now if he could only get it right on homosexuals, Jesus' self awareness, inerrancy, women's ordination, etc., etc.


----------



## RamistThomist

I thought he was against homosexual ordination.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I thought he was against homosexual ordination.



He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html

But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Seriously,
> I have long wanted to do a paper, "What if Tom Wright were a Van Tillian and not a Plantigan." He critiques savagely the Enlightenment paradigms, but doesn't offer anything in its place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't bother me at all. I love Alan Bloom's insight into the vacuousness of Modernism, but I wouldn't take theological advice from him; I like CS Lewis on many topics, but he is not someopne who can "revitalize Reformed thinking."
> 
> I'm glad Wright has made some contributions, especially against the Jesus Seminar.
> 
> Now if he could only get it right on homosexuals, Jesus' self awareness, inerrancy, women's ordination, etc., etc.
Click to expand...


I agree. Let us not overreact to some movements in the church (FV,NPP) and throw out that which could be useful to the church. I read through "What Saint Paul Really Said" and though I strongly disagree with Wright's reorientation of justification, he is very helpful establishing the doctrine of Christ's divinity from the NT texts.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.
> 
> http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html
> 
> But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
Click to expand...


I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.

His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.

I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words.


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!


----------



## Bladestunner316

So I should'nt say he is "N.T. Wrong"


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words.



While I will disagree with a lot of his paradigms, his command of Scripture off the top of his head when speaking his unbelievable. On one site he urged young students to memorize as much of the Bible as possible--long chunks of it, especially in the original languages. He said that books such as Isaiah should be read in one or two sittings. He said it is helpful to always have the Bible being read aloud in one's daily life (ie, like having it on CD when you are cleaning your room, driving, etc). He said to listen to it in Greek if possible.


----------



## wsw201

Lets see.... Wright denies imputation, forensic Justification, says that "Jesus is Lord" IS the Gospel, says that the letter to the Phillipians is in some kind of code as Paul was actually trying to convince them that Jesus was Lord not Ceasar, says everyone up to now has gotten Paul all wrong, and has a distorted view of covenant (and I am being genereous).

Where in Scripture can it even be inferred that we should pay any attention to anyone who preaches another Gospel? Was Paul joking about being cursed (Gal 1:8)? Pray that God will turn his heart, yes, but endorse him in anyway? NO.

Com'on guys, we can't just look at this as some type of academic excersise that has no wider implications. What Wright and men like him have done, has been damaging to the Church. The fact that he can write a book about the resurrection is great. The demons can do that and even had a wonderful testimony about Christ! So what. Next I expect someone to start endorsing some of the works of Rudolph Bultmann. 

Maybe I am being alittle sensative but would someone mind telling me when we should no longer offer someone the right hand of fellowship (while giving him a left hook for heresy)?


----------



## Scott

"His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life."

Where is this?


----------



## Scott

"Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words."

That is because he has an English accent and endears you with European phrases like "every man jack of them." 

:bigsmile:


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words."
> 
> That is because he has an English accent and endears you with European phrases like "every man jack of them."
> 
> :bigsmile:



Wright's ability to communicate effectively is what makes him so dangerous!


----------



## VanVos

Lets not forget that it isn't just justification and inerrancy that he's denying.
It pretty difficult to appreciate I guy who reportedly denies the existence of Satan, Demons, and Hell!! Listen here for further info. 

Trinity Foundation Ronald W. Taber Memorial Lectures (2005)
The Theology of N.T. Wright 

http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Wright_Collection13.mp3

VanVos


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life."
> 
> Where is this?



After Katrina, I don't know if you can find it. However, NOBTS has a debate/counter point program ("The Heard Lectures", or something like that). If you go to NOBTS website you might find it. It is also the counter point with Bill Craig and others.



> Lets not forget that it isn't just justification and inerrancy that he's denying.
> It pretty difficult to appreciate I guy who reportedly denies the existence of Satan, Demons, and Hell!! Listen here for further info.
> 
> Trinity Foundation Ronald W. Taber Memorial Lectures (2005)
> The Theology of N.T. Wright
> 
> http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Wright_Collection13.mp3
> 
> VanVos



Unfortunately that is from Trinity Foundation. They also have Van Til, Michael Horton, OPC, PCA, Banner of Truth Trust as heretics or arminians. Perhaps they do label Tom Wright a heretic, but coming from them it doesn't mean much.



> Lets see.... Wright denies imputation, forensic Justification, says that "Jesus is Lord" IS the Gospel, says that the letter to the Phillipians is in some kind of code as Paul was actually trying to convince them that Jesus was Lord not Ceasar, says everyone up to now has gotten Paul all wrong, and has a distorted view of covenant (and I am being genereous).
> 
> Where in Scripture can it even be inferred that we should pay any attention to anyone who preaches another Gospel? Was Paul joking about being cursed (Gal 1:8)? Pray that God will turn his heart, yes, but endorse him in anyway? NO.
> 
> Com'on guys, we can't just look at this as some type of academic excersise that has no wider implications. What Wright and men like him have done, has been damaging to the Church. The fact that he can write a book about the resurrection is great. The demons can do that and even had a wonderful testimony about Christ! So what. Next I expect someone to start endorsing some of the works of Rudolph Bultmann.
> 
> Maybe I am being alittle sensative but would someone mind telling me when we should no longer offer someone the right hand of fellowship (while giving him a left hook for heresy)?



What about Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis, and some Southern Agrarians? Perhaps you are right, but if we draw the circle too narrowly (of what we can read and discuss) then many of our beloved men of the faith can no longer play with us.

Also, I don't think you caught the drift of the thread, with all due respect. Gabe said that Tom provided him with a steady arsenal against infidel thinkers. I said that Tom provided me with a more than powerful arsenal on the Person of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, the Origin of Christianity, etc. If you had read my earlier post more carefully, you would note that I was not concerned with defending Tom on Paul.


----------



## VanVos

> Unfortunately that is from Trinity Foundation. They also have Van Til, Michael Horton, OPC, PCA, Banner of Truth Trust as heretics or arminians. Perhaps they do label Tom Wright a heretic, but coming from them it doesn't mean much.



I'm aware of some those controversies. But that doesn't mean that their critique of Wright is insignificant. If they have evidence of Wright denying essential Christian doctrine then they deserve a hearing.

VanVos

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## wsw201

> Also, I don't think you caught the drift of the thread, with all due respect. Gabe said that Tom provided him with a steady arsenal against infidel thinkers. I said that Tom provided me with a more than powerful arsenal on the Person of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, the Origin of Christianity, etc. If you had read my earlier post more carefully, you would note that I was not concerned with defending Tom on Paul.



Jacob,

I did read your post and I understand what you are saying about what Wright said about those issues. And I don't disagree that you can find something in Wright's work that may be considered edifying. I can do the same thing with Barth, Brunner, Harnack, Tillich, Bultmann and possibly Spong (not really about Spong!) and a variety of folks but the damage these men have done to Christ's Church far out ways any benefit you can get from them. 

My question for you is how far do we go with this? At what point do we say that a person has gone too far and should not be listened to at all no matter how much "good" you can possible get from them? and by giving approval to some of Wright's work are we sending a mixed message to the folks in the pews who may not be as discerning?

I can tell you from personal experience that Wright's views can tear a church apart.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have only seen the effects of his aberrant Theology. I haven't seen any good fruit born through this mans ministry. We have many others who can defend the faith as he can. No, I take that back. He can't even defend the faith since he redefines it.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Lets see.... Wright ... says that "Jesus is Lord" IS the Gospel



Uhh... that *IS* the Gospel.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

All truth is God's truth, it doesn't matter what the source is. We can learn a lot from pagans and unbelievers just as we can learn a lot from N.T. Wright in certain areas.


----------



## RamistThomist

Mr Wylie,
I wouldn't dare preach his views on Justification, even if I beleived in them (which I don't). I see where you are going. Where do I get off the Wright bus? Usually after his study on Jesus. Again, I found his book, _Jesus and the Victory of God_ to be superb. got to go now 

Gabe,
You, my friend, are a study in contrasts.


----------



## AdamM

Being out of the college scene for 20 years, how much of an influence does the Jesus Seminar have these days anyway? I always thought it was silly, sort of joke with their black and white balls and I wondered how even a skeptic could take those guys seriously?

I guess my point is, that I hear Wright get credit for taking on the Jesus Seminar and I wonder - well so what, who took them seriously anyway?

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott

I appreciated Sinclair Ferguson's thoughts in his lecture on the NPP described in this thread. It was very pastoral. He said that truth is truth wherever you find it and he noted that the people advocating the NPP often have good stuff even in the midst of error. Sounds like Wright's writings on the resurrection may fall into that category (I have not read it - going off Jacob and Gabe). 

Scott


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Being out of the college scene for 20 years, how much of an influence does the Jesus Seminar have these days anyway? I always thought it was silly, sort of joke with their black and white guts and I wondered how even a skeptic could take those guys seriously?
> 
> I guess my point is, that I hear Wright get credit for taking on the Jesus Seminar and I wonder - well so what, who took them seriously anyway?
> 
> [Edited on 9-26-2005 by AdamM]



It is immensely clear that you (and many on this board) have been out of college for quite some time and have _no idea_ what is needed to handle the hostile attacks you face daily in a secular school setting in regards to the Christian faith. That is why I love N.T. Wright so much. He is dealing directly, head on, with the things I face as a college student in the real world with atheists. He doesn't say "well that's just stupid who would believe that anyhow!", but he actually accepts the challenges atheists and extreme liberals put forth against Christianity and gives people like me sufficient ammo (temporally speaking) to be steadfast and confident in my faith no matter what I have to face in an intellectual setting.

It is real easy to gather all your friends and high-five one another over the truth and how awesome it is when you're in a setting like this message board. However, for people like myself in a secular college setting, that is worthless and does me more harm than good. I need answers, not flippancy or a writing-off attitude towards challenges to the faith. This is why I am so thankful for tools such as presuppositionalistic apologetics, N.T. Wright's writings and lectures on Christ and early Christianity, and so forth. They may not seem important or "worthy" to many on this board, but try going to a secular Medieval Philosophy discussion class with all atheists who are hostile against Christianity and well versed in logic and rhetoric and then we'll see what's what. There is more to studying theology than labeling heretics and non-heretics; it is a study of God and His truth and wisdom, wherever it is found. 

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Puritanhead

N.T. Wright v. A.N. Wilson 

Who will win?


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> N.T. Wright is awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this in a similar manner of "awesomeness" as digging through the dumpster behind the fast food joint can get you some "good" fried chicken?
Click to expand...


 

N.T. Wright may be helpful on some points but he is not awesome.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> N.T. Wright is awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this in a similar manner of "awesomeness" as digging through the dumpster behind the fast food joint can get you some "good" fried chicken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.T. Wright may be helpful on some points but he is not awesome.
Click to expand...


I think he's awesome, in the context of my original post. Name someone better, in this context? Go ahead, I won't hold my breath.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Being out of the college scene for 20 years, how much of an influence does the Jesus Seminar have these days anyway? I always thought it was silly, sort of joke with their black and white guts and I wondered how even a skeptic could take those guys seriously?
> 
> I guess my point is, that I hear Wright get credit for taking on the Jesus Seminar and I wonder - well so what, who took them seriously anyway?
> 
> [Edited on 9-26-2005 by AdamM]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is immensely clear that you (and many on this board) have been out of college for quite some time and have _no idea_ what is needed to handle the hostile attacks you face daily in a secular school setting in regards to the Christian faith. That is why I love N.T. Wright so much. He is dealing directly, head on, with the things I face as a college student in the real world with atheists. He doesn't say "well that's just stupid who would believe that anyhow!", but he actually accepts the challenges atheists and extreme liberals put forth against Christianity and gives people like me sufficient ammo (temporally speaking) to be steadfast and confident in my faith no matter what I have to face in an intellectual setting.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be too sure about that Gabe. Those of us who have been out of college for a while certainly know what its all about because those same people we faced in college are now at our work places and in our churches making the same arguments and even more sophisticated arguments. 

My opinion would be that there are more than a few solidly Reformed theologians who have taken on atheists (Van Til) and liberals (Machen) who have not taken the heretical positions that Wright has that can provide more than sufficient ammo.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Being out of the college scene for 20 years, how much of an influence does the Jesus Seminar have these days anyway? I always thought it was silly, sort of joke with their black and white guts and I wondered how even a skeptic could take those guys seriously?
> 
> I guess my point is, that I hear Wright get credit for taking on the Jesus Seminar and I wonder - well so what, who took them seriously anyway?
> 
> [Edited on 9-26-2005 by AdamM]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is immensely clear that you (and many on this board) have been out of college for quite some time and have _no idea_ what is needed to handle the hostile attacks you face daily in a secular school setting in regards to the Christian faith. That is why I love N.T. Wright so much. He is dealing directly, head on, with the things I face as a college student in the real world with atheists. He doesn't say "well that's just stupid who would believe that anyhow!", but he actually accepts the challenges atheists and extreme liberals put forth against Christianity and gives people like me sufficient ammo (temporally speaking) to be steadfast and confident in my faith no matter what I have to face in an intellectual setting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be too sure about that Gabe. Those of us who have been out of college for a while certainly know what its all about because those same people we faced in college are now at our work places and in our churches making the same arguments and even more sophisticated arguments.
> 
> My opinion would be that there are more than a few solidly Reformed theologians who have taken on atheists (Van Til) and liberals (Machen) who have not taken the heretical positions that Wright has that can provide more than sufficient ammo.
Click to expand...


They don't cover all the bases and I'm sure you know this. I would rather be more prepared to make a defense for my faith in as many areas as possible, and read texts by less-than-perfect men who are far astray on some issues than to be hyper-selective and not be able to answer pagans who challenge my faith point-blank day after day. I would rather sufficiently defend the honor of the Lord's namesake than have a 100% confessional Presbyterian book collection, in other words.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> N.T. Wright v. A.N. Wilson
> 
> Who will win?



Tom Wright took him to the school-yard. It would get ugly quick.

Ditto Gabe. Reading men like Wright, Chesterton, Howard Marshall and others forces us to be more self-critical without abandoning our core theological assumptions. Of course it is dangerous, but that's where I grow spiritually, anyway.

[Edited on 9--26-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## AdamM

> They may not seem important or "worthy" to many on this board, but try going to a secular Medieval Philosophy discussion class with all atheists who are hostile against Christianity and well versed in logic and rhetoric and then we'll see what's what.



This is exactly what I was getting at. So you have hostile atheists well, versed in logic and rhetoric taking their cues from the silly Jesus Seminar of all places? Something about that doesn't fit. 



> There is more to studying theology than labeling heretics and non-heretics; it is a study of God and His truth and wisdom, wherever it is found.



Who labeled him a heretic? I didn't and don't think he is. I think his theology of justification is contra-confessional, therefore not accurate Biblical teaching and I think he massively overplays the Exile theme and I get bothered by him often trying to read a hidden meaning behind the text and along with a few other smaller issues, but I have not labeled him a heretic.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> They may not seem important or "worthy" to many on this board, but try going to a secular Medieval Philosophy discussion class with all atheists who are hostile against Christianity and well versed in logic and rhetoric and then we'll see what's what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I was getting at. So you have hostile atheists well, versed in logic and rhetoric taking their cues from the silly Jesus Seminar of all places? Something about that doesn't fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more to studying theology than labeling heretics and non-heretics; it is a study of God and His truth and wisdom, wherever it is found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who labeled him a heretic? I didn't and don't think he is. I think his theology of justification is contra-confessional, therefore not accurate Biblical teaching and I think he massively overplays the Exile theme and I get bothered by him often trying to read a hidden meaning behind the text and along with a few other smaller issues, but I have not labeled him a heretic.
Click to expand...


As idiotic as the Jesus Seminar is, they, like all of our opponents, progress in rhetoric and presentation. Just because they are stupid, doesn't mean they can't present something effectively. Furthermore, as James White will admit, not all JS people are dumb. 

Secondly, not all attacks of people like the JS are similiar. So debunking "bead counting" doesn't cover all their arguments. Even if they are silly, we must be prepared to give an answer to all men, silly or not.

Thirdly, I have used several aspects of Tom's methodology (be careful doing this, black magic can be helpful but is not always safe) against people who argue for Documentary Hypothesis, etc. (No, there is no connection or sure refutation between Tom and the DH; I had to tinker with this to make it work, but work it did!).

Fourthly, Heretic? Check some old posts on this board. You will have seen the H-bomb lobbed at people for less than that.


----------



## CalsFarmer

N.T. Wright is awesome.

REALLY???


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Being out of the college scene for 20 years, how much of an influence does the Jesus Seminar have these days anyway? I always thought it was silly, sort of joke with their black and white guts and I wondered how even a skeptic could take those guys seriously?
> 
> I guess my point is, that I hear Wright get credit for taking on the Jesus Seminar and I wonder - well so what, who took them seriously anyway?
> 
> [Edited on 9-26-2005 by AdamM]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is immensely clear that you (and many on this board) have been out of college for quite some time and have _no idea_ what is needed to handle the hostile attacks you face daily in a secular school setting in regards to the Christian faith. That is why I love N.T. Wright so much. He is dealing directly, head on, with the things I face as a college student in the real world with atheists. He doesn't say "well that's just stupid who would believe that anyhow!", but he actually accepts the challenges atheists and extreme liberals put forth against Christianity and gives people like me sufficient ammo (temporally speaking) to be steadfast and confident in my faith no matter what I have to face in an intellectual setting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be too sure about that Gabe. Those of us who have been out of college for a while certainly know what its all about because those same people we faced in college are now at our work places and in our churches making the same arguments and even more sophisticated arguments.
> 
> My opinion would be that there are more than a few solidly Reformed theologians who have taken on atheists (Van Til) and liberals (Machen) who have not taken the heretical positions that Wright has that can provide more than sufficient ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't cover all the bases and I'm sure you know this. I would rather be more prepared to make a defense for my faith in as many areas as possible, and read texts by less-than-perfect men who are far astray on some issues than to be hyper-selective and not be able to answer pagans who challenge my faith point-blank day after day. I would rather sufficiently defend the honor of the Lord's namesake than have a 100% confessional Presbyterian book collection, in other words.
Click to expand...


You are right. Van Til and Machen may not cover all the bases but I am sure we could find some confessional Presbyterians who could make up for Van Til's deficiencies.

BTW, I wonder if Paul thought the same way about the Judeizers? They taught Christ crucified. They probably had other worthwhile things to say. They just added alittle more to it. So I am sure the curse Paul laid on them was taken back in his second letter to the Galatians.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

If being contra confessional makes one a heretic, then there are hundreds on this board, tragically.


----------



## Scott

James White seems fairly popular on this board. Didn't he rely on Wright in his research for his debate with Crossan?


----------



## AdamM

> James White seems fairly popular on this board. Didn't he rely on Wright in his research for his debate with Crossan?



I think I do remember Dr. White saying something about that. 

Maybe this "N.T. Wright is Awesome" thread more properly belongs in the apologetics forum, where folks could affirm it in that context? I think the trouble comes when you see "N.T. Wright is Awesome" in the general theology forum, people who hold to basic Reformed Theology have issues with such an unqualified endorsement in the theological context.


----------



## Me Died Blue

I'm with Jacob and Gabriel here. If we should not read someone such as Wright for _some_ purposes, why on earth do we ever read the material of Gospel-denying _unbelievers_?

Furthermore, it's not about recommending any of Wright's material to new believers or brothers in Christ who may be largely undiscerning - but simply about those of us that can soundly defend and hold our views on essential doctrine, reading Wright on certain points to sharpen our own defense against liberalism and unbelief without even having to mention his name when incorporating those ideas.

It really is largely the same way with Chesterton, Aquinas, etc.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Maybe this "N.T. Wright is Awesome" thread more properly belongs in the apologetics forum, where folks could affirm it in that context? I think the trouble comes when you see "N.T. Wright is Awesome" in the general theology forum, people who hold to basic Reformed Theology have issues with such an unqualified endorsement in the theological context.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> James White seems fairly popular on this board. Didn't he rely on Wright in his research for his debate with Crossan?



Even a broken watch is right twice a day. 

I would not say that Wright is wrong about everything. He has probably written a number of things everyone could agree with at some level. But the question is how far do we go with someone who has fundementally redefined the Gospel, which has serious implications about Christ and His work? Are we sending a mixed message to the people in the pews when we say, "He's okay on this point but...."?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I would not say that Wright is wrong about everything. He has probably written a number of things everyone could agree with at some level. But the question is how far do we go with someone who has fundementally redefined the Gospel, which has serious implications about Christ and His work? Are we sending a mixed message to the people in the pews when we say, "He's okay on this point but...."?



I think a lot of this depends on what we mean by the "go" in "how far do we go." In other words, _how_ would we safely yet effectively make use of some of Wright's material? Using your example, would we even have to point out to everyone in the pews certain points on which he is helpful? I would say no. (Now, of course we should tell anyone who specifically goes out of their way to ask if he is helpful on a specific point if he is - but that will rarely if ever happen.) Thus, if parts of our defense can potentially be sharpened by some of his work, we still need not go out of our way to publicize that work, and we need not even mention his name when using arguments that he may have helped us to see in a better light; and with that approach (which is the same one I would take with Chesterton and Aquinas) what is the danger?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I would not say that Wright is wrong about everything. He has probably written a number of things everyone could agree with at some level. But the question is how far do we go with someone who has fundementally redefined the Gospel, which has serious implications about Christ and His work? Are we sending a mixed message to the people in the pews when we say, "He's okay on this point but...."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of this depends on what we mean by the "go" in "how far do we go." In other words, _how_ would we safely yet effectively make use of some of Wright's material? Using your example, would we even have to point out to everyone in the pews certain points on which he is helpful? I would say no. (Now, of course we should tell anyone who specifically goes out of their way to ask if he is helpful on a specific point if he is - but that will rarely if ever happen.) Thus, if parts of our defense can potentially be sharpened by some of his work, we still need not go out of our way to publicize that work, and we need not even mention his name when using arguments that he may have helped us to see in a better light; and with that approach (which is the same one I would take with Chesterton and Aquinas) what is the danger?
Click to expand...


Chris,

That is basically what I am getting at. Concerning the danger with Wright, it is evidenced by what is happening right now in Reformed churches. Wright is not only a prolific writer he is also a very effective writer who can be very persuasive, and because of this he has become quite influential. I personally know of young men (who were not well grounded in the Reformed Faith) who have come under the influence of Wright's theology. We should remember Paul's admonition that a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. 

Also regarding the dangers, the same thing could be said of Karl Barth, whose book "Epistle to the Romans" basically buried old style German liberalism, but introduced neo-orthodoxy to the church (something the church still suffers with). Barth was extremely influential on the Reformed churches as Wright is becoming.


----------



## Me Died Blue

We definitely have to be cautious, indeed - especially around new believers or people who may not be very grounded in Reformed theology and able to recognize error. I don't see that important fact, however, as a reason to say that _no one_ should read him on their own, especially if someone is truly well-grounded in the faith and keeps a critical mind while looking for beneficial points to sharpen.


----------



## JohnV

Gabriel:

I took on the atheists at school, at work, and at church. At school it may be more hidden in academia than when you're at work, but the gist of it is still the same. I think you're turning to the wrong things for answers to the challenges. 

I'm not going to run down Wright or Bahnsen; I'm just telling you that a tool is a tool. Nothing replaces the Spirit within you. That is most important. You have to answer them in the name of Christ, as representing Him, not yourself. If they run you down, then they run you down: that's their business. But as a Christian you reperesent something that goes beyond yourself. If you feel hurt, then just think how Christ feels everytime He gets slapped for being a holy-roller. For those who are forgiven they have to remember that Christ died for their sins, not so they could be free not to worry about sinning, but so they could be free not to worry about their committed sins. 

I'm not a follower of N.T Wright, nor of Bahnsen, but I am prepared at all times to defend the faith against all comers. Some of the time silence is the best reply, as debating will only add to the sins. Multiplied words only adds up to multiplied sins in a lot of cases. If they don't want to hear then they won't, no matter what you say. More often just a few words is enough. Say what needs to be said, and leave it at that. Saying it again and again won't help. I would give one, maybe two answers to their questions/accusations, but I wouldn't give them any kind of satisfaction that they purturbed me in any way. Receiving abuse and scorn is a positive sign to me, not negative. It shows I'm on the right side, and it shows that I'm connecting somewhere deep inside. They have the next move, not me. 

Don't think its any worse at college or university than anywhere else. I know that it is more concentrated, and that this is a protection and impetus for the challengers; but that is also a weakness. It gives the individual more cause for pause and reflection, seeing the behaviour of his peer group compared to yours. It can be just a gruelling at work, but in a different way. At work working together and making a profit has a priority over Christian life, and that works against anything you might like to say to anyone before conversation even begins. 

And you can't compare this Board to what's going on outside the Board. We have our tensions here, but its a world all its own as a cyber connected group of individuals. You can't see my face as I say these things, and that's a big drawback from real fellowship. Any kind of real-life fellowship. 

Let me say again that you will find answers from certain leaders. I find a lot of "ammunition" in Mortimer Adler. But he's no hero of mine, as well-studied as he is. The best defence you have, though, is a personal relationship with Christ, and nothing less. I'm not saying you don't have that; I'm saying you need to rely on it more in those situations. You'll be disappointed to know that when you're done all your courses, that things don't get easier. As the song says, "Things get complicated when you get past eighteen." (Statler brothers., "Class of '57".)

To everyone else here:

I know about people who teach things that are not the gospel, who teach the precepts of man as doctrines of God. And I know that N.T. Wright represents that to many of us here. But the problem is more serious than that. It's not just there, in the new teachings on Paul and Justification; its found its way into a lot of things that are normal fare from the pulpit in our day. As I read through Jus Divinum I am aghast at how far we are from even dreaming of a proper church government as God directs us to have. We are so divided into denominations, where Christ's authority goes only so far as the divisions go. We can't even stop a minister from preaching as he wills, whether or not he has approval of the church that commissioned him. As long as that remains, any talk of divine right is useless. The first mark of the church is the preaching of the Word. It's not just that N.T. Wright, or people like him, are preaching their views from the pulpit, its that denominations aren't addressing the fact that this goes blatantly against the very first principle of church. They're so worried about whether or not it complies with the Westminster Confession; and if so, then there is nothing they can do. But the problem is more serious: men are standing on the pulpit preaching their own gospel, feeling free to expand liberally upon the Confessions, as long as they don't transgress the wording of it. So for one its this, for another its that; and you have different gospels in different churches, even side-by-side churches. Where do you find that Christ has commissioned His preachers to preach their own views that are not solidly grounded in Scripture? Where do you find that, if a man is convinced that his view is Scriptural, that he may preach it? Where do you find that interpretation of Scripture is from personal impulse? Where do you find that the writings of men are sufficient authority to ground the preaching of current views? 

Its not that men following Wright or Sheppard are preaching their views per se: its that they have licence to do so in our milieu. All kinds of men are doing it in one way or another. They may not be preaching as dangerous a view, but that is only a matter of degree; for the most dangerous thing is that we are not protecting the pulpit from the precepts of men. We have the most blatant transgressions going on unaddressed, only because we find them not so dangerous. But they are the very licence that grants preachers to preach their abberrant views, only afterward, after the damage is done, to be addressed by their overseers. 

Can't you see how this tears the heart out of someone whom the church has rejected? There are many like that. Given the boot because they won't swallow the preachers' and the elders' latest _ism_. Sure, they find different grounds, and the testimony of all the elders is a lot weightier than the testimony of a lone man. But in the end, its still about doctrine: discarded from the Covenant, from the family of faith, from the fellowship and the sacraments, all because they stood up against the precepts of men making its way in as preached doctrine.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> We definitely have to be cautious, indeed - especially around new believers or people who may not be very grounded in Reformed theology and able to recognize error. I don't see that important fact, however, as a reason to say that _no one_ should read him on their own, especially if someone is truly well-grounded in the faith and keeps a critical mind while looking for beneficial points to sharpen.



I understand your point. I have read some of Wright's work as well. But one should be very careful. Consider what happened to John Armstrong.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> James White seems fairly popular on this board. Didn't he rely on Wright in his research for his debate with Crossan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I do remember Dr. White saying something about that.
> 
> Maybe this "N.T. Wright is Awesome" thread more properly belongs in the apologetics forum, where folks could affirm it in that context? I think the trouble comes when you see "N.T. Wright is Awesome" in the general theology forum, people who hold to basic Reformed Theology have issues with such an unqualified endorsement in the theological context.
Click to expand...


 With this I agree.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> James White seems fairly popular on this board. Didn't he rely on Wright in his research for his debate with Crossan?



aww snap


----------



## RamistThomist

John,
Are you putting Wright/Sheppard in the same category with Bahnsen?


----------



## RamistThomist

Speak of the Devil and he shall appear



> Just a few days ago I finished listening to a recent talk by Sinclair Ferguson on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) that was simply outstanding.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

For those who can't wait, the lecture is available at: 


Sinclair on NPP

I have heard it may be removed on October 1st. 


Copied from comments on Blog. I already downloaded it.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Speak of the Devil and he shall appear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few days ago I finished listening to a recent talk by Sinclair Ferguson on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) that was simply outstanding.
Click to expand...



I thought this part was very interesting:



> Ironically, a lot of the NPP is driven in varying degrees by various forms of Holocaust guilt, and NPP scholars have wanted to say that Pharisaism was really a religion of grace, not works-righteousness. But like all makeshift attempts to get away from the truth, this sets us up for something worse, in this case, a really vicious anti-Semitism. Second Temple Judaism was really living according to the grace of God, no problems in that department at all, and God destroyed Jerusalem simply for being Jewish? Jeepers.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.
> 
> http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html
> 
> But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.
Click to expand...


As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?



> His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.
> 
> I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!



You do know what we do to Blasphemers?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words.



Even better than Keyes? If you think so, then you need to link me to some material.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.
> 
> http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html
> 
> But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.
> 
> I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know what we do to Blasphemers?
Click to expand...


While I treasure anything Gresham Machen has to say, Wright has the chronological advantage of responding to more recent attacks.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is *not* "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> John,
> Are you putting Wright/Sheppard in the same category with Bahnsen?



No. I was answering to the things that Gabriel had already connected. This was in response to his post about defending the faith in his circle.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.
> 
> http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html
> 
> But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.
> 
> I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know what we do to Blasphemers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I treasure anything Gresham Machen has to say, Wright has the chronological advantage of responding to more recent attacks.
Click to expand...


Hence Nash, writing circa 1992.

I think I am still stinging from the stance that I think Gabe is taking. "Without Wright, we would be sheeps to the slaughter. No orthodox writer can assist us in the fight against the liberals."

Hopefully I am misreading him.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Hence Nash, writing circa 1992.
> 
> I think I am still stinging from the stance that I think Gabe is taking. "Without Wright, we would be sheeps to the slaughter. No orthodox writer can assist us in the fight against the liberals."
> 
> Hopefully I am misreading him.



You clearly are, since I never said anything like that.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is *not* "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....



How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is *not* "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say those are definitions of the gospel though... more like, the ends of the gospel. The beef is with Paul, though, (and Isaiah). Romans 10 seems clear to me (cf. Isa. 52).


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is *not* "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
Click to expand...




Eph. 2:1-10 is another passage


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is *not* "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say those are definitions of the gospel though... more like, the ends of the gospel. The beef is with Paul, though, (and Isaiah). Romans 10 seems clear to me (cf. Isa. 52).
Click to expand...


Contrary to what the Uberbishop keeps saying, that is not the historic view of the Church. See Calvin for instance on Romans 10:9



> 9. That if thou wilt confess, etc. Here is also an allusion, rather than a proper and strict quotation: for it is very probable that Moses used the word mouth, by taking a part for the whole, instead of the word face, or sight. But it was not unsuitable for the Apostle to allude to the word mouth, in this manner: -- "Since the Lord sets his word before our face, no doubt he calls upon us to confess it." For wherever the word of the Lord is, it ought to bring forth fruit; and the fruit is the confession of the mouth.
> 
> By putting confession before faith, he changes the order, which is often the case in Scripture: for the order would have been more regular if the faith of the heart had preceded, and the confession of the mouth, which arises from it, had followed. 5 But he rightly confesses the Lord Jesus, who adorns him with his own power, acknowledging him to be such an one as he is given by the Father, and described in the gospel.
> 
> Express mention is made only of Christ's resurrection; which must not be so taken, as though his death was of no moment, but because Christ, by rising again, completed the whole work of our salvation: for though redemption and satisfaction were effected by his death, through which we are reconciled to God; yet the victory over sin, death, and Satan was attained by his resurrection; and hence also came righteousness, newness of life, and the hope of a blessed immortality. *And thus is resurrection alone often set before us as the assurance of our salvation, not to draw away our attention from his death, but because it bears witness to the efficacy and fruit of his death: in short, his resurrection includes his death. On this subject we have briefly touched in the sixth chapter.*
> 
> It may be added, that Paul requires not merely an historical faith, but he makes the resurrection itself its end. *For we must remember the purpose for which Christ rose again; -- it was the Father's design in raising him, to restore us all to life:* for though Christ had power of himself to reassume his soul, yet this work is for the most part ascribed in Scripture to God the Father.



And on Isaiah 52:7



> 7. How beautiful upon the mountains. The Prophet again confirms believers as to the certainty of the word of God, that they may be fully persuaded that they shall be restored to their former liberty, and may comfort their hearts by assured hope during that hard bondage. He pronounces magnificent commendations on this message, that believers may be convinced that God holds out to them, in their calamity, the hope of future salvation; and indeed, when God speaks, they ought to accept the consolation, that, relying on it, they may calmly and patiently wait for the fulfillment of the promise. Thus, in order that believers may bridle their desires by patience, he splendidly adorns the word of God. "Will you be so ungrateful as not to rest satisfied with that incomparable treasure of the word which contains so many benefits? Will you give way to unruly passions? Will you complain of God?" He wishes to guard against distrust the people who were drawn away by various allurements, and did not fully rely on the word of God; and therefore he praises the excellence of the doctrine, and shews that the Lord bestows upon "us more than we can say or think." (Ephesians 3:20.)
> 
> He states that he does not now speak of every kind of doctrine, but of that which is adapted to consolation, and therefore shews that "beautiful" and lovely is the approach of those who bring consolation from the mouth of God, which can not only alleviate our grief, but even impart to us abundant joy. *Here he speaks of the doctrine of salvation, and consequently says that peace, happiness, salvation, is proclaimed.* By the word "peace" he denotes a prosperous and happy condition, as we have already in other passages explained fully the signification of this term.
> 
> That saith to Zion. *Hence we infer what is the beginning of that doctrine which Isaiah preaches, and what we ought chiefly to desire, namely, that the kingdom of God may be erected among us; for until he reign among us, everything must go in with us, and therefore we must be miserable, as, on the other hand, when God is pleased to take care of us, this of itself is the chief part of salvation; and this, too, is the only way of obtaining peace, though the state of affairs be ruinous and desperate. *And let us remember that this message is sent to the Church; for it cannot apply to heathens that know not God.
> 
> Paul quotes this passage, in order to prove that the preaching of the Gospel proceeds not from men but from God, and that the ministers who bring the message of salvation are sent by him. He employs this chain of reasoning, -- "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. But it is impossible for any one to call on God till he know him; for there can be no entrance to calling on him till it is opened up by faith, that, embracing God as our Father, we may familiarly pour our cares into his bosom. Now, the foundation of it is doctrine, by which the Lord has revealed himself to us, and for that purpose employs the agency and ministry of men. Therefore he adds, lastly, that there will be none to preach till he be sent by God." (Romans 10:15.)
> 
> But it may be thought that Paul tortures the Prophet's words; for Isaiah does not say that God sends ministers, but that their approach and presence is desirable. I reply, Paul took this principle for granted, that nothing is desirable but what comes from God. But whence comes salvation? From men? No; for none but God can be the author of such a distinguished benefit. Justly, therefore, does he conclude that it proceeds from God, and not from man.



It is essential to the gospel that Jesus is Lord (else how could atonement be made?) but the gospel is more than that. It is _good _news, in the context of _bad _news.


----------



## Pilgrim

The Romanists and E. Orthodox agree that Jesus is Lord, do they not? Even many cults could in some sense affirm the same. As Fred just said, the gospel is more than that although of course Jesus' lordship is essential to it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I don't get the point, Fred. "The Lord Reigns" summarizes everything you just quoted. To believe in this good news is to believe that the Lord does indeed reign over all (as Paul also says in Rom 10), and to live your life accordingly, in submission to His rule, fearing the Lord and obeying His commandments by faith.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> The Romanists and E. Orthodox agree that Jesus is Lord, do they not? Even many cults could in some sense affirm the same. As Fred just said, the gospel is more than that although of course Jesus' lordship is essential to it.



You're also missing the implications of this. To believe in this good news - the gospel - is to submit yourself to the Lordship of Christ, including proper doctrine, lifestyle, faith, etc. etc. etc... It is more than just saying "the lord reigns," it is an acknowledgement of it in actions and in your heart as well.


----------



## AdamM

Gabe, although Jesus is Lord certainly is part of the Gospel, don't you think claiming that it is whole Gospel is a bit reductionistic? Afterall, the proclamation that Jesus is Lord has to come in a context for it to be good news to you and me.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Gabe, although Jesus is Lord certainly is part of the Gospel, don't you think claiming that it is whole Gospel is a bit reductionistic? Afterall, the proclamation that Jesus is Lord has to come in a context for it to be good news to you and me.



No, I don't. I believe Scripture clearly teaches that the actual _good news_ - gospel - is "The Lord reigns." Paul helps us understand the rest, along with Christ and the rest of the New Testament (and some of the Old Testament prophets as well).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is *not* "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....



Gabe,
Even the devils believe the Lord Reigns. In fact they regretted it. 

Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 

Paul had a warning that you would do well to listen to.

(Gal 1:3-9)
3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4) Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5) To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


Justification is the Good News of the Kingdom. We were in the Kingdom of Darkness, but God has adopted us and Reconciled Us through His dear Son, and brought us into His Kingdom of Light.

We are ambassadors of Christ in the Ministry of reconciliation. 

(2Co 5:18-21)
18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20) Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

I know you understand this but Wright screws this all up. He has a different Gospel at this point.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I know all of that, Martin. I'm not defending Wright's view of justification, and have never addressed it or approved of it in this thread (or ever). I did not even hear this view of the good news from Wright, but from a Reformed Presbyterian minister/professor at an RPCNA family conference this summer.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, the Lord Reigns only signifies His Sovereignty. The Gospel is more than just He is Sovereign.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Well, the Lord Reigns only signifies His Sovereignty. The Gospel is more than just He is Sovereign.



I disagree. Everything springs forth from this good news.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What part do you disagree with?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Well, the Lord Reigns only signifies His Sovereignty. The Gospel is more than just He is Sovereign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Everything springs forth from this good news.
Click to expand...



Let me ask it another way. Why do you believe 'the Lord Reigns' is what the Gospel is? Is this the totality of the Gospel? Or is the Gospel implemented because He is Lord?

The Lord reigns doesn't reconcile me to God. Propitiation does.
He is able to Propitiate for me because He does reign though.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I believe that is what the good news is because that is what Isaiah says it is and that is what Paul quotes in Romans 10 when exhorting the Romans that preachers must be sent to preach the good news (which Isaiah defines).



> *Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "œeveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
> 
> 14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "œHow beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "œLord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"*





> *Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains
> are the feet of him who brings good news,
> who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
> who publishes salvation,
> who says to Zion, "œYour God reigns."
> 8 The voice of your watchmen"”they lift up their voice;
> together they sing for joy;
> for eye to eye they see
> the return of the Lord to Zion.
> 9 Break forth together into singing,
> you waste places of Jerusalem,
> for the Lord has comforted his people;
> he has redeemed Jerusalem.
> 10 The Lord has bared his holy arm
> before the eyes of all the nations,
> and all the ends of the earth shall see
> the salvation of our God.*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

We have propitiation and reconciliation _because_ the Lord reigns.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Well, the Lord Reigns only signifies His Sovereignty. The Gospel is more than just He is Sovereign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Everything springs forth from this good news.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between: 1)If you have X, Y or Z wrong, you are sunk and 2)X, Y or Z is the sum total.

Saying that Jesus is Lord is saying that X is the sum total.

If I was a lost person, and you told me, "Lord is sovereign", I dont think that would warm my heart very much, if you just left it at that.

One question. Could the statement "The Lord reigns" be true and I could be without hope? Or did Jesus have to come and save us in order to reign?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I believe that is what the good news is because that is what Isaiah says it is and that is what Paul quotes in Romans 10 when exhorting the Romans that preachers must be sent to preach the good news (which Isaiah defines).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "œeveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
> 
> 14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "œHow beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "œLord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains
> are the feet of him who brings good news,
> who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
> who publishes salvation,
> who says to Zion, "œYour God reigns."
> 8 The voice of your watchmen"”they lift up their voice;
> together they sing for joy;
> for eye to eye they see
> the return of the Lord to Zion.
> 9 Break forth together into singing,
> you waste places of Jerusalem,
> for the Lord has comforted his people;
> he has redeemed Jerusalem.
> 10 The Lord has bared his holy arm
> before the eyes of all the nations,
> and all the ends of the earth shall see
> the salvation of our God.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This Passage is saying so much more than He Reigns. 

I see Peace, Salvation, happiness, Redemption, being published. There is more to the Gospel here than Your God Reigns. 

We need Propitiation. Now that is good news. He made a propitiation for us.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

As I said, He made propitiation because He reigns. Everything comes from that good news.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> As I said, He made propitiation because He reigns. Everything comes from that good news.



Unless you can say "He reigns therefore he made propitiation" then you cannot say that He reigns is the gospel.

Or put another way, you cannot deduce propitiation from Jesus Reigning. Jesus could reign and not have been made propitiation for us. His reigning was not dependent on him saving us.

The Muslims have a sovereign god but no good news.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## AdamM

> The Muslims have a sovereign god but no good news.



Yep.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Gabe, although Jesus is Lord certainly is part of the Gospel, don't you think claiming that it is whole Gospel is a bit reductionistic? Afterall, the proclamation that Jesus is Lord has to come in a context for it to be good news to you and me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I believe Scripture clearly teaches that the actual _good news_ - gospel - is "The Lord reigns." Paul helps us understand the rest, along with Christ and the rest of the New Testament (and some of the Old Testament prophets as well).
Click to expand...


I can answer the problem and solve the dilemma for both sides, but it would take about 3,000 words and I don't have the time right now. I think Gabe vs. PB are speaking past each other. Gabe is not denying imputation/propitiation (btw, Tom Wright has one of the best defenses of the word "propitiation" for Romans 3:25. If you don't believe me, ask Dick Gaffin). I think Gabe is saying, but has not yet said, is that Redemption should be viewed on the cosmic scale (including my own personal redemption).

The Creator God made the world (Creation), but something went terribly wrong (Fall). In the meanwhile Sin and Death began to reign. At the fullness of time (when Israel's narrative had reached a climax), God sent his Son. Not only would his Son redeem his people (which among other things involved a reorientation of Israel along the lines of the New People of God ( The Church). The Church would do what Israel failed to do: Carry God's plan of salvation--the reign of God (Isaiah 52)--into the Dark Corners of the World. They would, in other words, be a city on a hill and a light for the nations (Is. 42:6). This would be the turning of the tide against sin and Darkness in these parts of the world. Of course, this includes one's own personal redemption, which then raises questions about the atonement, justification, etc.--all of which I believe the Reformed Faith has answers.

I think this is what Gabe is getting at.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## wsw201

Gabe,

Going back to your original question, what Wright means by "Jesus is Lord" being the Gospel is different from what you mean. That is all I was getting at. (I assumed you were familiar with Wright's view of the Gospel, so maybe I assumed too much  ).


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Hence Nash, writing circa 1992.
> 
> I think I am still stinging from the stance that I think Gabe is taking. "Without Wright, we would be sheeps to the slaughter. No orthodox writer can assist us in the fight against the liberals."
> 
> Hopefully I am misreading him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are, since I never said anything like that.
Click to expand...


Thankfully, you are correct. I morphed insufficient to defend the faith against real life opponents into sheep to the slaughter.

I still disagree concerning the sufficiency of the orthodox folks. 

It is true that Christianity has the best solution for the evidence, but it is also true that Christianity has the only solution.

If one can make the case that they are the only game in town, then how is that not sufficient?


----------



## AdamM

> I can answer the problem and solve the dilemma for both sides, but it would take about 3,000 words and I don't have the time right now. I think Gabe vs. PB are speaking past each other. Gabe is not denying imputation/propitiation (btw, Tom Wright has one of the best defenses of the word "propitiation" for Romans 3:25. If you don't believe me, ask Dick Gaffin). I think Gabe is saying, but has not yet said, is that Redemption should be viewed on the cosmic scale (including my own personal redemption).
> 
> The Creator God made the world (Creation), but something went terribly wrong (Fall). In the meanwhile Sin and Death began to reign. At the fullness of time (when Israel's narrative had reached a climax), God sent his Son. Not only would his Son redeem his people (which among other things involved a reorientation of Israel along the lines of the New People of God ( The Church). The Church would do what Israel failed to do: Carry God's plan of salvation--the reign of God (Isaiah 52)--into the Dark Corners of the World. They would, in other words, be a city on a hill and a light for the nations (Is. 42:6). This would be the turning of the tide against sin and Darkness in these parts of the world. Of course, this includes one's own personal redemption, which then raises questions about the atonement, justification, etc.--all of which I believe the Reformed Faith has answers.
> 
> I think this is what Gabe is getting at.



Jacob, I think your explanation proves the point that some of us 
are trying to make. To say that the Gospel is "Jesus is Lord" and leave it at that **alone** is reductionistic and inadequate. That Jesus is Lord certainly is true and is an aspect of the Gospel, but "Jesus is Lord" without a context (btw, which you did supply in your explanation) might be bad news instead of good news. Again, the point isn't that there is something wrong with saying that the announcement that Jesus is Lord is central to the Gospel, what I think we can't do is simply leave it at that *alone*.


----------



## crhoades

My 

Ditto to Jacob's summation of redemptive history. Added to that Christ's Lordship deals with his ascension and his reigning. That is definitely a culimination of his work but not the totality. I hesitate to split apart his pre-incarnation glory, his incarnation, life (active/passive obedience), death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and return. Or another way of looking at it is to exalt his Kingship over his prophetic and priestly offices. I think they are all tied together and necessary. When you look at it wholistically, you indeed have propititation, justification, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> My
> 
> Ditto to Jacob's summation of redemptive history.






> Added to that Christ's Lordship deals with his ascension and his reigning. That is definitely a culimination of his work but not the totality. I hesitate to split apart his pre-incarnation glory, his incarnation, life (active/passive obedience), death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and return. Or another way of looking at it is to exalt his Kingship over his prophetic and priestly offices. I think they are all tied together and necessary. When you look at it wholistically, you indeed have propititation, justification, etc.



As Master Frame so eloquently teaches us, the nature of theology is to apply the Bible's teaching to various areas. It is impossible to say everything at once. I have found Frame/Poythress to be great on these issues.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> As Master Frame so eloquently teaches us, the nature of theology is to apply the Bible's teaching to various areas. It is impossible to say everything at once. I have found Frame/Poythress to be great on these issues.



See...I was trying to allude to multi-perspectivalism without saying Frame. Now Fred is going to trounce me!


----------



## Puritanhead

**Puritanhead lurks quietly**


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> **Puritanhead lurks quietly**



Puritanhead has been referencing himself in the third person more lately and needs to be checked out...


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> As Master Frame so eloquently teaches us, the nature of theology is to apply the Bible's teaching to various areas. It is impossible to say everything at once. I have found Frame/Poythress to be great on these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See...I was trying to allude to multi-perspectivalism without saying Frame. Now Fred is going to trounce me!
Click to expand...


Multiperspectivism is not bad in and of itself, however those who espouse it seem to be too willing to say everyone is okay and no one is wrong, just a different perspective. Not everything is a different perspective.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> **Puritanhead lurks quietly**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritanhead has been referencing himself in the third person more lately and needs to be checked out...
Click to expand...


VirginiaHuguenot noticed that as well.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> **Puritanhead lurks quietly**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritanhead has been referencing himself in the third person more lately and needs to be checked out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VirginiaHuguenot noticed that as well.
Click to expand...


 Where is the smiley throwing rotten tomatoes?


----------



## Evan Tomlin

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?



With due respect to both men (far less to Nash then to Machen) this statement is tantamount to... "Why consult Copleston on Aquinas when I can reach for Gordon Clark."

Regardless of the heat Wright has drawn from the Reformed Community over justification and several others issues (that Fred pointed out); He is the absolute top "conservative" scholar on the origins of Christianity and the Resurrection of Christ. It is hard to imagine that anyone could think otherwise once he has perused Wright's voluminous works and penetrating arguments against the once dominant liberal paradigm. I think this as already been mentioned, but if we are to take an "avoid Wright" stance, we could hardly be competent in any field of study because the fact remains that the majority of innovative work in fields like philosophy, sociology, psychology, history, natural science, etc......have been written _by pagan scholars._

In order to redeem these disciplines unto Christ we cannot afford to avoid the preeminent scholars in ANY field, much less N.T. Wright on origins and resurrection.
.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> My
> 
> Ditto to Jacob's summation of redemptive history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Added to that Christ's Lordship deals with his ascension and his reigning. That is definitely a culimination of his work but not the totality. I hesitate to split apart his pre-incarnation glory, his incarnation, life (active/passive obedience), death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and return. Or another way of looking at it is to exalt his Kingship over his prophetic and priestly offices. I think they are all tied together and necessary. When you look at it wholistically, you indeed have propititation, justification, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Master Frame so eloquently teaches us, the nature of theology is to apply the Bible's teaching to various areas. It is impossible to say everything at once. I have found Frame/Poythress to be great on these issues.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between not being able to say everything at once, and being so reductionistic that the enemies of the gospel are given a foothold to attack the nature of the gospel itself.

That is why Wright can say that the gospel is "Jesus is Lord" and also say that Christians must have communion with all who say *only* that and have a false understanding of the gospel. It is also how Wright can get away with saying that eccelsiology (Jesus is Lord) is more important than soteriology (Jesus died for my sins).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Every passage I can think of, where Paul "sums up" the gospel in as concise or terse an expression he can (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:1-8; Gal. 1:3-6), I have yet to see him boil it down to "Lord reigns." What does even Rom. 10:9 say? The mouth's confession flows out of faith in the death of Christ (resulting in the resurrection). Basic to the message of the gospel is the Cross, the Sacrifice, the Blood, the Altar. It is Christ the Priest. You need Christ the Prophet to tell you what the Priest did (and does). You need Christ the King to take you into his kingdom (finish your salvation) on the basis of the work of the Priest.

"Christ reigns" is cumulative of the gospel. But "Christ died" is the gospel in fine.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Evan Tomlin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With due respect to both men (far less to Nash then to Machen) this statement is tantamount to... "Why consult Copleston on Aquinas when I can reach for Gordon Clark."
> 
> Regardless of the heat Wright has drawn from the Reformed Community over justification and several others issues (that Fred pointed out); He is the absolute top "conservative" scholar on the origins of Christianity and the Resurrection of Christ. It is hard to imagine that anyone could think otherwise once he has perused Wright's voluminous works and penetrating arguments against the once dominant liberal paradigm. I think this as already been mentioned, but if we are to take an "avoid Wright" stance, we could hardly be competent in any field of study because the fact remains that the majority of innovative work in fields like philosophy, sociology, psychology, history, natural science, etc......have been written _by pagan scholars._
> 
> In order to redeem these disciplines unto Christ we cannot afford to avoid the preeminent scholars in ANY field, much less N.T. Wright on origins and resurrection.
> .
Click to expand...


But to be fair, a great deal of innovative work in the various fields listed is quite muddleheaded and Christians are desperately needed to clean up the mess.

Also to be fair to myself, I did attempt to clarify what exactly I was directing my fire up (the view of lack defense of Christianity from the various attacks that it faces.)

There is a wide difference between being considered the best with other people at a somewhat lower level. And considering there to be one person who has their game together and everyone else insufficient.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> **Puritanhead lurks quietly**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritanhead has been referencing himself in the third person more lately and needs to be checked out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VirginiaHuguenot noticed that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the smiley throwing rotten tomatoes?
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

So, Let me bump in here and ask a question. In light of what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9, how do we look at N. T. Wright?

8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Does he preach another Gospel?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So, Let me bump in here and ask a question. In light of what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9, how do we look at N. T. Wright?
> 
> 8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> 9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
> 
> Does he preach another Gospel?



I am going to dodge that question for the moment. He would counter it, if you asked him, using Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei, and asking for definitive examples prior to Augustine/Calvin. I am not agreeing with him, per se, but playing devil's advocate.

He has, however, in his lectures explicityly denied that we do anything to merit salvation. These lectures are found at Monergism.com. In fact, he mocks the idea that man can do any good deed and merit his salvation before God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am not asking him if he preaches a different gospel. He obviously wouldn't believe he did. I know antinomians who are preaching a false gospel. They deny works also. When do we count someone accursed because they preach a different Gospel?

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I am not asking him if he preaches a different gospel. He obviously wouldn't believe he did. I know antinomians who are preaching a false gospel. They deny works also.



It is hard for me to objectively answer this question. I have taken a lot of what Tom has said and revamped it around Reformed lines. So, what I think he said is probably different than what he actually has said. In other words, I have conditioned what he has said to fit my own system. 

He would answer no because:
1)He is not teaching works (however, Dunn and Sanders did to an extent)
2)He says that Galatians uses Justification in the context of fellowship. Whether we agree with that or not, there is the element of fellowship being accessible because we are justififed. Personally, I think Tom has done a bad job in being clear. I can say, sure, I can I have table fellowship with say, "Black people or Indian People" because we are both justified and one in Christ. He needs to immediately say, "But there is more to Justification than x." 

There is this section in Bavinck where the theologian must learn to affirm a doctrine and say, "Yes, and also..."

---End Playing Devil's advocate


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One of my friends have turned to a form of Covenantal Nomism after reading Wright. My question is what do we do with N. T. Wright if he does preach a different Gospel than the one the scriptures proclaim. Should we count him accursed. I am not saying don't read him. I read total non-sense sometimes because I need to find out the knowledge or truth that someone has placed in between utter stupidity.

I believe we are to account others accursed if a different gospel is preached. It matters not if it is against works righteouness or ceremonial works righteousness. I believe the qualification for being accursed is just in proclaiming a false gospel. In light of this should we account N. T. Wright Accursed? What have the Presbyters said? Or have they said anything at all. Should they say anything? Does he have a false gospel? Covenantal Nomism is definitely a false gospel.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> One of my friends have turned to a form of Covenantal Nomism after reading Wright. My question is what do we do with N. T. Wright if he does preach a different Gospel than the one the scriptures proclaim. Should we count him accursed. I am not saying don't read him. I read total non-sense sometimes because I need to find out the knowledge or truth that someone has placed in between utter stupidity.
> 
> I believe we are to account others accursed if a different gospel is preached. It matters not if it is against works righteouness or ceremonial works righteousness. I believe the qualification for being accursed is just in proclaiming a false gospel. In light of this should we account N. T. Wright Accursed? What have the Presbyters said? Or have they said anything at all. Should they say anything? Does he have a false gospel? Covenantal Nomism is definitely a false gospel.



What do we do about Wright? We plunder the Egyptians! Read his works and then use him to butcher Liberal Theology!
Do we count him accursed? Others can. I won't.
I was under the impression from listening to Ligon Duncan/Mark Dever and reading Tom Wright that Tom doesn't teach Covenantal Nomism. That was coined by J D G Dunn, whom Wright critiques. Now, many people who have been taken in by Wright don't fully understand the issues of the New Perspectives on Paul. So, it is only natural that they will attribute to Wright things Dunn/Sanders have said, and vice-versa.


----------



## turmeric

N.T.Wright is Anglican, I believe, and thus out of the purview of presbyters. They can tell you whether what he says is heretical, but it's up to the church of Spong to deal with him, so that probably won't happen.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> N.T.Wright is Anglican, I believe, and thus out of the purview of presbyters. They can tell you whether what he says is heretical, but it's up to the church of Spong to deal with him, so that probably won't happen.



Spong is no longer active in the Anglican church to my knowledge, and Wright despises Spong.

Why do I insist that for some odd reason Tom might have some good things to say? For four years I had my faith mocked in college. I found Tom's methodology to be a powerful ally, and immediately applicable. I don't care if I am banned for defending the reading of him. I don't accept his views on justification. But if he says something that is good, I will be the first to point it out.

Of course, these are just subjective arguments and have no substantive weight, but given the tenor lately, who cares?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> One of my friends have turned to a form of Covenantal Nomism after reading Wright. My question is what do we do with N. T. Wright if he does preach a different Gospel than the one the scriptures proclaim. Should we count him accursed. I am not saying don't read him. I read total non-sense sometimes because I need to find out the knowledge or truth that someone has placed in between utter stupidity.
> 
> I believe we are to account others accursed if a different gospel is preached. It matters not if it is against works righteouness or ceremonial works righteousness. I believe the qualification for being accursed is just in proclaiming a false gospel. In light of this should we account N. T. Wright Accursed? What have the Presbyters said? Or have they said anything at all. Should they say anything? Does he have a false gospel? Covenantal Nomism is definitely a false gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do we do about Wright? We plunder the Egyptians! Read his works and then use him to butcher Liberal Theology!
> Do we count him accursed? Others can. I won't.
> I was under the impression from listening to Ligon Duncan/Mark Dever and reading Tom Wright that Tom doesn't teach Covenantal Nomism. That was coined by J D G Dunn, whom Wright critiques. Now, many people who have been taken in by Wright don't fully understand the issues of the New Perspectives on Paul. So, it is only natural that they will attribute to Wright things Dunn/Sanders have said, and vice-versa.
Click to expand...


What does Wright say the Gospel is? Is his view biblical? What does he mean when he says the Gospel is Jesus is Lord? I have also heard he believes in imputed righteousness even though he challenges the scriptures that teach it.


----------



## turmeric

If he despises Spong's teaching, he's definitely gone up a notch in my thinking! The reason I brought_him_ up was to show that the Anglicans will tolerate almost anything, not to actually compare the two men's teaching. I have heard that N.T.Wright is pretty orthodox on the doctrine of the resurrection as well.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

At some point some Presbytery is going to have to make a decision concerning Wright. Some group of Authority is going to have to put an end to the double speak that is being bantered around.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> One of my friends have turned to a form of Covenantal Nomism after reading Wright. My question is what do we do with N. T. Wright if he does preach a different Gospel than the one the scriptures proclaim. Should we count him accursed. I am not saying don't read him. I read total non-sense sometimes because I need to find out the knowledge or truth that someone has placed in between utter stupidity.
> 
> I believe we are to account others accursed if a different gospel is preached. It matters not if it is against works righteouness or ceremonial works righteousness. I believe the qualification for being accursed is just in proclaiming a false gospel. In light of this should we account N. T. Wright Accursed? What have the Presbyters said? Or have they said anything at all. Should they say anything? Does he have a false gospel? Covenantal Nomism is definitely a false gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do we do about Wright? We plunder the Egyptians! Read his works and then use him to butcher Liberal Theology!
> Do we count him accursed? Others can. I won't.
> I was under the impression from listening to Ligon Duncan/Mark Dever and reading Tom Wright that Tom doesn't teach Covenantal Nomism. That was coined by J D G Dunn, whom Wright critiques. Now, many people who have been taken in by Wright don't fully understand the issues of the New Perspectives on Paul. So, it is only natural that they will attribute to Wright things Dunn/Sanders have said, and vice-versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Wright say the Gospel is? Is his view biblical? What does he mean when he says the Gospel is Jesus is Lord? I have also heard he believes in imputed righteousness even though he challenges the scriptures that teach it.
Click to expand...


1) Jesus is the Davidic King whom the Scriptures have promised (Romans 1:3-4). 

2) God is reigning now and through his reign the curse of sin is reversed and being reversed.

3) Christ has reoriented the People of God around the Church and is using the Church to save the world.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> At some point some Presbytery is going to have to make a decision concerning Wright. Some group of Authority is going to have to put an end to the double speak that is being bantered around.



Judicially? That's just like Lincoln's Emancipation. Unless of course, they say that you can't read Wright, but that's silly. Or, they could say that we, having clearly delineated Wright's beliefs, do not sanction the teaching of them in the pulpit. That is more plausible.


----------



## pastorway

Double Speak??

Just as Peale is appalling and Paul is appealing, 

three left's make a right, but Wright is dead wrong.



[Edited on 9-28-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words."
> 
> That is because he has an English accent and endears you with European phrases like "every man jack of them."
> 
> :bigsmile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wright's ability to communicate effectively is what makes him so dangerous!
Click to expand...


  Wayne! And to your other post, !

Robin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> One of my friends have turned to a form of Covenantal Nomism after reading Wright. My question is what do we do with N. T. Wright if he does preach a different Gospel than the one the scriptures proclaim. Should we count him accursed. I am not saying don't read him. I read total non-sense sometimes because I need to find out the knowledge or truth that someone has placed in between utter stupidity.
> 
> I believe we are to account others accursed if a different gospel is preached. It matters not if it is against works righteouness or ceremonial works righteousness. I believe the qualification for being accursed is just in proclaiming a false gospel. In light of this should we account N. T. Wright Accursed? What have the Presbyters said? Or have they said anything at all. Should they say anything? Does he have a false gospel? Covenantal Nomism is definitely a false gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do we do about Wright? We plunder the Egyptians! Read his works and then use him to butcher Liberal Theology!
> Do we count him accursed? Others can. I won't.
> I was under the impression from listening to Ligon Duncan/Mark Dever and reading Tom Wright that Tom doesn't teach Covenantal Nomism. That was coined by J D G Dunn, whom Wright critiques. Now, many people who have been taken in by Wright don't fully understand the issues of the New Perspectives on Paul. So, it is only natural that they will attribute to Wright things Dunn/Sanders have said, and vice-versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Wright say the Gospel is? Is his view biblical? What does he mean when he says the Gospel is Jesus is Lord? I have also heard he believes in imputed righteousness even though he challenges the scriptures that teach it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Jesus is the Davidic King whom the Scriptures have promised (Romans 1:3-4).
> 
> 2) God is reigning now and through his reign the curse of sin is reversed and being reversed.
> 
> 3) Christ has reoriented the People of God around the Church and is using the Church to save the world.
Click to expand...


Doesn't point 3 sound off and out of kilter? I thought Jesus wanted the church to be centered around himself.

Anyways, why are the lines of imputation, justification, and righteousness so obscured by this man? He does redefine and manipulate texts to imply something other than they say. Specifically passages in Philippians and 2 Corinthians 5.
Why has he not been denounced in an ecclesiatical way on these important issues? 

I have been wondering why we haven't heard from J. I. Packer on this issue?

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## wsw201

> Anyways, why are the lines of imputation, justification, and righteousness so obscured by this man? He does redefine and manipulate texts to imply something other than they say. Specifically passages in Philippians and 2 Corinthians 5.



To me one of the keys to understanding how Wright can re-interpret Paul is his emphasis on second temple judeism as the over arching presupposition. Since this view is one of the primary premises for his exegesis, if he is wrong, his system of thought falls apart. And as Duncan, Carson, Ferguson, and shall I say Wilson?, have pointed out, Wright's view of second temple judeism does not hold up.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> I have been wondering why we haven't heard from J. I. Packer on this issue?
> 
> [Edited on 9-28-2005 by puritancovenanter]



Because Tom and Jim are good friends and Jim supports a lot of people who might not be the Vanguard of Reformed Theology (Stanley Grenz, Alister McGrath, Tom Wright).

I was about to grant the point that Wright had nothing good to offer and then I was reading from a NPP Tract (Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 69 No.1) and found a book review of Tom's work on the Resurrection:

(While critical of Wright elsewhere) James Kirk--the reviewer-- notes, 

"First, much of Wright's interpretation of Paul is highly commendable" (237). This, in a journal sponsored by WTS?

"The sweep of Wright's study is tremendous. Few NT scholars can move with as much ease [through the relevant materials]" (237).

"Indeed, it is to be hoped that, given Wright's current popularity, this volume will help to place resurrection in the forefront of Christian reflection today as it was in the first century" (237).

Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.



_Especially_ when it comes to the resurrection!


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> I have been wondering why we haven't heard from J. I. Packer on this issue?
> 
> [Edited on 9-28-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Tom and Jim are good friends and Jim supports a lot of people who might not be the Vanguard of Reformed Theology (Stanley Grenz, Alister McGrath, Tom Wright).
> 
> I was about to grant the point that Wright had nothing good to offer and then I was reading from a NPP Tract (Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 69 No.1) and found a book review of Tom's work on the Resurrection:
> 
> (While critical of Wright elsewhere) James Kirk--the reviewer-- notes,
> 
> "First, much of Wright's interpretation of Paul is highly commendable" (237). This, in a journal sponsored by WTS?
> 
> "The sweep of Wright's study is tremendous. Few NT scholars can move with as much ease [through the relevant materials]" (237).
> 
> "Indeed, it is to be hoped that, given Wright's current popularity, this volume will help to place resurrection in the forefront of Christian reflection today as it was in the first century" (237).
> 
> Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.
Click to expand...


Just goes to show that there are Wright supporters everywhere. 

The question is did Christ's work, including His resurrection, accomplish what Scripture teaches it accomplished (per Wright)? ie; Justification by faith alone, through Christ alone as the bible teaches? Since per Wright, justification is not about sortiology but ecclesiology, I don't think so.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Anyways, why are the lines of imputation, justification, and righteousness so obscured by this man? He does redefine and manipulate texts to imply something other than they say. Specifically passages in Philippians and 2 Corinthians 5.
> Why has he not been denounced in an ecclesiatical way on these important issues?
> 
> I have been wondering why we haven't heard from J. I. Packer on this issue?



He signed the ECT document, and the Catholic church _explicitly_ and _admittedly_ denies imputated righteousness. So since he won't even be denouncing the Catholic Church as a whole any time soon, I would expect even less to see him denounce a man like Wright.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> I have been wondering why we haven't heard from J. I. Packer on this issue?
> 
> [Edited on 9-28-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Tom and Jim are good friends and Jim supports a lot of people who might not be the Vanguard of Reformed Theology (Stanley Grenz, Alister McGrath, Tom Wright).
> 
> I was about to grant the point that Wright had nothing good to offer and then I was reading from a NPP Tract (Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 69 No.1) and found a book review of Tom's work on the Resurrection:
> 
> (While critical of Wright elsewhere) James Kirk--the reviewer-- notes,
> 
> "First, much of Wright's interpretation of Paul is highly commendable" (237). This, in a journal sponsored by WTS?
> 
> "The sweep of Wright's study is tremendous. Few NT scholars can move with as much ease [through the relevant materials]" (237).
> 
> "Indeed, it is to be hoped that, given Wright's current popularity, this volume will help to place resurrection in the forefront of Christian reflection today as it was in the first century" (237).
> 
> Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just goes to show that there are Wright supporters everywhere.
> 
> The question is did Christ's work, including His resurrection, accomplish what Scripture teaches it accomplished (per Wright)? ie; Justification by faith alone, through Christ alone as the bible teaches? Since per Wright, justification is not about sortiology but ecclesiology, I don't think so.
Click to expand...


So, what are you getting at? I never denied Reformed Soteriology. My point above is that the Bastion of Conservative Reformed Thought in North America has no problem with reviewers--in their journals--praising Wright (giving credit where credit is due). Now, even granting your points about Wright, does that necessarily mean his arguments are wrong with regard to Christ being raised from the dead?

[Edited on 9--28-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist

The Dark Lord Wilson Strikes Again!

This blog was good today:

Critiquing the points of NPP:

Paul was an academic. But he wasn't -- paradigm shifts are what academics like to have, in the privacy of their own ivory towers. After several centuries of separating our arguments from our lives, we have gotten used to the idea. But Paul was not just following arguments, he was also following Christians.

This said, Ferguson makes the telling point that of course rabbinic Judaism was not Pelagian. And neither was medieval Catholicism Pelagian. To represent the Old Perspective as maintaining this is to debate a straw man. But they were both semi-Pelagian, and the Reformers were not mistaken to see the similarity between the two. The rabbis used a brown donkey and the RCs had a black donkey. So?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.



This is not a point of my contention. We understand that you think it is okay to read Wright. Yes we know you modify his arguments. Even so, knowledge of the resurrection will not save anyone. Ask Paul M. about this. Remember we had this point of evidence argued out in the apologetics thread. But true knowledge of the propitiating death of Christ and his resurrection will bring life in Christ. Even the Devil allows some truth to be acknowledged so he can come as an angel of light to deceive others.

I am asking why no one Ecclesiological organization will stand up and condemn his view of justification, imputation, or his view of the righteousness of God. Should he not be considered accursed for getting the Gospel wrong?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a point of my contention. We understand that you think it is okay to read Wright. Yes we know you modify his arguments. Even so, knowledge of the resurrection will not save anyone. Ask Paul M. about this. Remember we had this point of evidence argued out in the apologetics thread. But true knowledge of the propitiating death of Christ and his resurrection will bring life in Christ. Even the Devil allows some truth to be acknowledged so he can come as an angel of light to deceive others.
> 
> I am asking why no one Ecclesiological organization will stand up and condemn his view of justification, imputation, or his view of the righteousness of God. Should he not be considered accursed for getting the Gospel wrong?
Click to expand...


Slow down a bit, we can only condemn (seriously, anyway) a few things at a time. First Federal Vision and Shephard, second...well, let's get past number 1.

Second, the urgency of it: while we may come to the conclusion that his views are deviant, since he is not presbyterian our anathemas would probably carry more force against Refomo-Presbyterians. That doesn't mean in the future we ccan't anathametize him, but first things first. With paedocommunion, FV, Shephard, and whoever else making headway in _Presbyterian_ circles, it just makes more sense to address these issues first. Anyway, I was under the impression that MVP did condemn him.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I am asking why no one Ecclesiological organization will stand up and condemn his view of justification, imputation, or his view of the righteousness of God. Should he not be considered accursed for getting the Gospel wrong?



I would hope that many in the PCA and OPC are wondering the same thing about NPP and FV proponents.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> I have been wondering why we haven't heard from J. I. Packer on this issue?
> 
> [Edited on 9-28-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Tom and Jim are good friends and Jim supports a lot of people who might not be the Vanguard of Reformed Theology (Stanley Grenz, Alister McGrath, Tom Wright).
> 
> I was about to grant the point that Wright had nothing good to offer and then I was reading from a NPP Tract (Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 69 No.1) and found a book review of Tom's work on the Resurrection:
> 
> (While critical of Wright elsewhere) James Kirk--the reviewer-- notes,
> 
> "First, much of Wright's interpretation of Paul is highly commendable" (237). This, in a journal sponsored by WTS?
> 
> "The sweep of Wright's study is tremendous. Few NT scholars can move with as much ease [through the relevant materials]" (237).
> 
> "Indeed, it is to be hoped that, given Wright's current popularity, this volume will help to place resurrection in the forefront of Christian reflection today as it was in the first century" (237).
> 
> Evidently a conservative Reformed Seminary thinks its okay to Read Tom Wright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just goes to show that there are Wright supporters everywhere.
> 
> The question is did Christ's work, including His resurrection, accomplish what Scripture teaches it accomplished (per Wright)? ie; Justification by faith alone, through Christ alone as the bible teaches? Since per Wright, justification is not about sortiology but ecclesiology, I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what are you getting at? I never denied Reformed Soteriology. My point above is that the Bastion of Conservative Reformed Thought in North America has no problem with reviewers--in their journals--praising Wright (giving credit where credit is due). Now, even granting your points about Wright, does that necessarily mean his arguments are wrong with regard to Christ being raised from the dead?
> 
> [Edited on 9--28-05 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


Mr. Aitken,

I never said that you denied Reformed soteriology. Wright denies Reformed soteriology.

And what I was getting at was exactly what I posted and that was that Wright has supporters everywhere including the "Bastion" of Reformed Thought. I wasn't trying to be cryptic.

Regarding Wright's points about the resurrection, he may be right on the money. Karl Barth made some excellent points on a number of issues. But look at his legacy. The damage he has done to the Church and the Gospel. By saying he is "okay" on the resurrection but everything else, forget about it, is a mixed message. It leads down a path that is very dangerous. If Wright is okay on the resurrection, why can't he be okay about justification?

A point I tried to make earlier was that the issues around Wright and NPP/FV are more than academic exercises for seminarians. His ideas have real world consequences and I have seen the results of those consequences up close and personal. When you finish Seminary and get a call, I pray you don't have to deal with it.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> [
> A point I tried to make earlier was that the issues around Wright and NPP/FV are more than academic exercises for seminarians. His ideas have real world consequences and I have seen the results of those consequences up close and personal. When you finish Seminary and get a call, I pray you don't have to deal with it.



My apologies if I sounded contentious. I am aware of the real-world consequences of his beliefs in SOME areas. A ministry friend of mien (who is now at Duke) was a NPP guy and his ability to deal with life and death issues was....less than adequate.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> [
> A point I tried to make earlier was that the issues around Wright and NPP/FV are more than academic exercises for seminarians. His ideas have real world consequences and I have seen the results of those consequences up close and personal. When you finish Seminary and get a call, I pray you don't have to deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies if I sounded contentious. I am aware of the real-world consequences of his beliefs in SOME areas. A ministry friend of mien (who is now at Duke) was a NPP guy and his ability to deal with life and death issues was....less than adequate.
Click to expand...


Jacob,
Where is my apology you dirtbag. All good fights lead to an apology and an invite for 




and . Let's just skip the apology and get to the other stuff.

YLF, Randy


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> [
> A point I tried to make earlier was that the issues around Wright and NPP/FV are more than academic exercises for seminarians. His ideas have real world consequences and I have seen the results of those consequences up close and personal. When you finish Seminary and get a call, I pray you don't have to deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies if I sounded contentious. I am aware of the real-world consequences of his beliefs in SOME areas. A ministry friend of mien (who is now at Duke) was a NPP guy and his ability to deal with life and death issues was....less than adequate.
Click to expand...


No problems here! You didn't sound contentious.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> [
> A point I tried to make earlier was that the issues around Wright and NPP/FV are more than academic exercises for seminarians. His ideas have real world consequences and I have seen the results of those consequences up close and personal. When you finish Seminary and get a call, I pray you don't have to deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies if I sounded contentious. I am aware of the real-world consequences of his beliefs in SOME areas. A ministry friend of mien (who is now at Duke) was a NPP guy and his ability to deal with life and death issues was....less than adequate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob,
> Where is my apology you dirtbag. All good fights lead to an apology and an invite for
> 
> 
> 
> and . Let's just skip the apology and get to the other stuff.
> 
> YLF, Randy
Click to expand...


I'll drink to that.


----------

