Copy that. Thank you (as always)
Jesus knew from an early age that he was the Son of God, for he was in the temple, and remarked to his parents was in His fathers house, so he indeed did now that self truth.
NT Wright does see himself as being outside traditional reformed viewpoint regarding Justification..
Yes, but he would also see it in terms as first and foremost being individuals sinners being reconciled back to God through the penal substitution death of Christ on their behalf.
Yes, both of them would see Justification much more in the classical reformed sense than Wright does.
He is outside the reformed tradition, and yet seems that many have taken to his slant on theology.
He at times seems to be saying his theology id a way that will pass through others, without alerting them to what his real views are on the issues.
Do you mean eternal justification as say Primitive Baptists would view it?
He gets the big picture to be sure and has eased his prior views. However, he flips things around and that's where it goes wrong.
My main frustration on reading him is that he seems to have bad theology on certain issues, but then runs away from actually stating clearly what he believes , as he would know that doing that would make him seem suspect. Also, seems that he is trying to build a theology that would allow us to come back home to church of Rome in some fashion.
I agree. I do not think he waffles on inerrancy though he does refer to deutro-Isaiah. He does stick his nose in things he knows nothing about and then wonders why people jump on him. No disagreement there. I think most people feel the same way.
His take though on the so called New Pauline Perspective does seem to have more problems within his theology than he lets on when he writes/talks on it. His viewpoint on how the reformation and basically all of have misunderstood the Pauline Justification theology seems to be really strange to me.
His view on inerrancy seems to be somewhat different then what we would normally set it as meaning though. His view on the authorship of certain books seems suspect also.
True, but would think that NT Wright viewpoint, as it does conflict with the Reformers viewpoint on Pauline Justification, requires him to be able to support it much better than he has been able to, as still see him as trying to bridge a way back to the church of Rome and unity now.
He may be seen as being that in his own church circles, but how about as say reformed or Baptists would tend to use that term of Inerrancy?
He does call it a great ecumenical doctrine sure. Don't misunderstand that he himself is building that bridge. Unfortunately, others have seen it to be so (FVers, et al). When he argues against imputed righteousness he unwittingly argues against Rome's infused righteousness. Like Jacob, he has too much Protestant baggage even if he is not Reformed.
