In that case, your real problem with Wright is that he's postmillennial.
Bishop N. T. Wright-ism
- Thread starter yeutter
- Start date
- Status
In that case, your real problem with Wright is that he's postmillennial.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In Resurrection of the Son of God, on page 236, when discussing Colossians, Wright says, "the author, whom I shall refer to as "Paul," cheerfully begging the question of authorship."
It's statements like this that convince me I am right in not wasting 5 minutes reading Wright. He is obnoxious, arrogant, and pedantic.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Resurrection of the Son of God is not a waste to read. It's actually quite good in lots of places, and it is a relief to read something where one can so heartily agree with what he is trying to do: prove the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It has issues in it where we would disagree with him, of course, most notably in his view of Scripture (he lacks any discernible belief in the self-attesting authority of Scripture). However, the shape of his arguments still impacts my thoughts on the resurrection of Christ even today, and that in a positive way. Of course, I don't disagree with your assessment of Wright in general.
I am not speaking on that issue, was more addressing how Weight seems to focus the agenda more on transforming society, having the Kingdom brought in and through us now.
I see the main thrust of Paul to getting sinners first justified to God, and then moving out from there.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I would see the historia salutis (in particular, the overlap of the two ages, as per Vos) as the central message of Paul, of which the ordo salutis is the inevitable result.
My point would be that there are dozens of others I could read without having to put up with Wright's constant over-qualifications, hedging, and obnoxious language. I'm not sure it is helpful to listen to a man who butchers justification, is pro-women's ordination, pro-homosexual, and who refuses to speak plainly about inerrancy.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
In general, I would say you're right, Fred, but I found the objectionable things you mention to be on minimal display in RSG.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He specifically rejects that view.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Wright rejects homosexuality here.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/f...-t-wrights-argument-against-same-sex-marriage
That's largely why the Church of England considers Wright a conservative evangelical (which I don't think he is).
I would see Paul as having many themes, and some would be the sinner getting saved, and then becoming more into image of Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit among us, the Church and its operation, and the Second Coming and future eschatology for examples.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Even pro-gay people admit Wright is against homosexuality.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/06/23/my-quarrel-with-n-t-wright-about-sex/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/06/23/my-quarrel-with-n-t-wright-about-sex/
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In other words, NT Wright.
Based upon those views of his, just wondering why he seems to be so much in vogue as a stellar theologian for us today?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He is affirming Pauline authorship while indirectly slapping liberals. I was trained by classical liberals and if they hear you affirm traditional authorship, they will get apopletic. NT Wright is triggering them the way Trump triggers CNN. It's glorious. I'm not the NT Wright fan I used to be, but RSG is one of the standard (if not the standard in NT studies) works in the field.
He might be discussing those same issues as Paul did, but his understanding of some of them is not how Paul saw them as being. Central one being Justification.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Keep in mind that the Reformed community is 1% of 1% of 1% of American Christianity. And most Reformed people do not like him. He is in "vogue" among broadly Evangelicals because he is a powerful communicator who has more or less destroyed liberal scholarship on Jesus.
He does write quite a bot on the Community of faith now doing Kingdom work though for the King, correct?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Wright sa
I hope we are all doing kingdom work. We are disobedient servants if we are not.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Slanderous!
I am Reformed, just not vanilla. I actually have issues with Wright, but I don't think he is the bogeyman people make him out to be. The PCA has a lot more to worry about that is threatening its very existence: male ballerinas, cultural Marxism, etc.
So we Baptists would more likely be the ones getting enamored with him as a scholar?
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
With all the talk about grammar, I was just playfully chiding Trent for what (I suppose!) was a grammatical error.
I not see him as bad, but would also not see him as someone whose theology should be accepted at face value as some seem to want to do.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Very few people's theology should be
I doubt it, since he holds to a strong covenantal theology and accepts infant baptism. Or they might. I don't know. Baptists don't have to worry about institutional shibboleths if they are caught reading Wright at night time with a flash light.
We would respect his work on the resurrection of Christ, and some do find his NPP views interesting, but he still seems suspect in some areas.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Sure. He is no systematician for sure yet tries to weigh in. Again, I thought this was established many posts ago....
From viewing your posts just stick with Reformed authors and you'll get best of Wright without error. I think I may have said this. If you feel compelled to critique Wright read him first. I concur with many that he backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds and vice versa. Sinclair Ferguson has said in a critique of the NPP I found that Wright makes these amazing connections to the Old Testament but then he allows that quote or verse to control the exegesis rather than the context of Paul's letter. Horton also notes, and I have as well, that when Wright says 'not merely' it winds up meaning 'not at all' later on. I am trying to be balanced here.
I found lots of good nuggets in Wright. Many posts ago someone said the big problem with Wright is he does not adequately explain how the redemption Christ accomplished is be applied to His people. But he teaches redemption applies to the Church.
Professor Horton is good at distilling correct insights out of Kline and Wright
Professor Horton is good at distilling correct insights out of Kline and Wright
I will continue to try to filter his work, in order to glean from him what would be the gold, and let the bad stuff just filter away.
What would be some of the best nuggets of gold gained from his books for you?
- Status
