N.T. Wright is awesome.

Status
Not open for further replies.

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Double Speak??

Just as Peale is appalling and Paul is appealing,

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

:detective:

[Edited on 9-28-05 by pastorway]
 

Robin

Puritan Board Junior
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!
:up: :up: Wayne! And to your other post, :amen:!

Robin :cool:
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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.
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.
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.
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
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.
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
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.
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]
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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

Moderator
Staff member
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?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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?
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
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]
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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

Moderator
Staff member
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.
Jacob,
Where is my apology you dirtbag. All good fights lead to an apology and an invite for
and :detective:. Let's just skip the apology and get to the other stuff.

YLF, Randy
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
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.
No problems here! You didn't sound contentious.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
Jacob,
Where is my apology you dirtbag. All good fights lead to an apology and an invite for
and :detective:. Let's just skip the apology and get to the other stuff.

YLF, Randy
I'll drink to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top