N.T. Wright is awesome.

Discussion in 'Defending the Faith' started by WrittenFromUtopia, Sep 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pastorway

    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.


    [Edited on 9-28-05 by pastorway]
  2. Robin

    Robin Puritan Board Junior

    :up: :up: Wayne! And to your other post, :amen:!

    Robin :cool:
  3. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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]
  4. wsw201

    wsw201 Puritan Board Senior

    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.
  5. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
  6. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Especially when it comes to the resurrection!
  7. wsw201

    wsw201 Puritan Board Senior

    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.
  8. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
  9. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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]
  10. BayouHuguenot

    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?
  11. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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?
  12. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
  13. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    I would hope that many in the PCA and OPC are wondering the same thing about NPP and FV proponents.
  14. wsw201

    wsw201 Puritan Board Senior

    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.
  15. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
  16. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Where is my apology you dirtbag. All good fights lead to an apology and an invite for
    [​IMG] and :detective:. Let's just skip the apology and get to the other stuff.

    YLF, Randy
  17. wsw201

    wsw201 Puritan Board Senior

    No problems here! You didn't sound contentious.
  18. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    I'll drink to that.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page