Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Puritanhead
**Puritanhead lurks quietly**
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!
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...
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...
VirginiaHuguenot noticed that as well.
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?
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.
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.
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.
.
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...
VirginiaHuguenot noticed that as well.
Where is the smiley throwing rotten tomatoes?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.