N T Wright
- Thread starter AV1611
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In real life, no. In make believe, I have read the following (I went to a liberal college where Wright was considered a fundamentalist. I needed some good stuff on history and the gospels, historiography, etc).
I have read--just pretend now--the three volumes in the Christian Origins series, and other stuff that I don't feel like typing out right now.
I have read--just pretend now--the three volumes in the Christian Origins series, and other stuff that I don't feel like typing out right now.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes, I have.
Last edited:
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
He spoke at my old church once. I haven't read any of his books, he's a bit of a way down my list.
QueenEsther
Puritan Board Sophomore
From what I have heard (I have not read anything except maybe titles to a couple of his books) he is a very good writer, persuasive and what not. Other than that I could not venture to say anything else about his writings.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I own two of his books; "What Saint Paul Really Said" and "Climax of the Covenants" plus I have read a number of articles that he has written. He is a very engaging writer; a very easy style. I would not recommend his works unless you were strong in the Reformed Faith, otherwise you can easily get sucked into his thinking. If you are strong in the faith then its easy to spot his errors.
I am making my way through Evil and the Justice of God and have read Simply Christian. I enjoy his writings even though I do not agree with everything he says.
My qyestion to those who refuse to read his stuff, do you always write off a person's entire stance on everything if you disagree with a couple of things? Do you think that is beneficial? I mean, there are several things that I disagree with Piper on (okay, not the best example) but I enjoy the things I do agree with him on. I have heard that his Christian Origins books are phenomenal... and I plan on eventually getting them and disagreeing with some points and fed by others.
Just seems like a baby with the bathwater type scenario.
My qyestion to those who refuse to read his stuff, do you always write off a person's entire stance on everything if you disagree with a couple of things? Do you think that is beneficial? I mean, there are several things that I disagree with Piper on (okay, not the best example) but I enjoy the things I do agree with him on. I have heard that his Christian Origins books are phenomenal... and I plan on eventually getting them and disagreeing with some points and fed by others.
Just seems like a baby with the bathwater type scenario.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I believe this is the right approach. Perhaps this is a poor analogy but it seems to me that an outright rejection of anti-Christian and crypto-Christian reading would lead to a similar reaction to alcohol we see in fundamentalist circles: what is forbidden is actually made more desirable to the heart of sinful man.
Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17).
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast what is good."
On the other hand, people need to be taught discernment and the best way to do/get that is learn the right and good first and then, maybe, go out and read what is wrong. N.T. Wright is not all wrong but what he is wrong on makes his teaching/writing very dangerous! It might be nice if we spent more time reading our confessions...
Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17).
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast what is good."
On the other hand, people need to be taught discernment and the best way to do/get that is learn the right and good first and then, maybe, go out and read what is wrong. N.T. Wright is not all wrong but what he is wrong on makes his teaching/writing very dangerous! It might be nice if we spent more time reading our confessions...
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I believe this is the right approach. Perhaps this is a poor analogy but it seems to me that an outright rejection of anti-Christian and crypto-Christian reading would lead to a similar reaction to alcohol we see in fundamentalist circles: what is forbidden is actually made more desirable to the heart of sinful man.
Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17).
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast what is good."
On the other hand, people need to be taught discernment and the best way to do/get that is learn the right and good first and then, maybe, go out and read what is wrong. N.T. Wright is not all wrong but what he is wrong on makes his teaching/writing very dangerous! It might be nice if we spent more time reading our confessions...
QueenEsther
Puritan Board Sophomore
Then it would be wise when one reads his and other works to keep this verse in mind.
Proverbs 4:23 Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.
Proverbs 4:23 Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.
I believe this is the right approach. Perhaps this is a poor analogy but it seems to me that an outright rejection of anti-Christian and crypto-Christian reading would lead to a similar reaction to alcohol we see in fundamentalist circles: what is forbidden is actually made more desirable to the heart of sinful man.
Rather discernment is the key. Paul didn't shy away from understanding his Pharisaical opponents (Galatians) nor his pagan contemporaries (Acts 17).
1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast what is good."
On the other hand, people need to be taught discernment and the best way to do/get that is learn the right and good first and then, maybe, go out and read what is wrong. N.T. Wright is not all wrong but what he is wrong on makes his teaching/writing very dangerous! It might be nice if we spent more time reading our confessions...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The safest place to start is to listen to some lectures for free that he gave at Harvard University and Calvin Seminary. This way you don't have to spend money and you get a decent overview of his worldview:
Space, Time, and Sacraments
Harvard Lectures
As to the Harvard lectures, find a way to skip the first ten minutes. Its all introductions which are boring and no one really cares anyway The harvard lectures are cool. He basically says Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are hard-core gnostics (knowing there are darwinists in the audience). I cringed at a few things he said, though, so this isn't a full-fledged endorsement.
Space, Time, and Sacraments
Harvard Lectures
As to the Harvard lectures, find a way to skip the first ten minutes. Its all introductions which are boring and no one really cares anyway The harvard lectures are cool. He basically says Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are hard-core gnostics (knowing there are darwinists in the audience). I cringed at a few things he said, though, so this isn't a full-fledged endorsement.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I really would encourage one to listen to the lectures rather than going to a bookstore and blindly buying a book, not really knowing what it is about. Secondly, as a communicator, he couldn't be boring if he tried (I know, I know; I have read Left Behind. The antichrist--Carpathia--is a good speaker, too. I will refrain from drawing the parallels).
It is also fun to watch Wright in Q&A. I got to hear his debate with Crossan on the Resurrection. Remember the Bahnsen-Stein slaughter? Jump forward 20 years.
It is also fun to watch Wright in Q&A. I got to hear his debate with Crossan on the Resurrection. Remember the Bahnsen-Stein slaughter? Jump forward 20 years.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I believe that the key word in this thread is "discernment". I am very familiar with Wright and he can be very seductive in his writing. That is why I mentioned that one needs to be strong in the faith before tackling Wright and NPP on their own. He is not for the novice.
Unfortunately, many in the Reformed camp have been attracted to Wright because he can say a lot of "good things". But should he receive kudos for stating the obvious? His stand against the Jesus Seminar folks is an example. But destroying Dominic Crossan is like shooting fish in a barrel. Crossan is not even a Christian.
For what it's worth, these are a few things I have noted about Wright:
1. He is not Reformed regardless of what he says.
2. He denies the Reformed doctrine of imputation, resulting in justification going out the window.
3. But most importantly, his view of Scripture is driven by Second Temple Judism versus allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If he is wrong about Second Temple Judism (and he is) then his whole system of thought falls apart. Whether its the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ or any other Christian doctrines, if the foundation is faulty, the house will crumble.
So if anyone wants to read or listen to this guy, take it with a big grain of salt.
Unfortunately, many in the Reformed camp have been attracted to Wright because he can say a lot of "good things". But should he receive kudos for stating the obvious? His stand against the Jesus Seminar folks is an example. But destroying Dominic Crossan is like shooting fish in a barrel. Crossan is not even a Christian.
For what it's worth, these are a few things I have noted about Wright:
1. He is not Reformed regardless of what he says.
2. He denies the Reformed doctrine of imputation, resulting in justification going out the window.
3. But most importantly, his view of Scripture is driven by Second Temple Judism versus allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If he is wrong about Second Temple Judism (and he is) then his whole system of thought falls apart. Whether its the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ or any other Christian doctrines, if the foundation is faulty, the house will crumble.
So if anyone wants to read or listen to this guy, take it with a big grain of salt.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Why seductive? Why not just say he has a "good" style. Why use the sinister language? See Carpathia reference above.
I think so. I have a Westminster Journal article where they are praising him for stating the obvious. So its not just me.
Re Crossan: Yes and no. He's tricky. Its more than a matter of saying "He's wrong, have his head and be done with it." The trick in a good debate is to stand within his shoes and say he is wrong because of internal contradictions, bad presuppositions, etc.
But on those same grounds, why did James White debate Crossan, if there were really no point to it?
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Jacob,
Because that is how I would describe his writing. It's as simple as that.
Okay, so you think so and so does the WTJ. That's fine. I don't. Personally I find it rather patronizing to give someone the "left hand of fellowship" while giving him the "right cross for error or heresy". A broken watch is right twice a day, but so what. Its still a broken watch.
It seems you missed my point. This was an example of some of the "good things" he has said or done. I have no beef with either Wright or White debating Crossan. Have at him!! If they can make Crossan look like the baffoon he is then maybe the secular world will stop trotting him out along with the other Jesus Seminar dim wits as representatives of Christianity.
Because that is how I would describe his writing. It's as simple as that.
Okay, so you think so and so does the WTJ. That's fine. I don't. Personally I find it rather patronizing to give someone the "left hand of fellowship" while giving him the "right cross for error or heresy". A broken watch is right twice a day, but so what. Its still a broken watch.
It seems you missed my point. This was an example of some of the "good things" he has said or done. I have no beef with either Wright or White debating Crossan. Have at him!! If they can make Crossan look like the baffoon he is then maybe the secular world will stop trotting him out along with the other Jesus Seminar dim wits as representatives of Christianity.
PresReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Personally, as it were, I love, so to speak, his ability, as it were, when confronted with, so to speak, as it were, a sort, of direct (albeit perhaps from some perspective, less than indirect, as it were) question of the day (or of the, as it were, hour) how he is so, as it were, nuanced and (so to speak) non-direct (as opposed to less direct, so to speak) language. For example on small things like whether the Bible is inerrant (surely an American question, but not a Biblical question), whether you actually have to believe in the resurrection to love Jesus passionately, homosexuality, feminism, women ministers, evangelicals in the Church of England, male headship, and other issues.
Let the blog darts fly in defense of the Uber Bishop.
Let the blog darts fly in defense of the Uber Bishop.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
That's a nail hit on the head. That's a hole in one. Here in the UK 'Evangelical' has better connotations than in the USA. And he won't associate with the majority of them in the Church of England - see Fred's link above.
JH
- Status
