N.T. Wright

[SolaGratia]

Has anyone read this book from N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

I reviewer of this book had this to say, " a brilliant book that will take your breath away. It is nothing short of a monumental defense of the doctrine of the resurrection and an indispensable explanation of how the new creation has been inaugurated in this present evil age. This book is a credit to orthodoxy that will surely serve the church for many years to come."

Any comments from a book written by the NPP author.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have read it. It's not my favorite of his. I like his one on Jesus and the Victory of God much better.

The pros of his resurrection book:
1) He anticipates much of the objections by the new advocates of the gnostic gospels.
2) Rebutts almost every liberal objection to the resurrection.
3) It is well-written.

Cons of the book:
1) He gives more weight to historical investigations/the authority of evidences than I think is warranted. He rightly denies "neutral" evidences but gives more weight to problem passages than I think necessary.

2) The first section surveying the use of "resurrection" in all current literature borders on overkill.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

I went to hear N. T. Wright speak on "Did Jesus Really Raise From The Dead?" back in March. In 2 1/2 hours he made only one passing refrence to Scripture. His entire argument was based on archelolgical evidence, secular historic writtings, and Roman Catholic scholarship. I can't think of any reason to "drink from a tainted well" by reading his works when there are so many theologically sound and Biblically grounded works out there. (In my humble opinion)

 

[SolaGratia]

James,

Thanks Brother's, when I was reading his book it seem very informative and good writing. After, I read a book review from a Reformed Professor and I ponder to go ahead and read it. It is then when I turn to my Brothers at the PB and I was lead back to the Lord.

 

[RamistThomist]

James,

Thanks Brother's, when I was reading his book it seem very informative and good writing. After, I read a book review from a Reformed Professor and I ponder to go ahead and read it. It is then when I turn to my Brothers at the PB and I was lead back to the Lord.

So a wonder whether to read NT Wright = straying from the Lord? Westminster Theological Journal favorably reviewed the book.

If someone is not strong in the debate area and isn't ready for full contact karate, then no, one shouldn't read Wright. But if you want a challenge and want to strengthen your critical thinking/reading skills, then read him.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

If someone is not strong in the debate area and isn't ready for full contact karate, then no, one shouldn't read Wright. But if you want a challenge and want to strengthen your critical thinking/reading skills, then read him.

Good point J. We do need to know what the "enemy" is up to and develope the mental and spiritual "muscle" to do battle.

 

[RamistThomist]

Good point J. We do need to know what the "enemy" is up to and develope the mental and spiritual "muscle" to do battle.

Sort of, I guess. Although I don't really consider him the "enemy." I meant that reading him improves one's rhetorical and debating skills. He is easily the best communicator I have ever heard/read.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Sort of, I guess. Although I don't really consider him the "enemy." I meant that reading him improves one's rhetorical and debating skills. He is easily the best communicator I have ever heard/read.

Oh, he's a powerful speaker and writer, plus he has all those nice "letters" after his name. Very, very respectable and prestigious. This is what makes him so dangerous. I'm convinced that he is a heretic to the very core. Just like his Federal Vision "offspring" (they learned their lessons well) he uses all the right words, but ever so subtly shifts the meaning.

All I really intended to communicate to Gil was "reader beware." Then your post reminded me of what I hadn't even considered, that those practiced in critical thinking and who are well grounded in doctrine need to know what else is out there.

My apologies to both you and Gil for I did not intend to offend either of you. And I certainly would not condemn anyone for reading even N. T. Wright.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

I can think of better authors but T Wright on the resurrection? Well - judge for yourself by clicking here.

 

[AV1611]

I have Wright's Paul which I just find confusing and very hard to grasp his flow of argument.

 

[RamistThomist]

In 2 1/2 hours he made only one passing refrence to Scripture. His entire argument was based on archelolgical evidence, secular historic writtings, and Roman Catholic scholarship.(In my humble opinion)

That sounds like evidentialism, classical apologetics, and natural law theory