Tom Wright and James White on Unbelievalbe Radio

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by travstar, Feb 12, 2013.

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

    travstar Puritan Board Freshman

  2. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    I wish they had more time to discuss the topic. The 90 minute program wasn't nearly enough to do the topic justice.

    I have to be honest. I still don't exactly get what N.T. Wright REALLY believes. It's almost like he's talking about the same old thing we've always believed but using slightly different words. Ugh.
  3. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    Planning on listening to it eventually. I listened to the show last week when he was talking about it. His analysis of N.T. Wright's "mono-chromatic" view of Paul is very apt. It's pretty much what D.A. Carson's analysis of the various NPP writers is. They take an idea that's true and then make it the "end all" in terms of how everything else is to be understood so that all the other aspects of the Gospel are re-cast to be seen in the light of their emphasis.

    I've come to realize, over the last few years, that many errors stem from taking what is, in itself, a good thing to reflect upon but it is then pressed as the sole way to view everything and so other aspects of Revelation are muted.
  4. travstar

    travstar Puritan Board Freshman

    Yeah, I said as much to Dr. White. This interaction was about two hours or so too short. I would, however, say almost the opposite in regards to terminology, i.e., he uses Reformed language to espouse a differing idea, especially in regards to imputation. The concepts he promotes rather remind me of the energies/essence distinction of old.
  5. travstar

    travstar Puritan Board Freshman

    Wright seems to have found a nice facet and declared it to be the whole diamond.
  6. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    Yes, actually that more accurately reflects the idea I was trying to get across. Uses the same lingo to say something else.

    Unfortunately, I don't understand exactly what the "something else" is that he is actually trying to say!
  7. travstar

    travstar Puritan Board Freshman

    This is why I felt the interaction was too short, though it was beginning to be helpful toward the end. Wright used a phrase that needed nailing down, namely that Christ's work places us on "Resurrection ground." This was one of the phrases I had in mind when I introduced the Eastern energies/essence distinction. Wright would never say that we absorb the energies of God, nor would he use the term "deification." However, underneath the sheepish clothing of his rephrasing, I see those ideas lurking.
  8. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm getting the idea that he's basically just repackaging some old heresies/errors. For example, the idea that the Atonement doesn't effectively save anyone, but merely makes them saveable.
  9. travstar

    travstar Puritan Board Freshman

    Yes, but not in an Arminian or Pelagian way. It really is splitting hairs. I see the repackaged idea more akin to the idea of theosis. In my current estimation, it's a different type of synergism, but synergism nonetheless, unless one can come along and show me otherwise.
  10. arapahoepark

    arapahoepark Puritan Board Graduate

    What's the true part?
  11. travstar

    travstar Puritan Board Freshman

    The true part is that we are Abraham's seed, members of the covenant community, and of the nation of Israel here on earth.
  12. MarieP

    MarieP Puritan Board Senior

    He actually sounded a lot more "both/and" in this audio. I don't have the exact quote, but he explicitly said that you can't separate soteriology from covenant membership. Also, in response to James White's question about how he'd counsel a believer who was doubting his salvation, Wright said he'd urge them to keep looking to Christ and trusting in His work on the cross (I thought he'd add "and resurrection," but he didn't!)

    I would have loved to hear interaction on Romans 2 and 2 Cor. 5. I think Dr. White holds to a hypothetical view of Rom. 2, which I once thought was the only Reformed position. I'm not certain what he believes about the works by which we will be judged at the last day- whether they are our deeds done by the Spirit's power and cleansed in Jesus' blood, or if they are Christ's "active" obedience.

    But even John Piper has said:

    And Tom Schreiner:

    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  13. MightyManfred

    MightyManfred Puritan Board Freshman

    One thing we've been told repeatedly in my church, that I can't help but think upon whenever I read the term, New Perspectives ...

    Here's what we've been taught: If, in studying Scripture, you come up with something new that nobody in the church has thought of before; you're WRONG. This is solid ground from which to stand against dispensationalists and NPP folk. God is not in the business of hiding Truth from His people so "smart men" can enlighten us.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page