Anyone disagree with NT Wright?

[eclipsenow]

A mate in theology recommends this article as a summary of his views, but warned me that one line in ten makes him bristle when he reads it! (But that it is all very thought provoking).

The Cross and the Kingdom: How God Became King – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Without looking at the link, I'd instinctively say "no." And I'm an orthodox Lutheran and politically a conservative libertarian, if that tells you something.

 

[ebia]

Im sure somebody does. John Piper for instance.

 

[seeingeyes]

A mate in theology recommends this article as a summary of his views, but warned me that one line in ten makes him bristle when he reads it! (But that it is all very thought provoking).

The Cross and the Kingdom: How God Became King – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Hmm. Why bristling? Is he part of the "rather noisy conservative Christianity which has reacted (not unnaturally) to the scepticism of the Enlightenment"?

I like N.T. Wright. He asks the questions that others don't ask and he's got the scholarly chops to back up his conclusions.

 

[Albion]

He seems to be the theologian of today's smart set, and while I find much to like in his writings, I have benefitted more from J. I. Packer and John Stott.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

He seems to be the theologian of today's smart set, and while I find much to like in his writings, I have benefitted more from J. I. Packer and John Stott.

You prefer J.I. Packer and John Stott? Noooooo, really?

 

[Albion]

You prefer J.I. Packer and John Stott? Noooooo, really?

Yeh yeh, very funny. But it's not as though we lack for serious thinkers, so why N. T. Wright should have become the designer theologian in so many people's minds kinda escapes me.

OTOH, I didn't want to say anything against Bp. Wright's publications or thinking, so that's why I wrote it the way I did.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yeh yeh, very funny. But it's not as though we lack for serious thinkers, so why N. T. Wright should have become the designer theologian in so many people's minds kinda escapes me.

OTOH, I didn't want to say anything against Bp. Wright's publications or thinking, so that's why I wrote it the way I did.

There certainly can be a problem with Wright-mania. Because he writes for both a popular and a scholarly audience- and does so very well in both- the educated readers of his popular works tend, I think, to forget that he is only one of a larger community of scholars. I really do love Wright's work; but I love it in tandem with Dunn, Hays, Witherington, the Longenneckers, Meier, Sanders, and others. Knowing that he is part of a broadly emerging moderate consensus on New Testament kingdom/covenant theology helps one be able to accept his insights in outline without wholly embracing everything he says (for instance, when he starts talking about issues entirely outside his field, like Third World debt forgiveness; reminds me of a certain pope I know).

 

[Albion]

As usual, a great reply.

 

[MKJ]

I think it is a bit hard to answer a question like this without a very specific item to consider - he says a lot of different things.

I think the stuff he says about the NT case for women priests is way off-base, and almost bizarrely so given the fact that he seems otherwise fairly sensible.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Who is NT Wright?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Who is NT Wright?

He's an Anglican churchman and one of the foremost New Testament scholars alive today- perhaps the most widely read and debated living biblical interpreter. He's at the forefront of the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus and the New Perspective on Paul, writing both at the intensely scholarly level and for the educated layman.

Just type his name into Amazon and scroll through for about ten pages. That guy writes faster than I read.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Libertarians might find this jarring (I do. Where is the Scriptural basis for his claim?):

Quote
Let me put it like this. In Paul (and this is really a Pauline conversation, after all), what happens is that the word of the gospel is announced. That is to say, Jesus Christ is proclaimed – one-on-one or in a large meeting or out on the street or whatever, and even though that message is crazy (and Paul knows it’s crazy; he says it’s folly to Gentiles and a scandal to Jews), some people find that it grabs them and they believe it. This is bizarre. I shouldn’t be believing this. A dead man got raised from the dead and he’s the Lord of the world. I really shouldn’t believe this, but it does make sense. And it finds me and I can feel it changing me. Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel. He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

So, the Holy Spirit is the One who through the Word does the work of grace which is the transformative thing, and the first sign of that new life is faith.

Now then, the point of justification is not God making you right. The irony is that some of my critics at this point have accused me of a sort of semi-Pelagianism. But that’s precisely what I think I’m not doing. The verdict of justification is God saying over faith, “This really is my beloved child.”


TGC | The Gospel Coalition

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Libertarians might find this jarring (I do. Where is the Scriptural basis for his claim?):

Quote
Let me put it like this. In Paul (and this is really a Pauline conversation, after all), what happens is that the word of the gospel is announced. That is to say, Jesus Christ is proclaimed – one-on-one or in a large meeting or out on the street or whatever, and even though that message is crazy (and Paul knows it’s crazy; he says it’s folly to Gentiles and a scandal to Jews), some people find that it grabs them and they believe it. This is bizarre. I shouldn’t be believing this. A dead man got raised from the dead and he’s the Lord of the world. I really shouldn’t believe this, but it does make sense. And it finds me and I can feel it changing me. Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel. He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

So, the Holy Spirit is the One who through the Word does the work of grace which is the transformative thing, and the first sign of that new life is faith.

Now then, the point of justification is not God making you right. The irony is that some of my critics at this point have accused me of a sort of semi-Pelagianism. But that’s precisely what I think I’m not doing. The verdict of justification is God saying over faith, “This really is my beloved child.”


TGC | The Gospel Coalition

The proclaimed word inspires faith. That's all over Paul.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That sounds like very interesting read

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euange...t-wright-on-paul-and-the-faithfulness-of-god/

 

[hedrick]

Wright's work on the Gospels is fairly similar to other historical Jesus people. I think he's got a few things that might make him more attractive to some:

* He's on the conservative end of that movement, and thus is acceptable to many evangelicals.
* He's a good communicator, who writes for the public.
* He spans NT scholarship and theology.

This makes him more useful as a public teacher than many other folks working in the same area.

I don't agree with everything he says, but his overall approach seems right. Most of the public criticism is from people who are committed to tradition over evidence.

 

[Adventtruth]

Libertarians might find this jarring (I do. Where is the Scriptural basis for his claim?):

Quote
Let me put it like this. In Paul (and this is really a Pauline conversation, after all), what happens is that the word of the gospel is announced. That is to say, Jesus Christ is proclaimed – one-on-one or in a large meeting or out on the street or whatever, and even though that message is crazy (and Paul knows it’s crazy; he says it’s folly to Gentiles and a scandal to Jews), some people find that it grabs them and they believe it. This is bizarre. I shouldn’t be believing this. A dead man got raised from the dead and he’s the Lord of the world. I really shouldn’t believe this, but it does make sense. And it finds me and I can feel it changing me. Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel. He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

So, the Holy Spirit is the One who through the Word does the work of grace which is the transformative thing, and the first sign of that new life is faith.

Now then, the point of justification is not God making you right. The irony is that some of my critics at this point have accused me of a sort of semi-Pelagianism. But that’s precisely what I think I’m not doing. The verdict of justification is God saying over faith, “This really is my beloved child.”


TGC | The Gospel Coalition

You are kidding I hope!

 

[Wordkeeper]

My gripe is that he claims :

He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.


Means what I marked in bold:

Let me put it like this. In Paul (and this is really a Pauline conversation, after all), what happens is that the word of the gospel is announced. That is to say, Jesus Christ is proclaimed – one-on-one or in a large meeting or out on the street or whatever, and even though that message is crazy (and Paul knows it’s crazy; he says it’s folly to Gentiles and a scandal to Jews), some people find that it grabs them and they believe it. This is bizarre. I shouldn’t be believing this. A dead man got raised from the dead and he’s the Lord of the world. I really shouldn’t believe this, but it does make sense. And it finds me and I can feel it changing me. Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel.


Probably from this text:


1 Corinthians 1:17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

In the first place, the text is loaded with a dense background, requiring extensive unpacking.

More importantly, Judas had the same gospel preached to him and it had no effect on him.

I can just hear all the Reformed crowd protesting in the background, "But he was not chosen, not of the Elect".

Bring it on!

You are kidding I hope!

 

[hedrick]

My gripe is that he claims :

He says, no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.


Means what I marked in bold: Paul’s analysis of that is that this is the power of the word (he has a strong theology of the word), and another equal way of saying it for Paul is that this is the Holy Spirit working through the gospel.

If you object to that, you've got a fairly broad objection to Reformation theology as a whole. The idea that the Holy Spirit works through the Word is pretty basic. I seem to recall similar ideas from when I was a Methodist, and the following web page seems to support it: III. Revelation and Authority: God's Word Revealed in Scripture and Nature | Point Loma Nazarene University | A Premier Southern California Christian University in San Diego

More importantly, Judas had the same gospel preached to him and it had no effect on him.

I can just hear all the Reformed crowd protesting in the background, "But he was not chosen, not of the Elect".

The point isn't that everyone who hears the Word preached is converted, but that the Holy Spirit normally works through the Word. Obviously the Spirit can go where it will, but Reformation thought holds that he normally uses the Word, and certainly that people who believe they are inspired by the Spirit can be tested by the Word.

 

[Wordkeeper]

If you object to that, you've got a fairly broad objection to Reformation theology as a whole. The idea that the Holy Spirit works through the Word is pretty basic. I seem to recall similar ideas from when I was a Methodist, and the following web page seems to support it: III. Revelation and Authority: God's Word Revealed in Scripture and Nature | Point Loma Nazarene University | A Premier Southern California Christian University in San Diego



The point isn't that everyone who hears the Word preached is converted, but that the Holy Spirit normally works through the Word. Obviously the Spirit can go where it will, but Reformation thought holds that he normally uses the Word, and certainly that people who believe they are inspired by the Spirit can be tested by the Word.

Well, Jaltus, Tercel and The Roman Clearinghouse Keeper at TWeb claim that Wright has knocked down one of the pillars of Calvinist Theology, salvation by faith alone and when he devotes time, he'll knock down Total Depravity...