Anyone disagree with NT Wright?

[hedrick]

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...

First, salvation by faith isn’t a pillar; justification by faith is. N T Wright teaches that. His exegesis of Paul is typical of current Reformed scholarship, so no doubt conservative Calvinists don’t agree with it. But it’s within the realm of 20th Cent Reformed thought.

I can’t find a statement from him about total depravity. He certainly believes that we can’t know God without God’s gracious initiative. However I’d be surprised if he believes in limited atonement or double predestination, both of which are tied up with total depravity. But I’m extrapolating from what I know about him.

Basically Wright is in tune with 20th Cent Reformed thought. Conservative Reformed won’t like him. But his thought is quite similar to many other mainline scholars. You can predict what someone's assessment of Wright is going to be by whether or not they support TULIP in its original form and inerrancy.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

First, salvation by faith isn’t a pillar; justification by faith is. N T Wright teaches that. His exegesis of Paul is typical of current Reformed scholarship, so no doubt conservative Calvinists don’t agree with it. But it’s within the realm of 20th Cent Reformed thought.

I can’t find a statement from him about total depravity. He certainly believes that we can’t know God without God’s gracious initiative. However I’d be surprised if he believes in limited atonement or double predestination, both of which are tied up with total depravity. But I’m extrapolating from what I know about him.

Basically Wright is in tune with 20th Cent Reformed thought. Conservative Reformed won’t like him. But his thought is quite similar to many other mainline scholars. You can predict what someone's assessment of Wright is going to be by whether or not they support TULIP in its original form and inerrancy.

Where is limited atonement or double predestination tied into the doctrine of depravity?

Wow that's a lot to knock down...... ....but I guess if that's his thang

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30852260&postcount=387

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30890587&postcount=388

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30926928&postcount=389


PS I bumped a thread on Deeper Fellowship that includes this

 

[Wordkeeper]

First, salvation by faith isn’t a pillar; justification by faith is. N T Wright teaches that. His exegesis of Paul is typical of current Reformed scholarship, so no doubt conservative Calvinists don’t agree with it. But it’s within the realm of 20th Cent Reformed thought.

I can’t find a statement from him about total depravity. He certainly believes that we can’t know God without God’s gracious initiative. However I’d be surprised if he believes in limited atonement or double predestination, both of which are tied up with total depravity. But I’m extrapolating from what I know about him.

Basically Wright is in tune with 20th Cent Reformed thought. Conservative Reformed won’t like him. But his thought is quite similar to many other mainline scholars. You can predict what someone's assessment of Wright is going to be by whether or not they support TULIP in its original form and inerrancy.

When he says that only some find the Gospel attractive, it means that all are Totally Depraved. The Holy Spirit is given only to the Elect.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When he says that only some find the Gospel attractive, it means that all are Totally Depraved. The Holy Spirit is given only to the Elect.

Is your rebuke of Wright that he's too Calvinist or not Calvinist enough?

I can't make heads or tales at this juncture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wordkeeper]

Is your rebuke of Wright that he's too Calvinist or not Calvinist enough?

I can't make heads or tales at this juncture.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, of being too Calvinistic, indicated by his comment that some (meaning not all, meaning the Holy Spirit regenerated only a few) find the gospel attractive. But the other Calvinists accuse him of the heresy of Semipelagianism. Read Bishop Helm's criticism of his books, available on several websites.

 

[hedrick]

Where is limited atonement or double predestination tied into the doctrine of depravity?

If total depravity means that everyone is corrupted by sin, and unable to respond to God until he has enabled us to respond, then I think almost all Christians believe that. Wright certainly would.

But total depravity is part of the overall Calvinist storyline. You’ll hear Calvinists say that anyone who denies double predestination doesn’t understand the true radical nature of sin, and thus doesn’t really accept total depravity. In effect they would word my definition somewhat differently: Everyone is corrupted by sin, and is unable to respond to God unless he monergisticly saves them. Anything less, it is thought, means that some vestige of ability to choose God is left to us, and thus is a violation of total depravity.

Since everyone other than real Pelagians believe in the universality of sin, I conjecture that anyone accusing Wright of denying it is thinking of total depravity as being inherently tied into double predestination.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

If total depravity means that everyone is corrupted by sin, and unable to respond to God until he has enabled us to respond, then I think almost all Christians believe that. Wright certainly would.

But total depravity is part of the overall Calvinist storyline. You’ll hear Calvinists say that anyone who denies double predestination doesn’t understand the true radical nature of sin, and thus doesn’t really accept total depravity. In effect they would word my definition somewhat differently: Everyone is corrupted by sin, and is unable to respond to God unless he monergisticly saves them. Anything less, it is thought, means that some vestige of ability to choose God is left to us, and thus is a violation of total depravity.

Since everyone other than real Pelagians believe in the universality of sin, I conjecture that anyone accusing Wright of denying it is thinking of total depravity as being inherently tied into double predestination.

Ok thanks for that

 

[Wordkeeper]

Not all Christians:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/r...sm/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/
THE “FIVE POINTS” OF ARMINIANISM


Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe....

If total depravity means that everyone is corrupted by sin, and unable to respond to God until he has enabled us to respond

, then I think almost all Christians believe that. Wright certainly would.​

But total depravity is part of the overall Calvinist storyline. You’ll hear Calvinists say that anyone who denies double predestination doesn’t understand the true radical nature of sin, and thus doesn’t really accept total depravity. In effect they would word my definition somewhat differently: Everyone is corrupted by sin, and is unable to respond to God unless he monergisticly saves them. Anything less, it is thought, means that some vestige of ability to choose God is left to us, and thus is a violation of total depravity.

Since everyone other than real Pelagians believe in the universality of sin, I conjecture that anyone accusing Wright of denying it is thinking of total depravity as being inherently tied into double predestination.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Not all Christians:

Calvinism vs Arminianism – Comparison Chart
THE “FIVE POINTS” OF ARMINIANISM


Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe....

Did you even read the text you quoted?

God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe. That is, left to their own nature, they aren't able to do so.

Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism teaches that God gives people a prevenient grace that doesn't save them, but does allow them to exercise their will in order to accept the faith.

The same distinction can be found in Catholicism.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Did you even read the text you quoted?

God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe. That is, left to their own nature, they aren't able to do so.

Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism teaches that God gives people a prevenient grace that doesn't save them, but does allow them to exercise their will in order to accept the faith.

The same distinction can be found in Catholicism.

Sorry, the clip was truncated. Here is the full text in all it's glory:

Quote

THE “FIVE POINTS” OF
ARMINIANISM

Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.
============================

In Calvinism, grace, the regeneration of dead spirits through the work of the Holy Spirit is irresistible. Not so in Arminianism, as you noted.

The point is that I believe we have misread Scripture. People followed Christ because of the signs and wonders. When they found out what the agreement entailed, laying down life, they bailed, like the Israelites and the rich young ruler, unlike Caleb, and Peter:

Mark 10: 28Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.” 29Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31“But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

 

[hedrick]

THE “FIVE POINTS” OF
ARMINIANISM

This quotation is taken from a Reformed writer. It is not how an actual Arminian would describe things. Here's a response from an actual Arminian quoting Arminian authorities on total depravity: Society of Evangelical Arminians | Do Arminians Believe in Total Depravity?

From that page, Arminius own statement:

"In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.”"

But wait. There's more to be said.

If you look at the web page listed above, you'll get the impression that Reformed writers are simply wrong about what Arminians believe. Unfortunately it's not that simple. If you went back and challenged the Reformed writers quoted on that web page,they would no doubt respond roughly as follows: sure the Arminians claim to believe in total depravity, but by denying monergism they show that they actually think there is some ability to choose God independently of God's regeneration. So whatever they may claim, they don't really believe in total depravity. Hence our description of their belief is right, even though they claim it isn't.

Now you see why I originally said that many Reformed would doubt Wright's commitment to total depravity simply because he doesn't believe in all 5 points.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Well I object to the magical nature of ALL the views of ALL factions regarding the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit acts only after Israel leaves Egypt, illuminating what the Rock teaches them. All drank from the Rock, but only Caleb did not resist the Holy Spirits enlightening.

If youre born Christuan the experience is different from being a convert as I was. The Gospel is a wondrous revelation, able to explain why God created us.

Hint

Getting into Heaven isn't the teleos, the goal.

Those in a hurry, led by basal drives, will miss out. Those expressing the image of God imprinted on their being, exercising that attribute, introspecting, reflecting, will benefit fron the leading of the Spirit.

Galatians 6:28For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the spirit will from the spirit reap eternal life.

Note that I spell spirit with a lowercase 's'.