N.T. Wright

[JM]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7238584

Is Wright Really Reformed?
In Confessionally Reformed circles, Wright has been at the center of a maelstrom of controversy. That controversy centers around Wright’s recasting of the classical reformation formulation of the doctrine of justification generally, and imputation in particular. What makes the controversy more intriguing than most, however, is that there are many within self-described Confessionally Reformed denominations[6] are not only great supporters of Wright, but they also are insistent that Wright’s casting of the doctrine of justification is completely within the bounds of Reformed Confessional orthodoxy.[7] It is important to note this distinction – such proponents of Wright do not seek merely to have a place at the ecumenical table for Wright; they desire to have his views be representative (usually through their own ministries) of Reformed orthodoxy.

Any thoughts?

 

[higgs2]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7238584





Any thoughts?

I don't think he is really Reformed.

I think he is an Anglican.

 

[JM]

Right, and there is a difference.

 

[higgs2]

sometimes. Most Anglicans are not Calvinists.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Yes, I agree with higgs2, and most Anglicans are a kind of mixture of things - a bit of Reformed, a bit of Catholic, etc.

I personally do not believe one needs to be fully one thing or another.

 

[Tomoz]

Yes, I agree with higgs2, and most Anglicans are a kind of mixture of things - a bit of Reformed, a bit of Catholic, etc.

I personally do not believe one needs to be fully one thing or another.[/

Yes I think this is more on the money. The thing is, if you read his Romans commentary, you'll see that he actually is quite reformed. He isn't a five-pointer (anymore...); but his doctrine of justification doesn't really work without a pretty rigorous theology of predestination and election!
The thing is though, that doesn't rule out being catholic as well.

On the quote, I just don't know why some people get their knickers in such a knot over Tom Wright - granted, he doesn't say everything he believes all at once so you have to read a lot of his stuff before you start to get a handle on him. But the thing is, he doesn't NOT believe in imputation - he just thinks that the passages that are drawn on to speak about it aren't actually speaking about it. But he is so big and clear on participation and imputation is a logical outworking of that.

 

[Iosias]

you have to read a lot of his stuff before you start to get a handle on him.

New Perspectives on Paul
Creation and Covenant
The Shape of Justification

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I've only just begun reading Tom Wright (just finished Simply Christian, and I'm starting his commentary on Luke today), but my first impression is that I'm going to be a huge fan of his.

I was already sympathetic to Anglicanism because of C.S. Lewis, another of my favorite writers. But I guess there are worse things to be than a closet Anglican.


P.S.: What does it mean when people write his name as +Tom Wright? I've been seeing that a lot lately, and I don't get it.

 

[Iosias]

The "+" is symbolic of his office of Bishop. Why? I have no idea

 

[Iosias]

just finished Simply Christian,

I am about half-way through it.

Romans and the Theology of Paul
Gospel and Theology in Galatians

 

[ebia]

P.S.: What does it mean when people write his name as +Tom Wright? I've been seeing that a lot lately, and I don't get it.

Anglican bishops traditionally sign their name as + [first-name] [name-of-see, sometimes in latin abbreviated form]
eg.
+Rowan Cantuar (Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury)
+Michael Exon (Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter)
+Andrew Bendigo (Andrew Curnow, Bishop of Bendigo)
etc.

It's become anglican internet style to use that plus to acknowledge someone as a bishop (and sometimes ++ for an archbishop).

 

[GeorgeTwo]

I've only just begun reading Tom Wright (just finished Simply Christian, and I'm starting his commentary on Luke today), but my first impression is that I'm going to be a huge fan of his.

I'm already a huge fan of the good Bishop's. I have quite a few of his books, including "Simply Christian" mentioned above.

I particularly like his books on Paul. He has helped me understand what Paul is really trying to say.

I don't always agree with Wright, but all of his books are worth reading.

I'm still waiting for his commentary on the book of Revelation, which is due out this year, I hope.

 

[ebia]

I'm already a huge fan of the good Bishop's. I have quite a few of his books, including "Simply Christian" mentioned above.

I particularly like his books on Paul. He has helped me understand what Paul is really trying to say.

I don't always agree with Wright, but all of his books are worth reading.

I'm still waiting for his commentary on the book of Revelation, which is due out this year, I hope.

[/color][/size][/font]

Judging from some of his passing comments I don't think we'll see Revelations for Everyone much before the end of 2009, if then. Acts took a while and he still has the other letters (James, John, Peter, Jude).