NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

Frogster · Sep 29, 2009

I wonder how bad speaker Paul,would be received at todays cemetary..oooops,meant to say seminar.....

Frogster · Sep 29, 2009

ebia said:
You're the one creating false dichotomies.

Can you please stop evading, and properly answer the question I've asked numerous time.

Heheh,dude,you can ask me that 1000 times,it doesn't bother me one bit.I posted enough for you to see.Revelation trumps head any time.Paul called all his previous credentials garbage.And he was taught by Gamaliel.

ebia · Sep 29, 2009

Frogster said:
Heheh,dude,you can ask me that 1000 times,it doesn't bother me one bit.I posted enough for you to see.Revelation trumps head any time.Paul called all his previous credentials garbage.And he was taught by Gamaliel.

You have not given a straightfoward answer to my question and refuse to do so. I the only conclusion I am left with is that you can see the contradition in your position and refuse to admit and deal with it. On the basis of that lack of integrity I can see no possibility of productive further discussion.

MamaZ · Sep 30, 2009

It is not that the men are scholars that makes them any different from any other man. For truth comes from the Holy Spirit and not mens intellect. For it is the Spirit that leads a man into all truth. So one may study all day long and if the Lord does not lead one into truth what good is all this study but wisdom of men?

MamaZ · Sep 30, 2009

What does scripture say about wisdom of men?

1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Catherineanne · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
I also dont like when a scholar is given to much credence,or is over quoted.

Bishop Tom is not just any old scholar. He is a very fine evangelical theologian, who is capable of bringing a tremendous knowledge of history to bear on his faith. I am not at all evangelical, but I can read what he says, and appreciate the devotion, the thought, the prayer and the study that underlie it.

In other words, sometimes there is a reason why theologians have a good reputation. It is somewhat small minded to write them off for being valued by other people, don't you think?

Catherineanne · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
The cross does not come by intellect does it?

Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.

Catherineanne · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
Actually ,Paul knew himself best said..

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.

And in 2 Corinthians he said a similar thought,which takes down your argument fot higher learning.

2 Cor 1:13 For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and acknowledge and I hope you will fully acknowledge—

Jesus said the same thing.

Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

Galatians is quite clear also.Whan Paul reiterates the same thing as Peter in Acts 15,it does not take higher knowledge to understand the temperature of those who wanted to put a yoke of bondage on believers,does it?

So despite the "relationship" (Tom view)between Jew and Gentile,Paul stood against the collective mentality of the law,and the persecutors of those who would not submit to the law,did he not? He fought clearly on the object scriptural views,not the relationship of the two,unless you can post scripture that would be of any relevance.

Your personal gospel is one of anti intellectualism, and you call Paul and Our Lord to witness to your gospel?

And in the process you deride actual respected theologians for not doing the same thing, and regard an intellectual approach to Scripture as a yoke of bondage?

Interesting approach; you have recreated our faith in your own image.

Good luck with that.

dies-l · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
Heheh,dude,you can ask me that 1000 times,it doesn't bother me one bit.I posted enough for you to see.Revelation trumps head any time.Paul called all his previous credentials garbage.And he was taught by Gamaliel.

Interestingly, you are ignoring the bigger picture, which is that Paul was a well educated man, and that because of his deep understanding of the Jewish Scripture, his ability to form a well reasoned argument, and his eloquence, his writings lay the foundation for the Church's understanding of the Gospel. I don't think that it is any coincidence that God used a well educated Jewish scholar to lay the foundation for the majority of post pentecost Christian thought.

And, I agree with you that revelation is important. But, this does not mean that diligent study is unimportant. Like you, I have known well educated people who were spiritual idiots, because they did not know how to listen to God's voice. Likewise, I have known people who have had revelations, but because they refused to study the Scriptures, were unable to discern that the spirit from which they received the revelation was not the Spirit of God. Revelation and study are two important building blocks to a well grounded faith in Christ. To treat them as an either/or proposition is absurd and betrays a significant lack of understanding of both Scripture and Church history.

Frogster · Sep 30, 2009

MamaZ said:
What does scripture say about wisdom of men?

1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching was not in enticing words of human wisdom, but in proof of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Frogster · Sep 30, 2009

Rather than have people get on a soapbox about intellect.The thread was to learn about NPP,the new perspective on Paul,and just what is this perspective.It was not an obscure issue.I even saw a debate article in a popular magazine called Chrisitianity Today.Where a fellow named Piper was debating Wright about justification.Sooner or later,perhaps someone will come along,that is from the other side,and can give some info.

dies-l · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
Rather than have people get on a soapbox about intellect.The thread was to learn about NPP,the new perspective on Paul,and just what is this perspective.It was not an obscure issue.I even saw a debate article in a popular magazine called Chrisitianity Today.Where a fellow named Piper was debating Wright about justification.Sooner or later,perhaps someone will come along,that is from the other side,and can give some info.

May I suggest this as a beginning point for this discussion? It is relatively brief, but has a fair amount of depth to it. Why don't we all read through it thoroughly before commenting further on the topic.

Yab Yum · Sep 30, 2009

If Wright is right then Luther was wrong.
Alistair McGrath.

dies-l · Sep 30, 2009

dies-l said:
May I suggest this as a beginning point for this discussion? It is relatively brief, but has a fair amount of depth to it. Why don't we all read through it thoroughly before commenting further on the topic.

Some other articles that may be helpful in this discussion:
Paul in Different Perspectives by N.T. Wright
Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans by N.T. Wright
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Gospel_Theology_Galatians.pdf
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf

I have not yet read these, but I plan on doing so and commenting as appropriate. I encourage others to take time to read through some of these articles and share your thoughts. If you are unable or unwilling to do so little as to read through a 15-40 page article on a given subject, then I would submit that your opinion on the topic is founded solely in ignorance and unworthy of consideration.

Catherineanne · Sep 30, 2009

Yab Yum said:
If Wright is right then Luther was wrong.
Alistair McGrath.

That is just a candy floss comment. Looks attractive, but no substance whatever.

Luther was not God; he was very, very human, and very, very fallible. Certainly he was wrong about many things, not least the vitriolic way he attacked those who disagreed with him. Nobody claims that what he said was infallible, or the last word in anything.

Questioning the Reformation and what it did and did not achieve is not about dissing Luther, however, but about revisiting the most important aspects of our faith, and evaluating them in the light of current thinking.

I am not an evangelical, but I certainly agree with Bishop Tom that the Reformation did not go far enough in some areas. It replaced a human Pope with a paper one, without defining clearly enough what authority in relation to Scripture actually is, and what we mean when we say the Bible has authority.

For people to come along and use flippant sound bytes to dismiss what are well thought out, well constructed views does not say anything whatever about Bishop Tom's erudition. What it speaks volumes about is people with a chip on their shoulder, who think it is fair to suggest obliquely that a lifetime spent studing Scripture is a lifetime wasted.

Such an attitude is not one to be proud of, imo.

Frogster · Sep 30, 2009

Yab Yum said:
If Wright is right then Luther was wrong.
Alistair McGrath.

Yes,I would be interested in hearing more,thanks.

ebia · Sep 30, 2009

MamaZ said:
So one may study all day long and if the Lord does not lead one into truth what good is all this study but wisdom of men?

Has anyone said otherwise?

ebia · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
Rather than have people get on a soapbox about intellect.The thread was to learn about NPP,the new perspective on Paul,and just what is this perspective.

Okay. I pointed out early on that the New Perspective is not a single perspective - the perspective of Tom Wright will be different that that of, lets, say, Jimmy Dunn. Its rather difficult to say much about the New Perspective that is specific without being misleading.

It was not an obscure issue.I even saw a debate article in a popular magazine called Chrisitianity Today.

Christianity Today has published several articles by Tom Wright.

Where a fellow named Piper was debating Wright about justification.

John Piper is one person in strong disagreement with Tom Wright over some of +Tom's perspective - specifically justification by faith. It would be good to see the two of them publish a book together debating the point in the sort of format Wright has done with Crossan (on Resurrection) and Borg (The Meaning of Jesus).

If you want to read Piper's book critiquing Tom Wright, by all means do so. But find out what exactly he is critiquing by reading some Tom Wright first. And then make the judgement for yourself.

Sooner or later,perhaps someone will come along,that is from the other side,and can give some info.

We come back to the question - why are you so reluctant to read some of what he says for yourself? For a top theologian he is also a very accessable writer.

With regard to Luther, we need first to note that Tom Wright regards himself as in the Reformed tradition, and therefore more frequently in-sync with Calvin than Luther. But yes, he does say that there are areas where the Reformers did not get things perfect - that Luthers understanding of Justification by Faith was an improvement on medieval Catholicism but can be reformed further. Likewise with Luther's perspective on repentance.

The reformers themselves did not regard their work as the last word; neither should we. (And just in case anyone notes that Tom Wright has a book entitled "The Last Word" I had better point out that he hates the title, which was chosen by the American publisher - the English edition goes under his title of "Scripture and the Authority of God".)

ebia · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
And that Galatians is not about what "most" people think,as fas as Paul was talking more about cultural acceptance into the covenant.

He would say that Galatians and some of Romans has commonly been misunderstood in part, but you may well find that what he is saying is not as far from where you already are as you fear.

He would also say that what tends to happen in the Evangelical and Reformed circles is that people read Galatians and Romans, form a system from that, and then try to fit Ephesians, Philippians and the Gospels into that, and that they ought to try seeing what happens if they do it the other way around and start with Ephesians and Philippians instead. What you end up with isn't something completely different, but signficantly different in places and a lot more coherent. Problems that get some people assuming that Ephesians wasn't written by Paul simply evaporate.

ittarter · Sep 30, 2009

Frogster said:
Rather than have people get on a soapbox about intellect.The thread was to learn about NPP,the new perspective on Paul,and just what is this perspective.It was not an obscure issue.I even saw a debate article in a popular magazine called Chrisitianity Today.Where a fellow named Piper was debating Wright about justification.Sooner or later,perhaps someone will come along,that is from the other side,and can give some info.

I have already given you some basic information about NPP. I don't know why you ignored it.

You were the one who chose to get up on a soap box about intellect, instead of discussing NPP. Because NPP is different from what you say is "revelation," namely, the traditional Protestant reading of Paul, you immediately invalidate all of NPP as "head knowledge."

NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Senior Contributor

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

dies-l

Guest

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

dies-l

Guest

Veteran

dies-l

Guest

Well-Known Member

Galatians is the best!

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Non-Metaphysical Christian Critic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency