Featured N. T. Wright on women bishops

I did make comments on the OP already. But the thread has quickly deteriorated.

 

then

So your basic contention with Wright is that he is anti-dispensational??? Big deal. If you ask me, he is only bring to light what many others have been saying for a while. He just happens to be far more eloquent than many in the past. You should read his Surprised by Hope to find out a bit more what he means in that statement you quoted. "Eschatology" in the ears of dispies is rapture and tribulation. "Eschatology" with him and me started back w/ Jesus who established God's reign and has brought in the first fruits of new creation (the age of life; always unfortunately translated eternal life) w/ his resurrection. He does a good job dismantling the rapture interpretation of 1 thess 4-5. And he writes it in a very laymen level. We are the eschatological people of God.

And he has to keep defending his view on the 2nd coming b/c he is adamant when interpreting places like the "son of man coming on the clouds" as a reference to Jesus' vindication/ascension and NOT his return (especially since it is a quote from Dan. 7 which clearly says the son of man going to God not to earth). But people have their traditions even in interpretation and just reach to conclusions that he must not believe in a second coming.

And having 1 book in your hand does not grasp Wright's theological method at all. Get through even one of his books in the Origins series and I'll be impressed. That series is his mangum opus of scholarship. So when you speak of Wright with terms like "hype" then I am confident that you have not read much (I'll grant you may have read a tid bit). You could say that he has championed "the quest" being the evangelicals go to quester. But I never hear you guys commend him for that.

For me, he has made the Bible more cohesive and brought continuity to it better than any dispensational writer I've ever read, and I've read my share of 'em. I am reading Dempster's Dominion and Dynasty right now and it talks about viewing the text w/ a wide angle lense rather than the zoom lense. Wright is a master at explaining (especially w/ history) the over arching story of Scripture. He even does a good job of demonstrating how Paul's writings fit into that story (what he might call the Israel story).

As a side note and question, what all of Wright have you read??? If you are having trouble understanding his message, then it may help if we know what experience you have with the man and his writings.

 

This also goes to help what Wright meant in his quotes about the church getting a lot of stuff incorrect.

 

And, if you order in the next 15 minutes, I will double the four volume book set. And, with each order, you get a free book that documents British royalty going to church. Act now and we will send you a picture of Mr. Wright kissing Prince Charles royal ring. Call 1-800-ANGLICAN now. Thats 1-800-ANGLICAN.

 

why is it so hard for people to answer what books of Wright they have read?

 

I have not read a one. My reading is pretty much the Bible. I do read books explaining the differences in doctrine of the various denominations. The reason I would not bother to read his writings is their basic doctrine being so flawed, from infant baptism, to once being part of the Catholic Church, and still follow much of their lituregy. They believe in a hieracrcy, not a local autonomous church. They use creeds and the "Book of Common Prayer." Why are those needed if one has the Bible?

 

I never said it was needed. I appreciate your answer and agree with a lot of it. I just find it frustrating that two people in this thread have been asked a rather simple question and they dodge it. It just seems like pretty simple logic in that if you want to really criticize someones writing and have strong opinions on them then you should actually read the works and not just gather information from secondary sources.

 

Since your last post misrepresenting my position and post was completely deleted you should be careful not to continue this behavior.

 

No that is not what I have said at all.

I, nor anyone else I have read here, have said this.

People have responded to you, they just have not given you the answers you seemingly want. Personally, I do not "support" Anglican Bishops. Once again, I will say that my opinion on this has been if you or anyone else is going to take such a hard stance against someone they should at least read their writings for themselves in order to understand it. And I for the life of me cannot understand why you guys will not just say "I have read _____" or "I have not read any of his works."

 

Thanks for the warning old thomas.

 

On that we agree. Even when we do not, I find you refreshingly completely clear and honest about your positions.

 

Listen, I don't want to argue over the man or his theology any more. I like him, you don't. I know his views and his flaws. I don't think you know them as well as I do, but who cares. Let's move on to gospel issues rather than this peripheral one.

 

Thank you saturn. I must say you always give good thoughts around here and I always find myself either agreeing with you or forced to reconsider something. I appreciate that.

 

Actually S/N I have a very good commentary on the Book of Reveletion by an Anglican named Philip Edgecumbe Hughes. Takes the Biblical amillennial position and reads much like a devotional. Also have his commentary on Hebrews but have used it very little, no longer teach! Following is a quote from his commentary on Revelation which endeared him to me. Actually here are two I used when teaching Revelation:

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes in his commentary on the Book of Revelation writes specifcally, though eloquently, of the apocalyptic language used in Revelation as follows [Introduction, page 7ff].

Hughes also writes [page 57] very eloquently and convincingly on the Security of the Believer, as follows:

 

Which is one of the reasons I gave up on this thread. I think there is a lack of honesty here. It is not that anyone is lying, but plenty are passing judgment on a man's writings but won't admit to the extent of what they have read (lack of honesty). Even worse, I've heard the "Well I read his book, *&^^%$$, and that was enough." Some of my favorite discussions have been w/ people who have given Wright a fair treatment and decent reading and disagreed. There is a genuine discussion of the issues b/c the issues are known and known to be known. That is not the case here. I feel like you don't know much of his view (but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong here if you'd prove it) and I certainly don't know that you know Wright (b/c you won't tell us what you've read of him).

But I'm not going to beat this horse any more. It is closer to politics to force the issue. Carry on brethren.