Any hear Into NT Wright And the "new pauline perspective?"

[Greektim]

For no charge I will help you out. Wright, being a big thinker, has his thoughts focused so high on the plane of human thought that he hasn't noticed that the organism that signs his regular weekly paycheck is drifting out on the open seas, has struck a figurative iceberg and is taking on lots of spiritual water.

Be a pal and before it's too late, send Bishop Wright an email letting him know that his beloved church is sinking in some kind of moral swamp. That is of course unless you agree with the direction the COE, the highly influential Bishop Wrights denomination is headed.

I don't think even he agrees w/ the direction of the CoE. And I appreciate that the man is not just a denominational leader, but a voice for all evangelicals.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I'm not sure that anyone here is arguing that this is a baptist distinctive. It is no more distinctive than reformed theology is to baptist theology. ...

I'm in accord with E.P. Sanders who I believe said he was "a liberal , modern, secularized Protestant." I would put Mr. Wright in the same boat. Much of his work on Paul comes through Sanders work, if my reading is correct.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For no charge I will help you out. Wright, being a big thinker, has his thoughts focused so high on the plane of human thought that he hasn't noticed that the organism that signs his regular weekly paycheck is drifting out on the open seas, has struck a figurative iceberg and is taking on lots of spiritual water.

Be a pal and before it's too late, send Bishop Wright an email letting him know that his beloved church is sinking in some kind of moral swamp. That is of course unless you agree with the direction the COE, the highly influential Bishop Wrights denomination is headed.

Tom, what do you care if the COE falls into the dumper....as I understand, they are State run anyway.

If the guy is an em 'Academic' he can join his fellow Bishop John Shelby Spong & write point-counter-point articles about the possibility of Christs having never existed....then he could completely reveal himself. Of course I dont know the guy so I should shut up.

BTW, quickly & not trying to take this off track, but do you go to the Calvary church off 22 in Easton? If so ping me, Id like to know more bout it.

 

[thomas15]

I don't think even he agrees w/ the direction of the CoE. And I appreciate that the man is not just a denominational leader, but a voice for all evangelicals.

He is a Bishop of the Church of England. He is paid by the Church of England. If He is troubled by the direction of the Church of England then it is one of, if not the best kept secrets of the age.

 

[thomas15]

Tom, what do you care if the COE falls into the dumper....as I understand, they are State run anyway.

If the guy is an em 'Academic' he can join his fellow Bishop John Shelby Spong & write point-counter-point articles about the possibility of Christs having never existed....then he could completely reveal himself. Of course I dont know the guy so I should shut up.

BTW, quickly & not trying to take this off track, but do you go to the Calvary church off 22 in Easton? If so ping me, Id like to know more bout it.

A little to late to say if the COE goes into the dumper. The only reason I bring him up is in response to the fawning over the man by some on this Baptist forum, which in my opinion is becoming more Presbyterian than Baptist.

 

[Greektim]

A little to late to say if the COE goes into the dumper. The only reason I bring him up is in response to the fawning over the man by some on this Baptist forum, which in my opinion is becoming more Presbyterian than Baptist.

Or we are just reaching back to our historic reformed roots


BTW... Wright is a reformed guy too, so I like him for that reason as well.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm not sure that anyone here is arguing that this is a baptist distinctive. It is no more distinctive than reformed theology is to baptist theology. So there is no reason to relocate it to another part of the BB. Since there are baptist who believe the so called NPP (hard to call it new when it has been discussed for 30+ years now), a dialogue in this part of the forum is appropriate. And for no other reasons, it introduces names and views to baptists who are not normally accustomed to these discussions and purview.

Precisely, excellent points GT.

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't think even he agrees w/ the direction of the CoE. And I appreciate that the man is not just a denominational leader, but a voice for all evangelicals.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[AresMan]

In that the Church redefined and misunderstood pauline justification past 2000 years?

I would describe N.T. Wright's soteriology as "hyper-covenantalism."

Reformed Baptists see the New Covenant as equal to the invisible church: the set of all elect. Entrance into the New Covenant is upon faith. The difference from the Old Covenant is that it is not based on physical descent and incorporation or communal blessings, but rather individual faith. The olive tree of the New Covenant is the faithful remnant of Jews from the Old with the believing Gentiles grafted in by faith. The olive tree will forevermore contain only believers.

Orthodox Presbyterians see the New Covenant as equal to the visible church: primarily, the set of all believers and their physical children who are properly given the sign of the covenant--baptism--which succeeded circumcision. Entrance into the New Covenant is by faith or by baptism with the proxy of faith from a believing parent. There is a continuation of the communal structure of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant such that its members can be either regenerate or unregenerate ("covenant breakers").

Federal Vision advocates take the communal idea of the New Covenant further and stretch it to include assemblies that hypothetically may contain no regenerate members. Entrance into the New Covenant is Trinitarian Baptism, which could be performed by an apostate, unregenerate "minister" upon an unregenerate congregant. Roman Catholics are members of the New Covenant, but are not necessarily elect. In this view the New Covenant could contain many more unregenerate than regenerate members (thus, many "covenant breakers").

New Perspective on Paul advocates have some views similar to Federal Vision in their broad, communal view of the New Covenant. However, their soteriology seems to be closer to their covenantal view, and justification itself is more communal than individual.


The more and more "hyper-covenantal" one is, the more one tries to blur the distinctions between covenant Israel and the church and turn everything into communal centrism with seeming sacramentalism rather than individual justification and ordinances redefined from the types and shadows that exist in the Old Covenant.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh, I have read him. The total shakeout from Wright and Sanders et. al is that they believe our own faith becomes our righteousness (i.e. justification), not the imputed righteousness of Christ. Christians who know what they believe are less likely to be lead to doubt fundamental doctrines such as imputation. But not everyone is so equipped, and Wright's new Pauline perspective can be unsettling.

So he would see that our own faith is the basis of God crediting us with salvation?

My readings of him have caused me to question his views on water baptism being the entry way into the Kingdom, and that he seems to imply that we will nOT be really justified before God until end of life review, to see if we did well enoguh long enough to merit our salvation!