Do These beliefs take NT Wright Out From orthodoxy then?

[JonC]

been reading up on his theology, and would appear that he has some more troubling beliefs, in addition to Him not clearly defining salvation in the penal substitutioanry mode, and his peculiar views regarding pauline Justification, as well as not seeming to hold to an inerrant view of scriptures, we can add to those :

"Wright's doctrinal perspectives, with reference to the New Testament, are expressed throughout his writings. In his popular-level book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, he teaches a position referred to as Christian mortalism, meaning that he denies the immortality of the soul, and souls going to heaven upon death.[18] He also advocates a reunion of soteriology and ecclesiology, commenting that such a connection is often neglected in Protestantism. In addition, he is critical of various popular theological ideas, such as the dispensationalist doctrine of the rapture "

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
N.T. Wright

No, I don't think N.T. Wright is unorthodox (although he may be wrong). I'd suggest reading his theology rather than reading on his theology. While many disagree with him, despite their disagreement some (e.g., John Piper) note his commitment to Scripture. What he is saying is not a denial of Paul's words, but a questioning of our interpretation within the context of the epistles (and IMHO he makes some very good observations).

 

[Greektim]

It is an assumption against everyone who opposes his writings by those who support him. You do not know if it is true but you always throw it out there that is might be true. Childish really.

While I concede that I do not know, based on the law of probability in how they exhibit his views, it is easy to level the accusation. It is quite obvious that many here who hate on Wright have not read much of him, only what others say about him.

What I find childish is that you know we are right (Yeshua1 has not read him) but you don't like that so you use this "childish" argument.

 

[Yeshua1]

While I concede that I do not know, based on the law of probability in how they exhibit his views, it is easy to level the accusation. It is quite obvious that many here who hate on Wright have not read much of him, only what others say about him.

What I find childish is that you know we are right (Yeshua1 has not read him) but you don't like that so you use this "childish" argument.

I should have not said that he was not orthodox within his views, as he does hold to Deity of Jesus, death/resurrection, but so see him straying from vital areas such as the scriptures/atonement views, and water baptism!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I don't think N.T. Wright is unorthodox (although he may be wrong). I'd suggest reading his theology rather than reading on his theology. While many disagree with him, despite their disagreement some (e.g., John Piper) note his commitment to Scripture. What he is saying is not a denial of Paul's words, but a questioning of our interpretation within the context of the epistles (and IMHO he makes some very good observations).

I misspoke to call him not within orthodoxy proper, as do see that he upholds the truths of deity of jesus, death/resurrection, BUT also do see him making bad mistakes in areas of Bible, nature of salvation, and in water baptism!

 

[Yeshua1]

1) I don't hold to the conservative or fundie view of inerrancy.

2) Not sure where he says this, but you can make a biblical case that baptism has a necessary function. For what exactly is the issue. But it is certainly necessary for an appeal to God (1 Pet 3) as well as associated with the conversion experience.

3) He actually argues what Paul's view of justification is (clearly you disagree but I bet you have read little as to what he actually says about it), and that it is different from the reformers. You worded that quite poorly.

Can there be any other legitimate view on the scriptures than those held by conservation Christians though, and still be true to the text?

And how can we let slide by a view that hints of roman sacramentalism?

And how can he argue for paul's views on justification, yet disregard as erroneous those views held by historic Christian since Reformation?

 

[JonC]

I misspoke to call him not within orthodoxy proper, as do see that he upholds the truths of deity of jesus, death/resurrection, BUT also do see him making bad mistakes in areas of Bible, nature of salvation, and in water baptism!

From what I've read of him I don't know that he has made that many mistakes. I think that there is validity to many of his observations. Keeping in mind that he is Anglican, there are some areas where I disagree with him and I am not certain of some of his conclusions regarding Paul. What has he wrote regarding the nature of Salvation that you view as a mistake? (I have not read very much of NT Wright).

 

[Revmitchell]

While I concede that I do not know, based on the law of probability in how they exhibit his views, it is easy to level the accusation. It is quite obvious that many here who hate on Wright have not read much of him, only what others say about him.

What does "hate on Wright" mean. How is he hated? Just because he disagrees with him does not mean he hates him.

What I find childish is that you know we are right (Yeshua1 has not read him) but you don't like that so you use this "childish" argument.

You do not know what I like or do not like. If you cannot tell the difference between hate and honest disagreement to the point that you want to shut down any criticism at all through the intolerance of " you have not read him" well then that says more about you than anyone else.

 

[Greektim]

What does "hate on Wright" mean. How is he hated? Just because he disagrees with him does not mean he hates him.



You do not know what I like or do not like. If you cannot tell the difference between hate and honest disagreement to the point that you want to shut down any criticism at all through the intolerance of " you have not read him" well then that says more about you than anyone else.

To "hate on" is a colloquialism for being overly critical of something. So I can tell the difference. It is just an expression. I don't want to shut down criticism. Not at all. In fact, I would encourage it. But I have yet to see someone be critical of Wright's view (for example the NPP) who has adequately explain his view form the foundation (like the wrong view of a works based righteousness/salvation of 2nd temple Judaism) as well as admit his contributions to theology and history (particularly the Quest). If one has read him, those 2 things would be obvious. Thus, the accusation. If that "says" something about me... fine.

 

[JonC]

But I have yet to see someone be critical of Wright's view (for example the NPP) who has adequately explain his view form the foundation (like the wrong view of a works based righteousness/salvation of 2nd temple Judaism) as well as admit his contributions to theology and history (particularly the Quest).

The only criticism that I can think of for NT Wright is that I am not sure that he has defined grace adequately in the Jewish religion. He rightly describes Jewish salvation by grace (salvation, to the Jews, was a matter of Covenant rather than works…and Reformation thought has ignored this fact) but I don’t know that he adequately presents a picture of how they understood that grace (e.g., Arminians, Calvinists and Open Theists all hold to salvation by grace…but they understand that concept differently). Reformation and Lutheran theology does seem to deny the idea of grace that is prevalent in OT Judaism, here I agree with Wright 100%. I believe him to be correct in stressing God’s covenant with Abraham. But I don’t know that Wright’s leap towards a similar view of that grace in Judaism had been defended (or presented/expounded) by Wright.

(Just wanted to say something critical so you can mark that off the bucket list. NT Wright’s view, IMHO, is less problematic than the traditional position - but both take for granted to a degree ideologies within 1st century Judaism that have yet been adequately demonstrated). Wright at least attempts to place Paul's words in context of the early church rather than the Reformation. I may be wrong and I would welcome correction hear (perhaps he has provided what I'm missing and I just .... missed it).

 

[Revmitchell]

To "hate on" is a colloquialism for being overly critical of something. So I can tell the difference. It is just an expression. I don't want to shut down criticism. Not at all.

No sir, that is incorrect. You, in fact, do want to shut down debate which is made clear by your use of the exaggerated statement "hate on Wright".

The only other option is that you do not have a true and reasonable understanding of the proper use of the word "hate".

 

[Inspector Javert]

I missed something:

Is 100% adherence to the Reformed expression of Penal Substitution Theory of the atonement in all of it's details a mark of Orthodoxy now??

I didn't receive that memo.

 

[Greektim]

I missed something:

Is 100% adherence to the Reformed expression of Penal Substitution Theory of the atonement in all of it's details a mark of Orthodoxy now??

I didn't receive that memo.

You must not run in the right crowds

 

[Yeshua1]

From what I've read of him I don't know that he has made that many mistakes. I think that there is validity to many of his observations. Keeping in mind that he is Anglican, there are some areas where I disagree with him and I am not certain of some of his conclusions regarding Paul. What has he wrote regarding the nature of Salvation that you view as a mistake? (I have not read very much of NT Wright).

he makes water baptism as the way/means that we enter in the Kingdom , and he sees election in a corporate view, not individual basis, and that he also seems to infer that we really have no definite salvation, as we need to have that final assessment in judgement day, when God weighs out our good works!

he also avoids the Bible being inerrant, and wants to impose a different sense of authority from them, and also seems to want to deny/walk around, penal substitution !

 

[Greektim]

he makes water baptism as the way/means that we enter in the Kingdom , and he sees election in a corporate view, not individual basis, and that he also seems to infer that we really have no definite salvation, as we need to have that final assessment in judgement day, when God weighs out our good works!

he also avoids the Bible being inerrant, and wants to impose a different sense of authority from them, and also seems to want to deny/walk around, penal substitution !

Where did you get his corporate election view?

He would not say that salvation is not definite. His point about justification is that its emphasis is future and our works are our vindication. However, if you understand Lordship Salvation, then this is not a problem. God enables disciples to live as a disciple. Therefore, the future vindication is assured in present justification. He says as much.

Your inerrancy thing isn't important. I'm not sure to which authority you are referring.

As for the atonement, can you watch this video and tell me where Wright is off on the atonement? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8CY5iC_ww

 

[JonC]

he makes water baptism as the way/means that we enter in the Kingdom , and he sees election in a corporate view, not individual basis, and that he also seems to infer that we really have no definite salvation, as we need to have that final assessment in judgement day, when God weighs out our good works!

he also avoids the Bible being inerrant, and wants to impose a different sense of authority from them, and also seems to want to deny/walk around, penal substitution !

If you will provide reference to his material I’d appreciate it. I’m not saying that you are wrong EXCEPT perhaps that you infer that he implies we really have no definite salvation - his writing seems to indicate otherwise (see, for example, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, pg. 250 where Wright states that “all those who are ‘in him’ are ‘reckoned’ to have died and been raised with him, so that from God’s point of view their sins are no longer accounted against them and they stand on resurrection ground” and “The present verdict [justified] gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it”). I do not see Wright denying definite salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you will provide reference to his material I’d appreciate it. I’m not saying that you are wrong EXCEPT perhaps that you infer that he implies we really have no definite salvation - his writing seems to indicate otherwise (see, for example, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, pg. 250 where Wright states that “all those who are ‘in him’ are ‘reckoned’ to have died and been raised with him, so that from God’s point of view their sins are no longer accounted against them and they stand on resurrection ground” and “The present verdict [justified] gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it”). I do not see Wright denying definite salvation.

He, to me, would be someone trying to create a 21st Century "new theology', that seeks to bring back together Christiandom, as he seems to be more in line with what catholics and others state concerning the nature of the atonement and the church/kingdom than Evangelical Christians are!

 

[preachinjesus]

He, to me, would be someone trying to create a 21st Century "new theology', that seeks to bring back together Christiandom, as he seems to be more in line with what catholics and others state concerning the nature of the atonement and the church/kingdom than Evangelical Christians are!

#smh :BangHead::BangHead::tonofbricks::tonofbricks:

 

[JonC]

He, to me, would be someone trying to create a 21st Century "new theology', that seeks to bring back together Christiandom, as he seems to be more in line with what catholics and others state concerning the nature of the atonement and the church/kingdom than Evangelical Christians are!

You may be right and I may be missing something, but I simply do not understand where you find this in his work (it seems so far from what I understand of his theology). I do not agree with him on some issues, but I have not heard or read anything of Wright leaning towards that direction. What did he preach or write that leads you to this conclusion?