is NT Wright Considered to be Evangelical?

[jaigner]

I've read a book by N.T. Wright but my response is based on information offered in this thread.

Then I would say it's ad hoc and baseless.

 

[JesusFan]

I've read a book by N.T. Wright but my response is based on information offered in this thread.

Just curious...

How would it affect your view IF it was proven that he held to a "less than" viewpoint concerning Biblical inerrancy/infallibility?

 

[thomas15]

.... He's not as far off as some people paint him.

BTW... the reason I quipped about no one seeing the Noah flood incident the same way as you is b/c most people who believe it actually happened believe there were 8 people not 6.

8 people you are quite correct.

N.T. Wright does not hold to an inerrant Scriptures. This beggs the question: Where does he get his theological information from, if not the Scriptures? Answer: he gets it from academic sources outside of the Bible. Personally I don't care what N.T. Wright believes. However, this is a thread which is asking a good question and I'm answering it the way I see it.

I will take your word for it that in person N.T. Wright is a really nice guy. But, in his published teachings he does not have the inerrant Word of God on his side. If you want to consider him to be an evangelical, be my guest. That doesn't change the fact that he teaches doctrine that is not grounded in the Bible.

 

[thomas15]

Just curious...

How would it affect your view IF it was proven that he held to a "less than" viewpoint concerning Biblical inerrancy/infallibility?

I'm just your average IQ but in my personal studies I (and I'm sure you do also) read scholarly and semi- works of theology all the time. It is possible to find truth and good reading information from even secular writers.

But this fawning over an Anglican Scholar who is at heart a liberal when it comes to the Bible, let me say I will, when asked take him to task. N.T. Wright is simply wrong on a number of things.

 

[thomas15]

Then I would say it's ad hoc and baseless.

If it will make you feel better about your friend N.T. Wright then ok. But that doesn't change the truth.

 

[Greektim]

If it will make you feel better about your friend N.T. Wright then ok. But that doesn't change the truth.

Thomas, it sounds like the only thing you hold against Wright is his view of inerrancy. He is a biblical scholar par excellence. He is the tour de force in NT and 2nd temple lit studies. And his assessment of the historical Jesus debate is very good. I think true liberals would laugh at your caricature of labeling him as a liberal.

The funny thing is, there is an ever growing (thought it has always been there) movement to see inspiration and inerrancy quite differently than defined by conservatives and fundamentalists of the past. Canonical approaches and redactive elements are being acknowledged as part of the inspiration process. And synoptic issues that take exegetical gymnastics to leap the hurdle are now no longer that big of a deal in light of concepts like ipsissima vox. Alls I am saying is that modern evangelical scholarship is moving away from what you might call "right." Whether you agree or not, that is where evangelicalism is going. And it is not liberal by any stretch. It is letting the text as evidence determine the doctrine rather than forcing the text to match a doctrine. That is exactly what post-enlightenment views of inspiration and inerrancy have done. Gladly, that is changing back to a pre-modern view.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm just your average IQ but in my personal studies I (and I'm sure you do also) read scholarly and semi- works of theology all the time. It is possible to find truth and good reading information from even secular writers.

But this fawning over an Anglican Scholar who is at heart a liberal when it comes to the Bible, let me say I will, when asked take him to task. N.T. Wright is simply wrong on a number of things.

bishop Wright is to be respected for holding to the bodily ressurection of jesus, but think in reagrds to his attempt to re do pauline theology, "not so respected!"

 

[preachinjesus]

I've read a book by N.T. Wright but my response is based on information offered in this thread.

What book was it?

So you're basing you spiritual judgment on this man, and all the statements you've made disregarding him as a theologian on what has been said in this conversation?

 

[preachinjesus]

N.T. Wright does not hold to an inerrant Scriptures. This beggs the question: Where does he get his theological information from, if not the Scriptures? Answer: he gets it from academic sources outside of the Bible. Personally I don't care what N.T. Wright believes. However, this is a thread which is asking a good question and I'm answering it the way I see it.

I think you need a "Jumps to Conclusions" mat for your office floor.

Actually I'd suggest you take up and read his two volumes The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. They are both excellent texts. Specifically here I challenge you to read his sections on theological prolegomena and report back exactly how, via a critical realist epistemological framework, Wright develops (better than a naive realist) a robust theological position on the accuracy and authority of Scripture that, in fact, answers the critical questions of the text. Then give us your take on how he implements this method in resolving several of the major historiographic questions about the NT text.

But you're not man enough to do that...it's so much easier to sit at home, gripe about people, and make baseless accusations.

But, in his published teachings he does not have the inerrant Word of God on his side. If you want to consider him to be an evangelical, be my guest. That doesn't change the fact that he teaches doctrine that is not grounded in the Bible.

Where, precisely, does Wright come down on inerrancy? How does he reconcile the struggle with an authoritative text that displays different characteristics of historical reporting in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life? If Wright is a hopeless theologian, then how has he actually developed two of the most significant arguments supporting the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the contemporary era?

Maybe you should take a moment and think through whether you have actually dealt, realistically, with the issues being talked about in the thread. Maybe you should reconsider your strategy of name and blame without actually having done the heavy lifting theologically.

 

[preachinjesus]

bishop Wright is to be respected for holding to the bodily ressurection of jesus, but think in reagrds to his attempt to re do pauline theology, "not so respected!"

What specific criticisms of his NPP work do you have problems with? Is it his significant work on developing a second Temple Judaistic framework that informs the Pauline tradition? Is it his consideration of the eschatological motifs? What about the reterival of Pauline theology from the Reformed tradition that had not adequately recnociled his relationship with the Law and Grace?

What specific criticisms, not caret blanc, bland criticisms of Wright NPP work do you have?

 

[preachinjesus]

But this fawning over an Anglican Scholar who is at heart a liberal when it comes to the Bible, let me say I will, when asked take him to task. N.T. Wright is simply wrong on a number of things.

Nobody is fawning over him. (This is like being accused of loving Rick Warren because you think there's more to the discussion than branding him a "heretic.)

Wright is a respected scholar who has done much to move the Church forward in light of the intellectual devastation ravaged by fundamentalism and vapid modernism. He is in a cadre of contemporary scholars who have done more to advance the Kingdom of God than hurt it.

I tire of self-deluded experts who haven't done the heavy lifting but think they can just march around and brand anyone they have an inkling they don't agree with an arch heretic. We need MORE scholars like Wright.

 

[preachinjesus]

How would it affect your view IF it was proven that he held to a "less than" viewpoint concerning Biblical inerrancy/infallibility?

Why is this view on inerrancy/infallibility so important to you? In our conversations we have had I get the sense that I don't fall into the category you create in the doctrinal issue.

Listen I sign my ETS statement every year and affirm the Chicago Statement. But I think you've got a much more specific view of these two things that I'm not sure lines up with the best evangelical scholarship supportiing it.

 

[JesusFan]

What specific criticisms of his NPP work do you have problems with? Is it his significant work on developing a second Temple Judaistic framework that informs the Pauline tradition? Is it his consideration of the eschatological motifs? What about the reterival of Pauline theology from the Reformed tradition that had not adequately recnociled his relationship with the Law and Grace?

What specific criticisms, not caret blanc, bland criticisms of Wright NPP work do you have?

Simple answer here... Cespite his best efforts to "reformulate" for us the "new pauline study" for his theological viewpoints...

We end up at the end of all of his learned research/writtings/discourse with a "different paul and theology", not the ones found in the inspired texts!

Once again, he makes a valid attempt to have us believe that the Church for all this time failed to really see the "Gospel/pauline" aspect of it. but what he fails to reveal to us is that the Gospel/Cross Christ was a radicle declaration of the "new Covenant" between God and man, and thatpaul was addressing the salvation on a "new ModeL', based upon NOT Covenant/Coporate aspects as was under the Old one, but under individual/personal election of us by god in Christ...

Hopes this helps to allow us to see that though NT Wright has made valuable contributions in the areas of Pauline studies, its stillthe truth that his "new paul" was NOT proved by the biblical texts, but by forcing into/unto them external references that can be called into doubt as to jusy HOW accurately they showed us where paul was referencing from in his theology...

he had it come to him directly by God, which would tend to "bypass" all of that!

 

[JesusFan]

Why is this view on inerrancy/infallibility so important to you? In our conversations we have had I get the sense that I don't fall into the category you create in the doctrinal issue.

Listen I sign my ETS statement every year and affirm the Chicago Statement. But I think you've got a much more specific view of these two things that I'm not sure lines up with the best evangelical scholarship supportiing it.

far as I know on this subject...

the 'watershed" on the Bible would be IF one held to the texts being fully accurate and complete in ALL that they detail...

Historically accurate, theologically accurate, for IF there are indeed errors and mistake sin them....

WHY even use them to suppor tthre doctrines of the Christian faith, as ALL of it would be called into "its your interpretation", and that we need extra biblical sources/experts to validate its teachings!

 

[thomas15]

Wright is a respected scholar who has done much to move the Church forward in light of the intellectual devastation ravaged by fundamentalism and vapid modernism. He is in a cadre of contemporary scholars who have done more to advance the Kingdom of God than hurt it.

I tire of self-deluded experts who haven't done the heavy lifting but think they can just march around and brand anyone they have an inkling they don't agree with an arch heretic. We need MORE scholars like Wright.

N.T. Wright for all his brainpower is a respected theologian in the the least christian church to be found on the planet. If he had any integrity he would leave the C of E approx 50 years ago. The same could have been said for Stott and Packer. If you want more scholars associated with the C of E, wish for another J.C. Ryle, who if alive today would not be associated with this group of nitwits.

PS I'm in a bad mood today.

 

[JesusFan]

N.T. Wright for all his brainpower is a respected theologian in the the least christian church to be found on the planet. If he had any integrity he would leave the C of E approx 50 years ago. The same could have been said for Stott and Packer. If you want more scholars associated with the C of E, wish for another J.C. Ryle, who if alive today would not be associated with this group of nitwits.

PS I'm in a bad mood today.

Bottom lin to me in all of this are 2 basic questions regarding our views on NT wright!

1. can we regard as being authortative the wriitings of one holding to a "less than" view on the Bible regarding its authenticity/infallibility?
2. is his "new outlook" on pauline theology actually agree with the biblical understanding or not, no matter "how" scholarly that it seems?

 

[thomas15]

Bottom lin to me in all of this are 2 basic questions regarding our views on NT wright!

1. can we regard as being authortative the wriitings of one holding to a "less than" view on the Bible regarding its authenticity/infallibility?
2. is his "new outlook" on pauline theology actually agree with the biblical understanding or not, no matter "how" scholarly that it seems?

Liberalism was not created in the pews.

 

[jaigner]

N.T. Wright for all his brainpower is a respected theologian in the the least christian church to be found on the planet. If he had any integrity he would leave the C of E approx 50 years ago. The same could have been said for Stott and Packer. If you want more scholars associated with the C of E, wish for another J.C. Ryle, who if alive today would not be associated with this group of nitwits.

PS I'm in a bad mood today.

So a bad mood makes you spread this kind of bull corn around?

N.T. Wright, along with Stott and Packer, have more integrity than any evangelical scholars I can think of. The things you say here are laughable.

 

[thomas15]

So a bad mood makes you spread this kind of bull corn around?

N.T. Wright, along with Stott and Packer, have more integrity than any evangelical scholars I can think of. The things you say here are laughable.

Oh, your right, it's actually the dispies that are ordaining gays to bishop status and looking to worship with the pope.