• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

is NT Wright Considered to be Evangelical?

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Does he hold to scriptures as being inerrant/infallible?

Does he hold to the Cross and atonement as we do?

is His pauline theology considered to be biblically correct and sound?

Curious, as have read and studied through his "pauline" road, and appears to be rewritting just what justification by grace.faith really means, that the Church has missed it all these years!
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
Does he hold to scriptures as being inerrant/infallible?

Does he hold to the Cross and atonement as we do?

is His pauline theology considered to be biblically correct and sound?

Curious, as have read and studied through his "pauline" road, and appears to be rewritting just what justification by grace.faith really means, that the Church has missed it all these years!
Love NT Wright and would consider him solidly evangelical.

His view on inerrancy/infallibility is one that is not a fundamentalist kind but match many sbc scholars' views.

As far as I know he holds to the cross as atonement.

His pauline theology is not too far off. His perspective is not as extreme as others.

I like this video he did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwHD9SHpKR4
 

Ruiz

New Member
I respect the man, read him, and believe him to be a premiere scholar. I think he is brilliant and anyone desiring to be a scholar needs to read Wright.

However, I will disagree with the above person when he talks about Wright's Pauline theology. His New Perspective is not as radical as some, but it is outside historic Christian teaching and thus I would not consider him an evangelical.
 

mandym

New Member
I respect the man, read him, and believe him to be a premiere scholar. I think he is brilliant and anyone desiring to be a scholar needs to read Wright.

However, I will disagree with the above person when he talks about Wright's Pauline theology. His New Perspective is not as radical as some, but it is outside historic Christian teaching and thus I would not consider him an evangelical.

My view on that as well.
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
I respect the man, read him, and believe him to be a premiere scholar. I think he is brilliant and anyone desiring to be a scholar needs to read Wright.

However, I will disagree with the above person when he talks about Wright's Pauline theology. His New Perspective is not as radical as some, but it is outside historic Christian teaching and thus I would not consider him an evangelical.
But his main point is that it was early on that historic Christians began to abuse the word "justification" and apply it to all sorts of things. So really when you are referring to "historic Christianity" you are speaking of the reformation and on. But he has just uncovered a hugely important fact - 2nd temple Judaism is much more diverse than we thought. We need to read Paul with that in mind. Some may have been after a works based righteousness for a salvation. Others also practiced a works based righteousness to maintain covenant status. I think his views don't distort the meaning of justification as much as people make it out to be. I see it as more of a blending of soteriology w/ ecclesiology (something becoming easier and easier as I move further and further away from dispensationalism).
 

jaigner

Active Member
He is fantastic. In fact, I wonder why anyone would question him being an evangelical. He is one of the most astute, helpful evangelical scholars of our time.
 

Ruiz

New Member
But his main point is that it was early on that historic Christians began to abuse the word "justification" and apply it to all sorts of things. So really when you are referring to "historic Christianity" you are speaking of the reformation and on. But he has just uncovered a hugely important fact - 2nd temple Judaism is much more diverse than we thought. We need to read Paul with that in mind. Some may have been after a works based righteousness for a salvation. Others also practiced a works based righteousness to maintain covenant status. I think his views don't distort the meaning of justification as much as people make it out to be. I see it as more of a blending of soteriology w/ ecclesiology (something becoming easier and easier as I move further and further away from dispensationalism).

Greektim,

He is wrong on so many fronts on his views. If he is correct, Christianity's view of justification has been wrong since the first Century. I am not going to get into a debate on this issue as I believe there are great books out there who deal more extensively with Wright. Unlike other debates we engage in on this forum, this one is being advanced by a premiere scholar, so addressing him takes more than a post on the internet. As you know, Wright cannot be addressed easily in a short format, this is a very engaged and scholarly debate.

There are many books I have read on the subject, but one I read recently dealt with the issues fairly well and I believe shows the fallacy of his historic approach. That book is, "By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification." There are many contributors but Guy Waters is the main editor. I have tremendous respect for Guy as well.

Yet, I think we can admit that including him into evangelicalism is disputed by many scholars. So, I am not alone in my assessment and while I would go to hear him speak, I would not welcome him into my pulpit to teach.

Finally, as noted before, as a Scholar there are few the equal of Wright. I do not want to appear to disrespect him as a person or scholar. I have a strong disagreement with him on this issue, but if he were sitting beside him, I would be honored to converse and learn from him.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
If you like NT Wright (as do I) I might also suggest that you read some of Dr. John Polkinghorne's works. Another brilliant mind, theologically and scientifically.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Greektim,

He is wrong on so many fronts on his views. If he is correct, Christianity's view of justification has been wrong since the first Century. I am not going to get into a debate on this issue as I believe there are great books out there who deal more extensively with Wright. Unlike other debates we engage in on this forum, this one is being advanced by a premiere scholar, so addressing him takes more than a post on the internet. As you know, Wright cannot be addressed easily in a short format, this is a very engaged and scholarly debate.

There are many books I have read on the subject, but one I read recently dealt with the issues fairly well and I believe shows the fallacy of his historic approach. That book is, "By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification." There are many contributors but Guy Waters is the main editor. I have tremendous respect for Guy as well.

Yet, I think we can admit that including him into evangelicalism is disputed by many scholars. So, I am not alone in my assessment and while I would go to hear him speak, I would not welcome him into my pulpit to teach.

Finally, as noted before, as a Scholar there are few the equal of Wright. I do not want to appear to disrespect him as a person or scholar. I have a strong disagreement with him on this issue, but if he were sitting beside him, I would be honored to converse and learn from him.


Isn't the biggest problem with his theology though that he tends to downplay the large diiference between the law and the Grace of God, that paul really was refuting the held Jewish idea that one could become right before God by observing/keeping the Law of God, but the Cross of Christ IS ONLY means by which God is able to justify us...

he seems to see the Gospel as 'adding" to the jewish OT ways of justification, but the Gospel is a "brand new" covenant relationship between God and man!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
What then, in a nut shell is his view of inerrancy/infallibility?

he thinks that when one uses terms like "inerrancy/infallibility" while discusiing the scriptures, its almost like making the Bible a form of protestant papacy!

He does not have to have all things wriiten in the Bible be accurate historically or factually, but that the "truth" of Jesus and His work is rightly interpreted....

Would think he would align himself with say the CS lewis school on the Bible...
Genesis NOT factual account in that we are expected to take everything literally, talking snake, adam/eve etc, but that the Bible uses that as "myth" to illustrate on our terms that sin and evil happened to mess up Gods plans!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ruiz

New Member
Isn't the biggest problem with his theology though that he tends to downplay the large diiference between the law and the Grace of God, that paul really was refuting the held Jewish idea that one could become right before God by observing/keeping the Law of God, but the Cross of Christ IS ONLY means by which God is able to justify us...

he seems to see the Gospel as 'adding" to the jewish OT ways of justification, but the Gospel is a "brand new" covenant relationship between God and man!

Different than that. Here is an article. The article notes the distinctions in the NPP.

First, regarding first-century Judaism, the New Perspective on Paul claims that the Judaism of Paul's day was not really a religion of self-righteousness where salvation depended on human works and human merit. So we've misunderstood Paul because we have misunderstood what he was up against. The Pharisees weren't legalists after all, it turns out. But they have been misunderstood by biased exegetes who erred because they superimposed Augustine's conflict with Pelagius and Luther's conflict with Roman Catholicism onto their reading of Paul's conflict with the Judaizers.
Instead, according to the New Perspective, there was a strong emphasis on divine grace in the Judaism of Paul's time, and the Pharisees were not really guilty of teaching salvation by human merit. This is the one basic point upon which Sanders, Dunn, and Wright are all in full agreement. They base that claim primarily on their study of extrabiblical rabbinical sources, and they treat the matter as if it were settled in the world of New Testament scholarship—even though it seems to me that there are still plenty of weighty New Testament scholars who would strongly disagree with them. But that's the starting point of their view: first-century Judaism was not legalistic after all. For centuries, Christians have simply misunderstood what the Pharisees taught.
Second, regarding the apostle Paul, the New Perspectivists are very keen to absolve Paul from the charge of anti-semitism—and therefore they deny that he had any serious or significant theological disagreement with the Jewish leaders of his time. Obviously, if the religion of the Pharisees was a religion of grace and not human merit, then Paul would have had no fundamental disagreement with them on the doctrine of salvation.
But Paul's real controversy with the Jewish leaders, we are told, had to do with the way they treated Gentiles. His conflict with the Judaizers and the Pharisees had to do more with racial and cultural differences than with any kind of soteriological debate. They tell us that Paul's great concern actually was for racial harmony and diversity in the covenant community. So the only significant complaint Paul had with the Pharisees and the Judaizers was their racial and cultural exclusivity.
Third, regarding the gospel, the New Perspective on Paul claims that the gospel is a message about the Lordship of Christ, period. It is the declaration that Christ, through His death and resurrection, has been shown by God to be Lord of creation and king of the cosmos. We would agree that this truth is an essential feature of the New Testament gospel, of course. But we would not agree with advocates of the New Perspective when they say the gospel is therefore not really a message about personal and individual redemption from the guilt and condemnation of sin.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Different than that. Here is an article. The article notes the distinctions in the NPP.

Apostle paul seemed though to see the Judaizers as "perverted" the Gospel , and also saw that the pharisees and Judaism itself had degenerated into a system where they indeed did see salvation was by works of the law, so paul would not agree with Dr wright at this main point!
 

thomas15

Well-Known Member
he thinks that when one uses terms like "inerrancy/infallibility" while discusiing the scriptures, its almost like making the Bible a form of protestant papacy!

He does not have to have all things wriiten in the Bible be accurate historically or factually, but that the "truth" of Jesus and His work is rightly interpreted....

Would think he would align himself with say the CS lewis school on the Bible...
Genesis NOT factual account in that we are expected to take everything literally, talking snake, adam/eve etc, but that the Bible uses that as "myth" to illustrate on our terms that sin and evil happened to mess up Gods plans!

What then is his big fan base? Are his books selling to the Anglicans who are blind to the self-distruction going on in their denomination, or the "evangelicals" in the C of E who are holding out for a miracle that the denomination will heal itself or are preterist presbyterians and baptist buying his books?
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You’ll never answer the question of whether N.T. Wright is an evangelical until you define the term “evangelical”.

I've read quite a few of his books and learned a lot from each one.

His books are intellectually challanging and will make you reconsider aspects of your faith that you have taken for granted.
My faith has grown by reading each one.

Rob
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
You’ll never answer the question of whether N.T. Wright is an evangelical until you define the term “evangelical”.

One who holds to the cardinal essentials of the Christian faith, such as Virgin Birth/trinity/jesus as Sole way to god/Cross ONLY ,eans to save us/man cannot getsaved by own merits apart from grace of God/Bible in infallible etc!


I've read quite a few of his books and learned a lot from each one.

His books are intellectually challanging and will make you reconsider aspects of your faith that you have taken for granted.
My faith has grown by reading each one.

Rob

No doubt that he is a welleducated and articulate person, and does defend the resurrection of jesus, which is commendable BUT

Am leery of how much those of us are "fawning" overe someone who denies the full reliability o fthe scriptures, as well as inventing a novel approach to reading the theology of Paul!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
What then is his big fan base? Are his books selling to the Anglicans who are blind to the self-distruction going on in their denomination, or the "evangelicals" in the C of E who are holding out for a miracle that the denomination will heal itself or are preterist presbyterians and baptist buying his books?

Think its same way that CS lewis is loked upon highly as a spokesman for the faith, even though both he and NT Wright would deny the full reliability of the scriptures...

its like we will be able to overlook the bad, just to have the good!

He does a nice job in handling the biblical basis for the resurrection of Christ, but as regarding his novel way to re interprete paul based upon the "new studies" "Not so much!"
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wright is that most dangerous of false teachers, the one who is only just a little bit wrong in his doctrine. It only takes one drop of cyanide to turn your healthful glass of orange juice into deadly poison.

My advice is to avoid him like the plague. There are plenty of intellectual writers who teach the truth. Read them.

Steve
 
Top