is NT Wright Considered to be Evangelical?

[preachinjesus]

is NT Wright Considered to be Evangelical?

Yes. Every reasonable scholar I know considers him as such. And he considers himself as such...he's nice guy btw.

Does he hold to scriptures as being inerrant/infallible?

Not required belief to be evangelical by most every good definition.

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

Yes...but with more clarity than most around here.

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

He is a groundbreaking theologian on Pauline studies of the past 50 years. In 100 years they'll still be writing about him. He's immensely important.

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!

His justification is different than yours, likely, but that doesn't mean he's heterodox.

I like NT Wright and find him to be a wonderful person and world class theologian.

 

[jaigner]

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!

Friend, N.T. Wright didn't invent an approach. It's a historic approach. As for his position on Scripture, you're fooling yourself if you think he's denying the full reliability of the Bible. I can't think of anyone who affirms biblical reliability more. He's fantastic.

 

[thomas15]

I like NT Wright and find him to be a wonderful person and world class theologian.

So, what does the likeable scholar NT have to say about the base apostasy going on in the evangelical C of E or is his thinking on such a high spiritual level that his teaching transcends such things?

 

[thomas15]

...As for his position on Scripture, you're fooling yourself if you think he's denying the full reliability of the Bible. I can't think of anyone who affirms biblical reliability more. He's fantastic.

The question posed in the OP is not the reliability of the Scriptures, it is the inerrancy/infallibility of the Scriptures. The Bible teaches in Gen ch 1 that Jehovah created the universe in 6 days. Does N.T. Wright teach that Jehovah created out of nothing, by simply speaking the words, that Jehovah created the universe in 6 consecutive 24 hour time blocks?

Does N.T. Wright believe that Noah built a large boat and that a flood came over the entire earth and only 6 human beings survived and that all mankind on the earth today are descended from those 6 people? Does N.T. Wright believe that Moses, armed with only a staff defeated the ruler of the most powerful nation on earth, then lead the Israelites out 400 years of bondage in Egypt and wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, then those Israelites became a great nation?

Does N.T. Wright believe that Jesus fed 5000+ people with 2 minnows and a few slices of bread? Does N.T. Wright believe that Jesus rose from the grave and is now in heaven preparing a place for his in heaven? Does N.T. Wright believe that this Jesus is the only way to the Father and by confessing your sin and placing your faith and trust in the risen Jesus one my have life eternal and this is the only way to avoid eternity in hell?

 

[Greektim]

The question posed in the OP is not the reliability of the Scriptures, it is the inerrancy/infallibility of the Scriptures. The Bible teaches in Gen ch 1 that Jehovah created the universe in 6 days. Does N.T. Wright teach that Jehovah created out of nothing, by simply speaking the words, that Jehovah created the universe in 6 consecutive 24 hour time blocks?

Does N.T. Wright believe that Noah built a large boat and that a flood came over the entire earth and only 6 human beings survived and that all mankind on the earth today are descended from those 6 people? Does N.T. Wright believe that Moses, armed with only a staff defeated the ruler of the most powerful nation on earth, then lead the Israelites out 400 years of bondage in Egypt and wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, then those Israelites became a great nation?

Does N.T. Wright believe that Jesus fed 5000+ people with 2 minnows and a few slices of bread? Does N.T. Wright believe that Jesus rose from the grave and is now in heaven preparing a place for his in heaven? Does N.T. Wright believe that this Jesus is the only way to the Father and by confessing your sin and placing your faith and trust in the risen Jesus one my have life eternal and this is the only way to avoid eternity in hell?

Not sure about his creation theology. But I would probably venture a guess and say no he does not hold to gen. 1 being literal.

Next, i don't know of a single person who believes what you wrote about Noah and the flood.

Next, yes he believes adamantly about Moses and the exodus. That was another of his big researched discoveries, exodus motifs throughout scripture.

I think he believes in the miracles of Jesus, but he definitely believes in the resurrection. He also believes that Jesus is the only way. But he would never say it the way you did ("to avoid eternity in hell"). Nor would I.

 

[thomas15]

Not sure about his creation theology. But I would probably venture a guess and say no he does not hold to gen. 1 being literal.

Next, i don't know of a single person who believes what you wrote about Noah and the flood.

Next, yes he believes adamantly about Moses and the exodus. That was another of his big researched discoveries, exodus motifs throughout scripture.

I think he believes in the miracles of Jesus, but he definitely believes in the resurrection. He also believes that Jesus is the only way. But he would never say it the way you did ("to avoid eternity in hell"). Nor would I.

Based on what you write Greektim, N.T. Wright does not have a high view of Scripture. He does not take the Bible seriously. He picks out some things he believes in and writes off some other things. N.T. Wright therefore is not the spiritual giant you try to make him out to be.

 

[JesusFan]

Friend, N.T. Wright didn't invent an approach. It's a historic approach. As for his position on Scripture, you're fooling yourself if you think he's denying the full reliability of the Bible. I can't think of anyone who affirms biblical reliability more. He's fantastic.

NT Wright would appear to deny though that the scriptures are fully inerrant/infallible from God, and his historical approach to understanding the theology of the Apostle paul tends to have him NOT seeing the clear teaching
of paul that salvation is on an individual basis, by direct personal election, NOT by "Corporate election", and that he seems to see the OT Judaism as better almost 'close" to Gospel, while paul states to us the Old Covenant was replaced by a MUCH superior new One!

So would have to say that while apprecite what he attempted to do for us in reunderstanding the Apostle paul, we just might have ended up with a "different" paul!

 

[preachinjesus]

Based on what you write Greektim, N.T. Wright does not have a high view of Scripture. He does not take the Bible seriously. He picks out some things he believes in and writes off some other things. N.T. Wright therefore is not the spiritual giant you try to make him out to be.

Have you actually read anything by Wright or are you just making some baseless, ad hoc accusation?

 

[JesusFan]

Based on what you write Greektim, N.T. Wright does not have a high view of Scripture. He does not take the Bible seriously. He picks out some things he believes in and writes off some other things. N.T. Wright therefore is not the spiritual giant you try to make him out to be.

{quote} he probably has a higher view on the bible then the rest of his European scholars, as they pretty much tend to lean towards liberal views"nodernistic" approaches..

NOT though what we would define as being 'evangelica;" in the sense American bible scholars definethe term..

His "search for the authetic paul" appears to make us try to see and understand paul different from the way God and paul meant![/quote]

 

[preachinjesus]

So, what does the likeable scholar NT have to say about the base apostasy going on in the evangelical C of E or is his thinking on such a high spiritual level that his teaching transcends such things?

I think he's a nice guy. You know I really believe if most people actually got to know the people they are lambasting and thus remember they are humans it might stifle our unduly harsh rhetoric against them.

 

[preachinjesus]

NOT though what we would define as being 'evangelica;" in the sense American bible scholars definethe term..

Could you please list some sound scholars that provide a good definition about what an evangelical is and so forth...ones you've read. Because the people who I read, they have a pretty broad view.

 

[JesusFan]

Have you actually read anything by Wright or are you just making some baseless, ad hoc accusation?

Have read some of his material..
Would you consider him to be a bekliever in biblical inerrancy/infallibility as we define it here?..

Would you see him a supholding "traditional" views on justification/sotierlogy as has been held by Christians from say time of reformation onward?[/quote]

 

[preachinjesus]

Have read some of his material..
Would you consider him to be a bekliever in biblical inerrancy/infallibility as we define it here?..

No he doesn't, but that doesn't make him or unmake him from being evangelical. Nobody who has done good research into evangelicalism thinks that inerrancy is part of the views.

Wright does hold to authority of the Scriptures. Go and read his intro to Romans that is (I think) still a free PDF download off his site. It's a good read!

Would you see him a supholding "traditional" views on justification/sotierlogy as has been held by Christians from say time of reformation onward?

Could you first define what you mean by "'traditional' views on justification/soteriology? Thanks!

 

[Greektim]

Based on what you write Greektim, N.T. Wright does not have a high view of Scripture. He does not take the Bible seriously. He picks out some things he believes in and writes off some other things. N.T. Wright therefore is not the spiritual giant you try to make him out to be.

Never said he was a spiritual giant. But he certainly is a biblical scholar & theology giant. And I don't know who made you the arbiter of what is correct and incorrect or attaining giant status. I'm a researcher so I love reading and hearing his thoughts. 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.

 

[JesusFan]

Could you please list some sound scholars that provide a good definition about what an evangelical is and so forth...ones you've read. Because the people who I read, they have a pretty broad view.

{quote} Would say that majority of Evangelicals would affirm that the original manuscripts were fully without any errors in them,and that the Bible today is fully infallible in ALl that it affirms, regardles if it is spiritual truth, historical facts etc![/quote]

By that definition, would you still see NT Wright as being an "Evangelical?"

 

[Greektim]

{quote} Would say that majority of Evangelicals would affirm that the original manuscripts were fully without any errors in them,and that the Bible today is fully infallible in ALl that it affirms, regardles if it is spiritual truth, historical facts etc!

By that definition, would you still see NT Wright as being an "Evangelical?"[/QUOTE]
But even that is lose and open to many various suggestions. For instance one can still affirm your definition of infallibility and not hold to a literal reading of gen 1 or the flood account. If he thinks that the point of the myth is to make a theological point, then he is affirming what he believes the Bible is teaching. The Bible does not state "this is an historical fact" but rather veils it in language that could be construed as a purposeful myth. He doesn't reject it b/c he rejects miracles. His defense of the resurrection proves that.

Also, does the above make one an evangelical or a conservative/fundamentalist??? I'm not sure you are giving an adequate definition for evangelicalism.

 

[mandym]

The word "Evangelical" is used so broad it has lost its true meaning anymore. It certainly is not representative of what true Christianity is. It matters not that he or anyone else claims to be Evangelical.

 

[quantumfaith]

By that definition, would you still see NT Wright as being an "Evangelical?"

But even that is lose and open to many various suggestions. For instance one can still affirm your definition of infallibility and not hold to a literal reading of gen 1 or the flood account. If he thinks that the point of the myth is to make a theological point, then he is affirming what he believes the Bible is teaching. The Bible does not state "this is an historical fact" but rather veils it in language that could be construed as a purposeful myth. He doesn't reject it b/c he rejects miracles. His defense of the resurrection proves that.

Also, does the above make one an evangelical or a conservative/fundamentalist??? I'm not sure you are giving an adequate definition for evangelicalism.[/QUOTE]

Excellent!!!!
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

By that definition, would you still see NT Wright as being an "Evangelical?"

But even that is lose and open to many various suggestions. For instance one can still affirm your definition of infallibility and not hold to a literal reading of gen 1 or the flood account. If he thinks that the point of the myth is to make a theological point, then he is affirming what he believes the Bible is teaching. The Bible does not state "this is an historical fact" but rather veils it in language that could be construed as a purposeful myth. He doesn't reject it b/c he rejects miracles. His defense of the resurrection proves that.

Point here is though does he hold to it be free from errors, and that in all that it teaches on, is the truth?
NOT is it truth written to us as myth, but is it literally the truth?

Also, does the above make one an evangelical or a conservative/fundamentalist??? I'm not sure you are giving an adequate definition for evangelicalism.[/QUOTE]

A Bible Evangelical would hold the Bible in same view though as a "conservative fundementalist", as main area of disagreement would be more in the application of the Biblical truth/doctrines, NIOT in what they are!

 

[thomas15]

Have you actually read anything by Wright or are you just making some baseless, ad hoc accusation?

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