N. T. Wright on women bishops

[Revmitchell]

Honesty is always good. For the sake of honesty, what books have your read by Wright that has led you to your conclusions about him?

I have not posted any conclusions about him. I responded to posts that dared someone to question him. I responded to posts that have set him up on a pedalstool high above everyone else.

As far as my view of him I disagree with his view on Paul's writings. He criticizes one extreme and resolves it by creating another one.

 

[TadQueasy]

In other words, you have not read any of his books. Thanks, for proving what Tim was saying.

 

[Revmitchell]

In other words, you have not read any of his books. Thanks, for proving what Tim was saying.

Again a little honesty goes a long way. I have not said that and my post proves nothing of the sort. Apparently you do not want Wright questioned either. Nothing academic about that.

 

[TadQueasy]

Then feel free to clear it all up by listing the books you have read by him.

 

[thomas15]

This post makes it clear that you have read zero of his books or scholarly journals. ... .

Not true. I hold in my hands a book titled Paul (in fresh perspective)

N.T.Wright 2009 Fortress Press first paperback edition 2009

 

[Revmitchell]

Then feel free to clear it all up by listing the books you have read by him.

It doesn't clear anything up since your premise if false. The premise being "how dare you question Wright!" Since that is what you are defending. Of course that is what hyper-intellectuals do, If you question their position then you must not be as smart or well read as they are, therefore you should just shut up.

 

[TadQueasy]

Thank you again for proving it. You have now been asked 2 times to list his books you have read. You refuse to answer, but in reality have answered loud and clear. And then to top it off in frustration you resort to telling me to shut up. How very mature of you, sir.

 

[thomas15]

:BangHead: Good grief :tonofbricks:

My problem w/ most of you guys who bash Wright is that it is not b/c you have read him and thus can offer a fair treatment of his views and then disagree.

You do not help your cause (what ever it might be) by being critical of those who have the nerve to say unkind things about the beloved NT Wright but manage to avoid addressing the actual comments on the thread.

 

[thomas15]

Thank you again for proving it. You have now been asked 2 times to list his books you have read. You refuse to answer, but in reality have answered loud and clear. And then to top it off in frustration you resort to telling me to shut up. How very mature of you, sir.

I have read Wright and the other CofE theologians loved by Baptist of this forum (Packer, Stott and so forth). But you miss my point as it goes right over your head. N.T.Wright is a former BISHOP of the Anglican church, a denomination that is in the opinion of many leading the charge to the bottom of the pit. He is also quite silent on this issue.

The article I post in the OP discusses the general drift into the abyss. You may not care because you might think that an Anglican covenant theologian is 10 times better than any Baptist dispensationalist but that should not stop you from a frank discussion of the actual topic in the OP.

 

[TadQueasy]

I have read Wright and the other CofE theologians loved by Baptist of this forum (Packer, Stott and so forth). But you miss my point as it goes right over your head. N.T.Wright is a former BISHOP of the Anglican church, a denomination that is in the opinion of many leading the charge to the bottom of the pit. He is also quite silent on this issue.

The article I post in the OP discusses the general drift into the abyss. You may not care because you might think that an Anglican covenant theologian is 10 times better than any Baptist dispensationalist but that should not stop you from a frank discussion of the actual topic in the OP.

Thank you, I am glad you have read Wright. I would think that would be a no-brainer in criticizing him, but I have learned that most who criticize someone never take the time to read them.

Your point did not go over my head. You have a very valid point and it will be interesting to keep a watch on the whole situation.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have read Wright and the other CofE theologians loved by Baptist of this forum (Packer, Stott and so forth). But you miss my point as it goes right over your head. N.T.Wright is a former BISHOP of the Anglican church, a denomination that is in the opinion of many leading the charge to the bottom of the pit. He is also quite silent on this issue.

The article I post in the OP discusses the general drift into the abyss. You may not care because you might think that an Anglican covenant theologian is 10 times better than any Baptist dispensationalist but that should not stop you from a frank discussion of the actual topic in the OP.

Apparently it does. All they could do in response was personally attack the posters. Not very academic is it.

 

[TadQueasy]

Please show me one place where I have personally attacked any poster? You are the one who resorted to the academic response of "shut up" when asked to provide a list of books by Wright that you have read.

 

[Revmitchell]

Please show me one place where I have personally attacked any poster? You are the one who resorted to the academic response of "shut up" when asked to provide a list of books by Wright that you have read.

You need to go back and read my post. I told no one to shut up. Those who criticized Wright were told to basically shut up. And you did attack others, instead of addressing the issue you disagreed with you agreed with the other attack that anyone who disagrees with Wright must not have read anything by Wright. Typical hyper-intellectual response. Not so academic.

 

[TadQueasy]

[childish material removed]

 

[Revmitchell]

Very clear.
I have proven the point I wanted to make, and part of what Tim was trying to say here. You keep playing word games if you wish.

Now you have just cut and snipped my post and taken it out of context. Shame on you for misrepresenting what I posted. I have reported it.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Now you have just cut and snipped my post and taken it out of context. Shame on you for misrepresenting what I posted. I have reported it.

Exactly. You were saying that a hyper-intellectual tactic is to tell people to shut up. TadQueasy totally misrepresented it. Perhaps he will apologize for the misrepresentation.

 

[Revmitchell]

Exactly. You were saying that a hyper-intellectual tactic is to tell people to shut up. TadQueasy totally misrepresented it. Perhaps he will apologize for the misrepresentation.

thanks.............

 

[preachinjesus]

Some days I just shake my head in quiet silence at my disappointment with this forum.

Soooo back to the OP...

 

[thomas15]

Thank you, I am glad you have read Wright. I would think that would be a no-brainer in criticizing him, but I have learned that most who criticize someone never take the time to read them.

....

I quote from the book I mentioned titled Paul in fresh perspective pg 140 last para:


It has sometimes been said, astonishingly enough but supposedly on the basis of my work on Jesus, that I have systematically denied the doctrine of the “second coming”. Nothing could be further from the truth, though of course this, too, needs cleaning up in the light of what the New Testament actually says as opposed to what sundry would-be Christian traditions have made of it. For some, alas, the very phrase “second coming” and perhaps the word “eschatology” itself, conjures up visions of the “rapture” as understood within some branches of (mostly North American) fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity, and as set out, at a popular level, in the “Left Behind” series of novels by Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the theology, if you can call it that, which those books embody.


Wright goes on to claim that the dispensational view of Israel is actually anti-jewish. Thats correct, anti-Jewish. But the point is made, pre-trib theology is not Biblical, must not to be taken seriously and probably is based on a series of novels. He cannot help himself, even in light of his superior brain power make the false claim that dispensational theology comes from a series of religious novels, as if the dispensationalist are the only group of evengelicals who write fiction based on the Bible.

Also, not just satisfied with taking the dispensationalist down a peg, Wright basically states that until the advent of the blessed N.T. Wright, many other things that the church at large believed about Paul have to be cleaned up, re-defined and re-thought.

 

[thomas15]

So whats my point? Simple N.T. Wright, like the best selling author and scientist Stephen Hawking, when you get right down to is mainly hype. We like and respect N.T. Wright because by doing so, everyone, regardless of their view of the Bible, will like us. Yea! But take a peek under the hood and what do you see? An average theologian who simply repeats, perhaps with a special twist what his like minded colleagues think.

I'm asked by those skeptical of my knowledge of Wright if I have actually read Wright. This is actually the problem, I have read him and actually tried to make sense of his message and to say the least, I'm not impressed. Not that I have it all figured out, no I don't, but no one, including thomas15 is going around saying that thomas15 is some kind of authority on the Christian faith.