N. T. Wright on women bishops

[Greektim]

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.

I did make comments on the OP already. But the thread has quickly deteriorated.

 

[Greektim]

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.

then

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.

So your basic contention with Wright is that he is anti-dispensational??? Big deal. If you ask me, he is only bring to light what many others have been saying for a while. He just happens to be far more eloquent than many in the past. You should read his Surprised by Hope to find out a bit more what he means in that statement you quoted. "Eschatology" in the ears of dispies is rapture and tribulation. "Eschatology" with him and me started back w/ Jesus who established God's reign and has brought in the first fruits of new creation (the age of life; always unfortunately translated eternal life) w/ his resurrection. He does a good job dismantling the rapture interpretation of 1 thess 4-5. And he writes it in a very laymen level. We are the eschatological people of God.

And he has to keep defending his view on the 2nd coming b/c he is adamant when interpreting places like the "son of man coming on the clouds" as a reference to Jesus' vindication/ascension and NOT his return (especially since it is a quote from Dan. 7 which clearly says the son of man going to God not to earth). But people have their traditions even in interpretation and just reach to conclusions that he must not believe in a second coming.

And having 1 book in your hand does not grasp Wright's theological method at all. Get through even one of his books in the Origins series and I'll be impressed. That series is his mangum opus of scholarship. So when you speak of Wright with terms like "hype" then I am confident that you have not read much (I'll grant you may have read a tid bit). You could say that he has championed "the quest" being the evangelicals go to quester. But I never hear you guys commend him for that.

For me, he has made the Bible more cohesive and brought continuity to it better than any dispensational writer I've ever read, and I've read my share of 'em. I am reading Dempster's Dominion and Dynasty right now and it talks about viewing the text w/ a wide angle lense rather than the zoom lense. Wright is a master at explaining (especially w/ history) the over arching story of Scripture. He even does a good job of demonstrating how Paul's writings fit into that story (what he might call the Israel story).

As a side note and question, what all of Wright have you read??? If you are having trouble understanding his message, then it may help if we know what experience you have with the man and his writings.

 

[Greektim]

This also goes to help what Wright meant in his quotes about the church getting a lot of stuff incorrect.

 

[thomas15]

For me, he has made the Bible more cohesive and brought continuity to it better than any dispensational writer I've ever read, and I've read my share of 'em. I am reading Dempster's Dominion and Dynasty right now and it talks about viewing the text w/ a wide angle lense rather than the zoom lense. Wright is a master at explaining (especially w/ history) the over arching story of Scripture. He even does a good job of demonstrating how Paul's writings fit into that story (what he might call the Israel story).

I bring to this forum a simple random sampling of his writings that show that contray to what you and others say (over and over again) that far from being a high level thinker and elegant writer, wright simply restates what you and others in the reformed camp want to hear. Couple that with the company he keeps and here you have it. Also, you comment, you respond, but not on what I have posted. You imply just read more of wright and like a Gin Martini, the taste will grow on you.

For the price of one of Wrights 200 page paperbacks, one could buy a 4 volume 1000+ page The Fundamentals in hard cover. This, written 100 years ago lays out the Biblical case for much of what Wright tries to deny to his fawning audiance. For example, the blessed hope and imminent return of our Lord. 100 years from now, will N.T. Wright be available in hard cover and more important, will anyone even care?

 

[saturneptune]

For the price of one of Wrights 200 page paperbacks, one could buy a 4 volume 1000+ page The Fundamentals in hard cover. This, written 100 years ago lays out the Biblical case for much of what Wright tries to deny to his fawning audiance. For example, the blessed hope and imminent return of our Lord. 100 years from now, will N.T. Wright be available in hard cover and more important, will anyone even care?

And, if you order in the next 15 minutes, I will double the four volume book set. And, with each order, you get a free book that documents British royalty going to church. Act now and we will send you a picture of Mr. Wright kissing Prince Charles royal ring. Call 1-800-ANGLICAN now. Thats 1-800-ANGLICAN.

 

[TadQueasy]

why is it so hard for people to answer what books of Wright they have read?

 

[saturneptune]

why is it so hard for people to answer what books of Wright they have read?

I have not read a one. My reading is pretty much the Bible. I do read books explaining the differences in doctrine of the various denominations. The reason I would not bother to read his writings is their basic doctrine being so flawed, from infant baptism, to once being part of the Catholic Church, and still follow much of their lituregy. They believe in a hieracrcy, not a local autonomous church. They use creeds and the "Book of Common Prayer." Why are those needed if one has the Bible?

 

[TadQueasy]

I have not read a one. My reading is pretty much the Bible. I do read books explaining the differences in doctrine of the various denominations. The reason I would not bother to read his writings is their basic doctrine being so flawed, from infant baptism, to once being part of the Catholic Church, and still follow much of their lituregy. They believe in a hieracrcy, not a local autonomous church. They use creeds and the "Book of Common Prayer." Why are those needed if one has the Bible?

I never said it was needed. I appreciate your answer and agree with a lot of it. I just find it frustrating that two people in this thread have been asked a rather simple question and they dodge it. It just seems like pretty simple logic in that if you want to really criticize someones writing and have strong opinions on them then you should actually read the works and not just gather information from secondary sources.

 

[thomas15]

why is it so hard for people to answer what books of Wright they have read?

What you and others are saying is if one reads everything Wright has written you will come to appreciate his genius. I've read enough to know basically where he stands and I've quoted him and no one is actually dealing with those quotes. Others are saying that if not for wright, the Bible would make no sense. This is either very sad, an admission that all they read is wright or an admission that they haven't read anyone that takes wright on.

A better question to ask young Tad is why is it so hard for Baptist on the Baptist Board to respond to the information already posted? Why do those of the reformed camp use the typical fall back non-responses (typically calling into service the term fundamentalist as if that is a 4 letter word) to straightforward questions? Why do they throw their support to Anglican Bishops and scholars with liberal tendencies and ridicule those who take the Bible seriously?

 

[Revmitchell]

I never said it was needed. I appreciate your answer and agree with a lot of it. I just find it frustrating that two people in this thread have been asked a rather simple question and they dodge it. It just seems like pretty simple logic in that if you want to really criticize someones writing and have strong opinions on them then you should actually read the works and not just gather information from secondary sources.

Since your last post misrepresenting my position and post was completely deleted you should be careful not to continue this behavior.

 

[TadQueasy]

What you and others are saying is if one reads everything Wright has written you will come to appreciate his genius.

No that is not what I have said at all.

Others are saying that if not for wright, the Bible would make no sense.

I, nor anyone else I have read here, have said this.

A better question to ask young Tad is why is it so hard for Baptist on the Baptist Board to respond to the information already posted? Why do those of the reformed camp use the typical fall back non-responses (typically calling into service the term fundamentalist as if that is a 4 letter word) to straightforward questions? Why do they throw their support to Anglican Bishops and scholars with liberal tendencies and ridicule those who take the Bible seriously?

People have responded to you, they just have not given you the answers you seemingly want. Personally, I do not "support" Anglican Bishops. Once again, I will say that my opinion on this has been if you or anyone else is going to take such a hard stance against someone they should at least read their writings for themselves in order to understand it. And I for the life of me cannot understand why you guys will not just say "I have read _____" or "I have not read any of his works."

 

[thomas15]

... Once again, I will say that my opinion on this has been if you or anyone else is going to take such a hard stance against someone they should at least read their writings for themselves in order to understand it. And I for the life of me cannot understand why you guys will not just say "I have read _____" or "I have not read any of his works."

I have delt with that in this thread but you haven't kept up on your reading! Thomas15 never on this forum states an opinion on someones theology without having read and having at least a sample of that individuals work on his shelves. This feeling you might have thinking you have hit a nerve will come back to haunt you if as I suspect you get around to challenging dispensationalists, who, contrary to popular opinion, are not as unread as you might think.

 

[TadQueasy]

Thanks for the warning old thomas.

 

[saturneptune]

I never said it was needed. I appreciate your answer and agree with a lot of it. I just find it frustrating that two people in this thread have been asked a rather simple question and they dodge it. It just seems like pretty simple logic in that if you want to really criticize someones writing and have strong opinions on them then you should actually read the works and not just gather information from secondary sources.

On that we agree. Even when we do not, I find you refreshingly completely clear and honest about your positions.

 

[Greektim]

Listen, I don't want to argue over the man or his theology any more. I like him, you don't. I know his views and his flaws. I don't think you know them as well as I do, but who cares. Let's move on to gospel issues rather than this peripheral one.

 

[TadQueasy]

On that we agree. Even when we do not, I find you refreshingly completely clear and honest about your positions.

Thank you saturn. I must say you always give good thoughts around here and I always find myself either agreeing with you or forced to reconsider something. I appreciate that.

 

[OldRegular]

I would not think many Baptists would know officials from the Church of England or give a hoot about their doctrine.

Actually S/N I have a very good commentary on the Book of Reveletion by an Anglican named Philip Edgecumbe Hughes. Takes the Biblical amillennial position and reads much like a devotional. Also have his commentary on Hebrews but have used it very little, no longer teach! Following is a quote from his commentary on Revelation which endeared him to me. Actually here are two I used when teaching Revelation:

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes in his commentary on the Book of Revelation writes specifcally, though eloquently, of the apocalyptic language used in Revelation as follows [Introduction, page 7ff].

The title The Apocalypse by which this book is also known means simply [from its Greek original] ‘The Unveiling’ or ‘The Revelation’, and its significance is explained in the opening sentence of the book. The literary form or genre is that which is classified as Apocalyptic, and in this respect it is unique among the books of the New Testament. An apocalyptic writing discloses mysteries, generally with respect to the future - mysteries the import of which is sometimes plainly interpreted, but which frequently remain veiled in enigmatic figures and symbols. This holds good for the book of Revelation. [The visions of Ezekiel and Daniel are examples of apocalyptic writing in the Old Testament.]

The use of symbolism is a distinctive mark of apocalyptic literature. It is not surprising, therefore, that symbolism has an important role in Revelation, and in a serious work of this nature this is far from being just a conventional device or custom. There is a need for symbolism because the reality of the scenes revealed and recorded is transcendental in character. Vistas of eternity and infinity cannot be fully described by our human language which is finite and bound by time. But human language is our only medium for setting down and passing on disclosures of the transcendental realm; and so the seer must do his best to communicate what he has seen to others by means of analogical approximations and images which suggest and point beyond themselves to realities that far exceed all that can be said. The Lamb, who is so much the central figure in these visions, portrays the incarnate Son with reference to his offering up of himself as a substitutionary sacrifice to redeem sinful men and bring them back to God. Moreover, because of the symbolical character of the language, it is not incongruous or contradictory for the Lamb to be called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, for this designation declares the majestic power and supreme authority of the Son in the glory to which he has ascended. The whiteness of the robes of the redeemed signifies both the purgation of their sinfulness through the atoning sacrifice of the Son and also their conformity to his spotless purity in the glory for which they are destined. The surpassing beauty of the eternal realities witnessed by the Apostle is indicated by resorting to the inferior lustre of the lovely things of this present world, such as gold and precious stones and pellucid crystal.

Hughes also writes [page 57] very eloquently and convincingly on the Security of the Believer, as follows:

The book of life, in which are written the names of those to whom the grace of eternal life has been given, symbolizes the truth that the names of His elect whom He has redeemed are all known to the Lord and that their persons are cherished by Him. [It is mentioned again in Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27; see also Phil. 4:3.] Christ counseled the seventy who had returned from their mission with joy because even the demons were subject to them in His name: do not rejoice that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven [Luke 10:17-20]. In a similar way the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven [Hebrews. 12:23]. The imagery must not be interpreted literalistically: to blot out a name signifies that that name has no place among those who have received eternal life, because the person whose name it is is an unrepentant sinner and a rejector of the gospel [compare Exodus. 32:33; Deuteronomy. 9:14; 29:19f.]. It would be altogether wrong to imagine an activity of constant book-keeping in heaven, involving not only the registration of new names but also the removal of names previously entered and the restoration of names previously removed. Such a conception could only be conducive to insecurity on the part of God’s people [whose names might be in His book today and out tomorrow] and to uncertainty even in the mind of God Himself regarding the outcome of His redemptive action, which is unthinkable.

It is precisely everyone whose name had not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world who worships the beast [13:8]; whereas the Good Shepherd says of His sheep: I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand [John 10:28]. As those who have been chosen in him before the foundation of the world [Ephesians. 1:4] their inheritance reserved in heaven for them is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading [1 Peter. 1:4]. Were this not so the eternal life possessed by the redeemed [John 3:16, 5:25, etc.] could turn out to be not eternal life after all but only for the time being, dependent on man rather than God, with the consequences that the promises of God would be open to falsification, which again is unthinkable.

 

[thomas15]

I would not think many Baptists would know officials from the Church of England or give a hoot about their doctrine.

Well, Anglican Philip Edgecumbe Hughes ("....a serious, devout, and pious Anglican Prayer Book man" (1)) did hob-knob with the Presbyterians at Westminster Theological Seminary so in the mind of a least some on the BB this not only makes him a great person to get answers to one's theology questions but it also adds creditability to N.T. Wright.




(1) http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/wikipedia-rev-dr-philip-edcumbe-hughes.html

 

[thomas15]

..... And I for the life of me cannot understand why you guys will not just say "I have read _____" or "I have not read any of his works."

A rare moment in history when thomas15 is at a loss for words.

 

[Greektim]

A rare moment in history when thomas15 is at a loss for words.

Which is one of the reasons I gave up on this thread. I think there is a lack of honesty here. It is not that anyone is lying, but plenty are passing judgment on a man's writings but won't admit to the extent of what they have read (lack of honesty). Even worse, I've heard the "Well I read his book, *&^^%$$, and that was enough." Some of my favorite discussions have been w/ people who have given Wright a fair treatment and decent reading and disagreed. There is a genuine discussion of the issues b/c the issues are known and known to be known. That is not the case here. I feel like you don't know much of his view (but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong here if you'd prove it) and I certainly don't know that you know Wright (b/c you won't tell us what you've read of him).

But I'm not going to beat this horse any more. It is closer to politics to force the issue. Carry on brethren.