N.T. Wright

[JonC]

I approach N.T. Wright as I do any Christian writer. Take what we believe is good and leave the rest - look at the main points. These writers are men.

That is how R.C. Sproul tackled N.T. Wright's book Evil and the Justice of God : “Despite the concerns that his doctrine of God raises in some of the passages I’ve mentioned, I find in the main that N. T. Wright has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the problem of evil.”

I wish we had fewer "theological politicians" (people who defend against their "party") and more men like Sproul.

 

[Calminian]

....You and I could be accused of twisting Scripture for approaching the biblical text from a Protestant standpoint.....

I don't approach Scripture from a protestant standpoint. Just from a logical standpoint, which is how all statements are approached.

But this issue of standpoints is big in Walton and Wright's hermeneutic, and they're very open about it. It's how they've totally twisted the book of Genesis and the creation account. They draw insight, so they claim, from the false religions that surrounded Israel at the time and their false views of cosmology, and interpret Genesis in light of them. Of course they have to start with the presuppositions that the Israelites created the account rather than reported on it from passed down documents and history, but I digress. They also assume they have an accurate understanding of what the ancients believed. All this, in essence, gives the reader permission to reject the clear straightforward Word of God.

You see the same principle in this examples. Paul clearly says the Jews were trying to obtain righteousness through the law and not by faith. But we should ignore that and look to flawed historical accounts so we can understand if this is true or not. It's typical Walton Wright thinking.

 

[Calminian]

I approach N.T. Wright as I do any Christian writer. Take what we believe is good and leave the rest - look at the main points. These writers are men.

That is how R.C. Sproul tackled N.T. Wright's book Evil and the Justice of God : “Despite the concerns that his doctrine of God raises in some of the passages I’ve mentioned, I find in the main that N. T. Wright has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the problem of evil.”

I wish we had fewer "theological politicians" (people who defend against their "party") and more men like Sproul.

Lot of cliches and platitudes (speaking of politicians). None of it to the points I'm making.

 

[Yeshua1]

You believe that the Jews believed they were a superior people by keeping the Law?!!

Did paul not addressing that self righteous attitude they held as being keepers of the law, in Romans, looking down upon pagans who had no law?

 

[Yeshua1]

I approach N.T. Wright as I do any Christian writer. Take what we believe is good and leave the rest - look at the main points. These writers are men.

That is how R.C. Sproul tackled N.T. Wright's book Evil and the Justice of God : “Despite the concerns that his doctrine of God raises in some of the passages I’ve mentioned, I find in the main that N. T. Wright has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the problem of evil.”

I wish we had fewer "theological politicians" (people who defend against their "party") and more men like Sproul.

Yes, but the wright position on Pauline Justification, heart of the Gospel of Christ, is wrong!

 

[JonC]

Lot of cliches and platitudes (speaking of politicians). None of it to the points I'm making.

It does. You indicated the "straight foward" meaning of the text favors our view. This is "political" as it assumes the test should be straight forward to our mindset. If we assume what we see as the "straight forward" is correct we are almost certainly wrong.

 

[JonC]

Yes, but the wright position on Pauline Justification, heart of the Gospel of Christ, is wrong!

So you say (without evidence).

 

[Calminian]

It does. You indicated the "straight foward" meaning of the text favors our view. This is "political" as it assumes the test should be straight forward to our mindset. If we assume what we see as the "straight forward" is correct we are almost certainly wrong.

You're still not interacting with my arguments. I'll refrain from this strange political argument you're making.

 

[JonC]

I don't approach Scripture from a protestant standpoint. Just from a logical standpoint, which is how all statements are approached.

But this issue of standpoints is big in Walton and Wright's hermeneutic, and they're very open about it. It's how they've totally twisted the book of Genesis and the creation account. They draw insight, so they claim, from the false religions that surrounded Israel at the time and their false views of cosmology, and interpret Genesis in light of them. Of course they have to start with the presuppositions that the Israelites created the account rather than reported on it from passed down documents and history, but I digress. They also assume they have an accurate understanding of what the ancients believed. All this, in essence, gives the reader permission to reject the clear straightforward Word of God.

You see the same principle in this examples. Paul clearly says the Jews were trying to obtain righteousness through the law and not by faith. But we should ignore that and look to flawed historical accounts so we can understand if this is true or not. It's typical Walton Wright thinking.

This is not true. You have demonstrated here that you assume a Protestant viewpoint into Scripture (to you, the Protestant understanding is the "straight forward" meaning and all others "twisting Scripture"). I'm sure others who are not Protestant assume the same of their (and your) presuppositions which is equally wrong.

 

[Calminian]

This is not true. You have demonstrated here that you assume a Protestant viewpoint into Scripture (to you, the Protestant understanding is the "straight forward" meaning and all others "twisting Scripture"). I'm sure others who are not Protestant assume the same of their (and your) presuppositions which is equally wrong.

If you assume a protestant viewpoint before you come to the conclusion that the protestants were right, then that's on you. I believe you made a mistake. Others approached the text logically and came to the conclusion protestantism was true. That's the correct way. if your'e guilting of doing it the wrong way, own it and don't project.

 

[JonC]

If you assume a protestant viewpoint before you come to the conclusion that the protestants were right, then that's on you. I believe you made a mistake. Others approached the text logically and came to the conclusion protestantism was true. That's the correct way. if your'e guilting of doing it the wrong way, own it and don't project.

The text has nothing to do with it. The OT ends without establishing a 1st century worldview and the NT begins assuming one.

You discount reality (rabbinic literature stating what Jews believe) but have not yet defended your presuppositions. Failing to recognize your assumptions is not a justification for holding them.

 

[JonC]

You're still not interacting with my arguments. I'll refrain from this strange political argument you're making.

I do not see any of your arguments relative to the topic. Basically you seem to hold the Reformed position - "we have no right to question what has been given to us during the Reformation".

We probably agree on our views, but disagree on why we hold them.

You can prove me wrong, of course. But to do that you would have to explain why by Scripture (which is impossible). So what is left is to consider our view and the views of others. Evidence is against us, but not enough evidence.

 

[Calminian]

I do not see any of your arguments relative to the topic. ...

Which explains why you didn't touch them. Nevertheless, they are relevant.

 

[Calminian]

I do not see any of your arguments relative to the topic. Basically you seem to hold the Reformed position - "we have no right to question what has been given to us during the Reformation".

We probably agree on our views, but disagree on why we hold them.

You can prove me wrong, of course. But to do that you would have to explain why by Scripture (which is impossible). So what is left is to consider our view and the views of others. Evidence is against us, but not enough evidence.

Not following any of this. The fact is, Wright, Walton and yourself are denying very easy straightforward passages with a strange interpretive method that really doesn't make any sense. You're trying to make it about the reformation, but it's even simpler than that. Paul told you the jews tried to acquire righteousness through works and not through faith. My question to you is, why do you believe him?

 

[JonC]

Which explains why you didn't touch them. Nevertheless, they are relevant.

Your argument is "my understanding is the straight forward understanding of Scripture that I arrived at via the Bible". I'm saying that just does not cut it.

 

[JonC]

Not following any of this. The fact is, Wright, Walton and yourself are denying very easy straightforward passages with a strange interpretive method that really doesn't make any sense. You're trying to make it about the reformation, but it's even simpler than that. Paul told you the jews tried to acquire righteousness through works and not through faith. My question to you is, why do you believe him?

You are not tracking. It is not about how the Jews sought to obtain this righteousness but what they thought this righteousness was they were seeking to obtain.

And ANYTIME a person living in the 21st century tries to tell you about the "straightforward meaning" of a 1st Century text you know they are wrong.

 

[Calminian]

Your argument is "my understanding is the straight forward understanding of Scripture that I arrived at via the Bible". I'm saying that just does not cut it.

At some point, everyone has to argue this very same way. You will eventually have to argue you're making the right interpretation. You even have to argue that you're interpreting Wright correctly.

But I'm with the historic faith, in affirming their interpretation Paul's statements in Romans. Ultimately, you're arguing it is wrong. Ultimately, the argument becomes so simple, you stand on it. I stand on Paul's very simple straightforward statement that the Jews were trying to acquire righteousness through the Law and through works. I have the text on my side.

 

[JonC]

At some point, everyone has to argue this very same way. You will eventually have to argue you're making the right interpretation. You even have to argue that you're interpreting Wright correctly.

But I'm with the historic faith, in affirming their interpretation Paul's statements in Romans. Ultimately, you're arguing it is wrong. Ultimately, the argument becomes so simple, you stand on it. I stand on Paul's very simple straightforward statement that the Jews were trying to acquire righteousness through the Law and through works. I have the text on my side.

The difference is being able to reason through Scripture and discuss differences (which Wright has done) compared to believing one holds the "straightforward meaning".

When we say we stand on the "plain" or "straightforward" meaning of a biblical text we are just expressing biblical illiteracy. It is too subjective - and I believe wrong because Scripture is objective. It elevates us above Scripture.

 

[Calminian]

The difference is being able to reason through Scripture and discuss differences (which Wright has done) compared to believing one holds the "straightforward meaning".

And what I've done is call out his "reasoning" methods. I've looked into them, read about them. That are bad reasons to abandon the easy simple interpretation. You haven't engaged any of these critiques I've made. You don't see a reason to engage them. Fine, that's your right. But there're there if you want to possibly second guess some of these "experts."

When we say we stand on the "plain" or "straightforward" meaning of a biblical text we are just expressing biblical illiteracy. It is too subjective - and I believe wrong because Scripture is objective.

Then, unfortunately, you'll never arrive at a solid interpretation, because eventually that's what you have to do. Once you've exhausted the immediate and extended context, you reach an interpretation. I've found the Bible, for the most part, very user friendly, despite "experts" trying to make it complicated.

 

[JonC]

And what I've done is call out his "reasoning" methods. I've looked into them, read about them. That are bad reasons to abandon the easy simple interpretation. You haven't engaged any of these critiques I've made. You don't see a reason to engage them. Fine, that's your right. But there're there if you want to possibly second guess some of these "experts."



Then, unfortunately, you'll never arrive at a solid interpretation, because eventually that's what you have to do. Once you've exhausted the immediate and extended context, you reach an interpretation. I've found the Bible, for the most part, very user friendly, despite "experts" trying to make it complicated.

We have experts on all sides.

I believe we study and make our own determination. But we have to do so honestly and even when we arrive at that conclusion realize tge process that got us there. There is no "straightforward" understanding of the 1st century worldview because Scripture, for what ever reason, has not provided it for us.

We hold our beliefs unapologetically. But we cannot allow ourselves to view Scripturevas subjective to our understanding.