NT Wright

[Yeshua1]

His argument is not that the Church has mistaken Pauline Justification these past 2000 years. It is that the Reformers understood Pauline Justification through the lens of what they were going through and that we mistakenly take up a Reformation view of Justification rather than allowing Scripture to dictate that view.

He does not view the law/grace issue though as paul has in his theology of justification, as it seems that he gives more weight to obeying the law, and being a covenant people with God then the Bible teaches, as he seems to hold more to what Judaism of the time did then what paul had to say about it!

And pauline justification is THE key to understanding the gospel of christ , correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

He is saying that he is helping the church to rediscover what it once knew to be true but has been lost b/c of the dominance of the RCC (dark ages) and the Reformers based their understanding of justification on that context.

As to his views of inerrancy, he may be more liberal than I am on that one, but I allow for mistakes as well... so long as I can clarify what I mean (but that is for another thread).

I don't advocate all of Wright wholesale, but he does nonetheless have the ear of the world and I for one want to join in and listen.

Rxcept that what we call pauliner justification as the reformers held to WAS what the bible was teaching to us through the Apostles, as his appeal is not to what the bible teaches per say, but what Judaism did of that time!

 

[JonC]

He does not view the law/grace issue though as paul has in his theology of justification, as it seems that he gives more weight to obeying the law, and being a covenant people with God then the Bible teaches, as he seems to hold more to what Judaism of the time did then what paul had to say about it!



And pauline justification is THE key to understanding the gospel of christ , correct?

I don't think I agree with anything in this post.

 

[Revmitchell]

His argument is not that the Church has mistaken Pauline Justification these past 2000 years. It is that the Reformers understood Pauline Justification through the lens of what they were going through and that we mistakenly take up a Reformation view of Justification rather than allowing Scripture to dictate that view.

And he is just flat out wrong.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't advocate all of Wright wholesale, but he does nonetheless have the ear of the world and I for one want to join in and listen.

What world does he have an ear of? He may be know by some around the world but the average person Christian or otherwise has no idea who he is.

 

[JonC]

And he is just flat out wrong.

:laugh: That wasn't actually the point I was making, but OK. I actually think that he has a good point in that we do look at Scripture, if we are not careful, through lenses and worldviews that were foreign to the biblical authors.

 

[evangelist6589]

:laugh: That wasn't actually the point I was making, but OK. I actually think that he has a good point in that we do look at Scripture, if we are not careful, through lenses and worldviews that were foreign to the biblical authors.

I sure hope GreekTim did not persuade me into a bear trap and paying $17 for a book of his.

 

[JonC]

I sure hope GreekTim did not persuade me into a bear trap and paying $17 for a book of his.

He didn't.

 

[Greektim]

What world does he have an ear of? He may be know by some around the world but the average person Christian or otherwise has no idea who he is.

The world as in various groups of people, from atheists to conservative evangelicals. He has a wide audience.

 

[Greektim]

I sure hope GreekTim did not persuade me into a bear trap and paying $17 for a book of his.

If you don't like it, I'll buy it from you.

 

[evangelist6589]

If you don't like it, I'll buy it from you.

Perhaps I will like it as it has no NPP teachings.

 

[quantumfaith]

And he is just flat out wrong.

And it is only the most remote possibility that YOU could be flat out wrong?

 

[Greektim]

And he is just flat out wrong.

Hubris much?

 

[Revmitchell]

Hubris much?

Yes of course it must take a huge amount of Hubris to disagree with the infallable NT Wright.

 

[Revmitchell]

:laugh: That wasn't actually the point I was making, but OK. I actually think that he has a good point in that we do look at Scripture, if we are not careful, through lenses and worldviews that were foreign to the biblical authors.

With regards to the NPP he is far more specific than that.

 

[JonC]

With regards to the NPP he is far more specific than that.

Yet he still describes his take on the NPP as a whole as potentially (actually probably) flawed, seeking to "open dialogue," that Paul had a worldview closer to Judaism than Luther,etc. I am not advocating Wright's position...not really discounting it either...

My point was that the NPP does not claim that the Church has misunderstood pauline Justification for the past 2000 years.

 

[Revmitchell]

My point was that the NPP does not claim that the Church has misunderstood pauline Justification for the past 2000 years.

Then you and I have read NT Wright much differently. I can also tell you it is being taught in Christian colleges much differently.

 

[JonC]

Then you and I have read NT Wright much differently. I can also tell you it is being taught in Christian colleges much differently.

Yes, we have read Wright differently...in regards to this issue, I guess I allowed his comments regarding the NPP - that it is not "new" but the view originally held by the Church, and his questioning viewing the doctrine through a Reformation lens rather than a first century lens - to indicate that he does not believe the NPP to be a new perspective, but a view earlier than the contemporary view often held.

Anyway, often things are taught in colleges are not representative of the original intent...so I'll take your word for it.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is silly... b/c you are interpreting Scripture and thus you are just one more person of "what someone else says the Scripture says." The spiral continues. God gave to the church teachers for a reason.

Take a lesson from the Bereans of which the Apostle said they were "more noble" as they did exactly what you call silly! They did not take the word of another man - not even an apostle but DIRECTLY searched the scriptures for themselves. You call that "silly" while Paul calls it "more noble."

There are gifted teachers, but they are NEVER to replace THE TEACHER - the Holy Spirit that DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY teaches the believer (1 Jn. 2:29) as only the Holy Spirit is capable of teaching anyone, as he alone can open the understanding and heart. Nothing replaces personal direct study of the Scriptures as the scriptures alone are the final authority to determine whether the BEST OF TEACHERS are right or wrong - Isaiah 8:20. Isaiah 8:20 tells you that the scriptures are final authority not some teacher.

 

[Greektim]

Take a lesson from the Bereans of which the Apostle said they were "more noble" as they did exactly what you call silly! They did not take the word of another man - not even an apostle but DIRECTLY searched the scriptures for themselves. You call that "silly" while Paul calls it "more noble."

There are gifted teachers, but they are NEVER to replace THE TEACHER - the Holy Spirit that DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY teaches the believer (1 Jn. 2:29) as only the Holy Spirit is capable of teaching anyone, as he alone can open the understanding and heart. Nothing replaces personal direct study of the Scriptures as the scriptures alone are the final authority to determine whether the BEST OF TEACHERS are right or wrong - Isaiah 8:20. Isaiah 8:20 tells you that the scriptures are final authority not some teacher.

Put the conversation in context, maje. The studying of Scripture is not silly. But then neither is reading others who have diligently studied Scripture. My point is that it is silly to think that you are not doing the same thing when you read Scripture... you are just adding your own opinion to the plethora of opinions out there. Why is your own opinion more valid than a scholar who is trained and well studied in the field?