Greektim
Well-Known Member
Disagreement is one thing. To pontificate ex cathedra that he is flat wrong is a whole other issue.Yes of course it must take a huge amount of Hubris to disagree with the infallable NT Wright.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
NT Wright
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
If one follows your logic consistently, then nothing but opinion exists as no one can confidently say the scripture says, teaches, demands, this or that, but only can say MY OPINION IS the scripture says this or that. However, that kind of logic and expression is totally missing from the inspired historical records, as neither Jesus, the apostles, prophets or even the common believer ever approached or expressed their faith in those terms - never! So your view is totally unbiblical in every regard.
The fact is, the scriptures can be "rightly divided" and those who do the work required to contextually interpret the scripture can say with complete confidence "thus saith the Lord" and then challenge all naysayers to simply prove contextually what they believe is not what the word of God says or teaches. However, your logic begins with the assumption that nothing but opinion exists and thus no one can confidently claim with the authority of scripture anything at all. Your line of logic is the source of the phrase "That is your interpretation" but my line of logic is "no, that is not my interpretation but that is what the scripture teaches and here is why I positively know it and until you can disprove it by valid contextual based reasons you have no right to claim it is my interpetation."
Every word in scripture is placed in a readable definable context
quantumfaith
Active Member
There is nothing about the metaphysical that you can Prove absolutely, no matter how articulate, how well read or how much time you have spent studying the scriptures. If that were the case, there would be no need for faith and belief.
Though "rightly handling" the word doesn't mean there aren't options of interpretation for particular passages of scripture. Even within closed systems, there are options. Seeing your tag line, within Calvinism there are those who embrace reprobation and others who do not. Not all believe in the same theory of atonement or have the same understanding of baptism.
Have you read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and especially verse 17? The scriptures are given for that purpose and they are sufficient for that purpose. However, your theory repudiates the whole intent behind this text. BTW faith is not a leap in the dark! True faith always has a proper object. The Word of God requires faith not because it cannot be understood with the mind, but because it is understandable. For example, by faith we understand the world was created by things not seen. The Word of God clearly states that and it is clearly understood that the Word of God states that. The issue is whether we can trust God for what we clearly understand him to say.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem people have with NT Wright is not that he is unbiblical but that their view of “unbiblical” means “not the way I interpret Scripture” or “not what I have been taught.” This is evident even by skimming John Piper’s rebuttal of Wright’s theology. His main concern is that Wright presents an understanding that is complicated to our view point and is at odds with the view of the past 400 years. Wright’s contention is that it is complicated because we are not first century Jews and the argument that 400 years of acceptance equates to correctness is a rebuttal of the Reformation. Wright has a valid point, regardless of how one leans on the NPP.
In other words, who is to say that you are right and Wright is wrong (pun intended) except for your own interpretation?
In other words, who is to say that you are right and Wright is wrong (pun intended) except for your own interpretation?
If you are talking about Wrights view of justification, and specifically his view of "works" (if I remember his view correctly) then he is unbiblical in his definitions. For example the word "works" used in Romans 4:1-3 is pre-Israel, pre-Moses and therefore cannot be interpreted to mean "become Jewish" or justificaition by Mosaic Law.
I am. What he is saying is the accepted view of Romans by the church for more than 400 years is wrong. It is like he creates his own argument so he can knock it down.
I am not saying that he is right, but what we say is the accepted view of Romans by the church for more than 400 years was not the accepted view of Romans for more than 400 years previous to the Reformation. There are good arguments against his position, but this is not one of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Perhaps you should engage Bishop Wright on the issue. Maybe he is closer to your level of understanding and expertise.
I don’t know. While I am not sure I remember correctly, it does seem that Wright insists that “works” were related directly to the Law – but this seems appropriate in relation to Romans. It is odd, IMHO, for Paul to deal so much with what is obviously works of the Law and then shift to focusing on “works” in general (although this may indeed be the case). Wright also concentrates much on the term “the righteousness of God,” linking this back to His covenant righteousness (to the Abrahamic Covenant) rather than a moral righteousness. Anyway, regardless of my opinion of NT Wright’s NPP, I find neither Wright or his opponents outside of biblical boundaries (although obviously at least one of them are mistaken in interpretation).
I do not believe it is difficult to see influences of the Reformation in our contemporary understanding. Perhaps these were derived from Scripture…but perhaps the environment that gave birth to the Reformation colored their (and our) view. There are instances where it seems that we interpret Paul as if he were a sixteenth century Reformer rather than a first century Christian. What I appreciate about NT Wright is that, wright or wrong, he brings these issues to the forefront and challenges our tendency to hold tradition above Scripture. I have many Catholic friends who could benefit from that principle.
The righteousness of God is what the Law of Moses reveals and demands but what NO FALLEN or REDEEMED HUMAN BEING can perfectly perform IN THEIR OWN BODY.
"Works" refer to what a person does THROUGH HIS OWN BODY. The Law of Moses is the most comprehensive revelation of the righteousness of God and what God WOULD DO IN HIS OWN BODY if he lived on earth.
No fallen son of Adam has or can do IN THEIR OWN BODY what Christ did IN HIS OWN BODY, but that is precisely what must be accomplished in order for anyone to be justified by God for entrance into heaven. Neither unredeemed or redeemed can do that IN THEIR OWN BODY as it requires a WHOLE LIFE lived from birth to death like Christ lived it. All men have sinned and thus it is impossible to be justified by "works" or THAT WHICH IS DONE IN YOUR OWN BODY.
Hence, the only possible way to obtain that righteousness necessary for justification is to have it freely imputed to you by faith in a substitutionary representative Savior.
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly I think you are confusing Weslyianism, and Neo-Orthodoxy with classical arminianism.
Book came in
GreekTim,
My book came in.
GreekTim,
My book came in.
How many times have you sworn on the BB not to buy another book because you have more than enough already --many which you have not read?
You have no clue what you are talking about! My statement refers to the total inability of the will of man. Weslyianism, Neo-Orthodoxy and classical Arminianism equally assert the freedom of the will to act outside of the fallen nature. The Biblical view is a cause versus effect relationship between the creative power of God and the human will manifested in conversion.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Enjoy!!! My offer still stands.
My contract stated that free books and books relevant to SS or such are okay. This book was a charged book so i got docked a point for buying it so that would make 5 books since I created my contract some months ago.
However the Cross of Christ I just bought is okay since it's relevant to a man I am witnessing with whom is former Roman Catholic and he wanted a book to read on the atonement as he denies the doctrine. This would be okay since it has a relevance.
But yes you are correct I need to watch out bait buying books that are not FREE or SS related.
My contract has kept me under control. For example I wanted to buy a commentary on Mark Sunday but I did not since I am not teaching the class in Sunday school on Mark. However if pastor asks me to sub then I will ask to borrow a commentary so I can teach Mark.
Last edited by a moderator:
Given your first paragraph, I am not sure that I understand your objection to Wright's use of "works" to refer to the Law. If the Law is the most comprehensive revelation of the righteousness of God, then why would the pauline view of "works" not be in context of the Law?
Second, I am also not sure that I understand what you mean by righteousness that is "freely imputed" to the believer by faith. If you mean that we are considered righteous because we are "in Christ," that we are clothed in His righteousness, then I agree (please correct me if I misunderstand your point).
problem is that NT Wright jeeps wanting to make the Church modern day Spiritul isreal, and by doing that, he sees a corporate election view of justification, and he sees water baptism as entry inthat faith community, and that we cannot even be fully justified until after death, as God has to view how we lived to merit that!
he does see himself as BEST way to view pauline teaching, and that reformers got him all wrong!
- Status