NT Wright

[Rippon]

This is why I don't talk about NT WRight w/ anyone here (anymore). They tend to only know second hand or third hand "info" about him. They don't offer sources b/c they by and large have not read him or heard him. It is a tiresome enterprise to defend him here.

I haven't ventured an opinion on N.T. Wright because it would indeed be coming from 2nd and 3rd hand sources. But Y-1 clearly doesn't have Tom Wright books in front of him from which to cite anything. He has been kindly asked numerous times and ignores the question. He does the same thing on other matters in other threads.

All I have is Tom Wright's New Testament translation. And that is packed away in America. I also have a rebuttal of his teaching contained in a booklet by John Piper also packed away in America. I do know that Doug Moo, though disagreeing with Wright at points, also gives him a lot of credit for opening up the discussion and making some significant contributions.

 

[JonC]

Excellent observations. It is not, BTW, that I wish to defend Wright’s NPP (a view which Wright concedes needs work and opens up for dialogue) - only that his views have not been honestly represented by “opponents” on this forum. I do not understand the dishonesty of some on the BB…reviewing books never read…“debating” views never genuinely considered or understood…it’s beyond me.

There are many topics on the BB which I refuse to engage because I am not equipped for engagement. Rather than regurgitate the views of others…words without understanding…I chose to remain silent, hang around, and learn. There are other times I am shown, to my benefit, to be wrong…there have been several instances where I thought I understood when I did not. This is why I joined the BB…but without honest engagement there is no benefit.

It is unfortunate because the NPP is relevant to the contemporary Christian landscape and, I believe, emphasizes issues that may not have always been in the forefront of contemporary thought. Again, this is not to say that I accept the NPP, only that I believe it raises issues worth considering and views worth revisiting. I am also starting to realize that this will never happen in this forum.

 

[Yeshua1]

Excellent observations. It is not, BTW, that I wish to defend Wright’s NPP (a view which Wright concedes needs work and opens up for dialogue) - only that his views have not been honestly represented by “opponents” on this forum. I do not understand the dishonesty of some on the BB…reviewing books never read…“debating” views never genuinely considered or understood…it’s beyond me.

There are many topics on the BB which I refuse to engage because I am not equipped for engagement. Rather than regurgitate the views of others…words without understanding…I chose to remain silent, hang around, and learn. There are other times I am shown, to my benefit, to be wrong…there have been several instances where I thought I understood when I did not. This is why I joined the BB…but without honest engagement there is no benefit.

It is unfortunate because the NPP is relevant to the contemporary Christian landscape and, I believe, emphasizes issues that may not have always been in the forefront of contemporary thought. Again, this is not to say that I accept the NPP, only that I believe it raises issues worth considering and views worth revisiting. I am also starting to realize that this will never happen in this forum.

NT Wright has done a service to the Body of Christ with his contributions in the resurrection, but his NPP, not do much, as he really cannot believe that we have misunderstood pauk all these centuries!

His Justification views are interesting, but not same as Apostle paul expressed...

 

[JonC]

as he really cannot believe that we have misunderstood pauk all these centuries!

Isn't this also the charge that could be levied against the Reformers? After all, they accused the Church of centuries of misunderstandings of Paul. I think that if you consider your response, you'll see the foolishness of such an argument. "All those centuries" were four. Even if they were more, antiquity of belief does not negate error. Again, Y1, you miss the thrust of Wright's argument.

NT Wright has done a service to the Body of Christ with his contributions in the resurrection.

Well, this thread was about Wright and not the NPP. Perhaps this will be a better turn. What do you see as Wright's greatest contribution to the understanding of the Resurrection?

 

[Greektim]

NT Wright has done a service to the Body of Christ with his contributions in the resurrection, but his NPP, not do much, as he really cannot believe that we have misunderstood pauk all these centuries!

His Justification views are interesting, but not same as Apostle paul expressed...

He is only saying that since post-reformation it has been misunderstood. But that shouldn't be that surprising... the reformation was against a 1,100 misunderstanding. We are only talking about 400 years.

 

[The Biblicist]

A FB friend of mine was singing his praises and pointed me to his The Resurrection of the Son of God book, however it looks deep and at 740 pages not sure I can handle such a book, especially since I am no longer in seminary. Greek Tim is in school so he does not understand my situation, but I have got wonder how many laymen read such books? Does any laymen (former graduate students, and not working in ministry FT) read these kinds of books. Are there any?

In my estimation NT Wright is a heretic as he flatly denies the penal substitutionary atonement. (http://www.ravenfoundation.org/blog...nuine-penal-substitutionary-atonement-theory/)

Hence, the whole basis for his gospel is rotten at the core. The Bible clearly teaches that "the wages of sin is death" and that Christ was made a "curse" on the cross, and thus the death on the cross was penal in nature against sin. He was "MADE TO BE SIN" and God's wrath is against sin. It was God who turned His back on the Son on the cross due to sin. Christ said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" due to sin.

In my estimation, all who deny the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross are heretics who preach "another gospel" that is empty of salvation.