I actually have more respect for Wilson than most on the PB. I think he has been very helpful on male/female issues. He is close friends with some close friends of mine.I wonder if some posters on here are reacting negatively to Wilson because they already dislike Wilson. His assessment is virtually identical to what I received from professors at GPTS. Even people who have written books against Wright (Schreiner, Carson) have praised his work on Jesus and the Gospels.
My reaction has nothing to do with Wilson's personality- I don't know him, nor have I ever met him, so I don't know how he is like as a person- for all I know, he may be a great guy, a wonderful friend, and good father and husband. All that is besides the point- the point is that nothing NT Wright says will improved on what our reformed forefathers have already wrote and preached on concerning our Lord and the gospels. So, why do professors and Wilson heap praises on NT Wright and feel that his work is so groundbreaking (considering all the controversy involved) as though there were something new under the sun with regards to understanding the gospels? Were the reformed theologians of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries not as enlightened as NT Wright on the gospels? What did our reformed forefathers miss that NT Wright gets right on the gospels?I wonder if some posters on here are reacting negatively to Wilson because they already dislike Wilson. His assessment is virtually identical to what I received from professors at GPTS. Even people who have written books against Wright (Schreiner, Carson) have praised his work on Jesus and the Gospels.
Neither was Buddha or Mohammad. But that's kind of beside the point, nor does it make much sense. I can only guess you haven't read him broadly. I spent a month on a "What Wright Said" forum and I read reams of things he has written on everything, and after the 200th "the rainforests are being cut down for the needs of Empire" and "yes, a few people like Hitler of their own free will can lose the Imago Dei" then I can tell you that any educated Calvinist who actually has read Wright would end up finding Pastor G's assessment correct.But he is not 100% wrong on everything he has written on.
Being effeminate, weasel-worded and non-committal is worse than being a heretic? I get what you're saying, but I think a typical Christian would detest being called a heretic at least a wee bit more.I have read Wright. And He is wrong on justification. Hands down. But he is not 100% wrong on everything he has written on. In any case, you can call him an heretic, wrong, a false teacher, etc... fine. But saying ''effeminate, weasel-worded, non-committal person'' is over the stop in my opinion. I do hope you choose your own words more carefully.
What Christological error has Wright committed that he deserves to be called "heretic" given that the term only properly applies to individuals like Arius or Dioscorus, or Appolinarius, who taught false doctrines concerning the incarnation and the trinity?but if he denies justification by faith alone as taught in the NT, he is a false teacher and a heretic and should be called such
Philip,What Christological error has Wright committed that he deserves to be called "heretic" given that the term only properly applies to individuals like Arius or Dioscorus, or Appolinarius, who taught false doctrines concerning the incarnation and the trinity?but if he denies justification by faith alone as taught in the NT, he is a false teacher and a heretic and should be called such
Heterodox? Mistaken? Yes, but then so are many others who I find useful, such as Thomas Aquinas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or C.S. Lewis. Indeed, all of the great Church fathers made errors concerning justification and even (more fundamentally) atonement. The trouble with Wright is his inability to see the consequence of his Christology: why did God have to become man? What is Jesus accomplishing? All that Anselm and Luther do is to flesh out the Christology which the early church developed in its reflection on the New Testament and the significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Part of the trouble I have with Wright's work on Paul (and, sad to say, the Reformed response to it) is that he really leaves Jesus out of it, whereas Paul is trying to get the church to see Jesus better. Paul himself would have scratched his head, saying, "why all the emphasis on me? This is about Jesus."
Then he's not a heretic because he's within the bounds of the creeds. He may be inconsistent and heterodox, but he's not a heretic. The gospel is not the doctrine of faith alone, but the doctrine of Jesus, the God-man, crucified for sin and resurrected and now either to be accepted or rejected.I did not say that NT Wright is making Christological errors per se
No, I would say that the doctrine of Christ as the God-man who died and was raised. Further, I would say that the doctrine of atonement is far more fundamental than that of sola fide, indeed justification by faith alone would be meaningless without those I have mentioned. Indeed, Paul talks far more about the atonement and the incarnation than he does about justification by faith alone. That's not to downplay the importance of the doctrine, just to point out that sola fide is the logical outworking of these two doctrines, and is therefore less fundamental. Indeed, I have known some (mostly RCs) who, while outwardly denying the doctrine, actually practiced it.Do you not believe that justification is the doctrine is essential to the Christian faith
Fair enough---that doesn't necessarily mean that this person believed in sola fide. We are saved by believing in Christ. We are not saved by believing in sola fide.It is applied in one way alone- by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone- if a person doesn't come to God through that way, he/she will end up in the lake of fire.
So were Athanasius, Cyril, and Gregory of Nazianzus heretics then? I don't think they would even have recognized the question you're asking.You cannot affirm the creeds, but then turn around and deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone and escape the charge of heretic. You seem to want to separate the gospel from how the gospel is applied (by grace alone through faith alone).
A person is saved from sin by Christ who delivered us and defeated sin, death, and the devil in His death and resurrection. That's the answer of the early church and it's our answer too.No one is claiming to have all their theological ducks in order on everything, but a person better have them in order when it comes to how a person is saved from their sins.
I don't think you meant it this way. But let me say how this comes off sounding to me. Maybe that'll help you see my point.For my brothers here who believe the work of NT Wright should be treated with civility and respect, perhaps you need to reread NT Wright's "brilliant," "groundbreaking," "new points" which actually redefine what the Bible, Calvin, and Luther teach concerning justification:
Yes.Reformed folks have got insights before from men like Barth. But it doesn't change the fact that they should be identified as dangerously heterodox.
These men can be more dangerous than ones from whom no good or useful thing can be gleaned, especially depending on the individual who is reading/studying their work.
Funny, I can conceive of it. Remember that we're all at different stages of sanctification, none of us is all right yet. Part of the confusion could be the classic confusion over the ordo salutis where sanctification gets lumped in with justification. What can be particularly confusing are when Paul says things like "for us who are being saved" or "that the man of God may be perfect." These verses, if not properly balanced with Paul's other teachings, could lead one to lump the two together.It would be inconceivable that a regenerate person who was convicted about their sin, knowing that they were completely bankrupt, then cried out to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness, knowing that they brought nothing to God and in no way could be made right with God because of their covenant membership, baptism, good works, etc only to turn around and say, "well I don't really believe that I was right with God simply by trusting in Christ alone."
Are you the apostle Paul?Does calling people "heretic" show incivility? Then why does the apostle Paul seem to have no problem naming names and using the word 'heretic?'
Through His death on the cross and His resurrection. Your question has to do not with how justification is accomplished, but how we receive it. And again, if it is accomplished by Christ in His sacrifice, then its reception by faith alone follows naturally. Any account of soteriology that does not begin with Christology is in danger. And this is an error that the RCC has certainly made, but protestants are also susceptible to it. Again, the problem is not heresy but inconsistent orthodoxy. The reformed view of soteriology is not, as some would have it, merely Pauline: it is Christological. Christology is the foundation upon which all of our doctrine should be built.You say we are saved from sin by Christ brother- well and good- but Roman Catholics believe that too which begets the question- how is it accomplished?