N.T. Wright is awesome.

Status
Not open for further replies.

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
In my Medieval Philosophy class, I'm being forced to face head-on some pretty staunch atheistic worldviews by some argumentative and highly opinionated people. Not only do they know philosophy/logic very well, but they know how to sound persuasive and "right" about things. They have said a lot of things regarding the origins of Christianity that have caught me a little off guard at times, but thankfully, for the most part, I have been able to see past their smoke screens and misrepresentations and stand firm in my faith. When it comes to the origins of Christianity and Christian thought, especially what Paul did/said, I haven't found anyone as helpful (in refuting atheists and pagan arguments) as N.T. Wright. He has been an immense help in this area of discussion for sure. I may not agree with him on other areas, but for this subject he is the best I have found. His book on the Resurrection is probably one of the best scholarly works I have read. Does anyone else here like his work on these topics or in this realm of discussion? :detective:
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.

Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.
 

Richard King

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Draught Horse
He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.

Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.

Jacob, do you know how FUNNY this post is when read beside that picture of you?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Richard King
Originally posted by Draught Horse
He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.

Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.

Jacob, do you know how FUNNY this post is when read beside that picture of you?

True! :bigsmile:
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Richard King
Originally posted by Draught Horse
He is superb on Jesus and the Resurrection.

Btw, You just signed your death warrant on this board with this topic.

Jacob, do you know how FUNNY this post is when read beside that picture of you?

:lol:
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Seriously,
I have long wanted to do a paper, "What if Tom Wright were a Van Tillian and not a Plantigan." He critiques savagely the Enlightenment paradigms, but doesn't offer anything in its place.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Plantigan? Makes it sound like he's from Antarctica. Let me see: Plantingian? No, that doen't sound right either. Plantigonian? Nah, sounds too close to Eurasian, like Transylvania or something like that. I know, Alvinistic. How's that? Sounds close to Calvinistic, doesn't it?

Of course we know what to call things after Wright, right?

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by JohnV]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Seriously,
I have long wanted to do a paper, "What if Tom Wright were a Van Tillian and not a Plantigan." He critiques savagely the Enlightenment paradigms, but doesn't offer anything in its place.

It doesn't bother me at all. I love Alan Bloom's insight into the vacuousness of Modernism, but I wouldn't take theological advice from him; I like CS Lewis on many topics, but he is not someopne who can "revitalize Reformed thinking."

I'm glad Wright has made some contributions, especially against the Jesus Seminar.

Now if he could only get it right on homosexuals, Jesus' self awareness, inerrancy, women's ordination, etc., etc.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Seriously,
I have long wanted to do a paper, "What if Tom Wright were a Van Tillian and not a Plantigan." He critiques savagely the Enlightenment paradigms, but doesn't offer anything in its place.

It doesn't bother me at all. I love Alan Bloom's insight into the vacuousness of Modernism, but I wouldn't take theological advice from him; I like CS Lewis on many topics, but he is not someopne who can "revitalize Reformed thinking."

I'm glad Wright has made some contributions, especially against the Jesus Seminar.

Now if he could only get it right on homosexuals, Jesus' self awareness, inerrancy, women's ordination, etc., etc.

I agree. Let us not overreact to some movements in the church (FV,NPP) and throw out that which could be useful to the church. I read through "What Saint Paul Really Said" and though I strongly disagree with Wright's reorientation of justification, he is very helpful establishing the doctrine of Christ's divinity from the NT texts.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I thought he was against homosexual ordination.

He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html

But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?

I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.

His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.

I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!

 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words.

While I will disagree with a lot of his paradigms, his command of Scripture off the top of his head when speaking his unbelievable. On one site he urged young students to memorize as much of the Bible as possible--long chunks of it, especially in the original languages. He said that books such as Isaiah should be read in one or two sittings. He said it is helpful to always have the Bible being read aloud in one's daily life (ie, like having it on CD when you are cleaning your room, driving, etc). He said to listen to it in Greek if possible.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Lets see.... Wright denies imputation, forensic Justification, says that "Jesus is Lord" IS the Gospel, says that the letter to the Phillipians is in some kind of code as Paul was actually trying to convince them that Jesus was Lord not Ceasar, says everyone up to now has gotten Paul all wrong, and has a distorted view of covenant (and I am being genereous).

Where in Scripture can it even be inferred that we should pay any attention to anyone who preaches another Gospel? Was Paul joking about being cursed (Gal 1:8)? Pray that God will turn his heart, yes, but endorse him in anyway? NO.

Com'on guys, we can't just look at this as some type of academic excersise that has no wider implications. What Wright and men like him have done, has been damaging to the Church. The fact that he can write a book about the resurrection is great. The demons can do that and even had a wonderful testimony about Christ! So what. Next I expect someone to start endorsing some of the works of Rudolph Bultmann.

Maybe I am being alittle sensative but would someone mind telling me when we should no longer offer someone the right hand of fellowship (while giving him a left hook for heresy)?
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
"His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life."

Where is this?
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
"Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words."

That is because he has an English accent and endears you with European phrases like "every man jack of them."

:bigsmile:
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Scott
"Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words."

That is because he has an English accent and endears you with European phrases like "every man jack of them."

:bigsmile:

Wright's ability to communicate effectively is what makes him so dangerous!
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Scott
"His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life."

Where is this?

After Katrina, I don't know if you can find it. However, NOBTS has a debate/counter point program ("The Heard Lectures", or something like that). If you go to NOBTS website you might find it. It is also the counter point with Bill Craig and others.

Lets not forget that it isn't just justification and inerrancy that he's denying.
It pretty difficult to appreciate I guy who reportedly denies the existence of Satan, Demons, and Hell!! Listen here for further info.

Trinity Foundation Ronald W. Taber Memorial Lectures (2005)
The Theology of N.T. Wright

http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Wright_Collection13.mp3

VanVos

Unfortunately that is from Trinity Foundation. They also have Van Til, Michael Horton, OPC, PCA, Banner of Truth Trust as heretics or arminians. Perhaps they do label Tom Wright a heretic, but coming from them it doesn't mean much.

Lets see.... Wright denies imputation, forensic Justification, says that "Jesus is Lord" IS the Gospel, says that the letter to the Phillipians is in some kind of code as Paul was actually trying to convince them that Jesus was Lord not Ceasar, says everyone up to now has gotten Paul all wrong, and has a distorted view of covenant (and I am being genereous).

Where in Scripture can it even be inferred that we should pay any attention to anyone who preaches another Gospel? Was Paul joking about being cursed (Gal 1:8)? Pray that God will turn his heart, yes, but endorse him in anyway? NO.

Com'on guys, we can't just look at this as some type of academic excersise that has no wider implications. What Wright and men like him have done, has been damaging to the Church. The fact that he can write a book about the resurrection is great. The demons can do that and even had a wonderful testimony about Christ! So what. Next I expect someone to start endorsing some of the works of Rudolph Bultmann.

Maybe I am being alittle sensative but would someone mind telling me when we should no longer offer someone the right hand of fellowship (while giving him a left hook for heresy)?

What about Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis, and some Southern Agrarians? Perhaps you are right, but if we draw the circle too narrowly (of what we can read and discuss) then many of our beloved men of the faith can no longer play with us.

Also, I don't think you caught the drift of the thread, with all due respect. Gabe said that Tom provided him with a steady arsenal against infidel thinkers. I said that Tom provided me with a more than powerful arsenal on the Person of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, the Origin of Christianity, etc. If you had read my earlier post more carefully, you would note that I was not concerned with defending Tom on Paul.
 

VanVos

Puritan Board Sophomore
Unfortunately that is from Trinity Foundation. They also have Van Til, Michael Horton, OPC, PCA, Banner of Truth Trust as heretics or arminians. Perhaps they do label Tom Wright a heretic, but coming from them it doesn't mean much.

I'm aware of some those controversies. But that doesn't mean that their critique of Wright is insignificant. If they have evidence of Wright denying essential Christian doctrine then they deserve a hearing.

VanVos

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by VanVos]
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Also, I don't think you caught the drift of the thread, with all due respect. Gabe said that Tom provided him with a steady arsenal against infidel thinkers. I said that Tom provided me with a more than powerful arsenal on the Person of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, the Origin of Christianity, etc. If you had read my earlier post more carefully, you would note that I was not concerned with defending Tom on Paul.

Jacob,

I did read your post and I understand what you are saying about what Wright said about those issues. And I don't disagree that you can find something in Wright's work that may be considered edifying. I can do the same thing with Barth, Brunner, Harnack, Tillich, Bultmann and possibly Spong (not really about Spong!) and a variety of folks but the damage these men have done to Christ's Church far out ways any benefit you can get from them.

My question for you is how far do we go with this? At what point do we say that a person has gone too far and should not be listened to at all no matter how much "good" you can possible get from them? and by giving approval to some of Wright's work are we sending a mixed message to the folks in the pews who may not be as discerning?

I can tell you from personal experience that Wright's views can tear a church apart.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I have only seen the effects of his aberrant Theology. I haven't seen any good fruit born through this mans ministry. We have many others who can defend the faith as he can. No, I take that back. He can't even defend the faith since he redefines it.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
All truth is God's truth, it doesn't matter what the source is. We can learn a lot from pagans and unbelievers just as we can learn a lot from N.T. Wright in certain areas.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Mr Wylie,
I wouldn't dare preach his views on Justification, even if I beleived in them (which I don't). I see where you are going. Where do I get off the Wright bus? Usually after his study on Jesus. Again, I found his book, Jesus and the Victory of God to be superb. got to go now

Gabe,
You, my friend, are a study in contrasts. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top