An Answer to Bishop Wright, Postmodernist

I'm uncomfortable with much of what Wright says, but here's a section from that same speech that is very pro-bible and has some good suggestions.

 

Once again, underlining the need to read a person's larger work on a subject and so on. :thumbs:

 

JD,

Wright is a gadfly. I feel you and I particularly don't like his current views on Justification.

But the Bishop is a solid scholar.

 

There needs to be a rule about cutting and pasting articles, then leaving nothing else.

Otherwise, I believe there is a "news" forum.

 

Nope, I'm sure Time was accurate. The website Linda posted from I hold in suspicion.
Here's the link to the Time article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html

It looks like Bishop Wright even mentions "life, after life after death" in the interview and says that the conscious intermediate state will be like being asleep compared to bodily existence. I don't know why Christians feel the need to misrespresent fellow Christians on the Internet. Here we have two examples on one figure in one afternoon.

 

Here is some comments by Piper from the book you reference. The whole book is available online at http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/2480_The_Future_of_Justification/

Seems there's some good things about this guy and some bad things. Some of the bad things are major problems.

 

JD,

I read Piper's book last November while on vacation.

Wright has turned upside down what Paul has said about Justification. For Wright Justification is nothing but a sign.

 

I'm not willing presently to use that word "solid" to describe him, but I'm teachable on it.

 

Well, according to the quote you provided from Piper, Piper seems to think so.

 

As I said before, N. T. Wright could not limit himself to five sentences, to give the temperature.

Nor could he do it without an audience, either, probably. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

You're right about Wright. :laugh:

 

That Wright fits perfectly well into the various views about the End Times might be an understatement.

 

He was misrepresented when the snippet from Linda says that the believes Christians will be asleep in God and inactive. I must have missed that part.

He was misrepresented in the OP because for some odd reason that website defines fundamentalism as Christianity, which, my guess is, differs from Wright's definition of fundamentalism.

It's fine if you disagree with Wright, but at least disagree with something he actually thinks instead of jumping to your own conclusions. At least try to figure out what he's saying before speaking for or against him.

 

This was a very interesting thread. I'm not real familiar with N.T. Wright's teachings, but based on the snippets culled for this thread and used to cast him in an unfriendly light, I'd say that his detractors are the one's who are making much ado about nothing. Even if his views are not 100% orthodox in some respects, we must act ourselves, "What does he make of Jesus Christ," for everyone who says he is Lord does so by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

Which, no doubt, would put him on the exact same level playing field with some of his more athletic detractors.

I am no particular fan, as I said before, but that alone is not reason to pigeonhole what any individual has actually said, out of the whole context. If one were to look hard enough, one can probably find a few statements by most any of us that would fit that category. And certainly one with a voluminous assemblage of words, such as N. T. Wright, would have more chance at this than most of us.

Ed

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board.

Ed

 

Yep, even when Wright is wrong! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed