Do These beliefs take NT Wright Out From orthodoxy then?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Yeshua1, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    been reading up on his theology, and would appear that he has some more troubling beliefs, in addition to Him not clearly defining salvation in the penal substitutioanry mode, and his peculiar views regarding pauline Justification, as well as not seeming to hold to an inerrant view of scriptures, we can add to those :

    "Wright's doctrinal perspectives, with reference to the New Testament, are expressed throughout his writings. In his popular-level book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, he teaches a position referred to as Christian mortalism, meaning that he denies the immortality of the soul, and souls going to heaven upon death.[18] He also advocates a reunion of soteriology and ecclesiology, commenting that such a connection is often neglected in Protestantism. In addition, he is critical of various popular theological ideas, such as the dispensationalist doctrine of the rapture "

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    N.T. Wright
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784
    Any other source besides wiki?
     
  3. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I dare you to do your own research on his book Surprised by Hope. Part of the confusion is what he means by "soul". I'd challenge you to figure out what 1st century Jews meant by it w/out mixing it with neo-platonic philosophy/theology.

    In short, he teaches in that book that it is misguided for Christians to focus on heaven and call heaven as home. Heaven is the temporary state. We should look forward to the resurrection of our bodies and the restoration of creation ("new creation"). He argues that the point of Scripture is not life after death but life after life after death.
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Not familiar with Wright or his teachings but he is correct to be critical of
     
  5. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll echo GreekTim's reply in that some of these Wikipedia remarks do not seem accurate given what Wright has actually argued in his books. For example, Wright wrote a lengthy book on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in which he argues for a conscious, disembodied intermediate state (which necessitates belief in an immortal soul) before a bodily resurrection for believers.

    As with any figure, there is no better practice than reading the primary sources for yourself. For example, Wright's "for everyone" commentaries (he uses the name Tom Wright for these books) are brief, readable accounts of his approach to Christian doctrine through his brief comments on what the New Testament says. His Romans "for everyone" commentary would give a clear explanation of his approach to how he thinks salvation works and might be the best place to start.
     
  6. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    The OP has proven again and again that he is entirely unknowledgeable about anything significant concerning NT Wright. I'd be willing to wager that he's never actually read anything substantive by Wright.
     
  7. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Which is a shame b/c he is so good!
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784
    I do not know that he is so good but going to wiki as a source to critique his writings discredits the question in the op.
     
  9. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    N.T. Wright is Anglican with a capital A, so as a baptist there are going to be things that I don't agree with him, theologically speaking. That being said, he is a very through scholar and equally well written. I enjoy his thinking on a lot of issues, even if I don't always agree with him.
     
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Was the information cited regarding his beliefs wrong?
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    can denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures, holding to water baptism as entry way into the Kingdom, and by holding to justification that is not as paul stated, nor as the reformers did...

    I agree with his views on resurrection of Christ, but can e excuse his other views just due to him being right in? that issue
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784

    What is your source for these claims?
     
  13. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    1) I don't hold to the conservative or fundie view of inerrancy.

    2) Not sure where he says this, but you can make a biblical case that baptism has a necessary function. For what exactly is the issue. But it is certainly necessary for an appeal to God (1 Pet 3) as well as associated with the conversion experience.

    3) He actually argues what Paul's view of justification is (clearly you disagree but I bet you have read little as to what he actually says about it), and that it is different from the reformers. You worded that quite poorly.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    "If we really engage with the Bible in this serious way we will find, I believe, that we will be set free from what verges on small-scale evangelical paranoia about scripture. We won’t be forced into awkward corners about whether scripture is exactly this or exactly that. Of course the Bible is inspired, and if you’re using it like this there won’t be any question in your mind that the Bible is inspired. But, you will be set free to explore ways of articulating beliefs which do not fall into the old rationalist traps of 18th or 19th or 20th centuries.
    Further, you will discover that the Bible will not let you down. You will be paying attention to it rather than sitting in judgment over it—not coming to it with preconceived notions of what this or that passage has to mean if it is to be true. You will discover that God is speaking new truth through it. I take it as a method in my biblical studies that if I turn a corner and find myself saying, ‘Well, in that case, that verse is wrong’ that I must have turned a wrong corner somewhere. But that does not mean that I impose what I think is right onto that bit of the Bible, either. It means, instead, that I am forced to live with that text uncomfortably, sometimes literally for years, until suddenly I come round a different corner and discover that the verse makes a lot of sense; sense that I wouldn’t have got if I had insisted on imposing my initial view on it from day one. "
    N.T. Wright on Scripture and the Authority of God, Part 6
    biologos.org/blog/scripture-and-the-authority-of-god-part-1

    "Paul’s Theology of Baptism

    Romans 6 is quite remarkable, when you think about it. Within twenty-five years of the crucifixion, Paul had already worked out this astonishingly deep and detailed theology of what it means to go through the waters of baptism, linking it to the Exodus, to creation, to new creation, and in particular to Jesus’ own death and resurrection.

    Therefore, says Paul, the spectacular Good Friday and Easter at the heart of the Christian story—Jesus’ dying and rising—happened to us in baptism. Paul doesn’t hold back here: he doesn’t hedge and say “as if.” He simply says, You died with Christ in baptism and you were raised with him through the waters into the new life of belonging to Jesus.

    Because of this problem, many people in the last few hundred years have decided only to baptize people who are absolutely sure of their faith. But even where people are only baptized upon a very serious adult profession of faith, things can—and sometimes do—go horribly wrong. So I don’t think such a policy actually solves the problem."
    N. T. Wright on Word and Sacraments: Baptism

    . www.reformedworship.org/article/december-2008/n-t-wright

    “‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.”1

    “Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God ... On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it [i.e., the problem] has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?”2

    “What Paul means by justification, in this context, should therefore be clear. It is not ‘how you become a Christian,’ so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’”
    N.T. WRIGHT ON JUSTIFICATION

    by Charles E. Hill
    www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/nt/NT.h.Hill.Wright...

    Hope that helps!
     
  15. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    This, right here, is the demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Wright's theology.

    Please stop posting nonsense like this. Wright is a fine theologian, a world class theologian, and folks will be reading him for generations. Your mischaracterization of his views here and in the OP is utterly defenseless. I don't agree with everything Wright says, but do recognize his contributions and proper place among the pantheon of elite theologians.
     
  16. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784
    Seems to be a common defense of Wright supporters. A very weak argument at best.
     
  18. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Maybe you need to underline hist statements that you think proves your claims.
     
  19. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I have never seen it refuted... so... boom.

    It is a good argument. How can you claim to know someone's theology is bad if you've not read that person? You are trusting the claims of other people who themselves maybe trusting the claims of other people.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784
    It is an assumption against everyone who opposes his writings by those who support him. You do not know if it is true but you always throw it out there that is might be true. Childish really.
     

Share This Page

Loading...