Featured NT Wright

Wright dose seem to see a strong continuity in God's redemptive plan as embodied in the Abrahamic Covenant, and as you imply, he holds a more Reformed view of baptism than we as Baptists would consider correct.

 

I wanted to point out that we all see our views as the best way to view biblical teaching (otherwise we would change our views to what we considered the best view....then we'd be back to square one - seeing our view as the best way). Only a fool would say "this is what I believe, even though I believe it false."

This is probably the best path. I had hoped that discussing NT Wright would be an engagement on his positions (whether one agrees or disagrees), but here the topic normally descends....no, it normally begins and continues to be...a blind rebuttal without substance. If anyone could ever pull it off here on the BB, it would be interesting to honestly engage his views. Personally, I believe that he brings out many truths that are often ignored or minimized (although I do disagree with him on several issues).

 

Thank you for clarifying (not that was not clear to begin with....just that it was not clear to me :tonofbricks.

I think that we are on common ground when we see the righteousness as a declaration rather than a characteristic. It is the righteousness of Christ.

 

What did he wright that drew you to this conclusion? My take on his understanding of salvation is certainly different (probably because not only Wright but his opponents within Reformed faith seem to disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment) and your comments lean more towards slander than genuine engagement. To prove your point, you will have to show where Wright indeed says what you suggest he states. In other words, back up your assertions.

For example, when Wright says "salvation is accomplished by the sovereign grace of God, operating through the death of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated through faith alone" (Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, pg 10.) how do you view this as a works based salvation?

 

Yesuah1,

In April we had a similar discussion and your PM indicated that you simply "inferred" things from Wright's statements (you vaguely point to Wrights belief that we are now declared righteous and this is evidenced by works as a product of salvation but that there will also be a future day of judgment...i.e., that the works of the Spirit are a declaration of a future verdict....this you "infer" to mean a works based salvation along the lines of the RCC).

All I am asking you to do is actually demonstrate that you are not bearing false witness by providing a basis for your comments. Perhaps you are correct, but you offer no evidence other than the feeling you get when you read about Wright. Again, please reference where Wright states that we are saved by works. Please show where he is trying to "bridge between Reformed and RCC theologies."

 

But do you actually arrive at that conclusion from Wright or are you interpreting/taking the opinions of others (is your suggestion legitimate or is it your understanding of another's opinion of Wright)?

The reason I ask is that you do seem to hint at some concerns I have with Wright, but you take them in a very different direction than seems justified with Wright's position. Can you show me where Wright leans towards this middle ground (that he is actually seeking this middle ground rather than suggesting the Reformers may have interpreted concepts within their own 16th century worldviews). Otherwise you seem to want to deny any potential for truth if it is not automatically in opposition to the RCC (thus the RCC would become your authority, although negatively, instead of Scripture).

 

Yeshua1,

Thank you for explaining your view on the covenants. I don’t know why I did not think of it before, perhaps because it really didn’t come up, but my fault was that I assumed we had a similar understanding of the covenants. We have been talking past each other all this time.

I know that this is not the place to debate our differences (on this topic), but just so you also understand where I stand:

1. The Old Covenant was not a broken system, instead I see it as fulfilling exactly its intended purpose (it was not a failure - it was perfect).

2. God did not “have to” establish a new covenant because of human weakness. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant were/are a part of God’s original plan and both are within the Abrahamic Covenant.

3. There was saving grace in the Old Covenant - it was the New Covenant that it foreshadowed in the person of Jesus Christ. This can be seen throughout the Old Testament.

4. While religious leaders were blinded (in accordance to God’s plan), they did not pervert and corrupt the Old Covenant. God is not so easily conquered. They were themselves perverted and corrupt.

5. The salvation of God is a thread that runs from Genesis through Revelation. The theme is redemption, and this redemption plan is for the glory of God and not man. Those who are saved now are Abraham’s ‘spiritual seed.’ God did not nullify His covenant with Abraham.

I believe your views unorthodox, as a denial of God’s one redemptive plan as expressed throughout Scripture as a whole. You, I am sure, view my view much the same, but as clinging to a failed covenant that God made with Abraham.

 

I think it is always possible that our interpretation be influenced by our contemporary setting - and we need to do our best to prevent this. Insofar as Wright, maybe some aspects are influenced by "over correction," some by Anglican tradition, and some by his environment. The possibility is there for all of us, but the certainty is there for those who ignore such presuppositions.

 

:thumbs: No worries...I'm not Anglican :smilewinkgrin:.

That said, I do not know that Anglican, Presbyterian, Arminian, Reformed, Baptist, etc. in and of itself qualifies or disqualifies one from making a valid observation. I am not saying blindly listen to Wright...or MacArthur...or Keller...or anyone. But perhaps his view needs to be considered and weighed before blindly dismissing it. One can be wrong about much and still be right about much (and vise-versa).

 

Dufus :laugh:...your turn.

Seriously though, it amazes me that so many here find the writings of John Calvin and many others edifying even though they disagree with much of their theology. For me, it is the same with NT Wright. I haven't 'bought into' the NPP at all...but that does not mean I merely dismiss his ideas. Personally, I think it is edifying even when I disagree with the author...it is a time to review my own positions and see how others view the topic.