Featured N.T. Wright

I don't approach Scripture from a protestant standpoint. Just from a logical standpoint, which is how all statements are approached.

But this issue of standpoints is big in Walton and Wright's hermeneutic, and they're very open about it. It's how they've totally twisted the book of Genesis and the creation account. They draw insight, so they claim, from the false religions that surrounded Israel at the time and their false views of cosmology, and interpret Genesis in light of them. Of course they have to start with the presuppositions that the Israelites created the account rather than reported on it from passed down documents and history, but I digress. They also assume they have an accurate understanding of what the ancients believed. All this, in essence, gives the reader permission to reject the clear straightforward Word of God.

You see the same principle in this examples. Paul clearly says the Jews were trying to obtain righteousness through the law and not by faith. But we should ignore that and look to flawed historical accounts so we can understand if this is true or not. It's typical Walton Wright thinking.

 

Lot of cliches and platitudes (speaking of politicians). None of it to the points I'm making.

 

Did paul not addressing that self righteous attitude they held as being keepers of the law, in Romans, looking down upon pagans who had no law?

 

Yes, but the wright position on Pauline Justification, heart of the Gospel of Christ, is wrong!

 

You're still not interacting with my arguments. I'll refrain from this strange political argument you're making.

 

If you assume a protestant viewpoint before you come to the conclusion that the protestants were right, then that's on you. I believe you made a mistake. Others approached the text logically and came to the conclusion protestantism was true. That's the correct way. if your'e guilting of doing it the wrong way, own it and don't project.

 

Which explains why you didn't touch them. Nevertheless, they are relevant.

 

Not following any of this. The fact is, Wright, Walton and yourself are denying very easy straightforward passages with a strange interpretive method that really doesn't make any sense. You're trying to make it about the reformation, but it's even simpler than that. Paul told you the jews tried to acquire righteousness through works and not through faith. My question to you is, why do you believe him?

 

At some point, everyone has to argue this very same way. You will eventually have to argue you're making the right interpretation. You even have to argue that you're interpreting Wright correctly.

But I'm with the historic faith, in affirming their interpretation Paul's statements in Romans. Ultimately, you're arguing it is wrong. Ultimately, the argument becomes so simple, you stand on it. I stand on Paul's very simple straightforward statement that the Jews were trying to acquire righteousness through the Law and through works. I have the text on my side.

 

And what I've done is call out his "reasoning" methods. I've looked into them, read about them. That are bad reasons to abandon the easy simple interpretation. You haven't engaged any of these critiques I've made. You don't see a reason to engage them. Fine, that's your right. But there're there if you want to possibly second guess some of these "experts."

Then, unfortunately, you'll never arrive at a solid interpretation, because eventually that's what you have to do. Once you've exhausted the immediate and extended context, you reach an interpretation. I've found the Bible, for the most part, very user friendly, despite "experts" trying to make it complicated.