And you believe Wright is honest.
Fine.
I believe he likely sincere, but mistaken.
His approach is fallacious.
I've made that case.
You're free to engage my arguments.
I'm afraid my responses are going to be very similar until you actually engage my critiques of Wright.
Here's a clip of NT Wright on Genesis and Adam and Eve.
I think this conveys what I mean by sophistry.
He's going to very eloquently tell you that the details of Genesis don't matter.
He'll give reasons , but honestly, if you look closely, he really doesn't say much, at least that should have taken that long.
He sums up by saying that really, God created the world and shared it with us, and now wants to redeem it for us, or something to that effect.
In fact, this is woefully incomplete.
He missed the real thrust of the narrative.
Adam fell and allowed death to enter the world, which is the reason Christ was sent.
Christ came because of the Cosmic Curse that entered the world through Adam.
Yes, I believe Wright is not only honest but he strives to legitimately study God's Word.
That does not mean he is right.
I also like Gordon Fee and he's assembly of God.
I like Sproul, Packer and Keller and they (like Wight) belueve Scripture affirms infant baptism.
I disagree that Wrights approach is wrong but I am not as confident about his sources.
That said, rabbinic literature does seem to support some of his ideas concerning Jewish thought.
I am less concerned about arguing for Wright's ideas than I am about arguing for the legitimacy of his study - even if he is wrong.
Yes, it appears you gravitate toward the theistic evolution crowd and Biologos (with the exception of Sproul who conceded toward the end of his life, Genesis days are likely literal).
Tim Keller, in particular, is very problematic.
According to his sophisticated hermeneutic he's concluded that Genesis contradicts itself and therefore is not meant to be interpreted literally.
He cites the problem of when plants were created.
He makes such a sophisticated case, yet easily refuted by simple arguments from the Text.
No, I disagree with theistic evolution entirely.
That does not make sense to me.
Theistic evolution IMHO is a denial of the work of Christ as it relates to sin and the "first Adam".
That said. I suppose it is possible I am mistaken, but I cannot make theistic evolution fit into the idea that death came about due to Adam's sin.
When I read the Bible the "straightforward meaning" I get is that Israel held themselves to be a covenant people and sought to meet the requirements of righteousness through works of the Law because to them the righteousness of God had been manifested through the Old Covenant. (Ironically Calvinism views salvation as the righteousness of God manifested through the Law but accomplished by Christ, which is perhaps just as wrong). So the problem with viewing the Jews as holding to salvation by works is that it is against a (my) straightforward reading of the text.
The Jews instead held to a righteousness based in tge works of the Law (which is entirely different).
I'm in total agreement with you, especially when they fudge on the historicity of Adam.
But it's not a problem for the hermeneutic of Keller, Wright and many of these other guys.
We both agree it's a serious issue, and therefore it should give you pause regarding these men and their interpretative methods.
Salvation based on works of the Law is salvation by works.
What difference are you seeing?
Interesting discussion in here. As someone who has been devouring Wright audiobooks for the past year at least, it's interesting to hear others opinions of NT.
The difference is that the 1st century Jew pursuing righteousness by works is not exactly the same thing as a person seeking salvation br works.
The difference is not works but the 1st century Jewish idea of righteousness within a covenantal relationship vs a contemporary Christian idea of salvation.
I grant in the scheme of salvation it is a difference without distinction.
But when studying justification it is a difference that matters (even if merely academic).
I just keep thinking that we make a distinction (between justification and salvation). But in discussions they always get blended together.
I am leaning to righteousness/ justification being what we experience here in relation to a future state of salvation (we are in a covenant group - the Church, and our faith is what justifies us in relation to this New Covenant- the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law, which is a living hope of our ultimate salvation).
Anyway, that's probably more rambling than expanding.
It just helps me to think out loud and argue what I am thinking.
You can chalk it up to me practicing for the nursing home. :Thumbsup
Wright denies that Paul was teaching to us the individual salvation of lost sinners, not so then how to get right with God, but what to do since already right, and that is NOT the Gospel!
Wright presents to us a theology that would see the Judaism of time of Chris pretty good, just not practicing what they taught, but jesus and paul saw it as busted and broken!
No. That is a false statement and what I was referring to when I said political theology (the idea we are justified at misrepresenting people if they hold different views).
Wright does define justification/ righteousness differently and he does place that outside of teaching "individual salvation", but the doctrine of justification/ righteousness is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
No, there is a very good probability his emphasis is right. The issue is keeping a simplistic doctrine that only points to different aspects of becoming saved. Wright (and probably Scripture) does not meet our demands.
Right--and someone may have already said this--but this is why Jesus told Nicodemus, "You must be born AGAIN," because being born as a descendant of Abraham did not make one a child of God. Only through the birth of the Spirit can one become a child of God. Pretty simple, really.