What is your opinion on the theology of NT Wright then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
I very much like the writings of N. T. Wright. The first book I read by him was Jesus and the Victory of God, and I found it fascinating and still do. Do I agree with everything it says, no, but that’s true concerning every theologian I know
NT Wright is a high church theologian which is why the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions have a high acceptance of his views, especially the new Pauline viewpoint.
The new Pauline viewpoint is quite amazing. These theologians have a remarkable gift of clairvoyance. They can read the thoughts and intents of a person dead for 2,000 years. The new Pauline perspective is an unsurprising development in theology considering the times we live in. It won't gain much traction among genuine born again Christians, but it will lead others into eventually accepting worldliness as an acceptable Christian trait.
This is all so very new to me. I had never heard of "New Perspective on Paul" until just today upon seeing this thread.
A New Perspective on Paul" is code for 'another', as in 'another Gospel'.
Galatians 1:8-9 NKJV
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Whenever one is tinkering with justification, another gospel is bound to be the result.
Galatians 1:8-9 NKJV
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Whenever one is tinkering with justification, another gospel is bound to be the result.
Paul was well aware of legalism, so well in fact that he held the cloaks of the men who stoned Stephen to death. To think he would hold any faith in outward gestures after meeting Jesus personally on the road to Damascus is ridiculous. To think he would doubt Jesus after being healed by his "enemy" Ananias is insulting.
Well.....I have read a couple of his productions. I hate to be a judge and to say negitive views paints me as knowing more than him but I do not agree with what he says.
As "crossnote" stated, he is painting "another gospel".....IMHO.
Here’s what Wright himself says about the doctrine of justification on page 113 of his recent bool........
"Briefly and baldly put, if you start with the popular view of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel; whereas if you start with the Pauline gospel itself you will get justification in all its glory thrown in as well."
That’s a disingenuous claim. It’s not true, and the proof is seen in the fact that wherever you find the influence of N. T. Wright and the New Perspective, you will find the historic formulations of the doctrine of justification being challenged.
To me, when that happens you will find a critic of the classic Protestant stance on sola fide.
I have to ask, why in the world is the simple Biblical doctrine of "Justification" becoming such a fierce battleground on so many different fronts in the broad evangelical movement.
And if justification by faith is under attack, what then will be the next major controversy.
Jesus did not actually die on the cross?????
Jesus did not actually rise from the dead because He did not die????
Jesus sacrifice on the cross was not actually a penal substitutionary death????
.
As "crossnote" stated, he is painting "another gospel".....IMHO.
Here’s what Wright himself says about the doctrine of justification on page 113 of his recent bool........
"Briefly and baldly put, if you start with the popular view of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel; whereas if you start with the Pauline gospel itself you will get justification in all its glory thrown in as well."
That’s a disingenuous claim. It’s not true, and the proof is seen in the fact that wherever you find the influence of N. T. Wright and the New Perspective, you will find the historic formulations of the doctrine of justification being challenged.
To me, when that happens you will find a critic of the classic Protestant stance on sola fide.
I have to ask, why in the world is the simple Biblical doctrine of "Justification" becoming such a fierce battleground on so many different fronts in the broad evangelical movement.
And if justification by faith is under attack, what then will be the next major controversy.
Jesus did not actually die on the cross?????
Jesus did not actually rise from the dead because He did not die????
Jesus sacrifice on the cross was not actually a penal substitutionary death????
.
Sola fide is a thorn in the side of all high eucharistic churches, and Wright is a high church Anglican, so of course he's going to attack the biblical view of justification by faith alone.
I seldom agree with Wright, but of course I'm one of those he disdains, a Bible-believing fundamental Baptist dispensationalist.
Perhaps Luther stated it best...
"Justification is the article by which the church stands or falls".
Amen my brother...........me as well!Sola fide is a thorn in the side of all high eucharistic churches, and Wright is a high church Anglican, so of course he's going to attack the biblical view of justification by faith alone.
I seldom agree with Wright, but of course I'm one of those he disdains, a Bible-believing fundamental Baptist dispensationalist.
Amen!
NT Wright claims that the doctrine of justication has been misunderstood from the time of Augustine. Justification according to his view and that of his mentor Sanders requires that Christians, in order to stay justified, must act according to Jewish law. They see Jesus not as the Son of God but as a reformer of Judaism who enraged the Jewish leaders when he turned over the temple tables, resulting in his execution. They find no disagreement between the teachings of Jesus and the beliefs of the Pharisees. Not since Wescott and Hort have we seen such masked heathens holding influentional positions in the formation of Church doctrine and beliefs. I believe that this new perspective on Paul is just another example of satanic-generated opposition to the Holy Spirit's revelation of God's revealed truth. In plain language NT Wright is an arrogant purveyor of pompous poppycock.
It is worth noting that Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, the leaders of the New Perspective of Paul, are all British scholars that are disdainful of North American Christianity, which I assume means Evangelicalism.
It is worth noting that Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, the leaders of the New Perspective of Paul, are all British scholars that are disdainful of North American Christianity, which I assume means Evangelicalism.
why not stick to the bible?
he claims to accept reformed Justification, yet His theology denies that very fact
Wright denies the Penal substitutionary view of the atonement, as he calls believing in Jesus suffered the wrath of God in our place for our sins is pagan and barbaric thinking
Wright seems to want us to be drawn back to being one body under Rome
It is certainly barbaric............but not pagan.
Its the heart of the Gospel, Pauline Justification