R.C. Sproul on N.T. Wright

[Carbon]

 

[Josheb]

Whenever I hear anyone, especially other theologians, criticize Wright (as opposed to some of the other "New Paul" writers) I wonder if they have actually read Wright, or are they working from second-hand and third-hand reports of critics. I've read many of Wright's books and there are definitely some problems therein, but Wright can be understood though Vos' Pauline eschatology and much, if not all, of the imagined heresy disappears. Wright believes Paul believed salvation was very much a temporal event that occurred in the first century. For wright, salvation and eschatology are not mutually exclusive conditions and there are a lot of orthodox teachers in the history of Christianity who have held that view. Wright errs when he couches his viewpoint solely in the Pharisaic teaching in which he believes Paul was ensconced. I don't think I have ever read Wright say Paul had been changed away from his being a Pharisee and yet scripture makes it clear Paul left the teachers of the Law behind coming to Christ. He also left the Law as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification. Wright has missed that critically important fact. Wright's view of justification as a function of God's covenant promise reconciles well with the Lutheran view. Wright errs when he also discards the commutation of righteousness. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. I think Wright also errs when he speaks of the "covenant family," as if there is a "spiritual" bloodline. I may be reading him wrong on this part but if the notion of "family" is to be asserted then it is that of the adopted family in which inheritance is obtained as a gift of grace through faith. I like Wright because he prompts me to think outside the proverbial box, but denying the legal center of Pauline soteriology falsely dichotomizes justification by faith (alone) and God's covenant promises and faithfulness.

Philippians 2:3
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. Wright would do well to consider less Sanders and more Vos.

 

[Carbon]

Whenever I hear anyone, especially other theologians, criticize Wright (as opposed to some of the other "New Paul" writers) I wonder if they have actually read Wright, or are they working from second-hand and third-hand reports of critics. I've read many of Wright's books and there are definitely some problems therein, but Wright can be understood though Vos' Pauline eschatology and much, if not all, of the imagined heresy disappears. Wright believes Paul believed salvation was very much a temporal event that occurred in the first century. For wright, salvation and eschatology are not mutually exclusive conditions and there are a lot of orthodox teachers in the history of Christianity who have held that view. Wright errs when he couches his viewpoint solely in the Pharisaic teaching in which he believes Paul was ensconced. I don't think I have ever read Wright say Paul had been changed away from his being a Pharisee and yet scripture makes it clear Paul left the teachers of the Law behind coming to Christ. He also left the Law as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification. Wright has missed that critically important fact. Wright's view of justification as a function of God's covenant promise reconciles well with the Lutheran view. Wright errs when he also discards the commutation of righteousness. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. I think Wright also errs when he speaks of the "covenant family," as if there is a "spiritual" bloodline. I may be reading him wrong on this part but if the notion of "family" is to be asserted then it is that of the adopted family in which inheritance is obtained as a gift of grace through faith. I like Wright because he prompts me to think outside the proverbial box, but denying the legal center of Pauline soteriology falsely dichotomizes justification by faith (alone) and God's covenant promises and faithfulness.

Philippians 2:3
Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. Wright would do well to consider less Sanders and more Vos.

Did you listen to the whole video? I don't believe you have.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Did you listen to the whole video? I don't believe you have.

What the last gentleman says is true of all these types, they don't want to be able to be pinned down to anything definitive so they are constantly slippery in their wording, and you really do have a difficult time knowing exactly what they are attempting to say, all you really understand is "heresy" in conclusion.

 

[Carbon]

What the last gentleman says is true of all these types, they don't want to be able to be pinned down to anything definitive so they are constantly slippery in their wording, and you really do have a difficult time knowing exactly what they are attempting to say, all you really understand is "heresy" in conclusion.

So true

 

[Hazelelponi]

So true

Looking for something else I ran into this article you might like added:

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/defense-old-perspective-paul-what-did-paul-really

 

[Josheb]

Did you listen to the whole video? I don't believe you have.

Hmmmmm..... are you now changing the subject of the discussion away from Wright to me? If so, by what evidence do you base the belief I did not listen to the entirety of the video?

 

[Carbon]

Hmmmmm..... are you now changing the subject of the discussion away from Wright to me? If so, by what evidence do you base the belief I did not listen to the entirety of the video?

haha, really, Josheb?

 

[Josheb]

haha, really, Josheb?

Yes, really. Is the subject now being changed away from Sproul's view of Wright to me and whether or not I viewed the entire video, or not?


I did, in fact listen to the entire video. I have also viewed the larger portion of that conference from which that two-minute clip was taken. Is the discussion topic changed, or not? If not, then I expect comments and inquiries to be topical, to pertain specifically to Sproul's expressed view on Wright and my op-relevant comments thereof. If we're not going to stick to that topic then I will ask everything Wright has written been read (or all that Sproul has said on Wright's NP pov). Couldn't it have been assumed the entire video was watched and asked anything op-relevant?

 

[Carbon]

Yes, really. Is the subject now being changed away from Sproul's view of Wright to me and whether or not I viewed the entire video, or not?


I did, in fact listen to the entire video.

Well, I guess I was wrong then

 

[Josheb]

Well, I guess I was wrong then

Why does Sproul consider Wright's NP pov heretical?
Why Thomas was less decisive?
Why does Thomas wonder what, exactly, it is Wright is saying?

Is any of that what the op intends for discussion, or is the video a simple amusement of one theologian calling another theologian's teachings heresy?

 

[Carbon]

Why does Sproul consider Wright's NP pov heretical?
Why Thomas was less decisive?
Why does Thomas wonder what, exactly, it is Wright is saying?

Is any of that what the op intends for discussion, or is the video a simple amusement of one theologian calling another theologian's teachings heresy?

Well, ya know @Josheb, it does not depend on Just Sproul and Thomas. There are many more.

 

[Josheb]

Well, ya know @Josheb, it does not depend on Just Sproul and Thomas. There are many more.

Yep. I happen to be one of them, but I am not seeing how Post 12 addresses the contents of Post 2, or answers any of the questions asked in Post 12.