Posted by: DanutM | 31 July 2011
NT Wright on the Homosexuality Debate
Posted in Anglican, Biblical, Ethics | Tags: homosexuality, NT Wright
Responses
Leave a Reply
Categories
- Anglican
- Apologetics
- Architecture
- Art
- Baptist
- Biblical
- Capitalism
- Catholic
- Celtic
- Charity
- Children
- Church
- Cinema
- Collaborationism
- Communism
- Culture
- Development
- Discipleship
- Ecology
- Economy
- Ecumenism
- Education
- Engineering
- Entertainement
- Eschatology
- Ethics
- Evangelicalism
- Family
- File I-1065
- Fundamentalism
- Geography
- Hermeneutics
- History
- Human rights
- Humanitarian
- Humour
- Inter-religious
- Internet
- Islam
- Jesus
- Judaism
- Liturgical
- Media
- Missions
- Music
- Orthodox
- Patristics
- Pentecostal
- Persecution
- Political science
- Politics
- Post-communism
- Prayer
- Protestant
- Psychology
- Publishing
- Reconciliation
- Reformation
- Religion & society
- Religious freedom
- Science
- Secret police
- Secularism
- Sexuality
- Social justice
- Spirituality
- Sports
- Theater
- Theology
- Travel
- Varia
- Wisdom
I recently heard this comment “NT Wright in his new perspective on Paul, denies the imputed righteousness of Christ” … I am not read or versed with NT Wright … but do you think this statement is fair, Danut ?!?
(fyi, this was picked up on a radio interview on “Issues Etc.” called “Why Is the Active Obedience of Jesus Missing in Pop-American Christianity?” Aug 4, 2011 http://issuesetc.org/archive/ …. a pretty good representation of American Evangelical Christianity, in my opinion).
By: Gabriel E. Borlean on 5 August 2011
at 9:20 pm
Gabriel, I am not a Biblical scholar, nor a specialist in NT Wright. I do not know the answer to this question. I am sorry.
By: DanutM on 5 August 2011
at 10:52 pm
Thank you.
By: Gabriel E. Borlean on 6 August 2011
at 7:11 am
Gabriel,
I think that statement requires some qualification. Here is a link where NT Wright offers a quick answer on imputation. You may find a more developed version of his argument in other articles online. I am neither a biblical scholar nor a trained theologian. I have only been reading through some of his books recently, trying to understand his thought.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wrightsaid_March2004.htm
God Bless
By: marcel cosma on 6 August 2011
at 1:31 am
interesting dichotomy between “imputation” and “reckoning” … I still do not understand how this somehow changes what the reformers said or confessed.
Please see this post on why so many Lutherans (and Baptists) are upset with “the new perspectve on Paul” :
Why Wright is Wrong: Refuting the “New Perspective on Paul” Movement
http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/09/04/why-wright-is-wrong-refuting-the-new-perpectives-on-paul-movement/
By: Gabriel E. Borlean on 6 August 2011
at 8:39 pm
a few more articles
Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ and N. T. Wright: Exegesis Hovering Above the Text http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/10/05/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD%CE%B7-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6-and-n-t-wright-exegesis-hovering-above-the-text/
Misreading Luther with Bishop N.T. Wright
http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/06/17/misreading-luther-with-bishop-n-t-wright/
Justification under attack again!
http://cyberbrethren.com/2005/12/10/justification-under-attack-again/
By: Gabriel E. Borlean on 6 August 2011
at 8:44 pm
Have you read this, from Veith, via McCain:
“Actually, according to Wright, we are saved by good works after all. Though this is being called the “new perspective on Paul,”…”
Can you really buy this? Do you think Wright would agree that this is what he believe?
Let us be serious, my friend. Your CyberBrethren friend is blatantly distorting/misrepresenting his ‘opponent”s views, simply because – he thinks – the bishop touches on the perfection of his idol – you know which one.
This sort of dubious apologetics is dishonest intellectually and straight wrong morally.
I repeat, I do not have any respect for this aggressive and demeaning attitude. It may help some, and if so, may God bless them, but it is not for me, Thanks.
PS Describing NT Wright as a Calvinist is another crass distortion. So, it goes on and on like this, leading nowhere.
By: DanutM on 7 August 2011
at 12:08 am
It is sometimes good for the soul to be upset.
I am afraid I am interested in this sort of denominational apologetic game.
I have no problem with other praying it, but I have no interest in it, even when it comes to Anglicanism.
I try to hold lightly my confessional identity. I have always done that. After all, there will, be no denominations in heaven. Thank goodness.
By: DanutM on 6 August 2011
at 11:52 pm
Danut, I did read what McCain says Dr. Veith wrote “But he [Dr. N.T. Wright} believed that Luther had it wrong with this justification by grace through faith stuff. This is because Luther
misunderstood the writings of St. Paul, who, according to Wright, was just talking about freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law. Actually, according to Wright, we are saved by good works after all.”
The last sentence, to which you are referring, sounds to me … like an oversimplification at worse, a overcondensation at best. Not an expert or read much on “the new perspective on Paul” ideas, but one da I want and need to get to the bottom of this (most likely danish academic and liberal theology school).
Not because of what NT Wright or Luther wrote, but because the reformers claim that “JUSTIFICATION is the doctrine by what the Church stands or fails.”
Check out this interesting personal terstimony “A Lutheran’s Case for Roman/Catholicism” http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/KoonsCaseforCatholicism2007.pdf
By: Gabriel E. Borlean on 7 August 2011
at 7:21 am
I care less about what the Reformers taught and more about what the Bible teaches.
By: DanutM on 7 August 2011
at 11:05 pm