tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post8841709671603903878..comments2023-09-02T07:59:55.010-07:00Comments on The Bottom Line: Why NT Wright Is WrongCameron Buettelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13217501740084187739noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-21262610954980272852016-01-11T21:55:44.377-08:002016-01-11T21:55:44.377-08:00Have you read Wright? He denies the word imputatio...Have you read Wright? He denies the word imputation, but maintains the work of God in a believer. It's not the believer working, it's the Spirit working in a believer. Either way, the believer is declared righteous based on the work of God, not man. Read Paul and the Faithfulness of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-89926283531033630012016-01-11T21:53:29.258-08:002016-01-11T21:53:29.258-08:00Too many people commenting who haven't actuall...Too many people commenting who haven't actually read Wright. To think that he doesn't understand imputation is simply ignorance. Get to the core of Wright, and then write an article. Read Paul and the Faithfulness of God instead of just Justification. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-87252670870694938632015-07-03T05:07:04.462-07:002015-07-03T05:07:04.462-07:00In reply to the commenter above (Mark): I'm so...In reply to the commenter above (Mark): I'm sorry, but were you arguing from a Protestant or Catholic perspective? It as if you hold to the same view of grace and righteousness as Catholics adhere to: Sanctifying grace and infusion of grace.<br /><br />http://www.catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-doesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840275517829297115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-5029408479404792482015-06-27T07:54:19.112-07:002015-06-27T07:54:19.112-07:00Do we really picture Jesus having this type of con...Do we really picture Jesus having this type of conversation, "while NT Wright (insert any name here), is correct about who I am and 90+% of the things taught in the New Testament and has help turn the church away from it misrepresentation of me (Jesus) because he is questioning how imputation would work he is 'Preaching another gospel", and therefore I will condemn him to the lake of fire with all others who lead my sheep astray, and will tie millstone around his neck to boot!"<br /><br />This boundary-keeping where "scholars" call others heretics who don't hold every view they hold, is for children. Leon Morris in his book Apostolic Preaching of The Cross does an excellent job of giving the positive case for imputation, without suggesting that people that don't hold his view are heretics. <br /><br />I was going to comment that I doubt that Oxford teaches its students to use personal invective and fallacious reasoning (straw man, poisoning the wells, ad hominem attacks) but then recalled that Richard Dawkins teaches there.<br /><br />John MacArthur guards over his view of the scriptures the way a praetorian guards Caesar. He has that option as a Fundamentalist preacher. He attracks those that are every bit locked into the belief that there are dozens of theological beliefs one must hold to be saved. Wright has a scholarly hat to where that requires asking questions of the text and making distinctions that MacArthur refuse to ask or make.<br /><br />While I believe that penal substitution is the best explanation of the biblical data about Christ's atoning work, I'm not convinced that you have accurately represented Wright's views, and secondly, have you thought through the ramifications of your approach?<br /><br />Do you really want to condemn all Catholics to hell for "preaching another gospel"? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-26539391499279383242015-05-11T13:28:46.483-07:002015-05-11T13:28:46.483-07:00Hey, Mark Vincent, if you can call Wright "Re...Hey, Mark Vincent, if you can call Wright "Rev. Dr." with a straight face, it's pointless arguing with you. Get a grip, man!<br /><br />Now go watch that Phil Johnson video Cameron mentioned. Wright is a dangerous heretic because he presents another gospel. Paul would've handed him over to Satan for a BIT of tormenting.The Christian Theologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14841409239921477965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-1150540902879962602015-04-02T09:57:29.269-07:002015-04-02T09:57:29.269-07:00I'm disappointed with the blog's author. I...I'm disappointed with the blog's author. It seems to easy to throw out the word "heretic". Also, using the word "wrong". N.T. Wright a heretic? This is absurd! What about "imparted righteous" metaphors in Paul? Does not Christians share in the divine nature? Cannot we Christian's interpret Paul as both/and rather than either/or approach in Paul's righteousness theology?<br />I think Rev. Dr. Wright makes this emphasis in Paul's theology and understands it as a dynamic radical inner transformational change by Christ through the Spirit. This change occurs in Christ's salvific action. It is a change of God's attitude toward us (forgiveness). What Jesus said and what Jesus did for us is justification. However, it is also important to scripturally emphasize what God not only does for us in "justification or rightification", however we must reconize God's justifying or righteous actions within us and through us (impartation). Christian's experience His righteousness in and through regeneration and sanctification even to glorification. <br />I think overall Rev. Dr. Wright's message leads us to reconize life in the Spirit and that we actually can be right and live right like Jesus is right!<br />The continuing justifying and sanctifying work of change in the believer's will is where reformed thinkers continue to misunderstanding Paul's theology depth and breadth of rightness for the believer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04374678735704500487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-52661738267419716212014-01-11T19:48:39.086-08:002014-01-11T19:48:39.086-08:00You quote Wright as saying "Righteousness is ...You quote Wright as saying "Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom "<br /><br />Well, of course it is not. But if he thinks that this disproves imputed righteousness he does not even know what the word or concept imputation means.<br /><br />Surely someone as intelligent as he would trouble to find out the meaning of the word before pronouncing on it.<br /><br />I cannot become manifestly righteous if i cannot approach God in relationship whereby he leads me to real life changing repentance. and if i am not imputed as righteous i cannot approach him at all.<br /><br />Without imputed righteousness I have nothing at all.<br /><br />I learn this through having struggled as St Paul did in the 7th chapter of Romans. Crying to God was not mere theology. It was life or death<br /><br />Wright is a heretic and I reject his work completely. Any truths he has i can get from other sourcesMeikle's Miscellanyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01234881867227397287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-84588338629728957142013-03-16T12:49:10.875-07:002013-03-16T12:49:10.875-07:00Great blog! I am not sure why you allow comments a...Great blog! I am not sure why you allow comments against you, if I got my own blog I would allow no comments but that's just me.<br />Anyway, I read Wright's How God Became King, because even though he's wrong on Paul, I kept hearing how 'brilliant' he was on Jesus. So I became infatuated in trying to learn what Wright had to say on the Gospels. So after I read it, actually didn't even have to get through the first book of HGBK before coming to the conclusion (I did read the whole thing btw),that I thought he was the most arrogant theologian ever. Horton is right, he sets up straw-men thinking that this American, and perhaps English, anti-intellectual evangelicalism of today are the direct descendants of Calvin and Luther. He interacts with none of them but, does interact with the liberals are fair amount in the book. I was unimpressed. Also, in the first chapter, he spends the whole time bashing everyone's view on the Gospels and even has the audacity to say that everyone has gotten the Gospels wrong. But he backtracks with a parenthesis and says 'well that's a BIT of an overstatement but, I do believe the overwhelming majority of people, pastors and theologians have gotten the Gospels wrong.' <br />I found Wright absolutely useless, and far from edifying. His NPP and ego are his epistemology and the lens through which he views the Bible and life, and ones to stay away from. By no means does this make him not Christian, just a deeply erroneous one.Trenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511008932132026210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-17946479957608057042012-10-30T12:46:57.694-07:002012-10-30T12:46:57.694-07:00Wright is right on. Cameron, I pray you can loose...Wright is right on. Cameron, I pray you can loose your reformed bias and see scripture free of it. Whoever the anonymous responder is. Take notes when NT is in town. He may be able to set you free from a Reformed legalism that is destroying lives.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-76561089699945275422012-10-14T21:20:17.609-07:002012-10-14T21:20:17.609-07:00Thank you for a very clear summation of Wright'...Thank you for a very clear summation of Wright't theology. He is speaking at my school (the university of Chicago) next week and I wanted to be clear on the points where Wright diverges from scripture. Thank you for laying it out. I think it is always dangerous to have a "new perspective" on anything in Scripture. New usually means wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7670425954609557512.post-4743300834403283582010-02-27T09:41:00.766-08:002010-02-27T09:41:00.766-08:00come on, Cameron, you disappoint me a bit.
There ...come on, Cameron, you disappoint me a bit.<br /><br />There is actually an article on the internet where NT Wright discusses the atonement and PSA in especial. He also writes about his talks with Steve Chalke on the matter and testifies that Chalke said to him that he does not deny PSA in general but wanted to point out that there are strange caricatures of the doctrine going round and that he wanted to critique these.<br /><br />The article can be found here:<br />http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205<br /><br />Embedded in the article is a link to a sermon which is also noteworthy in this context:<br />http://www.ntwrightpage.com/sermons/Word_Cross.htm<br /><br />Also, when it comes to "imputed righteousness" to call that "something" apart from which salvation would be utterly impossible I must say that I strongly disagree with that.<br /><br />The foundational issues about the atonement that every Christian must believe is WHAT the atonement through the penal, substitutionary death of Christ achieves, any theory about HOW this works (and "imputed righteousness" is in that category) is secondary to that and christians at all times had somewhat different theories about that. I borrow this thought from C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" but I think many other thinkers are more or less on the same boat about the relative importance of specific theories about how the atonement works.<br /><br />Practically, if MacArthur means it that way as it sounds like, prior to reformation no one could be saved except maybe in the first to third century, I would say that would be a very risky statement (on border to be very judgmental) then.gandalfnoreply@blogger.com