Now with that said, of course Wright’s historical/philosophical approach is flawed but the central message of his teachings is empowering, inspirational and true. I believe he is trying to come up with ways to get the church focused and fired up to serve in God’s kingdom. Yet as always most of the church, scholars and pastors especially, will sit idly by criticising, critiquing, and talking theology instead of putting the hands to the plow to hasten the second coming of Christ.

Gordan Clark being a strict presuppopistionalist? I’m sure Van Til would totally agree with that one and there were no debates between the two about apoligetics 😉

http://www.wheaton.edu/wetn/lectures-theology10.htm

Benj

Did I pronounce it incorrectly? I forget if v’s are still pronouced as english w’s in the scholastic setting.

Bob

I thought you did a very good job of accurately rendering Wright’s arguments even as you disagreed with him.

Regarding his posture that eschatology is about more than ‘going to heaven when you die’ and how he often seems to float that as something of a rediscovery – I think in part this reflects the fact that he speaks to evangelicals – specifically English evangelicals – who don’t have much (any) reformed heritage.

You can find the “quotation” on iTunes/iTunesU/RTS Virtual/D.A. Carson’s first lecture on the New Perspective on Paul when describing his friendship/thoughts on Tom Wright

I’d be surprised to read that as well. Any documentation on it? I’d really be surprised, because his argument in “The Last Word” is for a very strong understanding of authority (short of inerrancy, but strong nonetheless). Furthermore, since many in his crowd are inerrantists, I’d be surprised that he would say something like that.

Wow Jeremy, is that statement a true quotation? If so, could you reference that? I believe a lot of us would be interested to see that in print. Thanks.

The accusation that N.T. Wright publishes with Fortress and if he said that the Bible as infallible was his foundation and presupposition he would be laughed out of England is a quite a statement. At first I thought it was totally unfair for a person who is far more conservative than not. Yet D.A. Carson asked Wright to write a chapter in “Scripture, Hermeneutics, And Authority” and Wright responded that he could not because “inerrancy is that stupid American doctrine” and writing for that volume would slow down his chances to move up in teaching prominence and Oxford.

“Scholarly recognition of Wright is sort of side barred to other authors such as Gaffin”

You sure about that? I’m pretty sure that most scholars aren’t reading Gaffin (they should), but it currently ain’t happening. Wright gets read and critiqued by just about everyone in the scholarly guild whether they support him or not.

Camden,

Right, I suppose the analogy implies Wright doesn’t have an epistemology, given that he doesn’t have an exegesis of Calvin! Not what I mean, though. Certainly he has an epistemology and says things relevant to human knowledge broadly considered. My point is simply that Wright’s background in epistemology, and philosophy beyond extremely broad brush-strokes of “modernism” verses “postmodern,” is limited, probably not enough to fill a wiki article as far as his published works indicate, including Surprised by Hope.

(And, though this would require actual argument, the movement of critical realism [and post-foundationalist theology] in theology is, as far as I’ve seen, an increasingly cloistered project, selectively historical and not significantly interactive with developments in the rest of philosophy or logic since Wittgenstein, except maybe J.L. Austin, or the history and philosophy of science since Kuhn–and their interactions with other thinkers outside of critical realism is often quite sloppy, not familiar with the work of actual scholars in those areas. All that is up for debate, though, and maybe not worth saying.)

Patrick,

Thanks for the encouragement. Does Wright not spend several chapters laying out critical realism? I suppose I fail to see how it’s that much of a stretch. It’s not an extended philosophical treatment. But it’s still an epistemology.

In fact N.T. has a tendency, not tenancy, although he may have that in another context.

Great input. I think I should of done a stronger and bolder job of reiterating the fact that NT is problematic if taken as a whole. I believe the problem with students reading him is, as you said, they begin to agree with his whole system, which includes serious problems. I also hate the fact that people do not recognize that Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, and Kline are light years ahead of where NT only barely arrives at in shadowy form.

This is how I think about it. I agree with his views on the resurrection and believe they are right and good and would be edifying to any believer, but I fear that once someone becomes a fan of that stuff then they will want to read his other works (who wouldn’t?) and I am afraid they will become drawn to his understanding of Justification, NPP, ect… which I would hate to happen. So rather than recommend him at all I would recommend another person or resource on the resurrection that is overall orthodox. (I wouldn’t go this far on secondary issues but I believe Justification by Faith Alone is central).

Thank yall for your response.

soli Deo gloria!

I believe all of us (Bob, Jared, and I) agree with you to a certain extent. We were trying to be as gracious as possible, and believe me, that was as gracious it gets. Does N.T. have serious problems with Justification? Yes, and Amen! The lack of imputation is in my estimation a lack of a proper understanding of pneumatology. We tried not to slander him nor give a straw man approach given that are usual audience for this program includes many outside of the reformed camp.

Given his views on NPP why endorse him at all (honest question)?