Sproul on N T Wright

R.C. Sproul asked about N.T. Wright and his view on Justification by Faith.

[jawajab]

How many of these members of the panel have really read and comprehended NT Wright's works?

[franciscocampos]

I see R C Sproul expression: "Heretic" as a mechanism of defense. N T Wright seems to destroy all Reformed Theology teachings with a new view. Imagine you having thaught for decades justification focused on individual salvation then someone comes up with a new interpretation focused on Israel whose identity is with Jesus the Chosen One in whom all of the Church identifies as being saved? What would be your reaction? How would you counter attack such "pretentions"? Expressions like: "He destroys Solo Fidei and the Gospel with it" are clearly ways of defending a position. I don't think he is is condemming NT Wright to hell.
R C Sproul had a sharp mind for teaching and I don't blame him defending his view that way; but like Dr Thomas said: "We have to be careful not to make particular individuals heretics but doctrines of error, yes".

I wish all of these theologians together with NT Wright would have had a sincere conversation together, we would have had a better experience.

[mikewilliams]

The irony of a bunch of middling Calvinists calling anyone else a heretic.

[thaddeusc]

At this point I’m not sure anyone cares what he thinks. Being raised in the reformed tradition means being taught by the next generation of Pharisees that make claims about grace and salvation while holding onto the same views and resisting the continuing reformation of the church that the reformers themselves said must happen. I was told anyone not reformed was apostate.
Legalism 2.0 and the Paper Pope.
NT Wright has done more for me theologically and helped me be a better Christian than the repeated systematic theology I was raised with.
And all of that leads to double predestination no matter how you slice it and that is some dark stuff.

[pbudhram]

RC is obviously intolerant of NT's heretical view but he should have elaborated for the sake of the audience who may not know the actual issues of this doctrine.

[dougbell]

R.C. Sproul’s harsh words of condemnation reveal more about himself than they do about the beloved Bishop Thomas Wright. ✔️

[martinfroelich]

Bottom line is N T Wright is a bona fide NT scholar, Sproul is a systematic theologian. He can only throw out general accusations not justifying them with a biblical discussion. Also Calvinists virtually consider non calvinistic to be heretics. Sproul is recorded to have said Arminians as "nearly saved". What can you expect in terms of reasoned, civil and constructive discussion from such a sectarian mentality.

[auggiebendoggy]

Who's the gentlemen who addresses the joining of the community? I fully agreed with him, albeit I'm not certain what NT Wright is saying fully, but at face value, I appreciate what this man shared.

[benjaminlinnabary]

They clearly don’t understand NT Wright.

[omarsalomcanaloficial]

I would not want to belong to such a group. So sure, so certain……

[davidlittlewood]

Dear oh dear! You don’t call brothers ‘heretics’ because they are not Calvinists!

[gerrythornton]

I suspect that Sproul being an old man with health problems kept his answer short and to the point expecting the younger men to elaborate what he thought was obvious heresy but he must of been sorely disappointed by the reaction of a long awkward silence and tentative lone answer.

[bobbuilder]

Is he willing to give a counter-argument? Other than ad homonym?

[ClauGutierrezY]

With all due respect to the memory to R. C. Sproul:

1) While I understand where he comes from, NT Wright may be controversial though his new perspective on Paul is just one more approach like many that see the light in Theological circles and academia. This is nothing new, and no-one (not even NT Wright) declares it should be the only one considered. If we're to narrow down to heresy everything that is speculative about theology we'd get just one perspective and one only, the one coming from the anathemiser, which by the way, and speaking of 'the spirit of the reformation', is a very RC and EO viewpoint. 

I wish I could have heard a more elaborated counter argument from RCS, other than a blunt monosyllabic adjective for the sake of public reaction, but clearly the context and nature of the question was pursuing exactly that and not a serious assessment. That's the way muslims immams and apologists get away with their nonsense. We need to do better.

2) I personally (for what is worth) take nothing seriously from any group that consider's Sproul Jr. an authorised voice. No matter the renown personalities in it.

This is such an American 'cult-of-personality' thing.

[donsalmon]

Nice!, I like how the Catholic point of view about justification hasn't changed for over 2000 years, the NPP's confirms it!

[jonahdav]

Why was Sproul able to call NT Wright a heretic but not CS Lewis who denied Jesus as the only way to heaven?

[melissaminder]

It's fun when initials argue. J.K.

[dmorgans]

I wonder if I fail to fully understand what NT says, even when he repats himself, because he's somewhat unsure himself. Not that its a 'bad thing' - just he's showing his lack of certainlty in what we call 'faith'. I'm always wary of any 'theologian' that exhibits absolute certainty in some aspects of their theology.

[happyharryp]

It amazes me that Calvinist come just short of calling Armenians heretics, but Sproul will not hesitate to jump the line…

[josephmiller]

My suspicion is that a 5-minute coffee between Wright and Sproul would have cleared this up if they both showed up ready to listen to each other. I've been so influenced by Wright and Sproul. It's very disappointing to hear this.