N.T. Wright(s) and Wrongs | Doug Wilson

Pastor Douglas Wilson gives his thoughts on theologian N.T. Wright.

[robahas]

Notice the NT Wright books on the top shelves.

[BloodCovenant]

I discovered John Piper about 1 1/2 years ago. Through Piper God has revealed his glory to me as I have never seen before as it is revealed in the Word. Then I recently discover NT Wright and through Wright God is showing me his covenant as I have never seen before. Wright is showing me the glory of God as revealed in scriptures like Piper. It is just a shame that both of my heroes have written a book to dispute what each other are saying about Paul. I thank God for bringing each into my life. It has been and continues to be a very enriching experience to learn from both of them.

[kramnosenhoj]

Totally off topic, but I've watched this numerous times, just so I can hear him tell the joke at the begining. His chuckle makes my day.

That said, I think N. T. Wright is one of the most important theologians living today. Agree or disagree, his positions are backed by a lifetime of reading Scripture and interpreting it through the lens of history (of which he is also a scholar), you can't discount what he says very easily.

[phileoblack]

There seems to be very little objectivity in Doug's Assessment of N.T. Wright. It would have been more enlightening to here what aspect of Pauline theology N.T. Wright got wrong.

[bayreuth]

I have no problem with accepting the mysterious. The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery...that engendered religion" (Einstein). Being Itself is bound inevitably to be mysterious.

[Saltpirate]

This is accurate. Protestant and Anglican theologians will always have their points of disagreement. Such as justification.

[bayreuth]

The question of God's existence is necessarily a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. This is why Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawkings, etc., don't even begin to critique classical theism, for they don't understand it. God has always been understood to be the reason why there is something rather than nothing; and it maens that He is not a thing inside his our creation, but the ground of creation/being.

[bayreuth]

It was Ludwig Wittgenstein who said that Russell was superficial and flippant, not me; but after reading his rather silly essays about religion I feel inclined to agree with Wittgenstein. If you want a serious atheist writer read Nietzsche, but don't talk to me about Russell as though he were a serious atheist writer, he's not. He should have confined himself to mathematics.

[colintyler]

I see America Alone on the shelf. What a great read that was. Apocalyptic stand-up.

[bayreuth]

There must be something whose non-existence is impossible. Being cannot come from non-being without a cause. If we admit even the possibility that being can come from non-being without a cause then reason and rationality break down altogether. This means that an elephant might just "pop" into existence in my dinning room right now! Why not? If the universe came into being without a cause, why not an elephant? The universe, after all, is far more complex than an elephant.

[bayreuth]

"tides come in and go out why does this happen, your explanation: God does it". This is a complete misunderstanding; and it perhaps helps to explain your atheism. God explains why there is something rather than nothing; but God isn't a rival explaintion to scientific laws. God accounts for being; in that sense God is the deepest explanation. Two very different kinds of explanation.

[bayreuth]

If you always need an explanation of the explanation then it follows that (1) one cannot explanation anything because (2) there can be no ultimate explanation. It used to be the case that atheists argued that the universe exists as "brute fact" (Bertrand Russell) but now that many scientists believe that the universe is radically continent atheists have moved to arguing that "we need an explanation of God". But what if God is the "brute fact"? If the universe, why not God?

[darlameeks]

I wish he'd be more specific as to what Bishop Wright said about St. Paul that is "muddled", "confused" or "confusing". I find him elucidating on Pauline theology. He cleared up things I found confusing in the teachings of most (American, especially) evangelical leaders today, who are just a bit antinomian in their interpretation. Luther is, too, when he says every Christian "ought to sin a little" in order to best demonstrate God's free gift of grace. Paul said of that attitude, "By no means!" (please read the entirety of Romans 6 about this, and not just snippets of it...Wright taught me to read Paul like that).

[danowings]

I'm so glad that this guy exists. How else would we know who was right and wrong? It seems that NT Wright is correct when he agrees with this dude and wrong when he doesn't. I can't imagine the burden Doug must carry being the preeminent decider of what is the correct interpretation of the Bible on seemingly every topic.

[PastorBrianBetsworth]

But Wright is wrong about the Beginning and Ending of the Bible, so how can you trust him to get the rest right?

[bayreuth]

"... replace God with Fred". What's in a name? If "Fred" refers to the "personal" cause of being, the mind behind the intelligibility of the universe and its complex mathematical structure, then I'm content with the term "Fred". It doesn't really matter what we call this but it does make more sense to use the term "God" as it coheres better with a "personal" cause that is powerful enough (i.e. omnipotent) to create being itself. The meaning of a word is derived from its referent, not the word.

[bayreuth]

"Science can perfectly explain why there is something rather than nothing". Impossible. If science is the study of physical processes how can it account for being rather than non-being?!

You are assuming that you need an explanation of the explanation in order to have a coherent explanation; but the problem with this is that it leads to an infinte regress in which there can never be an explanation of anything, for in order for x to explain y, you have to explain x, and so on forever.

[ajdolphin]

He is one of best theologians. NT. Wright. He is correct we interpret many scriptures differently and take them out of context.

[paranormalknightsuk]

Nt wright is a true spokesman for Christianity ' I could listen to him speaking on the gospels for hours, he truely is an amazing man'.

My faverate new testerment scholar

[marctesio]

Wright states, the disciples never believed Jesus was the Christ until after the resurrection, Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And Peter was a ?