N.T. Wright: What did Paul really say?

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:34 pm

Darin, I have a couple questions before I reply.
I'm pretty sure from reading your posts that you're a former dispensationalist, like myself and Steve. Steve and I are about the same age and were raised with, or were around when, Hal Lindsay/Tim LaHaye type beliefs were standard. We're both amillennial and partial-preterist today.

1. Have you had a similar evolution in your beliefs on eschatology, coming to similar conclusions? (I'll relate your answer to the thread in my next reply).

2. What and/or who are your sources on Wright being a modalist, not believing in the persons of the trinity?
I was dispensationalist by default without knowing there was a non-heretical alternative until I got through te fourth or so Left Behind book. I heard Steve on BAM and -- then, BAM! indeed. I tried desperately to figure out the convoluted schemes of the dispensationalism but couldn't ever quite do it.

As to my sources on Wright -- first, I never put him in the "box" of a modalist -- I just said he referred to "modes of being" in reference to God. To that end, he is my source -- he made the comment in his "So What!" lecture -- if he weren't so precise and painstakingly perfecting in his use of the English language, I would assume it was a sloppy offhand comment. But, that's sort of the point -- he does that sort of thing a lot and it would be nice to have him elaborate on a fair number of things. In fairness, he does more in his writings I've read, but not much in his popular works I've read, and doubt I'm quite literate enough for the more scholarly pieces.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Hello Darin, you wrote:Not to beat this to death, but I think you keep trying to assume I'm coming at this from a 5-point TULIP "box" in your words. You're the first to accuse me of being in a box, I assure you. But, regardless of what box the points may often be associated with, I'm not talking necessarily in those terms -- I simply want to know what he thinks about the logical questions that naturally emanate from the point of "election" or "calling" -- that is, to what are they elect (corporate and individual) and is it an exclusive call or a corporate call.
First, Darin, I didn't say you're a 5-point Calvinist!
My point was: Ever since TULIP came into existence we've looked at issues with it as a--- if not "the"---frame of reference. I include Arminian thinking within this frame of reference as Arminianism is a variant of (or from) Calvinism--and vice versa.
Whether Paul or second temple Jews or Roman citizens would have this in mind doesn't mean that it isn't a question that should be addressed by a particular theology on justification and election.
Why I asked about your views on eschatology, and how they've changed, etc., was for a reason. Namely, if Paul didn't think like a "pre-tribber" nor with a "Calvinist/Arminian frame of reference" why should we?

In order to know biblical eschatology; is dispensationalalism the correct frame of reference? No. Biblical eschatology just says what the authors said. In the same way, are we required to go through TULIP/Arminian variations to understand what the biblical authors taught? No. What did they really say? Was Paul familiar with John Piper or Tim LaHaye? :lol: (sorry).
Considering how extensive the Calvinist paradigm of election and salvation has become in our teaching today, I think a modern theologian is doing no service if he doesn't address the topic. He may well have in less divisive terms -- I'm just trying to figure out how his views of justification fit in to such an inquiry.
I might know what you mean now. You want to know how NTW sees things from Calvin moving forward; from within the "Calvinist/Arminian frame of reference", right?
As a famous theologian of the day, I require more of him than conclusions -- I point also to his views of the trinity. He doesn't doesn't get in people's "boxes" on that point, either, but he uses less than normal words in that area, too, (like 3 modes of being instead of personality) and therefore ought to expect people to inquire further why he uses such terms. Even though Paul doesn't dwell on either subject, they are reasonable questions for such a man in his position.
I may see good (and/or great) theologians differently than you do (?). I expect them to convey their conclusions contemporarily, which any decent theologian, of course, does (which makes them good or great). In doing theology like this, they get past old, worn out "frames of reference" and re-state things with a fresh, contemporary frame of reference. I think NTW is doing this. Is this why you're frustrated with him?

I've had a hard time understanding him and have been somewhat frustrated in trying to find out what he believes. But as I've gotten more familiar with his approach, and also learning what the controversial issues are from reading his oppenents; I think NTW is setting a new paradigm, a fresh way of thinking about theology. "New theological language", if you will. Some of his opponents aren't very happy with this....

As time moves on, new generations will hopefully think more biblically. Calvinist, Arminian, Dispensational, and other frameworks will probably be around for a while. The sooner we think like the Bible authors did, the sooner we'll not only know them better, but be enabled to freshly translate their thoughts and beliefs to our contemporaries.

We can "stay" with: Is it pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib?; Corporate or individual election?, Do I have a choice or not? Or we could get a better biblical worldview and go with it and and stay with it! (imnsho).

I relistened to the "So What" lecture and think what NTW said about the [Christian] God as being in "three modes" was probably in his text (NTW usually reads his lectures). Do you think what he said calls his trinitarianism into question? NTW is trinitarian (if you don't know this (?).

Lastly for now, I'm experiencing a lack of memory. Not just from getting older; I'm beginning to think so much more biblically that I forget what the "old frameworks" controversies are about. And this, I like! Take care.
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:15 pm

I might know what you mean now. You want to know how NTW sees things from Calvin moving forward; from within the "Calvinist/Arminian frame of reference", right?
I think you keep trying to paint me in a box I'm not in -- though the issue is brought up often in the context of that frame of reference, the only frame of reference I have is that I am curious what he thinks about the universality of the call -- this is a simple question and I ask it apart from any paradigm. He seems to see the salvation experience as turning on the call which he has separated from justification, so it's a fair question to ask simply on what basis he believes that call is made and to whom. He has indicated it in connection with God's sovereignty, which sounds like he believes it is limited in scope to a subset of potential believers and that belief is obedience from a discrete group of called ones.
I relistened to the "So What" lecture and think what NTW said about the [Christian] God as being in "three modes" was probably in his text (NTW usually reads his lectures). Do you think what he said calls his trinitarianism into question? NTW is trinitarian (if you don't know this (?).
I don't think he's non-trinitarian, but it's a strange choice of words from a classical trinitarian, so I am curious what point he would make by that choice of language (which I suspect was quite intentional).

Even if you're outside of normal paradigms, you can't simply use terms in a different way and discuss things in connection with your own paradigm without addressing the differences between your paradigms -- otherwise, communication is all but impossible. Words mean things, and he's been quite clear when he uses justification, for example, in less than traditional ways. I just want to see where it leads in his own paradigm.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:25 pm

I am curious what he thinks about the universality of the call -- this is a simple question and I ask it apart from any paradigm. He seems to see the salvation experience as turning on the call which he has separated from justification, so it's a fair question to ask simply on what basis he believes that call is made and to whom. He has indicated it in connection with God's sovereignty, which sounds like he believes it is limited in scope to a subset of potential believers and that belief is obedience from a discrete group of called ones.
From NPP link, 4. Ordo Salutis, NTW wrote:
"First, my understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result."

Earlier in NPP, he wrote:
"Let me, as a good Calvinist, offer you five points about Paul which I regard as crucial in the present debates, justification itself being the fifth" (with his 5 points being):
1. The Gospel
2. The Righteousness of God
3. Final Judgment According to Works
4. Ordo Salutis
5. Justification"

It looks like NTW is a 5-point Calvinist (albeit, unconventional) regarding your questions.
NTW seldom talks about TULIP (but there it is, above).
I WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT & STAND CORRECTED.
Thanks, Darin.
P.S. Check out my new signature.
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:33 am

Darin,

I googled "N.T. Wright on Limited Atonement" yesterday and couldn't find anything after about 20-25 minutes of looking....
Last edited by _Rich on Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:25 am

I'll check out that thread -- meanwhile, his views of total depravity might be insightful.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:03 am

I don't think we'll find much anything "traditional" (on TULIP) in NTW's thought...just that he agrees with the basic Protestant (Reformers') "distinctives".
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:12 am

I don't think we'll find much anything "traditional" (on TULIP) in NTW's thought...just that he agrees with the basic Protestant (Reformers') "distinctives".
Perhaps, but I do think I've heard him say that we all still have that spark of our maker or something like that which doesn't sound much like a Calvinist view of depravity.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:23 am

Perhaps, but I do think I've heard him say that we all still have that spark of our maker or something like that which doesn't sound much like a Calvinist view of depravity.
More like Prevenient Grace....
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:07 pm

39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England (1571)

9. Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

10. Of Free Will
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.

11. Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

12. Of Good Works
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

13. Of Works before Justification
Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

14. Of Works of Supererogation
Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's commandments which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to do, say, We be unprofitable servants.

15. Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: and sin, as S. John saith, was not in Him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things: and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

16. Of Sin after Baptism
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

17. Of Predestination and Election
Predestinations to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feeling in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.
__________________________________________________

(I thought something to look into)...sounds like NTW, and Calvin, and Arminius, huh? :wink:
Last edited by _Rich on Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”