We're interviewing N. T. Wright on Tuesday. What questions do you think we should ask him?

Since we are so close, we have decided to drive up to Canada next week to interview N. T. Wright.

We are asking people to post their suggestions for questions to ask him next week on our Facebook page.

If you have a question you would like to propose we ask him, please go to our Facebook page (where there are already dozens of suggestions posted) and add yours to the list.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

(‾◡◝)

Sorry, Dan ... I don't do Facebook.

D. A. Carson and Wright have known each other for years. Here is a link to an interesting lecture that Carson gave concerning The New Perspectives on Paul - I believe it is a seminary audience. Three MP3s - roughly three hours total. Carson gives interesting insights concerning Wright and, of course, a fabulous look into the origins, history and a fascinating critique of NPP. Well worth the listen before you go to interview him.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=carson+mp3+new+perspective

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192398#Comment_192398

There is an article in wikipedia on The New Perspective on Paul for those who would care to know what the issues are.

New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rosie Perera

Since we are so close, we have decided to drive up to Canada next week to interview N. T. Wright.

Cool! Are you going to be at his public lecture Tuesday night in Langley? I'm planning to go. Maybe I'll see you there.

Anyone else in BC or northern WA that might be interested, here are the details:

Trinity Western University is pleased to welcome Dr. N. T. Wright, prominent New Testament scholar and Bishop, on November 16-17, 2010, for the Distinguished Lecturer Series. In addition to speaking to TWU students during several Chapels, Bishop Wright will also be giving a Public Lecture on November 16 and participating in a special, three-hour Symposium with the Faculty of Religious Studies and invited guest scholars (including Regent College's Professor of Theology, Hans Boersma) on November 17.

Tuesday, November 16, 11:00am

Chapel Talk – "Hope in Tomorrow's World" @ David E. Enarson Gym, Trinity Western University - 7600 Glover Road, Langley (Open to the public)

Tuesday November 16, 7:30pm

Lecture – "Called to be Human: Agenda for Tomorrow's Church" @ Christian Life Assembly - 21277 56 Avenue, Langley

(Open to the public)

Wednesday, November 17: 11:00 am

Chapel Talk – "Character in Tomorrow's World" @ David E. Enarson Gym, Trinity Western University - 7600 Glover Road, Langley (Open to the public)

For more information visit: http://impact.twu.ca/project/project.aspx?asset=111

Pat Flanakin

Frankly, it all comes down to whether you use a literal hermeneutic or not, which means letting the original language speak for itself.

False doctrines and philosophies to send man astray of the Truth will always arise. I put this "New Perspectives" in that boat.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192705#Comment_192705

Letting the original language speak for itself is not a literal hermeneutic. It's a grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

Donnie

Pat Flanakin

Mr. Pritchett,

My only question would be this:

Dr. Wright, would you say that, in John 3:16 where God's Word states that "whoever believes has eternal life," this area of Scripture means by believes implies believe and work, or just believe; and if just to believe, does it mean to keep on believing, or believe at that point regardless of future belief? This directly has a bearing on the "New Perspectives" theme.

If it means believe and work, then where in other areas of Scripture and extrabiblical Greek sources is the Greek word for belief (pistis) used for believe and work to show that belief. Seems to me a word for "prove" would be better suited since that is what Lordship and these New Perspective guys are after.

Mike Binks

Since we are so close, we have decided to drive up to Canada next week to interview N. T. Wright.

Dan,

May I ask the simple questions?

When you have done your interview will a recording or transcript be available?

If so how do we access it?

Dan Pritchett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192711#Comment_192711

When you have done your interview will a recording or transcript be available?

If so how do we access it?

We plan to blog about it and post a video soon.

Robert M. Warren

Ever since I heard the sound clip of his account of a conversation with a Greek Orthodox person at the Sistine Chapel, I've wanted to ask him: "How much of your life has been devoted to studying the Bible that you let a 15-minute conversation with an amateur Greek art critic change your ideas on the doctrine of Hell?" (re: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/06/n-t-wright-on-hell.html)

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192771#Comment_192771

Robert, that was a very interesting link thanks. Looks like Wright is joining the 'New Perspective on Hell' along with Fudge, Stott, Pinnock, and others.

Mathew Voth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192786#Comment_192786

I'll be there tomorrow, in person! Looking forward to it!!

Rosie, don't tell everyone, we may not get seats!!! [:P]

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192786#Comment_192786

Robert, that was a very interesting link thanks. Looks like Wright is joining the 'New Perspective on Hell' along with Fudge, Stott, Pinnock, and others.

Can you explain that perspective a little bit more, Robert?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192771#Comment_192771

Ever since I heard the sound clip of his account of a conversation with a Greek Orthodox person at the Sistine Chapel, I've wanted to ask him: "How much of your life has been devoted to studying the Bible that you let a 15-minute conversation with an amateur Greek art critic change your ideas on the doctrine of Hell?"

Sometimes it takes only an instant to see that there is another way of interpreting it - if you have the foundation of a lifetime of study. This is true in math, literary criticism and, yes, Biblical interpretation. If you've spent much time in a Greek Orthodox church, you'll understand that "reading" the Sistine chapel would be second nature. You can "read" the Bible in the frescos on Southern Italian churches that were built when literacy was limited.

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192801#Comment_192801

Robert, that was a very interesting link thanks. Looks like Wright is joining the 'New Perspective on Hell' along with Fudge, Stott, Pinnock, and others.

Can you explain that perspective a little bit more, Robert?

Was that addressed to me or Robert? If it was to me, I can't answer here because the last time I quoted from a Logos resource in answer to a question about what current commentaries said about a Biblical subject I was told not to and the thread was closed.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192826#Comment_192826

Sometimes it takes only an instant to see that there is another way of interpreting it - if you have the foundation of a lifetime of study. This is true in math, literary criticism and, yes, Biblical interpretation. If you've spent much time in a Greek Orthodox church, you'll understand that "reading" the Sistine chapel would be second nature. You can "read" the Bible in the frescos on Southern Italian churches that were built when literacy was limited.

While I agree with your first assertion in general, it would only be in the case of peripheral issues about which the Bible is unclear to one degree or another. However, I respectfully disagree with it in specific areas where I believe the Bible is abundantly clear. And while my question wasn't really about religious art as such, I will add that I think doctrine and worship can be augmented by art, but for the transmission and preservation of the faith that was once for all delivered, I think the visual arts are perilously subjective and unsuitable. That being said, I appreciate your comments, as you are apparently well-traveled and -educated.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192801#Comment_192801

Can you explain that perspective a little bit more, Robert?

Can't explain it...hence the question.

Allen Browne

On the assumption that everyone in this thread has some interest in Wright, you may want to check this out:

http://www.logos.com/product/8576/n-t-wright-collection

(Doesn't include the Christian Origins and the Question of God Series (3 vols.) series.)

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192932#Comment_192932

Was that addressed to me or Robert?

Sorry, it was directed to you, I just read your quote of Robert and responded too quickly I guess. I was curious about the "new perspective on hell" you mentioned.

I enjoy Wright's works because he really does have a knack for providing a fresh perspective on an old topic. Contrary to what many believe about him, he doesn't stray from orthodoxy, just helps explain it better, and in a way that gets rid of whatever issues muddled the doctrine previously. To use an analogy, Wright finds a new road to the same destination but with less wrong turns and traffic jams. His work as an ancient historian aids him in getting back into the minds of the authors of scripture. To some that perspective may be unsettling because they're just very familiar with staying in the minds of later theologians, like Augustine and Luther. So Paul through the mind of Paul might look a little different then Paul through the mind of Luther, and that's his whole point over the "new perspective on Paul". The debate then, needs to center not on how different Paul's perspective is from Luther's, but on how reliable Wright's assessment of Paul's perspective is.

The doctrine of Hell, to an extent then, might be one that's been obscured through the centuries by Christian's assumptions and imaginations that have become so ingrained in our theology that to say otherwise might be considered "heresy". Wright said something that I'll quote below from an interview he did a few years back that summarized this basic approach pretty well. When asked how it can be said of his work that it is both orthodox and original, he replied with this:

"I do not think orthodoxy is found in a book where you look up all the
right answers, like a child learning mathematics. The child knows that
all the answers are in the back of the book so he simply checks on
whether or not he did the sums right. You really don’t expect that by
doing these sums you learn anything new. For me orthodoxy is more like
doing research in higher mathematics. It is continually discovering new
ways to move forward, while still holding to the accepted affirmations
which are themselves central. Putting it back into theological terms,
you have to go where the text leads you because the text is the text.

But there are certain massive signposts for an orthodox Christian
thinker – the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection,
the Holy Spirit – these are the basic ones for orthodox Christians. If
ten miles down the road you find that what has been a difficult and
murky investigation leads you to break through to the light, and if the
light that you then break through leads you to say “My goodness, yes!
God really is Father, Son and Spirit and this really helps me to see
even more clearly the importance of the truth that Jesus did really rise
from the dead on the third day, etc.” then you are seeing the orthodox
truth in new light. For me orthodoxy has been like a black and
white picture and the hard work of research and scholarship leads me
back to the same picture but now it is in color. It’s a little like
that film Pleasantville where bits start to get colored in as
the film goes along. That’s rather how it’s actually been for me as
I’ve done my work over the years. It’s the same picture as always but
now I am seeing a flash of color over here, then a bit more over there.
This has been wonderfully confirming. If one ended up saying, “Well,
shucks, after all the work I’ve done, it really looks as though Jesus
didn’t think he was going to die for the sins of the world – in other
words, if you end up sounding like Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar –
then I would have to say, “Sorry, something has gone wrong somewhere.”
And if I found myself seriously believing that, then I hope I would have
the guts to say, “This is not the orthodoxy that I grew up in. I have
changed.” Maybe I would have to give up preaching. But that is not
where I’ve been. Not at all."

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright

I think some react the way they do to Wright because they are very comfortable with the route church tradition has taken them these past two thousand years, and attempting to reevaluate something in a new light by going back to the source and letting it speak for itself is too much. I'm possibly more open to Wright and what he has to say because I've seen the value and worth of his approach on other areas of scripture done by other competent evangelical Biblical scholars. A major problem in theology and Biblical interpretation is on the verge of being solved for good because the ancient authors who wrote ancient scripture are being allowed to speak according to their ancient standards and conventions. Seems rather simple, really, but you'd be surprised with how much two thousand years of tradition has influenced biblical interpretation.

That's my take, at least, on N. T. Wright, and I look forward to reading Logos' upcoming interview with him!

rather then begin with a traditional interpretation and seek to find scripture to support it, he's more akin to approach scripture in its original context and let it speak for itself. Many times, that approach not only affirms traditional doctrine, but also expands and explains it better. A quote below

Mathew Voth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193185#Comment_193185

Just got home from N.T. Wright's lecture here in Langley, B.C. And wanted to assure you that his presentation was excellent, and included nothing resembling heresy!

What most struck me (and this of course comes out in his books) is how good he is at highlighting the Bible's meta-narrative. He manages to catch the incredible scale of God's redemptive plan, and put it in words that the average person can understand. This is so important for the Church today, and is something that we really need to get better at. I really believe that we need to embody this, and communicate this vision to those whom we influence. We often get so lost in the minutiae that we fail to articulate just how BIG this thing that God is doing really is. It is exciting, and is something that needs to be appreciated if people are to begin to compehend what God is doing in/with the world.

I also believe that it is a very effective form of communicating the gospel to unbelievers. When those around us begin to understand that the Church is not some boring, irrelevant "thing," and instead begin to see how they fit into all of this that gospel will really begin to be attractive (at least this has been my experience).

Blessings, Matt

P.S. He signed my book

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193230#Comment_193230

P.S. He signed my book

Your Logos book or a paper version? :-)

Did you happen to notice whether tonight's lecture was being taped? I had intended to go but didn't make it out -- hour long drive and I was too wiped.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/192786#Comment_192786

I am somewhat behind. I tend to read the old theologians, not the current. I am up on Wright and New Perspective. But is someone saying Stott is changing his position on hell? How so, and where would I find this. Say it ain't so.

Personally, I like N. T. Wright, and admire much of his work. But on "New Perspective", I think Wright is just wrong. I agree with C. S. Lewis that grace is what separates Christianity from all other religions.

It seems to me that there is nothing so new about the "New Perspective" - at least in its view of salvation. The "New Perspective" may get there a little differently, but isn't salvation by faith plus good works just "Old Liberalism" no matter how you get there? The major difference I see is that the "New Perspective" claims that Paul taught their theology, while "Old Liberalism" claimed that Paul was irrelevant. But the outcome seems the same.

Or, am I missing something here?

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193290#Comment_193290

It seems to me that there is nothing so new about the "New Perspective" - at least in its view of salvation. The "New Perspective" may get there a little differently, but isn't salvation by faith plus good works just "Old Liberalism" no matter how you get there? The major difference I see is that the "New Perspective" claims that Paul taught their theology, while "Old Liberalism" claimed that Paul was irrelevant. But the outcome seems the same.

Sounds right to me. It seems that the whole controversy centers around what Paul meant by faith:

The traditional Reformed Augustinian point of view that faith is a gift of God and in no way is of our doing.
Or the new perspective, that is when Paul speaks of faith, he is speaking of faithfulness, in that we should be "keeping" to something.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193290#Comment_193290

But is someone saying Stott is changing his position on hell? How so, and where would I find this. Say it ain't so.

Sorry to disappoint Michael, it is so.

Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue by David L.
Edwards and John R.W. Stott http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Essentials-Liberal-Dialogue/dp/0830812857/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290007730&sr=8-5

It seems to me that there is nothing so new about the "New Perspective" - at least in its view of salvation. The "New Perspective" may get there a little differently, but isn't salvation by faith plus good works just "Old Liberalism" no matter how you get there? The major difference I see is that the "New Perspective" claims that Paul taught their theology, while "Old Liberalism" claimed that Paul was irrelevant. But the outcome seems the same.

Or, am I missing something here?

No you are not missing anything. What has been surprising to me is how some have said on this forum they find nothing wrong with the New Perspective. I will take it they have not read enough on the subject or understand the implication the New Perspective to say that. No insult intended.

Ted

Mathew Voth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193301#Comment_193301

Rosie,

Yes, they were filming it (it looked rather official), though I am not sure how it will be made available. TWU does not normally produce dvds of lectures, at least that I am aware of.

And as much as I love Logos, I didn't think an autograph across my screen would be particularly helpful!

Mathew Voth

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193312#Comment_193312

Michael,

For what it's worth, I found this under the write up on Stott in Wikipedia:

Controversy

Stott has publicly considered the idea of annihilationism, which is the belief that hell is incineration into non-existence,^[13] rather than eternal conscious torment (the traditional Evangelical approach). This led to a heated debate within mainstream evangelical Christianity: some writers criticised Stott in very strong terms whilst others supported his views.^[14]

Steve Adams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193301#Comment_193301

if it walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, quacks like a duck...it must be a car....

that would be the logic of those who seem to think NT Wright has a "new" perspective. It's nothing more than Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism, Freewillism and a host of other isms). It may travel around the mountain to get up the mountain of semi-pelagianism but it still climbs the mountain, just not a direct route (they tend to stop off and pick up some neo-reformed thinking that will make it palatable).

Grace plus anything makes it no longer of grace (i think Paul said that somewhere).

I wrote a paper for a course at seminary which I titled: Wright is so Wrong: How the New Perspectives should just be titled Recycled Perspectives on Saul (pre-conversion)

nancy

P.S. NPP and Federal Visionists get my goat and I have no tolerance for them. I grew up in a works plus grace church and when, like Spurgeon encouraged, I read my Bible I came to a true knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace. JBFA All the Way!!!!

George Somsel

Since we are so close, we have decided to drive up to Canada next week to interview N. T. Wright.

We are asking people to post their suggestions for questions to ask him next week on our Facebook page.

If you have a question you would like to propose we ask him, please go to our Facebook page (where there are already dozens of suggestions posted) and add yours to the list.

The questions posted on Facebook don't seem to reflect those who regularly post here, but I've seen some truly lame-brained posts there. Surely those who actually do post here can produce a few good questions for Wright. I'm embarassed by most of what I see there.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193301#Comment_193301

But is someone saying Stott is changing his position on hell? How so, and where would I find this. Say it ain't so.

Sorry to disappoint Michael, it is so.

Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue by David L.
Edwards and John R.W. Stott http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Essentials-Liberal-Dialogue/dp/0830812857/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290007730&sr=8-5

Ted,

How has Stott's position changed? I thought his position for sometime was that annihilation is a possible understanding of the Biblical text. For example, at the link you provided, a reviewer quotes from Stott's 1989 book:

"I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment." (Pg. 320)

What is his new position? Where is it in writing?

Thanks in advance,

Scott

Edited.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193346#Comment_193346

Ted,

How has Stott's position changed? I thought his position for sometime was that annihilation is a possible understanding of the Biblical text. For example, at the link you provided, a reviewer quotes from Stott's 1989 book:

"I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment." (Pg. 320)

What is his new position? Where is it in writing?

Thanks in advance,

Scott

Yes Scott you are right, that has been Stott position for awhile & Is still Is. A lot of folks assume that since he is an Evangelical he must take the traditional view. That was what I meant - the change from the traditional view to the current one.

Ted

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193357#Comment_193357

Okay, thanks.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193315#Comment_193315

that would be the logic of those who seem to think NT Wright has a "new" perspective. It's nothing more than Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism, Freewillism and a host of other isms). It may travel around the mountain to get up the mountain of semi-pelagianism but it still climbs the mountain, just not a direct route (they tend to stop off and pick up some neo-reformed thinking that will make it palatable).

In the specifics of where Wright is off-base, I agree 100%. Primarily, it's adding the requirement of our ongoing faithfulness toward future justification that is his worst offense. I believe he's adjusting some of his thoughts on this in his most recent writings (i.e. responding to Piper). I also think all this to-do about 2nd temple Judaism (Sanders, Wright, Dunn) is a bit of trying too hard. Just taking the gospels at face value, there was a nasty strain of legalism ("works of the law") that Jesus constantly pointed out and addressed.

In other areas, Wright has made some contributions. I try to take a soft stance on some of this, especially toward the person (versus the doctrine). I've seen far worse from near-cults / aberrant Christian organizations.

Donnie

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193313#Comment_193313

Thank you Ted and Matthew. I have got to get out more.

I am traditional Wesleyan evangelical in my personal theology. (Didn't grow up that way, but became convinced that was what the scripture taught.) So I am not very high on the "New Perspective." I admire John Stott and thank God for his ministry. However, I disagree with him on the teachings of scripture concerning eternal punishment (hell).

But in fairness to Stott, as I read it, he is not a universalists. Stott seems to have moved to teaching the annihilation of the lost. I am disappointed in that.

I would not put his position outside the boundaries of Christian faith, and I still respect Stott. However, there is no sound scriptural basis for such beliefs. In my opinion, we have no authority to just make up such a position because it is more politically correct.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/193411#Comment_193411

However, I disagree with him on the teachings of scripture concerning eternal punishment (hell)...In my opinion, we have no authority to just make up such a position because it is more politically correct.

It would seem that something like this is inevitable when a theology makes the gaining or keeping of our salvation dependent upon our own efforts.