Please stop pushing NT Wright

N T Wright has gone off the rails and is no longer orthodox. Stop making him seem like the be all and end all of authors. His views on Paul and penal substitution are absolute heresy. Wretched has a couple of videos with MacArthur and Johnson pointing out just a few errors.

He may have been orthodox in his earlier writings, but unworthy of anyone';s attention now.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

Hi Charly,

The Logos forums aren't the place to discuss theology, but to discuss how to use Logos Bible Software. The forum is used by thousands of people around the world who don't always agree on every theological topic. Perhaps you should email someone privately at Faithlife if you feel strongly about N. T. Wright?

DAL

I agree with Mark! Please, follow and respect the forum rules. Any resource that is sold in the Logos website is sold for research purposes regardless of anyone‘s particular theological point of view. Remember: Test all things; hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Also, act like a man too (1 Corinthians 16:13). And this is where I disagree with Mark: Don’t email Faithlife, email or call NT Wright. He’s your brother and if he has drifted then go talk to him instead of putting him down and gossip about him here. You’re not looking good yourself by doing that and you‘re failing to follow the divine instruction found in Matthew 18:15-20! Who has really drifted here? You, by not talking to your brother first like Jesus told you to do (Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46)! 👍😁👌

DAL

mab

Bob has stated in the past that Logos publishes a lot of material that is known as heretical. Who knows how much stuff actually is? It's up to everyone to do their own due diligence.

Discernment is something that every believer needs to keep on the front burner. The New Testament is filled with warnings about it. And they are simply a magnified echo of warnings that began all the way back in the Pentateuch.

Puddin’

I’ll say again, supposed “heresy” is in the eyes of the beholder! And, precisely who determines “heresy?” Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon? In fact, what many consider “orthodox,” I (and many, many others) would designate as “heresy” when tested by God’s Word alone. The councils of men do not equal biblical “orthodoxy.”

Think I’ll actually look into some of Wright’s works now !

Chi Shun Cheung

Hey CharlyG,

I agreed with you wholeheartedly that NT Wright's teachings on Paul and Penal Substitution are false doctrines and it makes me cringe whenever I see his books promoted.

What you also need to understand, however, is that as much as we love to use Logos, its priority is not to necessarily guard sound doctrine. It is a business and its goal is to provide ALL available tools and resources that is related to the bible (sound or not sound) to whoever wants to study the bible. So some of these resources are going to be of the truth, some will not be. What I've learn to do is to simply ignore those resources I know I don't agree with and focus on those I know would be of help to me.

Sean

n/m

Rick Carmickle

I happen to like much of what NT Wright has written, although I am still exploring certain nuances of his theology.

However, I think the original post is simply pointing out that Wright gets a lot of publicity on Logos. And I think it is unnecessary to pummel him as a rule breaker and report him to the authorities. Let the post live or die on its own. It’s not about debating Wright’s theology, it’s about Logos’s publicity of Wright. Having said that, I am looking forward to his coming book this November.

DAL

I happen to like much of what NT Wright has written, although I am still exploring certain nuances of his theology.

However, I think the original post is simply pointing out that Wright gets a lot of publicity on Logos. And I think it is unnecessary to pummel him as a rule breaker and report him to the authorities. Let the post live or die on its own. It’s not about debating Wright’s theology, it’s about Logos’s publicity of Wright. Having said that, I am looking forward to his coming book this November.

The OP called NT Wright a “Wretched” and his teaching heresy — That seems to be the gist of his post. If he wants to vent and use name calling and accuse another person of heresy, then the Biblical way to do it is to go to Wright not to FL or the forums.

DAL

Phil Quigley

The OP called NT Wright a “Wretched” and his teaching heresy — That seems to be the gist of his post. If he wants to vent and use name calling and accuse another person of heresy, then the Biblical way to do it is to go to Wright not to FL or the forums.

DAL

Just a note, I don't believe the OP called NT Wright "Wretched." I believe he was refering to the show "Wretched" hosted by, I believe his name is, Todd Friel. You can find "Wretched" on YouTube.

J. Remington Bowling

N T Wright has gone off the rails and is no longer orthodox. Stop making him seem like the be all and end all of authors. His views on Paul and penal substitution are absolute heresy. Wretched has a couple of videos with MacArthur and Johnson pointing out just a few errors.

He may have been orthodox in his earlier writings, but unworthy of anyone';s attention now.

So look at it this way: let's take your two statements (one more implicit) as true:

(1) Wright is heretical.

(2) Lots of people are influenced by Wright.

Are these two statements necessary or sufficient for their works to be in Logos? No! Rather, I would suggest, this is a good reason in favor of Wright's works to be in Logos. Why?

If Wright is influential, then it's important to demonstrate his errors. Logos is a research library. It makes study more efficient. So, for example, if you wanted to demonstrate that Wright was heretical or in error then having his works in Logos would be extremely useful. And if Wright is influential, then it's all the more important to demonstrate his errors, right?

For example, Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner are two theologians who have attempted to demonstrate where and why they think Wright is wrong about certain things (e.g., in their respective Romans commentaries). This obviously requires that Moo and Schreiner be familiar with and interact with Wright's body of work. Now whether or not they used Logos I don't know, but if they did this would have made perfect sense and you are able to quickly compare Wright and, say, what Moo says about Wright through Logos.

So it seems like whether one agrees with you or disagrees with you, we should want more of Wright in Logos.

DMB

Looking at the OP's (short) complaint, as previously noted, it's how Mr Wright is marketed. Imagine glorious terms promoting Mr Ehrman. The Logosian emergency rooms would be flooded.

But I suspect (and don't know), Logos,com seems to be moving into autopilot. Whatever ships from the publishers (marketing copy). Yesterday's bizarre Crossan seems the new approach (looks like auto-created).

Then, there's 'dox'. Ortho-dox. Some of us aren't dox'ers, much less ortho's.

Myke Harbuck

Looking at the OP's (short) complaint, as previously noted, it's how Mr Wright is marketed. Imagine glorious terms promoting Mr Ehrman. The Logosian emergency rooms would be flooded.

Absolutely brilliantly stated, and dead on the mark! Thank you.

I concur with others. The OP had nothing to do with theological debate. He simply was trying to state what Denise very well stated here.

Ben

Let's stop pushing NT Wright... and start pushing Robert Alter!

J. Remington Bowling

Looking at the OP's (short) complaint, as previously noted, it's how Mr Wright is marketed. Imagine glorious terms promoting Mr Ehrman. The Logosian emergency rooms would be flooded.

But I suspect (and don't know), Logos,com seems to be moving into autopilot. Whatever ships from the publishers (marketing copy). Yesterday's bizarre Crossan seems the new approach (looks like auto-created).

Then, there's 'dox'. Ortho-dox. Some of us aren't dox'ers, much less ortho's.

That's a good point. If Logos really is going to take a neutral approach then they should have a neutral template for the works on the platform (or just let each publisher determine how the work will be promoted).

(Since I don't pay much attention to the advertising or product descriptions though, I'm taking it for granted that the works are promoted in glowing terms that would be unsavory to those who find Wright heretical.)

SineNomine

I think that some of the arguments made thus far have conflated the marketing of Wright's work and Faithlife stocking Wright's books.

It may also be worth noting that the OP's objection as expressed was not to Wright's work being marketed, but how it is being marketed (presumably through Logos branded channels).

Different authors and different works are marketed in different ways from and through different Faithlife brands. For example, Verbum marketing for the works of St. Thomas Aquinas differs from Logos marketing for the same works. Verbum is an explicitly Catholic brand. Logos is substantially a broadly Protestant brand, Orthodox offerings notwithstanding. It could reasonably be described as non-Catholic Christian. Faithlife is also responsible for the Lexham brand... which positions itself theologically in a particular portion of contemporary Protestantism (that I'm intentionally not further delineating here to avoid unnecessary controversy). Logos is thus broader than Lexham.

Much as Verbum could (hypothetically) be criticized for promoting stuff that is contrary to Catholicism, criticizing Lexham for promoting/publishing materials contrary to Lexham's publicly articulated mission and vision could also be appropriate. The Logos brand, however, encompasses a lot more stuff that Lexham does. Faithlife... still more.

Faithlife customers can certainly be forgiven for struggling with the nuances of Faithlife brands' marketing. I haven't even mentioned Noet, Noet Ebooks, Faithlife Ebooks, etc.

EastTN

I think that some of the arguments made thus far have conflated the marketing of Wright's work and Faithlife stocking Wright's books.

It may also be worth noting that the OP's objection as expressed was not to Wright's work being marketed, but how it is being marketed (presumably through Logos branded channels).

Different authors and different works are marketed in different ways from and through different Faithlife brands. For example, Verbum marketing for the works of St. Thomas Aquinas differs from Logos marketing for the same works. Verbum is an explicitly Catholic brand. Logos is substantially a broadly Protestant brand, Orthodox offerings notwithstanding. It could reasonably be described as non-Catholic Christian. Faithlife is also responsible for the Lexham brand... which positions itself theologically in a particular portion of contemporary Protestantism (that I'm intentionally not further delineating here to avoid unnecessary controversy). Logos is thus broader than Lexham.

Much as Verbum could (hypothetically) be criticized for promoting stuff that is contrary to Catholicism, criticizing Lexham for promoting/publishing materials contrary to Lexham's publicly articulated mission and vision could also be appropriate. The Logos brand, however, encompasses a lot more stuff that Lexham does. Faithlife... still more.

Faithlife customers can certainly be forgiven for struggling with the nuances of Faithlife brands' marketing. I haven't even mentioned Noet, Noet Ebooks, Faithlife Ebooks, etc.

This is a great insight. Each of Faithlife's distribution channels has its own unique brand identity and target customer base. That isn't bad. Branding is a way of communicating to consumers about what they can expect from you. You know what to expect when you go to Taco Bell, and it's a bit different from what you expect when you go to McDonald's, or to Pizza Hut.

My sense is that complaints about particular books tend to arise when the marketing seems, in the minds of at least some users, to be inconsistent with the the Logos (or Verbum, or Faithlife ebooks, etc.) brand image. There can be a variety of reasons for this, such as clumsy marketing or unrealistic customer expectations. I suspect a big part of it is that the Logos brand is shifting (perhaps inevitably) as a result of the dramatic increase in the number and variety of resources that are available. I hope FaithLife manages that process well, because brand confusion can be a real problem for a business.

MJ. Smith

Aaargh ... this flap has given me a sense of obligation to read more of Wright to see what the fuss is all about. My list was already very long so I'm not particularly pleased.

DAL

Aaargh ... this flap has given me a sense of obligation to read more of Wright to see what the fuss is all about. My list was already very long so I'm not particularly pleased.

Hahaha The OP’s post backfired on him 😂😂😂😂 Now everybody wants to read Wright 😜😜😜😜

James Macleod

N T Wright has gone off the rails and is no longer orthodox. Stop making him seem like the be all and end all of authors. His views on Paul and penal substitution are absolute heresy. Wretched has a couple of videos with MacArthur and Johnson pointing out just a few errors.

He may have been orthodox in his earlier writings, but unworthy of anyone';s attention now.

I don't want my bible software/ebook publisher deciding for me what is and what isn't heretical. Also, as others have noted, even heretical works are useful for research.

Paul Strickert

I happen to like much of what NT Wright has written, although I am still exploring certain nuances of his theology.

However, I think the original post is simply pointing out that Wright gets a lot of publicity on Logos. And I think it is unnecessary to pummel him as a rule breaker and report him to the authorities. Let the post live or die on its own. It’s not about debating Wright’s theology, it’s about Logos’s publicity of Wright. Having said that, I am looking forward to his coming book this November.

Hmm. This one sentence supports your point: "Stop making him seem like the be all and end all of authors." The other five sentences, um, not really. ;-)

Bruce Dunning

I don't want my bible software/ebook publisher deciding for me what is and what isn't heretical. Also, as others have noted, even heretical works are useful for research.

This summarizes my thoughts as well.

SineNomine

As a post-script to my earlier tome:

My explanation for why Wright appears so much in Logos marketing material is quite simple: his stuff sells.

If everybody stopped buying Wright's work, the marketing of it would die down in time.

Mathew Haferkamp

Hey CharlyG, if you want to blow off steam it is ok because DAL misquoted. It is NOT FORUM RULES but it is stated by logos as FORUM GUIDELINES. How about everybody leave CharlyG alone instead of judging him. (Two wrongs make a right!!!).

Myke Harbuck

Aaargh ... this flap has given me a sense of obligation to read more of Wright to see what the fuss is all about. My list was already very long so I'm not particularly pleased.

OK...everyone must admit...this is hilarious!

Joseph Turner

N T Wright has gone off the rails and is no longer orthodox. Stop making him seem like the be all and end all of authors. His views on Paul and penal substitution are absolute heresy. Wretched has a couple of videos with MacArthur and Johnson pointing out just a few errors.

He may have been orthodox in his earlier writings, but unworthy of anyone';s attention now.

This is timely! I just saw N.T. Wright Monday night at Samford Unversity in Birmingham, AL, and I'm going back again tonight!

I agree with the responses in this thread. I don't want Faithlife deciding for me what is heretical or not. For instance, I would take Wright over MacArthur any day, but I don't expect them to stop selling MacArthur, and how many times have people asked for Bart Ehrman? You can still learn a lot from reading authors with whom you disagree. If nothing else, it would prepare you to better defend why you believe the way you do.

Jan Krohn

and how many times have people asked for Bart Ehrman?

Correct. We need Ehrman, but also Dawkins, Hitchens etc. in order to understand the errors in their reasoning.

Maybe Noet would be the right platform for such dedicated atheist writers?

SineNomine

Maybe Noet would be the right platform for such dedicated atheist writers?

https://ebooks.noet.com/product/147759/a-devils-chaplain-reflections-on-hope-lies-science-and-love - R. Dawkins

https://ebooks.noet.com/product/184593/atheism-the-case-against-god - G. H. Smith, with forward by L. M. Krauss.

Jan Krohn

https://ebooks.noet.com/product/147759/a-devils-chaplain-reflections-on-hope-lies-science-and-love - R. Dawkins

https://ebooks.noet.com/product/184593/atheism-the-case-against-god - G. H. Smith, with forward by L. M. Krauss.

It's a start, but what's really needed is "The God Delusion", "God is not Great", "Misquoting Jesus" etc.

NB.Mick

I don't want Faithlife deciding for me what is heretical or not. For instance, I would take Wright over MacArthur any day, but I don't expect them to stop selling MacArthur

Same here.

MJ. Smith

We need Ehrman, but also Dawkins, Hitchens etc. in order to understand the errors in their reasoning.

It has been my experience that people such as Ehrman, Dawkins, and Hitchens have much more sound reasoning than their Christian counterparts - there are a few groups of seminarians that receive a solid education in reasoning but most do not and it shows. The difference between Christians and Ehrman et. al. is in (a) a misunderstanding of what the logic of science has as it aim (abductive logic aims for "best fit" not "truth") and (b) the presuppositions they take as "givens" most notably their confidence that we know "everything" and we'll not look as foolish in 500 years as our ancestors.

However, I strongly agree their work should be in Logos so that we can understand their arguments.

Fasil

We need Ehrman, but also Dawkins, Hitchens etc. in order to understand the errors in their reasoning.

It has been my experience that people such as Ehrman, Dawkins, and Hitchens have much more sound reasoning than their Christian counterparts - there are a few groups of seminarians that receive a solid education in reasoning but most do not and it shows. The difference between Christians and Ehrman et. al. is in (a) a misunderstanding of what the logic of science has as it aim (abductive logic aims for "best fit" not "truth") and (b) the presuppositions they take as "givens" most notably their confidence that we know "everything" and we'll not look as foolish in 500 years as our ancestors.

However, I strongly agree their work should be in Logos so that we can understand their arguments.

"However, I strongly agree their work should be in Logos so that we can understand their arguments." MJ. Smith

Correct !

Their works need to be available for those who want to read their works.

Brad

It has been my experience that people such as Ehrman, Dawkins, and Hitchens have much more sound reasoning than their Christian counterparts - there are a few groups of seminarians that receive a solid education in reasoning but most do not and it shows. The difference between Christians and Ehrman et. al. is in (a) a misunderstanding of what the logic of science has as it aim (abductive logic aims for "best fit" not "truth") and (b) the presuppositions they take as "givens" most notably their confidence that we know "everything" and we'll not look as foolish in 500 years as our ancestors.

However, I strongly agree their work should be in Logos so that we can understand their arguments.

[Y]

Nytoysha Jamison

How do I search something like Jesus's quote from Deuteronomy and how do I get a simple understanding of these search rules?

GregW

I don't want Faithlife deciding for me what is heretical or not. For instance, I would take Wright over MacArthur any day, but I don't expect them to stop selling MacArthur

Same here.

[Y]

MJ. Smith

Welcome to the forums. It's best to start a new thread under Logos 8 if you use the desktop, to get an answer. The answer depends upon what level of resources you own See https://community.logos.com/forums/t/124504.aspx for some help with your question.