Comments on: N. T. Wright on Paul

By: jon marq

jon marq — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:11:22 +0000

Germans to the discussion on “Fresh Perspective”.

Here are a couple of links that might interest those interested in the theology of Bishop Wright.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=33

For those interested in the Rising Tide of Calvinists see Mark Dever’s posts at 9 Marks.

http://blog.9marks.org/whered_all_these_calvanists_come_from/index.html

By: Jim Clark

Jim Clark — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:29:35 +0000

As I read a couple comments about Covenant Theology and thought about a book I’ve been reading lately, I just wonder why reformed thinkers and preachers seem to have such powerful influences: Calvin. The Puritans. Jonathan Edwards. Whitfield. R.C. Sproul. John Piper

I’ve been reading the second part of the authorized biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He called himself a “Biblical Calvinist.” His preaching was so focused on the majesty and holiness of God, His wrath towards sinners and our desperate need for Christ. And so many people who bear witness to hearing his Spirit-anointed preaching those 30 years at Westminster Chapel tell of their conversion and the joy they found in God’s saving grace in Christ. Such preaching makes one tremble, realize their nakedness without the righteousness of Christ, and so often leads to saving faith.

By: blake w

blake w — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:10:32 +0000

I am familiar with Wright, but with his interp., where is the gospel? If no imputation, then no hope. My only hope is the righteousness of Christ. If you take that away, you take the good news away. Please email me and let me know your thoughts.

By: Big Daddy

Big Daddy — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:35:00 +0000

Mike,

I was wondering why you removed your NY Times Article on Bush and Heaven?

Thanks,

Jarod

By: bradfordlstevens

bradfordlstevens — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:15:00 +0000

Dear Mike,

I would love to get your take on how this fresh perspective looks at Romans 11:26? I don’t think that God is done with Israel yet. I have some orthodox Jewish friends who are convinced that if they can just rebuild the temple that the Messiah will come. I sense that they may be correct. They just don’t know that his name is Yeshua and that he has been here once before. They have already imported the red bulls from Texas and I am told that all the instruments for temple worship have been created and are ready to be used by those who are “kohns”. When they get ready to assemble a prefab temple in 3 days, it will really get interesting!

By: PatrickMead

PatrickMead — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:17:00 +0000

NT Wright is brilliant and deep… and proof that God is still at work among the Anglicans despite the efforts of some of their leaders. God bless NT Wright.

By: Bob from Tucson

Bob from Tucson — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:06:00 +0000

Mike, I know that you know about this translation but it’s the introduction that is so helpful: David Stern’s “Complete Jewish Bible”. Stern started with a translation of the NT with assumption that it is a “Jewish book”. He also translates the Greek phrase “by faith in Jesus Christ” as ” through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah.” Our Jewish Messianic believers have always ignored Martin Luther’s (and Augustine’s) intense introspection and guilt and have seen Paul’s letters as I believe they were intended and as I believe Wright offers “fresh insight”:the grafting in of the gentiles to true branch. Seen from this perspective, Ephesians 2:13 is more powerful and wonderful to me - a gentile! “Oh the depth and the riches….” Bob Lollar (Tucson Az.)

By: Deana Nall

Deana Nall — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:24:00 +0000

Some day, an ancient document will be discovered containing Paul’s guacamole recipe in his own handwriting. (In LARGE letters, as per Gal. 6:11.) Then, at long last, will the two worlds be brought together.

By: R U S S

R U S S — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:23:00 +0000

For those who have already exceeded their guacamole and book budget, http://www.ntwrightpage.com is a good and free place to start. For those want to begin to track with Tom Wright, and have a bit of money, I would suggest beginning with “The Challenge of Jesus.”

By: KMiV

KMiV — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:22:00 +0000

Thanks Mike. I am appreciative for folks like N.T. Wright. When I go to SBL it blows me away how far away many scholars are from believing that Jesus really rose from the grave and is the son of God. Even worse–Paul is heavily criticized. Many question whether 1/2 of the letters were actually written by him. I believe that any work on Paul is an attempt to either discredit or give respect to the Christian faith. N.T. Wright is one of those who has taken much of the liberal teachings head on. His work is fresh and thought provoking. I didn’t get to hear him speak at the last SBL session in Philadelphia but I heard it was really good.

I think I will put his book on my Christmas wish list.

Thanks Mike for your last post.

By: eddy

eddy — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:48:00 +0000

If you’re telling me I have to rethink and restudy, then you have thrown a curveball!

By: SG

SG — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:43:00 +0000

That’s why this blog is my first read everyday…soe days we are into guacamole and others you are introducing Paul in a fresh perspective. Somehow it just all seems to fit together. Thanks Mike!

By: Wade

Wade — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:20:00 +0000

Wright has had a huge influence on me. I sometimes think I’m following Wright as he follows Paul as he follows Christ.

By: Homer

Homer — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:12:00 +0000

Mike, you do need to start a book review blog/what are you reading and what are others reading blog—-this is a very good book, Will Rogers said, “You’ll different tomorrow because of the books you read and the people you meet”
Creation and Covenant—and how its all tied together in Paul’s mind is well presented….Messianic Think is a shift, a good shift.

By: Keith Jones

Keith Jones — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:03:00 +0000

Thanks for making people aware of this book. Often it seems people look at Paul as the writer of “new” scripture that displaces the old, but it has always seemed to me that he is going to painstaking lengths to explain the “old”. That explanation includes a discussion of why these gentiles, who have had no experience with the Law of God, can be in a covenant relationship with him. He at times even has to explain the converse in letting these free-wheeling gentiles know that there is a purpose for “The Law of Moses” and the nation of Israel. Thanks for your blogging efforts.