NT Wright

[neosnoia]

If this isn't the correct forum for this, please move it. :teeth:

I have questions before I start buying Wright's books (as my local library doesn't have any).

Does Wright hold to covenant theology or does he hold more to a biblical theological view? I've read online articles where he talks about the new covenant, but I don't know if that is synonymous with "covenant theology" (as opposed to biblical theological, dispensational or allegorical methods of eschatology).

I know he's a preterist.

Is he a theonomist?

Thanks for the help!

[sc_q_jayce]

If this isn't the correct forum for this, please move it. :teeth:

I have questions before I start buying Wright's books (as my local library doesn't have any).

Does Wright hold to covenant theology or does he hold more to a biblical theological view? I've read online articles where he talks about the new covenant, but I don't know if that is synonymous with "covenant theology" (as opposed to biblical theological, dispensational or allegorical methods of eschatology).

I know he's a preterist.

Is he a theonomist?

Thanks for the help!
Though I can't say I've read more than a few articles and some small books of his (his monsters are three thousand miles away from me and I'm not going to buy them again!), I believe he is what you would call a mono-covenantalist, someone who believes that the covenant of grace has always been in existence and has never changed, though the definitions of the covenant have been altered with the coming of Christ.

My impression is that the new covenant is what he would consider to be the redefinition of the old terms.

I remember listening to a lecture on Wright's theology by Bill Wilder.

This link provides four lectures on his theology. (http://studycenter.net/NTWright-Justification.htm) I can't say how accurate it is; but from what I heard, it seems pretty accurate to what I know about good ol' brother Tom.

[neosnoia]

Thanks for the link Jayce. :thumb:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Does Wright hold to covenant theology or does he hold more to a biblical theological view?

Are you suggesting that covenant theology isn't biblical?


I know he's a preterist.

Yes he is though he denies that label.


Is he a theonomist?

No, not that I am aware of.

[neosnoia]

Are you suggesting that covenant theology isn't biblical?


LOL! No, not at all. Boy, it does sound that way, doesn't it? Sorry. :blush:

I took the terms from Wiki. It laid out a basic overview of four different hermeunetical approaches and labeled them as:

1) Covenantal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences)
2) Biblical Theological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Theology)
3) Dispensational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensational)
4) Allegorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical)

The summation page is HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

In all honesty, I'm wondering why it matters.

When I read a book claiming to have knowledge, I read it and take the truth that I see out of it and reject the rest. Someone can be dispensationalist for instance and get a lot of good things right that I accept. An atheistic writer can get things right. I accept what is true and move on.

Why not just do that?

[neosnoia]

The thing is, I'm new to so much of this, that I can't easily "take the truth and reject the rest." I have to start somewhere and Wright seemed like a good place to start. However, being relatively low on money, and not having much in the way of theological books available to me at the local library, I thought I'd ask before I spend.

But hey, thanks for the advice! :teeth:

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The thing is, I'm new to so much of this, that I can't easily "take the truth and reject the rest." I have to start somewhere and Wright seemed like a good place to start. However, being relatively low on money, and not having much in the way of theological books available to me at the local library, I thought I'd ask before I spend.

But hey, thanks for the advice! :teeth:

I understand that, but you're worrying too much. Do you not trust that Christ gave you a mind that can recognize truth and reject error? Even if you like him, you'll reject some of what he says. Ravi Zacharias is my personal favorite and he and I do disagree on some things.

This is part of growing and it's what makes something special.

[neosnoia]

Do you not trust that Christ gave you a mind that can recognize truth and reject error?

Heh. If it was that easy there wouldn't be so many arguments between Calvinists and Arminians. If it was that easy I wouldn't have spent 10 years as a JW.

It's not so much that I'm worrying that I won't recognize truth, but that I'd like to spend my money on books written by authors that are interested in what I'm currently interested in.

If I wanted a book on how to bake a cake, I wouldn't buy a book about cooking an omelet and hope to find a good cake recipe. (Yes, I know, very bad analogy.) :teeth:

That's all I'm asking.


Ravi Zacharias is my personal favorite and he and I do disagree on some things.

I'll have to look into his stuff.

[Dee Dee Warren]

LOL! No, not at all. Boy, it does sound that way, doesn't it? Sorry. :blush:

I took the terms from Wiki. It laid out a basic overview of four different hermeunetical approaches and labeled them as:

1) Covenantal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences)
2) Biblical Theological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Theology)
3) Dispensational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensational)
4) Allegorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical)

The summation page is HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences).

Oh okay, well that second label is a bit unfortunately self-serving I think. I am sure all the views thinks they are Biblical, so one decidign to give itself that label is kinda annoying. But I get it now, thanks. No I don't know which one Wright would be as I have been focusing on him for specific purposes, right now, his work as a historian on the resurrection.

[Glenn P]

Oh okay, well that second label is a bit unfortunately self-serving I think. I am sure all the views thinks they are Biblical, so one decidign to give itself that label is kinda annoying. But I get it now, thanks. No I don't know which one Wright would be as I have been focusing on him for specific purposes, right now, his work as a historian on the resurrection.
I know just what you mean about the whole label thing Xena. It's like when people call themselves "New Covenant" theologians. What are the rest of us? OLD Covenant theologians???

[Faramir]

Well if you are interested in studying convenant theology (as I am at this moment) I found this short book (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Divine_Covenants/divine_covenants.htm)by A. Pink online. And it is free (well except those pesky internet fees, but you are already paying that).

Edit to add: One small warning. The site I linked to has this horribly annoying MIDI music playing in the background. Might want to turn your speakers off before going.

[neosnoia]

Thanks faramir. And thanks for the midi warning. I HATE those things!

[ChosenOne66]

If this isn't the correct forum for this, please move it. :teeth:

I have questions before I start buying Wright's books (as my local library doesn't have any).

Having read nearly all of Wright's major works and being someone who believes he is 80% right on what he talks about, I would be happy to answer them.


Does Wright hold to covenant theology or does he hold more to a biblical theological view? I've read online articles where he talks about the new covenant, but I don't know if that is synonymous with "covenant theology" (as opposed to biblical theological, dispensational or allegorical methods of eschatology).

Tom is an interesting character. He never uses labels. He does hold to and apply covenant theology and to biblical theological view and melds the two, finding the biblical-theological center of Scripture is the covenant. Assuming you're talking about the biblical theological method of Geerhardos Vos, Herman Bavink, Herman Ridderbos, and Meredith G. Kline. You can also find Cornelius Van Til's influence in his work, though he never mentions or cites him.


I know he's a preterist.

Correct, though, again, his position is not identical to the average preterist movement.


Is he a theonomist?

He does not believe that Law and Grace should be divided as the Church has done in the past hundred or so years, but he holds to no other theonomist distinctives that I am aware of.


Thanks for the help!

I hope it did help.

I would start with reading his Simply Christian, as this is a beginner's introduction to his work. It's quite good and and uncomplicated. Then I would try Paul: A Fresh Perspective. THen I would start tackling his The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of Man, as these books go into much more detail concerning the stuff he talks about in Simply Christian. I also really like his The Last Word, which is about the authority and inspiration of Scripture. The link to his personal web page is in my sig. There you can get articles and download audio lectures and whatnot.

In my estimation, Wright is the most significant Christian scholar since Cornelius Van Til. You will never think about Jesus and Christianity the same again.

[lilpixieofterror]

Here's (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/) a link with some of his articles he's written over the years. Take a look at it and see if you like him or not.