1. Have YOU (implied above) read/listened to Wright on Romans.
Yes, I have read Wright on Romans, but I am no expert on Wright. As far as I remember, Wright emphasized a proper Jewish mindset, explaining that the Jews were not the legalists that many Christians portray them to be. Rather, their covenant was a covenant of grace. Paul was not challenging legalism in Romans, but rather the nationalistic attitude of Jews who thought they were superior because of their birth right. Wright views justification not as something imputed to us because of faith, but as a covenantal right standing. He sees justification simply as being in covenant with God, and faith is not viewed by him as some powerful virtue that solicits something from God, but as a badge that simply identifies those who are part of the covenant. If my memory is faulty here, please feel free to straighten me out.
Lance wrote:
2. Name the others who think as do you re: WOR.(sorry Wright on Romans)
I don't have any names for you, Lance, but I have spoken enough with others that I know some who just love him on most of Romans are still puzzled over how he deals with Romans 7. There is one street preacher I know who lives in Missouri, Jed Smock, who probably would appreciate Wright on Romans 7 because he wrote an entire book that follows a similar vein as Wright. But I have never spoken directly to Jed about Wright so I'm not sure. I may see Jed in a few weeks when he comes through this way on his preaching tour, so I will try to remember to ask him about Wright.
Lance wrote:
3. Do you have ANYTHING by Wright whatsoever? Name it/them.
No, I do not have anything in my library from Tom Wright. If you see him, ask him to send me some of his books. :-) I had an author who I had criticized extensively on the web give me 30 of his books earlier this year. Now that is being gracious, isn't it. :-) I'm still reading them.
Lance wrote:
4. Gordon Fee's name was also cited. What do you know of his work on Romans.
He wasn't cited by me. I have never read Gordon Fee and I don't know much about his work, but I have been told that he teaches the same thing as I do on Romans 7 (Paul speaking there of being under law).
Lance wrote:
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR DUALIST VIEW IS NOT ONE HELD BY MANY CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL GODLY SCHOLARS IN ANY FIELD.
The key word here is "Contemporary." In my opinion, many of these contemporary theologians are establishing fad theologies. We have seen this cycle in history, where theologians jump on the bandwagons of new and excitingly different ways to read the Scriptures. It is theology's way of trying to be like scientists who discover and grow in knowledge. I think Terry hit it on the nose when he said they are trying to sell books.
I readily read these guys when I have access to them, such as when someone loans me a book in order to ask my opinion about it, but I'm not inclined to lay out hundreds of dollars for the priviledge of reading what they think about God's Holy Word. I have the source material myself and direct access to the author of it.
The dualist view of man is simply unpopular everywhere in society. Stephen J. Gould wrote that there are no vitalist biologists today. While that is not exactly accurate, it is very close to being true. Biologists have established the carnal nature of behavior, explaining it by genes and evolutionary processes. So according to science, the idea of spirit and soul animating the body is simply archaic mythology believed by those who simply did not have the understanding of DNA, chemistry and physiology that we have. That perception has filtered to the rest of society, so that theologians are collectively more supportive of evolutionary theory than scientists themselves are. Is it any wonder that they do not believe in a spirit and soul of man either? This is all part of the falling away that Paul warned his readers about. This is not to say that the viewpoint is new. It is not. I'm simply saying that the falling away has made it popular, even among the pillars of the so-called contemporary churches. Interestingly, it is the mainstream traditional sects that get hit the hardest (such as Anglican, Episcopal, etc.). I read somewhere of a man who said that Tom Wright caused him to leave Protestant Christianity and join Roman Catholicism. He said that Wright proved to him that justification was not by faith, so the whole Protestant movement was wrong and the Roman Catholics had it right to begin with. He reasoned that if covenant theology is where it is at, then the church who carried that covenant down through time would be the Roman Catholic church. I don't know why he did not consider the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
