I don't either. It would have been a better choice. As to the 'faith' thingy what's being put forward is that we are saved through the faithfulness of Christ NOT Our faith IN Christ. I posted translations recently reflecting this distinction.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: December 24, 2004 10:18 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Flesh and Spirit > Lance wrote: > > 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. ---------- "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.
