Dane Ortland: N.T. Wright's Latest Book is 'Spiritually Dangerous'
Christian author and publisher Dane Ortlund recently wrote a blog post condemning Christian scholar and theologian N. T. Wrightâ€™s latest book The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion.
Ortlund lists a few key issues he has with Wrightâ€™s book. The first issue he says has to do with the false dichotomies Wright draws. A few of the examples he cites include these quotations from the book:
What if, instead of a disembodied "heaven," we were to focus on the biblical vision of "new heavens and new earth?" (p. 49)
The human problem is not so much "sin" seen as the breaking of moral codes . . . but rather idolatry and the distortion of genuine humanness it produces. (p. 74)
He's Anglican, so whether he comes to the table believing the Bible is the word of God is the first stopping point. He lost me when he kept showing up on National Geographic specials explaining the resurrection and his return is " not bodily " much less the rapture of the church " is not at all meant when he said he ( Paul) received a word from the Lord". And he will probably lose votes on the virgin birth, " debatable in many circumstances ".
He says- "Galatians is not about "salvation" . . . The letter is about unity. "(p. 234)
Galatians says 1:"3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
2:"19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Andrew Clements wrote: Finally, an article exposing this very popular yet dangerous heretic. For a more damaging expose' consider listening to: http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Wright_Collection13.mp3
As a retired Anglican Bishop, who hasn't condemned that church, apparently, there can be a lot wrong with him. Phil Johnson pointed out one thing:
Phil Johnson wrote: People who know him from the popular media usually assume that Tom Wrightâ€™s evangelical credentials are impeccable. And (letâ€™s face it) he probably does have much more in common with evangelicalism than the average Anglican bishop these days.
But it is my strong conviction that the position Wright lays out in What St. Paul Really Said is not an evangelical position at all. Itâ€™s a faulty and dangerous reinterpretation of Paul and it misunderstands Scripture in a way that fatally undermines the doctrine of justification by faith and the principle of sola fide.
excerpt from, [URL=http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul/]]]http://tinyurl.com/jprh5g6 (Whatâ€™s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul)[/URL]. Perhaps the only Anglican Bishop one can pay attention to is J.C. Ryles?