OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 09:30:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: N.T. Wright / New Perspectives on Paul and Eastern Orthodoxy  (Read 11744 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
daveordave
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Denominational (for now)
Posts: 7


« on: March 29, 2008, 11:43:49 PM »

Hello.  I'm afraid it's probably not good form to immediately jump into a semi-theological question with my first post, but please forgive my curiosity.  I am not a troll, and I will try to introduce myself in another post.  I can say that I am one very confused Evangelical who is developing at least an academic interest in more "high church" traditions.

Anyway, I was wondering if any of you were familiar with the writings of the Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright-- particularly his work with the "New Perspectives on Paul"?  I wondering if you know of any Orthodox theologians who have engaged with his work?  I sometimes listen to Ancient Faith Radio, and one of the hosts of The Illumined Heart mentioned liking Wright. 

Part of why I ask this question is that, although my knowledge of Orthodoxy is yet rudimentary (I've bought some books by Ware and Schmemann and look forward to digging into them), when I read some of Wright's work on justification (which the Reformed types are just going into hissy fits over), I keep getting the feeling that what Wright is saying sounds a lot like what I understand of Orthodoxy.  Perhaps the Bishop's "New Perspective" is not so new?  That would be interesting since one of the accusations that his Reformed detractors toss at him is something along the lines of "So, now, after 1500 years, you've finally got Paul figured out.  Hmff..."  However, if Wright is just beginning to re-discover something older, that would be really interesting and might go a long way towards Christian unity.

I'd appreciate any thoughts.  I can post some info on the "New Perspectives," if you'd like.  As I said, my knowledge of Orthodoxy is rudimentary, and I'm sure I'll get things wrong, so please be patient with me.  Let me pray your beautiful prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."

Edit:  I just stumbled across and was encouraged by your Article: "Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop" thread.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 12:33:15 AM by daveordave » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2008, 02:15:38 AM »

daveordave,

Welcome to the OC.net discussion forum. Smiley  First, let me address your insistence that you're not a troll with a butchered quote from Forrest Gump:  A troll is as a troll does.  You haven't done anything yet that trolls usually do, so we have no reason yet to suspect that you're a troll.  Therefore, we will extend to you the same welcome that we give to all non-trolls. Wink  Don't feel that it's bad form to build your first post around such a heady theological question, either.  There a few ways that a new poster can make a very negative first impression upon us, but a sincere probing question is not one of those ways.

Regarding your inquiry into New Perspectives on Paul, I just did a search for anything that we might already have on this subject and couldn't find anything yet.  I encourage you to try the same; you just might find something where I failed.  I haven't read Bishop Wright's book yet, though I've heard of it, so I'm not exactly qualified to offer you any kinds of answers.  However, I'm sure someone here has read this book and can discuss it with you.  I don't think you'll be disappointed.


- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 02:17:07 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2008, 07:00:28 AM »

Hi daveordave,

Sorry, I haven't read "New Perspectives on Paul", but I thought I'd welcome you to OC.net, anyway. Hope you enjoy your time with us.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
daveordave
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Denominational (for now)
Posts: 7


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2008, 10:56:57 AM »

Thank you both for your greeting.  I guess my, perhaps, over-insistence on not being a troll comes from the fact that I've lurked on a few both Orthodox and Roman Catholic message boards and witnessed Protestants (although many of those zany Baptists claim they're not Protestants  Roll Eyes )behaving in ways that make me cringe.  I'm sure you know what I mean.

I'll do a little searching on your board today.  I understand that, in the early 20th century, there were some very good ecumenical talks between the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox, but that they deteriorated somewhat when many Anglicans started going theologically flaky.

Thanks again for making me feel welcome.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 10:58:42 AM by daveordave » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2008, 04:41:17 PM »

I understand that, in the early 20th century, there were some very good ecumenical talks between the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox, but that they deteriorated somewhat when many Anglicans started going theologically flaky.

From what I recall (from reading, not being present at the time  Tongue ) WW1 and the Bolshevik revolution intervened and talks between the two were curtailed. But someone more knowledgeable about the details might be able to provide greater detail than I remember.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2008, 11:18:36 AM »

Hello.  I'm afraid it's probably not good form to immediately jump into a semi-theological question with my first post, but please forgive my curiosity.  I am not a troll, and I will try to introduce myself in another post.  I can say that I am one very confused Evangelical who is developing at least an academic interest in more "high church" traditions.

Anyway, I was wondering if any of you were familiar with the writings of the Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright-- particularly his work with the "New Perspectives on Paul"?  I wondering if you know of any Orthodox theologians who have engaged with his work?  I sometimes listen to Ancient Faith Radio, and one of the hosts of The Illumined Heart mentioned liking Wright. 

Part of why I ask this question is that, although my knowledge of Orthodoxy is yet rudimentary (I've bought some books by Ware and Schmemann and look forward to digging into them), when I read some of Wright's work on justification (which the Reformed types are just going into hissy fits over), I keep getting the feeling that what Wright is saying sounds a lot like what I understand of Orthodoxy.  Perhaps the Bishop's "New Perspective" is not so new?  That would be interesting since one of the accusations that his Reformed detractors toss at him is something along the lines of "So, now, after 1500 years, you've finally got Paul figured out.  Hmff..."  However, if Wright is just beginning to re-discover something older, that would be really interesting and might go a long way towards Christian unity.

I'd appreciate any thoughts.  I can post some info on the "New Perspectives," if you'd like.  As I said, my knowledge of Orthodoxy is rudimentary, and I'm sure I'll get things wrong, so please be patient with me.  Let me pray your beautiful prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."

Edit:  I just stumbled across and was encouraged by your Article: "Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop" thread.


I personally like N.T. Wright.  The fact that the more conservative Prespyterians and Evangelical free types reject him, made me more interested in what he had to say.

I found the samething to be true for the Dr. Peter ENNS. He just got dropped from Westminister Theological Seminary. They didn't like his Incarnational modal of Scripture......Which isn't that far away from the Eastern Orthodox understanding.







JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 11:19:46 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ignatios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 112



« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2008, 02:39:22 PM »

N.T. Wright was one of the many reasons I became open to Orthodoxy.  He's by no means Orthodox, but he challenged the traditional Reformed Protestant interpretation of Scripture, specifically with respect to justification.  His understanding of justification in St Paul as primarily an issue of Gentile inclusion within the Church, and not so much in terms of a legal declaration of one's imputed righteous standing, helped me in going even further to understand justification as a declaration of an already manifest ontological change.  Wright wouldn't go this far, and he's very wrong in a lot of areas, but his thought was a good step out of Protestantism, and past Rome, for me.  My understanding of him may be a bit fuzzy, as I've put his books in storage and haven't read them in a long while.
Logged
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2008, 06:55:43 PM »

N.T Wright Interview on Stephen Colbert http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

He is discussing that Heaven will be combined with Earth as the New Creation. What Happens after the Resurrection Suprise! Suprise! the Church was already there from the time of the Incarnation and before creation. Sounds very Orthodox he tries to get non-believers and ecumenical Christians to refocus on the Early Christian Thought. I say this might be the first for Americans to ever have heard Jesus was from the beginning without creation and not Roman Medieval dogma.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 06:57:31 PM by alexp4uni » Logged
daveordave
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Denominational (for now)
Posts: 7


« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2008, 12:35:10 PM »

I didn't realize this thread was still going.  I would like to thank you all for your friendly responses.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2008, 02:27:30 PM »

N.T Wright Interview on Stephen Colbert http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

He is discussing that Heaven will be combined with Earth as the New Creation. What Happens after the Resurrection Suprise! Suprise! the Church was already there from the time of the Incarnation and before creation. Sounds very Orthodox he tries to get non-believers and ecumenical Christians to refocus on the Early Christian Thought. I say this might be the first for Americans to ever have heard Jesus was from the beginning without creation and not Roman Medieval dogma.

Thanks for the link... it is an interesting interview.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
daveordave
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Denominational (for now)
Posts: 7


« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2008, 10:35:18 PM »

I say this might be the first for Americans to ever have heard Jesus was from the beginning without creation and not Roman Medieval dogma.

The Reformed types are really going after him.  John Piper has written an entire book against Wright.  One of the arguments they keep using is that the "New Perspective on Paul" is new and thus not theologically reputable.  However, the more I understand about folks like Irenaeus and Athanasius, I'm starting to wonder just how "new" some of the aspects of the "New Perspective" really are.  John Piper might just be the one with the "new" theology.  Of course, the even more ironic thing is that John Calvin is likely rolling over in his grave at the thought of a Baptist calling himself a "Calvinist."
Logged
Nyssa The Hobbit
Used to be OrthodoxFairyQueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian as of 1/10/09
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 396



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2008, 07:56:23 PM »


I personally like N.T. Wright.  The fact that the more conservative Prespyterians and Evangelical free types reject him, made me more interested in what he had to say.

I found the samething to be true for the Dr. Peter ENNS. He just got dropped from Westminister Theological Seminary. They didn't like his Incarnational modal of Scripture......Which isn't that far away from the Eastern Orthodox understanding.

I just read this article today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/julyweb-only/129-11.0.html

I read it because I attended an Evangelical Free church for 4 years, checked the denominational website to see how the Statement of Faith has been changed since I was there, and found this link.  These paragraphs in particular caught my eye:

Quote
By and large, the EFCA has been insulated from the evangelical world's recent debates over open theism, the Atonement, justification, and inerrancy. That's not to say the EFCA has avoided the debates. Faculty at the EFCA seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), have actively engaged each of these controversial topics. But the newer interpretations have not gained traction among the denomination's 1,300 churches. Still, it's clear EFCA leaders had these debates in mind when they adopted a new statement of faith on June 26.

The first article says God has "limitless knowledge and sovereign power." Thus, the EFCA takes a stand against open theism, which claims that God granted humans complete free will, so he can't know the future precisely. This first article was shifted ahead of an article on the Bible, which led off the last statement of faith, adopted in 1950, when the EFCA was formed by merger. The move should not be interpreted as de-emphasizing inerrancy. Indeed, the 2008 revision strengthens the EFCA's commitment to inerrancy by taking a cue from the 1978 Chicago Statement. The Bible, "without error in the original writings," is to be "believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises." The EFCA statement also says the Bible is the "ultimate authority by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged."

It is no surprise the EFCA would take a strong stance on inerrancy. The late TEDS luminaries and CT editors Kenneth Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry helped draft the Chicago Statement. But the move is still significant, since every tenured TEDS professor must sign the EFCA statement of faith. Another bastion of inerrancy, Westminster Theological Seminary, recently suspended Peter Enns on suspicion that his understanding of inerrancy was at odds with the Westminster Confession.

Like other doctrinal statements of the era, the EFCA's 1950 draft did not elaborate much on any point. For example, it says the "shed blood of Jesus Christ and his resurrection provide the only ground for justification." But with the definition of justification now up for grabs, the new statement says, "The true church comprises all who have been justified by God's grace through faith alone in Christ alone." Regarding the Atonement, the 1950 statement says that Jesus "died on the cross, a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures." Someone who rejects substitutionary Atonement, who sees Jesus primarily as a model of sacrificial service, could sign the earlier statement. Not so with the 2008 version. It reads, "We believe that Jesus Christ, as our representative and substitute, shed his blood on the cross as the perfect, all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins."

I can't help but think that--if my old pastor knows I'm converting to Orthodoxy--he believes I'm turning to apostasy, not just from the new Statement of Faith, but from what he said in the past.  My Lutheran hubby recently noted that his own understanding of atonement is closer to the Orthodox one, while the E-Free church taught the "God's offended honor needed satisfaction" model, the one the Orthodox Church opposes.  My old pastor used to head a team of adults and teenagers which went to Russia each year to witness.  He visited Orthodox churches while there, and came back to report to the congregation, "The Orthodox Church is not Christian.  It's been filled with paganism."

I'd better go print up that revised Statement of Faith and see what all it entails.  Lately, I've been reading a lot of Christianity Today articles--this one, and ones about a resurgence of Calvinism in Evangelical churches (such as the E-Free church I fled from), led by John Piper and others.  I've also been reading Left Behind to find out how much of the criticism is true and how much is a straw man; I came across the descriptions of salvation around the middle of the book.  I have never wanted more to be Orthodox than I do now.   Shocked

 
Logged

Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.
PrincessMommy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 734


OCA


« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2008, 10:27:12 PM »

N.T. Wright was one of the many reasons I became open to Orthodoxy.  He's by no means Orthodox, but he challenged the traditional Reformed Protestant interpretation of Scripture, specifically with respect to justification.

I agree, he helped me early on in my journey East.

Welcome to the boards daveordave.
Logged
ignatios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 112



« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2008, 02:31:57 PM »

I say this might be the first for Americans to ever have heard Jesus was from the beginning without creation and not Roman Medieval dogma.

The Reformed types are really going after him.  John Piper has written an entire book against Wright.  One of the arguments they keep using is that the "New Perspective on Paul" is new and thus not theologically reputable.  However, the more I understand about folks like Irenaeus and Athanasius, I'm starting to wonder just how "new" some of the aspects of the "New Perspective" really are.  John Piper might just be the one with the "new" theology.  Of course, the even more ironic thing is that John Calvin is likely rolling over in his grave at the thought of a Baptist calling himself a "Calvinist."

I bought and read Counted Righteous In Christ by Piper before I actually became sympathetic to Wright's views.  To counter Piper's claim that the so-called New Perspective is new: it is only new in the degree to which it preserves classical Protestant thinking.  For instance, one erroneous or misleading statement of Bishop Wright is that "the doctrine of justification by faith is the great ecumenical doctrine". He means to say that the faith by which Gentiles were included among Jews in the N.T. Church is the same faith which is required, alone (sola fidei), for inclusion in the current Church.  By this understanding, anybody with Wright's requisite faith is part of the Church.  The problem here is that Wright's standard of what constitutes right faith, that is, faith in reality, is in error from the start, for he does not hold the Tradition of the Church.  He needs to be Orthodox - to hold to the right belief.  Without that, he is left to subscribe to yet another version of lowest-common-denominator ecclesiology, in which individual Protestant groups define what is required for one to be a part of the church, which always includes themselves and usually excludes those with whom they have a theological axe to grind.  These boundaries can change over time as theological battle lines are re-prioritized. 

Although Wright makes progress against the false dichotomy of justification by faith vs. works, he doesn't get beyond the orbit of Protestant ecumenism to embrace the faith which has been preserved by the Holy Spirit in truth, consistency, and in power, as Jesus our Lord promised us.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2008, 02:33:15 PM by ignatios » Logged
Tags: N.T. Wright New Perspectives on Paul 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.077 seconds with 43 queries.