I was wanting to hear others of orthodox eschatological persuasion's thoughts on N.T. Wright and how he affects eschatology. I have only read some but I find myself in agreement with nearly each of the eschatological things he says (I have not gotten into the New Perspective at all, and don't wish that to get mixed in here unless anyone thinks that his New Perspective is inseparable from his eschatology and vice versa)
Site Owner TheologyWeb and The PreteristSite
Abortion doesn’t prevent you from becoming a mother. It only makes you the mother of a dead child rather than a living one. I am not childless. Through the lie of feminist proganda, I am the mother of two dead children. Maybe one of them would have found a cure for cancer. Maybe the other would have given their life to help the needy. We will never know now. Ultimately, I was more concerned about my own life, than theirs.
Hi Dee. What is an "orthodox" Christian in Christ?Originally Posted by Dee Dee Warren
I know you believe the "Great Tribulation" is past, as you did an extensive Commentary on Matt 24[and a very good on I might add].
I also view the Great Tribulation is "symbolically past" as far as Daniel's people is concerned[Daniel 12], though I have no idea in what way the final consummation or resurrections shown in revelation is about, at least not where I can explain it in words, and so that appears to put me in the "unorthodox" camp in your view. Heck, I am even "at odds" with FP's on their biblical view of revelation[I don't see "romans" in it for example]. I post articles on judaism forums and get few responses to Scripture I put up.
Sorry to see I am not allowed to respond here, but I do look with interest on how others post concerning NT Wright, as I have never read his writings. Blessings.
http://www.predestinarian.net/showth...7940#post37940
DEE quote: I am an orthodox preterist, and if I tread into futurist waters, I have to expect that my doctrine will be criticized heavily. In fact someone who has the courage and consistency of their position and deams me a heretic (because that is the logical outcome of their view) earns my respect not my wrath or a hurt puppy routine.
Last edited by InChristAlways; 10-01-2005 at 01:19 PM.
"There are Signs of a new upsurge of interest in the Study of Scriptures: a New Readiness to Test Traditions, Search the Scriptures and Rightly Divide the Word "I am the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE and the RESURRECTION and no man can come to the FATHER but by ME"
From what I have observed in Presbyterian and Baptist churches, the views of N.T. Wright when accepted almost instantly lead to an acceptance of reconstructionist post-mil eschatology. It is only a short jump from there to pure preterist eschatology, since the focus of triumphant postmillenialism is not the blessed hope of the final Advent of Christ but a radical change (to where the majority are converted) in the fleshly present earth. If the final hope of the gospel can be realized in this present earthly existence, why teach a literal future coming of Christ at the end of a 'glorious' millennium of fleshly and churchian dominion? I have no doubt whatsoever that the New Perspecive on Paul will ultimately accept pure preterism as its eschatology.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Hello Bill
I am postmill but not reconstructionist. Not because of disagreement but because I have not had the time to read both sides of the issues.
Actually that is not correct. That may be your interpretation of what you think postmills think, but being in frequent communication with postmills, including ones of substance such as Keith Mathison, the focus is the triumph of Christ in ALL, especially made evident by the resurrection, and the radical supernatural transformation of the earth. As far as heretical preterism (and once I again I am asking that only orthodox positions reply which is why I am not responding to post number 2 who posted while acknowledging that the opening post requested no such posts) - the focus is that this is the consummation. Sin and death will go on forever, nothing could be be more antithetical to postmill.It is only a short jump from there to pure preterist eschatology, since the focus of triumphant postmillenialism is not the blessed hope of the final Advent of Christ but a radical change (to where the majority are converted) in the fleshly present earth.
Now I have not read enough Wright to know if he would lead to postmill reconstructionism, I have never heard anyone say that before, so thanks, I will keep that in mind as I start to read him more.
See above - and I also think you are referring to some older forms of Postmill such as Boetnner. My view, and that of Gentry, DeMar, Mathison could fairly be called neo-Postmill since unlike the older postmills we do not hold to a literal future thousand years. The final hope of the Gospel is the complete separation of good from evil and the redemption from death.If the final hope of the gospel can be realized in this present earthly existence, why teach a literal future coming of Christ at the end of a 'glorious' millennium of fleshly and churchian dominion? I have no doubt whatsoever that the New Perspecive on Paul will ultimately accept pure preterism as its eschatology.
It seems that you are also equivocating between two meanings of fleshly that is not being fair. Fleshly can mean physical - God created as physical beings and declared it "very good." Fleshly can also mean dominated by the sinful nature. Postmill certainly do not say that any future blessedness will be governed by the sinful nature. But they do look for the physical victory of the Gospel on the earth for the gates of Hades cannot prevail against the onslaught of the Church.
However, I am treading into some unknown territory for you have taken me by surprise in claiming that Wright would lead to postmill. I have always heard that he is amill - though admittedly there is really not too much difference between some of today's amills and postmills.
Site Owner TheologyWeb and The PreteristSite
Abortion doesn’t prevent you from becoming a mother. It only makes you the mother of a dead child rather than a living one. I am not childless. Through the lie of feminist proganda, I am the mother of two dead children. Maybe one of them would have found a cure for cancer. Maybe the other would have given their life to help the needy. We will never know now. Ultimately, I was more concerned about my own life, than theirs.
By triumphant post-mil I mean reconstructionism, not historic post-millennialism. I had assumed that the difference between these two was well known but it seems I was wrong. The NPP harmonizes with the notion of a triumphant 'Christian' ecclesiastical power-base united with human government that over time comes to dominate the world. Naturally, Roman Catholicism and other similar institutions have to be included in order to have any hope of such a reality materializing. So great attempts are engaged to find common unity on matters of theology (hence ideas such as N.T. Wright's teaching on justification).
My view of SARX cited above is that of pure spirit, not physical. Even in the final New Earth mankind will have a material body and dwell in a material world.
I personally reject all post-millennialism strictly on biblical grounds.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
The two are not equal. I am not a reconstruction, yet I am postmill. The guy (Jamie Bennet) who runs postmillennialism.com is not a reconstructionist.
I am not familiar with your abbreviations, so I am somewhat guessing NPP means New Perspective Postmill - but the whole point of my opening post was for someone to prove how one leads to another via NT Wright. And I am not sure of the evil you find the second sentence. A converted world will lead to converted people in places of power.I had assumed that the difference between these two was well known but it seems I was wrong. The NPP harmonizes with the notion of a triumphant 'Christian' ecclesiastical power-base united with human government that over time comes to dominate the world.
Naturally? Why? We are speaking of a supernatural event. Perhaps the RCC will not exist? My outlook is in millennia not in centuries.Naturally, Roman Catholicism and other similar institutions have to be included in order to have any hope of such a reality materializing.
I confess ignorance on the New Perspective - I know just enough to be dangerously ignorant.So great attempts are engaged to find common unity on matters of theology (hence ideas such as N.T. Wright's teaching on justification).
I am sorry but I did not understand that.My view of SARX cited above is that of pure spirit, not physical. Even in the final New Earth mankind will have a material body and dwell in a material world.
I personally reject all post-millennialism strictly on biblical grounds.[/quote]
Site Owner TheologyWeb and The PreteristSite
Abortion doesn’t prevent you from becoming a mother. It only makes you the mother of a dead child rather than a living one. I am not childless. Through the lie of feminist proganda, I am the mother of two dead children. Maybe one of them would have found a cure for cancer. Maybe the other would have given their life to help the needy. We will never know now. Ultimately, I was more concerned about my own life, than theirs.
[/QUOTE]
If you are a post-mill why then do you say you reject post-millennialism?
I for one can live with my favorite Church Fathers and Historians being mistaken, but I cannot abide with Jesus and the apostles being mistaken.
If Jesus and the apostles were mistaken about the timing of the 2nd coming, what else were they mistaken about? Do believers truly have eternal life, or were Jesus and the apostles mistaken about that too?
Brad, actually Dee Dee had a left over quote from Bob Higby (BillTwisse). He was the one who made the statement.
~Anthony
Anthony Lawson, sinner saved by imputed righteousness
Some articles of interest:
Regarding N.T. WrightDeveloping Theology Home
The second volume of Wright's series, Jesus and the Victory of God, focuses in on the person of Jesus Christ. He starts by engaging with the Jesus scholarship of the past two centuries, focusing his criticism especially on Borg and Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. He is careful to praise the advances in scholarship represented by the members of this association, but he is not shy in soundly defeating many of the presuppositions and methodological flaws within their work. For anyone who has been interested in the Jesus Seminar, this criticism, brought on historical grounds (their own "turf"), shows their conclusions to be largely without merit.
Wright looks at the history of Jesus scholarship over the past two centures, and divides it into two categores, following two major scholars who have investigated Jesus, Wrede and Schweitzer. Roughly, this translates into dividing scholars into the category either of Wrede and his thoroughgoing skepticism (examples are Bultmann and his demythologizing, as well as Crossan and the Jesus Seminar), or of Albert Schwietzer and his thoroughgoing eschatology (he places the "third quest largely in this category. While understanding this taxonomy to be superficial and inexact, he uses it to illumine some of the methodological commonalities between groups of scholars over the last two hundred years, and shows many current scholars are revisiting (even if in new ways) old ideas. It allows us to see similarities between scholars across the years. And it proves rather instructive. His catalogue of scholars and how the fit into this scheme is admirably complete, and I will not reproduce that here, instead referring you to the book (or the Facet by Wright also published by Fortress press which takes up these matters in a less-expensive form by exerpting from Wright's much larger work).
After this look at the history of Jesus scholarship over the past years, he turns tohis own constructive historical work. Wright structures his investigation around the understanding of worldview. This takes the form of asking a number of questions about Jesus: who are we? where are we? what's wrong? what's the solution? and what time is it? These questions help establish the worldview of Jesus by looking at how Jesus would answer these questions.
Due to the almost encyclopedic nature of Wright's study, I will not seek to reproduce all of his answers to these worldview questions, nor will I seek to lay out his arguments, even in outline. Instead, it is worthwile to look at some of the important features of Wright's understanding of Jesus, and of the enterprise of looking at Jesus historically and theologically.
One very important aspect of Wright's inquiry is that he sees both the teachings and the actions of Jesus as essential to a complete understanding. In fact, he sees the two as being inseparable. The sayings, he argues, often interpret and complement the actions. One instructive example is Jesus's Temple-action, overturning the money-changers' tables, and Jesus' s saying regarding the payment of taxes to Caesar. On the surface, the saying is a clever way out of a trap, and is also a statement about giving proper loyalty to God and proper loyalty to Caesar. Yet, when Wright sets this saying along side the temple action, it is given a deeper meaning. Instead of just talking about taxes, it is a critique of the current Jewish understandings of Messiahship and of the coming kingdom. For many Jewish Messiahs to have come before and who existed around the time of Jesus, the coming kingdom took the shape of an earthly kingdom, and the overthrow of Rome. Jesus Temple action demonstrated his judgment of the current temple system and the misunderstanding of the Judaism of the day of what it means for him as Messiah to replace the temple and the corrupt nationalistic ideas of the Jewish establishment. The saying about taxes to Caesar, set in this temple-action setting, is not just about giving God his due and Caesar his, but instead is a very strong critique of the Jewish nationalistic ideal, with the frequent call for non-payment of taxes and other revolts against Roman rule. Instead, Jesus's proclamation of the kingdom of God is much more radical than that, for the kingdom is coming in himself, through his death. This is one of a number of instances where Wright weaves story and symbol, action and words, theology and history, together in an intricate tapestry as he reconstructs Jesus's life, his aims, and his message.
Wright finds Jesus to be remarkably similar to an "orthodox" picture of who Jesus was and is, and he critically but constructively incorporates most, if not all, of the synoptic material in this clear study. But there are a couple aspects of his study that will strike readers as being rather new, or at least non-traditional. The first is his assertion, first made in The New Testament and the People of God and carried through into Jesus and the Victory of God, that the Jews of Jesus' day believed themselves to be still in exile. Even though they inhabited the promised land and worshiped at the temple in Jerusalem, they still understood God's great promises of exile and return to be unfulfilled. They were still awaiting YHWY's return to Zion, the coming of the Davidic Messiah, and the true return from exile to occur. Wright goes on to place Jesus within this implicit story, which provides an interpretive key to many of Jesus' actions. Scholars have met this proposal with both acolade and resistance, but it clearly warrants special attention, and may prove in the end to be at the least a neglected stream of thought contemporary to Jesus, and may provide a fertile ground for further study, but it must be carried out carefully, with the assertion that Judaism in Jesus day certainly wasn't monolithic, and keeping in mind that it would be suprising (though not impossible) for this theme to have been as central to Judaism as Wright has asserted since it has gone almost totally undiscovered in the intervening years.
A second controversial aspect of Wright's portrait has to do with Eschatology. Wright is critical of the work of Schweitzer, who understood Jesus to be expecting an apocalyptic end-of-the-world event to come shortly, and is also critical of the school who claim Jesus was not really an eschatological prophet, but instead taught timeless truths. But in his constructive propsal, as he makes clear that he, in a sense following Schweitzer, feels that the apocalyptic is inseprable from Jesus ministry and message. Departing from Schweitzer, though, he asserts that Jesus didn't expect any type of end of "space-time" but instead was looking forward to a this-worldly event to come, namely the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the people. This proved to be a decisive moment of God's judgment upon the world. Wright does leave room for further expectation in the Christian life, but it isn't yet clear what the "not yet" of the Church, that comes from Paul and ultimately from Jesus, may consist of, and I await with expectation further volumes from his pen.
Wright's own contribution is the working-out of his assertion that history has an important role to play in theology. He illustrates his understanding by comparing theology and history two the two sons in the parable of the prodigal son. History, the prodigal, has strayed far from home and squandered its wealth; theology, meanwhile, the older son, has stayed home, faithfully working for the father. Now the prodigal, history, is coming home, and the prodigal father shows prodigal love by accepting him again. The older son, meanwhile, disdains the prodigal son for his past failures, and is reluctant to allow him home. Wright has a very clear desire to see history take its rightful place as a legitimate contributor to the study of Jesus. This means acknowledging where it has overstepped its bounds in the past, but also realizing the constructive contribution it can make to a more complete understanding of Jesus.
Wright asserts, "I wish the present work to share the concern of the former for rigorous historical constructions, and also to work towards a new integration of history and theology which will do justice, rather than violence, to both." It is important to realize at this stage, that we are looking at the relationship of theology to science, in this case, historical science. That can even be seen in Wright's language. He speaks of integration between the discplines, and integration is one of the four major categories of relationship that Ian Barbour has outlined in his landmark writing in the field of religion and science. I also think that it is important to analyze Wright's endeavor on these grounds. In his project, he freely acknowledges the pitfalls and failures of past historical inquiries into the life of Christ, but puts these down to a number of flaws in the history, such as presuppositions and impositions of worldview on to historical inquiry. Yet, he seems content to leave the method essentially alone, in that history remains a difinitive partner in the dialogue, with power to alter, or even change, theological understandings. Wright's whole understanding of Jesus is firmly rooted in his historical understanding of the Judaism of the time, and of the worldview of first century Jews, as he understands it. This historical construction is determinative of his understanding of Jesus. While I applaud his historical study, for it proves to be an immense and informative look at a world far removed from our own, I believe he subjects theological claims to historical study, on at least an even plain, without clearly delineating the bounds of the historical inquiry of theology. It would seem that he conflates the two, without making clear that there are historical studies that are informed by theology, but which are not determined by it, and further that there are theological studies that are informed by theology, but which are not determined by it. In the end, I see this as the primary weakness of what is otherwise an extremely strong study. The amount of knowledge there is to gain from Wright's study is immense, but in the end, this conflation of disciplines means that his conclusions are not what should be termed "theological," but "historical."
As I hope I have made clear, there is an immense amount to value in Wright's study. It will serve as a valuable resource of historical construction that can inform our understanding of Jesus, and his mindset and worldview. But, it should not be thought that through this study we can know who Jesus was, or what he thought, or what his aims were. Finally, we must rest in Scripture. This can and should mean that we are informed by the best of historical scholarship to help us understand the language and setting, but we should never let provisional historical reconstruction trump the truth we find in Scripture. Although historicla inquiry seems to put us on firm ground for understanding Jesus, resting our understanding on it will ultimately be little better than resting our theology of Creation on a Newtonian (or evolutionary or Einsteinian) understanding of the universe. Clearly, in the case of both historical inquiry of Jesus and scientific/cosmological inquiry into the origins of the universe, we are driven to dialogue and interaction by our theology, and are assertions that Jesus truly was a historical figure and that creation was a "scientific" occurrence, but we must at the same time acknowledge that God is not subject to scientific inquiry, by either the physical or historical sciences, and we will never verify or arrive at genuinely theological conclusions if we are bound to these other disciplines. We can and must learn from them, Wright's study of Jesus clearly included, but we must never depend upon them.
I look forward to rereading and learning more from this informative volume, and the other volumes in his work, but clearly we must be careful to always return to the source and norm of our theology, the Bible, and always keep close at hand the traditions of the orthodox and catholic church, which also inform our understandings, even as we dialogue with and seek coherence with sciences, both historical and physical.
RRJ - Some of your reviewers have criticized your reading of the New Testament's eschatological outlook. What do you see as still future?
NTW - You're absolutely right. People do read my work in this way. One of my colleagues, after New Testament and the People of God was published, said to me in a seminar, "Tom, now that you have abandoned eschatology...." I said, "Excuse me, I have not abandoned eschatology. I am reading this stuff eschatologically from top to bottom. That's what it's all about." What he meant was really that I'd given up belief in the imminent parousia as the dominant thing in early Christianity. That's actually a stupid use of the word eschatology. But the evangelical complaint has been that I have taken key texts about the Son of Man coming upon the clouds, texts which have had such a huge role in contemporary evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and I've said, "Sorry, I want to read those biblically not traditionally."
In the biblical text (Daniel 7) the Son of Man is going upwards not downwards. All of this has nothing to do with the fact that there is from 1 Thessalonians onwards (and recall that 1 Thessalonians is one of the two of three earliest documents we possess in early Christianity) a very strong belief in the parousia as the royal presence. The word parousia means the presence of Jesus. This is modeled on various things: on Moses coming down the mountain having been up with God, on the arrival of the emperor to pay a state visit, etc. In 1 Thessalonians 4, the past paragraph of it at least, alongside the last paragraph of 1 Corinthians 15. When you do you can see that Paul is actually talking about exactly the same thing. The trumpet shall sound. There are several elements of the same picture. He is talking about a day that is obviously still to come. This is so obvious that I find it laughable that anyone would think it otherwise. This is the day when that which began with the resurrection of Jesus as prototype will be finally completed.
The big picture is obviously in Romans 8:18-27. It is very interesting to me that a great swathe of the evangelical tradition - and, indeed, what I suppose we in the English speaking world would call the non-evangelical Lutheran tradition (e.g., Bultmann) - have marginalized precisely this part of Romans. Romans is a book about me and how I get saved. And so we get this extraordinary thing about the creation being set free from its bondage to decay and Bultmann says, "Oh, that is just a bit of the flotsam and jetsam of Paul's apocalyptic background, you know. He's just go to drag a bit of that stuff in there." Without seeing that this really is the whole point; i.e., Romans 5:12-21 is about those who receive the grace of God and the gift of righteousness who will reign in life. What does it mean that they will reign in life? It means not only that Jesus is ruling but his people are ruling as they are intended to do. Then the creation itself will be set free. But that manifestly hasn't happened yet.
....... from
AN INTERVIEW WITH
N. T. WRIGHT
by Travis Tamerius
Greetings and salutations, el rana
21There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.
Proverbs chapter 19
I found my long lost copy of The Resurrection of the Son of God. Yip. I am bummed that animated avatars don't work here.
Site Owner TheologyWeb and The PreteristSite
Abortion doesn’t prevent you from becoming a mother. It only makes you the mother of a dead child rather than a living one. I am not childless. Through the lie of feminist proganda, I am the mother of two dead children. Maybe one of them would have found a cure for cancer. Maybe the other would have given their life to help the needy. We will never know now. Ultimately, I was more concerned about my own life, than theirs.
Dee Dee:
I have not gotten into the New Perspective at all, and don't wish that to get mixed in here unless anyone thinks that his New Perspective is inseparable from his eschatology and vice versa.
For the record, in my estimation his New Perspective is inseparable from his eschatology.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks