Wright Post 2


Here is an interesting article on Wright. Good for him…

Advertisements

4 Comments

Add yours →

  1. Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (2nd edition) contains positive references to Wright’s predecessor James Cone, and in more than one place. I wonder what the fellows that compiled, edited, and published that book are thinking of that fact now.

    I also found a nugget in that dictionary pertaining to the actual original belief of Arminius: he stated that Jesus Christ did not die for our sins, because in order to make his theology work Christ’s dying for our sins would have inevitably led to universalism. So, Arminius actually proposed that Jesus Christ only suffered for our sins. The writer of the article on Arminius stated that virtually all free will evangelicals are actually far closer to Calvin’s position than they are to that of Arminius without even knowing it.

  2. First of all James Cone has done some fine work in thinking through what the Christian faith might mean for the African-American community. I may not agree with all of his thought but I can respect what he was trying to accomplish. (That is a difference between us: I do not have to agree wholeheartedly with someone to think they are a good person. I do not believe we can find a prefect theology in this world so I do not expect it in myself or others hence the name of my blog).

    Second, We should not be expected to account for all the ends and outs of our disciples’ theology and actions. Luther was taught by Augustinian monks many of whom would have been horrified by the road he took; but I for one would not dispute the end result. As mentors and teachers we do our best to teach and show the best we know and then release our pupils into the hands of God for their ministry.

    Third, I still am appalled that everyone has jumped on the youtube bandwagon, and thrown Wright and Hagee under the bus based on several comments taken out of context. This shows the innate superficiality of our culture in that we take a handful of faults and seek to downplay a lifetime of humble and diligent service. Anyone who would do so should be ashamed of themselves (and in this I even take sides against my own Mom and sister who are appalled with Wright). I would expect a lovable curmudgeon like yourself not to be suckered into a bandwagon position such as this.

    Last, I have several unrelated points on Arminanism:
    **** I love how people want to a) make Arminius out to be a heretic, and b) how everyone wants to make anyone who disagrees with the TULIP to be a nutter as well.
    **** For the record I am a Wesleyan / Pentecostal evangelical which is not the same as Arminian. I disagree with Arminius, but I differ with Calvin as well.
    **** Also for the record modern Calvinism is at times a far cry from Calvin. The above statement could also be made in the inverse: Calvin is often closer to Wesley and Luther than many of their progenitors would like to admit. Hence Calvinists in their smug theological superiority like to talk about how close we small-minded numbskulls are to their position without thinking that perhaps we might ask if maybe it is they who are close to us.
    **** I think you make the same mistake here as do our youtube friends. There is actually a valid theological point here. What did Christ’s death on the cross mean? Does it mean universalism? That would actually simplify the math quite nicely. There would be no loose ends and knotty problems. Since scripture teaches otherwise we are left with a particularly tough theological issue. Arminius worked in ways you mentioned. Calvin, himself, and other Calvinists have struggled with this as well. The TULIP position of limited atonement comes from this knotty thorn. One of my profs has argued that it is perhaps the least vital of the five and the one least agreed upon in Reformed circles. They argue that Christ’s death was only effective for the elect and serves no purpose for the damned ( a position I find abhorrent– as you alluded to in your post I also place tremendous import in the death of Christ).

  3. Matt:

    “First of all James Cone has done some fine work in thinking through what the Christian faith might mean for the African-American community. I may not agree with all of his thought but I can respect what he was trying to accomplish. (That is a difference between us: I do not have to agree wholeheartedly with someone to think they are a good person. I do not believe we can find a prefect theology in this world so I do not expect it in myself or others hence the name of my blog).”

    I will apply 2 John 1:9-11 to Mr. Cone. The person who wrote 2 John 1:9-11 also wrote 1 John 1:10, so the fact that there are no perfect people is not a just cause for failing to keep 2 John 1:9-11.

    Sorry dude, all I did was report what Elwell’s said about Arminius, and I did so without adding any editorializing, which I did because I have no independent knowledge of the fellow from my own research. So if they got it wrong on Arminius, you have to take it up with them.

    On Jeremiah Wright being taken out of context, two things.
    1. I have personally said far stronger things against America than the actually rather mild remarks commonly attributed to Wright (whose condemnation of America was no different from anything that many conservative preachers used to routinely say). And were I to ever be confronted about my railings against our country, I sincerely doubt that I would claim to be quoted out of context.

    2. I remind you that during my college years I was a wannabe Afrocentric. Not that I had a minor in black studies or anything, but I read the books. Went to hear the radical speakers. Listened to the music. Wright was quoted out of context? Yes. But was it an accurate representation of his beliefs? Yes. Anyone who has ever so much as bought a Public Enemy album – and Public Enemy was not even Afrocentric, they were just Marxist – cannot claim otherwise.

    As far as Hagee goes, I was a huge fan of the guy. Used to plan my Sundays around watching his show. Used to watch the half hour version of his show 5 days a week. And let me tell you dude, the guy wasn’t quoted out of context. Also, Hagee is far from the only religious figure with these beliefs. I have heard and read PLENTY of people say precisely the same thing. It is actually not an uncommon line of conjecture in dispensational thought. Even better – or worse – PLENTY of Conservative and Orthodox Jewish rabbis say the same thing! So unlike Wright, Hagee’s claims to have been taken out of context in this matter is incredible (in the original meaning of the word – not credible). Also unlike Wright, I sincerely question whether Hagee actually believes it.

  4. I loved Boris and Natasha on Bullwinkle as a kid, does that make me a Marxist? The leaps in logic made astound me. I have no answer to this post. Well actually I did, but the wordpress censors would not allow it so let me abbrev it WTF? DID YOU EAT PAINTCHIPS OR LIVE UNDER POWERLINES AS A CHILD? YOU DO KNOW YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE BLUE PILL TO GO BACK TO SLEEP, RIGHT? OK a little hyperbolic, here’s an attempt at some honest answers.

    *** My post actually stated that Hagee, like Wright, meant exactly what they said, and no one should have problems with the main points they made. Because they were both more right than the pundits are able to comprehend. It has only been the media making them mean other things.

    *** Sorry for sounding like a postmodern, but our big problem here is in defining things. I have no clue what dictionary you use, but it is oblivious not the one I use.

    *** All I can say is I hope your one day get whatever mixed feelings towards your own race you have resolved. That is not me being rude, cause God knows I have spent many years praying for my fellow Caucasians.

    *** For me going too far means denying the Trinity or some such madness. Not differing from one another on views of the atonement. Best as I know, Cone liked Jesus, believed He was God, believed He freed us from our sins. Believed in important stuff. Differed on some technical details and the like. That’s unfortunately more than can be said for some prominent Germans (Tillich I’m calling you out here).

    *** What is wrong with Socialism. First the Socialist concern that Capitalism creates a tiered society and causes inequalities is not so far wrong. Second, the New Testament Church looked a lot like a Socialist community.

    The problem with Marx was that he did not have a strong enough view of humanity’s sinfulness. Oh and he did not believe in God. BTW, that would be going too far.

    *** I am pretty sure the man behind Flavor of Love is not a Marxist. Although he does seem willing to give a large segment of the Common People a chance to sit on his throne……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: