Friday, March 24, 2006

is wright wrong?

Personally, I still do not understand the rants against NT Wright. What I understand from him I like agree with. But the below gives me some insight into why some dislike disagree with him. I do not agree with the pundits that he should be completely written off nor that the Church needs to be warned with intensity of his dangers; but at least on the below I'm confused.

Wood queried Wright:

Do you believe that a significant percentage of mankind will be permanently in hell, as a result of their sin? Do you believe that hell is an objective place, characterized by permanent suffering of an individual? Do you believe that the only way that an individual can avoid hell is to personally repent of his sins, relying on Christ’s actions on earth, during that person’s mortal life? Do you believe that Christ will preside at a final judgment, dividing mankind into two groups, one to eternal heaven and one to eternal hell?"

Wright responded:

I think the best thing is to wait for my next relevant book. Your questions are so thoroughly conditioned by one particular (and to my mind unbiblical) way of speaking about God’s eventual purpose (which, I repeat, is stated in the New Testament not in terms of ‘heaven and hell’ as in mediaeval and subsequent western thought, but in terms of the new heavens and new earth) that it is impossible to answer them as they stand without colluding with misunderstanding. And I repeat, whatever your powers of recall in other instances, I simply cannot have said anything like what you seem to think I must have done. I strongly suspect it was the result of my trying to turn questions with whose presuppositions I was in disagreement into questions with a biblical base which I could answer, and I can well see that this might have resulted in you or someone else imagining I was giving a particular answer to the question you thought I was answering while my intention was very different. Anyway, let’s wait for the book.
As I said, I have learned from what I understood but the above leaves me confused. It seems to be a sophisticated form of tongues. If anyone has the interpretation, I'm open. Seriously, if someone could say what he is saying in simple English (without an anti-Wright bent), I would appreciate it.

Technorati Tags:

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

wright´s answer is hard to understand. but wood´s questions are hard to accept.

reftagger