Item description for What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? by N. T. Wright & Tom Wright...
Overview Was Paul the founder of Christianity? A.N. Wilson, author of Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, believes he was---but now hear what N.T. Wright has to say about it! Drawing from the latest research, Wright offers his view on Paul's actual contribution to Christianity and who the real founder of your faith is.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 0.5" Width: 6" Height: 9.25" Weight: 0.6 lbs.
Release Date Jun 20, 1997
Publisher Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
ISBN 0802844456 ISBN13 9780802844453
Availability 0 units.
More About N. T. Wright & Tom Wright
Born in 1948 in Northumberland, England, N.T. Wright is the Bishop of Durham. He was formerly Dean of Lichfield and lecturer in New Testament studies at Oxford University as well as fellow, tutor, and chaplain of Worcester College, Oxford. He has also served as professor of New Testament language and literature in various colleges and universities. With doctorates in divinity and in philosophy from the University of Oxford, N. T. Wright is a member of the Society for New Testament Studies, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, and the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. He has published more than 40 works at both scholarly and popular levels related to New Testament studies, especially on the origins of Christianity and Biblical Christology.
N. T. Wright has an academic affiliation as follows - Worcester College, Oxford.
N. T. Wright has published or released items in the following series...
Christian Origins and the Question of God (Paperback)
Reviews - What do customers think about What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity??
Not illuminating and destructive to new believers May 20, 2008
Covenantal Nomism is the belief that first century Palestinian Jews did not believe in works righteousness. Essentially, it is the belief that one is brought into the Abrahamic covenant through birth and one stays in the covenant through works. It suggests that the Jewish view of relationship with God is that keeping the law is based only on a prior understanding of relationship with God.
The `pattern' or `structure' of covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God's promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God's mercy belong to the group that will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and, ultimately, salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement
(Quoted from Wikipedia)
This is what is being propegated by these views - essentially a Roman Catholic view of Salvation - while Wright may believe in these things you say he does he certainly does not present them in an illuminating way, or in any sense helpful to the gospel message.
While there are certainly good arguements, and I can see that Wright has done his homework - is this really what the gospel comes down to - Is this in the spirit of what Jesus came to die for? That we could be in the covenant by birth and maintain our covenant relationship by works?
Come on, thats not good news that BAD news, cos heck by now i've already lost my covenant relationship through bad works -
The Christian faith stands or falls on the doctrine of Justification - if my salvation is based on me maintaining good works to keep myself in the covenant then that is not Christianity that is Islam. Allah weighing my good deads vs my bad deeds at the end of my life.
unhappy May 18, 2008
I have not received the book yet. I bought it 5 weeks ago ! Should I get worried ?
What about...? Mar 31, 2008
This book should be read alongside Piper's response to it, "The Future of Justification."
Practically, this book does not apply to dealing with sin and being right with God. It borders on total arrogance to say that all other scholars for the last 1,500 years have been wrong about what St. Paul really said about the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of God.
N.T. Wright is a smart man and a great communicator. That doesn't mean we don't take the nuances of his definitions and the implications of them without a grain of salt.
Poor job from a brilliant scholar. Mar 30, 2008
Wright begins with E.P. Sanders' conclusion that the church has misread Paul because they did not understand the nature of 1st century Judaism. E.P. Sanders however is consistent with his conclusion and his interpretation of Paul. He sees that Paul's view of justification would not fit into his findings on 1st century Judaism. Sanders concludes that Paul did not understand 1st century Judaism as well as he does. Arrogant but consistent.
Wright is not willing to go as far as saying he understands 1st century Judaism better than a 1st century Jew of Paul's status. Therefore Wright is forced to do extremely poor exegesis to come up with the trash that is in this book.
Wright states that the evangelical view of justification comes from the Reformation rather than from Paul. According to Wright we don't have a personal guilt before God and therefore we don't need to be justified in the traditional sense. It does not take someone of Wright brilliance to see that the "reformed view of justification" was present much earlier than the reformation. It takes little effort to find it in the early church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd century.
I feel Wright is more concerned with being recognized as a brilliant scholar than doing sound scholarly work. He longs for the status of being considered one of the top five theologians and realizes he can not support traditional views and obtain this status.
He is arrogant like Sanders to believe that he is the only one to get Paul right in almost 2000 years of interpreting Paul. Wright has demonstrated that he is capable of putting out great books but this is not one of them.
sheds much light, but be cautious Feb 8, 2008
I enjoy so much of what Wright says, but he doesn't go far enough. We could all learn from his knowlege of second temple Judaism and what things were like during the times of Paul. It is a refreshing read that would be helpful to a much needed overly Americanized view of Christianity. But to say that the entire history of the church including the Reformers got it wrong and to say that the difference between Rome and Protestants shouldn't be there is, to put it bluntly, very arrogant and dangerous. To say that Christ came to redeem the whole world is correct, but to say that this has no bearing on individual salvation is inherently wrong. Paul said Christ came to save sinners of which I am the chief most. To say that first century Jews weren't legalistic by looking at external resources may be compelling, but if one takes Jesus and Pauls own words then all the external resources are irrellevant. Not to mention that if second temple Judaism had escaped the flaws of legalism then it is the only religion in history to do so and that seems to meet outlandish. Overall, I would recommend the book, but if you are not a discerning reader then it won't be helpful. There are more ambiguities than clarifications. Wright says correct things but stops short of saying the whole truth.