A Deep-Dive into the Book of Romans: Dr. N.T. Wright

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 60

  • @roberthunter124
    @roberthunter124 Рік тому +8

    Spectooopular - love how Dr Tom synopsizes most of Romans …thoughtfully, deeply, robustly in his first answer …and I’m also thinking, man; where can Dr Preston get more guests like this? He asks one question …and gets to sit back for a 1/3 of the show and get a free university-grade brush up within the answer. So good, and very much appreciated.

    • @Charity-vm4bt
      @Charity-vm4bt Рік тому

      Nt Wright wrote 80 books so he won't run out of topics. He can keep being invited back

  • @bevmitchell5507
    @bevmitchell5507 День тому

    This is all so good. Reading the book now. With this particular interview there is some exceptional wandering as these two can easily let themselves see something related to the main theme and pull over for a minute to have a look. Don’t let this bother you. There is something important to be learned at each stop. The last such stop is exceptional and begins about minute 52 and runs to 1:02. This wayside stop alone has vistas that many will want to follow up on. You might even want to refer to the book mentioned (History and Eschatology) when it comes out in spring 2025. The way NTW can move seamlessly from a mini discussion on the foibles of some approaches to understanding evil, to a critique of a well known exegesis of a well known scripture is classic. Along with this there comes a little lesson in Greek, as they get back to finish with the book that is the subject at hand. It’s a wild ride.

  • @isaiahceasarbie5318
    @isaiahceasarbie5318 Рік тому +5

    There are no boring sentences with N.T. Wright.

  • @biddiemutter3481
    @biddiemutter3481 Рік тому +4

    I'm from England and I have read a few of N. T . Wright . Thank you so much for your work!

  • @marktaylor4496
    @marktaylor4496 Рік тому +5

    Thank you so much for having Tom on! He is my number 1 Christian Author! I’ve learned so much with every book I’ve read of his and JVG was amazing!!! My ten year goal is to read every book of his i possibly can!

  • @MakaylaChildress
    @MakaylaChildress 5 місяців тому +2

    I haven’t really read Romans yet, but this is such a helpful video to have watched before diving into it. Amazing, thank you!

    • @Deb-p4z9s
      @Deb-p4z9s Місяць тому

      Have yo read Romans yet? If you go back and read the Gospels, then read "Jesus' Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament" by DS WAGGONER, or "The Protestant Problem", you may find some of the facts interesting. There are things in the New Testament that modern bible teachers aren't talking about, but rabbis noticed, and talk about, because there are important facts about Jesus in the New Testament that Rome covered up, for political reasons.

  • @davidvartanian
    @davidvartanian Рік тому +2

    John Walton and GK Beale also talk about the correlation between temple and creation/the new temple and new creation. Such an amazing idea that encapsulates the whole story of the Bible.

  • @yinx02
    @yinx02 11 місяців тому +2

    He is PREACHING!!! I was not ready.

  • @1991jj
    @1991jj Рік тому +5

    So awesome that BZ is gonna be speaking at your conference 🔥 I hope American evangelicals hear his story and journey with an open heart and consider his turn toward a more ecumenical radical faith

    • @joelebert9767
      @joelebert9767 11 місяців тому

      A more ecumenical radical faith? And tell me why Wright isn't a liberal again?

    • @1991jj
      @1991jj 11 місяців тому

      @@joelebert9767 I'm not sure I understand the connection you're making between liberalism and ecumenism? But I am almost certain you are an American lol

    • @joelebert9767
      @joelebert9767 11 місяців тому

      @@1991jj Ecumenism has as its goal bringing people of different views together, and in the process truth is trampled on. That's the heart of liberalism. Wright is often heard trying to dodge the liberal label, but then attacks and denigrates conservative evangelical positions, while advancing a liberal vision of Christianity.

    • @1991jj
      @1991jj 11 місяців тому

      @@joelebert9767 Christian ecumenism is understanding that the whole body of Christ consists of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. As to the Wright accusation you are clearly mistaken. Wright is theologically very conservative. The difference you are discerning is not between conservatism and liberalism (as you define liberalism which is itself already a bit off) but actually an alternative view to FUNDAMENTALISM. In theological circles Wright is conservative as they come. American Christianity have made the mistake of propogating fundamentalist christianity and call it conservative. Truth is not trampled on in Wrights work at all. You can disagree with his conclusions and views. But in no way does that necessarily mean he is trampling on truth. What is more likely the case is that his view conflicts with your rigid fundamentalism that you want to pass off as standard conservative Christianity. Im sorry but thats just plainly false but a common mistake made by American Evangelicals. Broaden your understanding of your own Christian tradition. Ironically, your view is exactly the position taken by those who do not have a Christian ecumenical sensitivity and therefore refuse to learn from other parts of the Body. Again, very American lol

    • @joelebert9767
      @joelebert9767 11 місяців тому

      @@1991jj The views of salvation taken by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed positions are very different. Surely they cannot all be true? Isn't the insistence on tolerance over against truth definitional to liberalism? Does what the Scriptures say matter, or do only our theories matter? Remove Wright's theories and read the text for yourself. You'll see he indeed is trampling on the truth. Read Romans without the Tom Wright glasses. You'll see God is teaching about sin and our need for a Savior apart from our own righteous works, because we have no righteousness of our own. Wright denies this firmly. The Catholic church denies this firmly. The Orthodox church has no categories for this.

  • @troyroberson7457
    @troyroberson7457 10 місяців тому

    Awesome conversation, I would love to have more discussions with someone like NT Wright. His understanding of Romans very interesting.

  • @duncescotus2342
    @duncescotus2342 11 місяців тому +2

    Man, this video ought to be seen by every English speaking Christian on planet Earth. And then every English speaker, and then every human.

  • @damarafriederich9190
    @damarafriederich9190 Рік тому +2

    Help all of us bring down Replacement Theology. Help all of us to humble ourselves and realize God’s purpose of Kingdom of Shalom. Help us be warriors to overcome the empires to release the captives.

    • @Charity-vm4bt
      @Charity-vm4bt Рік тому

      DAMARA, This might not be the theologian to listen to if that is your belief and request. I believe as an Anglican he probably believes in replacement theology. It would be best not to get upset if this teaching is not compatible with your theology. There are others in the fully Evangelical field who would be more compatible for replacement theory.

  • @vanessaboman8143
    @vanessaboman8143 5 місяців тому +1

    I have to laugh, I also thought Tom was a liberal high church of England, a Roman catholic, who taught weird stuff.... Today I own two of his works on Romans along with Dr M Lloyd-Jones work on Romans are treasures to me next to my bibles. It's amazing if you give someone a try what you might learn. I appreciate this bible scholar so much now. I could listen to him all day on the scriptures.

  • @crimsonstaind
    @crimsonstaind 8 місяців тому

    Love the subtle dig at David Bentley Hart at the end there. Lol

  • @clarkemorledge2398
    @clarkemorledge2398 Рік тому +2

    Preston: You should try to get N.T. Wright back on, with Paula Fredriksen, to have them discuss back and forth their perspectives. Fredriksen is not an evangelical, but she is fluent in Pauline thought, nonetheless. That would be fireworks!!

    • @Charity-vm4bt
      @Charity-vm4bt Рік тому

      What denomination is she?

    • @clarkemorledge2398
      @clarkemorledge2398 Рік тому +1

      @@Charity-vm4bt Dr. Fredriksen is an Orthodox Jew, who converted from Roman Catholicism years ago.

    • @Charity-vm4bt
      @Charity-vm4bt Рік тому

      ​@@clarkemorledge2398hi, Thank you for the info. That is surprising. I looked up the biography of that name on Wikipedia.

  • @tedwood3982
    @tedwood3982 8 місяців тому

    I love the idea of Christians entering into a vocation of glorifying God to His creation, it lines up perfectly with Christ’s teaching about being salt & light.

  • @janiceking6955
    @janiceking6955 Рік тому

    I'm confused. The intro is speaking of the upcoming conference, exiles in babylon. With Joshua Harris as a speaker? Didn't Joshua Harris claim he renounced his faith? Hopefully I'm just confused because now I don't think I want to listen to the video for the second time, which was when I caught that item.

    • @joelebert9767
      @joelebert9767 11 місяців тому

      I don't see Harris on the list of speakers, but I'm not sure he wouldn't fit in, seeing some in the lineup. Holding to biblical authority is hard to come by these days.

  • @edballard1621
    @edballard1621 Рік тому

    Thanks for a very interesting podcast!

  • @twodollarshoe
    @twodollarshoe Рік тому

    How do we spell the name of that Genesis scholar he mentions?

  • @lamegalectora
    @lamegalectora 9 місяців тому

    What about Paul and wonen?

  • @weesmiler1986
    @weesmiler1986 Рік тому +1

    This was brilliant, thank you.

  • @clarkemorledge2398
    @clarkemorledge2398 Рік тому +3

    85-90 books by N.T. Wright??? When will anyone have the time to read all of N.T. Wright's stuff?????

    • @imagodei0327
      @imagodei0327 Рік тому +1

      Even more, who has time to write that many? NT Wright has given me so much to add joy to my life in Christ.

  • @KAMRUNNAHAR-freelance
    @KAMRUNNAHAR-freelance Рік тому

    Thank you so much for your work

  • @JamesDonovan-b5r
    @JamesDonovan-b5r Рік тому

    I came to these conclusions on Romans - heaven etc a few years ago. Glad to hear someone else say it.

  • @jonah623
    @jonah623 Рік тому

    What books were helpful for you to read to better understand jewish thought of the time? Because I feel like that was lacking in my my undergraduate degree.

  • @KINGDOM-Empowered
    @KINGDOM-Empowered 8 місяців тому

    Thank you, Jesus!

  • @Over-for-now
    @Over-for-now 3 місяці тому

    The book of Romans is the absolute sovereignty of God's plans. Nothing is thwarted in HIS plans and HIS counsels

  • @MarkGreen-t7l
    @MarkGreen-t7l 9 місяців тому

    I read Romans 5:29 as being a rhetorical question by Paul.

  • @SibleySteve
    @SibleySteve 11 місяців тому +1

    Around 55 he advocates wordless lament as the agency for the Spirit to work in the world, as an Anglican I wonder how this impacts liturgy, which is very word-driven? God collaborates with those who love Him.

  • @dayanandbharati6863
    @dayanandbharati6863 Місяць тому

    Evevery time I listen Professor N T Wright I learn something new. But how to compare this with my own scripture in Hinduism as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord is a unique challenge for us. Eager to learn more, if he has done anything in this line. For this some superficial academic knowledge on Hinduism is not enough I know.

  • @EdSuastegui
    @EdSuastegui Рік тому +1

    Great discussion, lots to ponder and reconsider here. I must say I'm a little disappointed that the topic of what justification accomplishes (right standing before God, inclusion in God's people (New Perspective on Paul), inclusion in God's people because of right standing, justification as the antecedent requirement for inclusion in God's people, and so on) didn't come up. That's the "rub" where most orthodox Reformed theologians would take issue with N.T. Wright's approach.

    • @SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS
      @SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS Рік тому

      Even when it comes up, NT is not clear on the meaning of things like justification, sin, atonement and salvation.

    • @Bibliotechno
      @Bibliotechno Рік тому +1

      I would even go back to "the works of the law" being seen as "boundary markers" and ponder if they actually were seen as 'badges of honour" or like "wearing the tee shirt" which means they represented a deeper malaise seen in the testament as the Pharisee in Luke 18 (and the comments before v9), the Korban rule, swallowing gnats, etc. But also alongside this the "no going back" of Hebrews. Paul's obvious rage, Then add in the Temple being violently destroyed in the end in AD70. I suspect a lot more was at stake, than just "let's all get along".

  • @lamegalectora
    @lamegalectora 9 місяців тому +1

    Interviewer 🤯He SHOUTS and he talks like a child ‘kind of’…’kind of’…’kind of’

  • @mulugetagetachew101
    @mulugetagetachew101 Рік тому

    spectacular

  • @DK-tk1nu
    @DK-tk1nu 6 місяців тому

    Tom's exegesis of Romans arrives at conclusions that closely parallel those of Teilhard de Chardin. Both are expressing the notion that something is _emerging_ or _evolving_ from an original state and directed towards some God-ordained destination, that Jesus' life, death and resurrection is a fulcrum moment in this process, and that the Church's purpose (and therefore the purpose of each of its members) is to instantiate something of the love of Jesus into the world. In so doing, God's Kingdom grows in the world.

  • @HarryNicNicholas
    @HarryNicNicholas Рік тому

    just a quick reminder that the first amendment conflicts with the first commandment
    "thou shalt worship whoever you want"
    and that the declaration of human rights gives ME more rights than god.
    is it annoying that the satanic temple has the SAME RIGHTS as the church?

    • @inTruthbyGrace
      @inTruthbyGrace Рік тому

      oh brilliant!! criticize the first amendment!! GENIUS let's curtail human rights... now, who shall we get to determine what "speech" should we should limit... who should run your standards for your enlightened theocracy? Rome, we can bring back the iron maiden for those who disagree w transubstantiation? maybe Geneva, disagree with limited atonement and be burned with fresh wood? or how about maybe we could get the Amish so all our curtains will match and no one will have an uncovered head...
      oh no no, wait, I know... let's get the mormons! we could go with the confession of faith that !“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! ..
      of course the LGBTQ lobby is growing and there is a new group of "Christians" marrying gays and advocating trans ideology maybe they should manage that first amendment for you ... _want them??_
      let me know who you pick to whittle down all of human self-expression to *_your particular confession of faith_* standards...and do tell, what will be the penalties for disagreeing with you, oh holy and mighty one!
      .... lots of Muslims will probably disagree with you... so choose your theocratic foundation for thought police wisely!

  • @5mjc
    @5mjc 3 місяці тому

    So entering Heaven is what the heavenly realms or heaven within.
    Matthew 18:3

    • @5mjc
      @5mjc 3 місяці тому

      The glory within is the life of Christ indwelling within,Partakers of divine nature.
      Born again is being made Real.

  • @5mjc
    @5mjc 3 місяці тому

    To walk as Jesus walked with the same attitude and mind as to be the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit of God to become Christlike Partakers of divine nature .walking in Spirit and in truth is in Christ.
    Christ within.
    It is no longer I who lives but Christ living in and through me.
    By my Spirit says the Lord.
    Without me you can do nothing.

  • @jojokiba9252
    @jojokiba9252 10 місяців тому

    I am utterly shock of new form of gospel..
    Sound like academic sleight of hand..

  • @joelebert9767
    @joelebert9767 11 місяців тому +1

    Interesting how there is very little exegesis going on here. Just restating and fawning over his theories. Why can't he walk verse by verse through the text? The details destroy New Perspectivism.

  • @joeadrian2860
    @joeadrian2860 Рік тому

    I'll make sure I am not there.....🤢 If you endorsed Wright's book then I am suspicious of it.