Comments on: Wright Wednesdays: Part 10

By: Jordan Cooper

Jordan Cooper — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:34:35 +0000

I have read what he says. I am a fan of several of his works, including the Resurrection of the Son of God, and Jesus and the Victory of God. It is only this work that has got me very disappointed in his scholarship. It is not bad that he says things that have been said before him. What the problem is, is that he says them as if they are his original ideas. I did not get as frustrated with “What St. Paul Really Said” or “Paul in Fresh Perspective.” What bothers me is that though he has been corrected since this time he still repeats the same things. He has completely ignored historical Reformed Covenantal theology and uses some of their ideas as if they are something new.

By: Phil A Buster

Phil A Buster — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:39:49 +0000

Jordan, forgive me for being confused: What’s wrong with being “nice”? And why should we be “mean” to Wright because he (mistakenly) thinks he’s the first to think of these views? We don’t get angry with R. C. Sproul everytime he writes a book just repeating what people have said since Reformed Orthodoxy, nor even repeating what he’s said? So why should we be mad at Wright? It seems to me like you just need him to be a bad guy so you don’t have to read what he says…

By: Jordan Cooper

Jordan Cooper — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:57:45 +0000

I certainly concur with your criticisms. However, I think you are still being too nice. Wright’s “good points” in this work are simply reiterations of things which have been said for years, yet he says them as if he is the first to think of them.