And All God’s People Said, “Wut?”

Follow up blog from Wilson that hits many of the same points in the comments.
http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/excommunicated-gnats-ordained-camels.h…

[Bert Perry]

Alec, Wright has made a couple of howlers in his book which I think might belie the contention that he’s consistently a great scholar—the idea that taking Genesis literally makes one somehow a gnostic (the NT gnostics were of course doing the opposite of what Wright claims—they were denying the physical reality of Christ. YECs, on the other hand, argue for the physical reality of Creation…..really bad move on Wright’s part here ). Same thing with arguing that it’s a new discovery that Jews thought the Temple was central to their religion—I would hope that this would have come as no surprise to any first-time reader of the books of Ezra or Nehemiah.

Now I will agree that WIlson can be slippery, and that he can throw bombs around. Not what he’s doing now; he’s just pointing out the bombs that Wright has himself thrown.

With all due respect Bert, I think Wright can identify gnosticism better than you. Gnosticism clings to to many superficial Christians and Wright is correctly calling attention to it. Also, how is Wright or OEC denying “the physical reality of creation?” Bert, I think you should more fully study Gnosticism, or better how Christian scriptures contrast with it.

Wright’s critics can criticize all they want, but how cognizant are they of all the issues involved in coming to a conclusion on the matters at hand? Yes, sometimes one needs to say: ‘thus saith the Lord,’ and take a stand. However, the tendency (of many critics and Fundamentalists in general) is to define without examination and refuse to interact with conflicting data (science). Walton and Wright are at least dealing with it and trying to work out the conundrum. They are ‘out there’ and defend what they say. This is more than the armchair theologians.

I believe Wilson takes Wright out of context when he quotes the Temple bit. Most scholars think religious life was the law commands towards God and man in the 10 Commandments. There was the Law of the Temple however that implicitly pointed toward Christ. The Law of the Temple was the Law also. The explicit commands to be righteously perfect had an implicit component to show that God accomplishes the redemption and enables righteous performance.

You could clarify what is wrong with my understanding of Gnosticism, or how Wright actually makes the case. Or perhaps it is secret knowledge?

Seriously, Alex, the core value of the gnostic religions is a rejection of materiality and an affirmation of spiritual realities—and the ugly reality in Wright’s comment about YECs is that his statement, if not strictly speaking gnostic, bears an uncanny resemblance to gnostic principles. He is clearly downplaying the physical reality of Adam in favor of a spiritual reality of one of many early hominids.

Same thing with his comment about the Temple. Jews have been observing Tisha b’av on the anniversary of the destruction of the Temples for two millenia, and we’re only becoming aware of this now? Ezra and Nehemia have been in the Scriptures for 2500 years, plus or minus, and we’re figuring this out now? Sorry, I’ve got study Bibles from longer ago than Wright is speaking of that belie this assertion. He said it, he owns it.

I know you’re trying to prepare an “out” for Wright, but sorry. These are major unforced errors on his part, and it’s the classic example of hubris on the part of an influential scholar.

[Bert Perry]

You could clarify what is wrong with my understanding of Gnosticism, or how Wright actually makes the case. Or perhaps it is secret knowledge?

Seriously, Alex, the core value of the gnostic religions is a rejection of materiality and an affirmation of spiritual realities—and the ugly reality in Wright’s comment about YECs is that his statement, if not strictly speaking gnostic, bears an uncanny resemblance to gnostic principles. He is clearly downplaying the physical reality of Adam in favor of a spiritual reality of one of many early hominids.

Same thing with his comment about the Temple. Jews have been observing Tisha b’av on the anniversary of the destruction of the Temples for two millenia, and we’re only becoming aware of this now? Ezra and Nehemia have been in the Scriptures for 2500 years, plus or minus, and we’re figuring this out now? Sorry, I’ve got study Bibles from longer ago than Wright is speaking of that belie this assertion. He said it, he owns it.

I know you’re trying to prepare an “out” for Wright, but sorry. These are major unforced errors on his part, and it’s the classic example of hubris on the part of an influential scholar.

Bert, to label Wright as having Gnostic principles only shows your lack of understanding of Gnosticism itself. I am sorry if you expect me to continue this discussion.

Alex, you’re trying to fiat your argument. That’s a basic rhetorical fallacy, and if you’re going to claim to be an arbitrator of what is, and is not, an academic argument, you’ve got to do better than that. You want to interact, fine, but let’s stop the nonsense of throwing insults like “lack of understanding” and offer a real argument.

Now to be fair to you, I did indeed look up a number of sources, and I stand by my characterization of gnosticism (it is not complete, but it gets the basic feel of it), and of Wright’s argument. And in that light—as 1 John notes, some denied that Christ had come in the flesh but affirmed Him as a spiritual being—Wright’s argument that:

God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race

is, ahem, something of a “special knowledge” that concentrates not on the physical reality of the Creation, but rather on a hidden spiritual reality of Lucy and her beau being given the position of unique humanity….sorry, if ya can’t see the parallel, you’re not looking.

Really, this is all quite breathtaking in its abandonment of the principle of Sola Scriptura and the first Fundamental in the same way—ahem—as we would also infer from his comment that Marcus Borg was a Christian (he died January 21) despite Borg’s taking form criticism to new levels (more or less writing the miracles out of the Gospels) and denying the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and even Jesus’ claim to be Messiah.

Exactly what is left of the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter, without the “Anointed One” is beyond me, but apparently it was enough for Wright to affirm Borg’s faith. Having read one of Borg’s books, I am incredulous at this judgment on Wright’s part, as well as this one.

You can delete what you have written, or not.

Yes, I would call your understanding of Gnosticism very basic. Your application toward Wright: completely wrong, but I can’t correct everyone who is wrong on the internet.

Please everyone, you must understand that Alex’s decrees of what is or is not Gnosticism, or what Wright truly means, are the final standard of accuracy, and so he does not need to explain his reasoning to us. He possesses knowledge of Gnosticism that the rest of us can only hope to obtain.

Alex, if you’ve got the time to make the same claim three times, you’ve got the time to flesh it out once. I’ve had the decency to point out your basic rhetorical fallacy and why it is wrong, now if you truly believe what you’re saying, it’s time to—as we’d say on the playground—put up or…..

Follow up blog from Wilson that hits many of the same points in the comments.

http://dougwils.com/s16-theology/excommunicated-gnats-ordained-camels.h…

Thanks for sharing that, Shaynus. I really appreciated his incisive [and clear] conclusion on Wright:

Because [NT Wright] has identified young earth creationists as gnostics — a deadly heresy — and as those who collude with evil because of their concern with otherworldly salvation, and has affirmed the bonds of his fellowship with deniers of the resurrection, we may therefore conclude that something is, to use the technical parlance, screwed up somewhere. He is willing to drum faithful believers out, and welcome unbelievers in. This is not Mere Christianity; it is Mere Unbelief. Christians who affirm that God made Adam, a material being, out of the dust of the ground, and Eve from his physical rib, are called gnostics, for pity’s sake, and a man who believes that the body of Jesus rotted in the ground but who somehow continued His existence as a Giant Sky Vapor, is well within the pale.

As for the “Dr.” bit from my earlier post - I thought that Douglas Wilson did have an earned doctorate from somewhere. Obviously, I was mistaken, and for that I apologize. I did not mean to impugn him in any way, as I think a few may have taken.

[Greg Long]

Please everyone, you must understand that Alex’s decrees of what is or is not Gnosticism, or what Wright truly means, are the final standard of accuracy, and so he does not need to explain his reasoning to us. He possesses knowledge of Gnosticism that the rest of us can only hope to obtain.

You are an instructor at Liberty? You must be going for your PhD to be at this level, or have you completed it? I’ve wasted time thinking about what I wrote as well as Bert and others’ writings (it was ultimately not wasted time because I am continuing to learn about what Christians currently think).

I am just not getting it (Bert’s identifying Wright as ironically having Gnostic tendencies by identifying a historic Adam from hominoids). So, you see Bert’s characterization as valid, yes? Could you lay out for me exactly how you see this.

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim and not from the objecting party.

Wright is out there. He has written voluminously for all to see. I’ve disagreed with him substantially at points and I don’t need Wilson to parse Wright for me.

I have not read texts of Gnosticism in their original languages or studied all the Jewish materials that shed light on proto-Gnosticism in their original languages. Neither have I read primary sources in their original languages. Tom Wright does so, and he interacts with scholars on the forefront of these issues globally. He is a competent scholar, so, it would be the height of irony if he locates Gnosticism as a current threat and yet falls into it himself. I don’t see him doing that at all.

Doug Wilson, I suspect, is feeling the heat of Wright’s pen. It is getting too close to where Wilson is. Wright is merciless toward imprecise scholars. Wilson’s comeback: pot shots, innuendo, snide comments. I don’t think Wright loses a minute’s sleep over Wilson’s words. Wilson is not someone who academics go to for anything. He called himself a cornpone and it seems fitting enough.

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim and not from the objecting party.

Exactly, Alex. Now speak to this.

Yes, I would call your understanding of Gnosticism very basic. Your application toward Wright: completely wrong, but I can’t correct everyone who is wrong on the internet.

Like you said, the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim and not from the objecting party.No weaseling out by saying “I don’t get it”. I explained it no less than three times.

Can we agree with the below definition of gnosticism taken from The Dictionary of New Testament Background?

Gnosticism is a term that designates a variety of religious movements that stressed salvation through gnōsis, or “knowledge,” that is, of one’s origins. Most scholars would identify as an essential of Gnosticism the element of cosmological dualism—an opposition between the spiritual world and the evil, material world….

Because of the variegated nature of Gnosticism, it is difficult to fit every gnostic teacher into a common framework. Marcion, who advocated the concept of two gods, the god of the OT and the god of the NT, has many affinities with the Gnostics, yet he lacked their mythology and emphasized faith rather than saving gnōsis. A major branch of Gnosticism, which followed the teachings of Valentinus, was heavily influenced by Platonism. Scholars have recognized another branch of Gnosticism, which has been termed Sethianism, a more mythological system that exalted the OT figure Seth as a key revealer (see Layton)….

Because there was no central authority or canon of scriptures, the Gnostics taught a bewildering variety of views. Fundamental to clearly gnostic systems was a dualism that opposed the transcendent God and an ignorant demiurge (often a caricature of the OT Jehovah). In some systems the creation of the world resulted from the presumption of Sophia (Wisdom). The material creation, including the body, was regarded as inherently evil. Sparks of divinity, however, had been encapsuled in the bodies of certain pneumatic or spiritual individuals, who were ignorant of their celestial origins. The transcendent God sent down a redeemer, who brought them salvation in the form of secret gnōsis. Gnostics hoped to escape from the prison of their bodies at death and to traverse the planetary spheres of hostile demons to be reunited with God. There was for them, of course, no reason to believe in the resurrection of the body.

Perhaps, Wright’s claim that YEC are practicing Gnostics comes from the fact that they seem almost obsessed with linking one’s view of origins with one’s view of salvation. This speaks to the definition above: “Gnosticism is a term that designates a variety of religious movements that stressed salvation through gnōsis, or “knowledge,” that is, of one’s origins.”

[T Howard]

Perhaps, Wright’s claim that YEC are practicing Gnostics comes from the fact that they seem almost obsessed with linking one’s view of origins with one’s view of salvation. This speaks to the definition above: “Gnosticism is a term that designates a variety of religious movements that stressed salvation through gnōsis, or “knowledge,” that is, of one’s origins.”

The trick is that precisely this is where Wright’s analogy falls apart. Gnosticism was primarily speaking of secret knowledge of emanations and the like from a pure, spiritual “god”. What is secret about the first eleven chapters about Genesis? Besides, it’s making claims about the material world and calling that original created world “good”, another set of significant deviations from Gnostic philosophy.

So if this is indeed Wright’s argument, I must congratulate him on an excellent straw man. It doesn’t do due justice to gnosticism, and it isn’t the argument of mainstream young earth creationists, either—here is AIG’s answer to whether one can be an evolutionist and be saved. Their clear answer is YES. The usual argument Ham makes—and it’s at least plausible—is that evangelism will be hindered if we start by arguing that God wasn’t being honest in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

To call arguments like those of Ham and Morris “gnostic” really only proves that Wright’s reputation for careful scholarship is in danger, if it wasn’t already overstated—again, as one would infer from his praise of Marcus Borg. For the sake of Borg’s soul, I hope that Wright is correct that he was indeed a Christian, but the fact of the matter is that Borg was anything but orthodox in his theology.

I just began reading the debate over Wright and Gnosticism on this post. Let me say that the charge of Gnosticism by Wright against the YEC’s as well as against Wright for his theological evolution is quite the stretch. As much as Wright was right in pointing out the Gnostic/dualistic tendencies of Western Christianity (including evangelicals and fundamentalists) in his book, “Surprised by Hope,” he definitely overstates his case by charging YEC’s with Gnosticism. I am beginning to think he is fallen into the trap of Mazlow’s hammer (if the only tool you have is a hammer, then you end up treating everything as if it were a nail) when dealing with conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. By the way, I say this as an Old Earth Creationist that believes in a literal Adam and Eve.