but with wright i am at a complete loss as to why this is even an issue. sure, he has a different perspective on justification – but there is no vagueness, no reason at all to argue he advocates a role for works in justification or salvation.

Wright, on the other hand, is someone worked at a university for many years and who writes on the academic level. If anything, Wright gives much more information than the average person would ever want to know. As far as I’m concerned, Wright’s position is abundantly clear to anyone who wants to see it. PB just refuses to acknowledge the truth.

say

“wow! he’s an anglican and says… how refreshing!”

Well which one shall we do? Because if we hold Bell to the Wright Standard, he is not a Biblical Christian.

not neseccarily, since in the bell case it’s an issue of vagueness – the church statement can be used for clarity.

in the case of wright, his statements are clear in themselves.

the bottom line is -

re bell: the conundrum he is – as rick said. and assume somewhere in there is a guy who agrees with the biblical statements made by the church.
re wright: no reason what so ever to question his belief in salvation and justification based on faith in christ alone.

Well which one shall we do? Because if we hold Bell to the Wright Standard, he is not a Biblical Christian.

At what point should we give up dealing with your specious aspersions?

First off, with Bell: Your primary mode is to quote Bell and then take the absolute least charitable view of what he’s said (like expecting a gospel exposition full of approved Christian ‘buzz words’ in a setting where it is assumed the audience is primarily Christian), filling in the gaps with your own uncharitable interpretations. So, it is only natural to point out his church’s doctrinal statement, which “fills in the gaps” you’ve chosen to fill with skubala of your own making.\

Next, with Wright: Your primary mode is to seek individual church doctrines/interpretations and treat them as Wright’s. Unlike Bell, Wright is heavy with exposition, filling in any “gaps” with his own words and explanations. In this case, you (again) assume the most uncharitable position in direct contradiction with Wright.

Your basic problem seems to be with a) reading comprehension; b) logic; and c) taking your own base assumptions and altering the facts to fit them. Much like the IPCC CRU and the “proof” of “global warming”…

If we hold Wright to the Bell Standard, He believes in works.

So lets please be consistent.

it is kinda funny… when it comes to bell pastorboy says:
i don’t care what his church doctrine states – look at what he says.

but when it comes to wright pastorboy says:
i don’t care what he says, looks at what his church teaches.

That does seem to be the case, but as I noted earlier, even the official Anglican position doesn’t seem to contradict what Wright is saying.

Of course there are individual Anglican/Episcopalian congregations or ministers who are off the mark, but that can be said of virtually any denomination.

but when it comes to wright pastorboy says:
i don’t care what he says, looks at what his church teaches.

I actually asked if it were enough….Apparently not.

You actually said:

I really don’t know how much more I need to be qualified to say what Anglicans- ESPECIALLY an Anglican Bishop, believes.

You were asserting your knowledge based on an appeal to authority.

I actually asked if it were enough….Apparently not.

Borderline
Appeal to pity