NT Wright false teacher?

[JonC]

I've been spending what little free time I've had the past few days reading Wright and about Wright. One problem is that Wright is so prolific that reading him can be a full-time job. Those so inclined can find just about whatever they want in his thousands of pages of writing.

A problem, as Biblicist has mentioned, is that he uses Reformed (I use this as shorthand for the doctrines of grace) terms in new ways. And he seldom replies directly to critics in language that is unambiguous.

Although Wright speaks the language of the Reformed, his understanding of justification is problematic, both on a theological level and intellectual level. His apparent rejection of imputation undermines a key pillar of Reformed theology. On the intellectual level, his insistence that he and his fellows have hit upon Paul's real understanding of justification borders on hubris. I think an understanding of Second Temple Judaism can inform our reading of Paul's writings, but I also think that the Scriptures were intended to guide Christians in all ages and all cultures. To deny that is to introduce cultural relativism that undermines the universality of the Bible's teaching.

I heard Wright on the radio this week talking about his new book, The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion, and it sounded interesting. But again, it seems to imply that millions of Christians have been misled by traditional understandings of the crucifixion. It is his stock in trade to insist that he is right and everyone else is wrong. (This is not a fault only of Wright, BTW, but he takes particular pleasure in it.)

Now, I would not suggest that we do not read his works, although I worry that his influence is seeping into the pulpit. I would not recommend them as a primer on Christianity. He has some things to say that need to be said, and I think his emphasis on the majesty of God and His work in the world can counteract the "what's in it for me?" attitude that's so prevalent within what passes for modern evangelis

I agree. Wright challenges much of what has been accepted for four centuries, and he does provide a different view than was presented by the Reformers. This is, I believe, one part of the problem. We have to try and figure out exactly what he means by the terms we would normally take one way because he uses them in another (which is why, while not agreeing with Wright,I disagree that he is teaching "another gospel"). Biblicist took Wright's comments but applied them within the traditional meanings associated with Reformed theology. Another problem is trying to work out exactly where Wright lands on issues (here I took him at his word, that he was not presenting a works based justification within the traditional Reformed definition of the term).

And I agree, we read Wright and take what is good while dismissing what is not. We read Wright as we would read Lewis, Calvin, Luther, and any of these Christians who had something to say but were flawed men. N.T. Wright makes some observations and criticisms I believe are worth considering.

I like that Wright confesses his position is by nature flawed (he suggested he couldn't be completely right) and seeks a more open dialogue on the topic. I also liked his objection to the charge by Piper that he is dismissing four centuries of scholarship on the issue when Wright pointed out that this was exactly what the Reformers were doing as well. It isn't that I accept Wright's theology here, but I do believe his observations have merit. And like Piper, I do not hold that he is a false teacher presenting "another gospel". That charge is thrown about far too much.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist,
I cannot (will not) deal with multiple posts at one time. I apologize, but I simply can't work that way, particularly when the issue here is whether or not this righteousness is a "moral righteousness". Insofar as N.T. Wright's position, I am not here to defend him. I question much of his teachings (and I am not Anglican). I believe one of his most visible critics on the issue has been John Piper, yet even Piper elevates Wright as both scholar and teacher who does not fall under Galatians 1:8 by teaching another gospel.

I have read John Piper and don't agree with his final analysis.

I contend that you are wrong, and that your connection of this "righteousness" which is "imputed" somehow is linked to a righteousness based on the Law is at best just short of leading to a false and works based gospel. In your scheme, none could be viewed as righteousness outside of the Law. Jesus' righteousness was one of merited obedience to the Law, which is somehow "imputed" to us. We are viewed then as "Law-keepers". That sounds good, except it is not in the Bible.

I think the misunderstanding is due to your view of the Law. Jesus said the Law could be summarized in two great commandments and ultimately summed up in one word "love" and "God is love."

Jesus did not merit righteousness, but IS righteous and that is why "the righteousness of God" is revealed without the Law and without the interpretations of the prophets but revealed IN HIM - Rom. 3:21-22. He did not BECOME righteous as He IS righteousness.

The Levitical sacrificial system clearly teaches a SUBSTITUTIONARY sacrifice through imputation - laying on of hands and so does Paul.

The problem is that if you determine this righteousness to be a moral righteousness, and this moral righteousness in the context of the Law, then you have reduced righteousness in salvation to following a set of rules (regardless of who keeps them).

No, I have reduced them to ONE PRINCIPLE - "love" and to ONE PERSON incarnate - Jesus Christ.

Under your view, salvation is indeed an issue of works, not faith.

It is works - HIS WORKS not ours. It is faith, faith that he has SATISFIED both the penal and the righteous demands of the Law against us as our substitute. It is imputed by faith with regard to LEGAL POSITION but imparted by regeneration.

The Law is no longer given as a means to illustrate our flawed nature but as a means of obtaining righteousness. Scripture teaches otherwise.

Wrong on both counts. The satisfaction of the law is by Christ not by us. Scripture clearly teaches that we have been made righteous by his righteousness not ours.

Scripture teaches that the problem is our sinfulness, our fallen natures, human nature...the problem of which sinful actions are but manifestations. This is why we must be "born again", "born from above", "born of water and spirit". This is why we need to be "re-created". It is not moral but ontological.

It is both IMPUTED (Justification) and IMPARTED (regeneration)

This righteousness is not a moral righteousness at all.

Read post #35 for a rebuttal of this point.

The problem is not one of moral obedience. It is one of depravity and a nature/spirit inclined away from God.

It is both! Jesus clearly teaches it is both in Matthew 5:20-48. There is a moral standard of righteousness, which is "the righteousness of God" which all men have "come short" - Rom. 3:21,23 due to depravity (Rom. 8:7-8).

The problem is that you are determining that man needs to be right with the Law in order to be right with God,

Your problem is that you fail to see the Law is designed to reveal "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21) which is a MORAL righteousness. God does not have two different standards of righteousness.

when Scripture itself tells us that the Law was given to illuminate our unrighteousness with God.

No, it does not! It teaches that the law was given to reveal the "knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20) as the law REVEALS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD not "our righteousness" as we don't have any. God's own righteousness is the measuring stick, while the Law simply reveals it, while the incarnation reveals it BETTER!

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist took Wright's comments but applied them within the traditional meanings associated with Reformed theology. .

No sir! I took them at face value and I challenge anyone to take the following language any other way:

"Participants in the New Creation

The Eucharist is not just about “me and my salvation.” It is a necessity, a part of what enables us to be God’s new creation people..... Now, if you are isolated or for some reason can’t partake of the sacraments, I believe God does have ways of making it up to you. But the normal means to equip ourselves for participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine.....But there’s nothing in Scripture that says confirmation has to be the means of entry. It seems to me that the Eucharist is a family meal, and the family is constituted by baptism.......

Is it a "necessity"? Or is there some hidden meaning here in the words "it is a necessity"???

Is it "a part of what ENABLES us TO BE God's new creation" Or is there some hidden meaning to these words?

Is the family "constituted by baptism" or is he speaking of Satan's family or is it some other spiritual family that participates in the Supper and baptism??

What don't you understand about his words "participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine"?

Is there some mystical meaning to "participating in"? Is there some mystical meaning to "new creation"? Is there some mystical meaning to "the route given in the gospel WHICH IS THE PHSYICAL FEEDING: the bread and wine"???????

If this is difficult or hard language for anyone, they have no business being in the Ministry and need to go back to school.

He concludes this article by claiming that this is what the whole doctrine of justification is all about one family at one table - a family of what he defines as "believers" but as what I define as a mixture of unregenerates, heretics and regenerates which his doctrine of justification includes in the above CLEAR and EXPLICIT language. Yes, he is preaching "another gospel" clear and simple.

 

[JonC]

I have read John Piper and don't agree with his final analysis.




I think the misunderstanding is due to your view of the Law. Jesus said the Law could be summarized in two great commandments and ultimately summed up in one word "love" and "God is love."

Jesus did not merit righteousness, but IS righteous and that is why "the righteousness of God" is revealed without the Law and without the interpretations of the prophets but revealed IN HIM - Rom. 3:21-22. He did not BECOME righteous as He IS righteousness.

The Levitical sacrificial system clearly teaches a SUBSTITUTIONARY sacrifice through imputation - laying on of hands and so does Paul.




No, I have reduced them to ONE PRINCIPLE - "love" and to ONE PERSON incarnate - Jesus Christ.





It is works - HIS WORKS not ours. It is faith, faith that he has SATISFIED both the penal and the righteous demands of the Law against us as our substitute. It is imputed by faith with regard to LEGAL POSITION but imparted by regeneration.






Wrong on both counts. The satisfaction of the law is by Christ not by us. Scripture clearly teaches that we have been made righteous by his righteousness not ours.





It is both IMPUTED (Justification) and IMPARTED (regeneration)




Read post #35 for a rebuttal of this point.




It is both! Jesus clearly teaches it is both in Matthew 5:20-48. There is a moral standard of righteousness, which is "the righteousness of God" which all men have "come short" - Rom. 3:21,23 due to depravity (Rom. 8:7-8).







Your problem is that you fail to see the Law is designed to reveal "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21) which is a MORAL righteousness. God does not have two different standards of righteousness.




No, it does not! It teaches that the law was given to reveal the "knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20) as the law REVEALS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD not "our righteousness" as we don't have any. God's own righteousness is the measuring stick, while the Law simply reveals it, while the incarnation reveals it BETTER!

You are confusing the work of God with a works based moral righteousness. Jesus did not obey the Law in order to be righteousness. He is righteous apart from the Law (moral righteousness points to the righteousness of which you seem oddly unfamiliar). Jesus fulfilled the Law, he was not made righteous because He fulfilled it. We are not imputed a moral righteousness based on Christ's obedience of the Law, period. We are imputed an ontological righteousness based on Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are confusing the work of God with a works based moral righteousness.

No, I am not! Where there is no "good tree" there can be no good "fruit." Works and moral righteousness are inseparable!

Jesus did not obey the Law in order to be righteousness.

Never said he did! I said he NEVER BECAME righteous because he IS righteous. The Law simply MANIFESTED his righteousness, just as the law REVEALS the righteousness of God.

He is righteous apart from the Law (moral righteousness points to the righteousness of which you seem oddly unfamiliar).

Yes, his righteousness is not in black and white but it is NOT DIFFERENT as there are not TWO different standards of righteousness. There is ONE Standard and it is God's own personal moral righteousness which the Law and the prophets INADEQUATELY REVEAL but is perfectly revealed in the PERSON of Christ but it is the SAME righteousness.

Jesus fulfilled the Law, he was not made righteous because He fulfilled it.

He "fulfilled" its prophecies and he fulfilled its moral righteous standard not in order to be "made righteous" but because He IS what the moral law demands.

We are not imputed a moral righteousness based on Christ's obedience of the Law, period.

Half right! We are imputed the righteousness of Christ because IT IS what the Law defines as righteous, not because he BECAME righteous by obedience, but because His righteousness IS what is revealed in the moral law. We are imputed HIS own moral righteousness as anything other than that comes short of the Law and is sin.

 

[JonC]

No sir! I took them at face value and I challenge anyone to take the following language any other way:

"Participants in the New Creation

The Eucharist is not just about “me and my salvation.” It is a necessity, a part of what enables us to be God’s new creation people..... Now, if you are isolated or for some reason can’t partake of the sacraments, I believe God does have ways of making it up to you. But the normal means to equip ourselves for participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine.....But there’s nothing in Scripture that says confirmation has to be the means of entry. It seems to me that the Eucharist is a family meal, and the family is constituted by baptism.......

Is it a "necessity"? Or is there some hidden meaning here in the words "it is a necessity"???

Is it "a part of what ENABLES us TO BE God's new creation" Or is there some hidden meaning to these words?

Is the family "constituted by baptism" or is he speaking of Satan's family or is it some other spiritual family that participates in the Supper and baptism??

What don't you understand about his words "participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine"?

Is there some mystical meaning to "participating in"? Is there some mystical meaning to "new creation"? Is there some mystical meaning to "the route given in the gospel WHICH IS THE PHSYICAL FEEDING: the bread and wine"???????

If this is difficult or hard language for anyone, they have no business being in the Ministry and need to go back to school.

He concludes this article by claiming that this is what the whole doctrine of justification is all about one family at one table - a family of what he defines as "believers" but as what I define as a mixture of unregenerates, heretics and regenerates which his doctrine of justification includes in the above CLEAR and EXPLICIT language. Yes, he is preaching "another gospel" clear and simple.

You would have us believe that Wright is claiming it is necessary for salvation when he has repeatedly stated otherwise. You have even complained already that he takes "justification" to mean something else (I don't know if you mentioned it or not, but he takes it in terms of a covenantal righteousness). I actually believe that faith without works is dead, so I suppose now you are going to claim I believe we have to work for our salvation.

I am not saying that you need to withdraw from the ministry or go back to school. I am saying that you need to be more consistent when dealing with other people and you need to be more observant when it comes to context. If you are a minister then go right on ministering. But you seem to have a bad habit about telling people what others believe in spite of their statements to the contrary.

If you find Wright in error, then don't read his books and don't recommend his writings. You obviously find Piper in error on the same topic. Don't read his books and don't recommend his writings. But you have no right or authority to declare that Wright or Piper believes anything except what they have claimed to believe. When it comes to Wright, he goes back and forward in arguments so much I'm not sure how he keeps up with his views. But I have to take him at his word that his meaning is not that he believes in a works based salvation regardless of how he expresses his position.

 

[The Biblicist]

You would have us believe that Wright is claiming it is necessary for salvation when he has repeatedly stated otherwise.

You are basing your opinion on his denials that are based on his REDEFINITIONS rather on his clear and explicit UNGUARDED language. I simply quoted him. I noticed you never attempted to deal with his language! Why Not? YOU EXPLAIN THAT LANGUAGE THEN IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG!!!!

Show me where he does not mean what he clearly states. You are basing your views on his UNCLEAR CONFUSING REDEFINITIONS after the fact.

 

[JonC]

No, I am not! Where there is not "good tree" there can be no good "fruit." Works and moral righteousness are inseparable!




Never said he did! I said he NEVER BECAME righteous because he IS righteous. The Law simply MANIFESTED his righteousness, just as the law REVEALS the righteousness of God.



Yes, his righteousness is not in black and white but it is NOT DIFFERENT as there are not TWO different standards of righteousness. There is ONE Standard and it is God's own personal moral righteousness which the Law and the prophets INADEQUATELY REVEAL but is perfectly revealed in the PERSON of Christ but it is the SAME righteousness.




He "fulfilled" its prophecies and he fulfilled its moral righteous standard not in order to be "made righteous" but because He IS what the moral law demands.



Half right! We are imputed the righteousness of Christ because IT IS what the Law defines as righteous, not because he BECAME righteous by obedience, but because His righteousness IS what is revealed in the moral law. We are imputed HIS own moral righteousness as anything other than that comes short of the Law and is sin.

No, it is not. This righteousness is revealed in the moral law. It is not the moral law. In other words, the Law points to Christ and points to our unrighteousness. But it is not our unrighteousness any more than it is the basis for the Righteousness of God.

If I could keep every commandment then would I have merited my salvation? It is hypothetical, yes, but it is your error. If I could, in my fallen state, keep completely every commandment would I have merited my salvation....NO, of course not. Because I would still be unrighteous. The reason I can't keep those commandments is because of my nature. And that's the issue. This righteousness is not a moral righteousness but a righteousness based on the death, burial and resurrection....period.

 

[JonC]

You are basing your opinion on his denials that are based on his REDEFINITIONS rather on his clear and explicit UNGUARDED language. I simply quoted him. I noticed you never attempted to deal with his language! Why Not?

Because, like I said before, I am not interested in defending Wright. He speaks well for himself and I did agree with John Piper on the issue. I am not interested in defending Wright because while I agree with some of his observations, I don't agree with his conclusions. I am more interested in the topic of "moral righteousness vs. a righteousness in Christ's death, burial and resurrection."

 

[The Biblicist]

Because, like I said before, I am not interested in defending Wright. He speaks well for himself and I did agree with John Piper on the issue. I am not interested in defending Wright because while I agree with some of his observations, I don't agree with his conclusions. I am more interested in the topic of "moral righteousness vs. a righteousness in Christ's death, burial and resurrection."

Stop dodging! Deal with his language then if you think I am wrong! You tell the readers what that language really means!

 

[JonC]

Stop dodging! Deal with his language then if you think I am wrong! You tell the readers what that language really means!

I think that you are placing Wright's language in our own tradition to say that one must do these things to merit salvation. I think that you are saying that Wright holds a work based justification in terms of being saved. But Wright presents righteousness as a "covenantal righteousness" within the people of God. He suggests that we will be judged by how we live our lives, and that these works demonstrate inclusion in a future salvation.

So yes, I think that you are wrong because you deal with Wright on your own terms. You are not honest in terms of context for the reasons I just stated.

And we disagree. So what? I'm not Wright and I do not even hold his positions. Like I said, I have no interest in defending Wright. I was just making an observation that you poorly represent what he has stated to believe. You are reading his words and telling us they mean something Wright himself has denied that they mean. That's foolish.

Now, like I said, I am interested in discussing a "moral righteousness" founded on the Mosaic Law vs. a righteousness founded in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, it is not. This righteousness is revealed in the moral law. It is not the moral law. In other words, the Law points to Christ and points to our unrighteousness. But it is not our unrighteousness any more than it is the basis for the Righteousness of God.

Yes it is! Where there is no good tree there is no good fruit whether it be creature or Creator.

You have to be kidding, right??? Surely you are joshing? It is God's own righteousness that is revealed by the Law! The Law itself - black and white print is not his righteousness and nobody in their right mind would say it is. The stone on which the law is written is not God's righteousness but WHAT IT SAYS reveals God's righteousness and Paul says so (Rom. 3:20-23; 2 Cor. 3:3). The law does not simply point to Christ (prophecy) but it is a manifestation of His own personal righteousness as best as can be manifested in writing! The only thing superior to that manifestation is INCARNATE RIGHTEOUSNESS! Our unrighteousness can only be seen IN THE LIGHT OF HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS which the law manifests as a lesser light of writing, while the incarnation manifests in BLINDING BRILLIANCE but it is the SAME righteousness.

If I could keep every commandment then would I have merited my salvation? It is hypothetical, yes, but it is your error. If I could, in my fallen state, keep completely every commandment would I have merited my salvation....NO, of course not. Because I would still be unrighteous. The reason I can't keep those commandments is because of my nature. And that's the issue. This righteousness is not a moral righteousness but a righteousness based on the death, burial and resurrection....period.

I have no idea where you are getting this nonsense from because it is pure twisted imagination. No flesh can keep the Law so as to be righteous before God or to be justified before God. However, that righteousness, the righteousness revealed by the law, the righteousness that is God's own righteousness is the only righteousness that can justify sinners. It is provided by Christ's own righteousness as a "lamb without spot and blemish" as our substitute imputed to us by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think that you are placing Wright's language in our own tradition to say that one must do these things to merit salvation. I think that you are saying that Wright holds a work based justification in terms of being saved. But Wright presents righteousness as a "covenantal righteousness" within the people of God. He suggests that we will be judged by how we live our lives, and that these works demonstrate inclusion in a future salvation.

So yes, I think that you are wrong because you deal with Wright on your own terms. You are not honest in terms of context for the reasons I just stated.

And we disagree. So what? I'm not Wright and I do not even hold his positions. Like I said, I have no interest in defending Wright. I was just making an observation that you poorly represent what he has stated to believe. You are reading his words and telling us they mean something Wright himself has denied that they mean. That's foolish.

Now, like I said, I am interested in discussing a "moral righteousness" founded on the Mosaic Law vs. a righteousness founded in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

I did not ask to interpret ME. I asked you to interpret HIS OWN language. You won't dare because it will make you look absolutely foolish to try because there is no mystery about the language he uses and every reader can easily see that. The problem is that he has deceived you by his reinterpretations, redefinitions and pure double talk.

 

[The Biblicist]

No sir! I took them at face value and I challenge anyone to take the following language any other way:

"Participants in the New Creation

The Eucharist is not just about “me and my salvation.” It is a necessity, a part of what enables us to be God’s new creation people..... Now, if you are isolated or for some reason can’t partake of the sacraments, I believe God does have ways of making it up to you. But the normal means to equip ourselves for participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine.....But there’s nothing in Scripture that says confirmation has to be the means of entry. It seems to me that the Eucharist is a family meal, and the family is constituted by baptism.......

Is it a "necessity"? Or is there some hidden meaning here in the words "it is a necessity"???

Is it "a part of what ENABLES us TO BE God's new creation" Or is there some hidden meaning to these words?

Is the family "constituted by baptism" or is he speaking of Satan's family or is it some other spiritual family that participates in the Supper and baptism??

What don't you understand about his words "participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine"?

Is there some mystical meaning to "participating in"? Is there some mystical meaning to "new creation"? Is there some mystical meaning to "the route given in the gospel WHICH IS THE PHSYICAL FEEDING: the bread and wine"???????

If this is difficult or hard language for anyone, they have no business being in the Ministry and need to go back to school.

He concludes this article by claiming that this is what the whole doctrine of justification is all about one family at one table - a family of what he defines as "believers" but as what I define as a mixture of unregenerates, heretics and regenerates which his doctrine of justification includes in the above CLEAR and EXPLICIT language. Yes, he is preaching "another gospel" clear and simple.

I dare anyone to explain this langauge any other way than what it plainly states. Go ahead, try!

 

[JonC]

I did not ask to interpret ME. I asked you to interpret HIS OWN language. You won't dare because it will make you look absolutely foolish to try because there is no mystery about the language he uses and every reader can easily see that. The problem is that he has deceived you by his reinterpretations, redefinitions and pure double talk.

Brother, I am going to ask you to reel in your language a bit. I apologize if I have come off in such a manner as to warrant that response, that was not my intention. I will deal a bit more to your insistence (although it is, in my view, leaning towards trolling....as I keep telling you I'm not interested and you publicly decry my lack of interest as being "deceived" by someone whose works I admire but whose theology I reject).

The reason that I have not sought to explain Wright's meaning is that my point was not he was correct but that you were wrong in your conclusions. I think Wright is wrong also, but in a different way. You are wrong about Wright because you are claiming that he means by his words what he claims not to mean. You are baseless here. Wright is correct that his words mean what he says they mean, but he is incorrect (I believe) in his conclusions (or at the very least, he has failed to prove his case).

I will give you an example (as an illustration...don't get angry). You said that we are imputed moral righteousness, that we are in fact saved by works of the Law. You are therefore a heretic because Scripture says that we are not saved by works, but by faith. Why should we even consider what you say? That's a false gospel, and you are a false teacher just by your rejection of Scripture. Now, I don't think that this is what you mean, and if I did have that concern I would ask you. And when you correct me, and explain what you mean, well....I'd take you at your word even if I thought you expressed it poorly.

You come up with charges against Wright. Wright has corrected your misunderstanding by explaining that he does not mean a "justification" in the traditionally Reformed context but a justification based in "covenantal righteousness". If anyone wants to see what he believes, then read the book. Don't ask me to explain it to you....I don't care that much.

 

[JonC]

I dare anyone to explain this langauge any other way than what it plainly states. Go ahead, try!

 

[The Biblicist]

I watched both videos carefully and I can't believe any evangelical is so gullible to take his explanation as any thing close to Paul's doctrine of justification. In his first video he provides no essential definitions to his biblical language other than redefining "faith" to mean "faithfulness" in Christ and in his people. I will spend some more time on this first video later. In his second video, He has the gaul to tell us not to be caught up in our own salvation but we should look at the greater picture! Irrational, as one cannot look at the bigger picture if they don't know they will INDIVIDUALLY be part of that picture. He claims justification is not about righteousness needed to be accepted before God (contrary to Romans 4:1-3) but about assurance of being a part of the greater covenant community and greater future work God. Here is the key to Wright's false gospel. Here is where faith and works merge as he explicitly states in his article on the Eurcharist.

There is NOTHING in these videos that contradicts a single word he wrote in the article on the Eurcharist. I will not reel in a single solitary statement I made about him or about anyone who is so gullible to believe he is a true gospel preacher. He is not.

I still challenge ANYONE to attempt to deny what his words clearly state in the post.

 

[rsr]

I usually don't watch videos, but I listened to both of them. I will say that they exemplify pretty much everything that draws and repels people.

First, the initial video takes a jab at a straw man — those who think Christ is Jesus' last name. Really? His disdain perhaps comes across less less harshly because he's Brit, but it's there. He is ridiculing people of faith on a minor matter that has nothing to do with anything of importance. This is a tactic often used by intellectuals to marginalize those less educated. It is a small thing, but it's a tactic Wright uses over and over.

Second, his insistence on a translation of "the faithfulness of Christ" rather than "faith in Christ." Now, either can be a proper translation. And relying upon the "faithfulness of Christ" in some senses can be pure Reformed theology. But his insistence upon "faithfulness of Christ" takes him away from Reformed theology in obscure ways.

Third, it seems odd that Wright keeps insisting that redemption is about God, not about us. On this point, I think, he has much to say about evangelicalism, especially some American versions. It's all about me, me, me. (I will refrain mentioning the worst malefactors; you know the usual suspects, although there is a good deal of it even in more orthodox churches.)

But to lay this blame on the Reformers, I think is mistaken or even disingenuous. If you read the Reformers or the Puritans, you will come away with a feeling that God's majesty and sovereignty is utmost, that God's plan and purposes of redemption dwarf anything we can imagine. Wright gets this right — and I think that may be why he has traction with evangelical churches tired of "me, me, me" theology. I just think Wright has little contact with ordinary Christians and is aiming his guns at the wrong crowd.

 

[JonC]

I watched both videos carefully and I can't believe any evangelical is so gullible to take his explanation as any thing close to Paul's doctrine of justification. In his first video he provides no essential definitions to his biblical language other than redefining "faith" to mean "faithfulness" in Christ and in his people. I will spend some more time on this first video later. In his second video, He has the gaul to tell us not to be caught up in our own salvation but we should look at the greater picture! Irrational, as one cannot look at the bigger picture if they don't know they will INDIVIDUALLY be part of that picture. He claims justification is not about righteousness needed to be accepted before God (contrary to Romans 4:1-3) but about assurance of being a part of the greater covenant community and greater future work God. Here is the key to Wright's false gospel. Here is where faith and works merge as he explicitly states in his article on the Eurcharist.

There is NOTHING in these videos that contradicts a single word he wrote in the article on the Eurcharist. I will not reel in a single solitary statement I made about him or about anyone who is so gullible to believe he is a true gospel preacher. He is not.

I still challenge ANYONE to attempt to deny what his words clearly state in the post.

Ironically, Piper echos his suggestion that we not be caught up in our own salvation but to look to that greater picture of God's own Self-glorification and this Kingdom. Keller echos the same. Are there any scholars out there you don't view as heretics?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ironically, Piper echos his suggestion that we not be caught up in our own salvation but to look to that greater picture of God's own Self-glorification and this Kingdom. Keller echos the same. Are there any scholars out there you don't view as heretics?

Let me be clear. No man is a heretic for thinking BELIEVERS ought not to be caught up in their own salvation to the exclusion of the larger picture. But we are not talking about believers but about JUSTIFICATION of the "UNGODLY." So yes, those who think JUSTIFICATION is not about the individual righteous condition before God for ACCEPTANCE/AQUITAL are heretics.

For the record I never charged anyone on this forum with being a heretic or being lost, but merely being deceived by this deceiver. I do not judge his personal salvation. He is most likely sincere but at mimimum deceived.