Featured NT Wright false teacher?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?