NT Wright false teacher?

[JonC]

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.

But you watched the video. Did Wright use justification to refer to those in the covenant or outside? You are using your definitions again to misrepresent what is said.

 

[The Biblicist]

But you watched the video. Did Wright use justification to refer to those in the covenant or outside? You are using your definitions again to misrepresent what is said.

Glad you brought that point up as I forgot. That is what makes his view so objectionable. First, he denies justification is about individuals (the ungodly) then he takes the doctrine and jerks it out of its proper context and applies it to assurance not of personal acceptance before God, but assurance of part of his detestable "covenant community" that he expliclty explains how it is entered in his article on the eucharist.

So, to answer your question he is a two-fold heretic on this doctrine as he mutilates it beyond recognition. He is a heretic because he rips it out of the INDIVIDUAL context of Romans 4 (I suppose Abraham is an individual???). He is a heretic because he misapplies it as assurance of community membership.

How in the world can you not see he is perverting this doctrine completely into Romanism.

 

[The Biblicist]

The biblical doctrine of justification is ALL ABOUT the individual's right relationship before God (Rom. 4:1, 23-5:2). It is NOTHING about assurance of covenant community- NOTHING. Your WORKS are all about ASSURANCE of covenant community and that is precisely what Wright's doctrine is about MERGING works with justification just as he bluntly spells out in his article on the Eurcharist.

 

[JonC]

Glad you brought that point up as I forgot. That is what makes his view so objectionable. First, he denies justification is about individuals (the ungodly) then he takes the doctrine and jerks it out of its proper context and applies it to assurance not of personal acceptance before God, but assurance of part of his detestable "covenant community" that he expliclty explains how it is entered in his article on the eucharist.

So, to answer your question he is a two-fold heretic on this doctrine as he mutilates it beyond recognition. He is a heretic because he rips it out of the INDIVIDUAL context of Romans 4 (I suppose Abraham is an individual???). He is a heretic because he misapplies it as assurance of community membership.

Well, like I said, I'm not here to defend the guy. Heck, I find value in the works of people like Karl Barth, John Wesley and C.S. Lewis so we will never agree.

I have had a rough day. Had my 17 yr old dog put down and got a call that a good friend and coworker died last night in his sleep. So again, if you want to discuss moral righteousness based on the Law vs a righteousness based on Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection then I'm game. But I have no interest in discussing what someone might or might not mean by what he says. He has clarified enough for me to both disagree with him and with your assessment of his words. So, if you are interested, start a thread and we will go from there.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me approach this from an different angle. Suppose I was to redefine "grace" to mean God's unmerited favor that consists of God producing works through you by His power, by the Holy Spirit and thus you are saved by grace without works - meaning without works originating from your power. That judgement day would such God produced works would declare you just. That is the Seventh Day Adventist view of Justification.

What the Seventh Day Adventists have done with regard to grace is on the same scale as what Wright has done to "justification".

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, like I said, I'm not here to defend the guy. Heck, I find value in the works of people like Karl Barth, John Wesley and C.S. Lewis so we will never agree.

No, I too can take the fish and leave the bone. However, when we look at categories that determine the true nature of salvation and they are heretical, I will look for my meat in other categories of their doctrine.

I have had a rough day. Had my 17 yr old dog put down and got a call that a good friend and coworker died last night in his sleep. So again, if you want to discuss moral righteousness based on the Law vs a righteousness based on Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection then I'm game. But I have no interest in discussing what someone might or might not mean by what he says. He has clarified enough for me to both disagree with him and with your assessment of his words. So, if you are interested, start a thread and we will go from there.

Well, that is about as good a peace offering as I could hope for (lol). Sorry about your good old dog. I love dogs and I lost quite a few.

 

[JonC]

Well, that is about as good a peace offering as I could hope for (lol). Sorry about your good old dog. I love dogs and I lost quite a few.

Thanks. The dog was a hard thing (I doubt I will have another), but my friend dying took me by surprise. I talked to him yesterday and all was normal. His wife said he has heartburn and went to bed. When his wife went to wake him this morning he was dead.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks. The dog was a hard thing (I doubt I will have another), but my friend dying took me by surprise. I talked to him yesterday and all was normal. His wife said he has heartburn and went to bed. When his wife went to wake him this morning he was dead.

I am so sorry. My eyes are not good and without my glasses I can't read good. I missed the part about your co-worker dying. What a hard thing for his wife. I know its a cliche, but you just never know when your time will come. I hope the funeral goes as well as can be expected. Will remember you and yours in prayer.

 

[Yeshua1]

Was listening to Way of the Master Radio today and Todd was speaking on NT Wright who has invented a new perspective on Paul and also on the resurrection and Heaven. According to Todd NT Wright does not believe that one goes to heaven immediately at death. Since I have not yet read his book Surprised by Hope I cannot comment. Have you read his book and is Todd correct? What value to theology does Wright offer? Todd also said that Brian McLarren and other emergent false teachers all got their theology from Wright. True or false?

NT Wright is a Person who has dobe great work on the Resurrection of Jesus, and should be used to refute those who reject that event, but his NPP is really bad, as he basically states that the church misunderstood Pauline Justification for nearly 2000 years, and that he will correct the reformers..., as he denies

His views on the Atonement is also lacking, as he denies Jesus death was a substitionary form for sinners....

He also has a real hard time with Bilbical ineranncy...

So would say pick and chose what you glean from him, as some areas good, others areas, not so much!

 

[JonC]

NT Wright is a Person who has dobe great work on the Resurrection of Jesus, and should be used to refute those who reject that event, but his NPP is really bad, as he basically states that the church misunderstood Pauline Justification for nearly 2000 years, and that he will correct the reformers..., as he denies

His views on the Atonement is also lacking, as he denies Jesus death was a substitionary form for sinners....

He also has a real hard time with Bilbical ineranncy...

So would say pick and chose what you glean from him, as some areas good, others areas, not so much!

I agree with much here....But one exception as Wright doesn't say the Church has misunderstood Paul for 2000 years. He says the Church has misunderstood Paul for about 500 years. The Reformers are not recipients of divine special revelation any more than the RCC they struggled against. John Piper made this argument against Wright (he tried to reform too years of doctrine). It is a bad argument because that was what the Reformers were doing as well.

 

[rsr]

To quibble: Wright's emphasis may be upon the Reformed debate, but he suggests that it really goes back to Augustine and continued to this day (which would, of course, include not only the Reformers but also Aquinas).

We saw in an earlier chapter that 'the gospel' has come to mean various things which are not precisely what Paul meant by it. We now discover that that the same is true of 'justification'. The discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot – at least in terms of understanding Paul – and they have stayed there ever since.

What Paul Really Said, Lion Publishing 1997, p 115

But already should be clear that certain aspects of the post-Augustine debate of what has come to be called 'justification' have nothing much to do with the context in which Paul was writing.

Ibid., p 119

 

[JonC]

To quibble: Wright's emphasis may be upon the Reformed debate, but he suggests that it really goes back to Augustine and continued to this day (which would, of course, include not only the Reformers but also Aquinas).


What Paul Really Said, Lion Publishing 1997, p 115


Ibid., p 119

True, but we should not hold those men in so high regard that their interpretation trumps another look. This was the spirit of the Reformers when it came to doctrines accepted as biblical but which were in fact not. I just do not think it a good argument. If Wright is wrong it is not because he refuses to accept Augustine, Aquinas, or the Reformers but because he misinterprets Paul.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with much here....But one exception as Wright doesn't say the Church has misunderstood Paul for 2000 years. He says the Church has misunderstood Paul for about 500 years. The Reformers are not recipients of divine special revelation any more than the RCC they struggled against. John Piper made this argument against Wright (he tried to reform too years of doctrine). It is a bad argument because that was what the Reformers were doing as well.

true, but the reformers in my understanding of what paul was teaching did indeed hit the head of the nail, and its NT Wright who "missed the mark"...

Think his main problem is that he is trying to create a theology that somehow can bridge the gap between Catholic church and those who received the reformation, and that cannot be done!

 

[Yeshua1]

True, but we should not hold those men in so high regard that their interpretation trumps another look. This was the spirit of the Reformers when it came to doctrines accepted as biblical but which were in fact not. I just do not think it a good argument. If Wright is wrong it is not because he refuses to accept Augustine, Aquinas, or the Reformers but because he misinterprets Paul.

Which I think that he does....
Judaism at time of Jesus was busted system, God had to send another Covenant in to replace it, so Wright is wrong seeing Pharisees as being all right in their theology...

 

[rsr]

True, but we should not hold those men in so high regard that their interpretation trumps another look. This was the spirit of the Reformers when it came to doctrines accepted as biblical but which were in fact not. I just do not think it a good argument. If Wright is wrong it is not because he refuses to accept Augustine, Aquinas, or the Reformers but because he misinterprets Paul.

I don't disagree that it's not a good argument; I was just pointing out that Wright disagrees with more than the Reformers.

 

[JonC]

Which I think that he does....
Judaism at time of Jesus was busted system, God had to send another Covenant in to replace it, so Wright is wrong seeing Pharisees as being all right in their theology...

He doesn't seem to suggest they were theologically correct, but that God's redemptive plan was consistent from beginning to end. The new did not nullify the old, it fullfilled it within the one eternal plan of God. And I absolutely agree with him on that point. Both the old and new covenants are within the covenant God made with Abraham.

 

[The Biblicist]

He doesn't seem to suggest they were theologically correct, but that God's redemptive plan was consistent from beginning to end. The new did not nullify the old, it fullfilled it within the one eternal plan of God. And I absolutely agree with him on that point. Both the old and new covenants are within the covenant God made with Abraham.

Wright is wrong about justification in all of his major particulars and neither do we needs Wrights system for a consistent Biblical soteriology.


Individual salvation has always been applied directly by God according to the "blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20) BEFORE Abraham, DURING Moses and AFTER the first coming of Christ.

Both the Old and New covenants are EARTHLY ADMINISTRATIONS of the "everlasting covenant." Both have qualified ministers, qualified ordinances and a qualified house of public worship. However, the OLD covenant was an EXTERNAL manifestation of the everlasting covenant whereas the NEW covenant more openly and clearly declares the SPIRITUAL manifestation of the everlasting covenant upon earth. The OLD anticipated the NEW and the NEW anticipates the Kingdom to come but all of it in its entirety is in perfect accord with the "blood of the everlasting covenant which is not completely fulfilled until there is a SINLESS new heaven and earth with a SINLESS new glorified people livng in it.

 

[JonC]

Wright is wrong about justification in all of his major particulars and neither do we needs Wrights system for a consistent Biblical soteriology.


Individual salvation has always been applied directly by God according to the "blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20) BEFORE Abraham, DURING Moses and AFTER the first coming of Christ.

Both the Old and New covenants are EARTHLY ADMINISTRATIONS of the "everlasting covenant." Both have qualified ministers, qualified ordinances and a qualified house of public worship. However, the OLD covenant was an EXTERNAL manifestation of the everlasting covenant whereas the NEW covenant more openly and clearly declares the SPIRITUAL manifestation of the everlasting covenant upon earth. The OLD anticipated the NEW and the NEW anticipates the Kingdom to come but all of it in its entirety is in perfect accord with the "blood of the everlasting covenant which is not completely fulfilled until there is a SINLESS new heaven and earth with a SINLESS new glorified people livng in it.

Yes, I agree with both you and Wright on this point. Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant reside in a larger Promise. I still like the idea of a wheel with spokes (the old and new covenants being spokes within a larger redemptive promise).

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I agree with both you and Wright on this point. Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant reside in a larger Promise. I still like the idea of a wheel with spokes (the old and new covenants being spokes within a larger redemptive promise).

It is the MEANS that Wright claims that brings us into that COVENANT NEW CREATION relationship that separates him from my view. He specifically identifies his NEW CREATION THEOLOGY as "The Eucharistic theology of new creation".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is the MEANS that Wright claims that brings us into that COVENANT NEW CREATION relationship that separates him from my view. He specifically identifies his NEW CREATION THEOLOGY as "The Eucharistic theology of new creation".

WHAT? Eucharistic nonsense!!!!!