Featured NT Wright false teacher?

D.A. Carson says that the city is symbolic of Christ (the New Jerusalem symbolic of God dwelling with man). I disagree that he "discards a lot of God's revelation", but he does seem to take much as symbolic (much that I may actually take as literal), chalking it up to the genre of Revelation. But just like I am not here to defend N.T. Wright for the Biblicist, I'm also not here to defend D.A. Carson for you. My philosophy here is - If you deem him a false teacher then dismiss his works entirely. If you think he is just ignorant concerning this topic, then perhaps listen to what he says on other issues.

I suppose the obvious question, however, is whether or not there are any passages that you can offer in support of the idea that this "new heaven and new earth" are already in existence and just waiting to be superimposed upon the old (if that is what you are saying)? There are many other questions, for example - Do you believe that God is sitting on a physical throne? If so, when did God the Father become other than spirit (when did the Father get a body so that He would be literally sitting on a physical throne in a heavenly room)? If not, then why make such a big deal when D.A. Carson insists that these words are indeed symbolic?

But I'm not the "go between" when it comes to people here who denounce D.A. Carson....or N.T. Wright, for that matter. If you think Carson a false teacher, then perhaps we could discuss it on another thread. Here's a good start for this topic (on his mistaken symbolism in Revelation) -


https://go.efca.org/podcasts/episodes/episode-132-da-carson-revelation-20

 

No, not baptismal regeneration.

You misunderstand. On this point I agree with Wright. It is not that the New Covenant is not new, but that the New Covenant is within a much larger covenant. I believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is overarching (the Old Covenant with the Mosaic Law was with in the Abrahamic Covenant, and the New Covenant is within this same Promise). This is one of the few parts of Wright's NPP that he's gotten exactly right....probably because it is also what orthodox Reformed theology teaches.

Please tell me you are not going to ask me individual questions, one after another, for the rest of our stay on this earth.

Heaven is right now. But Heaven which is right now is not the new heaven and new earth where we will live as resurrected beings, where God will come down...come down.....come down (saying it three times...like when the teacher would stomp her feet so we would know it was a test question) to dwell with men eternally.....on a new earth.....

And we are the spiritual sons of Abraham, so that covenant is also in effect. Revmitchel is right..."wow".

 

I absolutely agree. Even though we may disagree with their doctrines, they are not false teachers at all. It is an absurd question....but it was the question asked.

 

Well, it looks like you're the one stuck with the job, Jon.

However, I still would not label him a "false teacher" despite disagreements with some of his theology. I think he may have justification wrong, but I'm not sure it falls outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Even though he's an Anglican, he's operating within the framework of the Reformed tradition just barely alive within Anglicanism.

His view of "final justification" does not seem to be too much different from the orthodox Puritan Richard Baxter, who explicated his views in his battle against the Antinomians. (This is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whom you're reading. Either way, it is certainly within the Reformed tradition.)

One thing I think we should consider (and I am indebted to many authors for this) is that writers in every age are reacting to culture and prevailing ideas. (Or you could take C.S. Lewis' advice on the vaule of reading old books: It's easier to see their faults because we can discard their contemporary suppositions.) Augustine cut his teeth against Pelagianism. Westcott was dealing with large-scale apostasy with the Anglican church. Wright is responding to an atomized Christianity that often rejects community and defines the priesthood of the believer to be exercised within a vacuum. (My words, not his; he probably wouldn't even recognize that as a description of his beliefs.)

As to a literal reading of heaven, almost all of which comes from the Apocalypse, I cannot say I have ever read The Revelation of Jesus Christ literally, even though I was raised in that tradition. It is apocalyptic literature and should he read in that manner. You lose nothing in that; the overarching message is that the Father, of indescribable majesty, and his Son will finally redeem mankind and all creation, despite the powers of darkness attempting to thwart his will and his plans. To do otherwise, I am afraid, is to encourage obscurantism and wild theology and needless speculation that leads, in some cases, to heresies dangerous to the faith and to society.

Ready for the arrows now.

 

Oh, as to baptismal regeneration, that's not Wright's view (even though he's a baby baptizer, like Calvin, who also did not believe in baptismal generation). Faith is the badge of the Christian, not baptism.

 

I didn't ask what Dr. Carson believes. I asked you.

I don't recall asking you to do so.

I don't.

Nobody I know of has done so.

It's not.

I don't.

Glad we could make so much progress with this issue.

 

I am not sure, but I too think he may. But the problem is that he seems to have great difficulty answering questions regarding his beliefs with a direct answer. He seems to obfuscate more often then not. And that tendency to obfuscate has resulted in more questions than he has answered.

 

Can't disagree with that. And his smugness — both in his writing and public appearances — does not engender confidence in those committed to Reformed theology. He builds straw men to attack and seems unwilling to to realize that his best friends are evangelicals, not the ecumenicals he wants to court. But I also consider that he is living in a culture that, most often, rejects outright the claims of Christianity.

But he seems captive to Reformed theology, whatever objections he raises, because he consistently references it and, for the most part, seems to agree with it. I think he perhaps doth protest too much against Reformed theology.

We could have worse friends, I think, like Crossan (who consistently denies the historicity of the Bible and rejects even the orthodox teachings of the of the Latin Rite) and Spong, who rejects practically all of the Anglican church's stated beliefs.

Someone once said that whoever is not against us is for us. It is in that spirit that I can read Wright with edification. He upholds the majesty of God, which is no small thing in in these days.

 

To avoid this confusion in the future, perhaps it would help if you would make your comments more honest to the posts to which you respond. In post #118 you quoted me (post #116) and posed a series of questions about what I had presented of Carson's explanation. I used Carson's statements in addressing the OP (that there are diverse views that I believe reside within orthodox Christianity....I don't think these differences make one a false teacher). What you did, even if you were unaware of what you were doing, was ask me to defend D.A. Carson's position, and not my own. You have assumed that I held Carson's view. Your questions do not apply to my beliefs.

I believe that our final home is in fact on a new earth (I agree with Carson, Piper, and Wright on that point), and that the things of Revelation 21 are not necessarily already accomplished (I believe that there really will be a new heaven, a new earth, that the old will pass away, that God will make His dwelling place among men, and that God is making all things new). I do believe that the city, New Jerusalem, is symbolic but that does not mean that I believe it is not a real city (e.g., I believe that the Flood was symbolic, but I do not discount that it was a real event). So I do not have an answer for your questions because they do not address my beliefs. Your entire post is dishonest to mine it addresses. If you do not understand the position of which I spoke in post #16, you will have to seek out what D.A. Carson says on the subject to have your questions answered (they are his views, not mine...perhaps the link I had provided to Carson himself addressing the topic will help you).

 

The average Bible has around 1,200 pages. "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" is but one book explaining his position on this one topic. It has 1,700 pages. I suspect you may be on to something.

 

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 11am Pacific.

 

I can agree with that. There are many things I disagree with Wright on, but over all he makes some excellent, and edifying, points.