NT Wright false teacher?

[JonC]

But isn't the Eternal City called the "Heavenly City" and doesn't it "come down from Heaven?"

If so, could the streets of gold and the gates of pearl already exist in Heaven?

I'm not sure if they already exist, but certainly they could. Jesus goes to prepare a place...or is it already there just waiting to come down? There are those saints at the throne asking "when?", so they are with God.

I believe we will be with Christ when we die, but I also think that the Heaven Scripture looks to is the Kingdom as it will be here. I lean towards D.A. Carson here (actually, Wright agrees with him on this part). Carson equated the city, the New Jerusalem, as symbolic of God's presence coming to dwell with man in this new creation (in one of his Gospel series...I think the last one). Heaven (our final dwelling place) is not up in the sky but on the new earth.

I should also note that N.T. Wright clarifies that he is speaking of our ultimate destination and not a state between death and Heaven. He leaves this a bit open in the book (that we die and whatever happens next our ultimate destination is Heaven).

I'll rely on your expertise here, though. It's enough for me to know I'll be with Jesus, and I really have not worked out much of an eschatology beyond that fact.

 

[rsr]

I don't think Wright ever endorsed "soul sleep." Instead he posits that Christians after death are in an intermediate state. That is, they are with Christ in a sense, but not yet raised to their final state that will come with the resurrection.

Nor does Paul imply that this ‘departing and being with Christ’ is the same thing asthe eventual resurrection of the body, which he describes vividly later in the same letter (3.20-21). No: all the Christian dead have ‘departed’ and are ‘with Christ’. The only other idea Paul offers to explain where the Christian dead are now and what they are doing is that of ‘sleeping in Christ’. He uses this idea frequently (1 Corinthians 7.39; 11.30; 15.6, 18,20,51; 1 Thessalonians 4.13-15), and some have thought that by it he must mean an unconscious state, from which one would be brought back to consciousness at the resurrection — so much so, perhaps, that it will seem as though we have passed straight from the one to the other. The probability is, though, that this is a strong metaphor, a way of reminding us about the ‘waking up’ which will be the resurrection. Had the post-mortem state been unconscious, would Paul have thought of it as ‘far better’ than what he had in the present?

This picture is further confirmed by the language of Revelation. There we find the souls of the martyrs waiting, under the altar, for the final redemption to take place. They are at rest; they are conscious; they are able to ask how long it will be before justice is done (6.9-11); but they are not yet enjoying the final bliss which is to come in the New Jerusalem.

— For All the Saints? Remembering the Christian Departed.

Interestingly enough, these comments come within an extended argument again Purgatory, the dormition of Mary and the invocation of the saints.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't think Wright ever endorsed "soul sleep." Instead he posits that Christians after death are in an intermediate state. That is, they are with Christ in a sense, but not yet raise to their final state that will come with the resurrection.

I agree. It seems to me all he is saying is that our ultimate "Heaven" will be on earth in our resurrected bodies and that the time between our physical death and and our ultimate "Heaven" will be with Christ, but apparently without a body, or perhaps with some type of intermediate body, but still awaiting the final consummation of all things.

My comments on soul sleep were due to the mischaracterization of Wright's position with the OP's comments on" the resurrection and Heaven."

 

[rsr]

I think we must look at Wright's writings as a work in progress. He has been attacked for his nuanced views on justification and imputation, but he is working within a framework of historical-narrative analysis that is foreign to many within the Reformed tradition. I cannot say that he is right; but he certainly can make you think about your presuppositions. There seems to be some evidence that in his latest work, The Day the Revolution Began, that he might be backing off his former views on justification. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

And remember that Wright — unusual for an Anglican — makes his arguments within the Reformed tradition. And, let's face it, he is a fine writer, perhaps on the par of C.S. Lewis. He takes Christianity and the Bible seriously.

I can read Augustin and Aquinas with edification without accepting everything they say. I think Wright could be inthat category.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think we must look at Wright's writings as a work in progress. He has been attacked for his nuanced views on justification and imputation, but he is working within a framework of historical-narrative analysis that is foreign to many within the Reformed tradition. I cannot say that he is right; but he certainly can make you think about your presuppositions. There seems to be some evidence that in his latest work, The Day the Revolution Began, that he might be backing off his former views on justification. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

And remember that Wright — unusual for an Anglican — makes his arguments within the Reformed tradition. And, let's face it, he is a fine writer, perhaps on the par of C.S. Lewis. He takes Christianity and the Bible seriously.

I can read Augustin and Aquinas with edification without accepting everything they say. I think Wright could be inthat category.

His view of justification is found in his carefully worded definitions. That is is particularly true in his definition of "the works of the Law" and his denial that this phrase refers to a moral basis for justification or that the Jews in Christ's day sought moral justification before God on the basis of obedience to the Mosaic Law. IF he backs down from that point, and admits this phrase does represent a MORAL basis for seeking justification before God by the Jews (and fallen man in general) then I will no longer regard him as a "false teacher" who is NOW in reality preaching "another gospel" under the masquerade of redefined Biblical terms.

 

[JonC]

His view of justification is found in his carefully worded definitions. That is is particularly true in his definition of "the works of the Law" and his denial that this phrase refers to a moral basis for justification or that the Jews in Christ's day sought moral justification before God on the basis of obedience to the Mosaic Law. IF he backs down from that point, and admits this phrase does represent a MORAL basis for seeking justification before God by the Jews (and fallen man in general) then I will no longer regard him as a "false teacher" who is NOW in reality preaching "another gospel" under the masquerade of redefined Biblical terms.

I'm not completely sure how denying that first century Jews sought moral justification on the basis of obedience to the Mosaic Law would constitute "another gospel". Given that much of the debate of the time centered on purity laws (certainly within the Mosaic Law), how exactly are you defining "moral basis"?

(If this is too off topic, which it probably is, we can discuss this on another thread if you are willing/ I just don't understand how rejecting a moral basis under the Law for justification...depending on how you define moral....results in "another gospel", which I take to mean "no gospel at all").

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think we must look at Wright's writings as a work in progress.

He's been about for a long time now.
Wright is flat out wrong on Justification, which is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. Part of the dangerous nature of his books is that he does write a lot of good stuff as well.

No one will be more pleased than myself if Wright does retract his teaching on justification, but his retraction will need to be publicized just as much as his errors have been.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not completely sure how denying that first century Jews sought moral justification on the basis of obedience to the Mosaic Law would constitute "another gospel". Given that much of the debate of the time centered on purity laws (certainly within the Mosaic Law), how exactly are you defining "moral basis"?

(If this is too off topic, which it probably is, we can discuss this on another thread if you are willing/ I just don't understand how rejecting a moral basis under the Law for justification...depending on how you define moral....results in "another gospel", which I take to mean "no gospel at all").

Jon, it would not make any difference if that denial and reinterpretation of "the works of the Law" and "justification by works" was found outside of Romans 3-4. However, it is these phrases as used in the Romans 3-4 context which he is defining as mere cultural covenant obedience as Jews.

 

[JonC]

Jon, it would not make any difference if that denial and reinterpretation of "the works of the Law" and "justification by works" was found outside of Romans 3-4. However, it is these phrases as used in the Romans 3-4 context which he is defining as mere cultural covenant obedience as Jews.

I am missing your point. I see how he could be wrong, but not how misinterpreting "justification by works" leads to another gospel since we are not justified by works...unless one held we are (which doesn't seem to be Wright's view). I'll think about it when I get home...I'm just not getting it right now.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am missing your point. I see how he could be wrong, but not how misinterpreting "justification by works" leads to another gospel since we are not justified by works...unless one held we are (which doesn't seem to be Wright's view). I'll think about it when I get home...I'm just not getting it right now.

He does believe in justification ultimately by works that is why he reinterprets the condemning words "without works" to merely mean without becoming Jewish. Having reinterpreted those words he is free to teach ultimate justification by works without Biblical condemnation.

 

[JonC]

He does believe in justification ultimately by works that is why he reinterprets the condemning words "without works" to merely mean without becoming Jewish. Having reinterpreted those words he is free to teach ultimate justification by works without Biblical condemnation.

In what I've heard of Wright, I do not see him teaching that one is ultimately justified by works (although I do recall him insisting that we are still held accountable for our deeds). In the context of Christianity, it seems that he is using the same narrative from Abraham until now....that God has one people and this is covenant relationship. I also recall Wright denying the accusation that he is teaching a works based justification (although he has indicated the Christian strives towards good works). But I have not read very much of the guys works. Are you sure you are not contributing your own conclusions to his words?

 

[The Biblicist]

In what I've heard of Wright, I do not see him teaching that one is ultimately justified by works (although I do recall him insisting that we are still held accountable for our deeds). In the context of Christianity, it seems that he is using the same narrative from Abraham until now....that God has one people and this is covenant relationship. I also recall Wright denying the accusation that he is teaching a works based justification (although he has indicated the Christian strives towards good works). But I have not read very much of the guys works. Are you sure you are not contributing your own conclusions to his words?

I have read him and he does believe in ultimate justification by works. His articles on the sacraments demonstrate it clearly. His redefinition and denial that the phrases "Justification without works" is a repudiation of moral attempts to be justified proves it. His denial that the Rich young man and the Pharisee who asked what they "must do" to obtain eternal life refers to justification by works prove it. He simply rids the Bible of anything that condemns justification by works.

The reason many do not see clearly his position and are confused about what he really believes is because of his double talk.

 

[The Biblicist]

"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....... I believe passionately that all those who believe in the Lord Jesus belong at the same table, no matter what their ethnic, cultural, moral, or social background may be. According to Galatians 2, that’s actually what justification by faith is all about. All those who believe belong at the same table. I look forward to seeing signs of that, I hope and pray, during my lifetime." - N.T. Wright on the Sacraments

http://www.reformedworship.org/article/march-2009/nt-wright-word-and-sacraments-eucharist

Wright has mastered the evangelical terminology and by redefining BIBLICAL terms has made justification by works mean salvation by grace. He knows exactly what he is saying and doing and he is the worst kind of heretic as he has intentionally redefined Biblical language that was designed to be definitive against what he is teaching.

The worst kind of heretic is not one who blatantly repudiates scripture, but the worst kind is he who redefines those Biblical texts and terms designed to be definitive safeguards to protect God's people from the very errors that heretic is teaching.

This Eucharistic theology of new creation rejects the false antithesis between spirituality and action, - N.T. Wright

Just substitute the word "works" for his word 'action" and you have an insight into the mind of Wright when it comes to justification. In Scripture "grace" is the antithesis of "action/work" but Wright has redefined it and rejects this antithesis. His "Ecuharistic theology" is his soteriology.

Everyone is CONFUSED over Wright's teachings BECAUSE he is intentionally being deceptive by using and redefining Biblical terms and concepts to destroy such an antithesis between spirituality and action and yet call it grace. His term "spirituality" in context refers to entrance into the NEW Creation.

His real goal is to harmonize Protestant theology with Roman Catholic Theology:

Protestants are always afraid that if you say that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, you are somehow repeating the crucifixion. Catholics are always afraid that Protestants are trying to do something that adds to the sacrifice of Christ. Ironically both Protestant and Catholic polemicists have regularly accused each other of adding to the finished work of Christ. As the polemics ratchet up, often what is really being said on both sides has not been heard...... I believe passionately that all those who believe in the Lord Jesus belong at the same table, no matter what their ethnic, cultural, moral, or social background may be. According to Galatians 2, that’s actually what justification by faith is all about. All those who believe belong at the same table. I look forward to seeing signs of that, I hope and pray, during my lifetime.. - N.T. Wright

Therefore, he designates his own brand of Theology as "Eurcharist Theology" because it is his view of the sacraments whereby the New Creation and new Covenant community has its point of origin.

Therefore, this view makes it necessary to redefine "justification without works" to mean one no longer must become a Jew to enter the covenant community but it is through faith joined with sacraments that one enters in new creation covenant community. He accepts the ordinances of all denominations as valid to obtain the same covenant community in connection with faith.

 

[JonC]

I have read him and he does believe in ultimate justification by works. His articles on the sacraments demonstrate it clearly. His redefinition and denial that the phrases "Justification without works" is a repudiation of moral attempts to be justified proves it. His denial that the Rich young man and the Pharisee who asked what they "must do" to obtain eternal life refers to justification by works prove it. He simply rids the Bible of anything that condemns justification by works.

The reason many do not see clearly his position and are confused about what he really believes is because of his double talk.

I've also read Wright (and listened to many of his explanations via interviews), but like I said, not extensively. In"Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision", Wright does disagree with the definition of righteousness as a "moral righteousness", but he does so in favor of the definition that it is the status of the person who God has vindicated. God has vindicated Jesus and it is in this context that the vindication of the believer is to be understood (I agree with Wright on this point....mostly because he is also correct in pointing out that if righteousness is a moral righteousness then salvation is in truth works based regardless of who does the work because it remains grounded in the fulfillment of the moral Law). But wright also Wright is is saying that Paul’s understanding of the Law is that it was never a means to earn the status of righteousness. It was given as a way of life for those already in that covenant relationship with God. Judaism held that they were Jews by divine election, by God’s choosing. They were God’s people by birth. The issue becomes how one remains in the covenant, not how they get there. Works, in this way, are evidences of a future state....not something done to earn inclusion.

I cannot help but see that you are taking Wright's explanation of "justification by works" and placing them under your definition of justification to denounce what he is suggesting. It is not that I believe Wright right , but I do believe that you are blending positions here and coming up short on what he is presenting. Partly because N.T. Wright has repeatedly said that he is not saying what you are having him say, and I don't believe Wright is being dishonest (he may be incorrect here, but I think he is trying to honestly deal with God's Word). And party because, even in your examples of the Eucharist, when we apply Wright's own definitions to the matter (and include the fact that he is Anglican) we come up very short of a works based salvation. The impact is different because his definition of justification (however flawed) is different.

 

[The Biblicist]

I've also read Wright (and listened to many of his explanations via interviews), but like I said, not extensively. In"Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision", Wright does disagree with the definition of righteousness as a "moral righteousness", but he does so in favor of the definition that it is the status of the person who God has vindicated. God has vindicated Jesus and it is in this context that the vindication of the believer is to be understood (I agree with Wright on this point....mostly because he is also correct in pointing out that if righteousness is a moral righteousness then salvation is in truth works based regardless of who does the work because it remains grounded in the fulfillment of the moral Law).

Paul explicitly states that the righteousness revealed in the Law is "the righteousness of God" - Rom. 3:21-22 which is His personal HOLINESS which all men have "come short" - Rom. 3:23.


This is precisely what Christ meant when he said that the RIGHTEOUSNESS for ENTRANCE into heaven must EXCEED that of their religious leaders (described in moral terms - Mt. 5:21-47) - Mt. 5:20 but must EQUAL God's own righteousness (Mt. 5:48). - "Be ye therefore PERFECT even as your Father in heaven is perfect". This is what CHrist meant when he told the Pharisee and the Rich young ruler who asked "what must I DO" to obtain eternal life as he pointed them to the MORAL law.

It is the MORAL aspect of the law that James points to in order to be justified - james 2:10-11


It can be nothing less than MORAL righteousness. Christ never needed vindication as this same "righteousness of God" was revealed in him (Rom. 3:22). It is that same moral righteousness that is IMPUTED by faith (Rom. 3:22,24-26). It is not Christ that needed vindication but SINNERS and it is Gods' righteousness that can only vindicate them.

And yes it is by works we are justified - HIS WORKS IN HIS BODY for us.

 

[The Biblicist]

But wright also Wright is is saying that Paul’s understanding of the Law is that it was never a means to earn the status of righteousness. It was given as a way of life for those already in that covenant relationship with God.

No! He is clearly saying it was given as a MEANS to enter the covenant family (circumcision) AND as a way of life, and ultimate justification reveals that they are saved based upon that way of live HAVING been lived. See his article on the Sacraments. He clearly states baptism joined with faith is the MEANS for entering the family of God or new creation covenant community and the Eurcharist is one MEANS for sustaining it.


"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..... It seems to me that the Eucharist is a family meal, and the family is constituted by baptism.......N.T. Wright

 

[The Biblicist]

Judaism held that they were Jews by divine election, by God’s choosing. They were God’s people by birth. The issue becomes how one remains in the covenant, not how they get there. Works, in this way, are evidences of a future state....not something done to earn inclusion.

No, the issue is WHAT KIND of birth obtains entrance (Rom.9 :6-11; Jn. 1:13; 3:3-6). As a paedobaptist entrance by physical birth through baptism (corresponding to circumcision under old covenant) was not an issue with Wright. Wright explicitly states the family is entered through baptism and I quote:

It seems to me that the Eucharist is a family meal, and the family is constituted by baptism - N.T Wright

 

[The Biblicist]

I cannot help but see that you are taking Wright's explanation of "justification by works" and placing them under your definition of justification to denounce what he is suggesting.

There are not TWO or more ways of Biblical doctrines of justification!! His view is wrong BECAUSE his definition of "justification without works" is manifestly wrong! Your view is wrong as your view denies that the basis for justification is the MORAL righteousness of God manifested/revealed in the heart, words and works of Christ IN OUR BEHALF received by faith via imputation. You have God needing to vindicate Christ instead of needing Christ to vindicate HIS elect by his life and death (His rightousness)

 

[JonC]

Paul explicitly states that the righteousness revealed in the Law is "the righteousness of God" - Rom. 3:21-22 which is His personal HOLINESS which all men have "come short" - Rom. 3:23.


This is precisely what Christ meant when he said that the RIGHTEOUSNESS for ENTRANCE into heaven must EXCEED that of their religious leaders (described in moral terms - Mt. 5:21-47) - Mt. 5:20 but must EQUAL God's own righteousness (Mt. 5:48). - "Be ye therefore PERFECT even as your Father in heaven is perfect". This is what CHrist meant when he told the Pharisee and the Rich young ruler who asked "what must I DO" to obtain eternal life as he pointed them to the MORAL law.

It is the MORAL aspect of the law that James points to in order to be justified - james 2:10-11


It can be nothing less than MORAL righteousness. Christ never needed vindication as this same "righteousness of God" was revealed in him (Rom. 3:22). It is that same moral righteousness that is IMPUTED by faith (Rom. 3:22,24-26). It is not Christ that needed vindication but SINNERS and it is Gods' righteousness that can only vindicate them.

And yes it is by works we are justified - HIS WORKS IN HIS BODY for us........There are not TWO or more ways of Biblical doctrines of justification!! His view is wrong BECAUSE his definition of "justification without works" is manifestly wrong! Your view is wrong as your view denies that the basis for justification is the MORAL righteousness of God manifested/revealed in the heart, words and works of Christ IN OUR BEHALF received by faith via imputation. You have God needing to vindicate Christ instead of needing Christ to vindicate HIS elect by his life and death (His rightousness)

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 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.

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). Under your view, salvation is indeed an issue of works, not faith. The Law is no longer given as a means to illustrate our flawed nature but as a means of obtaining righteousness. Scripture teaches otherwise. 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.

This righteousness is not a moral righteousness at all. The Law was given to illuminate our unrighteousness, not as a means to obtain salvation. The problem is not one of moral obedience. It is one of depravity and a nature/spirit inclined away from God. The problem is that you are determining that man needs to be right with the Law in order to be right with God, when Scripture itself tells us that the Law was given to illuminate our unrighteousness with God. Our state of moral unrighteousness shows us that we are by nature unrighteous. Moral righteousness is the sign, not the destination. You have misinterpreted righteousness. Christ's obedience did not "make him righteous". His obedience demonstrated that He is God's "Righteous One", the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

 

[rsr]

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