• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

NT Wright's view on Heaven

Greektim

Well-Known Member
I conflated a couple of your posts:
The Biblicist said:
If what you say is true about him, then he is a sly deceiver indeed, as the scripture have a great deal to say about where we go when we die. Both Christ and Paul have a great deal to say about that subject. Obviously a soul-sleeper would attempt to shift the focus of his readers from what the scripture says about where one goes when they die to the more lovely subject of the final new creation without sin.
Ok... he does not believe or teach soul sleep. He simply points out the misappropriated focus on a disembodied existence in heaven (life after death) rather than the biblical focus of restoration and new creation (life AFTER life after death).

His scholarly abilities or training is the problem. The issue is his very skillful interpretations of specific Biblical passages that are designed by the Holy Spirit to be definitive in order to protect a given truth. The worst kind of heretic is not the person who simply contradicts what the scriptures teach. The worst kind of heretic imaginable is the person who takes those Biblical passages which are designed to be definitive statements to protect and defend a certain truth and skillfully reinterprets them to say the very opposite of what they actually are designed by God to protect. N.T. Wright has accomplished that with regard to the doctrine of justification especially his interpretation of Romans 4:5-11, 16-22. You would think that his unprotected and clear sacramental teaching would wake people up to his real soteriology, but many seem to be so enchanted by his "new" approach in packaging a false gospel in such a scholarly way, that they simply dismiss the obvious.
Defending Wright is almost a full time job here on the BB. This vitriol is unwarranted.

I'm curious. What exactly have you read of Wright (not stuff by others about Wright)? I posted another thread a while back about a challenge concerning Wright. I have a feeling you would fail the challenge. Though I could be wrong.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
If what you say is true about him, then he is a sly deceiver indeed, as the scripture have a great deal to say about where we go when we die. Both Christ and Paul have a great deal to say about that subject. Obviously a soul-sleeper would attempt to shift the focus of his readers from what the scripture says about where one goes when they die to the more lovely subject of the final new creation without sin.

Of course the Second Adam is going to ultimately restore much more than what the first Adam lost. But it is how He does it that many are completely ignorant. The point of tremendous ignorance is concerning the Biblical issue of death. Such scholars don't grasp either the full impact of the first death much less the nature of the second death. One cannot properly understand "life" until they first understand the true nature and consequences of death. For example, look carefully at Matthew 10:28. Jesus is not merely denying that man's soul ceases to exist at physical death, but he is just as clearly denying that the soul ceases to exist between physical death and final judgment which does not occur until after the Second Coming of Christ.
I apologize for not clearly stating my comment on this book. I was not saying that Wright denies we are in the presence of Christ when we die. I was saying that both Scripture and Wright point to another final goal than where we end up when we die. Wright was simply not arguing what you are creating his argument to be.

I don't agree with Wright on all issues (on many, in fact). But we need to examine what others say with care or not at all.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not at all in regards to soul sleep.
Fair enough. The O.P. seemed to suggest otherwise.

And he never claims his view is unique, only that the church has lost its emphasis on new creation and traded it for a disembodied heaven.
Without disagreeing that the Church has lost her emphasis on the New Creation, I believe the Bible also has plenty to say on the 'intermediate state.' Christians are with their Lord the very moment they die.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Fair enough. The O.P. seemed to suggest otherwise.


Without disagreeing that the Church has lost her emphasis on the New Creation, I believe the Bible also has plenty to say on the 'intermediate state.' Christians are with their Lord the very moment they die.
It seems you are responding to a misrepresentation of what Wright has stated. I don't think that anyone here denies this 'intermediate state' of being with Christ (certainly Wright doesn't). Wright's contention seems to be that many today have blended this 'intermediate state' with the final state whereas Paul's emphasis is in our hope of a new life within a new creation in the presence of God as revealed in the resurrection of Christ. I believe he is right on this point.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I conflated a couple of your posts:

Ok... he does not believe or teach soul sleep. He simply points out the misappropriated focus on a disembodied existence in heaven (life after death) rather than the biblical focus of restoration and new creation (life AFTER life after death).


Defending Wright is almost a full time job here on the BB. This vitriol is unwarranted.

I'm curious. What exactly have you read of Wright (not stuff by others about Wright)? I posted another thread a while back about a challenge concerning Wright. I have a feeling you would fail the challenge. Though I could be wrong.

I read his articles on line. He has articles on the sacraments that are posted on line. Wright says that "works are done not to earn privilege, but to demonstrate it, they are an attempt to confine grace to one race." He made this statement in reference to Romans and Paul's view of justification without works. This statement by Wright shows that he either does not understand Romans 4:1-5 or does understand it and is intentionally perverting the contextual meaning of works in that passage. Works in that passage predates Israel or the Law and therefore cannot be defined as Wright defines them. Abraham's work prior to his justification is the subject in Romans 4:1-5, therefore the nature of those works cannot possible be restricted or confined to Israel or the Mosaic Law. Paul's definition of works is simply anything and everything that is associated with your internal or external actions regardless if is before or after justification. Jesus defines evil works beginning internally with wrong "thoughts" that are externally manifested in wrong words and actions, and the reverse is true of "good" works. Like the Seventh Day Adventists, Wright defines "good" works that ultimately justify us as products of the Holy Spirit and His progressive sanctification thus confusing justification, which is based solely and only on the works performed in the physical body of Christ on earth without any kind of assoication with us other than representative. Justification is imputation not impartation of Christ's righteousness, whereas progressive sanctification is impartation not imputation of Christ's righteousness. There was no vitriol in my statement. It was pure conviction being stated in the strongest terms. I have no personal animosity toward Wright, but I wholly despise his views.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The most important aspect of the issue is that we stand in the presence of God. Our redemption, creation, and the New Creation is about the glory of God, and we will both experience the presence of God in a way that we do not now and reflect His glory in a way we do not now. Our focus on the New Creation is all about God's glory and not man's (what will be it's greatest aspect will not be things like literal streets of gold but dwelling with God).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I read his articles on line. He has articles on the sacraments that are posted on line. Wright says that "works are done not to earn privilege, but to demonstrate it, they are an attempt to confine grace to one race." He made this statement in reference to Romans and Paul's view of justification without works. This statement by Wright shows that he either does not understand Romans 4:1-5 or does understand it and is intentionally perverting the contextual meaning of works in that passage. Works in that passage predates Israel or the Law and therefore cannot be defined as Wright defines them. Abraham's work prior to his justification is the subject in Romans 4:1-5, therefore the nature of those works cannot possible be restricted or confined to Israel or the Mosaic Law. Paul's definition of works is simply anything and everything that is associated with your internal or external actions regardless if is before or after justification. Jesus defines evil works beginning internally with wrong "thoughts" that are externally manifested in wrong words and actions, and the reverse is true of "good" works. Like the Seventh Day Adventists, Wright defines "good" works that ultimately justify us as products of the Holy Spirit and His progressive sanctification thus confusing justification, which is based solely and only on the works performed in the physical body of Christ on earth without any kind of assoication with us other than representative. Justification is imputation not impartation of Christ's righteousness, whereas progressive sanctification is impartation not imputation of Christ's righteousness. There was no vitriol in my statement. It was pure conviction being stated in the strongest terms. I have no personal animosity toward Wright, but I wholly despise his views.
This is off topic, brother. What is being discussed is Wrights position on Heaven and the New Creation. You are right in that he believes Soteriology and Eschatology are inseparably linked, but wrong in that his view of justification is not the topic here (it would be like arguing against Calvin or Luther because of their view on baptism if the topic were justification). If you whole despise his views of the new creation then this is a good place to post those disagreements.

If, however, your contention is against his NPP, perhaps you need to begin a new thread (which would be interesting as even though I don't accept his NPP I think you have missed his position a bit here).

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is off topic, brother. What is being discussed is Wrights position on Heaven and the New Creation. You are right in that he believes Soteriology and Eschatology are inseparably linked, but wrong in that his view of justification is not the topic here (it would be like arguing against Calvin or Luther because of their view on baptism if the topic were justification). If you whole despise his views of the new creation then this is a good place to post those disagreements.

If, however, your contention is against his NPP, perhaps you need to begin a new thread (which would be interesting as even though I don't accept his NPP I think you have missed his position a bit here).

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf

I was just responding to your post. I was not trying to change the topic. My response was to your words:

Defending Wright is almost a full time job here on the BB. This vitriol is unwarranted.

I'm curious. What exactly have you read of Wright (not stuff by others about Wright)? I posted another thread a while back about a challenge concerning Wright. I have a feeling you would fail the challenge. Though I could be wrong.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I was just responding to your post. I was not trying to change the topic. My response was to your words:
Thank you for clarifying. My apologies.

But those were not my words (although I agree with Greektim). My question was where you disagreed with his view of heaven.

I just didn't want to get too off track, even if I were the cause. I think the NPP could be an interesting topic for a thread.
 

Greektim

Well-Known Member
I read his articles on line. He has articles on the sacraments that are posted on line. Wright says that "works are done not to earn privilege, but to demonstrate it, they are an attempt to confine grace to one race." He made this statement in reference to Romans and Paul's view of justification without works. This statement by Wright shows that he either does not understand Romans 4:1-5 or does understand it and is intentionally perverting the contextual meaning of works in that passage. Works in that passage predates Israel or the Law and therefore cannot be defined as Wright defines them. Abraham's work prior to his justification is the subject in Romans 4:1-5, therefore the nature of those works cannot possible be restricted or confined to Israel or the Mosaic Law. Paul's definition of works is simply anything and everything that is associated with your internal or external actions regardless if is before or after justification. Jesus defines evil works beginning internally with wrong "thoughts" that are externally manifested in wrong words and actions, and the reverse is true of "good" works. Like the Seventh Day Adventists, Wright defines "good" works that ultimately justify us as products of the Holy Spirit and His progressive sanctification thus confusing justification, which is based solely and only on the works performed in the physical body of Christ on earth without any kind of assoication with us other than representative. Justification is imputation not impartation of Christ's righteousness, whereas progressive sanctification is impartation not imputation of Christ's righteousness. There was no vitriol in my statement. It was pure conviction being stated in the strongest terms. I have no personal animosity toward Wright, but I wholly despise his views.
It would be extremely helpful if you not only quoted him but also provided the link of the quotation.

I humbly request that because I suspect he is not talking about Rom 4 but Rom 2. And I think he may be presenting the arguments of Judaism of his day ("attempt to confine grace to one race"). If that is the case, then it appears you don't understand him at all, as I have accused.

But this can be cleared up with a link or citation to this quote.

EDIT:

So I checked, and as I suspected, you misrepresented and misunderstand Wright's statement. You even misquoted him!!! This kind of false representation is in the same vein as Gail Riplinger's attempts to smear in her terrible books. I would encourage you to be more judicious in your quoting and understanding of Wright.

Now here is the entire quote in context from "Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism" (accessed: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf)

NT Wright said:
Second, God has renounced all partiality, and made one way of salvation for all men alike. 46 Justification by faith therefore eliminates boasting (3:27-31) not the boasting of the legalist earning his own salvation (though it eliminates that too), but that of the Jew, as in 2:17 ff. If this is not so, the question of 3:29 ('Is God the God of the Jews only?') is a total non sequitur. 'Works' are done not to earn privilege but to demonstrate it: they are the attempt to confine grace to one race. But the Gospel presents Israel with the knowledge that all alike have sinned, 47 and with the fact of a crucified Messiah, who spells death to nationalistic pride. The Gospel is revealed 'apart from the [Jewish] law' (3:21), since only so could it benefit both Gentiles (who do not possess the law) and Jews (who stand convicted by it).

As I thought, this isn't about Romans 4, but it began with Romans 2 and mainly 3.

Second, he clearly admits "justification by faith". However, his understanding of justification as it pertains to those in the Judaizer camp is that Jews access the promises of Abraham through their physical decent. Thus they boast in their ethnic heritage. Therefore, the works they perform are not a means of attaining their status as the people of God but of demonstrating their status. This is not what Wright believes but explaining what many Jews of Paul's day believed!

Third, with that context in mind, Wright's statement (quoted correctly with scare quotes and a colon), the "works" performed by the Jews in order to demonstrate their ethnic status in Abraham and thus boast is an attempt to confine grace to Jews only and not Gentiles. Thus this paragraph began with removing ethnic partiality with God providing salvation to all mankind.

Lastly, the only thing you would probably object to is that Wright claims Paul is not arguing against legalism in Romans. But that hardly makes him a heretic.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It would be extremely helpful if you not only quoted him but also provided the link of the quotation.

I humbly request that because I suspect he is not talking about Rom 4 but Rom 2. And I think he may be presenting the arguments of Judaism of his day ("attempt to confine grace to one race"). If that is the case, then it appears you don't understand him at all, as I have accused.

But this can be cleared up with a link or citation to this quote.

He has taken up the argument against Wright's view of justification here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/wright-is-wrong-on-justification.99703/#post-2228390
 
Top