Wrightism - New Social order

[The Biblicist]

I have been viewing lectures by N.T. Wright all day. I believe I have finally figured him out. He believes that God came as King and set up his kingdom through Christ and ushered in his rule on earth as in heaven at his ascension. He believes that this kingdom was the "new creation" over which he now rules and through the good works of this new order/creation/kingdom that the political rulers of this world will be subdued eventually by Gods' true covenant people so as to restore Eden on earth. His war cry is that Christians get involved in the social and political order and thereby eventually bring into existence a universal theocracy and this is how Christ judges and overrules the kings and kingdoms of this world. This new creation began with the resurrection.

He repudiates that Jesus or Paul spoke of justification by faith without works because it is through the good works as described in the Sermon on the Mount Christendom eventually conquers the kings and kingdoms of this world under the leadership of Christ who is now king over this world. Instead, he reinterprets justification, works, law and faith in corporate covenant terms that simply identifies the people of God as one cohesive body in obtaining this new theocracy.

Hence, if you want to be identified with the covenant people of God it is through "repentance" which is not some personal issue over the guilt of sin, but turning from the kind of life that does not promote this kingdom agenda of a new world order under Christ through joining state and church as a theocracy, and then through baptism and especially through the Eucharist, apart from which there is no greater personal relationship with Christ, or salvation, and it is out of this personal relationship through the Eucharist that grace is provided to accomplish this kingdom agenda in the world, and thus in your own life.

The Day of Judgement will reveal who are the true covenant people by their social gospel (visiting and clothing the sick, feeding the poor; etc.) and thus justify them in a declarative sense by their good works.

His view is fairly simple. God came to earth as king and ushered in a new creation/new world order - which is the true covenant people of God. Their work is to transform the world and you cannot do it if you separate state and church, or secular and faith, but must unite them in a theocratic government and that is the goal of Christ as king and the means is through YOUR GOOD WORKS. If you are part of that new creation/new order/new covenant people then judgement day will justify you by your works, meaning reveal who you are and distinguish you from others who are not.

He denies the Bible condemns justification by faith without works as it is through works, he believes God accomplish his restoration of this earth and overrules the kings and kingdoms of this world and those works will justify your claim to be his covenant people.

Hence, repentance, the gospel is not about you but about some larger than you - the restoration of the world under the rule of Christ. It is the changed direction of your life (good works) and the good news that God's has come to claim this world and will restore it.

 

[percho]

Does he believe for plus 2000 years the world relative to the New Social Order is waxing, better and better or worse and worse? I would assume better and better.

I wonder if he has calculated at the rate of better and better for the plus 2000 years, that have passed, how many more years will it take unto perfection?

 

[The Biblicist]

Does he believe for plus 2000 years the world relative to the New Social Order is waxing, better and better or worse and worse? I would assume better and better.

I wonder if he has calculated at the rate of better and better for the plus 2000 years, that have passed, how many more years will it take unto perfection?

His reoccurring theme and exhortation is that Western Christianity is failing in its mandate by separating secular from faith or state from church. However, he nevertheless believes that progress is being made by demonstrating to the secular that the faith model for social reform (hospitals, feeding the poor, orphanges, etc.) is a better model than strictly secular attempts for social reform.

 

[The Biblicist]

Listen to this video by Wright on the Kingdom and keep in mind my explanation. Note his repetitious condemnation of separation of faith from secular. Take note of that he claims the "new creation" with Christ as King over it began with the cross and resurrection. After listening to this video take a listen to his video "what is the gospel" and "the jesus we never knew"

In Wright we have a combination of paedobaptist covenant theology mixed with post-millennialism.

Then listen to how he explains the echuarist enables us to accomplish the social gospel:

 

[Iconoclast]

A person like Wright is thought provoking....and yet dangerous.
He will offer or identify a truth, or a missing note....like in the video where he suggests the kingdom has been divorced from the gospel proclamation...video2
But as I listen he often comes to a conclusion that does not follow what the Bible suggests......as if he over thinks it

 

[The Biblicist]

A person like Wright is thought provoking....and yet dangerous.
He will offer or identify a truth, or a missing note....like in the video where he suggests the kingdom has been divorced from the gospel proclamation...video2
But as I listen he often comes to a conclusion that does not follow what the Bible suggests......as if he over thinks it

He is forcing the Biblical language and teaching into his covenant, sacramental postmillennial social gospel. In each case, his emphasis is "it is not about you, but about a much greater good" - meaning his theocratic society which he believes will eventually occur as the church invades the realm of secular (politics, government) and becomes a theocracy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He is forcing the Biblical language and teaching into his covenant, sacramental postmillennial social gospel. In each case, his emphasis is "it is not about you, but about a much greater good" - meaning his theocratic society which he believes will eventually occur as the church invades the realm of secular (politics, government) and becomes a theocracy.

As I have said before, Wright is far more dangerous to the Gospel than the run-of-the-mill Anglican liberals. He writes and speaks intelligently and persuasively, and uses evangelical language, but his doctrine is destructive of the true Gospel.

 

[Iconoclast]

As I have said before, Wright is far more dangerous to the Gospel than the run-of-the-mill Anglican liberals. He writes and speaks intelligently and persuasively, and uses evangelical language, but his doctrine is destructive of the true Gospel.

I have not read enough of him, so I am thankful to B for posting these direct teaching videos.

He is intelligent and thought provoking, but the danger is quite real.

 

[JonC]

I have not read enough of him, so I am thankful to B for posting these direct teaching videos.

He is intelligent and thought provoking, but the danger is quite real.

It's difficult to tell. Wright begins from a perspective that many (certainly our brother B.) detests (he assumes an Anglican theology, and as much here is addressed to that audience it is too easy to take another brother out of context). I strongly caution you about forming ideas from those videos. I suggest, instead, to have no idea or to choose a topic and read what the man has to say for himself. The videos do not do enough to explain the context of his words (and the presuppositions of his audience, which we would disagree with anyway as we are Baptists).

John Piper, I think, offered the best criticism when he pointed to the value of Wright to Pauline studies,his commitment to the authority of Scripture, his defense of marriage, deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc. but at the same time expressing disagreement on his view of justification. Piper questions the validity of Wright's use of the Qumran texts, his departure from the sixteenth century formulation of Justification, and the necessity to revisit what has been taught in Reformed churches since the Reformation. He views Wright as unnecessarily creating confusion, presenting an unclear (and perhaps not fully developed) doctrine, and - most importantly - of an ambiguity that renders his own expressions perplexing and out of the reach of his audience.

The point is that too often we demean people who hold different doctrines, draw conclusions that are sometimes not entirely warranted (here, for example, with the Sacrament video...within an Anglican view of the sacraments, Wright would be correct to see it as such a participation in the present). It is not only N.T. Wright. C.S. Lewis is right there with him (and I suggest we read Wright as we would Lewis...very cautiously).

Believe it or not, I even respect the work of Gordon Fee ...Imagine that.....reading a few books on exegesis written by a Pentecostal and actually learning something .

 

[The Biblicist]

It's difficult to tell. Wright begins from a perspective that many (certainly our brother B.) detests (he assumes an Anglican theology, and as much here is addressed to that audience it is too easy to take another brother out of context). I strongly caution you about forming ideas from those videos. I suggest, instead, to have no idea or to choose a topic and read what the man has to say for himself. The videos do not do enough to explain the context of his words (and the presuppositions of his audience, which we would disagree with anyway as we are Baptists).

John Piper, I think, offered the best criticism when he pointed to the value of Wright to Pauline studies,his commitment to the authority of Scripture, his defense of marriage, deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc. but at the same time expressing disagreement on his view of justification. Piper questions the validity of Wright's use of the Qumran texts, his departure from the sixteenth century formulation of Justification, and the necessity to revisit what has been taught in Reformed churches since the Reformation. He views Wright as unnecessarily creating confusion, presenting an unclear (and perhaps not fully developed) doctrine, and - most importantly - of an ambiguity that renders his own expressions perplexing and out of the reach of his audience.

The point is that too often we demean people who hold different doctrines, draw conclusions that are sometimes not entirely warranted (here, for example, with the Sacrament video...within an Anglican view of the sacraments, Wright would be correct to see it as such a participation in the present). It is not only N.T. Wright. C.S. Lewis is right there with him (and I suggest we read Wright as we would Lewis...very cautiously).

Believe it or not, I even respect the work of Gordon Fee ...Imagine that.....reading a few books on exegesis written by a Pentecostal and actually learning something .

These are just a sampling of many of his own video's I watched where his intent is to explain what he believes. He is a covenant, postmillennial sacramental theologian. These themes are reoccurring in all his videos. I have not taken him out of context.He is an absolute heretic.

He is teaching a new gnosticism. He argues that the scriptures are insufficient to convey the truth about who Jesus really is and what justification by faith without works really is. He argues that is why 1900 years of Christianity has got it all wrong is because they did not have the secular history of the first century to interpret the scriptures. Hence, just a few elitest intellectuals who have access to first century history can understand these things correctly.

If you would take the time to view his own videos which are designed to explain his views you would see these reoccurring themes. He believes the "new creation" occurrred at the resurrection and Christ is "king" ruling over this "new creation." He defines this "new creation" as the "new covenant people of God" and he defines their mission is to remove the separation between church and state and bring in a new theocracy and the means to do that is through his sacramental theology which in practical terms produces the works described in Matthew 25.

He believes the "new covenant people" (new creation) are the present "exodus" who have been delivered from this present world and have their mission in this wilderness journey to establish a theocracy under king Jesus. In the Exodus of Israel they came into the wilderness and established a theocracy and a tabernacle. He says the tabernacle is a minature of the new creation and the High Priest and preists convey Adam and Eve and a new world in symbolism. Just view his video's and listen to him.

 

[JonC]

These are just a sampling of the many his own video's I watched where his intent is to explain what he believes. He is a covenant, postmillennial sacramental theologian. These themes are reoccurring in all his videos. I have not taken him out of context.He is an absolute heretic.

He is teaching a new gnosticism. He argues that the scriptures are insufficient to convey the truth about who Jesus really is and what justification by faith without works really is. He argues that is why 1900 years of Christianity has got it all wrong is because they did not have the secular history of the first century to interpret the scriptures. Hence, just a few elitest intellectuals who have access to first century history can understand these things correctly.

If you would take the time to view his own videos which are designed to explain his views you would see these reoccurring themes. He believes the "new creation" occurrred at the resurrection and Christ is "king" ruling over this "new creation." He defines this "new creation" as the "new covenant people of God" and he defines their mission is to remove the separation between church and state and bring in a new theocracy and the means to do that is through his sacramental theology which in practical terms produces the works described in Matthew 25.

He believes the "new covenant people" (new creation) are the present "exodus" who have been delivered from this present world and have their mission in this wilderness journey to establish a theocracy under king Jesus. Just view his video's and listen to him.

I'm not suggesting that you view Wright otherwise. I'm just saying that there are others of his ilk out there. I use C.S. Lewis because this is often the comparison made...but you can use others like John Calvin, Whitefield, Karl Barth, Gordon Fee, and John Knox if you like..."heretics" are a dime a dozen.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not suggesting that you view Wright otherwise. I'm just saying that there are others of his ilk out there. I use C.S. Lewis because this is often the comparison made...but you can use others like John Calvin, Whitefield, Karl Barth, Gordon Fee, and John Knox if you like..."heretics" are a dime a dozen.

I don't think you understand what he is really all about and what he is really teaching. I have edited the post that you are responding to. Please reread it again.

When you take his view on justification and interpret it by the Scriptures (not by his explanations) he is clearly teaching justification by works and completely denying salvation apart from the sacraments. His sacramental theology is one key to his "new exodus" theory. Identification with his "new creation" or "new covenant people" is by the works described in Matthew 25. The MEANS to do such works comes through his sacramental theology which is inseparable from his doctrine of regeneration and sanctification.

Listen to his video "The Jesus we never knew"! Listen to his video on "what is the gospel" and see if you can find any gospel in it at all in a PERSONAL application. The whole basis for his "new perpective" and "the jesus we never new" and his claim that all of Christianity has got it wrong for the past 1900 years is that the Bible is insufficient without secular history of the first century to interpret the two most significant thing in scripture - who is Jesus and how is one saved. Think about this. The poor uneducated Christians (and elite) from the second century to this century could never really understand who Jesus is and what salvation is as they did not have secular history of the first century to make sense of scripture!!!! Pure gnosticism/elitism.

 

[JonC]

I don't think you understand what he is really all about and what he is really teaching. I have edited the post that you are responding to. Please reread it again.

When you take his view on justification and interpret it by the Scriptures (not by his explanations) he is clearly teaching justification by works and completely denying salvation apart from the sacraments. His sacramental theology is one key to his "new exodus" theory. Identification with his "new creation" or "new covenant people" is by the works described in Matthew 25. The MEANS to do such works comes through his sacramental theology which is inseparable from his doctrine of regeneration and sanctification.

Listen to his video "The Jesus we never knew"! Listen to his video on "what is the gospel" and see if you can find any gospel in it at all in a PERSONAL application. The whole basis for his "new perpective" and "the jesus we never new" and his claim that all of Christianity has got it wrong for the past 1900 years is that the Bible is insufficient without secular history of the first century to interpret the two most significant thing in scripture - who is Jesus and how is one saved. Think about this. The poor uneducated Christians (and elite) from the second century to this century could never really understand who Jesus is and what salvation is as they did not have secular history of the first century to make sense of scripture!!!! Pure gnosticism/elitism.

I believe I understand Wright well enough. I have read many of his books and watched countless lectures. I read of Stendahl, and a decade later Sanders. And Dunn and Wright. I don't buy their theology, but I appreciate some things they bring out (Wright more so than the rest).

 

[The Biblicist]

Listen to his video on what is the kingdom. Listen carefully to his own definitions. He believes that Jesus actually set up his kingdom in the terms of a "new creation" at his first coming and is presently reigning over a "new creation." He defines this new creation/kingdom as the "new covenant people" who are on their "exodus" to do exactly what israel did on its exodus into the wilderness - establish a "theocracy." Listen to him as in nearly all his video's he condemns and deplores the division between faith and secular and church and state. Listen to him define the meaning of the tabernacle/temple as a minature replica of the "new creation" and the priesthood as symbolic of "Adam and Eve" and the temple and covenant people as the "theocracy" of God. Listen to him define the mission of the church not in the terms of Matthew 28:19-20 but in the terms of his social gospel and theocracy intent of Matthew 25. Listen to his video on the Sacraments and how he explains that it is only through the Eucharist we can have a personal intimate relationship with Christ and it is ONLY through that eucharistic relationship does the power and grace to usher in the theocratic government is possible. Listen as he claims the church is partially obeying the Great Commission in feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and righting the social wrongs but they will not fully achieve this until they merge faith and secular and state. Listen to him claim the church is now presently demonstrating to the state the proper way to fix the social ills but it will not be until the church infiltrates the state will the exodus reach the promise land.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe I understand Wright well enough. I have read many of his books and watched countless lectures. I read of Stendahl, and a decade later Sanders. And Dunn and Wright. I don't buy their theology, but I appreciate some things they bring out (Wright more so than the rest).

It is obvious you do not understand him "well enough" as the things I have pointed out are reoccurring themes in all his videos.Once, you see them they stand out like big sore thumbs.

 

[The Biblicist]

As usual Jon, we will have to agree to disagree!

 

[JonC]

It is obvious you do not understand him "well enough" as the things I have pointed out are reoccurring themes in all his videos.Once, you see them they stand out like big sore thumbs.

I agree that his theology is problematic. He does bring out a good point about the kingdom that is now, but I wonder if this at the expense of the kingdom to come. Normally it's the opposite (people focus on the kingdom to come at the expense of the one which is here).

 

[JonC]

It is obvious you do not understand him "well enough" as the things I have pointed out are reoccurring themes in all his videos.Once, you see them they stand out like big sore thumbs.

I agree that his theology is problematic. He does bring out a good point about the kingdom that is now, but I wonder if this at the expense of the kingdom to come. Normally it's the opposite (people focus on the kingdom to come at the expense of the one which is here).

I, personally, do not believe Wright has demonstrated himself as unsaved because of this view. But even apart from his theology of justification his belief departs from my own.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree that his theology is problematic. He does bring out a good point about the kingdom that is now, but I wonder if this at the expense of the kingdom to come. Normally it's the opposite (people focus on the kingdom to come at the expense of the one which is here).

Here is the genius of NT Wright as a teacher. He never gives you the whole picture of his view. What he does is present it in parts. He defends the part. This is why so many are confused about what he says, because they are not able to take that "part" and make sense of it simply because that "part" does not fit with their own Biblical framework of thought. Wright defends the "part" first making it plausible, then leads the reader or view to another "part" and defends it! Why? Because he is trying to create another framework within the minds of his readers/viewers part by part.

So he does not come right out and say, "I believe Christ came as king and ushered in the "new Creation" at his resurrection and now we are His exodus people commissioned in this wilderness to establish a new theocracy under King Jesus. So, stop separating church and state as our mission cannot be accomplished until church and state are united in creating the new creation social justice order. The power to establish our mission is derived through the sacraments - new birth in baptism and personal power and relationship in and through the eucharist. Feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and righting the injustices in this world is our ultimate mission and it is those works that really identify the "new creation" or "new covenant people" and justify you as such before God - RATHER THAN PERSONAL REMISSION OF SINS AND JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT SECURES HEAVEN. HE RETORTS THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU AND SOME PERSONAL SALVATION BUT ABOUT A MUCH LARGER PICTURE - A NEW CREATION ORDER.

 

[Iconoclast]

I know Greek Tim has read him quite a bit and defends much of what he says.jonc seems to also know more about him....I downloaded a few of his addresses that I might listen to today....
I think you are on to something with this last post....partial descriptions.
I am not against the new exodus idea looking from a postmill framework, but I do.not like some of his conclusions and how he arrives there.
I use someone like him to provoke thought, but then work it out on.my own, or look elsewhere to solve the puzzle.