NT Wright false teacher?

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.

 

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.

— 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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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").

 

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.

 

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'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.

 

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.

 

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