• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured N.T. Wright - Challenging his theology

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by mkgal1, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    In this thread: The Gospel
    it was stated that N.T. Wright has "departed orthodox beliefs". OTOH.....I believe it's more a matter of mainstream Christian theology that is changing - and causing it to appear that Wright is embracing beliefs that are "new".

    I wanted to open up discussion here and not carry the original thread off course.

    Here is a link to Wright's page: Imagining the Kingdom: Mission and Theology in Early Christianity

    If you believe Wright is heretical in his beliefs, please point out how (specifically).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus PESKY DEVIL! GIT! l SAID GIT! Supporter

    +27,452
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Truthfully, I have never read his writings and know very little of him except what I may come across on threads.

    I did a google search to find other threads on him and found one on the GT board that had some light hearted posts on it.
    [Right now, I have been "trapped" on the Eschatology board ehehe :doh:]

    N T Wright christian forums site:www.christianforums.com - Google Search

    Anyone disagree with NT Wright?

    eclipsenow said:
    A mate in theology recommends this article as a summary of his views, but warned me that one line in ten makes him bristle when he reads it! (But that it is all very thought provoking).


    .
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. redleghunter

    redleghunter Abide Boldy my friend Supporter

    +24,894
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Justification by Faith, the atonement. There are others.

    What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul by Phil Johnson

    Wright a Champion for the Historic Jesus and ardent defender of the historic Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is to be commended defending these Biblical, orthodox and historic teachings.

    It’s his joining the New Perspective on Paul where he departs Reformation and Protestant teachings.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  4. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    Have you read What Saint Paul Really Said or are you just going off what this article states? I've not read that particular book, so I'll need to do some more reading....but off just what's written, and from what else I've read of Wright's regarding Paul - I am not convinced that he's "departed orthodox beliefs" - maybe he's broken from mainstream Protestant beliefs, though.
     
  5. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    Thanks for taking the time to look up and post all that, LLoJ :)
     
  6. Residential Bob

    Residential Bob Active Member

    351
    +267
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Does it matter if he departs Reformation and Protestant teachings?

    Does he depart biblical teaching?
     
  7. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    Regarding atonement (which, AFAIK....there's not just ONE accepted theory - and that is all we have...."theories")....from N.T. Wright, I think this is an important point he brings out:

    Quoting N.T. Wright------->"The expectation of many first century Jewish people was for God to act in order to overthrow the pagan oppressors and forgive Israel’s sins in order to bring the exile to a full and final end."

    This action would be what Professor Wright calls a “new Exodus” for the people of God. God’s people were sent into exile because of their sins. Therefore, to be released from exile Israel’s sins needed to be pardoned. ~ Tracing Atonement Through the Story of Scripture - N.T. Wright Online
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus PESKY DEVIL! GIT! l SAID GIT! Supporter

    +27,452
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    That would be my thinking.
    But who were the Christian Jew' real oppressors back in the 1st century?
    I would say the corrupt murderous OC Judean rulers and not as much as the Romans.

    The Christian Jews [like Jesus] were being squeezed from both the Romans and Judean rulers, but the Romans just wanted the Jews to be pacified, for lack of a better word.

    [Sorry if this is off topic and I may create a thread on this]

    Matthew 23:4
    "For They are binding burdens, weighty/barea <926> and ill-bearing. And they are placing upon the shoulders of the men, to the yet finger of them, not are willing to move them".

    Luke 21:23
    “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
    For there will be Great Distress in the land and wrath/ὀργὴ <3709> upon this people. [1 Thess 2:16]

    1 Thessalonians 2:16
    forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins;
    but wrath/ὀργὴ <3709> has come upon them to the uttermost.


    God took care of the the bondage by the Judean rulers in 70ad by taking away their prized Temple.

    Matthew 23
    37 - “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather<1996> your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
    38 Behold! the House of ye is being left desolate/a wilderness<2048>

    Note the Temple Menorah being taken:


    Jewish–Roman wars - Wikipedia

    ... [​IMG]


    =======================================

    Then some 400 centuries later, God took down the Roman Empire and the invaders took off with the Menorah.
    Truthfully, I really didn't know Rome had held onto it that long.


    This picture shows a Menorah being taken during the sacking of Rome.

    Sack of Rome (455) - Wikipedia

    What Caused The Fall of the Roman Empire?


    [​IMG]

    "..not shall be left STONE UPON STONE in Thee.." 70ad Jerusalem/Temple Discourse

    Mat 24:3
    And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself,

    Guess where the 10th Roman Legion was camped?
    The Mount of Olives, right across from where the TEMPLE sat!!! Pretty Ironic............


    [​IMG]

    ...............................

    ,
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  9. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    Absolutely! That's why I see it as "good news" that the priesthood was taken away from them in 70 A.D.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    ....and the Jewish leaders also wanted the Romans pacified so they could hold onto the power the temple afforded them (this is on topic as N.T. Wright wrote a book titled, The Day the Revolution Began) :) :

    The Plot to Kill Jesus
    John 11:47-48 ~ Then the chief priests and Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus PESKY DEVIL! GIT! l SAID GIT! Supporter

    +27,452
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    The person that created those vids must have been inspired by the Spirit. I love the way he talks also.

    That 3rd vid shows the Romans blowing trumpets!
    I had never heard of that until I watched it. I went looking on the net and found this site, but am still looking.

    This is just mind blowing, as Trumpets are sounding in Revelation as they did in the OT. AWESOME!

    [​IMG]

    For if the Trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?

    (1 Corinthians 14:8).
    The Apostle Paul used the Roman military trumpet as a metaphor for spiritual battle. First-century historian Josephus wrote that the Roman army did nothing, except by trumpet signals. He listed three specific trumpet sounds, all of which can be devotionally applied.

    The first trumpet was a signal to prepare to depart. "Now when they are to go out of their camp, the trumpet gives a sound."(1) The Bible believer should be ready to depart swiftly for any field of conflict as ordered, always ready to fight the good fight of faith (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7).

    The second trumpet was a signal to form up: "Then do the trumpets sound again, to order them to get ready for the march."(1) At this stage, a believer should have on the whole armor of God. The Lord wants skilled warriors, lined up with others, who will do battle against the wiles of the Devil (Eph. 6:11).

    The third trumpet sound was the order to march: "Then do the trumpets give a sound a third time, that they are to go out."(1) Some have suggested that this is the equivalent of "the last trumpet" that Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:52 concerning the Rapture of the church: Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed--in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed (1 Cor. 15:51-52).
    ========================================

    Here are the 2 other vids. He is supposedly working on a 4th one.





     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  12. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +13,974
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Wright's views on Justification (specifically, what he believes St. Paul means when speaking of justification) could be considered the issue, but I've watched some video lectures from Wright on the matter, and from what I recall Wright doesn't deny the traditional idea of Justification so much as he thinks it's more than that. The idea of justification as the justifying of sinners before God isn't rejected, but rather Wright sees justification as also inclusive of larger ideas and themes:

    The context of the following quote (taken from here), is in regard to John Piper's criticism of Wright:

    "Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.

    Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).


    Third, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as in Romans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30.


    Fourth, in line with many Reformed readers of scripture, including Calvin, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification to be of those who are ‘in Christ’, whereas Piper and others don’t make that a central element in justification itself. Conversely, for Piper the center of justification is the ‘imputation’ of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, seen in terms of ‘righteousness’ as a kind of moral achievement earned by Jesus and then reckoned to those who believe. I believe that this is an attempt to say something close to what Paul actually says in Romans 6, namely that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is ‘reckoned’ to those who are ‘in him’. Putting it the way Piper (and one part of the Reformation tradition) puts it is a pointer to something which is truly there in Paul, but one which gives off misleading signals as well.


    Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.
    "

    I don't see anything problematic in Wright's treatment of Justification here a la Paul.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  13. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    To start, I am not a fan of N.T. Wright. My biggest with Wright is his position on Justification of sinners. He learned most of his theology from E.P. Sanders. In short, their theology boils down to earning Salvation by human efforts. And He also denies the Imputation of Christ's righteousness!

    For more details of N.T. Wright's theology and book reviews. I have provide a link from monergism.com:

    https://www.whitehorseinn.org/images/Horton-WrightReview.pdf

    Please read, its a must read!
     
  14. mkgal1

    mkgal1 His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33 Supporter

    +3,869
    Anglican
    Married
    This is N.T. Wright's objection to the doctrine of imputed righteousness:

    [Quoting from linked article:
    N. T. Wright explains why he denies the doctrine of imputed righteousness:

    "If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths or conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom." N. T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg. 98 - N. T. Wright vs. Michael Reeves on Imputation. | Monergism
    ]

    Is that so wrong? Do you think Paul was saying justification is as simple as "clothing us in His righteousness" and we are then righteous ourselves? Or. ..are we - going forward - still accountable for our behavior (and is it possible that behavior may NOT actually be all considered as "righteous"?). We're talking about justification - not salvation.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  15. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    Yes, I am familiar with N.T. Wright position on Justification. And I disagree with him. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is taught in Scripture. Just because it does not specifically state, "Imputed Righteousness of Christ", the concept of it, is taught. Just like the biblical teaching of the 'Trinity'. Please show me where I can find the word 'Trinity' in the Bible?

    That being said, if you deny the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, then you have to be consistent and deny our sins being Imputed to Christ on the Cross, correct? And the Imputation of Adam's sin to his progeny which cause the Fall.

    So I am curious, what's your position on, our sins being imputed to Christ. And Adam's sin being imputed to his progeny?

    Thanks in an advance.
     
  16. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +3,718
    Presbyterian
    Single
    OK, so it seems like both of you agree that God imputes righteousness to us that we don't earn. So neither is talking about salvation by human efforts.

    It's a moral theoretical question: how do you think imputation works. If it's simply God declaring us innocent it's just as gracious as transferring Christ's righteousness to us.

    The problem with transferring Christ's righteousness is that Paul never says it. He says God accepts our faith as righteousness. I've read Reformation theology pretty carefully. Calvin (who I know better than Luther) seems at times to envision righteousness as moral perfection. Since we don't and can't have that, it makes sense to think of God crediting us with Christ's. But Calvin is reading that into the text based on his understanding of what righteousness is.
     
  17. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    I beg to differ. He is using James 2:14 to state that it's the works that Justifies before God, not before men!
    Not so fast, it's not a moral theoretical question. But the very essence of the Gospel we are talking about here. Let's get this straight, sinners are under the curse; meaning sinners are CONVICTED to condemnation & death! Not understanding the plight of the ungodly before a Holy God. Will pervert and distort the Gospel of Christ that Paul preached.

    I believe we have discussed this in past, haven't we? So again I will provide the passages, and hope you will address them for us?

    Romans 4: 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

    So please notice, that "IF" Abraham WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS. Paul is very clear here, and we should use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Then Abraham has something to BOAST about; meaning he can claim he is owed because he did what was required by the Law. But Paul drives the point home here, NOT BEFORE GOD!

    So then how was Abraham justified and counted, imputed, reckoned, credited with Righteousness? This is the crucial question we need to ask, and seek for. Not with paradigm biases or to attempt to win an argument, but simply to seek the truth!

    Paul gives a explicit contrast on Faith Vs. Works to clarify any confusion.

    3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

    Here Paul is emphasizing works that are NOT COUNTED as A GIFT but as his earned wages/due/earned/merited. Question for you, what GIFT is Paul referring to, here? I know what it is. I am curious to your position on it.

    5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

    Now to the ONE who DOES NOT WORK, but believes in God who JUSTIFIES the 'UNGODLY'. Wow, Praise and Glory be to God alone who is rich in Grace & Mercy! Here is the Gift Paul was previous speaking about. Paul does not say that God Justifies the godly, righteous, holy, but the 'UNGODLY'!!! And because they believe in God who justifies the ungodly; their are counted, reckoned, credited, declare, given, imputed, given as a GIFT; righteousness.

    So now we have a very (Captain Obvious) question here. How can God account the 'UNGODLY' righteous? This is a big problem? Why? Because they are evil, wicked, wretched, condemned sinners who are under the curse of the Law! And besides this God calls this an abomination; he who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous.

    Proverbs 17:15He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

    So we ask, how can God Justify the 'UNGODLY'? Answer: Through a Promise made with Adam & Eve, and Abraham, that God will send a Promise Seed to save His People.

    Romans 8:3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    So I ask you, why did Christ have to come in the flesh, born under the Law? Why did Christ have to condemn sin in HIS FLESH; this is not HIS SIN, but ours! Why is it okay to say our sin is IMPUTED to Christ, but not Christ's righteousness to us? Now, this is a problem, right? Proverbs states that it is a abomination to condemn the righteous!

    But in Reformed Theology we teach and believe that Christ is the representative for His people. Like the first Adam was for mankind in the Garden Temple. This is why God sent the Last Adam who will save His people.

    Romans 5:17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

    18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

    Okay back to answering Proverbs 17:15. The reason God can Justify the 'Ungodly' is because their Union with Christ through Faith Alone apart from works; which they receive Christ's righteousness and ALL his heavenly blessings in Him! It's this Union with Christ that they are DECLARED righteous through Faith Alone!

    Romans 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

    Romans 8:3... By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,

    So Christ condemns sin in the flesh by becoming a CURSE for us. By our sins being IMPUTED to Christ who knew no sin, to propitiate the wrath/curse of God by His blood sacrifice in our stead!

    So by Christ being imputed with our sin, he condemned sin in the flesh! And we receive His righteousness.

    21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

    1 Cor. 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

    So here in 1 Cor. Paul states it is because of God that we are in Christ (By Grace Alone), who has BECOME FOR US WISDOM--that is, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, OUR HOLINESS, OUR REDEMPTION! How marvelous is this good news of the Gospel of Christ for the 'UNGODLY'!

    Phil. 3:9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christthe righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

    Notice here, the Righteousness that comes from God!

    And I leave you with this:

    Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

    So why did I believe in God who justifies the 'UNGODLY'? Because he made a promise to Adam & Eve, and Abraham to save us in Christ Jesus!
    I beg to differ. Just because it doesn't specially say the "Imputed Righteousness of Christ". It's concept and biblical teaching it taught. Just like the word 'TRINITY' isn't specially found anywhere in Scripture. The concept and biblical teaching is.

    Again if one doesn't understand the plight of sinner under the curse of the Law and his/her position before a Holy Righteous Judge. Then one will not understand how AMAZING God's Grace really is! I have provided a lot of Scripture. And I can go on and on. But space will not allow it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  18. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +6,557
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I think he got nailed here:

    N.T. Wright has written hundreds and hundreds of pages on the gospel, and the more you read of it, the less you understand what he affirms. It is confusing, it is ambiguous, it is contradictory, it is obfuscation of the highest level. Academic slight of hand. But while I cannot figure out what it is that he does believe, even after hundreds of pages, it is crystal clear what he does not believe.

    More recently, he has written a book ‘The Day the Revolution Began’ and in that book he says this, “We have paganized our understanding of salvation, substituting the idea of God killing Jesus to satisfy his wrath for the genuinely biblical notion we are about to explore.” So, all of us who believe in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross have been worshiping a paganized perversion of biblical truth now to be clarified by him. (The Next 500 Years: 2017 National Conference. Ligonier Ministries)​
     
  19. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    N.T. Wright also denies the Biblical teachings of the distinction between Law & Gospel in relation to Justification by Faith Alone! He denies the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. Ultimately the sinner/believer is justified by their own works!
     
  20. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +6,557
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    He also denies the creation account of Genesis 1, which is how I became acquainted with him. He posted often at Biologos.com, the blog site of Francis Collins who was the scientist who lead the Human Genome Project. I didn't like him then and I don't appreciate what is passing for his theology now. But thanks for filling me in.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
Loading...