Arius, Pelagius, Marcion… will N.T. Wright be added to this list?
It’s one thing to be notable but another to be notorious and sometimes it’s hard to see where one will end up in the judgements of history.
The most well known and influential Protestants have weighed in on the doctrines of Christianity’s most controversial figure, Wright. One of those would be Michael Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology at the influential Westminster Seminary California. His influence over the past decades has increased exponentially even while being eclipsed by N.T. Wright, former Bishop of Durham (Anglican) as the world’s most catalyzing figure in contemporary theology.
With this, as we might expect, Wright has been hagiographied into a saint by some but demoted to the level of quick talking theology salesmen by others. Some of the latter might have been earned through shifting in and out of subject matter so as to never answer a question with a simple yes or no. Wright rarely answers any of the fundamental questions of traditional Christian thought in ways recognizable through the historic language, creating perhaps more nuance in theological discussion at the cost of being understood. That would include simple questions, such the status of the after life, the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, final punishments and the doctrine of the Trinity.
To see theologians disagree is normal as theologians usually do (some would say it’s what they do best) but there’s a line not often crossed that removes the face theology often wears as a mere academic pursuit among accomplished gentlemen.
“Considering Bishop N.T. Wright’s doctrine of justification, do you believe he is teaching another gospel?”
Horton answers, “J.I. Packer has a great line: Tom Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds—but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
“So, in answer to your question, yes—in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.” Michael Horton
For Horton to say that Wright is preaching another Gospel is not small potatoes within the context of his Presbyterian and Reformed theological tradition. Different lines of Christian thought have different ways of saying things and so we take them more by what they mean than what they say. In that sharply focused, carefully defined Presbyterian tradition they measure doctrines down to carefully distinguished dogmas. They categorize with judicious language. The separation of “Christian” from “non-Christian” is not passive or vague in their vernacular. Yes we can use the words in a broader sense, like Christendom or the Christian vs. the Islamic or Hindu world but also in a very particular and restrictive sense.
By saying that N.T. Wright “is preaching another Gospel” Horton is saying two things that are really one: First, that Wright is a false teacher; Second, that Wright himself is not a Christian.
It’s a bold claim.
The historic language is drawn from the prophetic words of the Apostle Paul who in writing to the Galatians:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”
So those that preach another Gospel are presumed to be under God’s curse and there aren’t any pleasant ways to take that kind of thing. It’s traditional language reserved for the very worst teachers of false Christianities.
(See: “Erasing Adam: N.T. Wright and the denial of the historical Adam“)
So what does it take to be “a Christian”?
Believing in Christ? Which Christ? Any at all? The Christ of the Hindus? Of the Muslims? Presumably the Christ of the Presbyterians gets a pass but what about Baptists, Methodists and Messianic Jews? These seem to be believing in an identical Christ – or at least so close as to be indistinguishable as to the identity of the person. Mormonism’s Christ (as a contrary example) might be the same only in name and a few historical referents.
But let’s say that while the metaphysical properties of the Christ were all in tact, he was the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior – that the message of the Jesus presented were not the message that he did in fact bring. Would believing in that Christ be a believing in the true Christ – when believing in the true Christ seems necessary to being reconciled to the true God? How far a field can that understanding of that message be and it still be a believing in Christ unto salvation?
That’s a hard question because we want to be as open as possible to the salvation of anyone that makes a profession of faith while being as careful that that profession of faith is valid. We’re not doing anyone any favors by letting them think that they have a relationship with Jesus when they really have a relationship with the dictates of their own conscience and imagination. Conscience and imagination tend to be poor measures of divine things.
This is just to say that we must not only believe in some Jesus but the right Jesus, and not just some Gospel but the true Gospel. We might even say that believing in Jesus Christ and believing the Gospel are the same thing; you can’t believe one without the other. If so, then those that miss the message miss the man, and those that miss the man miss his Father.
As Jesus explained:
That is why I said you will die with your sins unforgiven. If you don’t have faith in me for who I am, you will die, and your sins will not be forgiven.” John 8:24
And so really, what one believes about Jesus is right there with believing the Gospel. One cannot be said to be believing the Gospel and not be believing certain things about Christ. The wrong Christ seems to preclude a right Gospel. This is why, for my money, Wright’s understanding of Jesus is perhaps a greater danger than even his interpretations of justification, sanctification, grace and faith but it’s for that reason; that missing Jesus misses everything important about the Bible:
“I do not think Jesus “knew he was God” in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself, ‘Well, I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!’ ( N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus, 154).”
That quote alone would be too much for most churches.
So what is it then?
The New Perspective on Paul is essentially a restorationist movement – not wholly different from those that came before but for the liberal theological bias. The supposed restoration is to a lost Christianity obfuscated by first by Rome, then the Reformation, and perhaps more so by Evangelicalism itself.
Wright’s distaste for how most today would describe the Christian faith is evident in every lecture. He’s an apologist of sorts for a new Christianity that he claims was the original but not seen in millennia. Wright’s tools are not special revelations from angels or the visions of a prophet but the contributions of higher critical scholarship and the ongoing revisions demanded by historiographic investigations into the time and meaning of the original writers and audiences of the text. His, if it were ever to be codified into a definable system, would perhaps be a Christianity neither Protestant nor Catholic, not Anglican, Presbyterian or Methodist; like the Christianity we’ve known but also not.
What’s the big deal?
When Wright reads the Bible he does so through a lens that he and a series of like teachers have created, that leads them to take the Apostle Paul to mean very different things. Unfortunately a great deal of the historiography and hermeneutical devices are coming to nothing under the white hot spot light of time and sustained theological scrutiny.
The lens is that something entirely other is going on at the time of the writing of the New Testament than the early Church, the Reformation, or even Rome could figure out with the tools they had available. Now, because we have the insights of Higher Criticism, the Search for the Historical Jesus, access to additional texts from the era and Modern Historical methods we can judge more accurately the shape and intent of the authors of the New Testament.
This is what leads him to write:
“I am convinced, Ed Sanders is right: we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism.”
I think it’s important to write first, that no one (I mean really no one) has ever argued that early Judaism was an early version of Pelagianism. Often, in Wright’s writing, he seems to create an error that verges on absurdity and then fights it as irreconcilable with his own insight. That might make for an easy win but against what? But seriously, here we have a clear statement of the method in action, being, that the primary hermeneutical strategy of almost every major Christian thinker of the last 2000 years has been fundamentally (not just a bit) off base.
The joy of thinking every one else is wrong.
All of them, all of us, all of you, got it (Christianity) wrong. It’s not at all about salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone – nor is the yeast of the Pharisees self-righteousness or the failure to believe in Christ unto salvation – but the error is that they won’t change their ceremonial laws and let in the gentiles. Justification by good works, works of the law, morality per se, is actually what they were teaching but, and here’s the rub… that’s what Jesus and Paul were teaching too, so it’s not really a problem.
Sure that seems to be a problem, but only until we understand that Jesus and Paul were teaching a salvation by grace, faith, faithfulness, good works, repentance, church membership and being baptized rather than circumcised – once we understand that we can understand that Jesus’ (and so Paul’s) gripe with the Pharisees could not possibly have been condemning them for a works based righteousness because that’s what they themselves were supposedly teaching.
Wright describes the Gospel he thinks the Bible teaches in this way:
“The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.”CT 2009
But is the Gospel of Jesus Christ merely the announcement about changes in theology and the formation of a new community? And not the means, itself, of salvation, for all who believe that Gospel? Jesus was preaching the Gospel (he said he was) from the beginning of his earthly ministry before the things in Wright’s announcement had taken place. Did the Gospel change after Jesus’ ministry to a differing announcement?
Wright seems to be replacing the believing in Jesus with mere joining of the movement of Jesus. More like agreement with particular political party than a living faith as the effect of a spiritual regeneration from spiritual death to spiritual life; the effect is to make the Gospel an announcement rather than a means to regeneration, faith, justification and restoration to God.
This becomes particularly important when we try to understand the place of “faith” in regard to salvation, understood by the Reformation as being the “instrumental cause” of justification. That believing true things is a necessary means of receiving saving grace. In any case, believing false things, false gods, false goods is almost always held out as cause for the approbation of God. How much more false Gospels or false Christs.
The difference between believing in a false Christ and the true one, a false Gospel and the genuine article, is largely in what we think to be true. If we believe that Jesus is identical with Vishnu or Baal the passion or sincerity with which we hold that commitment will not make that Christ alive. That Christ will be false regardless of our fastidious worship or the greatness of our sacrifices given to earn their approval. It’s an article, a fabrication, an idol of the mind. There is an historical objectivity to the Christ of God that does not condescend to our subjective intent. The extraordinary care we exercise in making sure we are in the faith is relative to our status as fallen creatures in need of grace; given the opportunity we might create idols but we cannot be saved by them.
Hebrews 11:6 says, “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”
Faith in the Bible is often stated in terms of rightness of thought, of information, of thinking that certain things are true, being faith itself. It might be more than this but it seems to never be less than this, and is never confused or misinterpreted as “love”, good works or merely being a member of a given community. This is why its causation in regard to justification was said to be instrumental in regard to grace.
In Wright’s view, being a part of the group that holds these things effectively “becomes” the salvation promised in the Gospel and so faith itself become a mere series of activities of membership in a particular group. It does not actually require a definable spiritual component. This is often spoken of in Wright circles as the rejection of the Gospel as demanding personal or individual salvation rather than entrance into the community defined by the Gospel. Once faith and salvation and the Gospel have been re-interpreted in the light of Wright’s definitions they look very different than what the Church, any Church, has perhaps ever thought that the Gospel ever was. New Gospels are by their very nature dangerous things.
What the church has said faith is, is knowledge, assent and trust: a trust that rests in the completed work of Christ and holds nothing in its hand but sin.
So the idea of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the definitions and understanding of traditional orthodox Christianity is not what Wright means by these things and very much that with which he disagrees. Minimally, though using familiar terms, he has a different “salvation” in mind through means of a different Gospel. How much that impresses our religious conscience might say a lot about how we read the Bible.
Wright famously explains his thought on this:
If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, 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 . . . If we leave the notion of ‘righteousness’ as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).
Now a lot of people miss first that the “law court” language is exactly the language of sacred scripture but more, the language that the church has always used to speak of these things because salvation does seem to be in part a legal transaction between the King of Kings and his world. But more, the derogatory language toward God, saying that he would hardly want to worship a God that does what God does indeed seem to do should not be easily excused. It’s almost as if Wright is saying that we that hold to the old faith are not indeed Christians; that we hold to a God that is hardly worthy of worship. Ouch.
Here, Wright would argue that while Christ did in a sense die for the sins of the baptized community; they receive the declaration of righteous status from God in the absence of receiving a righteousness from God. We receive neither the Roman Catholic infusion of righteousness that makes one actually good in themselves nor the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. We simply have the declaration of a transfer of status from guilty to innocent.
And so we end up with Wright following through by saying that the righteousness of God in our salvation applies strangely, only to God himself – not being given to those whom he saves. The “righteousness of God” in our salvation, in Wright’s thought, is that righteousness that God already has in himself.
Calvin spoke differently about these things:
This is a definition of that righteousness which he said had been revealed when Christ was given, and which, as he has taught us in the first chapter, is made known in the Gospel. He affirms that it consists of two parts. The first is that God is just, not indeed as one among many, but as one who contains in Himself alone all the fullness of righteousness. He receives the full and complete praise which is His due only as He alone obtains the name and honor of being just, while the whole human race is condemned of unrighteousness. The other part refers to the communication of righteousness, for God does not by any means shut His riches within Himself, but pours them forth upon mankind. The righteousness of God, therefore, shines in us in so far as He justifies us by faith in Christ, for Christ was given in vain for our righteousness, if there were no enjoyment of Him by faith. It follows from this that in themselves all men are unrighteous and lost, until a remedy from heaven was offered to them. Calvin, On Romans 3
I mean, it’s not as if no one ever asked the Apostle Paul what they must do to be saved. His answer was. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…” Acts
Here, Wright’s sacerdotalism and Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology might confuse his conscience and perhaps his reading of relatively simple texts according to his previously established presuppositions about the nature of justice and the ways of God. We can’t come to God and tell him what kind of a God he should be, what methods he must follow or how best to realize his ends. Neither can we give him orders as to the appropriate means for saving our souls. He does so through the simple believing of the message of Christ and so knowing what that message is (so that we can believe it) is of the utmost importance. Getting it wrong would seem to be of vast consequence.
Where does this go?
We could describe the new dogma in this way: we come into the covenant with God through grace and faith but we stay in the covenant unto justification and eternal life through good works and legal obedience; if we do err so as to be cast out of the visible church by the clergy our election becomes non-election, our justification is lost and our salvation fails. Christ did intend to keep us because the offer of salvation is well-meant but we can thwart that intent to save. Even if we did “believe the Gospel” faith is defined in such a way as to make that incapable of causing our justification according to the righteousness of Christ; it is necessary but not sufficient for our salvation. Christ covered our sins but the righteousness we bring will be wholly our own – helped by grace of course.
This is sometimes described as that all covenants with God are by grace but conditioned upon the works of the law for that grace to have its full efficacy.
This is of course almost identical to Wesley and the theology of the Higher Life sanctification movements so prevalent in the 1800s but more importantly, brings back the sanctification as the ground of justification roots of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. When we do all that we can with the grace given us we are justified upon the basis of our due labors and performance of the laws within the covenant of God. The Covenant of Grace is conditioned upon legal obedience judged upon the basis of the entire life as lived; measured down to the jot and title. That’s the doctrine. Its amazing and frightening.
Confusingly, as described it is said to be an affirmation of grace alone, denying meritorious salvation while, powerfully demanding that our justification before God be dependent upon His final judgment of all of our works of good or evil in this body of flesh (and if found wanting, condemned). Which might lead us to believe that even if the term ‘merit’ is avoided its plain meaning comes back with a vengeance upon the conscience of the soul looking to Christ.
I recently had a run with this doctrine at Fuller Seminary in a class I was taking with Richard Mouw (former President of Fuller Theological Seminary) with the visiting President of the Mormon church, who quoted the following verse in relation to his glowing reviews of N.T. Wright.
“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”
2 Nephi 25:23
As far as he was concerned, now that Wright had come Mormons and Christians were almost fully reconciled. (It’s going to be a little more complicated than that, I think) He went on to say that since doing all we can do with the grace given us and being judged upon the basis of those works is also reconcilable with Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy that all Christian folk could be reconciled through Wright.
Those are big shoes. Big fat shoes.
Figures as large in American theology as John Wesley thought many of the same things but for different reasons, so there does seem to be a precedent, for those that like Wesley. He too denied the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and affirmed our inevitable judgement on the basis of our own works with performed with the grace of God.
And so Wright said about our receiving the righteousness of Christ in our salvation:
“Imputed righteousness” is a Reformation answer to a medieval question, in the medieval terms which were themselves part of the problem.” ― Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision
While the final words of J. Gresham Machen, formative grandfather of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church were:
“I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” to John Murray
As the Apostle Paul tells it:
“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Romans 3:19 – 28
On this, many these days argue that there Paul in referring to the law was speaking in terms of circumcision and the ceremonial laws. The signs of the Old Covenant were said to be acting as boundary markers for the measure of the people of God. To the contrary, Paul had just spent 3 chapters speaking to every kind of sin: blasphemy, homosexuality, idolatry, murder, slander, atheism, talking about people being completely divorced from the love of God. Plainly, he is not restricting his thought to Judaism and ceremonial laws.
The universality of the law and its applicability to all flesh seems to be of primary importance in making his point.
Here, Paul knows that he’s entering into a hard sell. He is trying to convince the reader that there are two salvations; one by law and one through faith. One means of salvation through perfect obedience to the laws of God and another through faith in Christ in the absence of such obedience. “The law”, loving God and loving our neighbor, the moral form of the Ten Commandments, become the means of God’s exercise of His jurisdiction over all (“So that every mouth many be stopped and all the World held accountable to God”).
But by the law no flesh will be justified; through the law, even though the law is good in itself, reveals that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The law is perfect in itself but if we break the law it becomes the means of our condemnation. We no longer have any hope in a salvation by means of the law because it is the law itself that condemns us.
Here, by the mercy of God, there is another means of salvation, that the law and the prophets approve. It is not “through” the law but neither does it disagree with or act in a way contrary to the law. There is the ‘law of works’and the ‘law of faith’ and these are mutually exclusive.
As with the Patriarchs, “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”. Even Abraham was reconciled to God through ‘the law of faith’ and not through ‘the law of works’; how much more we who are the children of Abraham. As Paul explains the same truth in Ephesians 2, “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God…”
Church membership was important to the Apostle Paul as were the sacraments – plainly those two were a response to a living faith that placed the person in the context of having received reconciliation to God through receiving the grace and merits of the cross work of Christ and not the ticket for admission to a salvation that would then be gained through ritual and membership.
It was the “saved” that joined the church and not the church that applied salvation to those with an already existing faith. There is here a distinction between the Visible and the Invisible church (Augustine) such that though they are ideally identical, and certainly overlapping, they are distinguishable. Not all members of one are members of the other. This often comes to the surface in conversations over the “objectivity” of the covenant. The objectivity of the covenant of Grace is fully affirmed by those with an understanding of that objectivity reconcilable with the Westminster Confession of Faith. But here the objective factor is faith. If one has a true and lively faith one is objectively identifiable as the elect of God and the recipient of salvific grace.
Here, and this is important, we do not allow those with a credible profession of faith to be baptized and join our churches so that we might make them Christians. We baptize and receive vows of membership only from those that have already made a credible profession of faith as the response of the church to the work of Christ already evident in their faith and life.
(The exception of course is in the case of infants who are baptized into the covenant of grace as already considered holy by God upon the faith of even one believing parent (1st Cor 7).
There is no magic in a baptism that makes a child a Christian; neither any in the Pastor or the Priest but there is a real relation between the sign the thing signified. Every Christian should be a member of the Christian church but church membership alone, or even coupled with Baptism, will not save in the absence of a true and lively faith, and that in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith, instead, is what makes one’s Baptism effectual and what makes one a member of that true and invisible Church. (Calvin)
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, … Romans 4:5 (ESV)
The Westminster Confession of Faith also addresses this here:
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love WCF 11.2
The Westminster Shorter Catechism says this:
WSC Q.86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
The Confession also addresses seeing the good works (love) of those that have faith as the effect of faith and not as the cause of a later grace of Justification correspondent to an earning obedience. People can call it whatever they want but a salvation contingent upon the value of good works performed toward a future reward is banking more than gratitude:
faith is never alone in those justified but is always accompanied by all other saving graces; it is not a dead faith but works by love (WCF 11:2).
Christopher Neiswonger JD, MA; RE OPC/PCA; TE ARPC
39 thoughts on “Is N.T. Wright a Christian?”
Interesting article. Found some parts informing, but this article is also really an unfortunate missrepresentation of NT Wright’s theology and the New Perspective(s). I’ve read quite a few of Wright’s works and the things you say about his teachings are either completely false or viciously quoted out of context in this article. I admire your work for the Lord, but I find it a bit dissapointing to see you calling others heretics when you just don’t fully understand what they are saying. One thing that Wright always emphasises is the importance of the very reformed rule of sola scriptura…only Scripture can lead us to the truth and no tradition can override what Scripture says. We should let the Bible speak for itself. If it doesn’t agree with our traditions then we change our traditions, even if it is our reformed tradition. As Scott Kcknight once said regarding all of this: Wright, who is an Anglican, has beaten the reformers at their own game. I am not opposed to you dissagreeing with Wright. John Piper (whom I esteem highly) disagrees with Wright, but Piper doesn’t say NT Wright is not a Christian, because that is not something Piper has the authority to do. Once again, I honour you as my brother Christ, but I would ask for you to maybe be a bit more open-minded to learn something from someone like Wright instead of denouncing him as a heretic because he doesn’t agree with everything reformed theology says.
I read a comment that referred to Apostle Paul’s rebuke of Apostle Peter.
Apostle Peter did not continue in the error, but N.T. Wright continues in his error which is a significant error. This is not a minute point, it is the Gospel.
I think he would fairly be classified as a false teacher. Correct?
If he believes what he is teaching, would he be believing: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone?
Lord’s blessings to you, your family and friends.
From my reading I gather N.T. Wright’s teachings are false teachings.
I will definitely be careful not to expose anyone else to his false teachings/ errors.
Should I consider him a false teacher, where I should stay clear of him?
Re: Dan says:
March 18, 2017 at 2:13 am
“He’s an apologist of sorts for a new Christianity that he claims was the original but not seen in millennia.”
That was precisely the attitude of the Reformers and yet you take no issue with them. Why?
My understanding is that the reformers position was let’s get back to the original in original language and let’s get back to understanding the Church fathers.
Either Wright is a rank heretic or a completely useless communicator. What is to be gained by adding nuance upon nuance so as to be incomprehensible? But it seems to me that enough of his crystal clear utterances, such as his denial of imputation, render him heretical while his fan base can and do refer to all the pages of obscurity to insist that calling him so is to take him out of his own context. But I am not keen on wading througfh hundreds of pages only to find heresy hidden beneath fudge. Does not the Bible say that many words is a front for sin? And, to conclude, Why, if we do believe in sola scriptura, do we bother chasing after teachers anyway? Even if Wright were right he is not our saviour
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW.. Just to clarify.
I don’t mean to suggest that Wright is right. 🙂
I include him in this lust for intellectualism. Going beyond what is written. What is clear. Ultimately it’s a lack of faith to data mine every topic.
Christianity will continue to be fragmented by so called leaders and their apologists who through their own pride and self righteousness, yes Self Righteousness, continue the work of the Pharisees, Inquisition, Calvinists, Arminians, and all other groups who go beyond what is written, what is clear, what is essential.
That confession is a mess of pedantic legal intellectual religion that completely suffocates the simplicity of the gospel.
God so loved the World that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
The problem is lust for arguments, power, and everything that goes with that feeling that, “I have the real truth… Not you”. Who’s next in line to be burned at the stake. Step right up. NT Wright
It’s religion on Paper. An army of mathematicians serving the poor and needy with pencils.
Utterly astonished that no one has challenged the question. Neiswonger’s arrogant assumption that not only does he have a right to pose the question, but is also in a position to answer it invalidates his response. To assert that someone’s claim to a relationship with Christ is posited on agreement with some arcane and arguably dubious theology really is to miss the point.
the so-called “new perspective” is not a “restorationist movement.” Catholics have always known, from Thomas Aquinas all the way back the earliest church fathers, that Romans and Galatians were about the issue of Jews, Gentiles, and Torah. this is not a “new” perspective – but the constant perspective of all Christians for 2,000 years. except of course for a small minority who have followed Luther.
Glad I am a Catholic. Geez.
This is a good article, I have enjoyed reading it. I have read a number of N T Wrights books (NTPG, JVG, RSG + surprised by Hope) and have found them to be fascinating works. The complexity sometimes goes over my head, but overall they have opened up a side of Scripture I had not really encountered before.
What surprises me is that in those three books I never detected any suggestion that salvation or justification was contingent on works, at any point. Quite the opposite. Not having read the books you quote is an obvious problem in my response, but I am suspicious that you have maybe misunderstood his arguments or sentiments. His quotes seem damning, but then so do some Scriptures when context is ignored. I wonder if this anti-Wright sentiment (and possible misreading of his works/cherry-picking quotes) stems from the classic theological wars that Christians from different traditions seems to enjoy getting involved with, rather than him actually being apostate.
I also find the reformed assertion that Salvation is by brace, and not works, while yet still seemingly dependent on a 100% accurate interpretation of God’s methods for salvation for which there seems to be no grace, somewhat contradictory if not ironic! I would have thought getting our beliefs in this matter a bit muddled on some points might itself fall under God’s grace. We are all, after all, fallen, and the fall no doubt applies to our intellect. Of course Scripture has some firm words for false teachers, but as above I think his teaching is being misinterpreted here.
What I think Tom does believe in is a living faith – much in line with the arguments presented in James. At least that’s the theme that seems to be present in the books I have read. There is no doubt to his belief that Christ is the Son of God. Given we believe that Christ emptied Himself of his Glory when He became flesh, it is not too much of a stretch to argue that maybe that included a degree of His self-awareness – my meaning being we cannot condemn a Christian for a exploring that idea. I don’t really think that myself, but it’s fair to argue it.
I suggest also you remember that all teachers are fallible, and all err. Whether Augustine, Calvin or Wright, they all contribute useful thoughts while also making mistakes. What would you prefer, that no teacher dared think through something differently because their salvation might be at risk? My reading and listening to Tom suggests that he is a man who walks with God and knows Him. Maybe those who disagree with him could also remember to show some humility and have grace for his failings, while also recognising the areas where he has powerfully contributed to Christian thought.
Dear Brother thank you for this long articles regarding NT Wright. I hope and pray that the Lord will use this to weak up some people here in the UK who follow this mans false teachings. I would like to invite you to my blog: https://thepilgrimsmedia.wordpress.com/
May God bless you.
Heretics and schismatics condemned by the Catholic Church (the original Church closest to the Apostles), using the Bible that the Catholic Church complied and declared to be Scripture to condemn one another as heretics. By whose authority are these Protestants/Anglicans speaking? Kind of ridiculous.
Thanks for writing. Two quick thoughts.
I think you’re referring to Matt 7:1-6. In that passage, Jesus is calling us away from hypocritical judgment, not judgment in general. In fact, if you notice v.6 (I’m doing this from memory, I think that’s the right verse), he instructs us to not waste our wisdom on an unbeliever who will reject it. Following what he says right there requires us to judge a person. Also note what Jesus tells us in Matt 7:15-20 which does not stand in conflict with what he said in 7:1-6.
In 2 Cor, Gal, Phil 3:2, and especially the Pastoral Epistles, Paul demonstrates judgment of false believers. Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders to protect the sheep in Acts 20. What we see here is that judging is required if a man is to be a faithful shepherd. In his first epistle, John models judgment (2:18ff) and speaks of us discerning false teachers (4:1-6).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I once read an article stating that everything we look at will ultimately be determined through the deeper lens that we are looking through. If I am already preoccupied with a lens of youth’s rights and how they should be treated “more fairly” in our judicial system, then when debating the issue of Young Offenders, I am going to be strongly for the youth, and strongly against anyone that opposes me.
That being said, looking deeper at this article – what I see ultimately is not the issue of N.T Wright and whether he is or is not a Christian. What I see is a lens problem. Now don’t get me wrong, I am no theologian nor am I one who has read 1000 books on issues and topics such as these; I am just a young man with a keen eye, as I am sure most of you are as well (in reference to the keen eye).
The lens problem is that, the lens that Mr. Neiswonger so beautifully (yes it was well written) wrote through is a lens that Mr. Calvin looked through (and wrote through) as well. Maybe calling this a problem isn’t the best word, but more of an issue. Based upon this though, I think the real issue is not about righteousness through faith alone or N.T Wright’s apparent false Christianity, but again the same old argument that I hear and read everywhere: Calvinism vs. Arminianism. That is the tension I feel as I read between the lines in this article, and hey, maybe I am wrong.
It is interesting that Mr. Neiswonger would point out the ridiculousness of how N.T Wright could think he is Wright, and yet everyone else is wrong; when this seems to be the same for those who look through more of a Calvinistic lens. Or hey, maybe I am wrong again? But it seems that anyone that look through a different lens than that of John Calvin is wrong, arrogantly singled out that he is wrong, and what seems now to be the judgement that “maybe they aren’t Christians after all”.
Hear me out once more. I am still figuring out which lens I am going to look through. Calvin or Arminius? Yes, discredit me for being one who doesn’t have it all figured out yet, but let me just share this last thought. I am an Addictions Counsellor, and I know a little bit about harm-reduction. I admit, this parallel that I am about to attempt is not perfect, but it should do. Harm reduction is ridiculous to some people. There is a program in BC that allows drug users to go and be assisted by nurses to inject themselves, there are programs and health units that will pass out safe crack smoking kits and free needles. The reason for this, is these people know that the drug problem will never go away, so harm reduction is there best option.
This problem of which lens we look through, Calvin or Arminius, is never going to go away. One said believes they are right – making the other wrong. While the other side believes they are right, insinuating that the others are wrong as well. What I am tired of is the arrogance hidden behind our conversations and debates with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter the severity of the topic. I agree we need to get some things straight, but for me to discredit people as Christians is an area where I am not qualified, and for that reason- I am out.
A sinner saved by grace.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He expresses gratitude for the cross. How can one be grateful for the cross and not acknowledge it’s purpose, namely our sin? I think it is wrong to write a man off as lost when you know so little about him. Some people are so ready to impart damnation on others, that they often lose sight of what Jesus said about judging somebody else’s heart. Or have you forgotten that the Bible says th a it is to his own master he will stand or fall? You will not be on the throne on Judgement Day. I suggest you abdicate now.
“He’s an apologist of sorts for a new Christianity that he claims was the original but not seen in millennia.”
That was precisely the attitude of the Reformers and yet you take no issue with them. Why?
Thank you for writing. Here though, there’s nothing of substance to which I might meaningfully respond. The quote by Wright about the nature of Jesus’ self-understanding of his deity is in fact a quote. The quote you provide does not change that which he intended. More, the quote you provide seems to be somewhere between unintelligible and simply false. Is it true that Jesus knew he was God in the way that we know we are loved? There’s no reason to think that might be an accurate description. First I guess we’d have to know how we know we are loved and then compare? In any case it doesn’t really speak to the matter because Wright has been as deliberate and careful as possible to explain that whatever the historical church has thought till now, that we meant by saying that Jesus claimed to be God, we were wrong. He goes to great lengths proposing the presentations of Dunn, Borg, Vermes and others and while disagreeing on applications and fundamentals does not come to wholly different conclusions; that while Jesus was certainly a “visit” and a presentation of God in some powerful figuratory sense, him actually being the real and true creator of the universe is not what is intended. That Jesus was fully God and fully man yet one person? It’s a very Christian thing to say but as to how Jesus understood his deity Christians believe that he pre-existed his human manifestation and birth. With this, in his humanity he did learn and grow as any other man. Wright uses as a mocking device the supposed day when Jesus stood up to say, “My goodness, I’m the second person of the Trinity!” This seems to be another one of the times that Wright sets up an understanding of the faith that no one has ever held and then argues against it as if someone has been refuted by the absurdity of it all. In Wright, Jesus is certainly and “embodiment” of YHWH, and perhaps even in a way unique in history, but we need to find some subtle way to make him God among us without him being God above us.
What he does plainly say is this, “My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake.”
Did Jesus think he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake? There’s nothing in the historical records that would lead to that conclusion. No confusion, no hysterical breakdown, no doubt or temptation to flee his own misunderstanding. What we see is psychological, personal and intellectual clarity.
Does Wright ever think that perhaps he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake? WWJD
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would just like to say that it is dishonest if you to cite N.T. Wright’s quote about the awareness of his deity without adding what Wright also said, namely “Jesus knew that he was God in the way that we know we are loved.” I have no problem with honest criticism and evaluation of theologies, but this article is a clear example of cherry-picking someone’s theology to support you condemnation of it without actually grappling with his whole thought process. Very unfortunate.
At least edit your post to accurately reflect this gay quote.
I am grateful to have stumbled across this site. I received one of those advertisement feeds on my Facebook page regarding N.T. Wright’s latest book “The Day the Revolution Began”. Let me say at the outset that I have never read any of N.T. Wright’s works in toto, but rather excerpts and selected quotes. What I have read has been discomforting, giving that type of response in which the hairs on the back of one’s neck says that something just isn’t right here. My response to the FB advert was to search if anyone “out there” has also questioned Mr. Wright’s orthodoxy, or was I just being ignorant and unread. That’s the how and why of my landing on your site.
What I read here was very disturbing, but also validating as to my visceral reaction to Wright’s latest, dare I say “heresy”, or perhaps heterodoxy. There are times that I seem to have these internal red flags that go off and every time I have been exposed to his work, they go off. What disturbs me is the acceptance of Mr. Wright “refreshing” and “important” theological and biblical understanding. Sad to say, he is being taught in even some ACNA churches without deeper questioning as to what he really is teaching. If your assessment is correct, then what he is teaching is sheer hopelessness for the vast majority of us miserable sinners who have fled to Jesus for our salvation and His perseverance of that salvation for which He paid by His own precious blood.
Maybe I have an incorrect understanding of C.S. Lewis, but the notion that Wright is “widely considered to be the heir to C.S. Lewis” to be appalling to me. Granted, I am a special affinity for C.S. Lewis because I think of myself as a kindred spirit having been drugged kicking and screaming into faith in God and in His Son Jesus Christ at the age of thirty. For someone like me the notion that my salvation is dependent upon me keeping my faith wholesome and intact is devastating and literally brought me to tears. When I read “When we do all that we can with the grace given us we are justified upon the basis of our due labors and performance of the laws within the covenant of God. The Covenant of Grace is conditioned upon legal obedience judged upon the basis of the entire life as lived; measured down to the jot and title. That’s the doctrine. Its amazing and frightening.”, I said out loud “Then I am doomed, I have no hope, for I cannot live in legal obedience for even a day and I will never be able to make up for all the sins of my entire life.”. If that is truly what N.T. Wright is teaching, then he actually creates the mind-set in most people a course of reckless hedonism, that the narcissistic nihilism that pervades our culture is the only rational philosophy and life style worth pursuing.
You are correct when you wrote it’s amazing and frightening. Wright is definitely not a role model for true evangelism, for I find no good news for sinners in the gospel he is proclaiming. I was grateful to read your response in which you describe the “gospel you signed up for”. For I, too, know only to well, that my only contribution to my salvation is my sin. Unfortunately my concerns about N.T. Wright have not been assuaged, but rather I now see him as being a dangerous “theologian and biblical scholar” of the type that St. Paul warned St. Timothy of so long ago. May God bless you and please keep up the good work.
I have never paid much attention to Wright, but I have never heard him express an interest in forgiveness, a remorse over sin, an enjoyment of knowing God, gratitude for eternal life, or fear over the wrath of God. Long before I ever heard of the NPP, I always recognized Wright and Dunn to be lost.
So here you’re thinking that though Horton thinks Wright preaches another Gospel – Horton thinks that Wright believes the true Gospel? Being that saving faith is believing the Gospel, preaching another Gospel seems inconsistent with believing the true one. Why would someone that believes the Gospel preach one that is different from the one they believe? That seems confusing. We all preach the Gospel that we believe. Still, the only option would be that we think that some are saved through believing a false Gospel and there we run headlong into all kinds of biblical troubles. How many Gospels are there? How many of them can save? How right do they need to be before another Gospel becomes one that can save? These are hard questions but I think that if we accuse someone of preaching another Gospel we had better be saying that we do not think that they are a Christian. We are saying that they do not have a saving faith. We want them to be a Christian and to come to a saving faith but that can’t be the course without an apprehension of the authentic Gospel. Anything less than the Gospel is no Gospel at all. The whole point of an exercise like this (measuring the faith of a man – which is dangerous stuff) is so that the man can be saved and that those that share in a gospel of straw might come to a full and saving knowledge of the truth. If the only gospel that we had ever heard were Wright’s and Horton is right that it is ‘another gospel’, we can be reasonably sure we would still be in our sins. I want to be more sure than that of my status in regard to the grace of God. There is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ and all of the others together are snares for the soul, at best. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”
bburns, I have found that profs at Westminster seem to refuse to say someone is not a Christian, but since Horton was echoing Gal 1:8-9 where Paul calls down God’s wrath on anyone who does not believe in Christ for their righteousness, it would seem to be that Horton was in fact rejecting Wright as a child of God. If Horton did not mean to use Gal 1 in that way, then he would be saying a Christian can indeed preach a different gospel that is in reality no gospel at all.
In my initial response, I pointed to Eph 4 and 1 Jn. But insofar as knowing if someone has been given by God to the church as a servant of the word, we should first look to 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. In Titus 1:9 Paul says he must be sound in the faith. Men such as Don Garlington, Dan Fuller, Dunn, Wright, and Wright’s colleague Scott Hafemann certainly are not as they deny the essential law-gospel distinction and thereby reject faith alone.
I’m afraid we’re talking past one another, Nieswonger. My point is very focused; it is simply that Horton has not said NTW is not “a Christian.” You are free to equate “teaches another gospel,” as ontologically synonymous with not being “a Christian.” I simply said Horton has not made that judgment, at least that I’ve read, or that you’ve demonstrated here from. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can see why that might be a bit confusing because he does give reference to J.I. Packer but the statement that Wright is teaching another Gospel is Horton’s and in agreement with all that he has taught on the subject elsewhere.
The interview progresses in this way:
Interviewer Burk Parsons: “Considering Bishop N.T. Wright’s doctrine of justification, do you believe he is teaching another gospel?”
Response by Horton: “J.I. Packer has a great line”:
“Tom Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds” [Packer]”
“-but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes—in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.” Horton
The quote that Horton uses by Packer is a famous quote and easy to identify (even if it is one word off but when a person quotes another on the fly in the middle of a verbal interview we might not expect perfection). The point is that the reference to Wright and him preaching another Gospel is explicitly Horton’s.
Were Horton to have said that Packer had said that Wright were preaching another Gospel the statement would have been false. It is not Packer’s statement.
Here’s a similar teaching by Professor Scott Clark that teaches with Horton at Westminster (this isn’t given to show that Horton must agree with Clark but to show a basic synonymity of thought):
“If there is anything about which a church must be unapologetically clear and unequivocal it is the good news of Jesus Christ and the good news is not that we’re in by grace and we stay in through faith and works. The good news is not that in the resurrection of Christ God has vindicated himself and merely broken down the old ceremonial barriers between Jew and gentile. The truth is that the Rev Dr N. T. Wright has fundamentally re-defined what justification is. He has re-defined the good news such that it isn’t “the” good news any more, i.e., it’s not that Jesus has died as the substitute for elect sinners and that his suffering active obedience and his death have been imputed to all who believe in him and that he was raised on the third day for their righteousness with God.” Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Westminster Seminary California
Here’s a brief online interview with similar professors of theology agreeing with the principal http://www.ligonier.org/learn/media/wright-teaching-another-gospel/
The exact quote by Packer is as follows: “”N.T. Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds” but that isn’t really the crux of your question, it is that the denial of Wright’s gospel is supposedly Packer’s and not Horton’s. While it might be that both share the same understanding of Wright the assertion that he is preaching a different gospel is from Horton.
And as for claiming that Packer said that, we would not want to present Packer’s position more strongly that he himself would like.
I am also “not a fan” of NTW’s views, either, but it should be pointed out that the ‘conclusion’ that he is “not a Christian” was not made by Horton. Note:
‘“So, in answer to your question, yes—in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.” Michael Horton”‘
That’s all from the OP that Horton is quoted as saying about NTW. The ‘conclusion’ attributed as fitting well “with an Escondido theologian’s vision of things, but not with a catholic understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” appears to be Nieswonger’s, not Horton’s.
You’d have to ask him yourself, but Horton’s own practice of listening to others’ viewpoints, to the point of having a show with regular contributors from Reformed, Baptist, and Lutheran denominations of Christendom, including guests from across the entire spectrum of the visible Church, would make him unlikely to be so crass, but very likely to point out that no less than Peter himself was called “condemned” by Paul in Galatians 2 (vv. 11-21).
Now, Paul never visited Escondido (unless perhaps the Mormons know something they haven’t shared…yet). But even Horton wouldn’t conclude Paul was saying here that Peter is not a Christian. In fact, as another commenter has pointed out above, the term itself was applied to disciples of Christ by some, starting, we are told, “at Antioch,” but it’s not necessarily a label originating within the Church.
I think Horton would simply point out that if Peter (or NTW, or anyone else) believes and teaches that ‘righteousness is through the law,’ (i.e. ‘another gospel’) then ‘Christ died for no purpose,’ and ‘thus he [Peter, et al] ‘stood [or stands] condemned.’
I don’t think the author of this post has really engaged with Wright’s thinking. He does a marvelous job of referencing what Wright says but in my opinion promptly dismisses and caricatures it without wrestling with what he says. For instance in quoting a CT 2009 article about what Tom calls the Gospel the author describes it as a “mere change in theology.” I am surprised the author says to the claim that Jesus has been enthroned Lord of the world is “mere theology.” This is especially surprising since the author is admirably trying to tell us we should stick to the true Gospel, which if I am not mistaken, according to Paul and other NT authors is Jesus reigns. Again if you understood how Tom Wright views theology especially from “The New Testament and the People of God” and “Paul and the Faithfulness of God” you would know he does not take theology lightly. You yourself, appeal a lot to what you call early on “mere” quoting Calvin and the Westminster Catechisms as well as appealing to “classical” interpretations. I believe you would agree with me that the resurrection is the linchpin upon which Christianity stands and fall. It amazes me that the individual who has produced one of the best defenses of the resurrection in recent years, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by Tom Wright, is not a Christian. Now what makes that particular book so formidable is the scholarship. Tom’s is a first century historian and as such he attempts to understand the NT within it’s native historical context which he does in the volume on the resurrection. That is why he constantly appeals to how we have historically understood the text against the background of 2nd Temple Judaism. Regarding the study of the NT in its historical context the so-called “New Perspectivers” you unfortunately lump in one bag not regarding there differences between Sanders, Dunn and Wright. The article lightly skips over these nuances in thinking of which Tom himself would not be pleased by. You perpetuate this us versus them mentality which Tom is constantly criticising. There are things we can agree on and there are things we can disagree on but we do not need to draw battle lines. Before I forget one thing you miss from Tom’s work is the importance of narrative. (My little response is overly long so I cannot get into it.) You have missed a lot of what Tom Wright is about and have not grappled with his process, the way he arrives at his results. Tom is doing his best to actually read the NT and the rest of the Bible seriously. Perhaps, the author and everyone who claims a to be a true teacher needs to take this seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your clear explanation of the doctrine of jusitification (which I thoroughly agree with).
Could I suggest that we evangelicals be a bit more careful in our terminology, in relation to the word “Christian”?
In evangelical circles we tend to use the word “Christian” to describe someone who is regenerate, justified, saved, etc.
However in many other traditions (including general English language in the secular sphere) people use “Christian” to mean “someone who has made a public identification with the Christian church.”
Now it’s interesting that the three uses of the word “Christian” the the NT all seem to refer to labels given by outsiders (Acts 11:26; 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16). Insiders used terms like “disciples,” “brothers”, etc.
So, in these debates, I think rather than asking: “Does baptism make us a Christian” it would be more helpful to ask: “Does baptism justify us?”
When delving deeply into a topic, the shaft becomes smaller and deeper is the only option for progress; deeper in the same direction. This not to deny the value of exhaustive analysis that remembers our context is 66 books as well as our walk today into the eternal.
Lest the above sound off track, consider “adoption”. I do not read very much about this description of the true believer. Adoption is a legal process wherein the individual being adopted is virtually never a participant; they bring nothing to the table and often do not realize their family name is “new”. The Father gave his Son the book of adoption certificates which only he is qualified to notarize, signed with his own blood.
The powerful image of our adoption must be considered. I do not read much about “un-adoption”.
How we understand that we are adopted into the Royal Household Family of the King of kings makes a huge impact on how we understand and love the body of Christ; brothers and sisters in the Lord; companions across all nations, ages, etc.
The work of the Holy Spirit includes helping us understand who adopted us and enables us to live as family representing the reputation of our Father and his son [ C3 per Ez 36:22 ]
Family members have special privileges and also receive special correction to uphold the family reputation. The disobedient remain in the family once adopted … Heb 12:5-8. wherein illegitimate sons are described.
The above does not use the verbal framework of the previous comments, yet the concept seems relevant.
Do you have a source (footnote) for Horton’s statement above? Thank you.
Hi Jason, Wright’s work as interpreted by many resolves in a new and more complicated understanding of the old debate over perseverance. “Once saved always saved?”, some people say. It’s a very common debate. Most, statistically speaking, hold that a Christian can lose their salvation. That one truly regenerate by the Holy Spirit and with a true faith can lose that faith and fall away.
Wright argues against views that hold that we are “elected” without reference to our moral standing or good works, placing our justification in dependence upon those works. In Wright-ism, “faith” is better understood as “fidelity”, or doing certain things while being a part of a certain group. We might enter into the covenant through faith and baptism but our remaining within the covenant is dependent upon our works, as the covenant in his thought is conditional.
The classic interpretations of the scriptures hold that the condition of the covenant of grace is faith alone, apart from our personal morality or good works; wright instead combines this with personal piety and being able to stay within the visible church. Justification for Wright is (not only) largely a matter of ecclesiology.
Surely, we can gain a right estimation of our standing before God by looking to our baptism and membership in the Visible church of Christ in history – but that’s not in the absence of a true and lively faith, and those with a true and lively faith can never be lost by God and never finally fall away.
There is perhaps nothing more grievous than a Baptized church member not being a Christian but by any measure reconcilable with sacred scripture, it happens. There are perhaps entire churches without Christians, if they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That might be evident through the lack of a meaningful profession of faith or through their works but that church membership is an objective and infallible sign of a person’s reconciliation with God verges on purposeful denial.
The reason we persevere is that it is his power and strength that sustain and uphold our faith to the end and not our own goodness, character or powers. We are as much in debt to God for our perseverance as for our initial faith.
We cannot finally fall away because he will not allow it.
Philippians 1:6: “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
I am not a fan, per se, of NT Wright’s reinterpretation of things; I think to get to where he gets requires very idiosyncratic exegetical decisions at just the right or wrong points, as the case may be. But to conclude that Wright is not a Christian is far-fetched, and indeed fits well with an Escondido theologian’s vision of things, but not with a catholic understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is very inclusive relative to Christ.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I appreciate your response but I don’t think you explained what is meant by denial of imputation. Is it this?
“Pastorally speaking, that we would tell congregations of faithful Christians that their election and perseverance will be measured by their moral performance, after the cross, is immediately disturbing.”
Is that what denial of imputation means? Putting aside that there seem to me to be scriptures that directly support the notion that you /can/ see someone’s election by their fruits, what I read was another academic trying to come up with a new way of describing the indescribable mechanism of grace. And I don’t think inartfully describing the mechanism of grace means someone is preaching another Gospel.
Gal 1 is not the only passage we have that tells us who to reject as a brother or as sound in the faith. A biblical view of the ministry of the word is provided in Eph 4:7-16. One question we can ask from what Paul writes there is, “Does Wright (or Dunn or Sanders or OT & NT depts. of Fuller and Azusa Pacific) build up the church by his handing of Scripture?” If not, then we know that Christ has not given him to the church as a servant of the word. Being a scholar does not mean one has been gifted by Christ for the church’s edification.
1 John gives us three categories by which to judge someone as a false teacher: (1) orthodoxy (John focuses on Christology but this touches upon the gospel itself since Christ’s humanity was a key issue), (2) walking in the light (i.e., confessing sin and practicing righteousness by obeying Christ’s commands) as a fruit of them having been born of God, and (3) having love for God’s children.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you, too 🙂
The denial of the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ necessarily defining a teaching as another Gospel is a powerful interpretation of the epistemic extent of the Gospel of Christ.
Michael Horton, and I’ve known and spoken with other well known theologians at perhaps his level that agree, is calling it. He says, no imputation, no Gospel. If he’s right, then those that believe this sub-Gospel are not Christians. They believe something else, perhaps wrapped in myriad Christian religious language and peripheral doctrines but another Gospel none the less.
Because N.T. Wright has written so extensively on this subject and has committed himself to a public life of arguing for his own interpretation I think he has earned the burden of being examined severely in the public square. I don’t feel personally responsible for Michael Horton’s interpretation of the limitations or the borders of a true Christian faith or practice but I do feel comfortable conversing about these very public concerns.
Once people have investigated these things and come to good faith conclusions perhaps they will agree with Horton, perhaps not, but the importance of the conversation seems self evident. There are a lot of things to think about.
Pastorally speaking, that we would tell congregations of faithful Christians that their election and perseverance will be measured by their moral performance, after the cross, is immediately disturbing. How can we minister to the souls of men with that unbridled contingency in regard to their faith in Christ and His death in their place.
It’s maleficent to tell the sheep of Christ’s pasture to perform good works in the hope of perseverance and the possibility of being measured as personally (not by the righteousness of Christ) righteous.
Frankly, that’s not the Gospel that I signed up for. I signed up for the one where he loved me ere I know him, elected me before time, called me by his spirit according to his Gospel and saved me apart from any contribution of righteousness on my part.
All that I contribute to my salvation is my sin.
I can at least, understand why Horton would think that Wright’s Gospel is not my Gospel. CSN
LikeLiked by 1 person
Am I reading your blog post accurately, that you conclude that he’s not a Christian by virtue of teaching a different gospel and the “different” part is his rejection of the orthodox position of “imputed” righteousness?
I think NT Wright does great violence to to the church by telling everyone that your salvation is supposed to be present and embodied in a redeemed world (which is actually and radically fallen) and for that reason I’m strongly opposed to his general revisionist teachings on Paul, but even then I’m not sure that makes him not a Christian. Think about all the times in the Bible that people Paul refers to clearly as believers say or do something heretical. Think about how he starts 1 Corinthians. People there are identifying their baptism as one of from a man. Hard to think of a more unorthodox heretical position to take than you weren’t really baptized into Christ you were baptized into Cephas or Paul. Paul doesn’t say “you preach a wrong gospel. You’re not a Christian.” He writes to admonish the *position* they took.
I suspect if you analyzed any theologian’s writings you could find something disagreeable about the way they frame something. And this is an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of having a discipline of theology in the first place: scholars, teachers, professors, etc., all need to say something *new* in order to get published so they are incentivized to describe things in new ways. There are only so many words in the language of man and 2000 years is a long time to have been writing and thinking about Christianity that people who are trying to reformulate theology are bound to push the boundaries.
So I think it’s a good idea to attack bad theology and bad explanations so I’m glad people do so. I just think it’s a bit of a jump from “I disagree with this fine point of theology” to “he’s not a believer.” If it’s not such a fine point, then I’d be interested in an expansion on why the intellectual concept of imputed righteousness is such a defining part of orthodox Christian thought.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, thank you, thank you…this has been the clearest thoughts for us lay people. I was trying to sort this out lately and was not fully getting it. Now I do!
LikeLiked by 1 person