N. T. Wright: Genesis is not “positivist, literal, clunky history over against myth”

The dangerous but popular wolf N. T. Wright is at it again. For more on Wright, see the article, Beware of N. T. Wright.

Beware of N.T. Wright

by Steve C. Halbrook
  

N.T. Wright, the most popular proponent of the New Perspective on Paul theology, is one of the major crazes within the American church today. One might ask why this is, since his views are far from orthodox, and he is in fact one of the biggest influences on the Federal Vision heresy.  Perhaps Wright's popularity reflects the state of the American church's apostasy.   

  

In this post we critique Wright’s dangerous views, in his own words. Our purpose is to provide a quick, easy overview for those who want to be better informed about Wright's theology. We also provide plenty of helpful resources throughout. 

I. N.T. Wright advocates the soul-damning heresy of Baptismal Regeneration

(For refutations of baptismal regeneration, see “The Danger of Believing Water Baptism Saves” and “Nowhere Does the Bible Teach that Water Baptism Saves.”)

A. In his popular book Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, Wright says:  

In order to understand baptism, here and elsewhere, we have to say something about sacramental theology. I have come to believe that the sacraments are best understood within the theology of creation and new creation, and of the overlapping of heaven and earth, that I have been exploring throughout this book. The resurrection of Jesus has brought about a new state of affairs in cosmic history and reality. God’s future has burst into the present, and (as happens sometimes in dreams, when the words we are saying or the music we are hearing are also happening in the events in which we are taking part) somehow the sacraments are not just signs of the reality of new creation but actually part of it.Thus the event of baptism—the action, the water, the going down and the coming up again, the new clothes—is not just a signpost to the reality of the new birth, the membership (as all birth gives membership) in the new family. It really is the gateway to that membership. …

The important thing, then, is that in the simple but powerful action of plunging someone into the water in the name of the triune God, there is a real dying to the old creation and a real rising into the new—with all the dangerous privileges and responsibilities that then accompany the new life as it sets out in the as-yet-unredeemed world. Baptism is not magic, a conjuring trick with water. But neither is it simply a visual aid. It is one of the points, established by Jesus himself, where heaven and earth interlock, where new creation, resurrection life, appears within the midst of the old.

… Just as for many Christians the truth of Easter is something they glimpse occasionally rather than grasp and act on, so, for many, baptism remains in the background, out of sight, whereas it should be the foundational event for all serious Christian living, all dying to sin and coming alive with Christ.[1]

B. In another work, Wright writes:

[Paul] was well aware of the problems that arose when baptized persons, regularly attending the eucharist, gave the lie to these symbols by the way they were living …. Yet he never draws back from his strong view of either baptism or the eucharist, never lapses back into treating them as secondary.  Indeed, in the present passage one might actually say that he is urging faith on the basis of baptism: since you have been baptized, he writes, work out that what is true of Christ is true of you (v. 11).[2]

But if the fact that the messianic events has become part of our own story through the event of [water] baptism, and the prayer and faith that accompany it, and above all the gift of the Holy Spirit …then we will indeed be able to make our own the victory of grace, to present our members, and our whole selves, as instruments of God’s ongoing purposes.[3]

N. T. Wright (photo by Gareth Saunders)

C. It should not surprise us that Wright teaches baptismal regeneration, since he is part of the Church of England, which holds to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

According to the Church of England’s own website, 

A permanent feature of the Church of England's worship and a key source for its doctrine, the Book of Common Prayer is loved for the beauty of its language and its services are widely used.  It cannot be altered or abandoned without the approval of Parliament.[4]         

In the section “Publick Baptism of Infants,” for example, the book commands the Priest to say prior to baptizing an infant,

ALMIGHTY and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all that flee to thee for succour, the life of them that believe, and the resurrection of the dead: We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.[5]

After baptizing the infant, the Priests says the infant is saved:

SEEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.[6] 

Nineteenth-century preacher C. H.
 Spurgeon, on the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, currently advocated
by N. T. Wright: "for of all lies which
have dragged millions down to hell, I look
upon this as being one of the most
atrocious--that in a Protestant Church
there should be found those who
swear that baptism saves the soul."
--Baptismal Regeneration, A Sermon.

D. The 19th Century Baptist Preacher Charles Spurgeon denounced the Church of England for this doctrine during his day.  In his famous sermon Baptismal Regeneration, he states,

I am not aware that any Protestant Church in England teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration except one, and that happens to be the corporation which with none too much humility calls itself the Church of England. This very powerful sect does not teach this doctrine merely through a section of its ministers, who might charitably be considered as evil branches of the vine, but it openly, boldly, and plainly declares this doctrine in her own appointed standard, the Book of Common Prayer, and that in words so express, that while language is the channel of conveying intelligible sense, no process short of violent wresting from their plain meaning can ever make them say anything else.[7]

II. N.T. Wright Denies that the Gospel Taught by Paul Includes the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone

A. In “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” Wright says,

It is important to stress, as Paul would do himself were he not so muzzled by his interpreters, that when he referred to “the gospel” he was not talking about a scheme of soteriology. Nor was he offering people a new way of being what we would call “religious”. Despite the way Protestantism has used the phrase (making it denote, as it never does in Paul, the doctrine of justification by faith), for Paul “the gospel” is the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth is Israel’s Messiah and the world’s Lord. It is, in other words, the thoroughly Jewish, and indeed Isaianic, message which challenges the royal and imperial messages in Paul’s world.[8] 

B. But the Apostle Paul himself contradicts Wrights views.  In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." (Romans 1:16, 17)

See also the book of Galatians, where Paul warns about those who teach another gospel:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Those who preached another gospel perverted the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? (Galatians 3:1-6)

III. N.T. Wright Denies the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to Believers

(For a refutation of the denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, see “A Defense of the ‘Active Obedience’ of Jesus Christ In The Justification of Sinners” by Brian Schwertley)

A. At the “10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference,” Wright said,

Is there then no ‘reckoning of righteousness’ in, for instance, Romans 5.14–21? Yes, there is; but my case is that this is not God’s own righteousness, or Christ’s own righteousness, that is reckoned to God’s redeemed people, but rather the fresh status of ‘covenant member’, and/or ‘justified sinner,’ which is accredited to those who are in Christ, who have heard the gospel and responded with ‘the obedience of faith’ [9].

B. Wright also says in his paper, “Romans and the Theology of Paul”:

Second, the divine “righteousness” (covenant faithfulness) is emphatically not the same as the “righteousness” that humans have when they are declared to be covenant members. That idea, despite its often invoking the “forensic” setting of the language, fails to understand what that forensic setting means. In the Hebrew lawcourt the judge does not give, bestow, impute, or impart his own “righteousness” to the defendant. That would imply that the defendant was deemed to have conducted the case impartially, in accordance with the law, to have punished sin and upheld the defenseless innocent ones. “Justification,” of course, means nothing like that. “Righteousness” is not a quality or substance that can thus be passed or transferred from the judge to the defendant. The righteousness of the judge is the judge’s own character, status, and activity, demonstrated in doing these various things. The “righteousness” of the defendants is the status they possess when the court has found in their favor. Nothing more, nothing less. When we translate these forensic categories back into their theological context, that of the covenant, the point remains fundamental: the divine covenant faithfulness is not the same as human covenant membership.[10]

R. C. Sproul explains the biblical view of imputed righteousness, which is contrary to Wright's view.

IV. N.T. Wright promotes subverting the Gospel by Encouraging Protestants to Unite with the Apostate Roman Catholic Church

In doing so, Wright redefines the meaning of justification and denies the doctrine of salvation through faith alone. For Wright, Rome’s soul-damning views of salvation, according to his quote below, are “petty” matters.

A. In “What Saint Paul Really Said” (1997), Wright observes:

Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith impels the churches, in their current fragmented state, into the ecumenical task. It cannot be right that the very doctrine which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong at the same table (Galatians 2) should be used as a way of saying that some, who define the doctrine of justification differently, belong at a different table. The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family…the doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine.[11] 

B. Dr. Sidney D. Dyer, in response to Wright’s promotion of Protestant/Catholic ecumenism,  writes:

The most disturbing material in Wright’s book is that which sets forth his view of justification. His effort to take the doctrine out of the realm of soteriology and to put it in the realm of ecclesiology is undoubtedly motivated by his desire to tear down what divides Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. His view of justification is an attack on the very heart of the gospel.

Paul warned of the danger of preaching another gospel in Galatians 1:8, “But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached, let him be accursed.” Paul, by using the words “any other gospel” (emphasis added), shows that he is attacking all other forms of the gospel, including therefore a proto-Pelagianism in the book of Galatians. It is against the backdrop of this attack that the true doctrine of justification shines so brightly and clearly.

An unbeliever stands guilty before God as a criminal charged with a capital offense. He can only escape the judgment he deserves by believing in Christ who lived a righteous life and died an atoning death for sinners. Men are not waiting to stand before God as members of one of two disputing parties in a civil lawsuit who are hoping that God will find in their favor.

Wright’s view of justification is an attempt to reverse the Reformation. We must resist such attempts. The issue is one of life and death – eternal life and eternal death. When theological professors and pastors abandon the biblical and confessional doctrine of justification, they sacrifice the gospel and the souls of men.[12].

V. N.T. Wright Denies Galatians is a Warning Against Those Who Reject Justification by Faith Alone

(For a refutation, see this piece by Brian Schwertley)

According to Wright:

Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God …. The problem he addresses is: should ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? … On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?[13] 

Galatians 2 offers the first great exposition of justification in Paul.  In that chapter, the nub of the issue was the question, who are Christians allowed to sit down and eat with?  For Paul, that was the question of whether Jewish Christians were allowed to eat with Gentile Christians.  Many Christians, both in the Reformation and the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by supposing that it described the system by which people attained salvation.  They have turned the doctrine into its opposite.  Justification declares that all who believe in Jesus Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their cultural or racial differences (and, let’s face it, a good many denominational distinctions, and indeed distinctions within a single denomination, boil down more to culture than to doctrine).  Because what matters is believing in Jesus, detailed agreement on justification itself, properly conceived, isn’t the thing which should determine eucharistic fellowship.[14] 

For more on N. T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul:

The New Perspective on Paul: Calvin and N. T. Wright by J. V. Fesko

Tom Wright’s View of Justification: An Ecumenical Interpretation of Paul by Sidney D. Dyer

Refuting the "Identity Markers" Argument of the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul by Brian Schwertley

---

     [1] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008), 271-273.

     [2] “Romans,” in New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts-First Corinthians, vol. 10, ed. Leander E. Keck (2002), 535.  Cited in “Enter the Church: N.T. Wright,” in Guy Prentiss Waters, ed., Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, 2004), 145.
     [3] “Romans,” in New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts-First Corinthians, vol. 10, ed. Leander E. Keck (2002), 548.  Cited in “Enter the Church: N.T. Wright,” in Guy Prentiss Waters, ed., Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, 2004), 146.

     [4] All Church of England citations retrieved April 14, 2011.

     [5] Ibid.
     [6] Ibid.
     [7] Baptismal Regeneration, A Sermon (No. 573) Delivered on Sunday Morning, June 5th, 1864, by the Rev. C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington. Retrieved April 17, 2011.
     [8] N. T. Wright, Paul's Gospel and Caesar’s Empire (Princeton, NJ: Center of Theological Inquiry, 2002-2004), 2.
     [9] N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” Rutherford House, Edinburgh, 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: August 25–28, 2003), 8.

     [10] N. T. Wright, Romans and the Theology of Paul, 7. Originally published in Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, 1995, 30–67.
     [11] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 158.
     [12] Sidney D. Dyer, Tom Wright’s View of Justification: An Ecumenical Interpretation of Paul (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2003).  Retrieved July 8, 2009.
     [13] Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 120.
     [14] Ibid., 158, 159.



What's wrong with the New Perspective on Paul?

   

Refuting the "Identity Markers" Argument of the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

"A section of Scripture that
is especially fatal to the
Auburn Avenue [Federal
Vision] doctrine is Galatians
5:1-4, where Paul warns
believers not to be entangled
again in a yoke of bondage."

by Brian Schwertley

Reformed Online Library

(Excerpt from A Refutation of the Auburn Avenue Theology’s Rejection of Justification by Faith Alone)

(Editor's note: According to the “New Perspective on Paul” [NPP] [with its most popular advocate being N.T. Wright], the focus of Galatians is not about personal salvation, but Jewish identity markers, or ceremonial law.  The following is an a excellent refutation of this dangerous view. Here Brian Schwertley is particularly addressing the Federal Vision [Auburn Avenue theology], a heresy that also employs the "identity markers" argument):

(10) A passage of Scripture which explicitly refutes the “Jewish identity markers” theory is Galatians 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” Here Paul follows the Septuagint rendering of Deuteronomy 27:36 with some slight changes. Instead of the Septuagint’s “all the words of this law” (Mt. also has “this law”)^[1] Paul writes “everything that is written in the Book of the law. The apostle is emphasizing that every law in the whole written Torah in all of its details (i.e., every jot and tittle) must be perfectly obeyed to avoid being under the curse of the law. “This is the sword of Damocles which hangs over the head of all workers with law.”^[2] Further, Deuteronomy 27 itself completely ignores the ceremonial law and focuses upon violations of the ten commandments (idolatry, v. 15; dishonoring parents, v. 16; theft, v. 17; adultery v. 20; murder, v. 25) and specific applications of the ten commandments (injustice, v. 19; cruelty, v. 18; bestiality, v. 21; incest, vs. 22, 23; unlawful violence, v. 24). Paul, writing under divine inspiration, makes it crystal clear that his phrase “the works of the law” refers to the whole law of god whether ceremonial (i.e. the identity markers) or moral (the ten commandments and moral case laws).

This section of Scripture refutes the Auburn Avenue theology in the following ways: (a) As noted, the expression “the works of the law” refers to the whole law of God not the ceremonial laws alone. (b) The apostle’s use of Deuteronomy 27:26 disproves the Shepherdite/Monroe interpretation of Romans 2:14b, “the doers of the law will be justified.” Paul’s point is not that a general obedience (i.e. “covenant faithfulness”) to the law will result in final justification; but rather, that any commitment to the law as a means or instrument of justification involves the necessity of a perfect obedience to the whole law in exhaustive detail. The Auburn theologians teach the law is easy to keep because God does not expect a complete and perfect obedience to all of its precepts. Paul says the exact opposite. Everyone who relies on the law as a means or even partial means of justification is under the law’s curse. Hendriksen writes: 

Now what was really the purpose of God’s law? God gave his law in order that man, by nature a child of wrath, and thus lying under the curse (Gal. 3:13), as definitely declared in Deut. 27:26; John 3:36; Eph. 3:2, might be reminded not only of his unchanged obligation to live in perfect harmony with this law (Lev. 19:2), but also of his total inability to fulfill this obligation (Rom. 7:24). Thus this law would serve as a custodian to conduct the sinner to Christ (Gal. 3:24; cf. Rom. 7:25), in order that, having been saved by grace, he might, in principle, live the life of gratitude. That life is one of freedom in harmony with God’s law (Gal. 5:13, 14). However, the Judaizers were perverting this true purpose of the law. They were relying on law-works as a means of salvation. On that basis they would fail forever, and Deut. 27:26, when interpreted in that framework, pronounced God’s heavy and unmitigated curse upon them; yes, curse, not blessing. The law condemns, works wrath (Rom. 4:15; 5:16, 18).^[3] 

(11) Paul’s condemnation of the Judaizers in Galatians 4:21-31 implies much more than a mere hanging on to Jewish identity markers or exclusivity. Paul uses the symbol of two mothers to represent two different systems of doctrine. Hagar the slave woman and the Jerusalem which now is, corresponds not to the Mosaic law as it was intended by God; which pointed to Jesus Christ and not to a system of works salvation; but, to the slavish doctrine and worship that the Old Covenant religion had degenerated into under the Pharisees. Although the ceremonial ordinances were weak and beggarly elements for an immature church, the faithful saints of the Old Covenant were not spiritual Ishmaelites who were slaves under bondage. “This is a heavy reproach against the Jews, whose real mother was not Sarah, but the spurious Jerusalem, twin sister of Hagar; who were therefore slaves born a slave, thought they haughtily boasted that they were the sons of Abraham.”^[4] The Jews placed themselves under the yoke of bondage because they believed that a strict obedience to the ceremonial regulations and moral laws, as well as their own man-made laws, could bring them into the kingdom of heaven. Paul says they were damnable heretics who were dead wrong. If the Jewish identity markers theory were true then Paul was engaging in incredible overkill in his statements.

(12) A section of Scripture that is especially fatal to the Auburn Avenue doctrine is Galatians 5:1-4, where Paul warns believers not to be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. The apostle says that the man who becomes circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole law. Is Paul saying that anyone who becomes circumcised cannot be saved without exception? No. We know that that cannot be the apostle’s meaning for late in his ministry he circumcised Timothy (Ac. 16:3) to make it easier to minister in Jewish communities. Clearly then, the apostle’s argument is not against a love of Jewish identity markers or even exclusivity as bad as that may be (1 Cor. 3:3ff.). The thing that stirred up Paul and caused him to use such strong language was the doctrine behind circumcision. Although the false teachers acknowledged Christ, they in addition taught the necessity of circumcision as a commitment to follow another mode of justification. The Judaizers were teaching another gospel. They required obedience to the law in addition to faith in Christ. Paul responded to this doctrine by pointing out that if you depend on the law in addition to Christ, then you must perfectly and perpetually obey the whole law (ceremonial and moral) in exhaustive detail. In other words, if people look to anything besides Jesus for salvation they have no hope of ever being saved. John Stott writes: 

The slogan of the false teacher was: “unless you are circumcised and keep the law, you cannot be saved” (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). They were thus declaring that faith in Christ was insufficient for salvation. Circumcision and law-obedience must be added to it. This was tantamount to saying that Moses must be allowed to finish what Christ had begun. See how Paul describes their position in these verses. They are those who “receive circumcision” (verses 2, 3), who are therefore “bound to keep the whole law” (verse 3), since this is what their circumcision commits them to, and who are seeking to “be justified by the law” (verse 4). What does Paul say to them? He does not mince his words. On the contrary, he makes a most solemn assertion, beginning Now I, Paul, say to you (verse 2). He warns them in three sentences of the serious results of their receiving circumcision; Christ will be of no advantage to you (verse 2), you are severed from Christ and you have fallen away from grace (verse 4). More simply, to add circumcision is to lose Christ, to seek to be justified by the law is fall from grace. You cannot have it both ways. It is impossible to receive Christ, thereby acknowledging that you cannot save yourself, and then receive circumcision, thereby claiming that you can. You have got to choose between a religion of law and a religion of grace, between Christ and circumcision. You cannot add circumcision (or anything else, for that matter) to Christ as necessary to salvation, because Christ is sufficient for salvation in Himself. If you add anything to Christ, you lose Christ. Salvation is in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.^[5]

From Brian Schwertley, A Refutation of the Auburn Avenue Theology’s Rejection of Justification by Faith Alone.  See this article for more refutations of the "identity markers" argument.  This article is part of Schwertley's book refuting the Federal Vision, Auburn Avenue Theology: A Biblical Analysis.

---

    ^[1] See Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 141 and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 158.

     ^[2] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, [1937] 1961), 141.

     ^[3] William Hendriksen, Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967, 68), 1:126-127. Ernest DeWitt Burton writes: “The unexpressed premise of the argument, necessary to make this passage [Gal. 3:10b] prove the preceding proposition, is that no one does, in fact, continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980], 464). John Eadie writes: “They are under the penalty, according to the apostle’s proof, not merely because they have broken, but because they are breaking, the law. Their obedience is neither complete nor uniform. They are under the curse, and the law cannot deliver them; for the function of law is to arraign, convict, and punish. By it is “the knowledge of sin,” it shows their conduct to be out of harmony with its requirements, and thus by its demonstration all the world becomes guilty before God” (A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Baker, (1869) 1979], 241). Huebner writes: “If we will be saved by the law, we must do all, and must be able to say, that we have never neglected any thing commanded, nor done any thing forbidden. In brief, the matter stands thus: if we will merit salvation, amazingly little will come of it, for our virtue is piece-work; against one or two legal performances God can oppose ten transgressions” (as quoted in Otto Schmoller, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960], 73).

        ^[4] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 140.

       ^[5] John R. W. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians (London: InterVarsity, 1968), 133-134.  

               

"Beware of N.T. Wright" (Steve C. Halbrook)

"N.T. Wright is one of the major crazes within the church today. It is as if you cannot be around a group of Christians without at least one saying how much he loves reading N.T. Wright. Wright may very well have some good insights on some matters. But regardless of this, God’s people must be informed of some of Wright’s particular views about salvation, which are nothing short of lethal.

"In this post we include Wright’s dangerous views, in his own words. A major purpose of this post is to better inform those who have heard that N.T. Wright’s views are dangerous, but haven’t read enough to make an informed judgment."

read article

Is N.T. Wright Teaching Another Gospel? (Sinclair Ferguson and Ligon Duncan)

Is Wright Teaching Another Gospel? - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

VIDEO: New Perspective on Paul? Federal Vision? (Alan Cairns)

A brief discussion of the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision heresies

VIEW VIDEO