White on Rice
Okay, it’s really White on Wright, but once I got rice in my head, I just couldn’t let it go. Anyhow.
Yesterday James White ripped on NT Wright, saying that in the UK he’s not looked upon as a conservative at all. I’m not sure who White was talking to over there, but I’ve read several UK news articles that treat Wright as the whacked-out-conservative, similar to how Jerry Falwell is written about here in the US.
Anyhow, White quotes Wright from this article in The Australian…
Attesting to this is one of the Church of England’s heaviest hitters, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, who was in Australia recently on a lecture tour. An eminent theologian, an expert on the historical and biblical Jesus and a staunch believer in the resurrection, he baulks at denouncing those who are not.
“I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection,” he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.
“But the view I take of them – and they know this – is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.
“Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.
“I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian.
I’m not convinced that’s adequate cause to label Wright a liberal, though. Basically, Wright is affirming all the right things here, even being very critical of The DaVinci Code. But he holds back on condemning a person to hell, that confesses faith in Jesus. Wright clearly indicates that he believes those that deny the ressurrection are wrong, but doesn’t say they are necessarily doomed to hell.
And it’s this hesitation, apparently, that White has a problem with.
![[caedmonscall.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/ccneticon.jpg "The official unofficial fan site of Caedmon’s Call.")
![[derekwebb.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/dwneticon.jpg "The official fansite of Derek Webb.")
![[rmfo-blogs.com]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/rmfoblog.png "About the [rmfo-blogs.com] service.")
10 comments
From my position in the UK, I don’t think that White has much of an idea about what he is talking about. Most of the people that I am around regard Wright as extremely conservative. White is probably talking about a very small Reformed minority, whose principle theological influences come from the US.
Perhaps White has in mind Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15?
Paul makes the resurrection to be a chief point in the Gospel, “which if it is taken away, their faith will necessarily come to nothing.”
15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.
In Romans 3, Paul wrote that “the wages of sin is death.”
Death is the punishment for sin; Christ overcame death in his resurrection; the result of this is that those for whom Christ died are no longer in their sins.
If our sin remains (there is no remission), we cannot inherit heaven, but go to Hell. Those who propound that their faith does not include a belief in the Resurrection have an empty faith; it is vanity, states the Apostle, in no uncertain terms.
In allowing that one can deny the Resurrection as a central tenet of the Gospel, how can it not be inferred that Wright allows for more gospels than one?
The trouble with that, Ron, is that it’s the same argument made by some to show that Arminians are all going to hell.
Wright does not allow for more gospels than the one, but he does allow for the possibility of sinful man failing to understand the gospel correctly, and yet still be saved by that gospel[1]. Because Christ is raised, I think it’s possible that some that don’t believe it can still be saved. Afterall, Christ’s death and resurrection covers all our sins, not just the ones we’re aware of.
This is not to say that I don’t believe it is serious error to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. I do, and if someone believes that, I think they ought to be rebuked and corrected, and disciplined by the church. If they refuse to submit to the Church’s teaching, then they should be excommunicated. And at that point I think we can safely conclude that they are not saved.
[1]Actually, that’s what I get out of this one quote of Wright. I’m not Wrightian scholar. Maybe he’s said or written something else. But from the quotes in the article that White linked, that’s what I judge Wright’s position to be. And I don’t believe that is cause to right him off as liberal.
Is one of the tenets of Arminianism a denial of the resurrection?
The Arminian position revolves around TULIP, no? Perhaps you can point me to an example of someone who teaches that Arminians deny the resurrection (have I misunderstood your point?).
The conclusion that one’s faith is vain and empty is no speculation: Paul’s argument makes Christianity itself an absurdity if the Resurrection did not occur.
Hence, also unavoidable is the conclusion that anyone who holds the Resurrection did not occur is not in possession of saving faith.
Do you disagree?
Also, one of the tenets of Liberalism, as seen in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., for instance, was a denial of the bodily resurrection (Auburn Affirmation).
No doubt, Christ died for all the wrong thinking of his people. Yet, as their Prophet, it is inconceivable He would not teach them the doctrine of His resurrection, which Paul clearly brings forth as essential to a right understanding of the Gospel.
That Wright allows ignorance on this point for the regenerate is highly problematic, at least. But, it takes more than an allowance of this sort to make a Liberal, it seems to me.
Thanks for blogging: I am highly edified by the work in the Word that bloggers spur me to.
Respectfully,
Ron
No, Arminianism doesn’t have to do with the ressurection. You didn’t miss anything on that point.
But hyper-calvinist types argue that Arminianism denies sola gratia. They argue, basically, that the person denies the complete graciousness of the gospel by requiring an autonomous response. They argue Arminianism is ‘another gospel’. I think they’re right that it denies just how gracious the gospel really is. However, I deny their conclusion.
Paul said that if Christ did not rise again, then our faith is in vain. Without the resurrection, there is no forgiveness of sins.
But Christ did rise up. Sins are forgiven. I think it’s right for us to confront those that deny the resurrection with this. But the fact that we are right makes it possible for them to still be saved. If you ask me.
You wrote, “it is inconceivable [Christ] would not teach [His people] the doctrine of His resurrection, which Paul clearly brings forth as essential to a right understanding of the Gospel.”
That makes sense, but what if we follow that with other questions like why He would allow them to believe anything that is wrong? Back to the Arminianism analogy, isn’t it inconcievable that Christ would allow His people to deny the sovereign grace of God? Is the monergistic nature of the gospel any less essential than the ressurection?
I’m certainly not defending those that deny the resurrection, and saying we should make room for such denials. I’m not and we shouldn’t. Like I said before, they should be confronted and corrected, and, if they persist, disciplined. I’m not saying we should treat the matter lightly. I just have trouble judging a person’s eternal soul. Why make it our business to determine whether or not they are going to heaven?
Now my post is getting confused, because what we as individuals can and should do is different from what we as the Church can and should do. The Church should make those judgments, because she has authority to do so. We, as individuals (even individuals who are ruling officers in the church), do not.
So, yes, I get confused too often myself…
One stalwart wrote:
“…all that are saved are brought to the knowledge of such truths as are necessary to salvation; for they are chosen to it through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.”
If the doctrine of the resurrection is essential, as Paul says, and anyone does not believe it, only a church court can pronounce that person ‘unsaved’ or a ‘heretic’?
Paul denounced many men as just that, without consulting anyone.
Granted, he was under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but it definitely is an example he sets: Follow me as I follow Christ.
Granted too that one should be downright careful with the ‘H’ word; not many know better than me, trust me, what I’m talking about.
“If the doctrine of the resurrection is essential, as Paul says, and anyone does not believe it, only a church court can pronounce that person ‘unsaved’ or a ‘heretic’?”
Good question. Hm. I was going to say yes, but I’m unsure now. I’ll think it over.
I think what they’re saying here is that the doctrine of the resurrection is an essential teaching of the Church, but it’s not necessarily an essential element of saving faith in the individual.
Al Moehler made the same case arguing from Romans 10. This seems like a much better case than 1 Corinthians 15, because there, while Paul obviously makes statements that have to be reckoned with, he obviously treats the Corinthian Christians he is rebuking as…
…Christians.
But this may all be moot since Borg would probably qualify as a false teacher, which is a much more serious issue.
Yeah, I’m not really talking about Borg particularly, although Wright was so maybe I should be. I’m just talking about this one issue.
And, for those of you blue with anticipation (because, you know, you’ve been holding your breath…), my conclusion, I think, is that the historic, catholic standards of the christian church are sufficient to ‘fence’ the church. They draw the lines of what is acceptable doctrine and what isn’t. I don’t believe it necessary for the church to excommunicate every individual that denies any of these foundational tenets of the faith in order to conclude that such individuals lack saving faith and are unregenerate. So, basically, I was wrong.
I still have difficulty concluding that me, joe schmoe, can just say that so-and-so is unregenerate and going to hell, but that seems to be the position that makes the most sense. I chalk my difficulty up to squeamishness.
Leave a Comment