This is my second time watching this clip this morning. The story about looking at the judgment painting in the Sistine chapel is powerful, and I remember sitting in that building awestruck by the art, but also trying to grapple with the future reality of such an event and the existence of Hell. I’m thankful that people like NT Wright are giving new language and ways to understand this crucial part of Christian theology.

But at the same time (at least in this 3 min. clip) I don’t feel like he gives enough specifics to be provide a helpful re-framing of hell, judgment, or the consequences of our moral/ethical/real world choices. He says that these choices matter, and have implications, but only insofar as they either contribute to the decline or improvement of our wholistic human condition. That feels vague to me.

I also wonder if he is being fair to the biblical authors. It is certainly an unfair interpretation to read all references to “hell” or the like as strictly literal, but is it equally unfair to say the authors are trying to vividly and metaphorically describe a terrible the terrible potential of rejecting God? Are there places in which the biblical authors talk about the consequences of rejecting God in the same way NT Wright is talking about it here, or is he putting his own understanding back onto the 1st cent. writers.

I realize this is only a 3 min. clip, so it doesn’t unpack it all. I have “Surprised by Hope” on order, and am looking forward to digging into it. The honest truth is that heaven/hell has been such a fundamental crux of my evangelical theology (as NT Wright says), it is challenging to rethink it.

Great questions Jesse. He’s definitely interpreting the biblical imagery in contemporary terms. I don’t think he’s saying that was the authors intention, only that it’s scriptures intention. I think there’s an important distinction there. Is he right? I don’t know. I lean that direction.

Evil and the Justice of God would be another good read for you on this subject. Although he doesn’t really get into Hell in that book it’s clear from his understanding of justice that he can’t accept universalism either and it gives a good sense of where he’s coming from in terms of consequences in this life, etc.

I’d submit that N.T Wright preaches another gospel…….[NPP]

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” – Galatians 1:8-9

Matthew - Be that as it may, Wright’s view of justification doesn’t have direct bearing on this video where’s he’s merely commenting on the nature of Hell. One could disagree with the NPP and yet agree with his take here, so…?

(Still, I suppose I should go on record now and say I’m in the New Perspective camp.)

Jason – Thank you for your openess to admit you are an advocate of NPP.

Does it concern you that that view of Justification is outside what is widely considered the orthodox view?

Well, no, especially since it’s only considered unorthodox by Reformed groups. That hardly constitutes a “widely” considered opinion. Does it concern you that much of Reformed theology is widely (in the truest sense of the word) considered unorthodox by global Christianity? I suspect not, which is good. You shouldn’t be…and neither should I. I think you know that consensus is not what convinces us of these matters.

Agreed logic – but I’d say that the wider of Christendom is in error;
prosperity, false gospel, false deity beliefs etc……Not to mention Jesus clearly teaching in Matthew 7 [v13 onwards] that many who say they are Christian will be told to “depart from Me, I NEVER knew you”.

Not that we get all culty and say “we are the only true Christians”.

I would say NPP is a false gospel, solely because it attacks the biblcial doctrine of justifcation by faith.

FYI – if somebody does not believe in hell that is heresy.

Good, we’re making some progress here! You’ve scaled back to the statement that you say the NPP is a false gospel. Fine. Convince me.

I, along with biblical Christianity Jason……..

Why is NPP anathema? [Gal 1]

-The New Perspective on Paul believes that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. They teach that salvation is possible by the keeping of the law. They also teach that the righteousness of God is actually referring to His faithfulness and that it has nothing to do with the truth that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the new believer. N.T. Wright is abundantly clear about what he means and what he stands for when he declares that justification is about the mark of what a person already is, and is not about the means whereby one is justified with God. A quote from N.T. Wright, “In theology, therefore, justification is not the means whereby it becomes possible to declare someone in the right. It is simply that declaration itself. It is not how someone becomes a Christian, but simply the declaration that someone is a Christian. It is not the exercise of mercy, but the just declaration concerning one who has already received mercy. This is a crucial distinction, without which it is impossible to understand the biblical material.” -

Thats breifly why…..

Yes, interesting. Can you unpack for me what exactly Wright means when he says justification is not the “means” but the “declaration,” then help me understand why exactly that that distinction, by necessity, also excludes the role of the means of justification?

Wright has been quite clear that, in his view, the latter includes the former, which means you (or the person you’ve copied and pasted) either don’t understand Wright’s position or have intentionally misrepresented it.

Question to answer your question:

Have you read John Piper’s book on this very issue?

In it he exposes NT Wright.

Yes, I’ve read it. I think Wright’s response (Justification) demonstrated that Piper is not in the same league. Piper has an excellent grasp of Reformed theology. Wright has a better grasp of the New Testament itself.

So, does that mean you’re not going to tease out the distinction? Unless you can show me that you fully understand Wright’s position – in his own terms, not the terms of his critics – and can show why he’s wrong…I remain unconvinced.

Id say he is belittling justification by faith. period.

perhaps “means” is referring to the way in which is declared legally right before God…….

If you have read that book thoughtfully, WITHOUT bringing your bias to the table and have not seen the error of NT Wright, then read it [and Luther's works] again.

Matthew – NT Wright does not belittle justification by faith. You are misreading him if you have interpreted him that way. Wright very explicitly affirms sola fide, with the object of our faith being Jesus Christ as Lord. You and your kind seem to say that the object of our faith is the doctrine of justification by faith alone itself. The seems to me to be a betrayal of the doctrine you are seeking to defend. In other words, rather than saying salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, you are salvation comes through faith in Christ + believing the correct doctrine of salvation, which is actually a form of works salvation.

sorry…that last sentence should read “you say salvation comes through faith in Christ = believing the correct doctrine of salvation…”

Clay,

Hello.

NT Wright is an advocate of NPP [New Perspective on Paul], so is Jason Coker.

That is NOT Sola Fide my friend.

Federal Vision?

I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of NPP, but I suspect there are varying strains of it. All I know is that I have yet to read anything by Wright that leads me to conclude that he does not believe in justification by faith alone. If you can point to me to something he has written that contradicts this, other than your circular arguments about the NPP, then I’ll gladly reconsider.

Sure Clay,

Read this : http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_2_Editorial.pdf

Thanks – I should have been clearer that I’m not well versed in the broader New Perspective “movement”, but I am very familiary w/ Wright’s ideas on the subject and Piper-et.al’s counter arguments. There isn’t anything new for me in that article. IMO, reformed-types measure Wright’s arguments against their systematic theology rather than an honest look at the historical/theological basis of the arguments. Not being “reformed”, I’m just not looking at it from within the same paradigm.

[Editor's note: Matthew, this last comment crossed the line of smugness for my taste. I don't mind you arguing for a Reformed view of justification here - although, I'm still waiting for you to do so - but I do mind you being condescending about it. Again, please watch your tone.]

I was encouraging the man to pray……………..

Do as you will.

Jason – just wanted to say thanks for your blog. I read regularly. Your posts are always thought provoking. I know these comments went off topic from your original post. I kind of wish I hadn’t commented b/c I suspected it would end up where it did. Reformed folks need to recognize that their “NT Wright is a heretic” rhetoric gets them no where with people like me who are not married to any particular theological system, but are open and seeking a historically honest biblical interpretation. No one who reads Wright objectively could possibly conclude that he is out of the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Thanks again!

Hi Clay, thanks for the comments and the encouragement. Obviously I let the comments here drift off toward the Wright controversy, but that’s to be expected. He’s a bit of a lighting rod in certain circles. Besides, I express my opinions pretty strongly in many of my posts, so it wouldn’t be fair to not allow the same thing for my commenters : )

As someone who is not part of the ‘reformed tradition’ I don’t see any reason why its bible interpretations would be right and everything that tries to explain the bible differently heresy… It’s just one traditional grid which is placed on the bible before reading, nothing more… The traditions of man are not the infallible Word of God (which I would say is Jesus Himself, and not the bible, but that’s one more discussion)

but to be on-topic, the orthodox view of hell makes a lot of sense to me, more than the protestant/catholic one. so yes I like NTWs outlook on this subject. I’m not sure what my position on the subject is, but I will trust Gods love and grace more than our own logic and deductions…

Question: Why does one always think that one who is Reformed in their theology perscribes to ‘Reformational Worship’ [full of traditions that are given far too much attention] ? And why does one assume to their own detriment, that one who is a Calvinst – adheres to all the all ‘reformed traditions’?

Answer: It is a means by which many in the weak, emergent, comprimising camp use to belittle the advocate of biblical mandates CLEARLY laid out in Scripture. – We are not to accomodate the sins of others in order to comfort them.

Reactionary cop outs.

I live in a country where there is no such thing as the emerging church yet. And no traditional conservative reformed churches either… I grew up between cultural catholicism and pentecostelism, until my father started a vineyard chuch and I came in touch with the vineyard, and later with more mainstream evangelicals… None of those traditions would say that the bible clearly says what you say it does. And I don’t see why the NPP would be less biblical that any other view. And I don’t believe that any systematic theory is needed to be saved, I believe that we need to have faith in a person, Jesus, who calls us to follow Him. All those discussions are cool and entertaining and so, but they will more likely lead people away from God than towards Him if you go on heresy-hunting with people of other traditions of tribes of the Christian faith… None of our theories about the bibel will ever be perfect and the last word about anything, but we need them to grow closer to Our Saviour…

God bless you

Bram

Thank you Bram.

[...] John Piper gets his turn at bat here on Pastoralia concerning the subject of hell. Does what he’s saying here contradict what NT Wright was saying last week? [...]

I’ve often wondered how God’s goal to “make all things new” (rev 21:5) can include the idea of eternal tormenting hell? If heaven and earth are made one, also in Revelation, where does that leave room for evil to continue existing?

I’ve also wrestled with how, if one is outside of Christ, having rejected salvation for whatever reason and means, how they can continue to exist? A large part of what Christ promises as part of salvation is eternal life. Taking that to the extreme logical conclusion (for me) implies that to reject Christ and salvation does not bring eternal life, and eternal torment in hell would be a form of eternal life, albeit with a much lower standard of living index .

Guess I see the eternal punishment of hell from a perspective that to be truly, utterly annihilated and removed from God’s presence is the worst possible punishment and exacting of God’s wrath possible.

So I’ve really appreciated NT Wright’s language and conversation on this issue than what I was raised with (which was a much more dogmatic and fundamentalist approach to annihilationism, which in full disclosure was from Adventism).