Featured NT WRIGHT on Heaven

Wright is a heretic and he is wrong and MacArthur is Biblically correct. Wright is confusing the invisible presence of God and Angels in our realm with heaven. The Bible always presents heaven as "above" and hell as beneath.

 

How exactly?

 

I do not agree with Wright on a number of things but I have yet to see anything that would make him a heretic.

 

Biblicist is wrong. Wright is not a heretic. Wright has no greater probability of being incorrect on this than does Macarthur.

 

Well simply because Biblicist said so. Although I am sure some eloquent diatribe in favor of his premise is sure to follow.

 

He denies the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ. He is a heretic!

 

Does he deny it? Or does he advocate multiple views?

 

What I have read from his writings is a denial of "penal" substititonary atonement while offering counter views.

 

...I just want to take a moment to clarify, with Wright’s own words, that Wright does affirm penal substitutionary atonement. He has been clear on this over the years, but somehow that’s been lost on many due in some cases to their willingness to read all sorts of faults into him because of his position on justification, or because to some people, affirming Christus Victor components to Christ’s atonement, the idea that in his life, death, and resurrection Jesus defeated the principalities and powers of satan, sin, and death, means a necessary denial of PSA. It doesn’t. The Reformers all affirmed both themes because both are in Scripture. Wright isn’t any different. So, without further ado here is Wright himself.

Wright Speaks

First, a short little video where Wright says it clear-out, 1:19 onward:

http://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/09/11/n-t-wright-on-penal-substitution/

 

Care to offer an apology now?

 

Why an apology? He was mistaken we need to let it go.

 

Here is a classic case of same language but perhaps different meaning. I saw and listened to the video very carefully. He has not the faintest understanding of the Old testament Sacrificial rites and ADMITS IT. However, he even goes further and denies the sacrificial system is essential to understanding the atonement of Christ. In so doing, he undermines the whole Biblical foundation for penal substitutionary atonement.

His admitted ignorance is in regard to the two goats on the day of Atonement, which is the sacrificial type that penal atonment is primarily defended from in the Old Testament. There were two goats used on the day of Atonement and both were essential to understanding the nature of the atonement. One of course had its blood shed UNTO DEATH thus giving the WHOLE LIFE and it was THE LIFE of a ceremonial acceptable sacrifice which typifies the perfect sinless life of Christ offered up to satisfy the righteous demands of the Law. The second goat had the sins confessed over it and then taken by a fit strong man into the wilderness and released, which typified the complete removal of our sins through Christ. Both goats taken together give the full picture of "penal" substitutionary atonement for the complete remission of sins.

The Christus Victorius false theory is defended by Wright's view of sacrifices, which makes them unnecessary and vague as the Christus Victorius view denies that any kind of sacrificial death is necessary, but at the same time does not deny that Christ did indeed die on the cross but his death on the cross was non-essential in regard to atonement. This is precisely the opinion of Wright in regard to the foundational Old Testament Type of Christ's atonement. So no wonder, he is accused of denying "penal" substitutionary Atonement as he does deny the very Biblical foundation that it rests upon in the Old Testament - which is the sacrificial system.

So with his mouth comes out both salt and fresh water. He denies any relationship between the Old Testament type and Christ's atonement. By so doing removes the Old Testament foundation upon which the langauge of the New Testament is based, but then admits the New Testament langauge stands alone for the case of "penal" substitutionary atonement.

His denial of the "penal" nature in the foundational Biblical types for the atonement opens the door to reinterpreting New Testament language for the Christus Victorius heresy.

However, to be fair to Professor Wright, I cannot say he does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement at least in so far as he claims the langauge. However, he does deny and undermine all of the Old Testament typical foundation for the proper interpretation of the New Testament teaching for the doctrine he claims to embrace.

At this point, I will withdraw the charge of being a "heretic" until I can examine more than just his use of common language and see exactly how he defines that language. At present he is embracing the very core argument of the Christus Victorus that Old Testament sacrifices do not demand a penal substitutionary atonement and he is clearly in error and it is a significant error on his part, perhaps due to mere ignorance and need of proper teaching.

 

OK well you are dead set in not being wrong. Nothing we can do with that.

 

You need to read more carefully as it is obivous you did not read my article to the close or you would not have made this charge. Read it again and don't miss this part:

However, to be fair to Professor Wright, I cannot say he does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement at least in so far as he claims the langauge.

However, until I find how he DEFINES those terms and APPLIES them, the verdict is still out.

 

For two reasons:

1. You tend to drone on and on most of which is not helpful in many of your posts and they are beyond boring. I would sooner read the dictionary.

2. You said "However, he even goes further and denies the sacrificial system is essential to understanding the atonement of Christ. In so doing, he undermines the whole Biblical foundation for penal substitutionary atonement." So at this point I would say that your language and explanation is as vague as what you are accusing him of.

 

Truthfully, I am not writing for you as that is a waste of time. I am writing for those who seriously want to look at the facts. The facts are that he openly admits he is ignorant of the intent sacrificial system and claims no necessary relationship to the atonement of Christ. If you doubt that, you need to listen again to him. The fact is that he affirms the language of penal substitutionary atonement but same language does not mean same meaning as that depends on how he defines and applies those terms.

 

Rev.

My bet is that the biblicist WILL have the last word......always does.