Featured Wright is Wrong on Justification

I don't care what title a person, church or denomination may wear (Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, etc.). If it teaches that one becomes a new creature through ordinances (thus sacraments) then they are teaching and practicing "another gospel" and that is damnable by Biblical definition or do the words "let him be accursed" mean anything?

W.R. Wright teaches sacramental salvation as he explicitly states that one enters into covenant life and covenant community, and becomes a new creation through baptism and the Lord's Supper. That is a damnable doctrine that denies Christ.

 

You are wrong, he most certainly does if his words mean anything. You cannot use the language he uses and avoid that conclusion if that language is defined by its true Biblical meaning. Of course, if you choose to ignore the Biblical meaning of such language then dialog is hopeless.

You are making distinctions the Bible does not make. The Biblical error of "another gospel" within its Biblical context is the confusion of sanctification with justification. Now, whether you choose to acknowledge that makes no difference to me, because it does not change that fact. Indeed, the whole crux of the debate here is the failure of some on this forum to acknowledge that "another gospel" is precisely sanctification replacing and/or mixing with the justification.

Again, you are wrong on both counts. I am dealing with the soteriological position and judging it to be another gospel. I am not standing in judgment upon the individual's eternal destiny. A person can be theologically in error and yet saved. However, that does not change the fact that the error may be another gospel. Second, you simply don't understand what is "another gospel" in the Galatians context. The precise error that Paul calls "another gospel" is the addition or subtraction from the complete satisfaction provided by Christ IN HIS OWN BODY as our substitute. Anything added to his complete satisfaction OUTSIDE of what was finished in his own body IN ORDER TO COMPLETE justification is another gospel, as it is a rejection of His finished work. Anything subtracted from his finished work in his own body with regard to the complete satisfaction of all the demands of the law against sin and sinners is another gospel.

Again, you confuse the individual with the doctrine. A person may be mentally led astray and embrace a false doctrine, but that does not make the doctrine any less false even though the individual may be actually saved. The Galatians had been mentally led astray in rejecting grace, and embracing "another gospel" and yet they were still saved and simply needed instruction, but that did not make what they embraced the true gospel, it was still another gospel.

BTW it is not the same error as inviting Christ into your heart. The Bible speaks of receiving Christ. It may be error to believe that such an invitation is necessary for regeneration, but such an error does not change the nature or content of the gospel. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 4:9-11 that justification would be altered by making circumcision (divine ordinances) inclusive of justification (sacramentalism).

Again, you confuse the individual status of a person with the error. The sacramental error is "another gospel" but a person can be led astray, as were the Galatians, and still be individually saved.

W.T. Wright teaches "another gospel" a sacramental gospel foreign to the scriptures. He teaches "another gospel" with regard to his view of justification as far as I am concerned. However, with regard to his own person, he may be a truly saved individual, but no doubt theologically messed up.

 

I never intended you to think that he changed the etymological or connotational meaning of the term. However, Paul has a very well defined doctrine of justification just as Catholics do, and W.T. Wright does, and Methodist do. The Galatians were taught a wrong view about justification.

I don't think anyone believes he changed the meaning of the term. However, it is not the meaning of the term that is being debated. What is being debated is how that term is being applied by Paul to Christ and His finished work. That term can be used in a context so that its very Biblical application is negated.

 

Yes, that would be a great subject for another thread as I see lots of problems for the spiritual "union with Christ" theory with regard to justification and with regard to the nature of the church.

 

I have not had the pleasure to exchange thoughts with you prior to this moment. Let me start with simply asking you some questions so that I may understand where you are coming from. You must confess to be a "Baptist" or you couldn't engage in this part of the forum. So, are you claiming that baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacramental in nature? To be more precise, are you claiming that you enter into the covenant relationship with God, thus the covenant community of God's people through or by means of baptism? Do you believe justifying grace is imparted or sustained through partaking of the Lord's Supper? I am simply trying to establish your views since your post seems to imply that you embrace those views.

 

I don't think I said his view of justification depends on a sacramental understanding. I believe what I said is that his view of justification will lead to, and will be consistent with his sacramental understanding.

 

Wright is not saying that believing grace is "experienced" through sacraments (although no doubt he believes that also). He is explicitly saying that it is through sacraments that covenant LIFE is received and one becomes part of the covenant community through sacraments. He claims that it is only by exceptions to the general rule that anyone can come into a covenant relationship with God apart from baptism. Remember, his statement is found under covenant "LIFE" and it is this "LIFE" that is received through the sacrament of baptism.

".And all the multiple layers of meaning that were already present in baptism were to be recentered on the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Through the water into God’s new world.....Easter is not Jesus getting to heaven when he died. Easter is Jesus’ newly embodied life launching God’s new creation through the water of death....Baptism is the ground on which we stand linked to Jesus. His dying and rising and the power of his victory are ours because we are his. But if you imagine that you can get that power without that identity, well, good luck!" - W.T. Wright (Baptized into New Life) - http://www.reformedworship.org/article/december-2008/n-t-wright-word-and-sacraments-baptism

 

You agree it is consistent with his view of justification. Good! Now lets talk about our disagreement. If you agree his view of the sacraments is consistent with his view of justification, then his view of justification is inseparably confused with the Biblical view of progressive sanctification as that is the Biblical view where ordinances exist. That confusion is precisely what Paul is repudiating in Romans 4:9-11. If justification was inclusive of the ordinances than justification would be with works done in our bodies instead of "without works" and that is the difference between the truth of the gospel and "another gospel" in the book of Galatians.