Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

[JonC]

We are given the ministry of reconciliation. We act as ministers to reconcile people to their God. People, not oak trees.

There is some good in Wright's point about not reducing everything to personal salvation; however, Christ's blood which was spilled onto the ground did not redeem the Earth. The Earth will be destroyed and made again, while people, God's elect, will be redeemed.

I don't necessarily agree with Wright, BUT that doesn't mean he holds a diminished view of the Atonement and denies propitiation - which was the charge.

My point is that it is wrong to falsely attribute things to people just because we believe them wrong on certain issues.

 

[JonC]

Only Christ, and Him crucified.

Give it up Jon. The sophistry you desire is not in the Gospel. God has chosen the foolish things to confound the 'wise.'

Jesus came into the world to save sinners. It's that simple.

Where did Paul place our hope? In the Resurrection. Your theory of atonement is too small, brother. It is not about saving sinners but about God's glory and His Kingdom.

Sure, you have your ticket to heaven. But when you realize it is not about you, not about man, but about God and His own glory, then and only then can you truly appreciate the atonement for all it encompasses.

 

[thatbrian]

My point is that it is wrong to falsely attribute things to people just because we believe them wrong on certain issues.

If that's your point, I agree; however, the worst deceptions come as 99% truths. If I'm being frank, I see Wright as a snake. Does that mean that everything that comes from his pen is poison? Absolutely not, but that is precisely why he is so dangerous.

 

[agedman]

I wrote this a few posts above.

It is important to keep in mind when visiting the scope of the work of propitiation.



...Propitiation does NOT restore fellowship and it really has NOTHING to do with God's ability to love or not to love.

Rather, propitiation restores the ability of God to exercise His redemption to those whom He chooses.

Christ restored that ability once, for all time, for all people.

However, that restoration does not determine the salvation of all people, nor does it even suggest that anyone is saved.

Propitiation involves both the "mercy seat" and the "blood." (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10)




God did not "pour out His wrath" on the Son anymore than God poured out His wrath on the OT atonement sacrifice.

 

[JonC]

If that's your point, I agree; however, the worst deceptions come as 99% truths. If I'm being frank, I see Wright as a snake. Does that mean that everything that comes from his pen is poison? Absolutely not, but that is precisely why he is so dangerous.

I disagree (partly because I remember just how much Wright has contributed to evangelical scholarship and theology.... until his NPP his differences were not considered substantial and even now many of his opponents ....e.g., John Piper ... hold him in high regard).

Much of the issue is that we approach the atonement differently. N.T. Wright is Reformed, but he is Anglican. While he acknowledges penal substitution in the atonement (defining it in a way I do not believe to be PSA) his focus is on Christus Victor (which is not unorthodox). So he acknowledges with a side note aspects that most of use seem to hold as primary.

In Romans 8 Paul speaks of Christ’s work as a deliverance out of bondage. This is, to many, a side note to the Cross as a propitiation. When we look at it we tend to see that the believer is delivered from the bondage of sin and death (Christus Victor Motif). BUT if your focus was more on Christus Victor and less on PSA, then you might also note that Paul has the audacity to claim that Creation itself awaits this deliverance – groaning along side us in anticipation.

For the creation was subjected to futility in hope that the creation itself al\so will be set free form its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

We like to view this as a side note, almost chalking it up to poetic niceties as all of creation will instead be burnt up and a new one will take its place. But Scripture views the redemption that Creation awaits as if it were akin to our redemption, to our refinement by fire, to our recreation.

N.T. Wright is not being unbiblical here. He is focusing on a truth that we too often glance at sideways, and perhaps glossing over a truth many hold essential. In the article, everything Wright has stated in terms of belief is in the Bible. Nothing that his opponent (in the article) has stated is actually in Scripture itself. While I may not necessarily agree with Wright, I can’t fault him for taking the Bible literally when the opposing view rests on what they see as implied.

So I recommend N.T. Wright for his scholarship but caution against blindly adopting what he says. Wright is like C.S. Lewis. There is great depth of truth there, but you have to be cautious of the bones.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suggest reading it.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards

THAT is really strong teaching/preaching, and would be interesting to see how many could stand it today from the pulpit, many churches would probably have that pastor revoked and sent packing!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it doesn't fly in the face of what Wright is saying. Wright has affirmed, elsewhere, that what Jesus did was take the "cup of God's wrath" and suffered this "wrath" for all of humanity. Christ suffering at the hands of men, by the will of the Father, that wrath that all of humanity will suffer and that alienation that all mankind experiences, in order that we may not experience the wrath that is to come is no less a propitiation. Here is the difference - NOT propitiation itself but how that is articulated in the Atonement (Wright speaks of wrath against humanity, Christ experiencing this wrath, not primarily as our substitute but as our representative).

@Revmitchell objected to my definition of propitiation being this act of Christ which delivered us from the wrath to come because it did not include an innocent victim suffering at the hand of an angry God. This is why I am not a Calvinist. But it is not a rejection of the idea of propitiation (I still insist that Christ is a propitiation, that there is a wrath to come that through His work we avoid).

Not that I completely agree with Wright but another interesting thing is that everything Wright affirmed in this article in terms of belief is directly from Scripture. Nothing that he denied is directly from Scripture. Perhaps this is an idea we could also explore.

Wright denies the Reformed PST theology as being essentially pagan, and in his mind, that theology make out God to be a child molester upon Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree (partly because I remember just how much Wright has contributed to evangelical scholarship and theology.... until his NPP his differences were not considered substantial and even now many of his opponents ....e.g., John Piper ... hold him in high regard).

Much of the issue is that we approach the atonement differently. N.T. Wright is Reformed, but he is Anglican. While he acknowledges penal substitution in the atonement (defining it in a way I do not believe to be PSA) his focus is on Christus Victor (which is not unorthodox). So he acknowledges with a side note aspects that most of use seem to hold as primary.

In Romans 8 Paul speaks of Christ’s work as a deliverance out of bondage. This is, to many, a side note to the Cross as a propitiation. When we look at it we tend to see that the believer is delivered from the bondage of sin and death (Christus Victor Motif). BUT if your focus was more on Christus Victor and less on PSA, then you might also note that Paul has the audacity to claim that Creation itself awaits this deliverance – groaning along side us in anticipation.

For the creation was subjected to futility in hope that the creation itself al\so will be set free form its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

We like to view this as a side note, almost chalking it up to poetic niceties as all of creation will instead be burnt up and a new one will take its place. But Scripture views the redemption that Creation awaits as if it were akin to our redemption, to our refinement by fire, to our recreation.

N.T. Wright is not being unbiblical here. He is focusing on a truth that we too often glance at sideways, and perhaps glossing over a truth many hold essential. In the article, everything Wright has stated in terms of belief is in the Bible. Nothing that his opponent (in the article) has stated is actually in Scripture itself. While I may not necessarily agree with Wright, I can’t fault him for taking the Bible literally when the opposing view rests on what they see as implied.

So I recommend N.T. Wright for his scholarship but caution against blindly adopting what he says. Wright is like C.S. Lewis. There is great depth of truth there, but you have to be cautious of the bones.

I think that His Anglican viewpoints would clash with JI packer on this, and he is not reformed in the traditional sense of that term!

 

[JonC]

Wright denies the Reformed PST theology as being essentially pagan, and in his mind, that theology make out God to be a child molester upon Christ!

Read the article again. He denies the Calvinistic theory, but he also points to how some take that theory as being paganism. And he is correct.

 

[JonC]

I think that His Anglican viewpoints would clash with JI packer on this, and he is not reformed in the traditional sense of that term!

Yes, he certainly is not a traditionalist.

 

[Yeshua1]

Read the article again. He denies the Calvinistic theory, but he also points to how some take that theory as being paganism. And he is correct.

Those would be the same people who deem God would be a child molester towards Jesus if it was indeed true, so they start out with a faulty presupposition!

This is a very minority view. It exists only within a Calvinistic understanding of divine justice and even there, among those you consider "Reformed", it is not unanimous. It is neo-orthodoxy.

So calvin and a vst majority of reformed and Calvinistic Baptist are neo-orthodox?

 

[JonC]

Those would be the same people who deem God would be a child molester towards Jesus if it was indeed true, so they start out with a faulty presupposition!

So calvin and a vst majority of reformed and Calvinistic Baptist are neo-orthodox?

What Wright presents in the article (what he affirms as belief) comes directly from Scripture. The opposition (in the article) comes from what is determined to be implied in the Scripture. As the article points out, there is a tendency among a specific group of people to believe Jesus had to suffer what the lost will at Judgment. This was Calvin's view, and this is common among some Reformed groups. But this is not the main Reformed view. It is neo-orthodox in the scheme of Christian history.

This, I believe, is what Wright (in the article) is speaking of. NOT the views of men like John Piper and J.I. Packer, even thought they may disagree with Wright on many points (both Piper and Packer rejected the idea that Jesus experienced in separation what the lost will experience at Judgment...the articles and posts are in a thread dealing with the topic). Even Calvin maintained a unity that this neo-orthodox view rejects.

 

[Yeshua1]

What Wright presents in the article (what he affirms as belief) comes directly from Scripture. The opposition (in the article) comes from what is determined to be implied in the Scripture. As the article points out, there is a tendency among a specific group of people to believe Jesus had to suffer what the lost will at Judgment. This was Calvin's view, and this is common among some Reformed groups. But this is not the main Reformed view. It is neo-orthodox in the scheme of Christian history.

This, I believe, is what Wright (in the article) is speaking of. NOT the views of men like John Piper and J.I. Packer, even thought they may disagree with Wright on many points (both Piper and Packer rejected the idea that Jesus experienced in separation what the lost will experience at Judgment...the articles and posts are in a thread dealing with the topic). Even Calvin maintained a unity that this neo-orthodox view rejects.

I think this explains why so many have rejected NT Wright NPP and his views on the Cross!
jackcottrell.com/uncategorized/the-new-perspective-on-paul-wright-is-wrong/

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, he certainly is not a traditionalist.

His views regarding salvation and Israel and OT Judaism at time of Christ seems to imply that God could have saved apart from theCross, and that Jesus death is really not for the sale of sinners, but for covenant with israel to be maintained and righted!

 

[JonC]

I think this explains why so many have rejected NT Wright NPP and his views on the Cross!
jackcottrell.com/uncategorized/the-new-perspective-on-paul-wright-is-wrong/

I agree, as he starts out "I am not an expert on the subject". This is why many reject Wright, and probably the difference in how they reject him compared to how those who are experts reject him.

The author assumes 2000 years of viewing a certain way. In truth, we only know of 500 years. Also, Wright himself has stated his NPP is probably not right, that we need to move from the Reformation and to Scripture. The problem people have is not the NPP but the NPP's rejection of a 16th centurey Reformation/Catholic view of Paul and the Jewish religion.

This is, I believe, what Wright is addressing in the article - 5 centuries of tradition vs Scripture, with Reformed theology taking place of the RCC.

 

[JonC]

His views regarding salvation and Israel and OT Judaism at time of Christ seems to imply that God could have saved apart from theCross, and that Jesus death is really not for the sale of sinners, but for covenant with israel to be maintained and righted!

I think you need to look at the article again.

Give me a quote so I can reference what you are looking at.

The problem here is character assassination rather than dealing with what is actually said. You do not like men like N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, D.W. Moody, and John Wesley because they reject some idea you hold essential to your faith (they all reject the neo-Calvinism you hold). BUT they do not reject what IS essential to THE faith.

 

[agedman]

His views regarding salvation and Israel and OT Judaism at time of Christ seems to imply that God could have saved apart from theCross, and that Jesus death is really not for the sale of sinners, but for covenant with israel to be maintained and righted!

God, having such authority, could have determined any method that pleased Him to save.

And He Did.

Folks are not saved “by the blood” despite the popular evangelistic song. Blood justifies (Romans5:9)

People are saved by belief.

Belief is the gift of God given to those He is pleased to save.

 

[Aaron]

Where did Paul place our hope? In the Resurrection. Your theory of atonement is too small, brother. It is not about saving sinners but about God's glory and His Kingdom.

Sure, you have your ticket to heaven. But when you realize it is not about you, not about man, but about God and His own glory, then and only then can you truly appreciate the atonement for all it encompasses.

Instead of jumping from one point to another, stick to the one being discussed.

You are wrong, and a child could refute your sophistry with the sincere milk of the Word.

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.​

 

[JonC]

Instead of jumping from one point to another, stick to the one being discussed.

You are wrong, and a child could refute your sophistry with the sincere milk of the Word.

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.​

I haven't been jumping topics, but instead have offered you God's Word itself. Perhaps you didn't recognize the passage because you were seeking milk rather than meat, but I was referring to Romans 8.

I agree that Jesus Christ came to save sinners. I just do not believe this is enough evidence to reject that Christ also come to” set creation itself free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21).

 

[agedman]

Instead of jumping from one point to another, stick to the one being discussed.

You are wrong, and a child could refute your sophistry with the sincere milk of the Word.

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.​

Even in that which you desire as proof, you miss the essence

12I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

15Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

​

What was after salvation?

Eternal life.

Why?

For God’s honor and glory.


If the heavens declare the glory of God, how much more the redeemed.

​