Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

[Yeshua1]

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.

I think it is much more that he rejects the Church understanding of the Gospel as being wrong, as it did not accept that to him Judaism was still able to save in time of Jesus and paul!
So per him, if someone did not have real background in Judaism of that time, the Gospel and Pauline Justification could not be proved/taught by the Holy Spirit from scriptures themselves?

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

Paul states that even the Creation awaits the time of the glorification of the saints, but jesus died in the place and stead of sinners, not of nature!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Without the shed blood of jesus upon the Cross, faith saves NONE.

 

[JonC]

Paul states that even the Creation awaits the time of the glorification of the saints, but jesus died in the place and stead of sinners, not of nature!

"For", not " in the place of".

So, to be clear, you do not believe that creation was subjected to futility because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Why not?

 

[agedman]

Without the shed blood of jesus upon the Cross, faith saves NONE.

Wrong!!!

This is not some small area, but a fundamental Scripture doctrine.

Blood shed resulted in forgiveness of sin.

Blood shed DID NOT and DOES NOT SAVE!!!

Not a single Scripture can be presented in support of such thinking.

The gift of God is Belief.

BELIEF saves.

“By faith ALONE!”

One of the five solas!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

I actually respect all of those persons that you liosted here, as what is important about Wright is that he does NOT hold to PST, as he equates that view to seeing God as beating down jesus, for having anger issues, and for whipping on jesus.. he fails to see that the wrath of God poured out upon jesus was NOT angry as we get, all flustered, but a holy response to sin!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

​

Those whom God has patience towards would be his elect to come to faith in jesus, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong!!!

This is not some small area, but a fundamental Scripture doctrine.

Blood shed resulted in forgiveness of sin.

Blood shed DID NOT and DOES NOT SAVE!!!

Not a single Scripture can be presented in support of such thinking.

The gift of God is Belief.

BELIEF saves.

“By faith ALONE!”

One of the five solas!

the means of salvation is the physical death of Jesus in our place/stead. correct?

 

[JonC]

I actually respect all of those persons that you liosted here, as what is important about Wright is that he does NOT hold to PST, as he equates that view to seeing God as beating down jesus, for having anger issues, and for whipping on jesus.. he fails to see that the wrath of God poured out upon jesus was NOT angry as we get, all flustered, but a holy response to sin!

C.S. Lewis also rejected that view. How can you respect him?

 

[Yeshua1]

C.S. Lewis also rejected that view. How can you respect him?

I cna respect him for being used by God to bring others to jesus through the Narnia books and Screwtape letters and mere christianity....

 

[JonC]

I cna respect him for being used by God to bring others to jesus through the Narnia books and Screwtape letters and mere christianity....

But you cannot respect N.T. Wright for being used by God to bring others to Jesus through his works, his ministry, his contributions to evangelical theology, and the influence he has had on others who have been used by God?????

 

[Yeshua1]

But you cannot respect N.T. Wright for being used by God to bring others to Jesus through his works, his ministry, his contributions to evangelical theology, and the influence he has had on others who have been used by God?????

I see him as more as bring really bad theology into the Church as under a Trojan horse, as His NPP view especially are really suspect!

 

[JonC]

I see him as more as bring really bad theology into the Church as under a Trojan horse, as His NPP view especially are really suspect!

I see. You have the insight of a god and see into the man's heart.

I don't. I see him along the lines of C.S. Lewis. Lewis also rejected PSA and the idea of a literal/traditional Hell. His view was very close to his mentor, George MacDonald, in that he did not believe the atonement was to appease an angry God or even turn aside God's wrath but to deal with a cosmic evil (Lewis did not, however, adopt the universalism of MacDonald).

But Lewis also was used by God, as you mention. While there are "dangerous" doctrines here there are also great truths.

Do you not at least find it hypocritical to respect C.S. Lewis, given he believes what you would call "another gospel", yet condemn Wright for the same thing?

(I don't, BTW, endorse all of either man's doctrines. I know more of C.S. Lewis because I have studied him while I've only read some of Wright in passing).

 

[agedman]

Those whom God has patience towards would be his elect to come to faith in jesus, correct?

No, for God pours unmerited favor on both those who are just and those who are not just.

That some of all who share “the rain” are particularly and peculiarly selected and enabled to “hear” and in hearing the Scriptures were endowed with belief, does not allow that God is limited in grace to just those of the elect.

 

[thatbrian]

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.

Here is just one statement from Wright that is not biblical, and a misrepresentation regarding PS: Wright cautioned that reducing the atonement to "God needed to kill someone and it happened to be his own son" is a pagan idea imported into today's thinking."

The above statement shows a complete lack of understanding of why Christ had to die, and we know that Wright is no fool. He understands the covenant blessings and curses. He knows that sin brings death, and he also knows that someone did have to die, yet he chooses to twist, distort, and mislead in regards to the atonement. He carefully phrases that statement with the goal of undermining an essential doctrine of Christianity. He acts as a scoffer, using language that would make anyone who holds to PS look barbaric and foolish. He is attempting to make the atoning sacrifice of Christ look like a pagan ritual. In doing so, He is disgracing the blood of Christ.

Regarding C.S. Lewis, we all know that Lewis' theology left a few things to be desired, but I don't see his errors in the same way I do Wright's. Lewis was a literary scholar. Wright is a biblical scholar. Lewis acted in ignorance, while, Wright does not. Wright understands precisely what he is doing. That is evident from his own work. His efforts are focused on undermining the gospel, and for that, the Apostle Paul would have some very choice words. . .

 

[thatbrian]

I see him as more as bring really bad theology into the Church as under a Trojan horse, as His NPP view especially are really suspect!

The NPP is simply another "gospel", and Wright uses his clout to advance the lie contained within, so I think that your using of the term, "Trojan horse" is very fitting.

 

[Rebel1]

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).

Romans 8:18-23 changed my life.

 

[Rebel1]

Here is just one statement from Wright that is not biblical, and a misrepresentation regarding PS: Wright cautioned that reducing the atonement to "God needed to kill someone and it happened to be his own son" is a pagan idea imported into today's thinking."

The above statement shows a complete lack of understanding of why Christ had to die, and we know that Wright is no fool. He understands the covenant blessings and curses. He knows that sin brings death, and he also knows that someone did have to die, yet he chooses to twist, distort, and mislead in regards to the atonement. He carefully phrases that statement with the goal of undermining an essential doctrine of Christianity. He acts as a scoffer, using language that would make anyone who holds to PS look barbaric and foolish. He is attempting to make the atoning sacrifice of Christ look like a pagan ritual. In doing so, He is disgracing the blood of Christ.

Regarding C.S. Lewis, we all know that Lewis' theology left a few things to be desired, but I don't see his errors in the same way I do Wright's. Lewis was a literary scholar. Wright is a biblical scholar. Lewis acted in ignorance, while, Wright does not. Wright understands precisely what he is doing. That is evident from his own work. His efforts are focused on undermining the gospel, and for that, the Apostle Paul would have some very choice words. . .

An "essential doctrine of Christianity" is the original view of the atonement held by the first Christians and by the Eastern Church from its beginning until this day. It took the RCC and Magisterial Reformers to introduce false theories -- Satisfaction and PSA. It's amazing to me how "free churches" have followed the latter instead of going back to the teaching of the earliest churches/Christians.

 

[thatbrian]

An "essential doctrine of Christianity" is the original view of the atonement held by the first Christians and by the Eastern Church from its beginning until this day. It took the RCC and Magisterial Reformers to introduce false theories -- Satisfaction and PSA. It's amazing to me how "free churches" have followed the latter instead of going back to the teaching of the earliest churches/Christians.

My authority is scripture, not church practice or tradition. If it were I would still be a Roman Catholic.

 

[Rebel1]

My authority is scripture, not church practice or tradition. If it were I would still be a Roman Catholic.

Scripture is my final authority, also. That's why I, like the first Christians and Christians for 1500 years after Jesus, do not hold to PSA. Those early Christians did not see it in scripture. That's why it was unknown for 1500 years.