Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

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?

 

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!

 

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!

 

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!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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. . .

 

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.

 

Romans 8:18-23 changed my life.

 

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.

 

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.