Featured God the Son's Assent to The Eternal Covenant of God's Giving Salvation, by Grace.

I'd leave that one up to you and those folk. We have to decide for ourselves what is important enough to give our time.

 

Yep. The idea is certainly not unique to Gill. There are many others who held the idea. I really do not find it a problem in their theology - it's just enough that I personally don't turn to them.

I like mentioning Gill because so many use him due to his commentary being online. It is not a very good commentary (like the Matthew Henry commentary is not a very good commentary). It is outdated, absent much scholarship and deprived many of the recent developments concerning first century belief. It's just fun to toss his view of Michael out there.

 

Yep. And....wait for it....N.T. Wright is a Reformed theologian.

 

I believe when Scripture refers to the Angel of the Lord it is referring to Christ.

 

That's the issue with "theology wise". It depends not on Scripture but on the theological system held. If we were to look at which is more "biblical" then it would probably be impossible to choose - we certainly could not say Wright is less biblical than Packer. But Packer is closer to our theology.

If you can't tell, the obvious "problem" is the crux of determining who to "follow". For decades men like Packer lifted up Wright as the expert in one field (Pauline theology). But one day the "expert" said something about the area of his expertise that did not sit well with those who thought him the expert and they decided that he would no longer be the expert. The criteria becomes the theological system itself.

To illustrate, it would be like recognizing Dr. A as the foremost virologist and top of his field for decades. But then one day he says to wear masks and the people who did not want to wear masks then denounce Dr. A as quack. The expertise did not change (Dr. A is still the expert in his field just as Wright is still the foremost scholar of Pauline theology). The virus did not change (just as Scripture does not change). The criteria for Dr. A did not change (and the criteria for Wright did not change). What changed was an observation which may or may not be true but that set Dr. A (and Wright) outside of the camp that had previously looked to them as experts.

 

That is not true. John Piper, R.C. Sproul, and Tim Keller are not Anglican. The issues with his Pauline theology only came about when he realized a problem may exist in the Reform view of the Jewish faith concerning salvation.

 

That is not drifting from Reformed Theology (except for those who worship the theology of the Reformers as inerrant and equal to Scripture).

 

Glad we did not trust the Catholic Church when Martin Luther suggested we totally misunderstood biblical justification though.

We actually have more information about first century Judaism (and the 1st century church) than did the Reformers. We have to be careful not to set up the Reformers as the new RCC.

 

Not quite. Wright views the Jews as seeing themselves as a "saved" people by virtue of election (that they were elect by virtue of birth into Israel). The idea of covenantal rightness was based on a current state as applies to a future status. The issue was most often argued over purity laws.

Wright is correct with that observation. History confirms this. (A brief examination of the Hasmonean dynasty proves this).

Wright observed that the Reformers presented first century Judaism as if it were the Roman Catholic Church and the first century church as if they were reformers. He is correct here as well.

That does not mean Wright is correct with his NPP. But his observations are actually correct, even if his conclusions are wrong. The Reformers did miss the mark on a few important issues.