NO Reformed would see Wright as holding to reformed Sotierology, as we would see him and the NPP denying Pauline Justification!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
JonC's view of Substitution in the Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
This is not true (as evidenced by all the Reformed like John Piper, DA Carson, and those at The Gospel Coalition stating that, while they disagree with Wright, he is Reformed...you know....all of those quotes I provided you the last couple of times you made the same claim).
afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death. James 1:15
Stated a little differently.
for the wages of the sin, death, and the gift of God, life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:23
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:6
for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, from 2 Cor 5:21
who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, [for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?] and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,
I do not know what it is called but methinks it took place.
Was his death [ dying thou dost die Gen 2:17] brought forth by our sin? Did the wages of the sin need to be paid? Did the promise of God who cannot lie, made before the beginning of time, Titus 1:2 need to be inherited by the Son, the heir of all things Heb 1:2, before there could be hope of eternal life for anyone else Titus 3:7 ???????
Notice even after having the Holy Spirit abundantly V 6 we are still heirs of hope. Hope, spoken of in Romans 8:24,25 ?
Is that hope and Holy Spirit relative to Romans 8:23? Exactly what do you think eternal life is relative to?
The body? ----- Maybe? ------ What kind of body?
Stated a little differently.
for the wages of the sin, death, and the gift of God, life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:23
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:6
for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, from 2 Cor 5:21
who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, [for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?] and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,
I do not know what it is called but methinks it took place.
Was his death [ dying thou dost die Gen 2:17] brought forth by our sin? Did the wages of the sin need to be paid? Did the promise of God who cannot lie, made before the beginning of time, Titus 1:2 need to be inherited by the Son, the heir of all things Heb 1:2, before there could be hope of eternal life for anyone else Titus 3:7 ???????
Notice even after having the Holy Spirit abundantly V 6 we are still heirs of hope. Hope, spoken of in Romans 8:24,25 ?
Is that hope and Holy Spirit relative to Romans 8:23? Exactly what do you think eternal life is relative to?
The body? ----- Maybe? ------ What kind of body?
You continually fail to understand that I am not interested in your 'theory.' I have provided copious evidence for the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which, for about the 50th time is as follows:
'That God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
If you agree with that statement, you have never said so. If you disagree, tell me where and we can discuss it. But your 'theory' is no concern of mine as I have told you time without number.
This is a tendentious way of expressing of expressing the Biblical fact that 'the wages of sin is death.' God will 'by no means clear the guilty.' The whole of the Bible bears witness to that. If you read my linked article you would at least be able to comment intelligently on the subject.
I showed you a linked progression from type (Leviticus 16:20-22) to prophecy (Isaiah 53:6) to history (1 Peter 2:24) showing that the sins of God's people are transferred to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have shown you that He is the Surety (Guarantor) of the New Covenant and that He must pay (and willingly has paid) the debt of sin that His people owe.
But the fact is that your mind is closed. It does not matter how many Biblical evidence I show you for Penal Substitution, you will continue to shut your eyes and close your ears to them. I don't know why we carry on this pointless exercise.
However, praise God, I have more important and more pleasant duties over the summer. I have a pile of sermons to prepare and preach so my activities here are going to be severely curtailed. However, one of my sermons will (DV) be on Penal Substitution; I will be sure to post a link to it.
I am more interested in discussing the Penal Substitution Theory (that God punished our sins on Christ instead of punishing us to forgive our sins).
But no, I don't agree with your teaching.
That God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
If "instead of" was changed to "for" then I would agree.
None of them would agree with his view on the Atonement though, as he denies Pauline Justification as held by the reformers!
Do not those who reject Jesus to save them experience death, judgement, and eternal seperation though?
Let's be a bit more clear here. He believes that the Reformers had an incorrect understanding of first century Judaism which impacts their understanding of the Cross. That would be a much more honest statement.
The Reformers did not believe Pauline Justification, BTW. They believed in a continuous redemptive history, that there is justification. Were you to cite "Pauline Justification" the first Calvinists may have burned you at the stake.
Those who are condemned remain so for rejecting the Light. In the passage, "the Light" is Jesus.
reformers held to the Psa atonement view
They experience all listed things, correct?
Yes, they did. They articulated the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because that was what they saw in Scripture (how they understood Scripture).
Ironically, NT Wright also holds Penal Substitution correct (although as a secondary theme of the Cross). That is one reason I disagree with Wright.
But you are confusing the NPP with theories of Atonement. The NPP is not an Atonement theory. It is a theory of justification (righteousness).
At Judgment they will be cast into the "outer darkness", "cut off", and cast into "the Lake of Fire". That is what they will experience. Jesus called it the "Second Death".
What it will be like I don't know. Utter darkness. Fire without light. No life.
Sounds like a pretty bad place. Kinda like Kentucky.
(sorry @kyredneck ...couldn't resist)..
The atonement view of Wright and the NPP denies Pauline Justification articulated by both reformers and majority of baptists!
Eternal separation from presence of God, as under divine wrath of God!
It does reject the Reformers view of justification.
I am not interested in your theory.. But 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' (Hebrews 9:22, NIV), and '... It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins' (Hebrews 10:4).
As you know, the definition is not mine.
But I have previously explained why 'for' very frequently has the meaning of 'instead of' or in the place of' both in English and Greek. If you want I can explain it again as soon as I have time.. But in the meantime, why don't you tell us what you think it means for the Lord Jesus Christ to suffer 'for' us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as te penalty for sin.if it does not mean 'instead of'?
Can you actually provide any actual evidence for this? Which Reformer actually said, "Anyone believing in Justification as St. Paul believed it shall be burned at the stake"?
Absolutely! Benjamin Keach's The Marrow of True Justification upholds the teaching of the Bible as expressed by the Reformers so well that Joel Beeke, despite his Presbyterian beliefs, has written the introduction to it.when it was re-published by Solid Ground Christian Books (ISBN 1-59925-114-0. Well worth reading).
I have never heard Wright descibed as 'Reformed.' He plainly isn't. If he has been, it is a sign of the devaluation of Christian terminology whereby Steve Chalke can be described as evangelical.
I agree that without the shedding of blood there is nothing forgiveness.
You say you are not interested in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but this does not seem an honest claim.
Do you reject the theory that God punished our sins on Christ instead of punishing us?
If not, then your doctrine is the Penal Substitution Theory.
- Status