Why are So many Accepting the Theology of NT Wright here?

[JesusFan]

Oh puh-leeze. I'm doing something that you and all these other parrots of their dogma are not doing, I'm 'playing' with what's actually written.

So what works did the thief at calvary have?

 

[JesusFan]

"Faith alone" was designed doctrinally to show a difference from the Roman Catholic system of faith plus works. But Reformers like Owen said it was "faith alone but a faith that is never alone". They said that a faith that did not manifest itself in works and changed behavior was not real faith. Then they were accused of being "fruit inspectors" and going back to the Roman system. Reformers like Baxter wrote on justification and did concede that in some sense works were necessary. Some say he changed his mind later and some don't.

How many of our sins did the shed blood of Jesus cover and atoned for then, for if there were all paid in full, what do we contribute at all?

 

[JesusFan]

You're in serious trouble if you are not a doer/fulfiller of the law as Paul. Christ. and James describes.

Sounds like you are hopping on the highway to heaven as Rome and Sda agree upon!

 

[JesusFan]

Sir, you are misusing scripture. In these verses, Paul is trying to tell us that if you are going to attempt to be a “doer of the law”, or rather, one who will attempt to be justified by the law, you had better do a perfect job of it.

James is saying to us real saving fail will be evidence by our works, that we will have some type of Fruit, but NOT works are parting of saving us

 

[JesusFan]

Egad. nothing could be farther from the truth. parrot. These are 'doers of the law' because the law is written in their hearts. A New Covenant promise.

So the Thief did?

 

[JesusFan]

Wrong. That is precisely his point.

It never ceases to amaze me how you 'faith aloners' freak out over the slightest mention of works/law in our salvation.

Good works should come to us as naturally as a duck to water.

Asa result of having been saved. not a cause to it

 

[JesusFan]

The text is teaching that every child of God of circumcised heart with the law written in their heart is by nature a doer/fulfiller of the law:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

By Paul's standard, do you fulfill the law?

12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. Mt 7

By Christ's standard, do you fulfill the law?

Has any one besides Jesus EVER been able to do that as a means to Justification?

 

[JesusFan]

The same word used in a different context takes a new meaning.

Any dictionary will show you the possible meanings of a word based on the context. No different in a Greek lexicon.

I’m sure Strong’s gives one possible meaning as “validation” which is clearly the context of James.

I don’t want us to talk past each other, or for this to be heated.

The subtle difference in what we are saying, imo, is there is always the expectation that genuine salvation produces good works, per Ephesians 1, that God prepared beforehand for us to walk in them.

A person not producing such good works should not have assurance of their salvation. It could be they aren’t saved or they could be saved and not walking as God has ordained. In the latter case, God Holy Spirit will convict that person of that truth because God disciplines those He loves.

That is not the same as saying we are saved by good works added to faith.

That is what Catholics believe.

Peace to you

And every other cult

 

[JesusFan]

Ironically, NT Wright holds a reformed theology (his emphasis on aspects have come to differ, but when I was younger NT Wright was considered by Reformed theologians to be "the" expert scholar on Pauline theology).

It should also be said that many prior to Wright saw similar problems with the Reformed understsnding. Even as Penal Substitution Theory was being developed the "Radial Reformers" (who were never Catholic) identified that the Reformers kept too many Roman Catholic doctrines via reforming those doctrines. Others complained that the Reformers were basing their understanding of the 1st century on their own struggles against the Roman Catholic Church (the understanding of Penal Substitution theorists about 1st Century Judiasm against the Roman Empire is the same as the 16th century Reformer against the Catholic Church).


The challenges against Penal Substitution Theory, the Reformed understanding of the Cross, and the problem remedied at the Cross have existed as long as Reformed theology has existed.

Where NT Wright departs from others is not in the problem he identifies, or that he challenges Reformed tradition. Where he departs is his conclusions.


Most would appreciate NT Wrights writings on some topics. As a Baptist we had to read his commentary on Romans (I think all seminaries had this as required reading). But this was before he challenged the Reformed tradition of the cross.

NT Wrong is very dangerous, as he redefines and literally gives meanings to classis doctrines, as when he mention wrath, substitute etc its just the same as JW and Mormons use bible terminology and vest with totally different meanings

 

[DaveXR650]

Wright redefine penal substitution to NOT mean at all the classical reformer and Baptist view on it though

That may be. I'm just saying an article comes up from the Gospel Coalition from 2007 saying the opposite. It would help if you would post what he said. I do see where he claims the Reformers had the gospel wrong. But he didn't say exactly why.

 

[JesusFan]

I like to read him. I don't view everything I read as a choice between lapping up everything they say or hating their guts. I happen to agree with him that Romans 9 is not primarily about God choosing individuals for salvation and damning others. I haven't read a lot of him but I just noticed that the Gospel Coalition put up an article (it's old now, 2007) but it was defending Wright as being not against penal substitution. So if someone tries to say that Wright's focus is mainly about refuting penal substitution I would like to see some articles on this. It may be true, since the article defending Wright in the Gospel Coalition was obviously refuting something previously said. I just haven't seen it. And I don't think there are any followers of him on here.

He claims to uphold it, but at same time tells us we have misunderstood Paul 200 years on justification, and that the Apostles never was addressing how individuals sinners get justified, but how to mark out and see who they are once been justified

 

[JesusFan]

He has some very good books. But I tried to read his books on justification....and gave up. He makes a good case against some traditional views regarding the 1st century understsnding of justification).

NT Wright does believe penal substitution, but believes the traditional penal substitution view got a few things wrong.

I found a couple of things interesting:

NT Wright believes that the Reformers misunderstood the 1st century by putting themselves in the place of 1st century Jews (if you think about it, the Jewish understanding of justification follows exactly the Reforner vs Roman Catholic Church issue). He makes a good point in that it should be considered. That said, it could be a coincidence (sometimes history repeats itself).

NT Wright correctly observed that many (like JI Packer and John Piper) made the comment that their position has been established since the Reformation and should not be challenged....but this is exactly what the Reformers did with established Catholic doctrine.

John Piper (in his book addressing NT Wright) wrote that NT Wright may be correct but it would be too complicated to teach so it should be dismissed until it coukd be articulated in a more teachable way. I did not like that reasoning. But I do like John Piper (he is one of my favorites).

Having read piper on Wright views, would say that he petitely stated that in the core issue of Pauline Justification, he was NT Wrong

 

[JesusFan]

That may be. I'm just saying an article comes up from the Gospel Coalition from 2007 saying the opposite. It would help if you would post what he said. I do see where he claims the Reformers had the gospel wrong. But he didn't say exactly why.

Dr Sproul effectively addressing the concerns with NT Wright Theology on this specific issue

N. T. Wright the Heretic | Effectual Grace

 

[TheOneWhoLives]

James is saying to us real saving fail will be evidence by our works, that we will have some type of Fruit, but NOT works are parting of saving us

Agreed. I'm just pointing out that isn't Paul's argument in Romans 2.

 

[JonC]

He claims to uphold it, but at same time tells us we have misunderstood Paul 200 years on justification, and that the Apostles never was addressing how individuals sinners get justified, but how to mark out and see who they are once been justified

Again, I have mot read much of Wright on this topic BUT I have read enough to know this is not exactly what he was saying.

From reading what I have of Wright, he views this "marking out" as you say to be a present sign of a future state (that we experience ultimately experience being declared righteous towards God at Judgment day).

I disagree with Wright, but I also disagree when people mistepresent other people's beliefs.

 

[JonC]

NT Wrong is very dangerous, as he redefines and literally gives meanings to classis doctrines, as when he mention wrath, substitute etc its just the same as JW and Mormons use bible terminology and vest with totally different meanings

Any theologians is very dangerous when people blindly accept what they ate told.

I like the late RC Sproul. But his view of the Cross is very dangerous and has resulted in many abandoning the church because his teachings don't always line up with Scripture.

I don't know how NT Wright aligns with Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses (I've studied those cults more than I have NT Wright), but I have the suspension you are bearing a false witness against another Christoan due to a disagreement. I'll look and see what Wright says about wrath in order to dismiss or confirm my suspicion.

 

[JonC]

Having read piper on Wright views, would say that he petitely stated that in the core issue of Pauline Justification, he was NT Wrong

One reason I don't trust NT Wright on this topic is he isolates Pauline Theology from God's Word. Actually, so do you.

Paul did not invent "justification/righteousness". Paul merely wrote on what was already there.

 

[JonC]

Having read piper on Wright views, would say that he petitely stated that in the core issue of Pauline Justification, he was NT Wrong

Probably the same book I'm referencing. Piper is a lot more concise than NT Wright. Towards the beginning of "The Future of Justification" Piper states that NT Wright is a great Chriatian scholar who has earned his respect. That tells is how much you align with Piper. Towards the end of that book Piper states that NT Wright may very well be correct, but his view needs to be simplified in order to be teachable (it does not fit within the modern Western culture). A few chapters in Piper makes a poor argument (that Penal Substitution Theory has been in place since the Reformation and should not be reexamined).

 

[DaveXR650]

Dr Sproul effectively addressing the concerns with NT Wright Theology on this specific issue

N. T. Wright the Heretic | Effectual Grace

Very good. I read the article and it explains some of the movement he underwent over the years.

 

[37818]

"Faith alone" was designed doctrinally to show a difference from the Roman Catholic system of faith plus works. But Reformers like Owen said it was "faith alone but a faith that is never alone". They said that a faith that did not manifest itself in works and changed behavior was not real faith. Then they were accused of being "fruit inspectors" and going back to the Roman system. Reformers like Baxter wrote on justification and did concede that in some sense works were necessary. Some say he changed his mind later and some don't.

So is it, you too oppose the Biblical concept being called faith alone?