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

[JonC]

Piper wrote an absolutely perfect refutation of Wright's view of Justification. I have read it twice.

I've read it several times (I think I've read most of Piper's works at least twice) but I disagree that it was a perfect refutation.

Here is why:

1. Suggesting a doctrine that existed since the Reformation should not be reexamine is wrong. If the Reformers had this view there would never have been a Reformation. The logic is flawed.

2. Piper admitted in that book that he did not fully understand NT Wright's position.

3. Piper stated that NT Wrght may actually be correct but as his view stands it is unteachable.

4. Piper relied too much on his own tradition, often simoly insisting that his interpretation is correct therefore Wright's is incorrect.


The issue, however, is with those who understand Wright's (or anybody's) position from a critical review.

I know why I disagree with Wright, but it is from Wright's words.

 

[JonC]

But Pauline Justification Theology is inspired, in the background of Penal Substitution as seen by framework of Sacrificial OT system and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, not of what NT Wright redefines in his atonement theology

What Paul wrote has nothing to do with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. NT Wright insists that Jesus is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.

Here Wright has a better point than did Calvin. Wright takes Isaiah 53 as a whole rather than lifting verses to support the Penal Substitution Theory.

Think about Isaiah 53. How and under what power did, according to Isaiah 53, suffer? He suffered unjust oppression under the powers of evil, under the powers of sinners who lacked understanding. How was Jesus, according to Isaiah 53, forsaken? He was forsaken to suffer and die rather than being rescued from that fate by God, but He was never abandoned.

Penal Substitution theorists ignore Isaiah 53 and choose to extract verses to support the conclusion they had already made.

You make an error in taking "Pauline Justification" as a concept Paul introduced. Theee is Justification- NOT "Pauline Justification".

Wright is not saying at all Reformed nor Baptist Atonement theology . but redefying the terms once again and different vested meanings

Kinda. It depends on what you mean by "Reformed". Luther, for example, is a Reformer but he did not teach Penal Substitution Theory (he never reworked or departed from Aquinas' theory, and this was not his focus). Also, not all Baptists accepted the Penal Substitution Theory.

Wright is an Anglican bishop. He is considered Reformed mostly because he defined Reformed Pauline theology for much of his career. He was "the" expert scholar for Reformed churches prior to concluding that they had made an error.

The truth is that He hates the concept of saying that God the Father judged Jesus as accepting for our sake our wrath and punishment's, as thinks that would be a pagan concept, hates that the Father Imputed Jesus rightiousness to our behalf, and hates Pauline Justification, so he should not be viewed as being at all either Pauline Justification in Reformed or Baptist sense.

This is false. It is also a dishonest assumption.


Wright held this position for much of his ministry. The reason he changed is he identified (correctly) that Calvin made a mistake and that was passed on in Penal Substitution Theory. He is correct on that part.

The reason Wright rejects the theory (I actually agree he rejects Penal Substitution Theory) is what he has studied about the OT, the 1st century Jewish people, and Paul's writing.

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is a corruption of Scripture and a departure from the Christian faith in terms of Christ's work of redemption. It has nothing to do the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath. It has to do with what is written in Scripture.

 

[TheOneWhoLives]

Finally. I'm glad for you.

I’m so happy for me too! Thank you for teaching me what perfect, apostolic theology looks like. I can finally sleep well at night.

 

[JD731]

By this, do you mean that justification is always by man's choice? (Many, if not most Christians consider faith to be nothing more than their choice, their will, their decision, is this you?)

I am the guy of logic and reason, ky. If the Judge of all the earth, God the Father, has condemned all men to death, without exception, because of a single sin (their first one), which is defined as a wilful transgression of his law and he, the Judge, because of his pity provides a willing substitute, who has been proven to be innocent of any and all transgressions and then offers himself for all transgressors who are under the death penalty so they will not have to die. My logic says that if the Judge says he is propitiated by this one sacrifice for all transgressors and transgressions, why would I dispute the word of the Judge? That, disputing the word of the Judge and teaching it to others, seems logically to be a death penalty offence.

I notice you didn't say 'justification is ALWAYS by faith alone'.

I will affirm it. There is no other principle given by God whereby we must be saved. According to the record in Hebrews God began teaching this truth with Abel, who he justified by his faith and by Cain, who was condemned, not because God did not give him an opportunity, because he did, but because his deeds were evil. He 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it (God's testifying) he being dead yet speaketh. What was the deciding factor that God himself gave? Answer, Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice, a bloody one.

Please try to keep your reply <1000 words, I've a short attention span

I Think great big thick theology books and a little bitty Bible is a problem and often times does great damage to logic and reason.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. He 11:6. Justification by the Judge is always on the basis by faith in what God says and he is not going to justify me by what he said to Abel. Why? Because he did not say it to me.

 

[JesusFan]

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).

Dr Piper is addressing the central core of WQrights viewpoint, and is quite adamant that at the core, Wright has distorted classic reformed and Baptist Justification views, which make sense, as Wright seems to be motivated by desire to get rid of "pagan wraith of God", " to get rid of Imputed righteousness", and basically make a bridge to undo Reformation and unite back together Rome and us now

 

[JesusFan]

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

Wright comes across as someone who made up his mind and then used bible to justify his "new views"
And did not agree with Dr Sproul on all things, he knew Pauline Justification far better than NT Wright does now

 

[JesusFan]

Paul taught that faith is not of the creature (not of ourselves), it is a fruit of the Spirit (it is the gift of God):

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Gal 5

received after having been already saved and justified

 

[JesusFan]

If you are really interested, the first step would actually be understanding where NT Wright is coming from.

I've started several times to do this, but I lacked the interest. Maybe I'll pick it up, but it seems to be an issue within a camp I have left.

If it helps, the issue is "the New Prespective on Paul", which is not really new at all. Contemporary interest (a redurgance?) Began in the 1970's with Sanders. I have read his view. From there you have a few others before getting to NT Wright. Dunn coined the term "New Prespective on Paul" in the 80's.

Each biblical scholar came to their own conclusions, but they started with the same observation -
That Paul was less focused on works based salvation than he was on the Covenant and ethnic inclusion of Gentiles. They observed that the Reformers assumed the issue with 1st century Jews was the same issue that they had with the Roman Catholic Church.

Instead of the 1st century Jew seeking to earn salvation through works, these theologians held that the 1st century Jew believed they were God's chosen people based on their birth (their ethnicity). If this is true then the issue of works, even for the 1st century Jew, was a matter of signifying a future state of inclusion.

From there each went their own way in terms of developing their views.

What I do like about NT Wright is he makes very good observations concerning the problem with the view of the Reformation and he states that his solution (his conclusion) is probably wrong and has often urged others who hold a Reformed position to join in the dialogue.

Wrights thinks far too much on the assumption that The Jewish leaders of the time were not into works based righteous, for if they really were not, Jesus would never had lite them up as being blind guides, heading into hell fire and condemnation!

 

[JesusFan]

Agree extra biblical.

Its heart of Pauline Justification, cannot mingle grace and works

 

[JesusFan]

No. I think Owen was right and Baxter was wrong. Owen wrote "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith". Chapter 1 is where that quote is found. In the same chapter he also said "There is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved. Wherefore, every faith, whereby men are said to believe, is not justifying."

I think that is what is being talked about in James where he says "What good is it my brothers if someone says he has faith but does not have works. Can that faith save him?"James 2:14 ESV

So, the Biblical concept called justification by faith alone is sound. The words "faith alone" are not found in scripture. However; in describing what is required on our part faith is all by itself and the one thing mentioned. I would call that "alone". So did Owen and Luther and a whole bunch of guys.

As Calvin state very well, " saved by grace alone, but that saving faith will not be without words" so He was on the mind saved by grace alone received thru faith alone, but saving faith will be shown by in good works deeds to support profession of that faith

 

[JesusFan]

His reasoning for considering NT Wright in high regard is that NT Wright has contributed probably more than any other contemporary scholar to the Reformed understsnding of Paul.

His reasoning for saying that NT Wright may be correct is that Wright's position is not contrary to what is written in the Bible. What is being questioned is the 1st century Jewish understanding of what is meant to be a member of the people of God.

His reasoning for saying that NT Wright's view is too complicated to be taught is that it does not fit well in Western culture whereas the traditional Reformed view is a Western position (it is simple and fits well with our culture....no work to grasp it). Also, Wright's reliance on the secular Jewish environment of the 1st century means we'd have to teach that culture for the view to make sence.

I don't know why he said we should not question a doctrine that has existed since the Reformation. I was kinda surprised with that one.

Wright holds to water baptism as entry way into the Kingdom, hates imputed righteousness, denies infallible bible as while good in the Resurrection, really messed up on Atonement, and his end goal seems to unite Rome and us back together and undo Reformation

 

[JesusFan]

That does look like what is going on in Romans 9 and Acts 13. But too many other passages have Paul himself discussing works as opposed to faith. When works vs faith is so clearly put forth by Paul himself I find it hard to believe that the Reformers were only thinking of the RC's.

Except Jesus blasted Spiritual leadership for hold to a works based righteousness, to indeed being justified by adhering to the Mosaic Law

 

[JesusFan]

This context?:

Romans Chapter 2

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);

Will autopsy reveal literal letters literally written on literal flesh? Are you literally as brutish as Nicodemus?

Is this also the literal letter of the law?:

2nd Corinthians Chapter 3

3​	being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.

Are you so brutish that you're unable to discern that the two are synonymous?:

...the law written in their hearts...

... circumcision is that of the heart...

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

Paul talking on Physical Jews become true spiritual heirs by trusting in Jesus as their messiah, nothing to do with law keeping to get justified

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is a corruption of Scripture and a departure from the Christian faith in terms of Christ's work of redemption. It has nothing to do the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath. It has to do with what is written in Scripture.

Most people on here should be aware of that by now. Christ's work of redemption has a lot to do with the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath, as countless posts have explained to you. What you do is just dismiss everything everybody else says without being able to back up what you say.

This is false. It is also a dishonest assumption.

And, you had no right to say that, especially as a moderator. If someone would say that about you then you would immediately put on your moderator had and be greatly offended, threatening with banning. You can have your opinion on whether he is right or not, but you have no idea whether he is being dishonest or if he just doesn't agree with you.

The fact is, you keep pounding away at penal substitution without ever offering referenced theologians who agree with you. Those who disagree with you offer Calvin, the Puritans, all the modern guys like Piper, Carson, Schreiner and so on. You are not known well enough to quote yourself. There are no early church writings refuting penal substitution but there are early church writings showing the beginnings of the formulation of the doctrine. I keep waiting to see early non-Calvinist Christian writings on this and don't ever seem to see any quotes. I am not seeing any quotes offered of modern Mennonite or anabaptist groups who refute penal substitution. I want these quotes for a reason. And that is that these folks represent groups or movements or schools of thought that matter as to what else they believe.

When I try to find modern refutations of penal substitution I also, along with this, on their own websites find bizarre theology and that needs to be shown on here. If that is what you are into that needs to be understood if you are using them as references. I haven't read much Wright either, but I notice he writes a lot like you with so many nuances figuring him out is like nailing Jello to the wall. He does that for a specific reason most likely. You pointed out yourself that he for years developed a popularity and status among certain circles. He's doing the balancing act everyone does where you try to step out enough to get your work noticed but dance around the issue enough not to be completely refuted and then discarded.

 

[JesusFan]

Piper wrote an absolutely perfect refutation of Wright's view of Justification. I have read it twice.

So have I and JonC , we agree on what piper wrote, but he does not

 

[JesusFan]

I know. It's a shame.

Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon etc all would have disagreed with him on this central doctrine

 

[JesusFan]

By this, do you mean that justification is always by man's choice? (Many, if not most Christians consider faith to be nothing more than their choice, their will, their decision, is this you?)

I notice you didn't say 'justification is ALWAYS by faith alone'.

Please try to keep your reply <1000 words, I've a short attention span.

You theology has justed treated unholy the blood of Jesus, and trampled upon his Cross

 

[JonC]

Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon etc all would have disagreed with him on this central doctrine

I'm not sure about Luther. But Calvin and Spurgeon certainly would disagree (Cslvin contributed to the theory and Spurgeon was a Calvinist).

Luther did not persecuted Christians who refused to accept his theory of Atonement. In fact, although he never stated a belief in Penal Substitution Theory Luther did seem to think it communicated a focus on justification by faith adequately. He was more pastoral on this topic.

But yes, Calvin and Beza persecuted baotistic Chriatians who did not change to his theology. Spurgeon didn't, though.

 

[JesusFan]

Most people on here should be aware of that by now. Christ's work of redemption has a lot to do with the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath, as countless posts have explained to you. What you do is just dismiss everything everybody else says without being able to back up what you say.

And, you had no right to say that, especially as a moderator. If someone would say that about you then you would immediately put on your moderator had and be greatly offended, threatening with banning. You can have your opinion on whether he is right or not, but you have no idea whether he is being dishonest or if he just doesn't agree with you.

The fact is, you keep pounding away at penal substitution without ever offering referenced theologians who agree with you. Those who disagree with you offer Calvin, the Puritans, all the modern guys like Piper, Carson, Schreiner and so on. You are not known well enough to quote yourself. There are no early church writings refuting penal substitution but there are early church writings showing the beginnings of the formulation of the doctrine. I keep waiting to see early non-Calvinist Christian writings on this and don't ever seem to see any quotes. I am not seeing any quotes offered of modern Mennonite or anabaptist groups who refute penal substitution. I want these quotes for a reason. And that is that these folks represent groups or movements or schools of thought that matter as to what else they believe.

When I try to find modern refutations of penal substitution I also, along with this, on their own websites find bizarre theology and that needs to be shown on here. If that is what you are into that needs to be understood if you are using them as references. I haven't read much Wright either, but I notice he writes a lot like you with so many nuances figuring him out is like nailing Jello to the wall. He does that for a specific reason most likely. You pointed out yourself that he for years developed a popularity and status among certain circles. He's doing the balancing act everyone does where you try to step out enough to get your work noticed but dance around the issue enough not to be completely refuted and then discarded.

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is a corruption of Scripture and a departure from the Christian faith in terms of Christ's work of redemption. It has nothing to do the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath. It has to do with what is written in Scripture.

Most people on here should be aware of that by now. Christ's work of redemption has a lot to do with the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath, as countless posts have explained to you. What you do is just dismiss everything everybody else says without being able to back up what you say.

This is false. It is also a dishonest assumption.

And, you had no right to say that, especially as a moderator. If someone would say that about you then you would immediately put on your moderator had and be greatly offended, threatening with banning. You can have your opinion on whether he is right or not, but you have no idea whether he is being dishonest or if he just doesn't agree with you.

Highlighted those 2 areas of your great post, as those who deny Penal theology indeed fall back upon God wraith is a pagan concept, and that basically Rome had it right, Reformers overreached, and that we should do as NT Wright proposes, to use his view to bridge back towards Rome and be reunited again Just how they despiser wraith of god and imputed righteousness as doctrines

And I will put up the credentials of those for penal substitution as again st those who oppose it anytime

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not sure about Luther. But Calvin and Spurgeon certainly would disagree (Cslvin contributed to the theory and Spurgeon was a Calvinist).

Luther did not persecuted Christians who refused to accept his theory of Atonement. In fact, although he never stated a belief in Penal Substitution Theory Luther did seem to think it communicated a focus on justification by faith adequately. He was more pastoral on this topic.

But yes, Calvin and Beza persecuted baotistic Chriatians who did not change to his theology. Spurgeon didn't, though.

I am not saying harm or be bad towards those exposing it, but just accept it as aberrant theology to Reformed and majority Baptists