• 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!

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

Do you accept NT Wrights theology, specifically regarding Atonement?


  • Total voters
    6
Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
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.
You are very wrong. I have not dismissed Penal Substitution Theory (I held the theory for a long time, even taught it as correct when teaching theology). I said, and will say again, that the readon I reject it is simply the fact it is not in God's Word.

My position is in God's Word. I have repeatedly posted verses stating my position.

Yours is not in God's Word. You believe it is what God's Words teaches, but cannot provide any passage that states even the basic that Jesus suffered God's wrath, or even suffered instead of us suffering. You "prove" that the Bible teaches Penal Substitution Theory by providing what you believe a verse teaches.

You are also wrong about my comment stating that NT Wright rejects Penal Substitution Theory because he can't stand the idea Jesus suffered God's wrath as being a dishonest assumption is inappropriate. It is factually.

NT Wright has explained why he sought a different idea of Jewish justification. He stated this while developing his theory. He said that he realized Jews did not, in fact, believe they were justified by works.

Whether that is a correct observation is irrelevant. The reason Wright changed his position had nothing to do with God's wrath.

@JesusFan posted a dishonest assumption about another believer. That is wrong, lazy, and bearing a false witness. People do that because it is easier than dealing with what other Christians actually believe.

Now.....don't get me wrong....some DO reject Penal Substitution Theory for that reason. But it is a stupid reason (Jesus is God, it isn't some offense to have Jesus experience God's wrath. It's just unbiblical).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
So have I and JonC , we agree on what piper wrote, but he does not
I agree. You and I agree with what Piper wrote. My complaint is that Piper did not refute Wright as much as he supported his own theory.

We see this with Piper writing, in that book, that Wright is a great Christian scholar, an expert on Paul, and may actually be correct.

You can't offer a perfect refutation of something and confess that that something may actually be correct.

Piper's book was more about why we shouldn't use Wright's position than it was an argument effect it was incorrect.

We saw this when Piper said it could be right but it was unteachable to lay members.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I am not saying harm or be bad towards those exposing it, but just accept it as aberrant theology to Reformed and majority Baptists
Many positions oppose Reformed and most Baptist views. Lutheran theology, Anabaotist theology (Amish, Mennonite, etc), traditional Anglican, early church theology, etc....they all consider Penal Substitution Theory abhorant in that it misrepresents Christ's work of redemption.

I didn't think you meant harm.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
You are very wrong. I have not dismissed Penal Substitution Theory (I held the theory for a long time, even taught it as correct when teaching theology). I said, and will say again, that the readon I reject it is simply the fact it is not in God's Word.

My position is in God's Word. I have repeatedly posted verses stating my position.

Yours is not in God's Word. You believe it is what God's Words teaches, but cannot provide any passage that states even the basic that Jesus suffered God's wrath, or even suffered instead of us suffering. You "prove" that the Bible teaches Penal Substitution Theory by providing what you believe a verse teaches.

You are also wrong about my comment stating that NT Wright rejects Penal Substitution Theory because he can't stand the idea Jesus suffered God's wrath as being a dishonest assumption is inappropriate. It is factually.

NT Wright has explained why he sought a different idea of Jewish justification. He stated this while developing his theory. He said that he realized Jews did not, in fact, believe they were justified by works.

Whether that is a correct observation is irrelevant. The reason Wright changed his position had nothing to do with God's wrath.

@JesusFan posted a dishonest assumption about another believer. That is wrong, lazy, and bearing a false witness. People do that because it is easier than dealing with what other Christians actually believe.

Now.....don't get me wrong....some DO reject Penal Substitution Theory for that reason. But it is a stupid reason (Jesus is God, it isn't some offense to have Jesus experience God's wrath. It's just unbiblical).
Wright himself calls wrath of God concept as very pagan, agrees with ity being cosmic child abuse

So how can I be mislabeling or spreading falsehoods when using their own words and beliefs against them?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I agree. You and I agree with what Piper wrote. My complaint is that Piper did not refute Wright as much as he supported his own theory.

We see this with Piper writing, in that book, that Wright is a great Christian scholar, an expert on Paul, and may actually be correct.

You can't offer a perfect refutation of something and confess that that something may actually be correct.

Piper's book was more about why we shouldn't use Wright's position than it was an argument effect it was incorrect.

We saw this when Piper said it could be right but it was unteachable to lay members.
piper also stated many ways and times that while Wright brought now "interesting concepts", in the end he did more bad then good, as was gutting the heart of Pauline Justifcation
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Its heart of Pauline Justification, cannot mingle grace and works
Kentucky is right….grace is Gods gift to you but works is the proof that somewhere in you, after you are regenerated, where you begin practicing your faith and without it, you are truly nota child of God. For example, what do you call making a damn nuisance of yourself always trying to bring a person to God? Are you not working to get them to believe? And how about feeding the poor? How about taking care of widows and orphans? Tell me that that isn’t a work. Do you think your getting into heaven without living your life without servitude to the Lords own children….please!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Many positions oppose Reformed and most Baptist views. Lutheran theology, Anabaotist theology (Amish, Mennonite, etc), traditional Anglican, early church theology, etc....they all consider Penal Substitution Theory abhorant in that it misrepresents Christ's work of redemption.

I didn't think you meant harm.
keep coming back to, where did the wraith and condemning due from God to us for sinning go, and what did Jesus experience by being forsaken by the Father, and what bowl of wrath did he have to drink of?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Kentucky is right….grace is Gods gift to you but works is the proof that somewhere in you, after you are regenerated, where you begin practicing your faith and without it, you are truly nota child of God. For example, what do you call making a damn nuisance of yourself always trying to bring a person to God? Are you not working to get them to believe? And how about feeding the poor? How about taking care of widows and orphans? Tell me that that isn’t a work. Do you think your getting into heaven without living your wife without servitude to the Lords own children….please!
Saying that one gets saved at a moment in time, saved by grace alone thru faith along, and the rest you cited is the evidence of having now been saved
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
You are very wrong. I have not dismissed Penal Substitution Theory (I held the theory for a long time, even taught it as correct when teaching theology). I said, and will say again, that the readon I reject it is simply the fact it is not in God's Word.
Yes you do. And you accuse those who hold that view as having the gospel wrong. As far as it being in God's word, you simply will not accept verses people show to you as meaning penal substitution. That fine, but if a whole bunch of people, from just people on this board to the theologians we are reading are saying the same thing, you need to come of with something more than just declaring it not there. And you need to show someone who reads those same verses and comes up with a different conclusion.
You are also wrong about my comment stating that NT Wright rejects Penal Substitution Theory because he can't stand the idea Jesus suffered God's wrath as being a dishonest assumption is inappropriate. It is factually.
That wasn't me and you have to remember I was the one on this thread who pointed out the articles that claimed Wright did indeed believe penal substitution. From what I can tell, Wright's objections to the standard Reformed view of justification do not revolve around his views on penal substitution.
NT Wright has explained why he sought a different idea of Jewish justification. He stated this while developing his theory. He said that he realized Jews did not, in fact, believe they were justified by works.
I agree with Wright in that some of what you see in the animosity of Jews when they saw Gentiles being included in salvation was not because they were primarily worried about the battle between faith and works but that they indeed believed that as Jews, they were in the covenant by birth and showed it by keeping the law. In other words they were not worried that they would not be saved if they did not do well enough keeping the law since, after all, they were Jews. There are a lot of theological parallels with the idea of Christians being justified and showing it by doing good works and showing faith working by love. Some of the strict Calvinists on here are very close to that because they believe that they are chosen by God and all the tendency to do good, even faith itself is a gift and useful only in showing that one is indeed part of the justified. I understand that.

But when Jesus had the young fellow come to him as ask what he needed to do Jesus said keep the law, and nothing about don't worry, after all, you're a Jew. And when Paul ticks off his qualifications that were important to him in Philippians 1 before he knew Christ, he mentioned his pedigree, and the fact that he was blameless as to the law. There is plenty of evidence that the works of the law were important to Jews, even as they were very aware of being Jewish by birth. Paul's positioning of works as opposed to faith time after time in scripture was deliberate and it came long before any Reformer was around so the fact that the Reformers were aware of that truth does not mean they invented it, nor that they were wrong.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Mypointis, you can’t be saved without the works
You have a point, which is a good one though it can be misunderstood.

If you come to faith in Christ, and live on after that, and do not have any love or good works you are not saved. So say all the Puritans whether they be high-Calvinists or moderate Calvinists, or the Arminians. Jonathan Edwards came out and said in regards to faith that even for a strict Calvinist, faith is a condition if by that you mean that without faith you don't have a saved person. And he went on to say that you could include good works and love with that too, in that sense.

As a result, Edwards has been taken to task for this and whole books have been written on his views on justification. It's actually the same with Piper, who is a huge fan of Edwards, and is responsible more than anyone for Edward's popularity nowadays. Piper has been taken to task for his work on faith and justification with some saying he has justification and thus the gospel wrong.

Richard Baxter came out and said that works are in some way involved in justification and wrote a paper on it. He served in the army for a time and was disturbed by fellow Calvinists who seemed to have no aversion to sin and vice, much less doing good works, yet considered themselves Christian.

Fact is, when the Puritans, Edwards, Reformers, and most Baptists say "faith alone" they are trying to share a specific theological point - that being that the meritorious cause of you being saved is the work of Jesus Christ. They are not saying that good works, pursuit of holiness, godliness, and so on are not essential to those who would be saved. A lot of Baptists and modern evangelicals got away from this and it really is nothing more than old fashioned antinomianism disguised as "free grace".
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes you do. And you accuse those who hold that view as having the gospel wrong. As far as it being in God's word, you simply will not accept verses people show to you as meaning penal substitution. That fine, but if a whole bunch of people, from just people on this board to the theologians we are reading are saying the same thing, you need to come of with something more than just declaring it not there. And you need to show someone who reads those same verses and comes up with a different conclusion.

That wasn't me and you have to remember I was the one on this thread who pointed out the articles that claimed Wright did indeed believe penal substitution. From what I can tell, Wright's objections to the standard Reformed view of justification do not revolve around his views on penal substitution.

I agree with Wright in that some of what you see in the animosity of Jews when they saw Gentiles being included in salvation was not because they were primarily worried about the battle between faith and works but that they indeed believed that as Jews, they were in the covenant by birth and showed it by keeping the law. In other words they were not worried that they would not be saved if they did not do well enough keeping the law since, after all, they were Jews. There are a lot of theological parallels with the idea of Christians being justified and showing it by doing good works and showing faith working by love. Some of the strict Calvinists on here are very close to that because they believe that they are chosen by God and all the tendency to do good, even faith itself is a gift and useful only in showing that one is indeed part of the justified. I understand that.

But when Jesus had the young fellow come to him as ask what he needed to do Jesus said keep the law, and nothing about don't worry, after all, you're a Jew. And when Paul ticks off his qualifications that were important to him in Philippians 1 before he knew Christ, he mentioned his pedigree, and the fact that he was blameless as to the law. There is plenty of evidence that the works of the law were important to Jews, even as they were very aware of being Jewish by birth. Paul's positioning of works as opposed to faith time after time in scripture was deliberate and it came long before any Reformer was around so the fact that the Reformers were aware of that truth does not mean they invented it, nor that they were wrong.
Point out at least one aspect of Penal Substitution Theory that I simply dismissed.

You misunderstood the topic. The argument does not have anything to do with being saved because one is a Jew.

1. Jews believed they were God's people by birth (based on God choosing Israel, creating that nation, i.e., grace).
2. Jews believed that this was a covenant relationship.
3. There are two sides of the Old Covenant (a blessing and a curse)
4. Being saved indicates fulfilling what is required in the Covenant to inherit the blessing.
5. What Wright is arguing is that Jews of Paul's day viewed being right with the Law (justified) in the future equated to behavior in their present (hence "what must I do to be saved")
6. This is associated with being a part of Israel as a people.

I hope that helps. Most here do not know where they disagree with NT Wright because they never read Wright (they read others writing against him). I haven't read much, and what I have read makes me know I agree with his points about history and the error Calvin made....but I do not agree with his conclusions (and he fails to prove his theories).


But back to your claim- show me what of Penal Substitution Theory I simply dismissed.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
keep coming back to, where did the wraith and condemning due from God to us for sinning go, and what did Jesus experience by being forsaken by the Father, and what bowl of wrath did he have to drink of?
This is a nonsense question. Wrath does not "go" anywhere. "Storing up" wrath is a figure of speech (God does not put wrath in a storage shed to pull it out later). God does not literally put His wrath in a bowl.

If you are angry at a friend and then you make ammends, where do you keep that anger? In your pocket? In a bowl on your table?

Scripture tells us that God is able to forgive sins (something you strongly deny).
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Yes you do. And you accuse those who hold that view as having the gospel wrong. As far as it being in God's word, you simply will not accept verses people show to you as meaning penal substitution. That fine, but if a whole bunch of people, from just people on this board to the theologians we are reading are saying the same thing, you need to come of with something more than just declaring it not there. And you need to show someone who reads those same verses and comes up with a different conclusion.

That wasn't me and you have to remember I was the one on this thread who pointed out the articles that claimed Wright did indeed believe penal substitution. From what I can tell, Wright's objections to the standard Reformed view of justification do not revolve around his views on penal substitution.

I agree with Wright in that some of what you see in the animosity of Jews when they saw Gentiles being included in salvation was not because they were primarily worried about the battle between faith and works but that they indeed believed that as Jews, they were in the covenant by birth and showed it by keeping the law. In other words they were not worried that they would not be saved if they did not do well enough keeping the law since, after all, they were Jews. There are a lot of theological parallels with the idea of Christians being justified and showing it by doing good works and showing faith working by love. Some of the strict Calvinists on here are very close to that because they believe that they are chosen by God and all the tendency to do good, even faith itself is a gift and useful only in showing that one is indeed part of the justified. I understand that.

But when Jesus had the young fellow come to him as ask what he needed to do Jesus said keep the law, and nothing about don't worry, after all, you're a Jew. And when Paul ticks off his qualifications that were important to him in Philippians 1 before he knew Christ, he mentioned his pedigree, and the fact that he was blameless as to the law. There is plenty of evidence that the works of the law were important to Jews, even as they were very aware of being Jewish by birth. Paul's positioning of works as opposed to faith time after time in scripture was deliberate and it came long before any Reformer was around so the fact that the Reformers were aware of that truth does not mean they invented it, nor that they were wrong.
Wright Penal substitution though involves no wrath of God, as to him is a very Pagan concept, and also denied God declares imputed righteousness towards us as saved, so very more in agree with with Rome there than Reformed or Baptist
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
You have a point, which is a good one though it can be misunderstood.

If you come to faith in Christ, and live on after that, and do not have any love or good works you are not saved. So say all the Puritans whether they be high-Calvinists or moderate Calvinists, or the Arminians. Jonathan Edwards came out and said in regards to faith that even for a strict Calvinist, faith is a condition if by that you mean that without faith you don't have a saved person. And he went on to say that you could include good works and love with that too, in that sense.

As a result, Edwards has been taken to task for this and whole books have been written on his views on justification. It's actually the same with Piper, who is a huge fan of Edwards, and is responsible more than anyone for Edward's popularity nowadays. Piper has been taken to task for his work on faith and justification with some saying he has justification and thus the gospel wrong.

Richard Baxter came out and said that works are in some way involved in justification and wrote a paper on it. He served in the army for a time and was disturbed by fellow Calvinists who seemed to have no aversion to sin and vice, much less doing good works, yet considered themselves Christian.

Fact is, when the Puritans, Edwards, Reformers, and most Baptists say "faith alone" they are trying to share a specific theological point - that being that the meritorious cause of you being saved is the work of Jesus Christ. They are not saying that good works, pursuit of holiness, godliness, and so on are not essential to those who would be saved. A lot of Baptists and modern evangelicals got away from this and it really is nothing more than old fashioned antinomianism disguised as "free grace".
The Thief had NOTHING to offer except trusting in Jesus as His redeemer and Lord, and extremes views. both wrong on this, are to one having stated can profess 1 time trusting in Jesus, yet no fruit at all, just harkening back to that time, or to have such a view of needing good works walking in fear and JW doing, never sure if did enough to "make it"
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Point out at least one aspect of Penal Substitution Theory that I simply dismissed.

You misunderstood the topic. The argument does not have anything to do with being saved because one is a Jew.

1. Jews believed they were God's people by birth (based on God choosing Israel, creating that nation, i.e., grace).
2. Jews believed that this was a covenant relationship.
3. There are two sides of the Old Covenant (a blessing and a curse)
4. Being saved indicates fulfilling what is required in the Covenant to inherit the blessing.
5. What Wright is arguing is that Jews of Paul's day viewed being right with the Law (justified) in the future equated to behavior in their present (hence "what must I do to be saved")
6. This is associated with being a part of Israel as a people.

I hope that helps. Most here do not know where they disagree with NT Wright because they never read Wright (they read others writing against him). I haven't read much, and what I have read makes me know I agree with his points about history and the error Calvin made....but I do not agree with his conclusions (and he fails to prove his theories).


But back to your claim- show me what of Penal Substitution Theory I simply dismissed.
Where did the wrath of God go, and do you now still hold to imputed righteousness. both areas Wring totally rejects?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
This is a nonsense question. Wrath does not "go" anywhere. "Storing up" wrath is a figure of speech (God does not put wrath in a storage shed to pull it out later). God does not literally put His wrath in a bowl.

If you are angry at a friend and then you make ammends, where do you keep that anger? In your pocket? In a bowl on your table?

Scripture tells us that God is able to forgive sins (something you strongly deny).
he cannot forget/forgive our sins apart from there being a sacrificial atoner, someone able and willingly to take that wrath and condemnation. Your view seems to state that God now just states"welcome to my family' without any facing anything . God cannot do that as you [purpose, as that violates His very Holy Nature
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Point out at least one aspect of Penal Substitution Theory that I simply dismissed.
Sure. You say repeatedly that "Jesus died for our sins". Jesus dying for our sins is a logical basic for concluding that Jesus was in some way a substitute, and that the punishment due us was instead put on him. Now you will come on and dismiss that as though no one is allowed to make such a conclusion even though I do, most on this board do, and many theologians do. That's a dismissal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top