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

[JonC]

TO THE POLL'S QUESTION...

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

WITH THE 'TEST' QUESTION

Do you accept NT Wrights theology, specifically regarding Atonement?​

There are 5 'nos' and 0 yes's thus disproving the initial assumption of the OP.
I think maybe an apology to NT is in order from the OP. lol.

Lol.....I actually added the poll. I read @JesusFan OP and thought "I don't think anybody here....much less 'so many' accept NT Wright's theology regarding the atonement". I mean, this is a Baptist board and Wright is an Anglican Calvinist. We have calvinists....but I don't think we have any Anglicans.

 

[Blank]

Lol.....I actually added the poll. I read @JesusFan OP and thought "I don't think anybody here....much less 'so many' accept NT Wright's theology regarding the atonement". I mean, this is a Baptist board and Wright is an Anglican Calvinist. We have calvinists....but I don't think we have any Anglicans.

I dont mind Anglicanism especially their 39 Articles, even their liturgy using their Book of Common Prayer, but I don’t care for NT Wright’s view on justification.

 

[JonC]

I dont mind Anglicanism especially their 39 Articles, even their liturgy using their Book of Common Prayer, but I don’t care for NT Wright’s view on justification.

I don't mind any of the "isms". But from what I've read of NT Wright's view of justification his only concrete conclusion is that the Reformers made a mistake (and that conclusion is in line with historical Christianity as well as non-Catholics during the Reformation).

What I mean is Wright identified a well known (outside of Reformed influenced churches) issue and acknowledged his "solution" may to the problem may not be correct.

So while I believe Wright's justification focuses too much on secular 1st century Judaism, I respect it more than I do Reformed theology because Wright leaves his view open to correction and debate while Reformed theologians hold their theology as absolute and beyond examination.



Here is what I find absolutely mindblowing....and evidence to my observation above:

Reformed theologians considered NT Wright "the" expert scholar when it comes to Paul. This changed when NT Wright said that he believes the Reformers made an error in how they viewed 1st century judaism (which was an error identified by non-Catholic congregations during the Reformation).

NT Wright announced this and suggested they work together to correct this error. But rather than joining the task of reexamining Reformed theology they (Reformed theologians) simply ignored tge issue and attacked Wright.

Now.....would NT Wright's conclusion be different today had other Reformed theologians joined the work rather than simply kneeling at the "gods" of the Reformation? Probably. So they created the Wright "problem" by ignoring the problem.

 

[Blank]

I don't mind any of the "isms". But from what I've read of NT Wright's view of justification his only concrete conclusion is that the Reformers made a mistake (and that conclusion is in line with historical Christianity as well as non-Catholics during the Reformation).

What I mean is Wright identified a well known (outside of Reformed influenced churches) issue and acknowledged his "solution" may to the problem may not be correct.

So while I believe Wright's justification focuses too much on secular 1st century Judaism, I respect it more than I do Reformed theology because Wright leaves his view open to correction and debate while Reformed theologians hold their theology as absolute and beyond examination.



Here is what I find absolutely mindblowing....and evidence to my observation above:

Reformed theologians considered NT Wright "the" expert scholar when it comes to Paul. This changed when NT Wright said that he believes the Reformers made an error in how they viewed 1st century judaism (which was an error identified by non-Catholic congregations during the Reformation).

NT Wright announced this and suggested they work together to correct this error. But rather than joining the task of reexamining Reformed theology they (Reformed theologians) simply ignored tge issue and attacked Wright.

Now.....would NT Wright's conclusion be different today had other Reformed theologians joined the work rather than simply kneeling at the "gods" of the Reformation? Probably. So they created the Wright "problem" by ignoring the problem.

Forget Reformed theologians for a moment, the real question is, is "How does NT Wright differ from the Apostle Paul on Justification?"

 

[atpollard]

I voted “no”, but I had to guess … because I have never heard of N.T. Wright or his theology on the Atonement.

 

[kyredneck]

Reformed theologians hold their theology as absolute and beyond examination.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[JonC]

I voted “no”, but I had to guess … because I have never heard of N.T. Wright or his theology on the Atonement.

The short part is that 1st century Jews believed that they were, by birth, in a covenant relationship with God. Jews questioned what they must do to in the present to be faithful in this covenant. What he believes Paul is explaining focuses on a new covenant that includes Gentiles, justification being primarily about covenant membership in this new covenant. Salvation (remaining, ultimately, in the covenant....that is, inheriting the blessing) is distinct from justification and points to Judgment Day.

This challenged the idea that the 1st century Jews were akin to the Roman Catholic Church, seeking to earn salvation, and the Apostles akin to the Reformers challenging this idea.

Basically....how does one preach justification to a people who believe they are justified by being born Jewish (which Paul does) without redefining justification (which Paul does not do...he seems to assume the Jewish meaning)?

 

[atpollard]

Funny, I went and looked him up after posting and discovered this (which seemed quite reasonable to me).

 

[DaveXR650]

Funny, I went and looked him up after posting and discovered this (which seemed quite reasonable to me).

It is quite reasonable. And if you look at other things Wright says on the atonement you will understand why so many folks say he's OK on the atonement and that he holds to penal substitution. There are many aspects of the atonement and in my view my own groups tend to neglect the aspect of Christ defeating the powers of darkness, death, and Satan in the atonement.

In all fairness I have noticed that there is a tendency for things to be done a certain way for a reason. And I have noticed that there is a tendency for those who like to emphasize the cosmic aspects of Christ's work do it for a reason. They like the cosmic because it is also collective and does not require that individuals be confronted with "doing business" so to speak, with God.

Did you ever stop and think why it is that God seemed, speaking reverently, to have a difficult time defeating Satan? In open unlimited conflict he would have no trouble. The problem is that the accuser really does have something to accuse us of, something "on" man so to speak, something that hinders a truly holy and just God from directly crushing the powers of darkness. And that is that he would have to rightly crush us too and he doesn't want to do that. Thus Jesus accomplishes this victory in a way very surprising, and the core of this is penal substitutionary atonement.

Wright is obviously brilliant, and a compelling speaker and you always learn something from him. He says everything though and sometimes he seems to like penal substitution and sometimes he doesn't mention it directly. He to my knowledge, never attacks it like some on here do. Direct me to the link if I'm wrong. If anything, regarding the title of the thread, I would say Wright is not that goofy on the atonement but he is moving into what I was talking about in collective justification, which I think is wrong biblically, whether it be in the gospels where Jesus is telling everyone that they must go through a narrow gate instead of with the many or whether it be Paul repeatedly telling Jews and gentiles that their justification is connected to faith, personal faith, not part of a covenant group.

 

[JonC]

It is quite reasonable. And if you look at other things Wright says on the atonement you will understand why so many folks say he's OK on the atonement and that he holds to penal substitution. There are many aspects of the atonement and in my view my own groups tend to neglect the aspect of Christ defeating the powers of darkness, death, and Satan in the atonement.

In all fairness I have noticed that there is a tendency for things to be done a certain way for a reason. And I have noticed that there is a tendency for those who like to emphasize the cosmic aspects of Christ's work do it for a reason. They like the cosmic because it is also collective and does not require that individuals be confronted with "doing business" so to speak, with God.

Did you ever stop and think why it is that God seemed, speaking reverently, to have a difficult time defeating Satan? In open unlimited conflict he would have no trouble. The problem is that the accuser really does have something to accuse us of, something "on" man so to speak, something that hinders a truly holy and just God from directly crushing the powers of darkness. And that is that he would have to rightly crush us too and he doesn't want to do that. Thus Jesus accomplishes this victory in a way very surprising, and the core of this is penal substitutionary atonement.

Wright is obviously brilliant, and a compelling speaker and you always learn something from him. He says everything though and sometimes he seems to like penal substitution and sometimes he doesn't mention it directly. He to my knowledge, never attacks it like some on here do. Direct me to the link if I'm wrong. If anything, regarding the title of the thread, I would say Wright is not that goofy on the atonement but he is moving into what I was talking about in collective justification, which I think is wrong biblically, whether it be in the gospels where Jesus is telling everyone that they must go through a narrow gate instead of with the many or whether it be Paul repeatedly telling Jews and gentiles that their justification is connected to faith, personal faith, not part of a covenant group.

I think we also have to consider how one focuses on different aspects of Atonement. Wright does not reject Penal Substitution per se, but when it comes to justification he is saying Paul is speaking of something different from salvation.

I also think (to help with your observation of the "narrow way") that we need to keep in mind that Wright is speaking of a "new covenant", but basing the 1st century idea of justification on how it applied to the Old Covenant (the way is still narrow).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

TO THE POLL'S QUESTION...

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

WITH THE 'TEST' QUESTION

Do you accept NT Wrights theology, specifically regarding Atonement?​

There are 5 'nos' and 0 yes's thus disproving the initial assumption of the OP.
I think maybe an apology to NT is in order from the OP. lol.

This is interesting. We now have 6 'no's and no 'yes's. So no one on the board is prepared to say that they agree with Wright's theology.
In a football ('soccer' to you) match, if a team loses six-nil, it doesn't usually claim to have won.

 

[DaveXR650]

I think we also have to consider how one focuses on different aspects of Atonement. Wright does not reject Penal Substitution per se, but when it comes to justification he is saying Paul is speaking of something different from salvation.

I agree. He does not. And, as I have been saying all along, there is in the penal substitution aspect of the atonement, an essential aspect that is the only way to even attempt to explain how or even why our individual sins as individual humans can be handled spiritually so that we can be right with God. And if indeed it was the Reformers who first wrote this down in a systematic form then we owe them a debt of gratitude.

When it comes to justification, I think if he really is thinking of it as something different from salvation as really being different as in separate, then the accusations on him of being unorthodox are true. I don't think anyone on here reads Wright but I'll ask anyway, does anyone know of a quote where he links justification to faith by the individual, with the idea being that without faith, a person is unjustified and thus not saved?

I don't pretend to know much on church history but I am interested in what happened to the Church of England. I have J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths" and I consider it maybe the best book I have. And we used a book on witnessing in a Bible study a few years ago from Rico Tice. But I understand he has left the denomination. I could be wrong on the exact affiliations though.

 

[JonC]

I agree. He does not. And, as I have been saying all along, there is in the penal substitution aspect of the atonement, an essential aspect that is the only way to even attempt to explain how or even why our individual sins as individual humans can be handled spiritually so that we can be right with God. And if indeed it was the Reformers who first wrote this down in a systematic form then we owe them a debt of gratitude.

When it comes to justification, I think if he really is thinking of it as something different from salvation as really being different as in separate, then the accusations on him of being unorthodox are true. I don't think anyone on here reads Wright but I'll ask anyway, does anyone know of a quote where he links justification to faith by the individual, with the idea being that without faith, a person is unjustified and thus not saved?

I don't pretend to know much on church history but I am interested in what happened to the Church of England. I have J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths" and I consider it maybe the best book I have. And we used a book on witnessing in a Bible study a few years ago from Rico Tice. But I understand he has left the denomination. I could be wrong on the exact affiliations though.

When he comes to salvation and justification, it seems to me that he is viewing justification in the present to be evidence of a future salvation (truely belonging to the New Covenant people is present evidence that one will be saved from the "wrath to come".

I believe many have simply dismissed Wright because they believe he has abandoned Reformed theology or Calvinism rather than drilling down to be more precise about Paul's theology. Reformed theology tends to blend things together, and sometimes this can cause issues (like Jews believing they were God's people by election at birth coupled with Jews trying to work to be saved with justification and salvation being used almost interchangeably.

I still disagree with Wright but I can appreciate his arguments. He is anything but dull.

I disagree that there is a...or at least the....Penal substitution aspect to the Atonement for several reasons. But I do see a penal aspect in that Jesus suffered the unjust oppression wrought by Satan and He is our representative Substitute as the "Second Adam".

One issue is penal substitution aspect we think of it comes from the Latin view of Atonement (Penal Substitution Theory is a Latin position) based on moralism and a materialized view of sin. Man committed immoral acts or offenses against God, God must punish these things (sins), therefore for a man to escape this punishment these things (sins) must be transferred onto another and that person be punished .... more percisely....these things (sins) laid on that other person must be punished. God's justice is satisfied when these things (sins) are punished.

The notion that the justice of God can be satisfied by a compensation for sins or enduring punishment for sins does not come close to addressing God's personal demand on man. While Reformed theology strives to focus on sin, the ultimate result is superficial when compared to classic Christianity.

 

[atpollard]

One issue is penal substitution aspect we think of it comes from the Latin view of Atonement (Penal Substitution Theory is a Latin position) based on moralism and a materialized view of sin. Man committed immoral acts or offenses against God, God must punish these things (sins), therefore for a man to escape this punishment these things (sins) must be transferred onto another and that person be punished .... more percisely....these things (sins) laid on that other person must be punished. God's justice is satisfied when these things (sins) are punished.

Since arguing about whether people follow N.T.Wright is boring, and THIS is related to ATONEMENT and what Wright is actually studying (and interesting) I have a general question on OT Atonement (as the OT teaches it and the Gospels would have understood it).

What is "sin" and what happens to "sin" when the priest lays hands on the Lamb or the Bull before the sacrifice?
Is that "sin" or "guilt" that is being transferred?
What is "washed" by the sprinkling of the blood?

I am curious about the OTHER DIRECTION from the Latin Model of thought.
Jesus and the Apostles must have offered Temple Sacrifices their entire lives prior to the resurrection.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree. He does not. And, as I have been saying all along, there is in the penal substitution aspect of the atonement, an essential aspect that is the only way to even attempt to explain how or even why our individual sins as individual humans can be handled spiritually so that we can be right with God. And if indeed it was the Reformers who first wrote this down in a systematic form then we owe them a debt of gratitude.

When it comes to justification, I think if he really is thinking of it as something different from salvation as really being different as in separate, then the accusations on him of being unorthodox are true. I don't think anyone on here reads Wright but I'll ask anyway, does anyone know of a quote where he links justification to faith by the individual, with the idea being that without faith, a person is unjustified and thus not saved?

I don't pretend to know much on church history but I am interested in what happened to the Church of England. I have J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths" and I consider it maybe the best book I have. And we used a book on witnessing in a Bible study a few years ago from Rico Tice. But I understand he has left the denomination. I could be wrong on the exact affiliations though.

Wright hates conapt of teh Father having ANY divine wrath laid upon Jesus on cross, as to him very pagan concept, and hates also concept of imputed declared righteousness of Jesus towards us now as redeemed

 

[JesusFan]

Since arguing about whether people follow N.T.Wright is boring, and THIS is related to ATONEMENT and what Wright is actually studying (and interesting) I have a general question on OT Atonement (as the OT teaches it and the Gospels would have understood it).

What is "sin" and what happens to "sin" when the priest lays hands on the Lamb or the Bull before the sacrifice?
Is that "sin" or "guilt" that is being transferred?
What is "washed" by the sprinkling of the blood?

I am curious about the OTHER DIRECTION from the Latin Model of thought.
Jesus and the Apostles must have offered Temple Sacrifices their entire lives prior to the resurrection.

transferred in sight of God the sins of the people unto the scapegoat, in order to allow God to pass over their sins

 

[JesusFan]

When he comes to salvation and justification, it seems to me that he is viewing justification in the present to be evidence of a future salvation (truely belonging to the New Covenant people is present evidence that one will be saved from the "wrath to come".

I believe many have simply dismissed Wright because they believe he has abandoned Reformed theology or Calvinism rather than drilling down to be more precise about Paul's theology. Reformed theology tends to blend things together, and sometimes this can cause issues (like Jews believing they were God's people by election at birth coupled with Jews trying to work to be saved with justification and salvation being used almost interchangeably.

I still disagree with Wright but I can appreciate his arguments. He is anything but dull.

I disagree that there is a...or at least the....Penal substitution aspect to the Atonement for several reasons. But I do see a penal aspect in that Jesus suffered the unjust oppression wrought by Satan and He is our representative Substitute as the "Second Adam".

One issue is penal substitution aspect we think of it comes from the Latin view of Atonement (Penal Substitution Theory is a Latin position) based on moralism and a materialized view of sin. Man committed immoral acts or offenses against God, God must punish these things (sins), therefore for a man to escape this punishment these things (sins) must be transferred onto another and that person be punished .... more percisely....these things (sins) laid on that other person must be punished. God's justice is satisfied when these things (sins) are punished.

The notion that the justice of God can be satisfied by a compensation for sins or enduring punishment for sins does not come close to addressing God's personal demand on man. While Reformed theology strives to focus on sin, the ultimate result is superficial when compared to classic Christianity.

Satan had nothing to do with the cross of christ as to what was transacted there, as that was God the father treating the Son as the sin bearer, as the Holy One who knew no sin became the sin bearer for His own people, as per Isaiah 53

 

[kyredneck]

Satan had nothing to do with the cross of christ as to what was transacted there

Wow, so the Serpent didn't really bruise Christ? That didn't happen?

 

[atpollard]

.

 

[kyredneck]

When he comes to salvation and justification, it seems to me that he is viewing justification in the present to be evidence of a future salvation (truely belonging to the New Covenant people is present evidence that one will be saved from the "wrath to come".

Excerpt from Schreiner:

"The matter of justification deserves further comment. Wright often criticizes those who identify justification with salvation, pointing out that the words justify and salvation mean different things. He is certainly right on this score, but he neglects an important point as well. Wright, as noted above, puts justification in the ecclesiological category. It doesn’t communicate, says Wright, that one has become a Christian; it tells us whether one is a covenant member, a member of the church of Jesus Christ. I continue to be unpersuaded. Yes, justification and salvation don’t mean the same thing, but they have the same referent. Salvation means that one is spared from the eschatological wrath to come, while justification means that one is declared to be right on the final day."