He is welcome to it.
-
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!
NT WRIGHT on Heaven
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
He is welcome to it.
I withdraw my hesitation about calling Wright a heretic. He is a heretic. I just listened to his own explanation of Justification and thus his application of the atonement. He does use the same language but means something entirely different by his application. For him justification in the Pauline epistles is based upon a future view of the past life and whether that life will or will not obtain justification on judgment day. Thus justification to him is future thing that reacts to a past life. He interprets Romans 2:6-11 as the basis for justification of sinners and saints and denies that justification has anything to do with obtaining heaven but is the future reaction to the kind of life already lived on earth. He views "works of the law" simply as an ethnic idea of becoming part of the Jewish community in order to be justified. He is a blatant heretic that undermines and denies the whole basis of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.
Last edited by a moderator:
Like a few on this forum you sit like a vulture on the sideline and offer nothing constructive to a conversation.
You and Mitchel have access to Wright's video. If I have misrepresented him by what I said about his own confession about the sacrifices then simply show it and stop acting like little children complaining but not offering anything to substantiate their complaints.
NT Wright clearly and unmistakenly bases final justification upon progressive sanctification or grace works as the basis for final justification. Then in retrogression he claims that progressive sanctification is due to grace but this is all a matter of IMPARTED righteousness instead of IMPUTED righteousness and thus repudiation of the very heart of the gospel which is clearly spelled out in 2 Cor. 5:21. Thus Wright denies, repudiates IMPUTED righteousness and thus it is the "godly" rather than the "ungodly" that is justified before God (Rom. 4:5).
Wright defines the "righteousness of God" as "the faithfulness of God" in regard to keeping his part of the covenant, rather than the "moral" righteousness found in God's person (Mt. 5:46; Rom. 3:20-21). He is perverting the gospel completely and thoroughly.
Last edited by a moderator:
I typically appreciate your views, Biblicist. I think you are right to point out that definitions may not mean the same thing. This is very true with Wright. But I think that your dislike for Wright has caused you to misstate what was plainly stated.
The above statement is not accurate. Wright clearly claimed a relationship between the sacrificial system and the atonement of Christ. He said that this was clear in the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. He did say that when we think of sacrifice we seem to define it as penal substitution when it is fairly obvious that not all aspects of the sacrificial system can be applied as penal substitution. He said that he didn’t have the answers and thought more study should be done on the topic (and he rejected those other aspects held no meaning except obedience to ancient Jews).
quantumfaith
Active Member
Let's see "educated idiot", "vulture"......keep blathering Biblicist. You only offer more confirmation as to the kind of person you are.
I don't have any personal dislike of Wright. It is his doctrine I dislike.
If I am misrepresenting him, it is not intentional. When I listened to him I distinctly heard him reference the second goat in such a way that necessarily inferred that penal atonement could not be applied to it, as according to him, it did not die but was loosed and therefore laying on of hands on it could not be applicable to "penal" substitutionary atonement since it was loosed and did not die.
I also distinctly remember him stating that in regard to the issue of penal substitutionary atonement that the sacrifical system in the Old Testament, according to his understanding offered nothing absolute one way or the other. He claimed he had spoken to Rabbi's about it and it seemed to him that the sacrifices was a subject that needed further study and he was waiting for someone to do that study. However, in the mean time his inference was that it offered little to his understanding of "penal" substitutionary atonement.
Did you listen to him carefully? He did claim to believe in penal substitionary atonement and I credited him with that profession. What I questioned was how he would define and apply it. By listening to his debate with James White I saw exactly how he applies it. He repudiates the idea of "imputation" as well as repudiates the idea that the "righteousness of God" referred to in 2 Cor. 5:21 refers to God's personal moral righteousness as in Matthew 5:47 but rather to the "faithfulness" of God to His covenant obligations. I also saw how he applied it to justification. He claims that Justification is a future perspective in the New Testament that reacts to the type of life previously lived rather than a present and completed action whereby peace and assurance of heaven is now in possession through legal imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of sin. Thus he believes that God justifies ultimately "the godly" rather than the "ungodly" in direct contradiction to what Paul claims in Romans 4:5. He defines the denial that someone is justified by "the works of the Law" simply as a denial that one has to become a cultural Jew under the Laws of Moses, rather than justified by what is done in your own body as the ultimate basis for justification on Judgement day.
Hence, he has EMPTIED the words "penal substitutionary atonement" from all of its applicable meaning and repudiated the very heart of the gospel. His teachings are simply the method of an intellectual to complicate the issues, speak over the head of the average layman, in order to distort and pervert the truth of salvation.
I appreciate your manner in trying to correct me. If you think I am still wrong in my estimation of his position, please feel free to point it out and I will take another look, as I have no personal bias against NT. Wright.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I don't have them. I have had some problems with my computer and ran a antivirus program and a clutter cleaner and may have lost them.
Jon, I went back and listened to it again. He specifically states that his "fear" is that Christians try to relate Old Testament sacrifices to penal substitutionary atonement, let me quote his words verbatim:
"my fear is that a lot of Christians, when they think sacrifice, they....they..collapse the notion of sacrifice into some version of penal subtitutionary atonement"
The clear inference is that he does not do that and after making a verbal reaffirmation that he believes in penal substitutionary sacrifice by listing a reference of scriptures he goes on to say,
"BUT, I don't think that is what sacrifices is about"
He ridicules the idea that sacrfices depict God is angry at him and takes out his wrath upon a sacrifice or transfers his sin to a sacrifice (the argument by Victorus Christus) and tben claims the SAcrifices may give a "LITTLE BIT" of that idea and then he points to the only case where that "LITTLE BIT" may be found and neuters it completely, thus a complete denial that the sacrificial system taught "penal substitutionary atonement".
I don't think I have misunderstood his intent at all or the "fear" he has of those like me who does exactly that. Please relisten to him and check my references and see if I have not correctly assessed his whole position in regard to the relationship of the sacrificial system to the penal substitutionary atonement he professes he believes. I believe he uses the right words but defines and applies it in such a way he neuters and repudiates the Biblical doctrine. Please relisten and see what you think.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you reject penal substitutionary atonement you are rejecting the very basis of the gospel of Christ and embracing a works for justification type of gospel which is "another gospel." Those who do may profess to be "Christians" and perhaps they may be misled "Christians" but what they are teaching is "another gospel" and absolute heresy.
It is the Law of God that must be satisfied as it is the law of God that provides the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:9-20) and the condemnation upon those who do sin (Rom. 3:23;6:23; 1 Jn. 4;6). Thus a person must be removed from "under sin" (Rom. 3:9) which can only occur for those "under the law" (Rom. 3:19-20) as it is the law that defines and condemns sin.
The only way anyone can be removed from "under condemnation" due to sin is to be justified by the very thing that condemned them - the law. The law's standard for justification is only satisfied by a sinless life.
That is the essence of the gospel, that Christ came and SATISFIED the righteousness demanded by the Law by his SINLESS life and SATISFIED the condemnation of the law by his death in the place of the sinner.
This is what Romans 3:24-26 and 2 Cor. 5:21 explicitly states. NT Wright's definition and application of BIBLICAL TERMS destroys the gospel of Christ and teaches completely "another gospel" and those who teach and preach "another gospel" are to be regarded as "accursed."
Jon, I did not want the post above to get lost in the shuffle. Please consider what I have said above and rewatch the video and see if I have not rightly represented him. If not, then please point out specifically where you think I have wrongly represented him.
Thank you. My attempt at correction was really an attempt at clarification. At one time I used “in my opinion” often, but then I decided it was inherently implied unless noted by a reference due to the nature of an online forum.
I believe that you may be mistaking in your observations of Wright. I did listen carefully, but that does not mean that I didn’t miss something or that I understood correctly. Having revisited the link, I still come out with the conclusion (that he is simply stating that taking the entire sacrificial system as penal substation is problematic). But I have not watched the video you mention of Wright and James White. If you have a link, I’d love to view the video (N.T. Wright brings up important and valid issues while I typically agree with James White).
I will offer these observations:
I am aware of his view of Justification. Again, I find myself agreeing with Wright to degrees. He does claim that there is a future aspect to Justification, but he also claims that we are “justified” in the present as verification that we will be justified in the future. This is directly related to his view of righteousness being God’s covenantal faithfulness.
In regards to his denial of imputed righteousness, it is important to be clear what he is saying. Wright rejects that we are imputed a righteousness that is our own. Instead we are declared righteousness in a judicial sense, but the righteousness is in reality the righteousness of Christ. He pits this against the notion that we are ourselves righteous because Jesus’ moral righteousness in fulfilling God’s moral law is imputed to us. I have no problem with Wright’s rejection of “imputed” as he defines the term, but I differ on his view of righteousness and justification. (For both statements reference N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision).
I don’t know that you are accurately representing Wright’s views (as you point out, definitions are important and I don’t know that we’re looking at Wright's views within their own context). I had to read Wright’s book three times before I started forming an opinion and that’s really not too bad because I’m not the sharpest tool and N. T. Wright is not the most concise author. I did not come away from the book sharing Wright’s views, but I also did not come away with the same understanding of his views that you are presenting here.
Let’s just leave it at that. If anyone is interested in exploring the views of N.T. Wright then they can skip the commentary, both yours and mine, and go straight to the source.
It is a big, big problem
Biblicist, I apologize for the awkwardness of my replies. I guess I am just a little slow at responding and our comments are getting shuffled up.
Anyway, regarding what I have placed in bold type of your statement:
You are right to acknowledge Wright’s comments shying away from God’s wrath. I do like his emphasis on the love of God in the atonement, but Wright is passing over biblical doctrine to emphasize this notion. He is ignoring Christ as a propitiation for sin. I agree with you here that Wright is minimizing (I don’t know if ridicule is proper) sacrifice in terms of God’s wrath.
Wright has stated that his view emphasizes Christus Victor theology (however I apologize that I can’t remember where).
Jon did you consider my last post where I quoted the precise statements which led me to my conclusion. If not, please read that post and then revisit his video and see if I have misjudged.
When you finish looking at the video, the screen comes on with various video's and it is one among those.
He uses Romans 2:6-11 to justify that future view and then explains it as retrospective or reactive to the life lived by the power of the Holy Spirit - thus basing future justification upon imparted instead of imputed righteousness.
This is where he defines the "righteousness of God" to be the "faithfulness" of God or a covenant keeping God. This is where he limits "justification by works" to covenant keeping in ethnic Mosaic terms. These two definitions utterly destroy the Biblical doctrine of justification. First, sin is a personal issue defined by the Law and condemnation brought upon the individual (Jew or Gentile - Rom. 3:9,19-20) by the same law due to an individual relationship to the law. Second, God's "faithfulness" as a covenant keeping God does not satisfy this individual relationship to the Law or its consequences as the sinner did not sin in a covenant condition but in an individual condition. The righteousness to satisfy that personal condemnation is a "moral" righteousness found only in God's moral righteousness rather than in a righteousness merely defined as "covenant keeping" faithfulness. Hence, justification must be viewed on an individual basis in regard to that person's relationship to the Law of God.
Here again, Wright redefines crucial Biblical terms. He takes the "works of the Law" and restricts it to merely Jewish covenant relationship to God, and claims the denial of justification by works is merely the denial that one must enter into the JEWISH covenant to be justified. In regard to Abraham, and "works" his view is impossible as abraham lived 430 years prior to the Mosaic covenant relationship. The "works of the law" refer to the most comprehensive standard for defining right and wrong revealed to men and thus is inclusive of any lesser standard (conscience for example, or cultural standards for example). Repudiation of justification by works is the repudiation that the INDIVIDUAL can do anything IN HIS OWN PERSON to satisfy either the righteous moral standard of the law or its penalty for coming short of that standard. Hence, justification is of the "ungodly" and the only way to justify the "ungodly" is by a righteousness FOREIGN to his person found in a legal substitute which can only be "imputed" as "imparted" righteousness does not satisfy the "sinless" standard of the Law or remove the individual from under the condemnation of the Law.
Here is where the real twist begins. He also rejects that the righteousness imputed is "God's" personal righteousness as well, and he redefines the meaning of "imputed" to really mean imparted righteousness worked in and through us by the Spirit of Christ due to God's covenant keeping faithfulness. This is nothing but Roman Catholicism at its very best. The righteousness is not the person's own righteousness but it is the righteous being worked IN and THROUGH the body of that person which ultimately justifies him on judgement day and which ultimate justification reacts to. Thus, Romans 2:6-11 is applied to the believer when in fact the context only sets forth the just principles by which the law will be applied without claiming ANYONE can actually meet those principles as suggested by the more pious Gentile sinner in Romans 2:1-5. Indeed, he denies that any Jew or Gentile can be justified under law - Rom. 3:9-20.
By redefining crucial pivotal terms he is thoroughly gutting the gospel and preaching "another gospel" altogether under the pretense of "grace".
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Wright plainly says:"...Isaiah 53,[is] the clearest and most uncompromising statement of penal substitution you could find."
Derek Rishmawy sums it up with :
"The moral of the story is that N.T. Wright affirms penal substitutionary atonement. Sorry uber-conservative Reformed guys, he actually does get the cross. Sorry, lefty, anti-PSA types, your Kingdom-minded hero says some really old-school Evangelical stuff about the atonement."
The profession is not the problem. The definition of the same Biblical terms is the problem. He repudiates that Old Testament sacrifices should be used to teach penal substitutionary authority. He ridicules the idea that the wrath of God could be transferred upon an animal sacrifice for his sins or that such prefigured penal substitutionary atonement.
He redefines "works" and redefines "imputed" and redefines "the righteousness of God" and claims that justification is not about obtaining eternal security or heaven but about the future judgement which in retrospect is based upon the kind of life lived, which he quickly denies is our righteousness but the righteousness of the Spirit of Christ lived through us. Thus basis for final justification is imparted instead of imputed righteousness just like the Roman Catholics and SDA do.
- Status