NT WRIGHT on Heaven

[The Biblicist]

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 real issue is whether or not what is done IN YOUR OWN BODY regardless of its source and power is what ultimately justifies you before God or what is done solely IN CHRISTS BODY justifies you before God. The real issue is between cause and effect, justification distinguished from sanctification, imputation distinguished from impartation.

Any attempt to redefine Biblical terms (as NT Wright does) to confuse the two, combine the two or defend the former repudiates the Biblical doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.

 

[The Biblicist]

The real issue is whether or not what is done IN YOUR OWN BODY regardless of its source and power is what ultimately justifies you before God or what is done solely IN CHRISTS BODY justifies you before God. The real issue is between cause and effect, justification distinguished from sanctification, imputation distinguished from impartation.

Any attempt to redefine Biblical terms (as NT Wright does) to confuse the two, combine the two or defend the former repudiates the Biblical doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.

In NT Wright's debate with James White, he argues intensely that Romans 2:6-11 is the standard of justification at the final judgement. He argues that it is possible to be justified "according to his works" on Judgement day due to a righteousness worked in and through the believer by the Spirit of Christ which is not his own or by his power. That this righteous life is due to God's faithfulness to covenant relationship and thus by grace.

However, that is not what Romans 2;6-11 is about at all. In Romans 2;1-5 the more pious religious gentile boasts that they will be justified by their works on judgement day. In Romans 2;6-11 Paul lays down the "just" or "righteous" guidelines that will govern justification under the Law. Any life that meets the law's requirements will be rewarded accordingly and any life that does not will be rewarded accordingly. The standard for determining just consequences will be just. For the Jew it will be the Law of Moses. For the Gentile the law of conscious does the "work" of the Law of Moses in defining right from wrong. However, the ulimate verification of either law will be the revelation of Christ in the gospel (Rom. 2:16) as the personification of righteousness. It will not be have you measured up to the Law according to your reckoning but according to how the life of Christ revealed in the gospel reckons it.

Paul does not say that ANYONE will be justified under the law but only provides the just guidelines applied in judging men by the law. Indeed, he concludes NONE will be justified by that standard on judgement day (Rom. 3:9-20). It is this universal denial that makes the gospel the "good news" confined to the PERSON and WORK of Jesus Christ in completely satisfying both the righteous and penal demands of the broken law IN THE PLACE of the sinner received by faith within the boundaries of the "law of faith" in contrast to the "law" of works (Rom. 3:27-28).

The whole position of NT Wright is that God's grace makes it possible to be judged and justified under the Law as described in Romans 2;6-11. He has redefined all problematic Biblical terms ("works" "righteousness of God" "imputed") in order to obtain justification under the law and yet call it grace.

 

[go2church]

http://quizlet.com/11097188/theories-of-atonement-flash-cards/

Something to look over.

 

[The Biblicist]

http://quizlet.com/11097188/theories-of-atonement-flash-cards/

Something to look over.

We are all aware of these variants and they are contradictive to each other and all cannot express the truth of Scripture. I could send you to web site that shows variant views about the nature of God (Arianisn, Modualism, Trinitarian, etc.) held among professed Christians but does that make them all orthodox or Biblical just because they can be found in the secular history of Christianity?? No! If that made it acceptable there would be no such thing as heresy only variant orthodoxy.

 

[Yeshua1]

...I just want to take a moment to clarify, with Wright’s own words, that Wright does affirm penal substitutionary atonement. He has been clear on this over the years, but somehow that’s been lost on many due in some cases to their willingness to read all sorts of faults into him because of his position on justification, or because to some people, affirming Christus Victor components to Christ’s atonement, the idea that in his life, death, and resurrection Jesus defeated the principalities and powers of satan, sin, and death, means a necessary denial of PSA. It doesn’t. The Reformers all affirmed both themes because both are in Scripture. Wright isn’t any different. So, without further ado here is Wright himself.

Wright Speaks

First, a short little video where Wright says it clear-out, 1:19 onward:

http://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/09/11/n-t-wright-on-penal-substitution/

Except that he view is that Jesus sihherred the wrath and penaly of the Roman Empire on our stead, and that he did NOT endure and be forced to take upon Himself the wrath of God Himself...

That seems to be denying what has been classical stated to be the penal Substitutionary model of the atonement...

 

[Yeshua1]

Does he deny it? Or does he advocate multiple views?

He seems to deny that God poured His wrath on Jesus for sins, as jesus instead took the penaly of Roman Justice upon Himself...

 

[JonC]

In NT Wright's debate with James White

Biblicist, do you have a link to that debate? I don't doubt what you are saying, and I do like James White's teaching (even though Revmitchell made a comment a while back that keeps coming to mind….I keep seeing a reformed version of Jerry Springer - thanks a lot for the image rev ), but I'd prefer to see first hand.

 

[Revmitchell]

Except that he view is that Jesus sihherred the wrath and penaly of the Roman Empire on our stead, and that he did NOT endure and be forced to take upon Himself the wrath of God Himself...

That seems to be denying what has been classical stated to be the penal Substitutionary model of the atonement...

Maybe you want to rewrite this. It is incoherent.

 

[preachinjesus]

The OP has no clue what Wright is talking about.

It is unusual to encounter an individual who so consistently has no idea what they are talking about. Then the ad hoc condemnation of an individual by others who have neither read Wright nor anything that accurately discusses his views is ridiculous.

At this point, there is little hope for this board for enlightened conversation with some folks. This is disappointing. Perhaps this is just a season.

 

[quantumfaith]

Biblicist, do you have a link to that debate? I don't doubt what you are saying, and I do like James White's teaching (even though Revmitchell made a comment a while back that keeps coming to mind….I keep seeing a reformed version of Jerry Springer - thanks a lot for the image rev ), but I'd prefer to see first hand.

http://www.premierchristianradio.co...debate-on-St.-Paul-Justification-Unbelievable

 

[JonC]

http://www.premierchristianradio.co...debate-on-St.-Paul-Justification-Unbelievable

Thank you.

 

[evangelist6589]

We are all aware of these variants and they are contradictive to each other and all cannot express the truth of Scripture. I could send you to web site that shows variant views about the nature of God (Arianisn, Modualism, Trinitarian, etc.) held among professed Christians but does that make them all orthodox or Biblical just because they can be found in the secular history of Christianity?? No! If that made it acceptable there would be no such thing as heresy only variant orthodoxy.

How can we trust what you have to say???

 

[go2church]

We are all aware of these variants and they are contradictive to each other and all cannot express the truth of Scripture. I could send you to web site that shows variant views about the nature of God (Arianisn, Modualism, Trinitarian, etc.) held among professed Christians but does that make them all orthodox or Biblical just because they can be found in the secular history of Christianity?? No! If that made it acceptable there would be no such thing as heresy only variant orthodoxy.

My point is that not thinking like you do, is not heresy. The standard is much, much, much higher than that.

 

[Yeshua1]

In NT Wright's debate with James White, he argues intensely that Romans 2:6-11 is the standard of justification at the final judgement. He argues that it is possible to be justified "according to his works" on Judgement day due to a righteousness worked in and through the believer by the Spirit of Christ which is not his own or by his power. That this righteous life is due to God's faithfulness to covenant relationship and thus by grace.

However, that is not what Romans 2;6-11 is about at all. In Romans 2;1-5 the more pious religious gentile boasts that they will be justified by their works on judgement day. In Romans 2;6-11 Paul lays down the "just" or "righteous" guidelines that will govern justification under the Law. Any life that meets the law's requirements will be rewarded accordingly and any life that does not will be rewarded accordingly. The standard for determining just consequences will be just. For the Jew it will be the Law of Moses. For the Gentile the law of conscious does the "work" of the Law of Moses in defining right from wrong. However, the ulimate verification of either law will be the revelation of Christ in the gospel (Rom. 2:16) as the personification of righteousness. It will not be have you measured up to the Law according to your reckoning but according to how the life of Christ revealed in the gospel reckons it.

Paul does not say that ANYONE will be justified under the law but only provides the just guidelines applied in judging men by the law. Indeed, he concludes NONE will be justified by that standard on judgement day (Rom. 3:9-20). It is this universal denial that makes the gospel the "good news" confined to the PERSON and WORK of Jesus Christ in completely satisfying both the righteous and penal demands of the broken law IN THE PLACE of the sinner received by faith within the boundaries of the "law of faith" in contrast to the "law" of works (Rom. 3:27-28).

The whole position of NT Wright is that God's grace makes it possible to be judged and justified under the Law as described in Romans 2;6-11. He has redefined all problematic Biblical terms ("works" "righteousness of God" "imputed") in order to obtain justification under the law and yet call it grace.

NT Wright does not seem to want to hold to a classic view on the atonement of Substitutionary , as he shies away from it being ther very wrath of God poured iut unto Jesus on the Cross, as he seems to favor jesus taking the penaly of the Roman justice...

And he does seem to suggest that how we live and act in this life will somehow determine in the end if God will be able to "vidicate us" in the end...

 

[Yeshua1]

How can we trust what you have to say???

The stand orthodox viewpoint has been that of a substitutionary aspect to the death of jesus upon the Cross, and while there are other views that some have held, one must concede THIS view accords best with what the Apostles and Jesus themselves saw as why and how he died for sinners...

 

[JonC]

The stand orthodox viewpoint has been that of a substitutionary aspect to the death of jesus upon the Cross, and while there are other views that some have held, one must concede THIS view accords best with what the Apostles and Jesus themselves saw as why and how he died for sinners...

I'm amazed at the claim Christianity was unorthodox until the Reformation. Can you name one early church writer that taught penal substitution as the primary view of the Atonement?

Please note that I am not saying that penal substitution theory is incorrect. But it is not all encompassing of the Atonement. Personally, I tend to view the atonement through penal substitution lenses. But I am fully aware that it is not the only lens, not the only aspect of the Atonement taught in Scripture (and, BTW, by Paul), and not the only orthodox view. The penal substitution theory was an outgrowth of Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Historically, the standard orthodox viewpoint has been the ransom theory and moral influence view - with a hint of penal substitution and earthly undertones with a crisp finish (just kidding about the undertones and finish).

While I am not denying penal substitution, and I do hold to this as a primary view, you are absolutely wrong that it has been “the standard orthodox viewpoint.” And that it “accords best” with what the Apostles and Jesus said depends on what aspect of the Atonement or salvation you are dealing with (in other words…context).

And he does seem to suggest that how we live and act in this life will somehow determine in the end if God will be able to "vidicate us" in the end...

And you have this backwards. Wright believes that how we act are present indicators of a future justification. I disagree with Wright, but I (and you) cannot say that righteous works are a product of faith and then turn around and argue that Wright is saying how we act and live will somehow determine if God will vindicate us. That would be dishonest (even if it is unintentional).

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm amazed at the claim Christianity was unorthodox until the Reformation. Can you name one early church writer that taught penal substitution as the primary view of the Atonement?

Please note that I am not saying that penal substitution theory is incorrect. But it is not all encompassing of the Atonement. Personally, I tend to view the atonement through penal substitution lenses. But I am fully aware that it is not the only lens, not the only aspect of the Atonement taught in Scripture (and, BTW, by Paul), and not the only orthodox view. The penal substitution theory was an outgrowth of Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Historically, the standard orthodox viewpoint has been the ransom theory and moral influence view - with a hint of penal substitution and earthly undertones with a crisp finish (just kidding about the undertones and finish).

While I am not denying penal substitution, and I do hold to this as a primary view, you are absolutely wrong that it has been “the standard orthodox viewpoint.” And that it “accords best” with what the Apostles and Jesus said depends on what aspect of the Atonement or salvation you are dealing with (in other words…context).



And you have this backwards. Wright believes that how we act are present indicators of a future justification. I disagree with Wright, but I (and you) cannot say that righteous works are a product of faith and then turn around and argue that Wright is saying how we act and live will somehow determine if God will vindicate us. That would be dishonest (even if it is unintentional).

The substitionary view was that held by The Lord jesus and the Apostlesd and the Pro[hets of God though...

And NT Wright still has mistaken views on how paul viewed the Law and the Gospel,,,

As he sees the Law as how God intended for His saved people to live ant act, as the means of being justified before God, and that how we live in this life once been water baptised and "graced" determines if we had a real salvation or not!

 

[JonC]

The substitionary view was that held by The Lord jesus and the Apostlesd and the Pro[hets of God though...bla bla bla

Then prove it. Show us where Jesus and the Apostles and the Prophets of God .... and of course the early church as this was what we were actually speaking of...held the substitutionary view primary and in absence of all others. You have the floor, brother.

 

[percho]

Then prove it. Show us where Jesus and the Apostles and the Prophets of God .... and of course the early church as this was what we were actually speaking of...held the substitutionary view primary and in absence of all others. You have the floor, brother.

for the wages of the sin is death,

for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,

 

[JonC]

for the wages of the sin is death,

for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,

I am not asking to prove substitutionary atonement. I think that all here believe in that. I actually hold it as the primary view. But I acknowledge that it was not always so.

We were discussing NT Wright. He believes in a substitutionary atonement. But this is not his primary view of the Atonement. Y1 said that Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets held, contrary to the early church, a view that placed penal substitution above all other aspects of the Atonement. I asked him to prove it. Y1 went further to insist that the penal substitutionary view as the primary view of the Atonement was the only orthodox view....although it was not for over sixteen centuries of Christianity.

But yes. Jesus died a vicarious death. He died as a substitute for us....as a propitiation for our sins.

Again, Y1, prove your point. Show us that you are not just typing words without meaning. Present the early church as placing penal substitution as the PRIMARY view of the atonement. Here's a hint - If Scripture is correct, then you cannot. One aspect does not trump or negate another. All Scripture is absolute truth and equally divine revelation. My suggestion is to stop deciding what is more important and just accept all Scripture as vitally important.