NT WRIGHT on Heaven

[JonC]

You are right, Hank. We are all different and have different experiences, although salvation itself is the same.

I do not think that we are saved and then we come to a first enlightenment of that salvation in terms of being saved at the Cross and we just don’t know it until such time as God reveals it. I believe that Jesus secured salvation. But that the Father gives those being saved to the Son; God draws men to Himself. And this through the Spirit. So we have some differences, but it is the same gospel and we are united in Christ. I find the same comfort in the John 10 passage, although we have different experiences.

 

[HankD]

You are right, Hank. We are all different and have different experiences, although salvation itself is the same.

I do not think that we are saved and then we come to a first enlightenment of that salvation in terms of being saved at the Cross and we just don’t know it until such time as God reveals it. I believe that Jesus secured salvation. But that the Father gives those being saved to the Son; God draws men to Himself. And this through the Spirit. So we have some differences, but it is the same gospel and we are united in Christ. I find the same comfort in the John 10 passage, although we have different experiences.

Amen.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

If you said “secured,” I’d be more inclined to agree. Many times it comes down to definitions. But I do not believe I was born “saved.” Instead I believe I was born a child of wrath and that the salvation Jesus secured on the Cross was applied the moment I (through the work of God) believed. I view election in the choosing or giving of the Father, not in the Atonement of the Son.



I realize that you and I have different interpretations on this issue. Perhaps you view my understanding as “another gospel” and my soul "accursed." Perhaps you view me as holding the same gospel but with some misunderstanding.

Jesus died on the behalf, in the stead of sinners such as you and I, and the father "secured/provided" for the rebirth through and by the death of Christ, but still needed for us to receive Him thru faith to have that salvation actually happen to us, and that was by and due to the working of the Holy Spirit towards us!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are right, Hank. We are all different and have different experiences, although salvation itself is the same.

I do not think that we are saved and then we come to a first enlightenment of that salvation in terms of being saved at the Cross and we just don’t know it until such time as God reveals it. I believe that Jesus secured salvation. But that the Father gives those being saved to the Son; God draws men to Himself. And this through the Spirit. So we have some differences, but it is the same gospel and we are united in Christ. I find the same comfort in the John 10 passage, although we have different experiences.

We are ALL already born judged and condemned in adam, but the death of Jesus purchased back some of us to the father, as he translates us from Kingdom of satan into that of Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. One cannot equate the Atonement with penal substitution as the Atonement exceeds penal substitution. Some here disagree.







Yes, Wright is very much Reformed and holds traditionally Calvinistic views on baptism and the sacraments. I take it that you believe the Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc.are not saved because they "believe another gospel" and there is only one gospel by which we are saved (if they believe "another gospel" and are "accursed," then I also agree they are not saved). But this is where I disagree, although their practice and belief is error. You know that you could have saved a lot of time by simply saying that you believe N.T. Wright is not saved because he is Anglican.

NT Wright errs, as he somehow holds that he has been given the real understanding of the Gospel according to paul, and that Calvin and the reformers all missed it!

And that any of us got saved is due fully to the grace of god, so yes, even though there are many churches that teach errors on salvation, the Holy spirit can and still does his work to bring to salvation those whom are the elect in Christ!

 

[JonC]

I’m not going to go all through those posts, but we do agree on much.

NT Wright errs, as he somehow holds that he has been given the real understanding of the Gospel

I will note, however, that the above quote is incorrect. Wright does not hold that he has been given the real understanding of the gospel. He holds instead that he has diligently studied and that his conclusions are probably not entirely correct and opens up the floor for discussion. What he believes he’s found is that the Reformers were looking at Paul through their own situation rather than through a first century Jewish lens. Oddly enough, those who call him heretic are not those scholars who challenge his findings (they’re the peanut gallery) and many of those who challenge his findings also acknowledge truths he has brought out through the discussion (see, for example, John Piper’s rebuttal of Wright). Personally, I prefer Piper over Wright. But just like John Piper and D.A. Carson I can say that I also learn much from Wright.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will note, however, that the above quote is incorrect. Wright does not hold that he has been given the real understanding of the gospel. He holds instead that he has diligently studied and that his conclusions are probably not entirely correct and opens up the floor for discussion. What he believes he’s found is that the Reformers were looking at Paul through their own situation rather than through a first century Jewish lens.

You are completely deceived if you think that Wright is in any way shape or form presenting the true gospel of Jesus Christ. He is simply reasserting the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental justification by works but only in some new packaging.

He makes it crystal clear that we are ultimately justified by works performed in and through us by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit received initially received in water baptism. That is the essence of Roman Catholic salvation. The only present justification by faith he claims is one of ANTICIPATION of final justification of our WHOLE LIFE "according to our works."

He would join in on the anathema's of Rome against justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT works. He denies this doctrine as much as Rome does.

He plainly tells you that the denial of "justification by works" by Paul has nothing to do with the good or bad works performed in and through your own body but only has to do with becoming a Jew under the Old Covenant.

His defense is full of Rome's double talk. If you know what Rome believes about salvation there is no difference EXCEPT TERMINOLOGY.

 

[HankD]

Our biggest problem is that we are caught up in the time continuum.

He (O Logos) stepped out of eternity to become one of us and met us where we were/are.

what we saw and heard was in the stream of time.

What kind of thoughts does God have in the eternal state?

How can we possibly know that? We can't. We try, but it's impossible until He equips us with that capability.

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

James 5
7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.


HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

What kind of thoughts does God have in the eternal state?

How can we possibly know that? We can't. We try, but it's impossible until He equips us with that capability.

We can know this - that God is not the author of confusion! He will not be or do anything that contradicts His own Word. So we can know God's thoughts as revealed in Scriptures will be no different than His thoughts inside or outside of time continuum unless you think God is a schizophrenic and mutable capable of confusion in thought versus revelation?

 

[HankD]

I agree with you biblicist.
For this time and place we have all we need.
We have the simplicity of the word. It saved me from the Pope and it will keep each of us safe as well from any other who wants to take Jesus place.

Matthew 23
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

HankD

 

[HankD]

We can know this - that God is not the author of confusion! He will not be or do anything that contradicts His own Word. So we can know God's thoughts as revealed in Scriptures will be no different than His thoughts inside or outside of time continuum unless you think God is a schizophrenic and mutable capable of confusion in thought versus revelation?

My post was not against you personally but perhaps generally in another matter (see below). I believe we should be selective about who it is we condemn.

Rome? yes this is the head of the snake from whence comes the venom of works salvation.
The manner of craftiness whereby they distort the word says to me that they know full well the meaning and definition of the doctrine of the grace of God

But those who are caught in her web of deceit need to be gently extracted:

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

HankD

 

[JonC]

You are completely deceived if you think that Wright is in any way shape or form presenting the true gospel of Jesus Christ. He is simply reasserting the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacramental justification by works but only in some new packaging.

I don't think that Wright is correct in his presentation of Justification (or baptism...or many other things). Looking at his doctrine of justification, however, it is in no way a works based salvation and it is not "another gospel." As you noted, definitions are important. And I do believe that we often default to a Reformation view of Scripture (whether right or wrong, we should continually revisit the topic in light of Scripture and first century Judaism rather than the Reformers). My objection was in the declaration that Wright believed another gospel (and our conversation that those who believe another gospel are not saved).

This may shock you...and I kinda hate to admit it on this forum because I know the hatred you probably have for the guy's doctrine....but I also appreciate some of Tim Keller's work (even though I also disagree with him on many points). And I like John MacArthur...even though his study Bible is probably the worst I've read.

 

[The Biblicist]

But those who are caught in her web of deceit need to be gently extracted:

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

HankD

Are there some on this forum who are caught up in her web???? Certainly you are not suggesting that NT Wright is one of those?? He is a facilitator of her ultimate doctrine.

There is a growing number of prominent Baptists and Protestant leaders who are openly acknowledging Rome to be a "Christian" church. Evangelicals and Catholics Together exposed this growing movement among Evangelicals. In addition, the charismatic movement is now leading the charge in embracing Rome as a "Christian" denomination.

Rome would gleefully endorse Wright's veiws and Wright would stand shoulder to shoulder with Rome in their anathema's of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS. For heaven's sake, he openly embraces sacramentalism without any real difference than Rome's view.

I would certainly be gentle with true believers who are confused or struggling with understanding the ultimate conclusion of Wright's views, but with those who are actively facilitating and defending his views, that is a horse of another color.

 

[HankD]

This is an important issue perhaps the most important issue in Christendom today (Grace vs Works).

The practices of Rome need to be exposed because the Reformation (IMO, as apparently Biblicist) did not behead the snake. Folks tend to get a little upset about this but it (also IMO) needs to be said.

This note is a small sample to illustrate the sly-ness of certain theologies.

First from the orwellian dictionary

doublethink ... The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

Illustration: Rome teaches that the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Jesus Christ transubstantiated from the bread and wine. It is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand and in a different setting the "mass" is often called "The Bloodless Sacrifice of the Mass"

Both statements can't be true. It can't be the Body and Blood on one page but not the next.

Neither can there be an admixture of the two.

Similarly, the Gospel it is either works (as some profess) or grace.
Neither can there be an admixture of the two.


HankD

 

[HankD]

Are there some on this forum who are caught up in her web???? Certainly you are not suggesting that NT Wright is one of those?? He is a facilitator of her ultimate doctrine.

There is a growing number of prominent Baptists and Protestant leaders who are openly acknowledging Rome to be a "Christian" church. Evangelicals and Catholics Together exposed this growing movement among Evangelicals. In addition, the charismatic movement is now leading the charge in embracing Rome as a "Christian" denomination.

Rome would gleefully endorse Wright's veiws and Wright would stand shoulder to shoulder with Rome in their anathema's of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS. For heaven's sake, he openly embraces sacramentalism without any real difference than Rome's view.

I would certainly be gentle with true believers who are confused or struggling with understanding the ultimate conclusion of Wright's views, but with those who are actively facilitating and defending his views, that is a horse of another color.

I can't say for sure about NT Wright, haven't read him to any extent but it certainly seems so.

And if so I couldn't be sure if he was knowingly distorting the gospel.

For a Local Church: A dead give away by way of practice usually is the practice of infant baptism (even if it's not acknowledged as "regenerative") and calling the Lord's supper a "sacrament" to which you have alluded.

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't think that Wright is correct in his presentation of Justification (or baptism...or many other things). Looking at his doctrine of justification, however, it is in no way a works based salvation and it is not "another gospel." ... My objection was in the declaration that Wright believed another gospel (and our conversation that those who believe another gospel are not saved).

You are dead wrong on this! I have listened and read his view of justification very carefully and he is preaching "another gospel" and it is a justification by works gospel and it is easy to prove.

Paul's view of justification in connection with "imputed righteousness" is that it is the "UNGODLY" which is the object of justification and imputed righteousness WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:5-6). However, Wright's view of justification with "imputed righteousness" is the exact opposite. His view is that justification NOW is by faith that ANTICIPATES God justifying a person on the basis of a WHOLE LIFE OF GODLINESS produced by the Spirit. The only present justification by faith that Wright embraces is a declared "status of right" based upon ANTIICIPATION of THE WHOLE LIFE of works which vindicates our present declared "status of right" by God. Paul and Wright are two polar opposites.

He is teaching the confusion of justification with sanctification or the Roman dogma of sacramentalism but in the fog of Biblical terminology. However, there can be no question that he is teaching justification by works as he denies and redefines the Biblical language of "justification by works" to mean the polar opposite of what the Bible clearly teaches it to be, and that is NOT merely becoming a Jew under Mosaic law but has for its goal the obtaining eternal life and entrance into life. Wright denies the very thing that justification does obtain - eternal life and entrance into heaven NOW. He mixes santification by the Spirit with justification producing a GRACE WORKS justification.

This may shock you...and I kinda hate to admit it on this forum because I know the hatred you probably have for the guy's doctrine....but I also appreciate some of Tim Keller's work (even though I also disagree with him on many points). And I like John MacArthur...even though his study Bible is probably the worst I've read.

Do you realize that no absolute heresy is without particles of truth? There would be no such thing as deception if an error had absolutely no truth woven into its fabric. The issue is not some truths you can glean from it, but what does the fundementals of the doctrine ultimately teach or deny.

Wright says in the clearest possible language that baptism and the Lord's Supper are "essential" for your salvation, not merely important. He says in the clearest possible language that justification is received in water baptism and that in water baptism family life is created.

This man is weaving the fabric of absolute Catholic dogma with threads of Reformation terms in order to bring Protestantism back to Rome. When Billy Graham asserts that the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is essentially no different than the gospel he believes and preaches, no wonder other Baptists and Protestants are equally deceived.

 

[JonC]

I can't say for sure about NT Wright, haven't read him to any extent but it certainly seems so.

And if so I couldn't be sure if he was knowingly distorting the gospel.

For a Local Church: A dead give away by way of practice usually is the practice of infant baptism (even if it's not acknowledged as "regenerative") and calling the Lord's supper a "sacrament" to which you have alluded.

HankD

Hank,

This is what I am speaking about. I agree with Biblicist that we need to be on guard for false doctrine and we need to examine what is being produced. We need to look out for those in our charge and discern as best we can (while acknowledging our responsibility in that discernment).
BUT it is one thing to say that Anglicans, Presbyterians, Episcopal, Methodists, etc. hold a “Romish” doctrine (as, BTW and “of course”, did the Reformers….James Arminius, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, etc.). It is another to say that if they believe the doctrines of their church then they hold another gospel and are accursed and cannot be saved persons.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hank,

This is what I am speaking about. I agree with Biblicist that we need to be on guard for false doctrine and we need to examine what is being produced. We need to look out for those in our charge and discern as best we can (while acknowledging our responsibility in that discernment).
BUT it is one thing to say that Anglicans, Presbyterians, Episcopal, Methodists, etc. hold a “Romish” doctrine (as, BTW and “of course”, did the Reformers….James Arminius, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, etc.). It is another to say that if they believe the doctrines of their church then they hold another gospel and are accursed and cannot be saved persons.

You are missing the very essential and vital distinction between works and grace in scripture. They can't be MIXED in the doctrine of justification without completely and utterly destroying the whole fabric of the "TRUTH" of the gospel. Reformed Catholics MIX works with Grace in their doctrine of justification by sacramentalism. They tell you in the clearest possible language that eternal life, family life is created in water baptism and cannot be sustained without the Eucharist but then define and explain it as GRACE!

Now, as individuals, God is able to save them IN SPITE OF their utterly false gospel of works. That is another subject altogether. But there is not the faintest doubt that what they call the gospel is "another gospel" and has absolutely no relationship to the "truth" of the gospel of grace.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are missing the very essential and vital distinction between works and grace in scripture. They can't be MIXED in the doctrine of justification without completely and utterly destroying the whole fabric of the "TRUTH" of the gospel. Reformed Catholics MIX works with Grace in their doctrine of justification by sacramentalism. They tell you in the clearest possible language that eternal life, family life is created in water baptism and cannot be sustained without the Eucharist but then define and explain it as GRACE!

Now, as individuals, God is able to save them IN SPITE OF their utterly false gospel of works. That is another subject altogether. But there is not the faintest doubt that what they call the gospel is "another gospel" and has absolutely no relationship to the "truth" of the gospel of grace.

I would make a suggestion. Look at the book of Galatians and particlarly the repetition of "the truth" of the gospel by Paul. Try to figure out what Paul means by "the truth" of the gospel. What is that "truth" which distinguishes the gospel preached by Paul from what Paul calls "another" gospel?

 

[JonC]

You are missing the very essential and vital distinction between works and grace in scripture. They can't be MIXED in the doctrine of justification without completely and utterly destroying the whole fabric of the "TRUTH" of the gospel.

If you define Justification we have traditionally defined the term, then yes...you are right. As you noted, however, that is not what N.T. Wright does.

Let's just cut to the chase. I'm not very interested in NT Wright, although I do like to read his views on certain issues. I'm not Anglican and there is no need to keep beating a dead horse.

Wright says in the clearest possible language that baptism and the Lord's Supper are "essential" for your salvation, not merely important. He says in the clearest possible language that justification is received in water baptism and that in water baptism family life is created.

You do bring up a good point, and I am asking you where you’d draw the line (I am not sure where I do). Are you willing to say that a person who holds historical Protestant beliefs (who really believes those doctrines, including the “Romish” ones) cannot at the same time be saved because they believe another gospel and are accursed?

In other words, are people like N.T. Wright and Tim Keller, or people like John Calvin, Martin Luther, James Arminius, etc lost because they believe/believed another gospel and are accursed (they are, as you indicated earlier, not "saved persons"?