-
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
Wright vehemently denies that the phrase "justification by works" has anything to do with obtaining eternal life now or entrance into heaven now. He mocks that idea just as Rome does. Yet both Moses, Jesus and Paul emphatically and repeatedly claim the very opposite.
Wright vehemently claims that justification occurs on the day of judgement for those who have now been declared to have a "status of right" based totally upon THEIR WHOLE LIFE of good works vindicating God in granting that present "status of right" just as Rome does. He vehemently declares that there is no present justification by faith, other than by faith in ANTICIPATION of their WHOLE LIFE OF WORKS vindicated by the Law on judgement day JUST AS ROME DOES.
Wright vehemently denies that "imputation" has to do with a foreign righteousness produced by God in the body of Christ "for us" JUST AS ROME DOES. However, Paul explicitly states it is the "UNGODLY" man that is justified and unto which righteousness is "imputed" WITHOUT WORKS whereas Wright says it is the WHOLE LIFE OF GODLINESS performed in and through your own body that ultimately the Law justifies you in God's sight JUST AS ROME BELIEVES.
This has nothing to do with PEOPLE or DENOMINATIONS but with the critical DOCTRINAL distinction between grace and works in regard to the doctrine of Justification.
Even if you are a Baptist by denominational upbringing but yet you MIXED grace with works in your doctrine of Justification you are preaching "another gospel" regardless of your own spiritual status. If that MIXTURE is the ONLY profession of salvation you have, then you are still lost in your sins as that MIXTURE saves no one. That is why I said ask a person to tell you their salvation testimony. If they are saved their testimony will contradict their false doctrine and agree with the "truth" of the gospel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahhhh.....I think we are giving each other a headache.
When you said they (those who believe "another gospel" then you made it deal with PEOPLE. But let's take denominations out of it...we can all connect the dots.
If I believe that baptism is the mode through which God conveys grace (i.e., another gospel, accursed) then am I a saved person?
If I asked you to tell me your salvation experience and you replied that you had believed in a gospel that included water baptism and that you were baptized in order to become a child of God as part of your salvational faith experience, and that is your only profession of salvation, then at the very minimum, you have no biblical basis to call yourself a child of God.
If your church professed that is the gospel they preach, they have no Biblical basis to claim they are preaching "the truth" of the gospel and therefore are preaching "another gospel."
Last edited by a moderator:
That's where I stand as well. Go figure :smilewinkgrin:
Great! Let's take it one step further. If a church or denomination is proclaiming a gospel of grace mixed with works at minimum we have no Biblical basis to claim them as preachers of "the truth" of the gospel but rather they are preaching "another gospel." Neither SHOULD they be recognized as a "Christian" church because no true "Christian" church preaches "another gospel." If a church or denomination cannot tell a person how to get from A to B they have no business calling themselves a "Christian" church.
Last edited by a moderator:
That’s what I was getting at. I, believe it or not, was not just trying to be argumentative.
How far does one go before there is no biblical basis to claim them as preachers of the “truth”?
All of the historical Protestant churches (from the Reformation) would fit into your category of preaching “another gospel.” I understand standing against the falseness of their doctrine (although as Baptists we have also gleaned much truth from their contributions). But when do we say “if you believe this then you are believing another gospel “ to the point they are not “saved persons”?
Disclaiming them to be true "Christian" churches does not disclaim there are true Christians among them. The disclaimer of being a true "Christian" church stands on the very basis of what is the "truth" of the gospel. If any group of people join together in proclaiming "another gospel" how can they be regarded a "true" Christian Church in any Biblical sense? In addition, find any church in the New Testament composed of unbaptized persons and pedobaptists are unbaptized persons.
You have it in reverse. The Free Church movement was the influence upon Roman Catholics that brought them to see gospel truths. The more essential truths of the Bible were learned from Baptists rather from the Roman Catholic Church.
I didn't mean that we developed our doctrine from the Reformers. But we are also not exactly like those in the Free Church movement either. I do see a closer kinship, however, to the Free Churches. It also seems that everything that is a Baptist distinctive came out of these groups rather than the Reformation. I may be wrong....and if so PLEASE correct me (with references), but I do not recall a strong "justification by faith" motif within the Free Church movement prior to the Reformation.
The Valleys of the Piedmont contain articles of faith dating from the 12th century with strong justification by faith among the Waldenses.
However, you have to remember that all early secular church history was selectively preserved by the Roman Catholic Church monks rather than by their enemies. Secular Church history is:
1. Uninspired
2. Incomplete
3. Inaccurate
We not only have an inspired history of the Lord's churches recorded in the book of Acts, but we also have a New Testament prophetic perspective of the Lord's churches after the time of the apostolic period given us in the New Testament.
The New Testament provides some prophetic characteristics of both the apostasy that was predicted and the prophetic history of New Testament churches until Christ's return. These are general principles that defy the Roman Catholic preserved secular history as the authentic record of genuine New Testament Christianity.
For example,
A. Don't look for New Testament Christianity among those who kill and persecute others as that is an apostate characteristic - Jn. 16:1-3; Rev. 17:6
B. Don't look for New Testament Christianity among those who embrace certain well defined heresies - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Jn. 4:1-6; etc.
C. Don't look for New Testament Christianity among those who libel, distort and falsely accuse their enemies - Mt. 5:10-12; 10:25; Jn. 15:20; etc.
D. Don't look for New Testament Christianity among those who make an unholy union (fornication) with secular state (Mt. 22:21; Rev. 17:1-5).
It does not take too much common sense to clearly see that you cannot possibly embrace the Post-Nicene Father's without becoming a Catholic - that is self-evident. It does not take too much common sense to see that the Post-Nicene Father's are logically and historically based upon the Nicene Church Father's and that the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers provide a progressive developmental history toward the Nicene Church Fathers. It takes no imagination to know and understand all of these historical documents were hand selected and preserved by Rome.
Therefore, either you must break at some point in this logical progressive development toward Catholocism or become a Catholic.
My view is that the AnteNicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene documents are the hand picked and progressive history of apostasy and that the true history of Christianity is found in the mainly perverted presentation of those who are identifued as "enemies" and "heretics" and "anabaptists" JUST AS THE PREDICTIVE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT STATES.
:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
:thumbsup: I forgot about the Waldenses for a moment.
Our rejection of Reformational Protestant doctrines are evident in that we are Baptist and believe that we hold a correct interpretation of those matters. I'm not arguing at all there. But those who are Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.,...do you think that they have anything to contribute to the Church as a whole? In other words, should people entertain the views of people like Tim Keller, or the writings of people like John Calvin or Martin Luther....or should they be dismissed entirely?
Again, you are missing the point. Just as there are necessary essentials to be regarded as a Christian, there are necessary essentials for a group of people to be regarded as a Biblical church. If such Biblical essentials are missing, it does not matter what else they may or may not believe they should be regarded as a "Christian" church but simply a religious institution that is no more a "Christian" church than Mormons, JW's or Catholics should be viewed as a "Christian" church.
There may be lots of saved people in these unbiblical institutions but that does not make them Biblical churches.
Therefore, on an individual level, any true Christian has something they can share from their experiences and study.
I understand you point regarding a church being regarded as a Biblical church. Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. would fail to be a “biblical church” as they depart from the biblical doctrine and follow human tradition. It is not the power of the church that saves, but the power of the gospel - so there can be Christians in those “unbiblical churches.” I think we are not really missing each other’s point, but speaking past each other’s point. When dealing Wright I was speaking of his beliefs as an individual (not necessarily the Anglican church as a whole).
Where do you think that room for disagreements exist? In other words, are there biblical churches that are divided over issues of interpretation or is there only one biblical church (in terms of individual churches)?
The big problem though with his views on pauline justification is that he thinks that the reformers and us have misunderstood what paul was really saying for past 400 years, and yet there is NO evidence from the scriptures that he can muster to support such a big claim!
And since he errs on water baptism as entrying into the community of faith, and that we MUST do right kind of good works once graced by God in order to get saved in the end, how is that full assurance on the finished work of Christ towards us?
You are stating here that to be a true NT Church today, need to uphold the real Gospel, but that there are many persons in those non NT churches such as a Calvin or Luther who have been used to teach us things of the scriptures despite some erronous ones they held with?
Just the fact that the Reformers and the churches born of the Reformation has misunderstood Paul on other issues for the past 400 years is enough evidence to consider the possibility.
Please provide reverences. I don’t think that Biblicist would even agree that Wright teaches we must do the right kind of good works in order to get saved in the end. Wright does believe that all will be judged based on what they have done on earth…whether good or bad…but don’t confuse this with salvation. Anyway…please provide references.
- Status