NT WRIGHT on Heaven

[Greektim]

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.

I told you... defending Wright is a never ending struggle here and not worth it. It is their loss if they choose not to read or glean from the man. I however will go on reading his stuff and be enriched all the more b/c of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I told you... defending Wright is a never ending struggle here and not worth it. It is their loss if they choose not to read or glean from the man. I however will go on reading his stuff and be enriched all the more b/c of it.

Even though his views on the scriptures and on the method of salvation varies from what Jesus and His Apostles held them to being?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The Lord jesus and the Apostles saw his death in the context of Isaiah and all of the other prophets, as Him dieing in a substutionary mode for the salvation of sinners...

No one can deny that was the primaty focus of Him and John/peter/paul, and if the Church fathers held different views, they erred!

 

[The Biblicist]

Even though his views on the scriptures and on the method of salvation varies from what Jesus and His Apostles held them to being?

He is a baptismal regenerationalist or a sacramentalist who has simply repackaged justification by works so that appears to be grace. He is a heretic teaching what Paul spelled out to be "another gospel" of justification by works. He has to repackage and redefine "justification by works" and "the works of the law" to make it mean something other than attempting to obtain eternal life or entrance into life by works defined as good by the law.

 

[JonC]

The Lord jesus and the Apostles saw his death in the context of Isaiah and all of the other prophets, as Him dieing in a substutionary mode for the salvation of sinners...

No one can deny that was the primaty focus of Him and John/peter/paul, and if the Church fathers held different views, they erred!

Why do you think that Jesus did not recognize any aspect of the Atonement apart from his death being a substitution for man? Or do you think it unbiblical to believe that Christ conquered death and sin, or that the Cross is essentially vital to God's work of reconcilliation, or that it is through Christ and His work that the Kingdom is established, or even Christ exalted by the Father, ....there is so much beyond a penal substitutionary motif that you must deny for your statement to ring true...where do you start in the process of denial?

Here is what I observe:

Your denial that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself directly contradicts 1 Cor. 5:18.

Your denial that the Atonement was purposed for regeneration, for healing, denies 1 Peter 2:24-25.

Your denial that Jesus Christ died that He might render powerless the devil is a denial of Hebrews 2:14.

Your denial that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil denies 1 John 3:8.

Paul, John, Peter, and the author of Hebrews believed that the work of Christ exceeded penal substitution, something you adamantly deny. It is interesting that by your standards you would be a heretic.

AND AGAIN, no one is denying penal substitution. But Scripture provides its own context. It would be wrong, for example, to read Hebrews 2:14 as penal substitution. Perhaps that explains your unfamiliarity with those passages I listed...are you only reading passages that support specific issues?

 

[The Biblicist]

Why do you think that Jesus did not recognize any aspect of the Atonement apart from his death being a substitution for man? Or do you think it unbiblical to believe that Christ conquered death and sin, or that the Cross is essentially vital to God's work of reconcilliation, or that it is through Christ and His work that the Kingdom is established, or even Christ exalted by the Father, ....there is so much beyond a penal substitutionary motif that you must deny for your statement to ring true...where do you start in the process of denial?

Here is what I observe:

Your denial that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself directly contradicts 1 Cor. 5:18.

Your denial that the Atonement was purposed for regeneration, for healing, denies 1 Peter 2:24-25.

Your denial that Jesus Christ died that He might render powerless the devil is a denial of Hebrews 2:14.

Your denial that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil denies 1 John 3:8.

Paul, John, Peter, and the author of Hebrews believed that the work of Christ exceeded penal substitution, something you adamantly deny. It is interesting that by your standards you would be a heretic.

AND AGAIN, no one is denying penal substitution. But Scripture provides its own context. It would be wrong, for example, to read Hebrews 2:14 as penal substitution. Perhaps that explains your unfamiliarity with those passages I listed...are you only reading passages that support specific issues?

The words "penal substitutionary atonement" have to do with the elect. Regardless how you view election, whether they were simply foreknown as in prescience or predetermined, "penal substitutionary atonement" has to do with securing the salvation of all that the Father gave him (Jn. 6:38-39; 17:2; Eph. 1:4-13; etc.) and reversing the effects of sin in them.

The atoning work of Christ exceeded merely the salvation of the elect. It reconciled "the world" or His creation (Rom. 8:22-25) and thus overthrew the works of Satan not only in regard to the elect but in regard to the natural order of creation.

NT Wright is a heretic, as he is a baptismal regenerationists, sacramentalist and thus at a very minimum preaches "another gospel" which scriptures delcare is "accursed." His view of justification is nothing more than a very sophisticated educated garble that redresses "justification by works" in the clothing of scriptural terms neutered of their Biblical meaning.

 

[JonC]

The words "penal substitutionary atonement" have to do with the elect. Regardless how you view election, whether they were simply foreknown as in prescience or predetermined, "penal substitutionary atonement" has to do with securing the salvation of all that the Father gave him (Jn. 6:38-39; 17:2; Eph. 1:4-13; etc.) and reversing the effects of sin in them.



The atoning work of Christ exceeded merely the salvation of the elect. It reconciled "the world" or His creation (Rom. 8:22-25) and thus overthrew the works of Satan not only in regard to the elect but in regard to the natural order of creation.

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

NT Wright is a heretic, as he is a baptismal regenerationists, sacramentalist and thus at a very minimum preaches "another gospel" which scriptures delcare is "accursed."

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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. This is where I disagree, although their practice and belief is error. But you could have saved a lot of time by simply saying that you believe N.T. Wright is not saved because he is Anglican.

So you believe those who actually believed in "another gospel" are saved persons regardless of what the scripture clearly states? I agree there may be many saved sacramentarians but it is in spite of what they teach or have been later led to believe after salvation. There is no salvation in any other gospel for anyone at anytime anywhere.

 

[JonC]

So you believe those who actually believed in "another gospel" are saved persons regardless of what the scripture clearly states? I agree there may be many saved sacramentarians but it is in spite of what they teach or have been later led to believe after salvation. There is no salvation in any other gospel for anyone at anytime anywhere.

My apologies, Biblicist. I saw that this may be a misunderstanding and edited my post, apparently while you were responding.

I do not believe that one can believe "another gospel" and be saved. Where we differ is where we draw the line. I do not see Presbyterian or Anglican belief as being "another gospel" but as holding misinterpretations of Scripture.

But let's make a list. So far you'd say that anyone holding the doctrines of these churches are not saved: Anglican, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Church of Christ, Lutherans, and of course Catholics (they all see baptism as a means of grace...a sacrament). They are obviously not saved by your standard of holding "another gospel."

What about the Arminian side of the house? Methodists, Free-Will Baptists, etc. hold a different view of how salvation is worked out as well. Do we add them to the list of the unsaved (as long as they hold those beliefs)?

 

[The Biblicist]

My apologies, Biblicist. I saw that this may be a misunderstanding and edited my post, apparently while you were responding.

I do not believe that one can believe "another gospel" and be saved. Where we differ is where we draw the line. I do not see Presbyterian or Anglican belief as being "another gospel" but as holding misinterpretations of Scripture.

But let's make a list. So far you'd say that anyone holding the doctrines of these churches are not saved: Anglican, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Church of Christ, Lutherans, and of course Catholics (they all see baptism as a means of grace...a sacrament). They are obviously not saved by your standard of holding "another gospel."

What about the Arminian side of the house? Methodists, Free-Will Baptists, etc. hold a different view of how salvation is worked out as well. Do we add them to the list of the unsaved (as long as they hold those beliefs)?

Again, let me make myself clear. There are saved people within almost all denoninations regardless of the gospel they preach, but they are saved IN SPITE OF the gospel they were taught. The scripture is very clear there is no salvation by any other gospel and sacramentarinism is another gospel.

The same is true among those who claim to be saved by works but it is IN SPITE OF what they have been taught to embrace.

 

[JonC]

Again, let me make myself clear. There are saved people within almost all denoninations regardless of the gospel they preach, but they are saved IN SPITE OF the gospel they were taught. The scripture is very clear there is no salvation by any other gospel and sacramentarinism is another gospel.
The same is true among those who claim to be saved by works but it is IN SPITE OF what they have been taught to embrace.

So you believe those who actually believed in "another gospel" are saved persons regardless of what the scripture clearly states?

Thanks Biblicist for your clarification. Please let me know if I understand your comments correctly.

In your posts you to say that Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, Lutherans, etc. CAN be saved in spite of the doctrine that they have been taught to embrace but that they cannot still hold those doctrines (they can’t believe in “another gospel”) and be considered saved persons.

So to be fair, you are saying all of these (Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, Lutherans, Church of Christ....it seems save to include Free-Will Baptists, Pentecostals, and Methodists) are not saved but that they can be saved. In other words, they hold to "another gospel" as long as they hold those beliefs and are accursed (and not saved), but we all were accursed before God saved us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks Biblicist for your clarification. Please let me know if I understand your comments correctly.

In your posts you to say that Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, Lutherans, etc. CAN be saved in spite of the doctrine that they have been taught to embrace but that they cannot still hold those doctrines (they can’t believe in “another gospel”) and be considered saved persons.

So to be fair, you are saying all of these (Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopal, Lutherans, Church of Christ....it seems save to include Free-Will Baptists, Pentecostals, and Methodists) are not saved but that they can be saved. In other words, they hold to "another gospel" as long as they hold those beliefs and are accursed (and not saved), but we all were accursed before God saved us.

I don't know how to say it clearer but I will try again. Sacramentarianism as well as all gospels of justification by works saves NOBODY! People who are saved among such groups were NEVER SAVED by embracing that gospel of works. IF they are saved or ever came to salvation it is IN SPITE OF what they are teaching or being taught. In other words God can save them by simple faith in the gospel as revealed in his Word IN SPITE OF their educational training and theological explanations.

IF they are saved, when you ask them to tell you their salvation experience it will be just like yours - an experience where God revealed their sinfulness and simple faith in the simple gospel truths. IF they convey some other kind of salvation experience THEY ARE LOST.

 

[HankD]

I don't know how to say it clearer but I will try again. Sacramentarianism as well as all gospels of justification by works saves NOBODY! People who are saved among such groups were NEVER SAVED by embracing that gospel of works. IF they are saved or ever came to salvation it is IN SPITE OF what they are teaching or being taught. In other words God can save them by simple faith in the gospel as revealed in his Word IN SPITE OF their educational training and theological explanations.

IF they are saved, when you ask them to tell you their salvation experience it will be just like yours - an experience where God revealed their sinfulness and simple faith in the simple gospel truths. IF they convey some other kind of salvation experience THEY ARE LOST.

I am an example of what Biblicists is saying.

I was saved reading the scripture and listening to (over 50 years ago) a gospel radio station out of Wheeling WV while in the military.

However I was a cradle Catholic and in my ignorance I returned to the Catholic Church where I was "retaught" by a priest that one can only be "saved" if at the time of death they are in the state of "sanctifying grace".

To be in the state of sanctifying grace (according to the RCC) one has to have no mortal sins on their account.
If there are mortal sin(s) absolution is required of a priest to bring one back into the state of sanctifying grace.

After about 2 years I left the Catholic Church never to return.

Not only because I knew in my heart my sins were ALL forgiven but several other dogma which they wanted me to endorse from my childhood catechism teachings (Baptismal regeneration, real presence, venial vs. mortal sin, etc, etc...).

"sanctifying grace" (so called) is the freely given permanent status of the children of God and we will "never perish".

God's salvation does not need to be personally maintained and such maintenance is in reality impossible and is in fact an insult to the work of Christ and "another gospel".

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

I am an example of what Biblicists is saying.

I was saved reading the scripture and listening to (over 50 years ago) a gospel radio station out of Wheeling WV while in the military.

However I was a cradle Catholic and in my ignorance I returned to the Catholic Church where I was "retaught" by a priest that one can only be "saved" if at the time of death they are in the state of "sanctifying grace".

To be in the state of sanctifying grace (according to the RCC) one has to have no mortal sins on their account.
If there are mortal sin(s) absolution is required of a priest to bring one back into the state of sanctifying grace.

After about 2 years I left the Catholic Church never to return.

Not only because I knew in my heart my sins were ALL forgiven but several other dogma which they wanted me to endorse from my childhood catechism teachings (Baptismal regeneration, real presence, venial vs. mortal sin, etc, etc...).

"sanctifying grace" (so called) is the freely given permanent status of the children of God and we will "never perish".

God's salvation does not need to be personally maintained and such maintenance is in reality impossible and is in fact an insult to the work of Christ and "another gospel".

HankD

Praise the Lord! God's Word is not bound by theological circumstances and influences.

 

[HankD]

Praise the Lord! God's Word is not bound by theological circumstances and influences.

Indeed, the day I was saved I had exactly the realization you spoke of - my sins were forever and completely forgiven! (in spite of my earlier religious training).

Admittedly I was confused by the priests, but the Spirit of Christ always gave me scripture to both answer them and assure me I was His.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Indeed, the day I was saved I had exactly the realization you spoke of - my sins were forever and completely forgiven! (in spite of my earlier religious training).

Admittedly I was confused by the priests, but the Spirit of Christ always gave me scripture to both answer them and assure me I was His.

HankD

I have friends who came out of the Catholic Church, and they have similar testimonies. Thank you for your explanation.

When I was saved it was in a Baptist church. We were taught what I still believe to be correct doctrine. But at the time I was saved I did not have a full grasp on the doctrine of justification, among others. This does not, however, mean that I did not have a full grasp on the Gospel of Jesus Christ through which I was saved. I think many new Christians lack a dogmatic understanding of justification. But I do think that they are saved (my disagreement with Biblicist is connecting this misunderstanding of justification or baptism to “another gospel” and “accursed”).

 

[JonC]

I think my difficulty was reconciling this:

So you believe those who actually believed in "another gospel" are saved persons regardless of what the scripture clearly states? ... There is no salvation in any other gospel for anyone at anytime anywhere.

With this:

I agree there may be many saved sacramentarians but it is in spite of what they teach or have been later led to believe after salvation.

Or this:

The scripture is very clear there is no salvation by any other gospel and sacramentarinism is another gospel.

With this:

The same is true among those who claim to be saved by works but it is IN SPITE OF what they have been taught to embrace.

Perhaps it’s the large dinner last night (I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, BTW). But let’s make it simple for those like me who appreciate simplicity (who don’t like to think too much).



If a person is an Anglican (or any other traditionally Reformed faith…Presbyterian...etc.) AND they hold to the belief of that denomination ... which I was taking as implied...(they hold to the sacraments as a means through which God’s grace is communicated) then you believe that they are accursed and believe another gospel. Those who actually believed in “another gospel” are not saved. Yes or no?

Unless you are saying everyone who is saved starts off believing correct Baptist doctrine and later goes astray but stays saved as salvation can't be lost.

 

[T Alan]

When I was saved it was in a Baptist church.

How about this? Your eternal salvation was achieved on the Cross at the exact moment that Jesus died. (Jesus death paid the price (propitiation) for those it was intended for)

Your regeneration occurred, you understood the work of Jehovah, you were converted to believer and began repentance while in a Baptist church. (One is dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1) and is brought to life (regenerated) via Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,) .

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[HankD]

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.

Jon, we are all different. When salvation comes it appears to me that some confusion can be present especially when we are told by "authorities" that we have to maintain our salvation.

John 10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.

Former Catholics draw a great deal of assurance from this passage that no Catholic priest can take away. When the clouds came I would think on this passage and the sunlight would break through.

So I would say that there is that first enlightenment from the Spirit having been born from above followed by a lifetime of realizations of the joy of His salvation.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:



HankD