TheOneWhoLives
Member
Paul IS talking about the LETTER of the law in this context.
-
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!
Why are So many Accepting the Theology of NT Wright here?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
- Status
Paul IS talking about the LETTER of the law in this context.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The same word used in a different context takes a new meaning.
Any dictionary will show you the possible meanings of a word based on the context. No different in a Greek lexicon.
I’m sure Strong’s gives one possible meaning as “validation” which is clearly the context of James.
I don’t want us to talk past each other, or for this to be heated.
The subtle difference in what we are saying, imo, is there is always the expectation that genuine salvation produces good works, per Ephesians 1, that God prepared beforehand for us to walk in them.
A person not producing such good works should not have assurance of their salvation. It could be they aren’t saved or they could be saved and not walking as God has ordained. In the latter case, God Holy Spirit will convict that person of that truth because God disciplines those He loves.
That is not the same as saying we are saved by good works added to faith.
That is what Catholics believe.
Peace to you
Any dictionary will show you the possible meanings of a word based on the context. No different in a Greek lexicon.
I’m sure Strong’s gives one possible meaning as “validation” which is clearly the context of James.
I don’t want us to talk past each other, or for this to be heated.
The subtle difference in what we are saying, imo, is there is always the expectation that genuine salvation produces good works, per Ephesians 1, that God prepared beforehand for us to walk in them.
A person not producing such good works should not have assurance of their salvation. It could be they aren’t saved or they could be saved and not walking as God has ordained. In the latter case, God Holy Spirit will convict that person of that truth because God disciplines those He loves.
That is not the same as saying we are saved by good works added to faith.
That is what Catholics believe.
Peace to you
I do not have a clue what NT Wright said but I know what Paul said.
You are one of my favorite among the Reformed, ky, but you are wrong as usual. Justification is by faith with the evidence of works under the law and before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but justification is ALWAYS by faith. In this dispensation Jesus Christ IS our justification because he did the work we could not do. He kept the law perfectly and God imputed his righteousness to us when we believed, at the very moment. We did not need to wait on our forgiveness and righteousness as did those believers before the cross because sin was dealt with and put away through Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection.
For those in time past not under the law of Moses, their consciousness of good and evil and the testimony of creation was their witness and testimony of God (Ps 19:1-5) and you may read about this in Romans. Let me just quote a couple of verses.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Can anyone read these simple words with comprehension?
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
The Jews had much more responsibility towards God because they had much more light. They had prophets from God and the written law in addition to their conscience. One must never discount the importance of our conscience in our justification.
All these before the cross of Christ will have their own works to testify to their faith. For instance Noah built the ark after God said it was going to rain and so he obeyed him because he believed him and therefore he was justified, his works testifying of his faith. In this age after the cross, our justification is in a person, Jesus Christ, and there is no work involved.
1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
This could not be said about OT saints. It can be said only about saints in this age. It will not be said about saints in the ages to come.
It does not matter in which age a man lives, he cannot please God without believing what God says to him. Faith in what God says to him is what justifies him in any age.
Written to gentiles in 58 AD concerning the "gospel of God." The opening of the "door of faith" (Acts 14:27) to gentiles by Peter in AD 40 - Acts 10.
Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the (NT) prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Last edited:
I am unaware of anybody here accepting NT Wright's view of the Atonement.
For me, and what I read of his view, he seems to stick very close to 1st century secular politics (between the Jews and Rome). While I admit I have read very little from Write on this topic, his positions seems (IMHO and from what I have read from him) too limited to the Jewish relationship and view of the Roman Empire. Of course, his theology is probably influenced by the fact he approaches theology as an Anglican (others have made the same observations as NT Wright, but their views developed and concluded differently).
What I have seen here, however, are members accusing anybody who affirms Classic Chriatianity or any view of the Atonement prior to the advent of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement to be repeating NT Wright. That, of course, is a logical fallacy, but more importantly it is dishonest stupidity.
Your OP would serve a purpose if you would simply ask of those here, if there are any, who accept NT Wright's theology.
Ironically, NT Wright holds a reformed theology (his emphasis on aspects have come to differ, but when I was younger NT Wright was considered by Reformed theologians to be "the" expert scholar on Pauline theology).
It should also be said that many prior to Wright saw similar problems with the Reformed understsnding. Even as Penal Substitution Theory was being developed the "Radial Reformers" (who were never Catholic) identified that the Reformers kept too many Roman Catholic doctrines via reforming those doctrines. Others complained that the Reformers were basing their understanding of the 1st century on their own struggles against the Roman Catholic Church (the understanding of Penal Substitution theorists about 1st Century Judiasm against the Roman Empire is the same as the 16th century Reformer against the Catholic Church).
The challenges against Penal Substitution Theory, the Reformed understanding of the Cross, and the problem remedied at the Cross have existed as long as Reformed theology has existed.
Where NT Wright departs from others is not in the problem he identifies, or that he challenges Reformed tradition. Where he departs is his conclusions.
Most would appreciate NT Wrights writings on some topics. As a Baptist we had to read his commentary on Romans (I think all seminaries had this as required reading). But this was before he challenged the Reformed tradition of the cross.
@JesusFan ,
I have added a poll to help your thread. As it is titled it implies that many here acceot NT Wright's theology.
I think the reason this thread is not addressing, at least not on detail, the question of the OP is that there are not any, or there are few, who accept Wright's theology.
Hopefully this will help get us on track....or see if the OP topic is simply DOA.
I have added a poll to help your thread. As it is titled it implies that many here acceot NT Wright's theology.
I think the reason this thread is not addressing, at least not on detail, the question of the OP is that there are not any, or there are few, who accept Wright's theology.
Hopefully this will help get us on track....or see if the OP topic is simply DOA.
My answer to the poll is "No".
I am not fully aware of his view, but from what I do know he repeats a problem with current tradition and comes up with a solution based on secular 1st century political relationships. I do not think NT Wright has provided enough evidence to support his conclusions.
I am not fully aware of his view, but from what I do know he repeats a problem with current tradition and comes up with a solution based on secular 1st century political relationships. I do not think NT Wright has provided enough evidence to support his conclusions.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I like to read him. I don't view everything I read as a choice between lapping up everything they say or hating their guts. I happen to agree with him that Romans 9 is not primarily about God choosing individuals for salvation and damning others. I haven't read a lot of him but I just noticed that the Gospel Coalition put up an article (it's old now, 2007) but it was defending Wright as being not against penal substitution. So if someone tries to say that Wright's focus is mainly about refuting penal substitution I would like to see some articles on this. It may be true, since the article defending Wright in the Gospel Coalition was obviously refuting something previously said. I just haven't seen it. And I don't think there are any followers of him on here.
He has some very good books. But I tried to read his books on justification....and gave up. He makes a good case against some traditional views regarding the 1st century understsnding of justification).
NT Wright does believe penal substitution, but believes the traditional penal substitution view got a few things wrong.
I found a couple of things interesting:
NT Wright believes that the Reformers misunderstood the 1st century by putting themselves in the place of 1st century Jews (if you think about it, the Jewish understanding of justification follows exactly the Reforner vs Roman Catholic Church issue). He makes a good point in that it should be considered. That said, it could be a coincidence (sometimes history repeats itself).
NT Wright correctly observed that many (like JI Packer and John Piper) made the comment that their position has been established since the Reformation and should not be challenged....but this is exactly what the Reformers did with established Catholic doctrine.
John Piper (in his book addressing NT Wright) wrote that NT Wright may be correct but it would be too complicated to teach so it should be dismissed until it coukd be articulated in a more teachable way. I did not like that reasoning. But I do like John Piper (he is one of my favorites).
37818
Well-Known Member
You think by disallowing the meaning of "faith alone" being not works salvation. The concept of faith alone stands.
Ephesians 2:8-9, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Romans 11:6, And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
As does grace alone.
(Heb 11:6 KJV) But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Every soul, throughout their life, produces fruit.
Born-again believers will, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, do works that are accepted by God. Works that appear to be "good" and done in God's name are not necessarily acceptable to Him because the "doer" is/was not His child.
(Mat 7:19 KJV) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit (G2590)is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
(Mat 7:20 KJV) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
(Mat 7:21 KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 7:22 KJV) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(Mat 7:23 KJV) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The KJV translates Strong's G2590 in the following manner: fruit (66x).
The KJV translates Strong's G4163 in the following manner: doer (5x), poet (1x).
a maker, a producer, author
a doer, performer
Every soul, throughout their life, produces fruit.
Born-again believers will, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, do works that are accepted by God. Works that appear to be "good" and done in God's name are not necessarily acceptable to Him because the "doer" is/was not His child.
(Mat 7:19 KJV) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit (G2590)is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
(Mat 7:20 KJV) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
(Mat 7:21 KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 7:22 KJV) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(Mat 7:23 KJV) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The KJV translates Strong's G2590 in the following manner: fruit (66x).
- fruit
- the fruit of the trees, vines, of the fields
- the fruit of one's loins, i.e. his progeny, his posterity
- that which originates or comes from something, an effect, result
- work, act, deed
- advantage, profit, utility
- praises, which are presented to God as a thank offering
- to gather fruit (i.e. a reaped harvest) into life eternal (as into a granary), is used in fig. discourse of those who by their labours have fitted souls to obtain eternal life.
The KJV translates Strong's G4163 in the following manner: doer (5x), poet (1x).
a maker, a producer, author
a doer, performer
- one who obeys or fulfils the law
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
"Faith alone" was designed doctrinally to show a difference from the Roman Catholic system of faith plus works. But Reformers like Owen said it was "faith alone but a faith that is never alone". They said that a faith that did not manifest itself in works and changed behavior was not real faith. Then they were accused of being "fruit inspectors" and going back to the Roman system. Reformers like Baxter wrote on justification and did concede that in some sense works were necessary. Some say he changed his mind later and some don't.
Yo claim to not have read him, but his view on the atonement is VERY close to what you are now articulating here. Not meant as a criticism, just an observation
Wright redefine penal substitution to NOT mean at all the classical reformer and Baptist view on it though
And yet many Baptists and even some Reformed seem to agree with his views
True, is Anglican, yet his theology seems to be spreading thru cross churches now
So Rome was right on this?
Saved unto good works, nit due to our good works
Due to ONLY loss sinner's appearing at GWT
Same James stated to us that those good works are due to already having been saved and justification, as they evidence fruit of salvation
- Status