• 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?

Do you accept NT Wrights theology, specifically regarding Atonement?


  • Total voters
    6
Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Wright Penal substitution though involves no wrath of God, as to him is a very Pagan concept, and also denied God declares imputed righteousness towards us as saved, so very more in agree with with Rome there than Reformed or Baptist
I'm not defending Wright. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of people who have various views on exactly what he means when he says something. Sorta like @JonC.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
You misunderstood the topic. The argument does not have anything to do with being saved because one is a Jew.
I didn't misunderstand the topic, but I can't find the reference where Wright explains this well. I don't have his book, even though he pushes it in his available Youtube explanation of Romans 9 but this one explains it clearer:
But I guess he misunderstood the topic too.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I'm not defending Wright. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of people who have various views on exactly what he means when he says something. Sorta like @JonC.
I also am not defending NT Wright. I believe Calvinism is wrong (Wright is a Calvinist). I believe that his conclusions are incorrect. Part of this is his premise. Even if 1st century Jews viewed justification to "x", this does not necessarily mean Paul was using it exactly the same way. The 1st century Jews got quite a bit wrong, after all.

My argument is that people are arguing against what they do not know because Wright has claimed their (and his) theology made a mistake.

I remember when Wright started on this path. He began by pointing out a problem and asking other Reformed scholars join him in reexamining 16th century conclusions. This went south quick because people do not like their views challenged.

So much of what I see is simply villainization of a Christian. I can't get behind that even when I disagree with the Christian being persecuted.

Here is what Wright says:

 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I didn't misunderstand the topic, but I can't find the reference where Wright explains this well. I don't have his book, even though he pushes it in his available Youtube explanation of Romans 9 but this one explains it clearer:
But I guess he misunderstood the topic too.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Paul:

5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
Bu leaving out verses 8,9,11 &12, I suppose you think you have made a case, but Don't you understand that all through Rom 2; 3:1-20 Paul is showing that neither Jew nor Gentile can keep the law, and when the Gentiles do keep it, they only show that they have the moral law written on their hearts (though now smudged and defaced by the Fall) so that they are without excuse when they don't keep it, and their conscience accuses them. Rom. 3:9. 'For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.' Rom. 3:19-20. 'Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth [both Jew and Gentile] may be stopped and all the world become guilty before God.' Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight...' Not you, not I, not anyone! '......for by the law is the knowledge of sin.'
Oh puh-leeze. I'm doing something that you and all these other parrots of their dogma are not doing, I'm 'playing' with what's actually written.
I never knew a guy so smug as you in being so wrong. 'Playing' with the word of God is exactly right in your case.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@DaveXR650

This is why I provided the link (not because I agree or disagree with Wright but because I believe we have to deal honestly with one another and other people's beliefs rather than trusting how a critical interpreted something).

This is from the article in the link (and probably what you have seen online as well):


"From time to time correspondents draw my attention to various websites on which you can find scathing denunciations of me for abandoning traditional protestant orthodoxy and puzzled rejoinders from people who have studied my work and know that I’m not saying what many of my critics say I’m saying."
 

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"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.


Romans 3:28 was the closest verse in Scripture that seemed to prove Luther’s novel idea concerning justification. However, it lacked the all-important word alone that would have makes Luther’s sola doctrine true. Once again, though, rather than adjust his theology, Luther adjusted the Bible. In his translation of Romans, Luther added the word alone to verse 3:28 (making it say “man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law”) in order to make it appear that he had biblical support.

(Rom 3:28 KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


"faith alone"
occurs 0 time in 0 verse in the KJV.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
(Rom 3:28 KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
I apologize if I am misunderstanding you but if the verse says a man is justified by faith. And the verse adds nothing else by which a man is justified. And then finishes the statement by emphasizing that it definitely is meaning to exclude deeds of the law. Are you suggesting that if someone looks at that verse and says that would mean faith alone, that they have been mistaken in their interpretation? Then exactly what else is a man justified by in addition to faith.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Sure. You say repeatedly that "Jesus died for our sins". Jesus dying for our sins is a logical basic for concluding that Jesus was in some way a substitute, and that the punishment due us was instead put on him. Now you will come on and dismiss that as though no one is allowed to make such a conclusion even though I do, most on this board do, and many theologians do. That's a dismissal.
I answered this several times. Jesus bore our sins, but not instead of us. Jesus died for our sins, He did not die for his own sins (He is sinless).
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I answered this several times. Jesus bore our sins, but not instead of us. Jesus died for our sins, He did not die for his own sins (He is sinless).
Jon. This is what I mean. I'm sorry to tell you this but if Jesus died for our sins, most people will say that that means that you have substitution, and since like you are saying, he didn't die for his own sins but ours, then you have imputation as well. Our sins imputed to him. And just to say "No it's not" is not a valid rebuttal.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
This is why I provided the link (not because I agree or disagree with Wright but because I believe we have to deal honestly with one another and other people's beliefs rather than trusting how a critical interpreted something).
Thanks for putting that up. I don't have any knowledge of N.T. Wright doing any damage to anyone's faith in the circles of my own existence so I only look at him with academic interest (and he is obviously sharp). But, I have read and posted where some have defended him on penal substitution, by saying he was in the camp, and I also have read Ligon Duncan's review of the New Perspective and found it balanced and fair. If, elsewhere, N.T. says all the rest of us have the gospel wrong then I can see where if I were a pastor I would go into protector against false doctrine mode immediately and go after him.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Jon. This is what I mean. I'm sorry to tell you this but if Jesus died for our sins, most people will say that that means that you have substitution, and since like you are saying, he didn't die for his own sins but ours, then you have imputation as well. Our sins imputed to him. And just to say "No it's not" is not a valid rebuttal.
I don't care what many people will say.

My rebuttal is that I believe we need to stick with Scripture - Jesus died for our sins, without adding "instead of us". I am not adding to the verse, just using another verse to emphasize my point. I could also use Jesus shared in our infirmity, was made like us in all ways but without sin, etc.

I am not just saying "no, it's not". My refutation is "that is NOT what is written in God's Word".

You don't have to believe Scripture over what you think it teaches. I am not asking that of you. I am not asking you to accept my rebuttal as the correct view. But stop saying I simply dismissed your theory.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Thanks for putting that up. I don't have any knowledge of N.T. Wright doing any damage to anyone's faith in the circles of my own existence so I only look at him with academic interest (and he is obviously sharp). But, I have read and posted where some have defended him on penal substitution, by saying he was in the camp, and I also have read Ligon Duncan's review of the New Perspective and found it balanced and fair. If, elsewhere, N.T. says all the rest of us have the gospel wrong then I can see where if I were a pastor I would go into protector against false doctrine mode immediately and go after him.
The issue is if you and your camp DID have the gospel wrong and were corrected then you and your camp would fight against that correction. This is natural (and I think Wright realizes this).
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
they only show that they have the moral law written on their hearts (though now smudged and defaced by the Fall) so that they are without excuse when they don't keep it,

That's not at all what Paul is saying. This is the law, not some made up fictional 'moral law' that evangelical faith-aloners like you want to make it out to be.

It never ceases to amaze me how tore up and getting your 'drawers in a twist' from that very simple descriptor/label/euphemism "doers of the law" that Paul is using causes you 'faith-aloners'. It's comical. It's somehow too deep for you to grasp. I've derived much entertainment on this board over the years by triggering/trolling you all with it, and I suppose I will continue to do so. Thank you for the exercise.

Someone who is patient in well-doing is a 'doer of the law':
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

Someone who is working good is a 'doer of the law':
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: Ro 2

Someone doing the things of the law by nature is a 'doer of the law':
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; Ro 2

Someone who loves his neighbor is a 'doer of the law':
8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. Ro 13

Someone who works no ill towards their neighbor is a 'doer of the law':

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

Someone who follows 'the golden rule' is a 'doer of the law':
12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. Mt 7

Someone who delights in the law is a 'doer of the law':
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: Ro 7

Someone who is a doer of the word is a 'doer of the law':

22​

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. Ja 1

...and no doubt there's many other examples of 'doers of the law' that is Paul's intent in Ro 2:13.

I never knew a guy so smug as you in being so wrong.

I've met several egotistic bigots like you, bent only on winning, never learning, never admitting that they're wrong. Nothing special or unique about you.

I've laid it out to you before, but you're such a legend in your own mind that the utter simplicity of it is below you, and consequently escapes you.
 
Last edited:

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I apologize if I am misunderstanding you but if the verse says a man is justified by faith. And the verse adds nothing else by which a man is justified. And then finishes the statement by emphasizing that it definitely is meaning to exclude deeds of the law. Are you suggesting that if someone looks at that verse and says that would mean faith alone, that they have been mistaken in their interpretation? Then exactly what else is a man justified by in addition to faith.

Quote from my previous post which was quoted from:

"Romans 3:28 was the closest verse in Scripture that seemed to prove Luther’s novel idea concerning justification. However, it lacked the all-important word alone that would have makes Luther’s sola doctrine true. Once again, though, rather than adjust his theology, Luther adjusted the Bible. In his translation of Romans, Luther added the word alone to verse 3:28 (making it say “man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law”) in order to make it appear that he had biblical support."

(Rom 3:28 KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Firstly, I am taking issue with one of the most arrogant men to ever breath the name of Jesus, Martin Luther. He added the work "alone" to Romans 3:28. When he was challenged, he acknowledged that the word was not in the original text. However, he thought it belonged there so he included in his (miss)translation of scripture.

(Rev 22:18 KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Secondly, I do not equate "deeds of the law" with the outworking of ones faith through their lifestyle - works.

As an aside: Luther was probably the strongest anti-Jew authors in history. Read Luther's treatise on the Jews: "Of Jews and Their Lies"

(Gen 12:3 KJV) And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The issue is if you and your camp DID have the gospel wrong and were corrected then you and your camp would fight against that correction. This is natural (and I think Wright realizes this).
And also if we in fact had the gospel right and were being erroneously accused of having it wrong.
My rebuttal is that I believe we need to stick with Scripture - Jesus died for our sins, without adding "instead of us". I am not adding to the verse, just using another verse to emphasize my point. I could also use Jesus shared in our infirmity, was made like us in all ways but without sin, etc.
You don't need to add "instead of us". The fact that Jesus died for our sins means on it's own - instead of us. You are dismissing rather than refuting what is said. To refute it you would need to show that Jesus did not die for our sins. That that was somehow not true, or unnecessary. Others who refute penal substitution take that route in various ways. You deny that you take that route and instead keep insisting in this ridiculous play on words which means the same thing. If you were to do like Wright, who while vague and nuanced, does says enough about penal substitution that scholars who read his work are at least divided over his position on it, it would make sense. What makes no sense is when you come on and interject this non-argument into any thread that might have something to do with the atonement with a sureness and a force which is totally out of speck with the specifics of what you explain as your beliefs.

That's why I get so frustrated with you. When you say that Jesus died for our sins that satisfies me as to your view of the atonement. I would like to put out a question to everyone who might read these discussions on this board:
If someone believes that "Jesus died for our sins" do you understand them to be an opponent to the concept of penal substitution?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You don't need to add "instead of us". The fact that Jesus died for our sins means on it's own - instead of us.
This is false. And it is evidence that you do not yet understand the Chriatian faith prior to the Reformatiin.

I do not have to prove that Jesus dying for our sins means "instead of" because I believe that is correct as stated (Jesus died for our sins). You are adding to the meaning. The burden of proof is on you.

That said, Scripture rewords this as "He shared in our infirmity".

Here is an illustration.

If you have a sickness to death caused by your sin and Jesus, by God laying that iniquity on Him, somehow become one of you in every way, and die of this sickness, and because it wss unearned be vindicated, and then give you life and save you so that you do not except the wrath to come at Judgment....Either Jesus dud not die of your sins instead of you. He died for your sins alongside you. But it is still your sins for which He died, your sins laid on Him.

You are adding "instead of" because you are reading Scripture in a post-reformation light. Nobody prior to the Reformation believed Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us. That view was impossible until 15th-16th judicial philosophy came into being.

That you read "instead of" into the verse without realizing it kinda demonstrates the problem. Scripture makes sence without adding to it (here we are not even talking about a difference in interpretation....it is an addition).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
If someone believes that "Jesus died for our sins" do you understand them to be an opponent to the concept of penal substitution?
I wouldn't know either way without talking to them.

I have read many scholars who believe that Jesus died for our sins, but strongly reject penal substitution.

I'd ask them if they mean that "Jesus died for our sins" or if Jesus died for our sins instead of us". If the latter I'd ask more questions so that I don't assume they believe one thing when they may believe another.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
"Romans 3:28 was the closest verse in Scripture that seemed to prove Luther’s novel idea concerning justification. However, it lacked the all-important word alone that would have makes Luther’s sola doctrine true. Once again, though, rather than adjust his theology, Luther adjusted the Bible. In his translation of Romans, Luther added the word alone to verse 3:28 (making it say “man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law”) in order to make it appear that he had biblical support."

(Rom 3:28 KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Firstly, I am taking issue with one of the most arrogant men to ever breath the name of Jesus, Martin Luther. He added the work "alone" to Romans 3:28. When he was challenged, he acknowledged that the word was not in the original text. However, he thought it belonged there so he included in his (miss)translation of scripture.

(Rev 22:18 KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Secondly, I do not equate "deeds of the law" with the outworking of ones faith through their lifestyle - works.

As an aside: Luther was probably the strongest anti-Jew authors in history. Read Luther's treatise on the Jews: "Of Jews and Their Lies"

(Gen 12:3 KJV) And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Owen's view of saving faith I find to be acceptable:
"For there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and no more, is not justified, nor can be saved." John Owen

Owen also said that it is indeed "faith alone" that concerns our justification. If your problem is with Luther I am sorry he started the Reformation. If your problem is with Luther and his views on Jews, I can't help you. I have read what he said from his own writings and find it unacceptable too.
Regarding the faith alone question, what would there be in the explanation given by Owen above that you with your views would find unacceptable?
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
If you have a sickness to death caused by your sin and Jesus, by God laying that iniquity on Him, somehow become one of you in every way, and die of this sickness, and because it wss unearned be vindicated, and then give you life and save you so that you do not except the wrath to come at Judgment....Either Jesus dud not die of your sins instead of you. He died for your sins alongside you. But it is still your sins for which He died, your sins laid on Him.
It's a distinction without a difference. We don't reject the union with Christ. When someone is baptized and the pastor says as they are immersed "Buried in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life" we are identifying with Jesus and trying to picture that union with him. We say we are "in Christ". I can't help it, nor do I think it is wrong to insist that if my sins are laid on him so that he took the wrath that I would have experience that that is penal substitution.
You are adding "instead of" because you are reading Scripture in a post-reformation light. Nobody prior to the Reformation believed Jesus suffered our punishment instead of us. That view was impossible until 15th-16th judicial philosophy came into being.
No matter how many times you say this it is still false.
I have read many scholars who believe that Jesus died for our sins, but strongly reject penal substitution.
Would those scholars say that Jesus bore our sins in his own body on the cross?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top