You can be a Christian and deny essential doctrine

[JonC]

Unfortunately, N.T. Wright is not a figure of history, but a clear and present danger.
The churches and leaders of the Baptist Union in Britain are a pretty disparate lot, but at the present time, there is only one Bishop (and a very junior one) in the Church of England who is Reformed [and he's not N.T. Wright who has been retired for some years.

Insofar as Wright's influence, maybe he is a historical figure. We can't read MacArthur, Piper, Grudem, etc. without hints of Wright's Pauline contributions. But given his NPP I think this will remain history.

He is, however, a Reformed scholar who affirms PSA (as both you and Wright have defined PSA).

 

[Yeshua1]

Insofar as Wright's influence, maybe he is a historical figure. We can't read MacArthur, Piper, Grudem, etc. without hints of Wright's Pauline contributions. But given his NPP I think this will remain history.

He is, however, a Reformed scholar who affirms PSA (as both you and Wright have defined PSA).

Even though he denies that Jesus suffered the wrath of God poured out on Him directly for sins?

 

[Yeshua1]

Where have YOU supported your view with scripture?

Jesus was working through in the Garden having to face that awesome task of taking the full weight of the cup of the wrath of God that the Father would be blasting Him with as the Sin bearer, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Unfortunately, N.T. Wright is not a figure of history, but a clear and present danger.
The churches and leaders of the Baptist Union in Britain are a pretty disparate lot, but at the present time, there is only one Bishop (and a very junior one) in the Church of England who is Reformed [and he's not N.T. Wright who has been retired for some years.

he is not reformed, as those who are, such as RC Sproul and others see His NPP and his atonement views as being dangerous, almost like counterfeit reformed!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are wrong. The bible says so.

The Bible actually agrees with me on this issue!

 

[JonC]

Even though he denies that Jesus suffered the wrath of God poured out on Him directly for sins?

Yet he doesn't:

“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.” - N.T. Wright

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet he doesn't:

“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.” - N.T. Wright

So Wright sees that Jesus experienced being forsaken and under the wrath of God on the Cross just as a lost sinner does in Hell?

 

[JonC]

So Wright sees that Jesus experienced being forsaken and under the wrath of God on the Cross just as a lost sinner does in Hell?

No, but neither did Luther (remember the Luther quote), and neither did Martyr.

That is what I was saying when I wrote that you were not being honest in examining the topic. Luther did hold to a substitution view with the consequences of sin and wrath being "outweighed" by Christ (ontologically), Thomas Aquinas did with merit in mind, Justin Martyr in terms of the human race...but not one of these viewed Jesus as experiencing God's wrath just as a lost sinner does in Hell. Yet you considered them close enough to be PSA. Well, here's an honesty test for you. N.T. Wright also holds to a penal substitution even though he (along with Luther and Martyr) does not believe exactly like you.

The bottom line, of course, is that you are unable to support your view via Scripture. You simply lean on tradition and say "Calvin and Luther (and by implication, N.T. Wright) believes in PSA so it is true".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He is, however, a Reformed scholar who affirms PSA (as both you and Wright have defined PSA).

Wright is not Reformed in any sense that I would accept, and no Reformed scholar that I'm aware of would give you tuppence for him.
I note your quote of Wright in answer to Y1, which I have not seen before. Wright is so slippery in his writings that I would need to see the larger context before agreeing that he is a supporter of Penal Substitution. But blind hogs find acorns sometimes!

 

[JonC]

Wright is not Reformed in any sense that I would accept, and no Reformed scholar that I'm aware of would give you tuppence for him.
I note your quote of Wright in answer to Y1, which I have not seen before. Wright is so slippery in his writings that I would need to see the larger context before agreeing that he is a supporter of Penal Substitution. But blind hogs find acorns sometimes!

Here's the difference - Wright is closer to Martyr (actually, he is right there with Justin Martyr) and a bit closer to Luther. He looks at this wrath as against human sin in general. I also don't consider this PSA (but I don't consider Martyr and Luther to hold to PSA either). The ONLY reason I accept N.T. Wright as holding to PSA is through the definition that you guys have provided. Personally, I would classify Wright and Luther's view as presenting Christ as a representative rather than an actual substitute.

“Jesus, the innocent one, was drawing on to himself the holy wrath of God against human sin in general, so that human sinners like you and me can find, as we look at the cross, that the load of sin and guilt we have been carrying is taken away from us. Jesus takes it on himself, and somehow absorbs it, so that when we look back there is nothing there. Our sins have been dealt with, and we need never carry their burden again.” - N.T. Wright

Insofar as being Reformed in any sense that you would accept....well, I don't think that you and I are the criteria. He is Reformed whether we like it or not.

 

[TCassidy]

The Bible actually agrees with me on this issue!

You are wrong. The bible says so.

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus was working through in the Garden having to face that awesome task of taking the full weight of the cup of the wrath of God that the Father would be blasting Him with as the Sin bearer, correct?

Scripture?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Do you even know what Roman Catholicism and Liberal Christianity teach? Did you even research this before you replied?

I will help you.

What is liberal Christian theology?

I don't need help in understanding truly liberal Christian Theology. Most here define liberals in a political sense and I thought that was what you were doing. Some define it in a theological sense but include things that I don't find significant like inerrancy of scripture (in every way down to dates, minor inconsistencies, etc.), dates when the books of the cannon were written and authors for some, and interpretation of end-times prophesy.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, but neither did Luther (remember the Luther quote), and neither did Martyr.

That is what I was saying when I wrote that you were not being honest in examining the topic. Luther did hold to a substitution view with the consequences of sin and wrath being "outweighed" by Christ (ontologically), Thomas Aquinas did with merit in mind, Justin Martyr in terms of the human race...but not one of these viewed Jesus as experiencing God's wrath just as a lost sinner does in Hell. Yet you considered them close enough to be PSA. Well, here's an honesty test for you. N.T. Wright also holds to a penal substitution even though he (along with Luther and Martyr) does not believe exactly like you.

The bottom line, of course, is that you are unable to support your view via Scripture. You simply lean on tradition and say "Calvin and Luther (and by implication, N.T. Wright) believes in PSA so it is true".

How can Jesus suffer the wrath of God directed towards sinners die to their sin debt obligation to God, and not taste of experiencing hell, when he stated that God for that time had forsaken Him, is that not the ultimate version of hell?

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture?

Take This Cup Away From Me! - Tim Challies

 

[TCassidy]

Take This Cup Away From Me! - Tim Challies

So you think some guy named Tim Challies writes scripture? I am beginning to see why your posts seldom make any sense!

 

[Yeshua1]

So you think some guy named Tim Challies writes scripture? I am beginning to see why your posts seldom make any sense!

No he does not, but the passages that he quotes and discusses in there are from the Bible itself!

 

[JonC]

How can Jesus suffer the wrath of God directed towards sinners die to their sin debt obligation to God, and not taste of experiencing hell, when he stated that God for that time had forsaken Him, is that not the ultimate version of hell?

Because your idea of this sin debt is not biblical. That's why I've been asking over and over and over and over for a passage proving your theory. But, as we both know, there is none. You are giving tradition, not Scripture. And ever time I ask you start up with Calvin and Luther...or N.T. Wright....or anything except the Bible. And this has been going on for thread after thread after thread.

I keep thinking that sooner or later you are going to realize your theory is opinion based on theory and tradition rather than Scripture. But now I am starting to wonder if you will figure it out (I thought my request that you highlight the parts of Scripture that prove your point, and your inability to do so, would have done the trick....but I was wrong).

 

[TCassidy]

No he does not, but the passages that he quotes and discusses in there are from the Bible itself!

Scripture?

 

[agedman]

NOTICE

Opinions are tolerated,
Scriptures validated,
Quotations documented
And
(What else?).