A different gospel?

[Carbon]

N T Wright denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:
He denies Adam as being historical.
He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place.

I think he teaches a different gospel.

Thoughts from both Arminians Calvinists are appreciated?

 

[Deleted member 6]

Don’t know enough about him so I have to go off of what you posted about him, yes, it’s a different gospel. It’s at best semi-Finneyism, at worse, full blown Finneyism.

 

[David1701]

N T Wright denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:
He denies Adam as being historical.
He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place.

I think he teaches a different gospel.

Thoughts from both Arminians Calvinists are appreciated?

N. T. Wright's teaching is definitely fishy, although I've only seen a little of it. The things you mention are certainly serious, however.

 

[Deleted member 6]

Do you have anything to corroborate the above teachings?

Wasn’t he the guy who started the NPP?

 

[Deleted member 6]

That's him.

That right there is a cause for concern for all his teachings.

 

[Carbon]

Do you have anything to corroborate the above teachings?

Here is a start:

Wright Wrong on Adam

In March Intervarsity Press plans to release a book by John Walton with a contribution from N. T. Wright titled, The Lost World of Adam and Eve. Wright’s excursus follows Walton’s chapter titled, “Paul’s Use of Adam Is More Interested in the Effect of Sin on the Cosmos Than in the Effect of Sin on H

reformedforum.org

 

[Carbon]

Do you have anything to corroborate the above teachings?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/wright-wrong-imputation

 

[Carbon]

Thanks brother.

Well, he almost sounds like an unbeliever in my opinion. His take o Adam is amiss as he is in denial of the plain teachings of Romans 5. He says are take on ROmans 5 is too narrow. No, his, IMHO, is both too broad and eisegetical.

The teaching that he believes Adam caused us to lose God's image is mistaken as James 3:9 refutes his teachings. The image may be marred, but it is not lost.

Yes. And this man has a powerful influence on many people. In fact, there are a few you and I both know (without mentioning names), sad.

 

[ReverendRV]

N T Wright denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:
He denies Adam as being historical.
He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place.

I think he teaches a different gospel.

Thoughts from both Arminians Calvinists are appreciated?

I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement, is a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; just as the Resurrection and his Deity is part of the Gospel...

 

[Carbon]

I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement, is a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; just as the Resurrection and his Deity is part of the Gospel...

Amen!

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

N T Wright denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:
He denies Adam as being historical.
He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place.

I think he teaches a different gospel.

Thoughts from both Arminians Calvinists are appreciated?

N T Wright with a little clarity for those unfamiliar:

The short

The debate

 

[Carbon]

N T Wright with a little clarity for those unfamiliar:

The short

The debate

Oh how I love R.C. Sproul!

Great stuff bro!

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Oh how I love R.C. Sproul!

Great stuff bro!

I miss Sproul greatly. Especially the Q&A sessions with MacArthur. John seems close to his final approach too glory as well. I must admit that I'm selfish and don't look forward to that.

I hear that NT Wright recently came out with some new material that mediates his views but have not been able to find them. It's been a while since I reviewed and I do hope that he has come in out of the wind from the "heresy" controversy surrounding him.

 

[Sereni-tea]

N T Wright denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:
He denies Adam as being historical.
He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place.

I think he teaches a different gospel.

Thoughts from both Arminians Calvinists are appreciated?

I would like to offer a different view here. I personally have benefitted a lot from N T Wright's ministry.

N T Wright does in fact affirm an original pair in the Garden representing humanity.
While he is a proponent of the Christus Victor model of the atonement, he does not see Christus Victor and PSA as mutually exclusive views but rather describing different aspects of the atonement. He has been critical of the penal substitutionary model as it can mean different things to different people and he has seen it give people the wrong understanding of who God is.

N T Wright is by no means a heretic or teaching a different Gospel. The Gospel he teaches is that Christ died for our sin according to the Scriptures and rose again, defeating sin and death. Now God can once again dwell with His people now (by the Spirit) and then in the new Jerusalem (Rev 21).

As an historian and theologian, N T Wright has spent decades studying 1st century history with the aim to develop a better understanding of the New Testament in its original cultural context. In some places this has lead him to a different perspective on what Paul and other writers are saying.

He has been heavily criticised by a number of North American theologians and in some places I wonder if this is due to misunderstandings due to cultural differences.

Anyway, I commend his writings, videos and podcasts to you as I think, whether you agree with him or not, he provides much food for thought.

 

[fastfredy0]

N T Wright denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:
He denies Adam as being historical.
He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”
He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place.

I think he teaches a different gospel.

Thoughts from both Arminians Calvinists are appreciated?

We all preach a "different gospel" to some extent. This guy is off to a bad start IMO. Maybe his "batting average" improves as more of his doctrine is revealed.
Aside: I wonder what my batting average is? I suppose a low enough batting average means you get to play in another league for eternity.

 

[David1701]

I would like to offer a different view here. I personally have benefitted a lot from N T Wright's ministry.

N T Wright does in fact affirm an original pair in the Garden representing humanity.
While he is a proponent of the Christus Victor model of the atonement, he does not see Christus Victor and PSA as mutually exclusive views but rather describing different aspects of the atonement. He has been critical of the penal substitutionary model as it can mean different things to different people and he has seen it give people the wrong understanding of who God is.

N T Wright is by no means a heretic or teaching a different Gospel. The Gospel he teaches is that Christ died for our sin according to the Scriptures and rose again, defeating sin and death. Now God can once again dwell with His people now (by the Spirit) and then in the new Jerusalem (Rev 21).

As an historian and theologian, N T Wright has spent decades studying 1st century history with the aim to develop a better understanding of the New Testament in its original cultural context. In some places this has lead him to a different perspective on what Paul and other writers are saying.

He has been heavily criticised by a number of North American theologians and in some places I wonder if this is due to misunderstandings due to cultural differences.

Anyway, I commend his writings, videos and podcasts to you as I think, whether you agree with him or not, he provides much food for thought.

Christus Victor is a component of PSA; but, if Christ had not borne the Father's wrath, for our sins, on the cross, then we would have to...

 

[Carbon]

I would like to offer a different view here. I personally have benefitted a lot from N T Wright's ministry.

Okay

N T Wright does in fact affirm an original pair in the Garden representing humanity.

But he denies Adam and Eve as actual historical people.

While he is a proponent of the Christus Victor model of the atonement, he does not see Christus Victor and PSA as mutually exclusive views but rather describing different aspects of the atonement. He has been critical of the penal substitutionary model as it can mean different things to different people and he has seen it give people the wrong understanding of who God is.

Well I guess we can’t or don’t agree on everything. And that’s okay.
However on the matter of PSA he denies Christ endured the Fathers wrath, in our place. Whatever else he agrees or disagrees with takes second place. To deny about the Savior what scripture teaches and to teach the opposite is heresy. No two ways around it.

He also denies imputation. If our sins were not imputed unto Christ then We all are in great trouble. If his righteousness is not imputed unto us we are doomed because we have none of our own.
Maybe you weren’t aware of his beliefs or teachings on these things?

 

[Carbon]

Isaiah 53:11
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[Carbon]

Don’t know enough about him so I have to go off of what you posted about him, yes, it’s a different gospel. It’s at best semi-Finneyism, at worse, full blown Finneyism.

Personally I believe N T Wright is a semi-pelagian.

He believes and teaches Jesus was just a sacrifice for sins. All sin was brought and laid on him so he can do away with it, so it looses its grip on man.
So now, you can come to Christ if you desire, you won’t miss the mark anymore because sin has lost its grasp on you because of what Christ has done.

What does this sound like? Surely not Calvinism or Arminianism. As both believe in total depraviry.

But Semi-pelagian. So irresistible grace is not needed and prevenient grace (which is unbiblical) is not needed.

 

[Carbon]

Don’t know enough about him so I have to go off of what you posted about him, yes, it’s a different gospel. It’s at best semi-Finneyism, at worse, full blown Finneyism.

Wolves in clothing.