A different gospel?

[Sereni-tea]

My argument is demonstrated from Scripture.

You are unable to explain the impact on Christian doctrine of the NP assertion that "works of the law" means the ceremonial laws; e.g., circumcision, Sabbath, food laws.
With no impact to consider regarding it, the NP assertion regarding "works of the law" is just smoke and mirrors.

This to me is the question to be answered - what are the implications? And yes, I have wondered if it is all just smoke and mirrors myself. But I have now learnt enough to see some of the difference. As I mentioned in post #300, for me the implications are in regards to the horizontal dimension of Christian community. We do not have the same specific issues as Paul had in his day, or even the ones the Reformers had in their day, but we do have our own.

What I posted in #300 is the main difference. There are other minor differences between NP and OP which you can see in the videos I posted earlier.
Top 5 differences between the new perspective and old perspective
8 differences between the new perspective and the old perspective
The guy in the videos (Caleb) also presents a third middle group view which he calls the reformed perspective (RP). So there is a lot to think about but at the end of the day, the differences between the NP and the OP are highly nuanced and easily misunderstood. NT Wright does himself no favours here and I think he has brought a lot of the criticisms that he receives on himself because he is not careful enough with his language. I think when he is properly understood, he has a lot to offer the church. Just my opinion and I'll say no more about him.

I think that everyone believes in salvation through grace alone by faith alone and we should see each other as Christians, not rushing to label any heretical because they believe something different. Others may disagree with this assessment, and that is fine. I really don't plan on saying much else in regards to this topic, except to encourage respectful dialogue and comments.

Thanks and blessings to all.

 

[fastfredy0]

Edit: Incidentally, did you know that it's possible to boost your IQ score, at least a little, by practising IQ tests? I used to have an acquaintance, in Edinburgh, with an IQ of about 170 (well into the genius range - officially measured) and he confirmed that this is true, by experience.

That's interesting... maybe with some practice I can get into the 80s.

 

[GeneZ]

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?

His name was spelled wrong.

Its not, N T Wright.

Its, NOT Right

 

[ReverendRV]

I offer my Term "The New Perspective on Peter", as the title of a rebuttal to the NPP; for an expert to use. As noted, the NPP relies on a premise that the Gospel of Justification is based on Saint Paul Alone; Sola Pauline...

Can NT Wright develop a New Perspective on Peter? Probably; but it would be heresy. Catholicism developed a New Perspective on James; and look at what that got us...

Reformation isn't a new perspective...

 

[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?

Yes, he denies justification by faith alone. He denies the doctrine of imputation, he denies the PSA as far as wrath goes at least. The man is very intelligent and if you ask him about these he has a way of wriggling out of the question.
For example, ask him if he denies justification by faith alone, and you won't get a yes or no, but you will get a show me where in scripture. Roman Catholicism argues the same way.

 

[TB2]

Whether or not Luther added alone to his translation does not change that the Bible also teaches that in many places. I don't read his translation as I don't speak German.

It's an inconvenient truth for us (Protestants) that the phrase "faith alone" only appears a single time in the NT and it's in James:

James 2:24 NAS
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

And I get all the arguments about what James is 'really' saying, but it does require a little bit of an interpretative Protestant tap dance. On the face of it, what seems to be the clear, plain meaning is definitely not helpful. I can understand why Luther called the book of James an "epistle of straw" and if memory serves (?) questioned its canonicity (I could be misremembering about that)

Then why do you defend White? He is arguing against it when he says justification is not judicial (forensic) but eschatological.

I do appreciate his insights and he has the best apologetic arguments for the historicity of the resurrection, but I'm not a NT Wright fan club groupie nor do I agree with everything he says. But I'm very hesitant about making snap judgments about *anyone* especially when I know I don't have all the facts. And I certainly don't have enough knowledge here. But it's for that very reason I'm not going to jump on the Wright-hate-mobile when I don't have all the facts. Also, I will add that in my experience of what I do know about Wright (on other teachings) I've seen how people misunderstand him. Sometimes that may be because he needs to expound further. But I've also observed a lot of times where people don't seem to even be trying to understand him or even want to really understand but are knee-jerk reacting just to the name "NT Wright" and automatically going on the hate-offensive.

I *do* know enough about his beliefs (and know enough myself about the apostolic kerygma gospel message of salvation) to know that he believes and accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. So that right there makes him a fellow believer. Sure we may vociferously disagree and think that his teaching is grossly in error, but to accuse him of outright heresy and throwing out orthodoxy and the gospel--I'm sorry but that's a false accusation and slanderous and is a charge that can only be maintained by *adding to* the gospel message of salvation.

So, that right there tells me that the judgments against him even if partially or almost wholly true still go too far

I respect and value the work of NT scholar Craig Blomberg (who I've communicated with before) and today ran across a review of his on NT Wright that I'd never seen or read before (I didnt even know that Blomberg had reviewed Wright’s book on Justification). I know Dr. Blomberg to be a fair minded balanced level headed scholar so I put quite a bit of stock in his reviews. So when I see him write what he does about Wright, I'm inclined to believe it and accept it as true. But of course everyone will have to make that judgment for themselves.

in Christ

DR. CRAIG BLOMBERG REVIEWS NT WRIGHT’S JUSTIFICATION

 

[Carbon]

N T Wright.
In his most recent book, The Day the Revolution Began, Wright completes his 180-degree turn on this issue that seems to have been well underway ten years ago. He wrote:

…in much popular modern Christian thought we have made a three-layered mistake. We have Platonized our eschatology (substituting “souls going to heaven” for the promised new creation) and have therefore moralized our anthropology (substituting a qualifying examination of moral performance for the biblical notion of the human vocation), with the result that we have paganized our soteriology, our understanding of “salvation” (substituting the idea of “God killing Jesus to satisfy his wrath” for the genuinely biblical notions we are about to explore).16

According to Wright, it is “pagan” to see our salvation as involving “a transaction in which God’s wrath was poured out against his son rather than against sinful humans.”17 “Pagan! Pagan! Pagan!” Wright uses the word “pagan” more than 80 times. He really wants to get this point across, even though it was thoroughly answered by Leon Morris’s classic The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross18 (a book he never mentions) more than a half-century ago.

Wright says that the “real danger in expounding the meaning of Jesus’s death is to collapse it into a kind of pagan scenario in which an angry God is pacified by taking out his wrath on Jesus.”19 And you know what? Every proponent of penal substitution absolutely agrees with this statement! It is wrong to suggest that Jesus came to bear the Father’s wrath so that the Father could then love us. The atonement does not make us “lovable.” We were loved from all eternity, before Christ ever died for us.

The aforementioned book defending penal substitution, which Wright called “sub-biblical,” clearly made this point: “…it was love that motivated God to send his Son to die; love was not somehow generated by the atonement.”20 To say the opposite would, indeed, probably be a “pagan” notion. It is wrong to assert that Scripture teaches that the atonement purchased God’s love—and it would be wrong to caricature the doctrine of penal substitution as teaching such a thing. It’s a straw man argument. And it is one that Wright returns to incessantly, ad nauseum.

And yet all along he claims that he still supports the notion that sin must be punished, and that it was punished in Christ. And, so: see? He really does believe in penal substitution after all!

But what he means by that is utterly different from what most people mean by such words. When the vast majority of people speak of “punishing sin,” it is a figure of speech (a metonymy21 to be precise) that means “punishing sinners.” In the context of Christian theology it refers to Christ willingly taking the punishment of sinners upon himself. But for Wright, it means something so utterly outside our experience as to be a bit bizarre:

Now we see what he means. “There is no condemnation for those in the Messiah . . . because God . . . condemned Sin right there in the flesh.” The punishment has been meted out. But the punishment is on Sin itself, the combined, accumulated, and personified force that has wreaked such havoc in the world and in human lives.22

So it is not Christ who takes our punishment. Rather, somehow, sin itself is “punished.” An abstract concept somehow pays the penalty. Just how is that done? Can it be done? Although Wright somehow manages to extract this notion from Romans 8:3 to use as the foundation of his version of “penal substitution,” we certainly do not find such a concept anywhere in Scripture, and it stretches credulity to think that Paul went so far in his rhetorical personification of sin that he considered sin an entity that can bear punishment. It is a foundation built on exegetical sand.23

And thus, for Wright, Christ Himself takes no punishment as our substitute, because even though He was hanging, suffering on the cross, it was not Him who is being punished, but sin—and yet, somehow, He was still our substitute. And so—Voilà!—Wright has convinced himself (and all his acolytes, I might add) that he still believes in penal substitution! In fact, he says this is precisely how we must “rescue this substitution from its pagan captivity.”24

The death of Jesus, seen in this light, is certainly penal. It has to do with the punishment on Sin—not, to say it again, on Jesus—but it is punishment nonetheless. Equally, it is certainly substitutionary: God condemned Sin (in the flesh of the Messiah), and therefore sinners who are “in the Messiah” are not condemned.25

But after he spent so much time attacking penal substitution as “pagan,” it is puzzling to consider why he wants to keep the term. In any event, it’s okay by Wright to keep using the term “penal substitution,” as long as by it we do not mean that Christ bore our penalty as our substitute, which, of course, is what it’s always meant.

This couldn’t be some kind of slippery rhetorical sleight-of-hand, could it?

But is he a heretic?

 

[Carbon]

N T Wright.
In his most recent book, The Day the Revolution Began, Wright completes his 180-degree turn on this issue that seems to have been well underway ten years ago. He wrote:

…in much popular modern Christian thought we have made a three-layered mistake. We have Platonized our eschatology (substituting “souls going to heaven” for the promised new creation) and have therefore moralized our anthropology (substituting a qualifying examination of moral performance for the biblical notion of the human vocation), with the result that we have paganized our soteriology, our understanding of “salvation” (substituting the idea of “God killing Jesus to satisfy his wrath” for the genuinely biblical notions we are about to explore).16

According to Wright, it is “pagan” to see our salvation as involving “a transaction in which God’s wrath was poured out against his son rather than against sinful humans.”17 “Pagan! Pagan! Pagan!” Wright uses the word “pagan” more than 80 times. He really wants to get this point across, even though it was thoroughly answered by Leon Morris’s classic The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross18 (a book he never mentions) more than a half-century ago.

Wright says that the “real danger in expounding the meaning of Jesus’s death is to collapse it into a kind of pagan scenario in which an angry God is pacified by taking out his wrath on Jesus.”19 And you know what? Every proponent of penal substitution absolutely agrees with this statement! It is wrong to suggest that Jesus came to bear the Father’s wrath so that the Father could then love us. The atonement does not make us “lovable.” We were loved from all eternity, before Christ ever died for us.

The aforementioned book defending penal substitution, which Wright called “sub-biblical,” clearly made this point: “…it was love that motivated God to send his Son to die; love was not somehow generated by the atonement.”20 To say the opposite would, indeed, probably be a “pagan” notion. It is wrong to assert that Scripture teaches that the atonement purchased God’s love—and it would be wrong to caricature the doctrine of penal substitution as teaching such a thing. It’s a straw man argument. And it is one that Wright returns to incessantly, ad nauseum.

And yet all along he claims that he still supports the notion that sin must be punished, and that it was punished in Christ. And, so: see? He really does believe in penal substitution after all!

But what he means by that is utterly different from what most people mean by such words. When the vast majority of people speak of “punishing sin,” it is a figure of speech (a metonymy21 to be precise) that means “punishing sinners.” In the context of Christian theology it refers to Christ willingly taking the punishment of sinners upon himself. But for Wright, it means something so utterly outside our experience as to be a bit bizarre:

Now we see what he means. “There is no condemnation for those in the Messiah . . . because God . . . condemned Sin right there in the flesh.” The punishment has been meted out. But the punishment is on Sin itself, the combined, accumulated, and personified force that has wreaked such havoc in the world and in human lives.22

So it is not Christ who takes our punishment. Rather, somehow, sin itself is “punished.” An abstract concept somehow pays the penalty. Just how is that done? Can it be done? Although Wright somehow manages to extract this notion from Romans 8:3 to use as the foundation of his version of “penal substitution,” we certainly do not find such a concept anywhere in Scripture, and it stretches credulity to think that Paul went so far in his rhetorical personification of sin that he considered sin an entity that can bear punishment. It is a foundation built on exegetical sand.23

And thus, for Wright, Christ Himself takes no punishment as our substitute, because even though He was hanging, suffering on the cross, it was not Him who is being punished, but sin—and yet, somehow, He was still our substitute. And so—Voilà!—Wright has convinced himself (and all his acolytes, I might add) that he still believes in penal substitution! In fact, he says this is precisely how we must “rescue this substitution from its pagan captivity.”24

The death of Jesus, seen in this light, is certainly penal. It has to do with the punishment on Sin—not, to say it again, on Jesus—but it is punishment nonetheless. Equally, it is certainly substitutionary: God condemned Sin (in the flesh of the Messiah), and therefore sinners who are “in the Messiah” are not condemned.25

But after he spent so much time attacking penal substitution as “pagan,” it is puzzling to consider why he wants to keep the term. In any event, it’s okay by Wright to keep using the term “penal substitution,” as long as by it we do not mean that Christ bore our penalty as our substitute, which, of course, is what it’s always meant.

This couldn’t be some kind of slippery rhetorical sleight-of-hand, could it?

But is he a heretic?

First, let me get one thing out of the way: by calling N.T. Wright a “heretic,” I am emphatically not saying that he is going to hell. This has been a special announcement. We now resume our normal programming.

Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought on the subject of what exactly constitutes a heretic in the context of historic evangelical Protestantism. For Alister McGrath, “the nature of Protestantism makes it very difficult to use the term ‘heresy’ to refer to divergent schools of thought within that movement, unless they reproduce ideas that the church as a whole as agreed are unorthodox.”26

Depending on how you define “the church as a whole,” this would mean either that you can’t call anything a heresy that was not addressed by the seven ecumenical councils of the church (ending with the Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787), or that you can’t call anything a heresy that was not addressed by the first three councils (ending with the Council of Ephesus in AD 431), since the Monophysite Churches (e.g., Coptic Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc.) opted out of the councils that followed those.

But does anyone really believe that no new heresies were espoused over the past 1,230 to 1,586 years? A far more realistic approach was taken by Harold O.J. Brown:

It is evident that within the broader Christian fellowship there is considerable disagreement concerning which dogmas are essential and must be believed. A certain level of disagreement is compatible with Christianity, and indeed has always existed, but beyond a certain point of disagreement one can no longer speak of a community of faith. When the dogma in dispute is so important that it breaks up a community, it is a heresy. Those on our side, who reject it, thus “keep the faith,” and are orthodox; the others are heretics.27

Historic evangelical Protestantism has always held that justification by faith alone is the doctrine, or “article [of faith] by which the church stands or falls.”28 And essential to any stable doctrine of justification by faith is a proper definition of the object of that faith: the person, nature, and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus penal substitution has stood as an indispensable theological underpinning for the doctrine of salvation as a whole—and Wright has twisted all of this beyond recognition. This has made him a heretic within evangelicalism, albeit one of the most popular heretics, especially among evangelical academics, to come along in a long, long time.

What does that say about the state of the evangelical academy?

The dead branches continue to fall.

Fifteen years ago Ligon Duncan highlighted all the reasons for appreciating N.T. Wright.

Has he not forthrightly contended in manly fashion with the dark forces of the Jesus Seminar? Has he not written one of the best books in defense of the resurrection of Christ? Is he not winsome and charming?

Yes. And the most effective heretics are the ones who choose their orthodoxies most cleverly, and present them in the most attractive packages.

In the end, the popularity of N.T. Wright’s writings, and of all the other versions of the New Perspective on Paul, have actually done the church a service.

It has functioned as a “theological ice storm” to show us where the dead limbs were on evangelicalism’s tree. That’s important pastorally. We needed to know how bad a shape we were in. Now we know and can work to do something about it.29Ω

 

[GeneZ]

It's an inconvenient truth for us (Protestants) that the phrase "faith alone" only appears a single time in the NT and it's in James:

​

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must ​

believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Hebrews 11:6​

 

[TB2]

This is a misrepresentation.

The fruit that someone bears (attitudes, deeds and beliefs) shows what is inside. This is not a requirement for salvation, but evidence of it (or the lack thereof). Acceptance, or rejection, of important, clearly declared truths, in God's word, is an indicator of the heart from which it flows.

Note that I said "evidence", not proof. Cognitive dissonance is always a possibility, at least temporarily, as is a temporary stubbornness.

So if a believer accepts evolution that is "evidence" they are not saved?

 

[TB2]

First, let me get one thing out of the way: by calling N.T. Wright a “heretic,” I am emphatically not saying that he is going to hell. This has been a special announcement. We now resume our normal programming.

 

[TB2]

My argument is demonstrated from Scripture.

So is mine

You are unable to explain the impact on Christian doctrine of the NP assertion that "works of the law" means the ceremonial laws; e.g., circumcision, Sabbath, food laws.
With no impact to consider regarding it, the NP assertion regarding "works of the law" is just smoke and mirrors.

Because again we/I haven't got to that part yet

 

[TB2]

Anyone who believes in molecules-to-man evolution denies various biblical doctrines of great importance.

And yet William Lane Craig does not

Yes, we are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ; however, once we find out about the creation narrative, if we are born again, we will be expected to believe it. Not believing it (and "reinterpreting" it to mean something other than what it says is exactly that) indicates that the person has an authority that he deems higher than the Bible (consciously or otherwise) and that he "interprets" the Bible in the light of that authority (e.g. the current opinions of many scientists about the origins of man). This is inconsistent with the new heart/spirit that God gives.

Walton, Wenham and others do believe it and the truth is their exegesis is more accurate and *based* on the text and is *not* a *reinterpretation* in light of modern science but *inspite* of it.

The truth is Gen 1-3 is a combination of Hebrew poetry and prose. It has elements of both. That's just a fact. Just because something is poetic doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean that truth includes symbolic representation. For example, there is language that ties it to the Tabernacle/Temple and Levitical priesthood. The Hebrew names themselves Adam & Eve indicate they are representative names for all of humanity in addition to them being real people. All of these conclusions are based on a proper reading of Scripture independent of and uninfluenced by any modern science.

I can guarantee you that you do not accept all of Genesis "exactly" as written either, but believe it contains figurative elements as well.

 

[David1701]

That's interesting... maybe with some practice I can get into the 80s.


View attachment 449

Yes, that's a standard distribution curve.

On a purely anecdotal level, I found that people in the 1980s (at least the ones I knew) could reason far better than young people nowadays, although this could be due to teachers, in more recent times, deliberately not teaching pupils how to think for themselves (the globalist "elite" prefer fearful subservience (mask and "vaccine" mandates, lockdowns, etc.)).

Getting back to something approaching the thread's subject; denying the historical Adam (sole progenitor of humanity) undermines original sin; it also undermines the reason why we all die; it undermines the reason for Jesus to be the last Adam, etc.. I'm not saying that you promote any of this; I'm just trying not to sidetrack the thread.

 

[David1701]

And yet William Lane Craig does not

William Lane Craig is a very skillful apologist, but I disagree strongly with some of his pronouncements and beliefs and would not recommend him to anyone.

Walton, Wenham and others do believe it and the truth is their exegesis is more accurate and *based* on the text and is *not* a *reinterpretation* in light of modern science but *inspite* of it.

The truth is Gen 1-3 is a combination of Hebrew poetry and prose. It has elements of both. That's just a fact. Just because something is poetic doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean that truth includes symbolic representation. For example, there is language that ties it to the Tabernacle/Temple and Levitical priesthood. The Hebrew names themselves Adam & Eve indicate they are representative names for all of humanity in addition to them being real people. All of these conclusions are based on a proper reading of Scripture independent of and uninfluenced by any modern science.

I can guarantee you that you do not accept all of Genesis "exactly" as written either, but believe it contains figurative elements as well.

Adam means "man". He was the first man; he is the federal head of fallen man; and he is the progenitor of all mankind.

Eve means "life-giver". She is the first woman and the mother of all mankind.

Of course there is figurative language in Genesis; however, you are moving the goalposts, since we are talking about the creation narrative, not the whole of Genesis.

 

[fastfredy0]

And I get all the arguments about what James is 'really' saying, but it does require a little bit of an interpretative Protestant tap dance.

I believe in faith alone .... but this is a good point IMO.

 

[ReverendRV]

I believe in faith alone .... but this is a good point IMO.

What helps Protestantism is Saint James saying, 'When we love our neighbors as ourselves, we're doing well'...

For without Faith it is impossible to Please God. The difference between Pleasing God and doing well is?

 

[Eleanor]

I agree with you here. I have not read a lot on this issue, and will be interested to hear what you learn from the book you mentioned.
However, from what I have learnt, and then reading through this thread, it seems to me that misunderstandings abound on what the NP is saying. We need to be clear about this otherwise it leads to a lot of unnecessary division and confusion. Even though the NP is not an homogenous group and different people are saying different things, we can still make some general statements.
As far as I can tell everyone in the NP camp (including Wright) agrees we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. This is not what is being debated, although many opponents of the NP seem to have taken this way.
The specific issue in question is who and what was Paul is arguing against in his letter to the Romans and Galatians. The answer to this question changes the context of 'works of the law' in these letters.
The OP says Paul’s opponents, the Jews and Judaizers, were adding works to one’s one-on-one relationship with God. In the view of the OP the Judaizers were saying you are saved by faith in God and moral law keeping and this is the problem Paul was addressing in Romans and Galatians. The OP says that Paul was correcting a one-on-one personal vertical error (i.e. an error between man and God).

Well done! Clear and concise. Even I can understand it. Thanks so much!
However, Paul always frames the issue in terms of the gospel (e.g., Gal 1:6, 9), which is a matter of salvation rather than the lived-out Christian life.

The NP is saying the OP is incorrect in the way they view the Judaizers. They base this on the evidence that has come to light since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which has provided us with a wealth of information about the second temple period and what Jewish thought was at the time of Christ. This is something the Reformers did not have access to.

Would this be an NP red herring?
Do we need the Dead Sea Scrolls to tell us what the issue was? I see the NT text as clear that the issue is the gospel.

The NP says that the Judaises never thought this vertical relationship was about faith and works, but rather to stay in the covenant family of God was all about keeping the works of the law - circumcision, keeping kosher, keeping sabbath, etc. The error is a horizontal one about who was allowed at the communion table. The Judaizers wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised, etc. The NP says this is what Paul is saying No! to. He says in the Messiah, these cultural boundary markers have been torn down and you can now come to the communion table regardless of ethnical background.

So the diagreement between the OP and the NP is not about how one is saved. They all agree salvation by grace alone through faith alone. It is about how the Judaizers are viewed and what their specific arguments are that Paul was addressing.

However, Ac 15 presents it as a matter of both:
salvation (Ac 15:1), which is the gospel, and the terms in which Paul addresses the disagreement in Gal 1:6-9, and
fellowship (Ac 15:5),
which were presented to the Jerusalem Council, and where their authoritative decision (Ac 15:24)
1) did not require circumcision for salvation,
2) did not require circumcision and keeping the law of Moses for admittance to the people of God.

This has a number of implications, but still has nothing to do with salvation through faith. Nor does this change anything else in Scripture.
As I said, I have not read a lot about this topic, nor is it one I am particularly interested in at the moment.

Good for you!

What has interested me, and what I do like about the NP, is the focus on covenant family which I think is sorely lacking in the church today. I see that we spend a lot of time talking about our individual relationship with God, and rightly so as this of course is incredibly important. However we spend very little time talking about what that means in a horizontal relationship with other Christians. We were saved individually but we were saved to be the people of God, the Body of Christ.

That probably depends on the denomination you are in.
Some are very God-centered, fellowship focused, open, friendly, caring, involved in church community. . .while others, not so much.
I'm not so sure it has anything to do with OP vs. NP facilitation.
I also don't see denominational differences of orthodox Christianity preventing fellowship across denominations when such opportunities are provided.

 

[GeneZ]

So if a believer accepts evolution that is "evidence" they are not saved?

Not walking as to be made able by grace to be saved in time from evil... though saved.

A saved person can be a total jerk in this lifetime. For in this life he will not be saved from good and evil.
But, ultimately, because he believed in Jesus. He in the end, will be saved from the Lake of Fire.

​

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, ​

which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, ​

silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for ​

what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed ​

with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. ​

If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. ​

If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved​

—even though only as one escaping through the flames." 1 Cor 3:11-15​

​

See that?

A believer can be walking according to all the weaknesses of his natural dumb ways (wood, hay, and straw)
of thinking after he is saved. And, yet he will not lose his salvation from the Lake of Fire.

​

It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. ​

If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. ​

If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved​

—even though only as one escaping through the flames." 1 Cor 3:12b-15​

If Satan can not rob someone of getting saved? Satan is out to rob and steal away his rewards.
Rewards that give access to special closeness and intimacy to the Lord in Eternity.
So, while we remain here on earth Satan resists all good that God wants for us to have.

Satan turns believers who fail to walk in the Spirit into enemies of God's people.

Enemies to the truth. Truth we need to know to keep us from walking contrary to how God would have us to think and walk.

Satan will succeed with a vast many believers who follow their inborn religious instincts. They are repulsed by sound doctrine.

​

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. ​

Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great ​

number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Tim 4:3​

Many follow after some teaching(s) that feel right at home with their natural way of seeing God.
The choices for such erroneous teachings must be versatile and varied, designed to reach as many
world views of men as possible... As many as Satan can rob away from knowing the true Christ while saved.

​

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads ​

to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road ​

that leads to life, and only a few find it. ​

​

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they ​

are ferocious wolves. Matthew 7:13-15​

Jesus was speaking to believers. That is why he warned of false prophets. You do not need to warn an unbeliever of that sort of thing.

We each have our own strongholds in our personalities that vary one from another person. That way, other believers without a weakness can check those who do not share the same natural way of seeing things. In that way we have 'checks and balances' designed by the Lord into His Church.

What may fool you will not another believer. But, that does not make him right with God for simply seeing your error.
For he will have his own area to be dealt with by the Lord. We are all equal before God.

grace and peace .............

 

[Arial]

It's an inconvenient truth for us (Protestants) that the phrase "faith alone" only appears a single time in the NT and it's in James:

James 2:24 NAS
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

And I get all the arguments about what James is 'really' saying, but it does require a little bit of an interpretative Protestant tap dance. On the face of it, what seems to be the clear, plain meaning is definitely not helpful. I can understand why Luther called the book of James an "epistle of straw" and if memory serves (?) questioned its canonicity (I could be misremembering about that)

The word trinity never appears in the scriptures. Does that mean that the trinity is not clearly seen in the scriptures? So why use that same argument here as Unitarians use with the trinity.

As to the book of James which is predominantly wisdom literature btw, if by the time one reaches that book, assuming they absorbed the doctrine of justification by faith, by grace through faith, noted the passages on reconciliation and substitution and atonement, when they come to "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone", they my do a double take. They may recognize that on its surface it sounds like it contradicts all that was said by the other apostles. And having done so, any pursuer of truth with any salt, will know that no such thing as a contradiction will exist in the Bible; therefore they will embark on the task of letting clear scriptures, and the context and purpose of James, rectify the situation. (Why Luther's first reaction was to throw the book out of the canon I don't know, but his reasoning was no doubt that since it contradicts other scriptures (one the measures of canonization) it didn't belong where it was. He later came to an understanding of what was actually being said. Which is in summary and my own words, that just as faith without works is dead, so is works without faith. It is not a tap dance. It is apologetics and rightly handling the word of God.

But I'm very hesitant about making snap judgments about *anyone* especially when I know I don't have all the facts. And I certainly don't have enough knowledge here.

That assumes that people are saying what they say about his teaching are making snap judgments. And you should by now have enough knowledge of the scriptures to notice that on what the gospel is, (not what it contains but what constitutes the gospel), on justification by faith alone, and penal substitution, are contrary to what the Bible teaches and what is in orthodox Protestant doctrines. It is not enough to simply say those doctrines are wrong because they did not have all the information we have today. And this new information he says we have are all sourced from outside the Bible itself, and based on the claims of authoritative knowledge used by other people for the express purpose of dispelling these traditional doctrines. By now one should recognize that also and know that the Bible is its own source and it is complete as God intended us to have it to accomplish His purpose. To even consider these things for a second as possibly true is to not trust the Bible but things outside the Bible. Of course there is that too in NP. A challenge to the inerrancy of the scriptures.

I *do* know enough about his beliefs (and know enough myself about the apostolic kerygma gospel message of salvation) to know that he believes and accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. So that right there makes him a fellow believer. Sure we may vociferously disagree and think that his teaching is grossly in error, but to accuse him of outright heresy and throwing out orthodoxy and the gospel--I'm sorry but that's a false accusation and slanderous and is a charge that can only be maintained by *adding to* the gospel message of salvation.

Heresy is heresy. That does not mean that everything he teaches is heresy. But if someone is teaching a heresy it is a heresy they are teaching.

I respect and value the work of NT scholar Craig Blomberg (who I've communicated with before) and today ran across a review of his on NT Wright that I'd never seen or read before (I didnt even know that Blomberg had reviewed Wright’s book on Justification). I know Dr. Blomberg to be a fair minded balanced level headed scholar so I put quite a bit of stock in his reviews. So when I see him write what he does about Wright, I'm inclined to believe it and accept it as true. But of course everyone will have to make that judgment for themselves.

At the core of what Blomberg says and what Wright frequently uses as the basis of what he is arguing against, and what you yourself have been doing and which I pointed out, is misstatement of what the Reformed position teaches, and instead uses the misunderstandings whether real or imagined of some. The teaching of Reformed is not constricted to the here and now at the expense of the future restored creation. The fullness of our salvation and the restoration of all things is the promised goal for which the Christian perseveres to the end. It is our certain hope. Calvin expressed it in in the Institutes that our eyes must be ever on this future. My paraphrase rather than looking for his exact wording.

And Reformed teaches no place that rewards for doing good is our goal and aim. It has no focus on our good works, but teaches obedience to God is the responsibility of His children. Reformed recognizes fully that Jesus brought salvation to Jew and Gentile alike, tearing down the dividing wall, making of the two one. So whether it is Blomberg, Wright, you or anyone else, the reason given for finding the necessity of altering some Reformed teaching on justification is a straw man. And truly it is shocking that all these informed and scholarly and prolific writers would not only think this makes a legitimate argument, but others cannot even spot it. What is the world coming to?