A different gospel?

[TB2]

No comment on posts 307-308?

Let me start with 308 first and get back to you on 307.

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.

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.

I would say this is still too vague. Churches split for less than important things. Orthodoxy is not defined. And the word heresy itself is more than just a definition: it is emotionally charged and has been weaponized. Perhaps a different term altogether? Or simply start with what's most important: the apostolic kerygma/gospel message.

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.”

I would disagree. I don't disagree with justification by faith, but that it is the article by which the church stands or falls. That is the apostolic kerygma (gospel message).

"For Paul it is not the doctrine of justification that is ‘the power of God for salvation’ (Rom. 1:16), but the gospel of Jesus Christ."

"It is perfectly possible to be saved by believing in Jesus Christ without ever having heard of justification by faith."

"By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21)."

"But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus."

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

Using the apostolic kerygma as the standard for orthodoxy and for comparison, PSA is important didache (teaching) but is exposition that goes beyond the scope of the apostolic kerygma, so it is not a matter of salvation.

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

Using the apostolic kerygma as the standard, Wright’s teaching is orthodoxy

 

[TB2]

No comment on posts 307-308?

I'VE MADE MY FINAL CONCLUSION ABOUT NT WRIGHT HATERS AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG AND HERE IT IS....

I started reviewing post 307. I didn't realize posts 307-308 were not your own words but were quoted from (the middle of) an article. Looks like it was this article (I went ahead and started reading from the beginning).

I have to start by confessing my disappointment over how the article begins:

"If you want a quick-but-tedious way to separate some of the shallower evanjellyfish from the more theologically-serious evangelicals in your circle of friends, here’s a simple method: call N.T. Wright a heretic. It’s quick because the blowback you will surely experience can be timed in microseconds. It’s tedious because you will be subjected to a series of overweeningly shrill diatribes, accompanied by confident insinuations that anyone who says such a thing is a divisive dolt. But a more effective method is difficult to find.

N.T. Wright is a heretic. There, I’ve said it. Let the ranting begin."

If I didn't know any better (and I don't) calling NT Wright a heretic (in this thread) seems like a purposeful calculated tactic to get a rise out of people. And of course separate the spineless "evanjellyfish" from the more astute, elite "theologically serious evangelicals." I find that bothersome on so many levels first and foremost because the statement is supposed to be by a Christian and yet it doesn't seem very Christlike. And before the retorts pour in about how we are commanded to judge and discern truth from error, well that can still be done without having to malign people.

The source instantly betrays its bias. The article makes no measured attempt to debunk NT Wright in any systematic objective way, but is instead more of a propaganda piece designed to rile its base with selective cherry picked snippets of NT Wright that disingenuously misrepresent what he says, starting with point 1:

"According to Wright…1. The Gospel is not about “getting saved.”

Well of course that sounds heretical when one puts it that way. And it would be if only it were true. But that is a complete misrepresentation of Wright’s position.

The article then quotes Wright as saying:

"I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved.”

And with that chops off the next sentence:

"But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ."

After three or so paragraphs of riffing on how "heretical" Wright’s statement is, the article then asks so what is Wright’s definition of the gospel, and then quotes Wright as follows:

“The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world.”

And then proceeds to lambast Wright again for not including salvation alongside the gospel. But if only the article gave the very next sentence!

“The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.”

Not only does the article chop off Wright’s full statements again, but it doesn't have the decency to explain what Wright means when he says this: Wright is referring to the gospel as in "good news" as the term was understood in ancient times as an imperial proclamation to herald, for example, the "good news" that 'Tiberius Caesar has become emperor!" That's what a "good news" pronouncement was most associated with, only here with the "good news" proclamation that "JESUS IS LORD!" That is what a "good news" proclamation was. And guess what??? By believing in that proclamation announcement a person is SAVED!!!

I'm sorry. That is despicable misrepresentation of NT Wright by the article and tells me all I need to know about its so-called "objectivity" and "accuracy."

Most concerning to me is the fact that this article is presented as a compelling source. More concerning still is now the realization that this type of atrocious "reporting" is the type of propaganda, misinformation, and rhetoric that is fueling the heresy-hate-on-Wright camp of "theologically serious evangelicals" vs the spineless, whiny, "evanjellyfish" compromisers.

Shameful.

 

[Arial]

Agreed. As far as I can tell, no one is saying otherwise.

I would have to ask that why then is "what did Paul mean by 'works of the law'" in that scripture the center point in what is an effort to change the traditional view of justification, making justification have an ecumenical and eschatological meaning and purpose (we all dine at the same table), and to turn the doctrine of imputed righteousness on its head?

 

[Eleanor]

Of course. But what does that have to do with the fact that it's "an inconvenient truth" that James 2.24 is the only place where "faith alone" occurs?

Strawman, as explained in the post to which you are referring, and which you are too intelligent not to understand.

 

[Eleanor]

And NT Wright agrees with that

So Reformed theology does not?

 

[Eleanor]

Amen! Very true! But here my point was not whether it needs to be expressly taught but that it requires interpretation. Sometimes there is this Protestant 'arrogance' for lack of a better word where we as Protestants [or insert denomination X] 'smugly' and proudly proclaim that "we" are following the "clear" teaching of Scripture (implying that no one else is and that their reading of Scripture is colored by tradition or a particular interpretive framework) when that's really no less true of us. Some humility might be in order.

Irrelevant, failure to distinguish and uninformed.

"We" are following the "clear" teaching of Scripture in asserting that Jesus is God (Jn 1;1, 14), and no one else is who denies such.

No humility required nor needed for this "arrogance."

Some NT mind seems in order.

 

[Carbon]

So Reformed theology does not?

Keep in mind this person said Tom Wright is difficult to understand. But notice, he has no issues saying what Wright agrees with and how all are wrong who disagree with Wright............... Go figure...

 

[Arial]

For Paul it is not the doctrine of justification that is ‘the power of God for salvation’ (Rom. 1:16), but the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Are you quoting Wright here? How would you put it in your own words? This, as are most of his arguments, is based on something that doesn't exist in order to change what does exist. To say that justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls, is not saying that that itself is the gospel. No one evangelizes by saying "Good news. Justification is by faith alone."

"It is perfectly possible to be saved by believing in Jesus Christ without ever having heard of justification by faith."

Nevertheless they are justified and through their faith in the person and work of Jesus. (The gospel.) So what kind of an argument is that? A meaningless one.

"By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith

No one means justification by faith when they say gospel---not even the reformers or the Reformed. Justification by faith is something the gospel gives.


And to announce that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord means nothing to anyone unless they have some clue as to what that means. That is something we must learn. Who Jesus is and what He did and how He did it for us is the gospel. And we don't get there simply by pledging allegiance to Him.

Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21)."

Good one. Second order doctrine. I was totally unaware there was such a thing. Justification gives assurance for the present and the future. Why? Because it does not mean justified by faithfulness as Wright says, but it means the debt for our sins has been paid in full by Christ on the cross, and when we put our trust in Him we are declared reconciled to God. Righteous in other words. And show me any Reformed in history or find one today that does not say that all believers are one big family, the body of Christ, and will all dine together at the wedding supper. So another argument used that states something that does not exist. You see the Reformed doctrines all fit together and work in harmony. Wrights do not. He has to go find trouble where there is none in order to have his own mini reformation from the Reformation.

 

[Arial]

Of course. But what does that have to do with the fact that it's "an inconvenient truth" that James 2.24 is the only place where "faith alone" occurs? Did I say it's not true? No. I said it's not expressly taught. It has to be deduced and inferred from Scripture (like the Trinity!). That is not rejecting faith alone or the Trinity unlike unitarians who do use that type of argument to reject when I am not rejecting faith alone. So yes, Arials point is a strawman and inappropriate and a bit slanderous, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you would endorse it

I am wondering where I said you rejected it? Or that you said it wasn't true. In fact I responded exactly according to "an inconvenient truth. So no, my point was not a straw man, you made up my straw man and called it me. Now THAT is a straw man. Here is what I said:

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 the fact that you called the efforts by protestants to explain that one use of "faith alone" as a tap dance does add some color to your bringing James 2:24 up in a conversation where the discussion is on someone you defend who changes justified by faith into meaning justified by faithfulness. While out the other side of his mouth he says "oh yes I believe in justification by faith alone. He does not mean the same thing the Reformers or Paul meant.

 

[David1701]

You will notice I'm the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet,...

Oh no, not this again...

....almost Arminian; so you'll be surprised we'll agree more often than not...

What does "almost Arminian" mean? The Arminian distinctives are incompatible with monergism, and vice versa.

It's a way I can resolve our differences; the thing is though, resolution quells activity. Also, I notice when people skip over my Posts, to deal with others who would rather fight...

Brother (I'm not going to call you "Reverend", which means "to be revered", since that applies only to God), you cannot resolve mutually exclusive doctrines. Either one party moves, or the differences remain. We can agree to differ, but that is hardly a resolution.

 

[Ladodgers6]

NT Wright is one of most prolific theologians of our time who has greatly influenced the church (in many positive ways). His 1,000 page tome on the resurrection is a masterpiece and one of the best historical arguments for the literal resurrection.

NT Wright is also very nuanced and I think that's where a lot of the "problems" happen; misunderstanding his views. While he definitely has provocative views, I don't think he's guilty of the three charges.

N.T. Wright on the Historical Adam​

"Jonathan Huggins’ essay examines the writings of N. T. Wright with a view to discerning how Wright interprets the person of Adam. Drawing upon Wright’s commentaries, interviews, and monographs, Huggins’ argues that Wright does indeed affirm the existence of an historical Adam, even if Wright is not convinced that Adam was the sole progenitor of the human race."

Well, God gave Adam two commandments; 1)not to eat of the tree of knowledge, 2) Multiply and fill the earth. Now, in Romans 5, Paul explicitly states that by One Man's disobedience sin, death and condemnation came upon all. There's no way around that, because death fell upon everyone by this One Man. He was the representative of the whole human race in the garden. Just as Christ is the head of the body. So, I disagree with N.T. Wright.​

N. T. Wright and Justification​

"According to Wright, Paul did not teach an imputation of God’s or Christ’s righteousness to the repenting and believing sinner. Wright especially rejects any notion that Paul taught an imputation of Christ’s “active obedience” (fulfillment of the Torah) to said persons. He affirms, however, an imputation of righteousness by which he means acquittal as in a court of law. For him “justification” means forgiveness and membership in God’s people. He goes to great lengths to deny that he is suggesting any Pelagian or semi-Pelagian merit involved in justification. It is solely by God’s grace through faith. But the “faith” is first and foremost “the faithfulness of Jesus–the perfect covenant partner” and secondarily the believing person’s embrace of Jesus as the Messiah of God resulting in membership in God’s people."​

Scratching my head, because sounds convoluted. Let me understand this correctly, Wright, doesn't believe in an imputation of Christ's "active" obedience (Torah), but affirms an imputation of righteousness by which he means acquittal in court of Law? Whose imputed righteousness are we talking about then? And how was this righteousness merited? Makes no sense at all.

Him who believes in God who justifies the "UNGODLY", his faith is counted righteousness apart from works of the Law (Romans 4:5). This is the pure Gospel, that God has done in Christ for his people through a promise. There's so much to unpack here. Only through the Law can a person be counted righteous through their obedience to the (Torah). Same as in Civil Law, either you are a Law abiding citizen who adheres to all Laws as a righteous man, or a Law breaker found guilty and punished. But how could a Law Breaker be found righteous? This is the question we must ask ourselves.

And it starts in the OT where God made a Covenant of Grace with Adam and Eve, and Abraham. That he will send a Promised Seed, that will save them from their sins! This entails Christ being born under the Law (Gal. 4), becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3), and not abolishing the Law but came to fulfill it (Matt. 5:48). God's curse came upon us all through One Man's Act of Disobedience, but the Free Gift of Righteousness came through One Man's Act of Obedience (Rom. 5:17). So, Paul is preaching about the active obedience of Christ's that is imputed to the ungodly!
​

Death in Adam, Life in Christ​

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So, here you go, the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ and is imputed, credited, given to those who believe in him who justifies the "UNGODLY" apart from works.

1 Cor. 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption

So, as you can see, Wright is incorrect, we are made righteous by the One Man's Act of Obedience; Christ Jesus. ​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Don’t Tell Me N.T. Wright Denies "Penal Substitution"​

"One can clearly see an affirmation of the penal substitutionary atonement throughout the theology of N.T. Wright. Though Wright does not affirm this doctrine within the standard Reformed categories, the concept of Jesus the Righteous One dying in the place of the sinner and thus taking upon Himself the wrath of God is clearly espoused. Even though some of us may disagree with Wright’s “fresh” perspective on Paul or his view of Jesus’ messianic consciousness, this does not mean we should not affirm Wright where he should be affirmed. Personally, since I began writing this essay, I have a deeper appreciation for the penal substitutionary view of the atonement because of the way Wright espouses it within the historical events of the first century."

I think we need to be really careful with such statements, especially when dealing with nuances and secondary doctrines (that we forget are secondary and treat as primary), like justification by faith. For we are not justified by believing in "justification by faith" but by believing in Jesus.

Can you provide Wright's position on PSA?

 

[Arial]

I'VE MADE MY FINAL CONCLUSION ABOUT NT WRIGHT HATERS AND WHY THEY ARE WRONG AND HERE IT IS....

I started reviewing post 307. I didn't realize posts 307-308 were not your own words but were quoted from (the middle of) an article. Looks like it was this article (I went ahead and started reading from the beginning).

I have to start by confessing my disappointment over how the article begins:

In this post you do not respond to Posts #307 and #308. I don't know if your emotions got in the way of your head or what, but you made some assumptions and here accusations, that were not true which more careful reading of the posts would have saved you from the rant that follows and all the errors in it. #307-#308 @Carbon was making a reference to a book of Wright's, not an article. And neither of them contain the quote you attributed to Carbon that he did not make. Nevertheless I will respond to this post, and may put up one of the writings that you presented as a Reformer validating Wright's view. I have to go back through the thread to find it.

I am curious though why you would consider people defending the faith against what they consider damaging to it "Wright haters."

I have to start by confessing my disappointment over how the article begins:

"If you want a quick-but-tedious way to separate some of the shallower evanjellyfish from the more theologically-serious evangelicals in your circle of friends, here’s a simple method: call N.T. Wright a heretic. It’s quick because the blowback you will surely experience can be timed in microseconds. It’s tedious because you will be subjected to a series of overweeningly shrill diatribes, accompanied by confident insinuations that anyone who says such a thing is a divisive dolt. But a more effective method is difficult to find.

N.T. Wright is a heretic. There, I’ve said it. Let the ranting begin."

I am not sure why you think any would be concerned or chastised by your disappointment over how the article begins. But did you not react exactly as the author of the article, Ron Henzel said people would? Look at how large and bold and red the letters are that begin your post.

If I didn't know any better (and I don't) calling NT Wright a heretic (in this thread) seems like a purposeful calculated tactic to get a rise out of people. And of course separate the spineless "evanjellyfish" from the more astute, elite "theologically serious evangelicals."

Or it could simply be that they consider him a heretic, for a number of reasons as the volume of Wright's writing covers many areas. But in a nutshell its purpose is to change the orthodox teachings that came out of the Reformation, and mainly using the basis, (in order to soften and hide his intentions, the better to tighten the woolly covering, that they simply did not have enough information at the time and we have that information now.

But just to be clear, Henzel did not use the words "astute" or "elite". That is you trying to aid in people dismissing what is said by implying arrogance.

I find that bothersome on so many levels first and foremost because the statement is supposed to be by a Christian and yet it doesn't seem very Christlike. And before the retorts pour in about how we are commanded to judge and discern truth from error, well that can still be done without having to malign people.

Again with the bothersome? Heaven forbid anyone say anything that anyone would find bothersome. So here you appeal to being Christlike, (how sweet. I am persuaded already to disregard whatever ever else this author says.) And exactly how is that not maligning a person to say they are unChristlike? But for the record, let's see how Jesus addressed the issue of false teaching.

Matt 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
Matt 23:23-29 where four times He calls people hypocrites, as well as white washed tombs full of dead men's bones, snakes, a brood of vipers.

Or how the apostles handled the issue of false teaching. Jude 1:12; 2 Cor 11:13-15; Acts 20:28-30. Were all these, even Christ Himself being unChristlike?

The source instantly betrays its bias. The article makes no measured attempt to debunk NT Wright in any systematic objective way, but is instead more of a propaganda piece designed to rile its base with selective cherry picked snippets of NT Wright that disingenuously misrepresent what he says, starting with point 1:

I would have to say that this post of yours also portrays its bias, as does mine. Which brings up the question why would someone present a defense or point of view that did not also contain their point of view and a defense of that point of view? And the next question would be, How does calling someone biased become any sort of valid argument? Well of course as we continue in the quote above even more questions arise.

How can someone's opinion be deemed as propaganda when all it is doing is presenting that opinion? Is the word propaganda then being used as propagandizing tool itself? As are the words "cherry picked snippets of Wright's works" (which btw are so huge in volume that anything could be called cherry picking)? And since added to that are the words "disingenuously misrepresented" do we now have propaganda on full display as it disingenuously accuses someone else's writing as propaganda?

Well, we got that out of the way. I need a break and when I return I will finally get down to addressing these snippets and cherry picked disingenuously misrepresented things in your post.

 

[Ladodgers6]

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.

Thank you for sharing. I have read Wright's book, and I agree with a lot he has to say, but denying the Imputed Righteousness of our sin to Christ and his righteousness to us is crucial to the Biblical teaching of Paul. But to be fair, Wright has admitted that our sins are imputed to Christ, which is a great start. But then denies that Christ's righteousness is imputed to sinners through Faith apart from works. And this is against Paul teaching.

If I may, point out that in Romans 4, Paul says, him who believes in God who justifies the "UNGODLY" counts their faith as righteousness apart from works. The question that must be asked here, is how can an ungodly person be justified apart from the Law or works? Only through the Law that we declare someone righteous or guilty. Well, the ungodly are counted righteous by God because of Christ and his merits to the Law. Which are imputed to those who believe and trust God and in his Promise.

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

Faith is the empty hand that receives, what Christ came to fulfill for his people. In the Covenant of Grace; The Promise of Grace, Christ provides what the Law could not do. Christ came to restore our relationship to the Father that was severed by the first Adam. Christ became that curse to free us from sin, death, condemnation and punishment, by taking our place as our substitute and receives our death sentence upon his body in doing so, we are released from the curse. Christ also came to not abolish the Law but to fulfill it with his obedience, and his righteousness is imputed, credited, given to us through Faith Alone apart from the works of the Law. So, Christ triumphs over sin, death, and Satan by paying the debt owed for our sins, and by his Obedience we are counted righteous through Faith Alone in Christ Alone, and he is raised for our Justification, and defeats all of his enemies and he stands in victory for his people!​

 

[Ladodgers6]

In this post you do not respond to Posts #307 and #308. I don't know if your emotions got in the way of your head or what, but you made some assumptions and here accusations, that were not true which more careful reading of the posts would have saved you from the rant that follows and all the errors in it. #307-#308 @Carbon was making a reference to a book of Wright's, not an article. And neither of them contain the quote you attributed to Carbon that he did not make. Nevertheless I will respond to this post, and may put up one of the writings that you presented as a Reformer validating Wright's view. I have to go back through the thread to find it.

I am curious though why you would consider people defending the faith against what they consider damaging to it "Wright haters."

I am not sure why you think any would be concerned or chastised by your disappointment over how the article begins. But did you not react exactly as the author of the article, Ron Henzel said people would? Look at how large and bold and red the letters are that begin your post.

Or it could simply be that they consider him a heretic, for a number of reasons as the volume of Wright's writing covers many areas. But in a nutshell its purpose is to change the orthodox teachings that came out of the Reformation, and mainly using the basis, (in order to soften and hide his intentions, the better to tighten the woolly covering, that they simply did not have enough information at the time and we have that information now.

But just to be clear, Henzel did not use the words "astute" or "elite". That is you trying to aid in people dismissing what is said by implying arrogance.

Again with the bothersome? Heaven forbid anyone say anything that anyone would find bothersome. So here you appeal to being Christlike, (how sweet. I am persuaded already to disregard whatever ever else this author says.) And exactly how is that not maligning a person to say they are unChristlike? But for the record, let's see how Jesus addressed the issue of false teaching.

Matt 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
Matt 23:23-29 where four times He calls people hypocrites, as well as white washed tombs full of dead men's bones, snakes, a brood of vipers.

Or how the apostles handled the issue of false teaching. Jude 1:12; 2 Cor 11:13-15; Acts 20:28-30. Were all these, even Christ Himself being unChristlike?





I would have to say that this post of yours also portrays its bias, as does mine. Which brings up the question why would someone present a defense or point of view that did not also contain their point of view and a defense of that point of view? And the next question would be, How does calling someone biased become any sort of valid argument? Well of course as we continue in the quote above even more questions arise.

How can someone's opinion be deemed as propaganda when all it is doing is presenting that opinion? Is the word propaganda then being used as propagandizing tool itself? As are the words "cherry picked snippets of Wright's works" (which btw are so huge in volume that anything could be called cherry picking)? And since added to that are the words "disingenuously misrepresented" do we now have propaganda on full display as it disingenuously accuses someone else's writing as propaganda?

Well, we got that out of the way. I need a break and when I return I will finally get down to addressing these snippets and cherry picked disingenuously misrepresented things in your post.

Great reply sister, well said. I am still waiting for @TB2 to reply to my post. @Carbon

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Thank you for sharing. I have read Wright's book, and I agree with a lot he has to say, but denying the Imputed Righteousness of our sin to Christ and his righteousness to us is crucial to the Biblical teaching of Paul. But to be fair, Wright has admitted that our sins are imputed to Christ, which is a great start. But then denies that Christ's righteousness is imputed to sinners through Faith apart from works. And this is against Paul teaching.

If I may, point out that in Romans 4, Paul says, him who believes in God who justifies the "UNGODLY" counts their faith as righteousness apart from works. The question that must be asked here, is how can an ungodly person be justified apart from the Law or works? Only through the Law that we declare someone righteous or guilty. Well, the ungodly are counted righteous by God because of Christ and his merits to the Law. Which are imputed to those who believe and trust God and in his Promise.

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

Faith is the empty hand that receives, what Christ came to fulfill for his people. In the Covenant of Grace; The Promise of Grace, Christ provides what the Law could not do. Christ came to restore our relationship to the Father that was severed by the first Adam. Christ became that curse to free us from sin, death, condemnation and punishment, by taking our place as our substitute and receives our death sentence upon his body in doing so, we are released from the curse. Christ also came to not abolish the Law but to fulfill it with his obedience, and his righteousness is imputed, credited, given to us through Faith Alone apart from the works of the Law. So, Christ triumphs over sin, death, and Satan by paying the debt owed for our sins, and by his Obedience we are counted righteous through Faith Alone in Christ Alone, and he is raised for our Justification, and defeats all of his enemies and he stands in victory for his people!​

NT Wright is an Anglican. They are really not much different to Catholics here in the UK. I wouldn't take Wright very seriously in general.

There's always something amiss when people attempt to say Paul is different to Christ. Always something, I dunno, a bit "demonic" about that.

 

[Ladodgers6]

NT Wright is an Anglican. They are really not much different to Catholics here in the UK. I wouldn't take Wright very seriously in general.

There's always something amiss when people attempt to say Paul is different to Christ. Always something, I dunno, a bit "demonic" about that.

He is kinda of wishy washy for me. It's like he's trying to make a hybrid between RCC and the Reformation. He talks about Grace Alone, but then says, it gonna depend on a life lived that merits a "final justification". This is a legalistic works-salvation that Paul condemned. He tries to neatly tie it up in a nice bow, and ground it the Holy Spirit transformation of the believer and that this is where justification lies. This is Trent language. Paul explicitly states that God justifies the "UNGODLY" and their faith is counted as righteousness. This is a huge gap from what Wright suggests. Wright got his ideas from E.P. Sanders & D.G. Dunn, though they all do not agree with each other, oddly enough. But the Reformers were in 100% in consensus with the Doctrines of Grace, Justification by Faith Alone and so forth.​

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

He is kinda of wishy washy for me. It's like he's trying to make a hybrid between RCC and the Reformation. He talks about Grace Alone, but then says, it gonna depend on a life lived that merits a "final justification". This is a legalistic works-salvation that Paul condemned. He tries to neatly tie it up in a nice bow, and ground it the Holy Spirit transformation of the believer and that this is where justification lies. This is Trent language. Paul explicitly states that God justifies the "UNGODLY" and their faith is counted as righteousness. This is a huge gap from what Wright suggests. Wright got his ideas from E.P. Sanders & D.G. Dunn, though they all do not agree with each other, oddly enough. But the Reformers were in 100% in consensus with the Doctrines of Grace, Justification by Faith Alone and so forth.​

He's a compromiser it seems. A lot of clergy and famous personalities in the UK are like that. The Anglican church today is not the same as it was even 40 years ago, let alone 300 years. I cannot find a decent church here because almost all of them are compromised in some way.

It seems to me from what you have just said that Wright believes it is possible to lose salvation, and so works are necessary to get to heaven after you have been born again. This isn't the same as the Trent thing because Catholics do not even know what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, they confuse it with water baptism and believe that being morally good is required pre and post baptism. If Wright is born again and believes it is possible to lose salvation, based on Hebrews 6 and 10 and or warnings in the NT Epistles variously, it means he does not understand what the Atonement of Christ is, how it works and what it means.

The entire difference between Christianity and every other religion that exists is that they all require works to be saved.

 

[Ladodgers6]

He's a compromiser it seems. A lot of clergy and famous personalities in the UK are like that. The Anglican church today is not the same as it was even 40 years ago, let alone 300 years. I cannot find a decent church here because almost all of them are compromised in some way.

It seems to me from what you have just said that Wright believes it is possible to lose salvation, and so works are necessary to get to heaven after you have been born again. This isn't the same as the Trent thing because Catholics do not even know what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, they confuse it with water baptism and believe that being morally good is required pre and post baptism. If Wright is born again and believes it is possible to lose salvation, based on Hebrews 6 and 10 and or warnings in the NT Epistles variously, it means he does not understand what the Atonement of Christ is, how it works and what it means.

The entire difference between Christianity and every other religion that exists is that they all require works to be saved.

Precisely, a subjective reliance is the good news for works-righteousness tendencies. Looking at the mirror and taking self-inventory on whether your actions, thinking, showing is worthy enough of your salvation. Wright negates personal salvation of sinners, and insists it's a Covenant community. Well, it beg the questions then, how do they become Covenant members? When push comes to shove it's in by Grace and stay in by works. Wasn't this the design in the OT? Mosaic Covenant?

But God made a new Covenant where he swore that He will do for his people. He promises to delivered his people from their sins by sending a Promised Seed. Who would do what the Law could not do. It's Christ who fulfilled the broken Covenant of works by his obedience. He took our place on the Cross and received our penalty for sin. Christ and himself alone is the surety of sinners. He reconciled us through his blood by becoming a propitiation. Our redemption is "Extra Nos" outside of us, meaning there is nothing worthy in us, our redemption lies outside of us in the person of Christ and his merits alone.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

He's a compromiser it seems. A lot of clergy and famous personalities in the UK are like that. The Anglican church today is not the same as it was even 40 years ago, let alone 300 years. I cannot find a decent church here because almost all of them are compromised in some way.

It seems to me from what you have just said that Wright believes it is possible to lose salvation, and so works are necessary to get to heaven after you have been born again. This isn't the same as the Trent thing because Catholics do not even know what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, they confuse it with water baptism and believe that being morally good is required pre and post baptism. If Wright is born again and believes it is possible to lose salvation, based on Hebrews 6 and 10 and or warnings in the NT Epistles variously, it means he does not understand what the Atonement of Christ is, how it works and what it means.

The entire difference between Christianity and every other religion that exists is that they all require works to be saved.

Check this out.