A different gospel?

[Eleanor]

Not in all ways, but in the "he's hard to understand" and-easily-misunderstood part

Amen! As in Ro 5:12-15.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

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

This gentleman can deny that N.T. Wright ( if true ) does not deny PS. The truth of the matter is that if he denies a historical Adam than he denies PS. It is as simple as that.

 

[TB2]

This gentleman can deny that N.T. Wright ( if true ) does not deny PS. The truth of the matter is that if he denies a historical Adam than he denies PS. It is as simple as that.

But he doesn't deny a historical Adam

 

[David1701]

I don't think NT Wright would disagree with you. He believes in a historical Adam in the sense he believes Adam was a literal historical person (vs imaginary). NT Wright reminds me of Paul in that he is often "hard to understand." Fitting that a Pauline expert would have a similar mind of Paul: highly nuanced. NT Wright's theology is essentially reformed theology, but he has brought needed balance.

For example, the Reformation disproportionately magnified a single issue "justification by faith" to prime importance (above faith in Christ!). NT Wright doesn't reject justification by faith, but is simply putting it in proper perspective:

"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."

How can justification by faith in Christ be placed above faith in Christ? This is nonsensical on its face, since the first needs the second, in order to exist.

The Reformation focused on those vital elements of the gospel that Romanism had subverted (e.g. justification by faith). There was no need to emphasise the elements upon which they agreed (e.g. the deity of Christ, his shed blood and atoning death on the cross and his bodily resurrection).

Is justification by faith secondary to the irreducible elements of the gospel that one must believe to be saved? Yes; however, it is also a vital part of the gospel, since justification could only be by works or faith, and it's not by works.

 

[David1701]

But he doesn't deny a historical Adam

He denies THE historical Adam; although he accepts an historical Adam (a fictional one), it is not the sole progenitor of humanity that the Bible portrays.

 

[TB2]

He denies THE historical Adam; although he accepts an historical Adam (a fictional one), it is not the sole progenitor of humanity that the Bible portrays.

He believes Adam was a real flesh and blood person does he not?

 

[TB2]

How can justification by faith in Christ be placed above faith in Christ? This is nonsensical on its face, since the first needs the second, in order to exist.

I agree!

The Reformation focused on those vital elements of the gospel that Romanism had subverted (e.g. justification by faith). There was no need to emphasise the elements upon which they agreed (e.g. the deity of Christ, his shed blood and atoning death on the cross and his bodily resurrection)

Yes! That's it precisely. You hit the nail on the head. These things are all very situational. Even the Pauline epistles are very situation specific. The problem is when we forget that and the emphasis becomes elevated. I'm not saying you're doing that or even anyone here in the forum. I've just seen it happen elsewhere in some well known segments of Christianity

Is justification by faith secondary to the irreducible elements of the gospel that one must believe to be saved? Yes; however, it is also a vital part of the gospel, since justification could only be by works or faith, and it's not by works.

And I don't disagree. Where NT Wright and others comes in is with the relatively new knowledge we've learned about the Pharisees that suggests "works of the Law" is possibly different than traditionally thought

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

But he doesn't deny a historical Adam

Note the language I used, TB2

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

For the record I believe that N.T. Wright talks out of the side of his...mouth. Like a few luminary authors he took a wrong turn at some juncture.

 

[TB2]

For the record I believe that N.T. Wright talks out of the side of his...mouth. Like a few luminary authors he took a wrong turn at some juncture.

An unfortunate view. I find him genuine and sincere, and just trying to do the best he can like the rest of us are trying to properly understand Scripture with sincere motivations.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

An unfortunate view. I find him genuine and sincere, and just trying to do the best he can like the rest of us are trying to properly understand Scripture with sincere motivations.

You can be genuine and sincerely wrong about what you believe and teach. NT Wright is not some super genius who just fell over truths that no one has had or found in over 2,000 years.

So you are left with one of two different possibilities. Firstly he actually believes the heresy he's spouting or secondly he speaks with forked tongue. The outcome of either of these positions is what is unfortunate.

 

[TB2]

Firstly he actually believes the heresy he's spouting or secondly he speaks with forked tongue.

Or it could be that you're slandering a fellow believer in Christ as a heretic

 

[David1701]

He believes Adam was a real flesh and blood person does he not?

But not the same as the Adam in the Bible.

 

[Carbon]

But he doesn't deny a historical Adam

Better read him again. Remember, you're the one who said he can be hard to understand. M<aybe you didn't understand him when you looked? Look again.

 

[Carbon]

Or it could be that you're slandering a fellow believer in Christ as a heretic

Face the facts bro.
I'm not trying to be rude.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Or it could be that you're slandering a fellow believer in Christ as a heretic

Doubtful. But I'd be in good company if so.

 

[Carbon]

Doubtful. But I'd be in good company if so.

Aint that the truth.

 

[TB2]

But not the same as the Adam in the Bible.

Same Adam, different interpretation.

 

[TB2]

Doubtful. But I'd be in good company if so.

No seriously that's a serious charge to make about a person that we all should think twice before pronouncing such judgments

 

[TB2]

Face the facts bro.
I'm not trying to be rude.

Still waiting to hear them.

What I'm hearing is that salvation is limited to a small denominational segment of Christianity.