A different gospel?

[Eleanor]

Despite naysayers this provides a balanced and thorough review of a complex subject that would be of benefit to review. The growing evidence shows we may have fundamentally misunderstood "works of the law" among other things

Briefly, what is the correct view of "works of the law"?

 

[David1701]

The claim was he doesn’t believe in a historical Adam, yet he does. NT Wright, Walton, Beale, William Lane Craig and many others believe Adam was a real flesh and blood person and that the fall came through him.

I didn't claim that Wright doesn't believe in an historical Adam. What I posted was that he doesn't believe in THE historical Adam (not the same thing).

If Adam (which means "man") were not the sole progenitor of humanity, then the Bible would be false. It's as simple as that.

God created Adam directly from earth and made Eve from part of Adam's side (probably a rib, since that's the only bone that grows back). All other humans are descended from them, except the Lord Jesus Christ (the last Adam) whose humanity was created miraculously, in Eve.

 

[Eleanor]

An article from MacArthur's Masters Seminary Journal is hardly unbiased

Believers are most definitely biased in favor of Scripture.

Thank God!

 

[TB2]

Believers are most definitely biased in favor of Scripture.

Thank God!

Yes, we are

 

[Eleanor]

Which statements in the apostolic kerygma (gospel proclamation) does he deny?

Does Wright deal only with the kerygma, for there is more to NT truth than the kerygma.

 

[David1701]

But could a caveman understand it?

The earliest humans (not "cavemen") would have been much more intelligent than we are! Humanity has been degenerating, ever since the fall of Adam.

 

[Carbon]

The earliest humans (not "cavemen") would have been much more intelligent than we are! Humanity has been degenerating, ever since the fall of Adam.

I agree.

 

[Carbon]

I agree.

But unfortunately, none of the ancient people were able to get Christian doctrine correct. It took roughly 2000 years for a guru to arrive on the scene to straighten out Christendom.

 

[TB2]

I didn't claim that Wright doesn't believe in an historical Adam. What I posted was that he doesn't believe in THE historical Adam (not the same thing).

If Adam (which means "man") were not the sole progenitor of humanity, then the Bible would be false. It's as simple as that.

God created Adam directly from earth and made Eve from part of Adam's side (probably a rib, since that's the only bone that grows back). All other humans are descended from them, except the Lord Jesus Christ (the last Adam) whose humanity was created miraculously, in Eve.

There is legitimate disagreement among believers over whether Genesis intends to teach modern science and how modern scientific conclusions about human-primate ancestry fit in. There are believers who recognize human-primate common ancestry and believers who abhor and reject it. But both sides agree Adam was a real historical person and there was a real fall. If someone denied Adam's existence altogether I'd be inclined to agree with you. But when believers are affirming the same theology that's another matter. You say the theology can't be true unless sole progenitor. They disagree while affirming the same theology. You don't think it works. I get that. But that is entirely different from denial of Adam's existence altogether

 

[TB2]

Does Wright deal only with the kerygma, for there is more to NT truth than the kerygma.

What I posted on the kerygma was not from Wright and has nothing to do with Wright, but it does have to do with what's of central importance in Christianity.

 

[Eleanor]

But unfortunately, none of the ancient people were able to get Christian doctrine correct. It took roughly 2000 years for a guru to arrive on the scene to straighten out Christendom.

In a nutshell, do you know what is this supposedly correct view of "works of the law"?

 

[Arial]

Agreed ... but we all have a 'different Jesus' conjured up in our mind to some degree ... what erroneous aspect(s) of knowledge of Christ disqualifies one's salvation? Even if one says Christ is God, does one then have to define God correctly to some degree and if so to what degree. (Aside: the chain 'need to get right' may never end ... )

The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles. All believers, in principle, share the same knowledge and trust in the grace of God to save. Bavinck ... Sounds good to me. ... so simple that a child may enter .... Glad I believe God chooses us or these questions would be SUPER CRITICAL ..

Not persevering to the end would disqualify as it would indicate that true faith did not exist. Unbelief in the person and work of Jesus. A lot is learned about His person and work as we go along. But a different Jesus would be one who is worshiped with the belief that He is a creature. It would be a Jesus who was not born of a virgin, or performed miracles, or died as a substitute and was raised from the dead. One whose work was not sufficient to save but only made salvation possible. The knowledge of these things come from being joined to Him in faith and if they are denied there is no union.

So though it is not an arithmetic problem--it isn't all this knowledge that saves one it is God placing them in Him, and then teaching them from His word, and some knowledge and some beliefs are necessary.

 

[Carbon]

In a nutshell, do you know what is this supposedly correct view of "works of the law"?

Ill give you this for now, showing what it is not.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom 3:20.


Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16

 

[TB2]

But unfortunately, none of the ancient people were able to get Christian doctrine correct. It took roughly 2000 years for a guru to arrive on the scene to straighten out Christendom.

If you're speaking of Wright, complete misrepresentation, but let's forget about Wright and talk about one of the New Perspective points that, “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews instead of Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort.” Turns out that the second century church fathers were closer to the NP view than the Reformation view 1,500 years later, so it's the other way around

 

[Carbon]

If you're speaking of Wright, complete misrepresentation, but let's forget about Wright and talk about one of the New Perspective points that, “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews instead of Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort.” Turns out that the second century church fathers were closer to the NP view than the Reformation view 1,500 years later, so it's the other way around

I may have more time later. But it is obvious to see his Catholicism (yes, that's true) and his false teachings. I will bring up more of his stuff later. Maybe you could answer them? Instead of ignoring it and asking for answers?

 

[TB2]

I may have more time later. But it is obvious to see his Catholicism (yes, that's true) and his false teachings. I will bring up more of his stuff later. Maybe you could answer them? Instead of ignoring it and asking for answers?

And what exactly have I've ignored?

 

[Arial]

An article from MacArthur's Masters Seminary Journal is hardly unbiased

Show me anything that is not biased. That too is an empty defense or disqualifier as to the accuracy or truthfulness of something. It is like on another forum civic was stating the doctrine of penal substitution all wrong as a way to denounce it. So I posted what it is from a website (don't remember which one)that defined the doctrine as it truly exists. A predominantly Reformed site. You will never guess what his response was since it completely dismantled his arguments. "Nobody posts things from that site."

Bias does not mean wrong or unreliable.

 

[TB2]

Briefly, what is the correct view of "works of the law"?

You might have missed my post to you about this. Please see post #79 (and the one before it too #78)

 

[Arial]

So you assert IMO that one just has to believe [and trust I assume] that Jesus is God and then that person is saved.
Hmmm .. (assuming I got you right) .... I was going to disagree .. but the more I thought of it ... I think that's right. Aside: It's similar to what I said IMO ... simple enough that a child could understand it.

We aren't expected to understand fully what it is beyond the finite mind to fully understand. There are a lot of places that can only be reached by faith.

 

[TB2]

Show me anything that is not biased. That too is an empty defense or disqualifier as to the accuracy or truthfulness of something. It is like on another forum civic was stating the doctrine of penal substitution all wrong as a way to denounce it. So I posted what it is from a website (don't remember which one)that defined the doctrine as it truly exists. A predominantly Reformed site. You will never guess what his response was since it completely dismantled his arguments. "Nobody posts things from that site."

Bias does not mean wrong or unreliable.

Well you summarily dismissed @Sereni-tea 's videos labeling the guy as an NP/Wright supporter when he actually doesn't agree with everything Wright says