A different gospel?

[Carbon]

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

Listen to him in this short clip. It really exposes his teachings. Listen closely

 

[Deleted member 6]

Listen to him in this short clip. It really exposes his teachings. Listen closely

Wow! He has zero concept of what imputation actually teaches, and due to this, his belief is grossly wrong.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Okay

But he denies Adam and Eve as actual historical people.

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

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

Very true - we don't agree on everything, and that's ok.
His views provide much food for thought - much of it I agree with, others I am still considering. However, in the end whether I agree with his views or not, I have still benefitted greatly from his ministry. He has shown me through the Bible the glory and great love of God for His people and explained what it means to be a child of God in a way that others have not .

God bless you, brother.

 

[Carbon]

Very true - we don't agree on everything, and that's ok.

I'm honestly glad we can agree to disagree.

His views provide much food for thought - much of it I agree with, others I am still considering.

Knowing you I am confident you are studying and praying about it.

However, in the end whether I agree with his views or not, I have still benefitted greatly from his ministry.

Ialso, but not in the same way I suppose.

He has shown me through the Bible the glory and great love of God for His people and explained what it means to be a child of God in a way that others have not .

God bless you, brother.

Blessings

 

[Carbon]

We all preach a "different gospel" to some extent.

Well, there are essential points that should not be different. Don't ya think?

This guy is off to a bad start IMO.

Off to a bad start?
He has been long at it.

Maybe his "batting average" improves as more of his doctrine is revealed.

Well, if that's what you think, look into it. But use discernment.

Aside: I wonder what my batting average is? I suppose a low enough batting average means you get to play in another league for eternity.

Hmmmmm

 

[TB2]

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 denies some important doctrines.
Three for now:

He denies Adam as being historical.

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."

He denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation.”

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."

He denies Jesus endured the Fathers wrath in our place

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 he teaches a different gospel.

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.

 

[Marilyn C]

Listen to him in this short clip. It really exposes his teachings. Listen closely

He is wrong when he says that the people of the first century didn`t have the words to write about `Principalities and Powers.` Who does he think wrote the Bible. He also said that in regard to the writers of the 4 gospels as though it was just them writing and not the Holy Spirit.

 

[TB2]

He is wrong when he says that the people of the first century didn`t have the words to write about `Principalities and Powers.` Who does he think wrote the Bible. He also said that in regard to the writers of the 4 gospels as though it was just them writing and not the Holy Spirit.

I believe you're misunderstanding his meaning. He's speaking as a New Testament scholar and first century historian. He is not questioning the Holy Spirit but imperfect human language (that God in His grace stoops down to our level to use; the human language does not have the capacity to fully capture and describe what goes on in the supernatural realm. I think that's all he's trying to say).

 

[Marilyn C]

I believe you're misunderstanding his meaning. He's speaking as a New Testament scholar and first century historian. He is not questioning the Holy Spirit but imperfect human language (that God in His grace stoops down to our level to use; the human language does not have the capacity to fully capture and describe what goes on in the supernatural realm. I think that's all he's trying to say).

However, he didn`t enlarge on that. I think God gave man throughout the ages very good words to explain things they didn`t understand.

 

[TB2]

However, he didn`t enlarge on that. I think God gave man throughout the ages very good words to explain things they didn`t understand.

1 Cor 13
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

[Marilyn C]

1 Cor 13
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

I hear where you are coming from however, I do believe that God is not restricted by any inadequate language of the writer. Think of the apostles, especially Peter being a fisherman, and probably not a student of Greek etc. However, we hear the Holy Spirit speak through him in his early preaching, and later in his letters concepts that he would not have known except by the Holy Spirit as he wrote.

God`s word is very accurate and detailed and that is only by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 13: 12 refers to ourselves looking at ourselves and others.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I hear where you are coming from however, I do believe that God is not restricted by any inadequate language of the writer. Think of the apostles, especially Peter being a fisherman, and probably not a student of Greek etc. However, we hear the Holy Spirit speak through him in his early preaching, and later in his letters concepts that he would not have known except by the Holy Spirit as he wrote.

God`s word is very accurate and detailed and that is only by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 13: 12 refers to ourselves looking at ourselves and others.

As @TB2 said, NT Wright is not questioning the power of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, nor is he claiming God is under any restrictions. However we as an audience are restricted in what we can understand, and our human languages (whether Greek, Hebrew, English, etc) are imperfect when it comes to conveying insights into the unseen spiritual world. Jesus spoke of heavenly things in parables. Biblical authors use apocalyptic language, poetry, metaphors, etc to convey concepts beyond our scope of understanding, perhaps because our normal language is insufficient for this task.

However, he didn`t enlarge on that.

If you want to better understand what NT Wright teaches on these things I highly recommend his work. The 10min video that was posted is barely scratching the surface of his work.

 

[Carbon]

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."

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."

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.

I am not ready to get into another debate about N.T. Wright. Mainly because I have some brothers and sisters in Christ who find no wrong with him. So mainly about respect and not wanting to cause division.
However, the man denies that Christ endured the wrath of the Father in our place. Among other things. That’s good enough for me. I believe that is an essential Christian doctrine.
I also have seen what can happen to a person once they dive into his teachings on that.

But I’ll say no more for now.

 

[TB2]

However, the man denies that Christ endured the wrath of the Father in our place. Among other things

Fair enough For what it's worth, he's not denying PSA, but only seeks to bring balance to things that get disproportionately emphasized in light of the rest of Pauline theology.

 

[David1701]

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."

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."

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.

Historical Adam

If Wright is not convinced that Adam was the sole progenitor of the human race, then he does not believe in the historical Adam, nor could he believe in the historical fall and original sin, nor could he believe in the reason for the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ), nor could he believe in the reason why we all die, etc.. Perhaps he engages in cognitive dissonance; but, if he doesn't, then he must be an out-and-out heretic.

Justification

Acquittal is not the same thing as an imputation of righteousness! It is merely a declaration of not being guilty. Legal acquittal is nothing to do with a person being righteous; it is merely to do with deciding that he is not guilty of the charges laid against him.

Here's what the Bible says, contrary to Wright.

2 Cor. 5:21 (WEB) For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Justification by faith is a primary doctrine, not a secondary one! He might not know about it when he gets saved, but a born again Christian will certainly accept it, when he learns about it.

 

[TB2]

Historical Adam

If Wright is not convinced that Adam was the sole progenitor of the human race, then he does not believe in the historical Adam, nor could he believe in the historical fall and original sin, nor could he believe in the reason for the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ), nor could he believe in the reason why we all die, etc.. Perhaps he engages in cognitive dissonance; but, if he doesn't, then he must be an out-and-out heretic.

Justification

Acquittal is not the same thing as an imputation of righteousness! It is merely a declaration of not being guilty. Legal acquittal is nothing to do with a person being righteous; it is merely to do with deciding that he is not guilty of the charges laid against him.

Here's what the Bible says, contrary to Wright.

2 Cor. 5:21 (WEB) For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Justification by faith is a primary doctrine, not a secondary one! He might not know about it when he gets saved, but a born again Christian will certainly accept it, when he learns about it.

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."

 

[Eleanor]

I think he teaches a different gospel.

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.

Not quite.

If we add anything to faith in Jesus as necessary for salvation, we are not justified, for justification is by faith alone, apart from works (Ro 3:28).

 

[TB2]

Romans 3:28

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

 

[Carbon]

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."

Haha. I wouldn’t compare him to Paul. You really overestimate the guy.

 

[TB2]

Haha. I wouldn’t compare him to Paul. You really overestimate the guy.

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