^ JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
% Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
I agree. Once you understand Christ's victory over sin and death, other atonement theories act as elaborations of Christus Victor rather than as competing atonement theories.
( JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
* Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
@@savedchristian4754 Everyone believes the moral law of God continues. Are you supposing that God is now immoral? Are you supposing that God's righteousness and holy character has changed? Are you supposing that when Jesus chose 2 of the OT Laws as companions for the "Great Commandment" that they were original (rather than from the OT Moral Law) or in contradiction to the OT moral Law? What the NT contrasts (in the New Covenant realities breaking in) is the "curse" of the Law. NOT that the entire law is a curse! Rather, that curses included in the Law come to those who disbelieve. The New Covenant releases us from the sacrificial system of Leviticus (fulfilled by Jesus according to Heb. 13:11-14 and elsewhere) -- i.e. ceremonial law. And from civil distinctions designed only for Israel. But GOD has not changed, and moral Law flows from Him.
@@chaddonal4331 So you are saying that you are justified before God by your works which comply with the moral law? So you are rejecting the grace of God? You are boasting about your moral works in violation of Ephesians2:9? Are you saying it was moral on the part of adam & Eve to remain unclothed in God's most holy presence?
@@savedchristian4754 No to all 4 Qs. You are not reading well, and are seeking to be adversarial. Just make sure to keep Eph. 2:8-10 together as a unit. That's what Paul wrote. That's what I believe. I'll respond no longer.
"-&How can God be appeased of His righteous wrath over human sins, without His wrath being poured out on Jesus? If a car tube is inflated, how can it be deflated without sending the internal air to another place? Similarly, where has God's wrath gone if not placed upon Jesus? Claiming Jesus obeyed God & so God's wrath was appeased is totally absurd. Why? It is because Jesus not only obeyed God but was forsaken by God & suffered the most painful & shameful death which He prayed earlier in Gethsemane to be exempted from!
( Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
% JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
) Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
Sorry savedchristian! Thiu hast an either/or. anti-catholic mindset. BTW small “c” catholic is inclusive of Protestsnts sd well. What you miss is a both/and persoective… which drives 20th century Fundaments crazy!😂😂😂 Dr Wright’s perspective is that penal substitution, vicarious atonement and Christus Victor (see Gutsv Aulen) each has a piece of the pie… again, Rom 8:1-4 in the New Testament for Everyone (Zondervan, 2013) Sin is drawn out thru the Torah onto the Messiah (Jesus in the flesh) whom the Father lovingly completes the destruction of Sin and zdeath… teteledtai Gk:”it is accomplished!” An Anglican American priest 50+ years’ perspective😏
Such good teaching, but isn't it awful how those "rock band at the front" churches always leave such a cluttered mess in the background for the speaker?
) JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
! Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
1 Peter 4:1-2,12-13 KJVS [1] Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; [2] That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. [12] Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: [13] But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
# Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
He never does that. He condemns certain forms of it that involve proportion, saying that would make God evil, which not all forms of penal substitution have
@@elfrechaun It depends on which interview he's in. He's a master of equivocation. Also, in his system of theology, "being saved" isn't even a category. In his system, you only need to belong to and identify with the correct "covenant community." And just like Doug Wilson, NT Wright has categories for justification and for obedience that are foreign to the Bible. NT teaches a version of initial and final justification as well as teaching that there's a difference between 'good works', 'obedience', 'works' and 'works of the law.' If you say that the term 'works of the law' in Galatians and Romans only refers to old testament ceremonial practices, (Which is what he says) then thats the perfect way to smuggle in a works based salvation system because it implies that since it only refers to OT ceremonies then believers are still justified by our obedience. It goes something like this; "We are not justified by works of the law but works of the law doesn't mean obedience it just means OT ceremonial laws, therefore we still need to obey in order to justify ourselves and obey in order to keep ourselves justified to the end." So what it does is (among other things) it cuts out God's sovereignty in Christ's atonement applied to the elect person, the Holy Spirits regeneration and the Father's choice in election.
How this man can be recognized as a teacher of the gospel is beyond my comprehension! He is confusing and says nothing but he uses lofty verbiage. Utter nonsense. The book of Romans is not hard to understand. Wright also conveniently disregards Ephesians 2:8-10 Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Wright has a very skewed understanding of the gospel.
Who first put human in bondage to the evil powers from which Christ came to save us? Answer: Humanity! So penal substitution wins! We are not only slaves to sin, WE ARE SIN!
@@dimitartodorov4826 JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
@@savedchristian4754 God is angry at sin. If humans chose to obey sin instead of God they come under His wrath. The problem of PSA is that scripture puts emphasis on Christ's victory over sin and death and how we are no longer slaves to sin. Also there are verses like James 1:13-16 which seem to imply that death is a natural consequence of sin rather than punishment.
@@dimitartodorov4826 What sin was God angry about in the case of Adam and Eve? Genesis3:16-19 talks about punishment for that sin. CV does not realise this! That's the problem of CV.
@@dimitartodorov4826 Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
I wouldn't be so sure to the extent of calling it the "center of salvation". There are several different understandings of salvation matters over the history of christian faith. It's not that simple. Wright does have a point!
@@drummera7418 No, no he doesn't. I noticed myself and also heard a critique of this on TH-cam that Wright(his name should be wrong) makes a gross caricature of people that stress and even hammer penal substitution as portraying God, the Father as enraged and infuriated and pitching a fit and Jesus almost having to sneak off behind His back to make an atonement to calm Him down. And people can have all the (mis)understandings and stupid assertions they want-- only one can be right (opposite and opposing things can't both be true) and only one can be Biblical. The most Holiest Trinity, the FULL Godhood and deity of the Lord God Jesus Chist, His Penal substitution death and Resurrection, salvation by grace not works and effort and self achievement, through faith and salvation NOT being a process are CENTRAL (salvation as a process and/or through sacerdotalism is a truly satanic and devil worshipping idea/doctrine)
@barrypatrickius when you say CENTRAL, to whom is this central? That's the problem. You want to take a stand for some western theology from the prostentat reformation, that's okay! Just admit that it's central to the doctrine you stand for. How can you reduce 2000 years of christian faith to some point of view. Over the history of christianity we can find several ways to explain and understand what's the gospel is about. Wright is not alone in his thinking. Many men brought this discussion up over time. It's not that simple to take one of many interpretations and make it the only understanding possible. Penal substitution is central? Again, to whom? It's not end of the story. If the work of Jesus means that much to you, it shouldn't be taking untouchable like that.
@@drummera7418 First of all, I am NOT protestant and I find having that appellation applied to be offensive. Secondly, penal substitution, like ALL Biblical things, are essential to CHRSITIANS who don't give a DAMN about any denomination or conforming to it and towing the party line. One Baptist once said, I am first and foremost a man, a saved sinner, secondly I am a dispensational fundamentalist, thirdly I am a fundamentalist Baptist, but where when and if Baptist doctrine contradicts the Bible, THEN BAPTIST DOCTRINE CAN GO CHASE ITSELF!! None of the protestant, Catholic and OrthoPOX have that attitude because their CHURCH, their DENOMINATION is THEIR God and they are too busy towing the party line(to care WHAT the Bible says) Oh, and penal substitution is also essential to SINNERS who realize they are going to HELL and don't want to be there, so they want to know how they can get rid of/be relieved of their burden of sin and guilt and unholiness and unworthiness and condemnation and they get sweet relief when with the eyes of faith, they see the great God and sin Bearer, Jesus Christ, assuming responsibility for all their misdeeds and assuming their debt and PAYING for it on the cross. Devil worships deny penal substitution.
![일상 속 기분 좋음 [Proto disco meme]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DwmEIaZ7XGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
Is there a link to the complete message?
So good, Thank you!
^ JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
% Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
I agree. Once you understand Christ's victory over sin and death, other atonement theories act as elaborations of Christus Victor rather than as competing atonement theories.
( JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
* Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
@@savedchristian4754 Everyone believes the moral law of God continues. Are you supposing that God is now immoral? Are you supposing that God's righteousness and holy character has changed? Are you supposing that when Jesus chose 2 of the OT Laws as companions for the "Great Commandment" that they were original (rather than from the OT Moral Law) or in contradiction to the OT moral Law? What the NT contrasts (in the New Covenant realities breaking in) is the "curse" of the Law. NOT that the entire law is a curse! Rather, that curses included in the Law come to those who disbelieve. The New Covenant releases us from the sacrificial system of Leviticus (fulfilled by Jesus according to Heb. 13:11-14 and elsewhere) -- i.e. ceremonial law. And from civil distinctions designed only for Israel. But GOD has not changed, and moral Law flows from Him.
@@chaddonal4331
So you are saying that you are justified before God by your works which comply with the moral law? So you are rejecting the grace of God? You are boasting about your moral works in violation of Ephesians2:9?
Are you saying it was moral on the part of adam & Eve to remain unclothed in God's most holy presence?
@@savedchristian4754 No to all 4 Qs. You are not reading well, and are seeking to be adversarial. Just make sure to keep Eph. 2:8-10 together as a unit. That's what Paul wrote. That's what I believe. I'll respond no longer.
But…. He didn’t mention the wrath of God being appeased by punishing Jesus…
He affirmed Penal and Substitution (along with Victory) but was silent about Satisfaction. (Just as Scripture is).
What is the original video that this comes from?
"-&How can God be appeased of His righteous wrath over human sins, without His wrath being poured out on Jesus? If a car tube is inflated, how can it be deflated without sending the internal air to another place? Similarly, where has God's wrath gone if not placed upon Jesus?
Claiming Jesus obeyed God & so God's wrath was appeased is totally absurd. Why? It is because Jesus not only obeyed God but was forsaken by God & suffered the most painful & shameful death which He prayed earlier in Gethsemane to be exempted from!
Thank you!!!
( Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
Great explanation!
% JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
) Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
Sorry savedchristian! Thiu hast an either/or. anti-catholic mindset. BTW small “c” catholic is inclusive of Protestsnts sd well. What you miss is a both/and persoective… which drives 20th century Fundaments crazy!😂😂😂
Dr Wright’s perspective is that penal substitution, vicarious atonement and Christus Victor (see Gutsv Aulen) each has a piece of the pie… again, Rom 8:1-4 in the New Testament for Everyone (Zondervan, 2013)
Sin is drawn out thru the Torah onto the Messiah (Jesus in the flesh) whom the Father lovingly completes the destruction of Sin and zdeath… teteledtai
Gk:”it is accomplished!”
An Anglican American priest 50+ years’ perspective😏
#several typos… I despise iphone keyboards! Mea culpa
Such good teaching, but isn't it awful how those "rock band at the front" churches always leave such a cluttered mess in the background for the speaker?
Amen!
) JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
! Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
Enoch and Elijah never even died. So how is that not until Jesus' death and resurrection that the powers of sin and death vanquished?
Well, this should put the Calvinists on tilt.
1 Peter 4:1-2,12-13 KJVS
[1] Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; [2] That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. [12] Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: [13] But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
# Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
And in other interviews he outright condemns penal substitutionary atonement. He makes a mockery of it and says God is evil if the doctrine is true.
He never does that. He condemns certain forms of it that involve proportion, saying that would make God evil, which not all forms of penal substitution have
@@elfrechaun It depends on which interview he's in. He's a master of equivocation. Also, in his system of theology, "being saved" isn't even a category. In his system, you only need to belong to and identify with the correct "covenant community." And just like Doug Wilson, NT Wright has categories for justification and for obedience that are foreign to the Bible. NT teaches a version of initial and final justification as well as teaching that there's a difference between 'good works', 'obedience', 'works' and 'works of the law.' If you say that the term 'works of the law' in Galatians and Romans only refers to old testament ceremonial practices, (Which is what he says) then thats the perfect way to smuggle in a works based salvation system because it implies that since it only refers to OT ceremonies then believers are still justified by our obedience. It goes something like this; "We are not justified by works of the law but works of the law doesn't mean obedience it just means OT ceremonial laws, therefore we still need to obey in order to justify ourselves and obey in order to keep ourselves justified to the end." So what it does is (among other things) it cuts out God's sovereignty in Christ's atonement applied to the elect person, the Holy Spirits regeneration and the Father's choice in election.
How this man can be recognized as a teacher of the gospel is beyond my comprehension! He is confusing and says nothing but he uses lofty verbiage. Utter nonsense. The book of Romans is not hard to understand. Wright also conveniently disregards Ephesians 2:8-10 Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Wright has a very skewed understanding of the gospel.
Who first put human in bondage to the evil powers from which Christ came to save us?
Answer: Humanity!
So penal substitution wins! We are not only slaves to sin, WE ARE SIN!
We aren't sin. If we were sin, God must condemn all humans.
@@dimitartodorov4826
JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'.
GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
@@savedchristian4754 God is angry at sin. If humans chose to obey sin instead of God they come under His wrath.
The problem of PSA is that scripture puts emphasis on Christ's victory over sin and death and how we are no longer slaves to sin.
Also there are verses like James 1:13-16 which seem to imply that death is a natural consequence of sin rather than punishment.
@@dimitartodorov4826
What sin was God angry about in the case of Adam and Eve? Genesis3:16-19 talks about punishment for that sin. CV does not realise this! That's the problem of CV.
@@dimitartodorov4826
Wright refers to the ceremonial law when he explains the 'works of the law' in Galatians 2:16. Thus Wright believes the moral law exists even now! Which means Wright seeks to be justified before God by complying with the moral law! Catholics like you shy from admitting this fact!!
Neither Penal Substitution nor Christus Victor is correct.
Your comment gets an F. Because you made a statement without follow-up
@@dallasbrat81 You also get an F for failing to reveal your hand.
All of this is nice but speculative and maybe true-- but penal substitution is a fact and the center of our salvation!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't be so sure to the extent of calling it the "center of salvation". There are several different understandings of salvation matters over the history of christian faith. It's not that simple. Wright does have a point!
@@drummera7418 No, no he doesn't. I noticed myself and also heard a critique of this on TH-cam that Wright(his name should be wrong) makes a gross caricature of people that stress and even hammer penal substitution as portraying God, the Father as enraged and infuriated and pitching a fit and Jesus almost having to sneak off behind His back to make an atonement to calm Him down. And people can have all the (mis)understandings and stupid assertions they want-- only one can be right (opposite and opposing things can't both be true) and only one can be Biblical. The most Holiest Trinity, the FULL Godhood and deity of the Lord God Jesus Chist, His Penal substitution death and Resurrection, salvation by grace not works and effort and self achievement, through faith and salvation NOT being a process are CENTRAL (salvation as a process and/or through sacerdotalism is a truly satanic and devil worshipping idea/doctrine)
@barrypatrickius when you say CENTRAL, to whom is this central? That's the problem. You want to take a stand for some western theology from the prostentat reformation, that's okay! Just admit that it's central to the doctrine you stand for. How can you reduce 2000 years of christian faith to some point of view. Over the history of christianity we can find several ways to explain and understand what's the gospel is about. Wright is not alone in his thinking. Many men brought this discussion up over time. It's not that simple to take one of many interpretations and make it the only understanding possible. Penal substitution is central? Again, to whom? It's not end of the story. If the work of Jesus means that much to you, it shouldn't be taking untouchable like that.
@@drummera7418 First of all, I am NOT protestant and I find having that appellation applied to be offensive. Secondly, penal substitution, like ALL Biblical things, are essential to CHRSITIANS who don't give a DAMN about any denomination or conforming to it and towing the party line. One Baptist once said, I am first and foremost a man, a saved sinner, secondly I am a dispensational fundamentalist, thirdly I am a fundamentalist Baptist, but where when and if Baptist doctrine contradicts the Bible, THEN BAPTIST DOCTRINE CAN GO CHASE ITSELF!! None of the protestant, Catholic and OrthoPOX have that attitude because their CHURCH, their DENOMINATION is THEIR God and they are too busy towing the party line(to care WHAT the Bible says)
Oh, and penal substitution is also essential to SINNERS who realize they are going to HELL and don't want to be there, so they want to know how they can get rid of/be relieved of their burden of sin and guilt and unholiness and unworthiness and condemnation and they get sweet relief when with the eyes of faith, they see the great God and sin Bearer, Jesus Christ, assuming responsibility for all their misdeeds and assuming their debt and PAYING for it on the cross. Devil worships deny penal substitution.