when asked are we saved by faith Wright says YES BUT and then talks about panning out- a cinematic term which implies starting out with the camera on a central point then panning the camera out until it becomes a tiny detail in the background.
@Packhorse-bh8qn Thank you for your advice. I appreciate it. I have to give some notice so they can cover my nursery duties at least. This week I attended a mid-week service at a baptist church that uses the 1689 baptist confession. That was good. I don’t know if I am baptist or presbyterian yet, but I know that I couldn’t stay in the anglican or episcopal churches I was raised in, and my current non-denominational church clearly isn’t for me either. I have been thinking back over the last 15 months I have been there and I don’t think I have heard the full gospel there ever. I really want to find a reformed church using one of the orthodox confessions.
For anyone who would like to go beyond name calling and investigate the context in which Paul was using the terminology of justification, to see where it actually fits into the new creation plan of God, then go ahead and read N T Wright's book entitled simply "Justification". Nothing heretical in there. In fact, it is more in line with Calvin's conception than many reformed pastors might wish to admit.
I've never heard of NT Wright nor his doctrine. I'm grateful however that these men of God have taken a clear stance. Thanks for the heads-up Dr. Roach!
You should since all of that panel of calvinist don’t understand NPP, and also any of them are specialist in the topic , Wright has devoted his live doing research on it.
Funny that MacArthur says he doesn’t understand Wright yet is looked upon by his disciples as an expert. People who never hear NTWright dismiss him due to hearsay. Read him and make your own mind up.
N T Wright is what a seminary professor of mine called a “slippery fellow.” To obscure and create confusion about something so fundamentally essential as Justification by faith, is to do the work of the enemy of our souls. The great man, John MacArthur shed the most light on what Wright teaches, using the man’s own words. To him, the substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is “paganism.” Enough said.
The world is geared toward justification-that is, making things right. People are naturally even "obsessed" with this righteousness-seeking (however "righteousness" is defined). But with the forgiveness of sins and crediting of righteousness, God has taken justification off the table. That is where the world's salvation begins.
Saying you are saved by loyalty is basically saying you are saved by works. You are loyal because you are saved. You aren’t saved by being loyal. By the way, N.T. Wright doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture. He said it was a weird American doctrine.
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;” Titus 2:11-12 KJV Sorry, Mr Sproul, but I thought that is what N T Wright was saying in the excerpt we heard.
Wright never uses the antithesis to clarify what he actually believes. MacArthur nails him dead to rights on his evasiveness, his modus oporandi and heretical substance.
To be honest i do not think well of MacArthur. but things are in an appalling state in the church if i MUST find myself agreeing with Mac on Wrights utterly blasphemous rejection of penal substitution I did not know that Wright spat in the face of the Cross so passionately as he has. OUT HE GOES. Clearly Wright is another great intellect full of intellectual pride ( I know the sort for, to simply state a fact I am, or hopefully WAS, one of that sort ) who has never humbled his mind before a holy God and has NEVER admitted that he is carnal minded and therefore does not get it. "It" being the gospel. and yet he DARES to preach. Thanks for confirming my own instinct that Wright really is a heretic. MY guess, founded on one quote of his, was correct.
Be careful how you judge, friend. I have met Dr Wright and he is a humble man and comes across that way. If you are judging, a man, founded on one quote of his, then you really are using a wrong way of judging. That is the way the Pharisees judged Jesus. Read one of his books before you start judging and humble your own mind.
wow incredible how you dare to take the place of God and apparently know what lives in dr. wrights heart. And very interesting to know, penal substitutionairy atonement is a doctrine from the reformation and absolutely absent from the first 1000 years of church history. So guess what, you just condemned the whole early church as blasphemous
I don't think any serious minded theist could argue that NT Wright is if not "the", among the leading Pauline scholars in the world. What Wright is doing as a first century historian is trying to read and understand the Bible with the various context at that time and location and share that with us who most often probably spend no time considering the context of the antient literature that we have. I'm not suggesting that because Wright IS the greater 1st century scholar in the discussion this makes him infallible but, I do wonder IF Sproul and MacArthur think it's possible that THEY could be wrong?
More or less accidentially I bought one volume of N.T. Wright's commentaries and very soon found out that he is a liberal modernist that is more concerned about political and social questions than he is about the Gospel (or the Word of God -- his exegesis is very superficial). The sad thing is that he is widely accepted in evangelical circles in Europe and has the name of a very reliable scholar -- I beg to differ.
whether you agree or disagree with Wright, I respect your decision. but to say Wright's exegesis is superficial is like saying Lebron isn't a good basketball player
@@guypmillerHis exegesis is superficial and it can be proved. He teachs justification is to be included in the body of Christ, and he uses his NPP concepts to sustain it. But, the meaning of the greek words used as "justice", "justification", etc, never means something like that, you won't find this in any greek dictionaryin this world , the meaning is ever forensic, and is good to remember that forensic questions were very important to romans, and Paul was also a roman citizien! This two facts are a great mistake in N T Wright exegesis, but the first mistake is the worst!
First, leave personalities out of it - analyze whatever somebody says in comparison to scripture. With that said, I think one of the problems people have when it comes to justification is twofold. First there should be a change when someone comes to know Christ. No fruit probably means no salvation. I truly believe a person will act on what they believe. Think about that. Second, a believer will persevere to the end. We can’t necessarily qualify that because only God knows if it’s a complete turning away or a temporary backslidden condition. I think both MacArthur and Sproul would agree with these points. I’m not sure about Wright only because I am not familiar with him all that much. But in this short clip, my first impression is he would support that also.
I find it shocking that McArthur can claim to have read so many of Wrights works, and yet not recognise that even in the work he cited (The Day the Revolution Began), Wright is clear that Penal Substitution is taught in Romans 8. Wright is not rejecting any form of PSA, but simply the position that Jesus became a sinner and thus the angry God who wants a pound of flesh kills Jesus - that isn't even the Refornational view. This view severs the Trinity. The reformational view (as youll find in Calvin, and Bucer) is that Christ took upon the penalty, the result of our sin - that is God chose to take upon Himself the penalty in the place of sinners. So too, Wright is stressing that the Gospel is not only PSA, but rather has many dimensions missed by far too many - this isnt modernist, this is Reformational. I think the issue is that people dont read Wright carefully before critiquing him - N T Wright, understood in context, is thoroughly Reformer on Justification, far more than the anabaptist McArthur
The problem is NT Wright is confusing… because he himself is confused. He hides behind long-winded explanations that don’t do anything to clarify his points
There are those of us who believe that theology did not stop with Calvin. Justice physics did not stop with Isaac Newton. The word of God is unchanging, but our understanding of it may be progressive as we discover more of its depths.
There are those of us who believe that theology did not stop with Calvin. Just as physics did not stop with Isaac Newton. The word of God is unchanging, but our understanding of it may be progressive as we discover more of its depths.
@@davidlittlewood4215 Justin Brierley asks that exact question was asked to NT. His answer is "that's why you''ll have to read the book." Later NT says Jesus condemns sin in his flesh. But he refuses to say that Jesus bears the sin of mankind's particular sins.
@@howardhilliard9286 have you read the book? I have! Interesting the number of people who know what Wright says without reading him! Actually I believe Paul said that God condemned sin in the flesh through his Son’s death. Which is what Wright says.
Do you believe in reading the Bible in context? How far will you go to Biblically contextual? Do you believe that we should bring the contextual understanding of the Bible to adress us in the context we live in, answering questions we are wrestling with? I believe you do, God bless you as you ponder my humble questions
I have been reading NT Wright for the better part of the last 15 years. And the over all context and conclusions of his books and study guides it is evident that he wraps his claims all around the work of God in Christ on the Cross. McArthur as the great man he is, is doing a real disservice and selling himself short with that poor and short assortment of what Tom actually conveys.
I idolized R C Sproul and was certain that everything he said was truth. I now realize that the reason no one can explain the atonement, nor justification by faith, is because it never really happened. Bart Ehrman is probably correct. Paul taught justification by faith. He was wrong. The historic Jesus of Nazareth was a failed apocalyptic prophet. The historic Jesus actually taught repentance and forgiveness, not atonement. Atonement was made up after Jesus was crucified to explain why the Messiah had to be crucified. Sorry, most of what we are taught about the Bible, God and Jesus is just not true.
Please look for the time stamps from all three people.
Another spin doctor putting his twist on others work. What is the free gift of God in Eph. 2, 8?
@@HonorableMention83 NT wright call Christ work paganism!
when asked are we saved by faith Wright says YES BUT
and then talks about panning out- a cinematic term which implies starting out with the camera on a central point then panning the camera out until it becomes a tiny detail in the background.
MacArthur gave the best assessment
@@DrBillRoach MacArthur says he doesn’t understand Wright so how can he give an assessment? Leave it to those of us who do!
My current churchvteaches from NT Wright, Tim Keller, and The Gospel Coalition. Its no wonder I’m confused.
You should call all those false teachers out by name in front of your church leaders.
@Packhorse-bh8qn Thank you for your advice. I appreciate it. I have to give some notice so they can cover my nursery duties at least. This week I attended a mid-week service at a baptist church that uses the 1689 baptist confession. That was good. I don’t know if I am baptist or presbyterian yet, but I know that I couldn’t stay in the anglican or episcopal churches I was raised in, and my current non-denominational church clearly isn’t for me either. I have been thinking back over the last 15 months I have been there and I don’t think I have heard the full gospel there ever. I really want to find a reformed church using one of the orthodox confessions.
@@Lonesoul9791I hope you have found one by now. 👊
Let no one take you away from the simplisity of the gospel says Paul.😊
For anyone who would like to go beyond name calling and investigate the context in which Paul was using the terminology of justification, to see where it actually fits into the new creation plan of God, then go ahead and read N T Wright's book entitled simply "Justification". Nothing heretical in there. In fact, it is more in line with Calvin's conception than many reformed pastors might wish to admit.
NT wright is heretical on Justification
I've never heard of NT Wright nor his doctrine.
I'm grateful however that these men of God have taken a clear stance.
Thanks for the heads-up Dr. Roach!
Thanks for listening
You should since all of that panel of calvinist don’t understand NPP, and also any of them are specialist in the topic , Wright has devoted his live doing research on it.
@Packhorse-bh8qnso how much of NT Wright have you actually read yourself?
Funny that MacArthur says he doesn’t understand Wright yet is looked upon by his disciples as an expert. People who never hear NTWright dismiss him due to hearsay. Read him and make your own mind up.
I can tell where Doug Wilson's influences are from NT Wright.
N T Wright is what a seminary professor of mine called a “slippery fellow.” To obscure and create confusion about something so fundamentally essential as Justification by faith, is to do the work of the enemy of our souls. The great man, John MacArthur shed the most light on what Wright teaches, using the man’s own words. To him, the substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is “paganism.” Enough said.
That is correct victory NT wright defies the Biblical God for his Anger on sin and call the Christian view pagan!
The world is geared toward justification-that is, making things right. People are naturally even "obsessed" with this righteousness-seeking (however "righteousness" is defined). But with the forgiveness of sins and crediting of righteousness, God has taken justification off the table. That is where the world's salvation begins.
Watch "Justification from eternity" by Bill McDaniel and 2 semons by Jim Casey. It will BLOW YOUR MIND!!!
I thought everyone was talking about Doug Wilson,, or could be for that matter
@Packhorse-bh8qn
He is dialectic like Wright , and he a Sesquipedalian speaker which makes him sound smart but is far from it
Saying you are saved by loyalty is basically saying you are saved by works. You are loyal because you are saved. You aren’t saved by being loyal.
By the way, N.T. Wright doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture. He said it was a weird American doctrine.
@Packhorse-bh8qn It was a quote from James White.
@Packhorse-bh8qn Yes.
He just translates st Paul
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;”
Titus 2:11-12 KJV
Sorry, Mr Sproul, but I thought that is what N T Wright was saying in the excerpt we heard.
Wright never uses the antithesis to clarify what he actually believes. MacArthur nails him dead to rights on his evasiveness, his modus oporandi and heretical substance.
To be honest i do not think well of MacArthur. but things are in an appalling state in the church if i MUST find myself agreeing with Mac on Wrights utterly blasphemous rejection of penal substitution
I did not know that Wright spat in the face of the Cross so passionately as he has.
OUT HE GOES.
Clearly Wright is another great intellect full of intellectual pride ( I know the sort for, to simply state a fact I am, or hopefully WAS, one of that sort ) who has never humbled his mind before a holy God and has NEVER admitted that he is carnal minded and therefore does not get it. "It" being the gospel.
and yet he DARES to preach.
Thanks for confirming my own instinct that Wright really is a heretic. MY guess, founded on one quote of his, was correct.
Be careful how you judge, friend. I have met Dr Wright and he is a humble man and comes across that way. If you are judging, a man, founded on one quote of his, then you really are using a wrong way of judging. That is the way the Pharisees judged Jesus. Read one of his books before you start judging and humble your own mind.
wow incredible how you dare to take the place of God and apparently know what lives in dr. wrights heart. And very interesting to know, penal substitutionairy atonement is a doctrine from the reformation and absolutely absent from the first 1000 years of church history. So guess what, you just condemned the whole early church as blasphemous
I don't think any serious minded theist could argue that NT Wright is if not "the", among the leading Pauline scholars in the world. What Wright is doing as a first century historian is trying to read and understand the Bible with the various context at that time and location and share that with us who most often probably spend no time considering the context of the antient literature that we have. I'm not suggesting that because Wright IS the greater 1st century scholar in the discussion this makes him infallible but, I do wonder IF Sproul and MacArthur think it's possible that THEY could be wrong?
More or less accidentially I bought one volume of N.T. Wright's commentaries and very soon found out that he is a liberal modernist that is more concerned about political and social questions than he is about the Gospel (or the Word of God -- his exegesis is very superficial). The sad thing is that he is widely accepted in evangelical circles in Europe and has the name of a very reliable scholar -- I beg to differ.
whether you agree or disagree with Wright, I respect your decision. but to say Wright's exegesis is superficial is like saying Lebron isn't a good basketball player
@@guypmillerwho’s le bron?
@@guypmillerHis exegesis is superficial and it can be proved. He teachs justification is to be included in the body of Christ, and he uses his NPP concepts to sustain it. But, the meaning of the greek words used as "justice", "justification", etc, never means something like that, you won't find this in any greek dictionaryin this world , the meaning is ever forensic, and is good to remember that forensic questions were very important to romans, and Paul was also a roman citizien! This two facts are a great mistake in N T Wright exegesis, but the first mistake is the worst!
First, leave personalities out of it - analyze whatever somebody says in comparison to scripture. With that said, I think one of the problems people have when it comes to justification is twofold. First there should be a change when someone comes to know Christ. No fruit probably means no salvation. I truly believe a person will act on what they believe. Think about that. Second, a believer will persevere to the end. We can’t necessarily qualify that because only God knows if it’s a complete turning away or a temporary backslidden condition.
I think both MacArthur and Sproul would agree with these points. I’m not sure about Wright only because I am not familiar with him all that much. But in this short clip, my first impression is he would support that also.
I find it shocking that McArthur can claim to have read so many of Wrights works, and yet not recognise that even in the work he cited (The Day the Revolution Began), Wright is clear that Penal Substitution is taught in Romans 8. Wright is not rejecting any form of PSA, but simply the position that Jesus became a sinner and thus the angry God who wants a pound of flesh kills Jesus - that isn't even the Refornational view. This view severs the Trinity. The reformational view (as youll find in Calvin, and Bucer) is that Christ took upon the penalty, the result of our sin - that is God chose to take upon Himself the penalty in the place of sinners. So too, Wright is stressing that the Gospel is not only PSA, but rather has many dimensions missed by far too many - this isnt modernist, this is Reformational. I think the issue is that people dont read Wright carefully before critiquing him - N T Wright, understood in context, is thoroughly Reformer on Justification, far more than the anabaptist McArthur
I agree that McArthur implying that he has read every one of Wright's books. could be, but really possible? hmmmmm
The problem is NT Wright is confusing… because he himself is confused. He hides behind long-winded explanations that don’t do anything to clarify his points
@@raeveth , I understand your point, but it does not really apply to this thread.
El evangelio no puede ser “técnico” ni complicado, ya q de ser así el evangelio queda fuera de la gente común q impide la gran comisión
There are those of us who believe that theology did not stop with Calvin. Justice physics did not stop with Isaac Newton. The word of God is unchanging, but our understanding of it may be progressive as we discover more of its depths.
MacArthur is on point.
What came first, the faith or the loyalty? Rhetorical.
I completely agree
There are those of us who believe that theology did not stop with Calvin. Just as physics did not stop with Isaac Newton. The word of God is unchanging, but our understanding of it may be progressive as we discover more of its depths.
These guys show us they either haven’t read Wright or understood him. He said that we are saved by faith.
Your faith is useless without Christ's penal substitution.
@@howardhilliard9286 agreed, but what is ‘penal substitution’?
@@davidlittlewood4215 Justin Brierley asks that exact question was asked to NT. His answer is "that's why you''ll have to read the book." Later NT says Jesus condemns sin in his flesh. But he refuses to say that Jesus bears the sin of mankind's particular sins.
@@howardhilliard9286 have you read the book? I have! Interesting the number of people who know what Wright says without reading him! Actually I believe Paul said that God condemned sin in the flesh through his Son’s death. Which is what Wright says.
@@davidlittlewood4215 Leaving things out makes a difference. Like individuals actual sin.
NT Wright = NT wrong
Do you believe in reading the Bible in context? How far will you go to Biblically contextual? Do you believe that we should bring the contextual understanding of the Bible to adress us in the context we live in, answering questions we are wrestling with? I believe you do, God bless you as you ponder my humble questions
So much for fear not . And by the way, luther said sin and sin boldly. Luther did not sound that fearful to me.
I'll go with Wright thank you
So like Wright you believe the gospel BUT...
So you are a Bible denying Liberal who has abandoned the true Gospel?
I have been reading NT Wright for the better part of the last 15 years. And the over all context and conclusions of his books and study guides it is evident that he wraps his claims all around the work of God in Christ on the Cross.
McArthur as the great man he is, is doing a real disservice and selling himself short with that poor and short assortment of what Tom actually conveys.
See Data over Dogma podcast
Link?
Just type it in
Thank God for the Gospel N.T. Wright preaches. It is the only Gospel.
NT Wrong, Theological gymnastics is always a red flag, let alone nuance to death; men desire to discover something new so badly it's disgusting.
Nt write is nt wrong
NO NO NO
I idolized R C Sproul and was certain that everything he said was truth. I now realize that the reason no one can explain the atonement, nor justification by faith, is because it never really happened. Bart Ehrman is probably correct. Paul taught justification by faith. He was wrong. The historic Jesus of Nazareth was a failed apocalyptic prophet. The historic Jesus actually taught repentance and forgiveness, not atonement. Atonement was made up after Jesus was crucified to explain why the Messiah had to be crucified. Sorry, most of what we are taught about the Bible, God and Jesus is just not true.
If what you say is true, then you are still dead in sins.