# Doug Wilson on NT Wright



## saintandsinner77

Doug Wilson on NT Wright on Vimeo

So, NT Wright gets it right where other commentaries have gotten it wrong? 

Do those of us who oppose the New Perspective need a good dose of Wright?

According to Doug...


----------



## fredtgreco

I am just very curious why a minister who is very strong on issue of masculinity would be find such an effeminate, weasel-worded, non-committal person like Wright to be "extremely helpful."


----------



## saintandsinner77

I wonder who Wilson finds more helpful in his understandings of Jesus and the Gospel- Calvin and Luther or NT Wright? 

"For there must be also factions among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:19)


----------



## CharlieJ

I wonder if some posters on here are reacting negatively to Wilson because they already dislike Wilson. His assessment is virtually identical to what I received from professors at GPTS. Even people who have written books against Wright (Schreiner, Carson) have praised his work on Jesus and the Gospels.


----------



## TimV

Charlie when he said that NT Wright is confused, or at least confusing about Paul, what's there to like? There's no confusion. The guy's a false teacher as even your denomination has pointed out. Wilson naturally gave the option "or is at least confusing" because that's the FV excuse "you just don't understand what we're saying".


----------



## fredtgreco

CharlieJ said:


> I wonder if some posters on here are reacting negatively to Wilson because they already dislike Wilson. His assessment is virtually identical to what I received from professors at GPTS. Even people who have written books against Wright (Schreiner, Carson) have praised his work on Jesus and the Gospels.


 I actually have more respect for Wilson than most on the PB. I think he has been very helpful on male/female issues. He is close friends with some close friends of mine.

But at the same time, I have no time for Wright. I think that people should quit trying to seem "gracious" to him and call him for what he is - a hyper-nuancing, vaciliating fool. (If you doubt that, watch the video where he denies the reality of hell) Ok, so he tangles with the Jesus Seminar. But really, is that where the threat to the gospel comes from? Does anyone listen to the Jesus Seminar anymore? Isn't it far more damaging to hear the "hero of the Gospels and Jesus" say that inerrancy is "an unimportant American question" or that "the Final Judgment view of the 'West' is not Biblical."


----------



## CharlieJ

Well, I don't agree with Wright's teaching. I also don't think that if someone believes what Wright believes he or she isn't a Christian. Wilson said he's "confused, muddled" and that he agrees more with Wright's critics than with Wright. When John Piper wrote _The Future of Justification_, he too said that Wright wasn't denying the gospel, but was confusing. I don't think that the FV has anything to do with this.


----------



## saintandsinner77

CharlieJ said:


> I wonder if some posters on here are reacting negatively to Wilson because they already dislike Wilson. His assessment is virtually identical to what I received from professors at GPTS. Even people who have written books against Wright (Schreiner, Carson) have praised his work on Jesus and the Gospels.


 
My reaction has nothing to do with Wilson's personality- I don't know him, nor have I ever met him, so I don't know how he is like as a person- for all I know, he may be a great guy, a wonderful friend, and good father and husband. All that is besides the point- the point is that nothing NT Wright says will improved on what our reformed forefathers have already wrote and preached on concerning our Lord and the gospels. So, why do professors and Wilson heap praises on NT Wright and feel that his work is so groundbreaking (considering all the controversy involved) as though there were something new under the sun with regards to understanding the gospels? Were the reformed theologians of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries not as enlightened as NT Wright on the gospels? What did our reformed forefathers miss that NT Wright gets right on the gospels?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Reading Pipers' _The Future of Justification_ is confusing. 

Wright reminds me of DMX (bet you did not see that comparison coming). DMX has come out with a Gospel album, but that does not mean that I need to go buy his discography. Just because Wright might say some interesting things at times does not mean that we need to buy everything he wrote and see what other goodies he has.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think we can say this: NTW is a brilliant man, but he has no one around him. He is not a tree in a forest, but a lone tree on a hill. He occupies the strange place where he fits neither the liberal crowd, nor the confessional. He is something of a conservative, as the evangelicals all slide toward liberalism. Hence, he appeals to quite a few of them, while maintaining cred with the liberalized academy.

There are *new points* to be made/discovered in theology over time. Probably not "totally new" but newly helpful. NTW probably has found a few of them, as brilliant men will.

But I haven't seen anyone in the "conservative" crowd who has really been able to convince him of any actual errors, or need to rethink any of his "insights." He reads Scripture in a vacuum. He sees many things that the liberals have missed, but often speaks as though no one ever saw anything like what he's seen before. He's admitted to virtually no acquaintance with historic Confessional theology. So, he acts as though no one saw anything like his insights until now. He accepts a version of Reformed theology as mediated through his liberal acquaintances and professors. He gets into no "conversations" with scholars of the past or present who might actually have thought long in his field, and avoided pitfalls of denying vital Articles of Faith.

Will he ever need a book of "retractions" like Augustin? Not if he never has to reevaluate in the meanwhile.


----------



## Jack K

Okay, I watched the video. It seemed to me that Wilson was being rightly critical of Wright ("confused and confusing about Paul") while trying to still be gracious and appreciative where possible (helpful insights about the gospels). I'm glad Wilson seems to disagree with the New Perspective, as he should. And I won't blame him for being gracious and appreciative where possible. This would be a charitable thing even when commenting on a completely godless writer. 

I think Charlie is onto something. If we were to see this video and not know it came from Wilson, we might not be so inclined to criticize it. In fact, if someone were to stick a camera in my face and ask me about Wright, I might say something similar. We need to be careful to limit our criticisms to the particular points that deserve criticism (and yes, there are plenty here), and not look for fault everywhere just because a certain person's name comes up.


----------



## jogri17

fredtgreco said:


> effeminate, weasel-worded, non-committal person



Isn't that a violation of the 9th commandment?


----------



## saintandsinner77

For my brothers here who believe the work of NT Wright should be treated with civility and respect, perhaps you need to reread NT Wright's "brilliant," "groundbreaking," "new points" which actually redefine what the Bible, Calvin, and Luther teach concerning justification:

“‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Was Paul of Tarsus the Real founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 119.

“Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God ... On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it [i.e., the problem] has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?" (p.120)

“What Paul means by justification, in this context, should therefore be clear. It is not ‘how you become a Christian,’ so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’” (p.122)


----------



## TimV

jogri17 said:


> Isn't that a violation of the 9th commandment?



Not if you've read Wright with any understanding at all.


----------



## saintandsinner77

A lot of reformed folks respect the good bishop who plays games with the doctrine that many of our ancestors suffered and died for...wow...scholarship often bedazzles...

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace,[91] wherein he pardoneth all our sins,[92] and accepteth us as righteous in His sight,[93] only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us,[94] and received by faith alone.[95]

[91] Romans 3:24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

[93] 2 Corinthians 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

[93] 2 Corinthians 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

[94] Romans 4:6, 11. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.... And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: Romans 5:19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

[95] Galatians 2:16. 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.


----------



## jogri17

I have read Wright. And He is wrong on justification. Hands down. But he is not 100% wrong on everything he has written on. In any case, you can call him an heretic, wrong, a false teacher, etc... fine. But saying ''effeminate, weasel-worded, non-committal person'' is over the stop in my opinion. I do hope you choose your own words more carefully.


----------



## TimV

jogri17 said:


> But he is not 100% wrong on everything he has written on.



Neither was Buddha or Mohammad. But that's kind of beside the point, nor does it make much sense. I can only guess you haven't read him broadly. I spent a month on a "What Wright Said" forum and I read reams of things he has written on everything, and after the 200th "the rainforests are being cut down for the needs of Empire" and "yes, a few people like Hitler of their own free will can lose the Imago Dei" then I can tell you that any educated Calvinist who actually has read Wright would end up finding Pastor G's assessment correct.


----------



## jayce475

jogri17 said:


> I have read Wright. And He is wrong on justification. Hands down. But he is not 100% wrong on everything he has written on. In any case, you can call him an heretic, wrong, a false teacher, etc... fine. But saying ''effeminate, weasel-worded, non-committal person'' is over the stop in my opinion. I do hope you choose your own words more carefully.


 
Being effeminate, weasel-worded and non-committal is worse than being a heretic? I get what you're saying, but I think a typical Christian would detest being called a heretic at least a wee bit more.


----------



## saintandsinner77

Is that how Paul treated people who denied justification- "Well I think you are wrong on justification, but you did get some things right." No, he said,

Gal.1
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

You can find a jewel in a garbage dump, but that doesn't make the dump a jewelry store- sure NT Wright is right about Jesus' Deity and Resurrection and some other things, but if he denies justification by faith alone as taught in the NT, he is a false teacher and a heretic and should be called such, not praised for getting some things right.

The reason there aren't stronger, more passionate polemics against NT Wrights perversion of justification is that people do not love the truth as they should- may God give us more Luthers who aren't afraid to passionately defend the truth and rebuke false teachers!


----------



## Philip

saintandsinner77 said:


> but if he denies justification by faith alone as taught in the NT, he is a false teacher and a heretic and should be called such



What Christological error has Wright committed that he deserves to be called "heretic" given that the term only properly applies to individuals like Arius or Dioscorus, or Appolinarius, who taught false doctrines concerning the incarnation and the trinity?

Heterodox? Mistaken? Yes, but then so are many others who I find useful, such as Thomas Aquinas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or C.S. Lewis. Indeed, all of the great Church fathers made errors concerning justification and even (more fundamentally) atonement. The trouble with Wright is his inability to see the consequence of his Christology: why did God have to become man? What is Jesus accomplishing? All that Anselm and Luther do is to flesh out the Christology which the early church developed in its reflection on the New Testament and the significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Part of the trouble I have with Wright's work on Paul (and, sad to say, the Reformed response to it) is that he really leaves Jesus out of it, whereas Paul is trying to get the church to see Jesus better. Paul himself would have scratched his head, saying, "why all the emphasis on me? This is about Jesus."


----------



## saintandsinner77

P. F. Pugh said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but if he denies justification by faith alone as taught in the NT, he is a false teacher and a heretic and should be called such
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Christological error has Wright committed that he deserves to be called "heretic" given that the term only properly applies to individuals like Arius or Dioscorus, or Appolinarius, who taught false doctrines concerning the incarnation and the trinity?
> 
> Heterodox? Mistaken? Yes, but then so are many others who I find useful, such as Thomas Aquinas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or C.S. Lewis. Indeed, all of the great Church fathers made errors concerning justification and even (more fundamentally) atonement. The trouble with Wright is his inability to see the consequence of his Christology: why did God have to become man? What is Jesus accomplishing? All that Anselm and Luther do is to flesh out the Christology which the early church developed in its reflection on the New Testament and the significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
> 
> Part of the trouble I have with Wright's work on Paul (and, sad to say, the Reformed response to it) is that he really leaves Jesus out of it, whereas Paul is trying to get the church to see Jesus better. Paul himself would have scratched his head, saying, "why all the emphasis on me? This is about Jesus."
Click to expand...

 
Philip,

I did not say that NT Wright is making Christological errors per se, but rather he is making a serious error on justification. Roman Catholics get Jesus' Deity right, but they clearly deny justification by faith alone. They anathematized the reformers due to their Scriptural understanding of justification. You don't have to deny the Deity of Christ to be a heretic- a person is a heretic if they deny ANY of the essentials of the Christian faith, which includes justification. Reread the quotes above of NT Wright and compare with the Westminster Shorter Catehism with Scriptural proofs on justification- NT Wright contradicts the NT and also Jesus. Jesus spoke of the man who went down to his house justified, declared righteous, as he confessed his guilt and sin and cried out for mercy, only trusting in the Lord. That was individual salvation- the sinful Galatians were individually justified by faith alone just as every other individual believer throughout time.

Do you not believe that justification is the doctrine is essential to the Christian faith or do you consider it a secondary issue? Our spiritual ancestors considered it a damnable heresy (as Paul did) to distort and pervert justification and so should we. 

"Justification is the main hinge on which salvation turns." -John Calvin

"Any church which puts in the place of justification by faith in Christ another method of salvation is a harlot church." -Charles Spurgeon

"Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolater . . . For when this article has been taken away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc." -Luther

"If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And all the people in the world who do not hold to this justification are either Jews or Turks or papists or heretics; for there is no middle ground between these two righteousness: the active one of the Law and the passive one which comes from Christ. Therefore the man who strays from Christian righteousness must relapse into the active one, that is, since he has lost Christ, he must put his confidence in his own works."-Luther


----------



## Peairtach

Reformed folks have got insights before from men like Barth. But it doesn't change the fact that they should be identified as dangerously heterodox. 

These men can be more dangerous than ones from whom no good or useful thing can be gleaned, especially depending on the individual who is reading/studying their work.


----------



## Philip

saintandsinner77 said:


> I did not say that NT Wright is making Christological errors per se



Then he's not a heretic because he's within the bounds of the creeds. He may be inconsistent and heterodox, but he's not a heretic. The gospel is not the doctrine of faith alone, but the doctrine of Jesus, the God-man, crucified for sin and resurrected and now either to be accepted or rejected.

That said, unless justification is by grace alone through faith alone, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ has no point except moral influence, which will (if followed consistently) lead to the denial of those doctrines as well as doubt about the person of Christ (indeed, this was Anselm's reasoning in _Cur Deus Homo_) so you're half-right that if Wright, RCs, etc were to follow their own reasoning consistently, they would end up as full-blown heretics. Thankfully, we believe in a God who is able to save us even from consistency.



saintandsinner77 said:


> Do you not believe that justification is the doctrine is essential to the Christian faith



No, I would say that the doctrine of Christ as the God-man who died and was raised. Further, I would say that the doctrine of atonement is far more fundamental than that of _sola fide_, indeed justification by faith alone would be meaningless without those I have mentioned. Indeed, Paul talks far more about the atonement and the incarnation than he does about justification by faith alone. That's not to downplay the importance of the doctrine, just to point out that _sola fide_ is the logical outworking of these two doctrines, and is therefore less fundamental. Indeed, I have known some (mostly RCs) who, while outwardly denying the doctrine, actually practiced it.

Indeed, the RCC and others like them may well be harlot churches, but let us also remember that those are exactly the sorts of people that God loves to return to himself. If I think for a moment that I have all my theological ducks in order and that that somehow makes me all right, how am I any better than the pharisees? The pharisees loved good, proper, _orthodox_ doctrine. When I read the stories of Jesus and the pharisees, I realize that I'm the pharisee. I need to go down on my knees and repent, saying, "Lord, NT Wright doesn't have it right, but then again neither do I. Thank you for redeeming me in spite of all the ways in which I have misinterpreted your word." Remember that what the doctrine of faith alone means is that no one was ever saved by believing _sola fide_: you are saved by believing in Christ. If, in your analysis of NTW, you aren't constantly pointing back to the cross and the fact that Jesus, who was God and man, died to save sinners.

And this is precisely where NTW goes wrong: he fails to apply his own very good theology regarding the death and resurrection of Christ the God-man to the subject of justification. It's no lack of orthodoxy, but a lack of orthodoxy consistently applied, an accusation that condemns all of us, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Thankfully we serve a savior who died to save us from our own lack of consistent orthodoxy.


----------



## saintandsinner77

Philip,

So, you say NT Wright is in the bounds of the creeds as you understand them, but he is not within the bounds of the teaching on justification by faith alone as taught by Jesus and Paul. Creeds are subject and subordinate to the Bible. You cannot affirm the creeds, but then turn around and deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone and escape the charge of heretic. You seem to want to separate the gospel from how the gospel is applied (by grace alone through faith alone).

The Bible does not give us the freedom to speak of Christ, the God-Man dying for sinners, being raised form the dead, but come up with our own ways as far as how that gospel is applied. It is applied in one way alone- by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone- if a person doesn't come to God through that way, he/she will end up in the lake of fire.

The New Testament places Christ and justification in the same context- interesting, how it occurs in the book wherein people were perverting justification:

Gal.5
[4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Gal.3
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal.2
[16] 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.

No one is claiming to have all their theological ducks in order on everything, but a person better have them in order when it comes to how a person is saved from their sins. Interesting you mention the pharisees- for it is the pharisees who actually blended faith and works in their attempts to be justified, and Jesus said that it was the sinner who by faith alone cried out to God for mercy is the one who went home justified. The choice I see is Jesus, Paul, and the Reformers on the side or the Roman Catholic church, NT Wright, and the Federal Vision on the other. 

Luke 18
[10] Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
[11] The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
[12] I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
[13] And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
[14] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


----------



## Philip

saintandsinner77 said:


> It is applied in one way alone- by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone- if a person doesn't come to God through that way, he/she will end up in the lake of fire.



Fair enough---that doesn't necessarily mean that this person believed in _sola fide_. We are saved by believing in Christ. We are not saved by believing in _sola fide_.



saintandsinner77 said:


> You cannot affirm the creeds, but then turn around and deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone and escape the charge of heretic. You seem to want to separate the gospel from how the gospel is applied (by grace alone through faith alone).



So were Athanasius, Cyril, and Gregory of Nazianzus heretics then? I don't think they would even have recognized the question you're asking.

Look, I'm not even suggesting that the reformers are wrong on this point. Obviously we are saved by faith. However, let's also not go throwing the "heretic" label around in such a cavalier manner. The debate should be clear enough without the rhetoric. If the Reformed view on Paul is correct (and we both know that it is) then a plain reading of the text in its original context should reveal it. We need to expose Wright's double standard in reading the Gospels one way and Paul another. Nail him down, make him clear up his own muddle, but don't go throwing around labels---it just serves to make the issues foggy.

I realize that Luther uses quite a bit of rhetoric, but that's no excuse for us to be uncivil. If we are to offend, let it be with the Gospel, not in playing the "heretic" card at every turn.



saintandsinner77 said:


> No one is claiming to have all their theological ducks in order on everything, but a person better have them in order when it comes to how a person is saved from their sins.



A person is saved from sin by Christ who delivered us and defeated sin, death, and the devil in His death and resurrection. That's the answer of the early church and it's our answer too.


----------



## saintandsinner77

Philip,

True, we are not saved by believing in sola fide, but a person who does trust in Christ alone for salvation, will not reject sola fide. It would be inconceivable that a regenerate person who was convicted about their sin, knowing that they were completely bankrupt, then cried out to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness, knowing that they brought nothing to God and in no way could be made right with God because of their covenant membership, baptism, good works, etc only to turn around and say, "well I don't really believe that I was right with God simply by trusting in Christ alone." 

Church fathers do not determine whether the doctrine of sola fide is true or not, the Bible does. But since you brought up the church fathers, I'll give a couple quotes:

Clement (80-140 A.D.): So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement's First Letter, 32.3-4) 

Justin Martyr (100-65 A.D.): No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account. 

Does calling people "heretic" show incivility? Then why does the apostle Paul seem to have no problem naming names and using the word 'heretic?'

Titus 3:
[10] A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject (For Titus to reject a false teacher, he has to be able to identify him as a heretic)

1 Timothy
[19] Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
[20] Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

What? The apostle Paul openly writing about someone making shipwreck of the faith and they have been delivered to Satan? 

You say we are saved from sin by Christ brother- well and good- but Roman Catholics believe that too which begets the question- how is it accomplished? By grace alone through faith alone? By grace alone through "covenant faithfulness?" By grace alone through faith and obedience to the RCC?


----------



## Jack K

saintandsinner77 said:


> For my brothers here who believe the work of NT Wright should be treated with civility and respect, perhaps you need to reread NT Wright's "brilliant," "groundbreaking," "new points" which actually redefine what the Bible, Calvin, and Luther teach concerning justification:



I don't think you meant it this way. But let me say how this comes off sounding to me. Maybe that'll help you see my point.

Your comment sounds to me like you're saying the Christian way to conduct debate with those who are wrong is to make sure we do it in a manner that is uncivil and disrespectful. It sounds like you're saying that if a person is wrong, then it is good for us to be uncivil toward them. When we debate them, we ought to also openly disrespect them.

Really? I'm inclined to say the Christian approach should be just the opposite. I'd say we're able to debate important points forcefully _because_ our tone is civil and respectful. The issue of justification is very important. This is exactly why we need to take extra care that we never let that issue get lost because we've sloppily attacked the person instead. As much as possible, we should strive to be civil and respectful toward all men, as fellow image-bearers of God, so that we may sharply defend the truth without getting sidetracked or having our message lost in a disrespectful tone.

This is not a defense of Wright. It's plea for respect and civility. Is it really your position that respect and civility are bad?


----------



## Scott1

Richard Tallach said:


> Reformed folks have got insights before from men like Barth. But it doesn't change the fact that they should be identified as dangerously heterodox.
> 
> These men can be more dangerous than ones from whom no good or useful thing can be gleaned, especially depending on the individual who is reading/studying their work.



Yes.

The difficulty is that both men have become highly visible representatives of serious error.

They may be right on some things, even helpful on some things, yet in reformed theology, we know that major doctrines relate to other doctrines. They affect them.

It is harmful to Christ's body, the church, to have serious error promoted by those who would profess to be its leaders- and who remain openly defiant toward church authority, and the accountability God has placed, that speaks to their error.


----------



## Philip

saintandsinner77 said:


> It would be inconceivable that a regenerate person who was convicted about their sin, knowing that they were completely bankrupt, then cried out to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness, knowing that they brought nothing to God and in no way could be made right with God because of their covenant membership, baptism, good works, etc only to turn around and say, "well I don't really believe that I was right with God simply by trusting in Christ alone."



Funny, I can conceive of it. Remember that we're all at different stages of sanctification, none of us is all right yet. Part of the confusion could be the classic confusion over the _ordo salutis_ where sanctification gets lumped in with justification. What can be particularly confusing are when Paul says things like "for us who are _being saved_" or "that the man of God _may be perfect_." These verses, if not properly balanced with Paul's other teachings, could lead one to lump the two together. 



saintandsinner77 said:


> Does calling people "heretic" show incivility? Then why does the apostle Paul seem to have no problem naming names and using the word 'heretic?'



Are you the apostle Paul?



saintandsinner77 said:


> You say we are saved from sin by Christ brother- well and good- but Roman Catholics believe that too which begets the question- how is it accomplished?



Through His death on the cross and His resurrection. Your question has to do not with how justification is accomplished, but how we receive it. And again, if it is accomplished by Christ in His sacrifice, then its reception by faith alone follows naturally. Any account of soteriology that does not begin with Christology is in danger. And this is an error that the RCC has certainly made, but protestants are also susceptible to it. Again, the problem is not heresy but inconsistent orthodoxy. The reformed view of soteriology is not, as some would have it, merely Pauline: it is Christological. Christology is the foundation upon which all of our doctrine should be built.


----------



## saintandsinner77

Philip,

You stated, "Remember that we're all at different stages of sanctification, none of us is all right yet." But we are speaking about justification and how one is made a child of God, how one becomes a member of the kingdom of God and the Bible is clear that the only way in which salvation is received is by faith alone. If a person gets that wrong, they get salvation wrong. To allude to the already/not yet distinction is irrelevant when speaking of justification- there is no "final justification" although there is a final vindication. "Initial justification," is a Roman Catholic. "Having been justified (past tense) by faith, we have peace with God," Paul wrote.

No, I am not the apostle Paul, but Paul said, "follow me as I follow Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1). I have an unbelieving brother who is Eastern Orthodox and whenever I quote something Jesus or Paul said, I am told, "well you can't say that because you are not Jesus or Paul." So then, even though we are supposed to be imitators of Christ and Paul, we are not supposed to speak out against false teachers as they did? So follow them in the way they lived, but don't say things they said? 

You also said, "Your question has to do not with how justification is accomplished, but how we receive it. And again, if it is accomplished by Christ in His sacrifice, then its reception by faith alone follows naturally. Any account of soteriology that does not begin with Christology is in danger."

Yes, I agree with this, so then, if it folllows naturally, why would be be civil towards a view that is unnatural like that of NT Wright, which flatly denies the Biblical teaching. Should we apologize for the Reformation? So did all of those believers who made a fuss about justification by faith alone in Christ alone and who underwent persecution and anathemas by the RCC do so in vain? Should they have had the opinon of "well we are all at different levels of sanctification so none of us are going to be totally right on justification- we shouldn't be so hard against the RCC since they are baptized and have an orthodox Christology."

Yes, Christ is the beginning, the center, and the goal, it is not I, but Christ- so if we have a reverence for our Lord and Savior and would always begin with Him, why would we then not love his teaching on justification (Luke 18) and hate the teaching that perverts it? Does it do honor to Christ to teach another way of justification other than by grace alone through faith alone?


----------



## Philip

saintandsinner77 said:


> But we are speaking about justification and how one is made a child of God, how one becomes a member of the kingdom of God and the Bible is clear that the only way in which salvation is received is by faith alone. If a person gets that wrong, they get salvation wrong.



Yet assurance of that salvation is almost entirely subjective. Remember that where we put emphasis on Paul, many Christians put the emphasis on James. The doctrine of _sola fide_, as I am continually pointing out, is that it is the _fact_ of faith (ie that one actually has faith) not the _belief_ in _sola fide_ (ie that one has all their doctrine on this matter in order) by which we receive salvation and are justified.



saintandsinner77 said:


> So then, even though we are supposed to be imitators of Christ and Paul, we are not supposed to speak out against false teachers as they did?



No, just point them back to Paul and let him take care of calling them false teachers.



saintandsinner77 said:


> Yes, I agree with this, so then, if it folllows naturally, why would be be civil towards a view that is unnatural like that of NT Wright, which flatly denies the Biblical teaching.



Because he does believe in Christ, the same Christ that we follow, and therefore his view is a muddling, it's a confusion. He hasn't started his soteriology with Christ and as a result has ended up in the same sort of moralizing that all Christians are prone to fall into (believe me, I've seen Wright's view _practiced_ in quite a number of churches that professed _sola fide_ and could express it quite well---I've also seen Catholics who practiced _sola fide_ while intellectually denying it).



saintandsinner77 said:


> Should we apologize for the Reformation? So did all of those believers who made a fuss about justification by faith alone in Christ alone and who underwent persecution and anathemas by the RCC do so in vain?



Of course not---we should seek to continue their work by persuading people, Catholics, EO, etc of their error so that they can reform their communions. If you can show me how the rhetoric helps in that goal, then please do so.



saintandsinner77 said:


> Does it do honor to Christ to teach another way of justification other than by grace alone through faith alone?



Naturally not. However, if we are to do this, is it not better to persuade people of their error than to dogmatically call them heretics? Might other traditions have Biblical things to say about Christ that we might not have thought of? Or has reformed theology already said everything that can be said? I ask this because I realize that no one was ever saved by good theology, no one was ever saved by dogma, everyone who is saved is saved by the sacrifice of Christ, the grace of God received in and through faith, which is itself a gift of God. We cannot boast in our works, neither can we boast in our theology, for if we have gotten anything right, then that too is by God's grace.

If, as you admit, the RCC has its Christology right, then they worship the same Christ that we do, even if they do so wrongly. In that case, our job is to lovingly bring them to see that He is the savior and that His grace is indeed received by faith alone: that this is the means of saving grace, not confession, penance, or even Communion and Baptism. These rituals, when done for the sake of justification, show an improper emphasis on the self and a failure to realize the full import of the work of Christ. The doctrine of _sola fide_ is not primarily about how I get grace, but about how Christ's blood covers my sin and that nothing I have done could possibly compare.

_Not the labors of my hands,
Can fulfill thy law's demands.
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone,
Thou must save and thou alone_

Really, the doctrine at stake here is not _sola fide_, but _solus Christus_. This is where Wright's very good theology on the inacrnation is helpful in exposing his bad theology when it comes to Paul's teaching.


----------



## saintandsinner77

Why shouldn’t we put an emphasis on Paul since he spoke in great detail about the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Romans and also in Galatians. We must steer clear of this Paul vs. James stuff. James was speaking of how our faith is justified- the ol’ “faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone.” And yes, I know, it is Christ Who saves, but the quote shows the harmony between Paul and James. The only people I know of who pit James against Paul are RCC’s. I understand that belief in sola fide does not justify, but again, I will repeat myself- if you are justified, you will not deny sola fide since then you would have to deny Jesus’ teaching Luke 18, Romans, and Galatians.
Paul is not around and the flock must know who the false teachers are, so their souls will not be captivated by false teaching.
When you say Wright believes in Christ, the question is ok, what kind of belief? Historical belief? Belief in what the creeds teach about his Person? Justifying belief? Many “believe in Jesus,” – an intellectual assent and 100 % accuracy as to the Hypostatic union, but have never been justified by Christ. How does a Catholic practice something they don’t believe in? By living a moral life? Mormons live a moral life. Oh yes, but you’ll say, they have an unorthodox view of Christ. Well, the Judaizers had an orthodox belief of Christ, but they did not have saving faith in Christ. 
It is not about rhetoric when it comes to helping RC’s to understand the gospel. I don’t go up to RC’s and call them heretics to their face since it is their leadership and church’s false teachings that have led them astray. This conversation is about a scholar who claims to be reformed, but who is leading Christ’s flock astray and who should be openly rebuked. Sure other traditions may have things to say, but the Bible is clear on justification and I will not and cannot appeal to the RCC to get my understanding of justification. You said, “everyone who is saved is saved by the sacrifice of Christ, the grace of God received in and through faith, which is itself a gift of God.” Did you mean faith alone or faith working by love as the RCC says or covenant faithfulness as Auburn Avenue Theology states?
The RCC has the right view of Christ as the God-Man, but remember, the Jews of the OT had a right view of God, but recall that Jesus references Isaiah, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Can a person worship Christ when they venerate Mary, deny his once-for-all sacrifice, add their own teaching to his teachings, say that the pope is the head of the church?
You stated, “Really, the doctrine at stake here is not sola fide, but solus Christus.” Wait a minute- I thought you said they worshipped Christ and had the right view of Christ, and believe He is the only Savior- i.e. Christ Alone- no, the doctrine at stake is still sola fide as it was in the Reformation since they don’t receive Christ by faith alone apart from their moral deeds and works of penance and extra biblical observances.


----------



## Philip

Walter, what I am trying to say is that Wright, the RCC, and all of these are not really heretics, but inconsistent Christians who need to be brought to the understanding that if Christ is the God-man, that if this is necessary to his mission, and if that mission was the salvation of sinners and the world, and if that mission was accomplished through His death and resurrection, then nothing else is necessary than the faith in Him and in His work which God gives through the Holy Spirit. They've gotten sidetracked on (relatively) minor issues and gotten muddled. But it's not hopeless and certainly one can believe truly in the power of the death and resurrection of Christ and still get all kinds of things wrong, unless we're now going to call into question whether Arminians can be saved.

Yes, I'll agree that the RCC is a harlot Church, but it's still God's and we should not cease to pray that He might one day buy her back, as He does so often time and again throughout the Scriptures.



saintandsinner77 said:


> You said, “everyone who is saved is saved by the sacrifice of Christ, the grace of God received in and through faith, which is itself a gift of God.” Did you mean faith alone or faith working by love as the RCC says or covenant faithfulness as Auburn Avenue Theology states?



I meant faith which naturally produces love and covenant faithfulness. We receive justification by faith alone.

At any rate, it's late over here, and I have little time in the next couple of days (papers, study, lectures, etc), so I must bid this topic farewell for now.


----------



## moral necessity

I have a few of Wright's works, but have not looked much beyond a general skim of them. 

I'll just say that, if a person will not abandon their dependence upon works for righteousness, then they have yet to experience gospel repentance. For, this involves a turning from other means of deliverance, to that which was provided for in Christ. To continue to trust in something additional to him means a non-repentance from the first trust, and basically an unbelief in the one provided. They have yet to "close with Christ", as the early writers spoke of. 

It seems to me that the Confessions would view the proclamation of a "two-confidence gospel" as nothing shy of a heretical and idolotrous message. 

That's how I tend to view it.

Blessings!


----------



## proregno

My question would be: if 'everything' has been said and done, the church courts/denominations finally decided FV theology is against Scripture and the reformed confessions, how should we view these theologians, and work with them, or not ?

Are they fellow-brothers who are just confused, that we can continue to work with and learn from ?
Are they false prophets to be rejected in toto ? 
Or something else ?

I profitted much from Wilson on marriage, family, education and culture, but do not go along with the FV direction he and other theologians took. 

If I look at how some reformed theologians have 'friendly and brotherly' discussions with 'evangelical Arminians' as fellow brothers in the faith (Horton and Olson?), then should this attitude of 'disagree in love and respect' not also be shown to these FV theologians, who are even nearer to us historically ?

I find it strange that the same theologians that are so aggressive and non-compromising against FV, are many times the same who will be very friendly and full of understanding with the Arminians ? 

I am not talking about civility and manners, that we must always uphold against all men (Rom.12:18; Col.4:5,6), because all are created in the image of God. But, if Arminianism and FV basically both teach: righteousness by faith and works (whether Olson and/or Wilson agree with this or not), could they still be callled 'brothers' in all good concience in the light of Gal.1:1-9 ?

Or am I wrong in this ? Thoughts ?


----------



## Scott1

proregno said:


> My question would be: if 'everything' has been said and done, the church courts/denominations finally decided FV theology is against Scripture and the reformed confessions, how should we view these theologians, and work with them, or not ?
> 
> Are they fellow-brothers who are just confused, that we can continue to work with and learn from ?
> Are they false prophets to be rejected in toto ?
> Or something else ?
> 
> I profitted much from Wilson on marriage, family, education and culture, but do not go along with the FV direction he and other theologians took.
> 
> If I look at how some reformed theologians have 'friendly and brotherly' discussions with 'evangelical Arminians' as fellow brothers in the faith (Horton and Olson?), then should this attitude of 'disagree in love and respect' not also be shown to these FV theologians, who are even nearer to us historically ?
> 
> I find it strange that the same theologians that are so aggressive and non-compromising against FV, are many times the same who will be very friendly and full of understanding with the Arminians ?
> 
> I am not talking about civility and manners, that we must always uphold against all men (Rom.12:18; Col.4:5,6), because all are created in the image of God. But, if Arminianism and FV basically both teach: righteousness by faith and works (whether Olson and/or Wilson agree with this or not), could they still be callled 'brothers' in all good concience in the light of Gal.1:1-9 ?
> 
> Or am I wrong in this ? Thoughts ?


 
Your post asks many questions, assuming certain premises and poses contrasts that seem to contradict one another, so it is difficult to address.

Without focusing on the specific individuals,

If a teaching elder is promoting false doctrine in one area, and church authority (though infallible) has spoken, he loses the authority that would otherwise come with that office. All who would otherwise be under their authority must recognize that. 

That means if one who would presume to teach God's people in an official capacity (e.g. Pastor, teacher, elder) either confuses or denies justification by faith alone so as to require works and/or sacraments, and church authority has spoken against it, you do not seek them out as biblical teaching authority because their authority has been compromised (unless and until they repent).

It's not like debating opinions of men, because the Word of God MUST be handled carefully by church officers, charged to protect it. That's requirement for the office.

In a sense, no one man's ideas are indispensable in the Kingdom of God, no matter how seemingly intelligent, clever, witty or persuasive their presentation may be. Not even though they are seemingly right on other things.

In fact, Scripture would counsel us more not to be "respecters of persons." That is, to know, by faith that God will appoint faithful biblical teachers so His Word is carefully handled by those qualified to do so because it is His Word that is settled forever in heaven (Psalm 119:89).

To defy and impugn lawful church authority, placed by God, compromises the professed authority to teach God's people all the more.

Regarding them as a brother, though in error, is another matter.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I think it is funny that he has a set of Wright books directly behind him on the shelf.


----------



## proregno

Thanks Scot, I think it is an important distinction to make:

a) allowing someone to teach in a official capacity who has unorthodox views, and
b) struggling with the question when someone is our brother in the faith or not

a) is clear, b) is not so clear.


----------



## saintandsinner77

The reason why I have more in common with my Arminian brothers than the FV is that any Arminian brother I ask concerning justification by faith alone does not deny it. FV proponents, on the other hand confuse and meddle with that precious doctrine. Shame on FV's for they should know better... They have a rich history of Reformed pastors and theologians who have expounded on sola fide from Scripture and yet feel the need to redefine it and confuse the flock by trying to create something new under the sun. Justification is by faith alone, not by "covenant faithfulness," or "faith working by love," or "an initial justification followed by a final justification," or any other man-made invention which resembles Rome.


----------



## kvanlaan

Part of the reason that the reaction to Wright is so visceral is that the most damaging and devastating lies contain portions of truth. His heterodoxy is so insidious precisely because he puts a scholarly veneer on it and leads one by the hand saying "dear brother in Christ, this is what the Bible is _really_ saying, come sit a while and listen..."


----------



## TimV

Very nice, Kevin


----------



## saintandsinner77

Kevin, reformed people who are taken in by Wright, lack spiritual discernment and do not have a love for the truth as they ought. Just read his denials of essential doctrines using scholarly sophistry:

"Is there then no 'reckoning of righteousness' in, for instance, Romans 5:14-21? Yes, there is; but my case is that this is not God's own righteousness, or Christ's own righteousness, that is reckoned to God's redeemed people, but rather the fresh status of 'covenant member', and/or 'justified sinner', which is accredited to those who are in Christ, who have heard the gospel and responded with 'the obedience of faith'." Rutherford House Conference 2003 [6] (pdf, p. 8) 

"In theology, therefore, justification is not the means whereby it becomes possible to declare someone in the right. It is simply that declaration itself. It is not how someone becomes a Christian, but simply the declaration that someone is a Christian. It is not the exercise of mercy, but the just declaration concerning one who has already received mercy. This is a crucial distinction, without which it is impossible to understand the biblical material." The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian Thought, Ed. Gavin Reid, London:
Collins, 1980


----------



## Scott1

proregno said:


> Thanks Scot, I think it is an important distinction to make:
> 
> a) allowing someone to teach in a official capacity who has unorthodox views, and
> b) struggling with the question when someone is our brother in the faith or not
> 
> a) is clear, b) is not so clear.


 
Yes, you've got a key distinction.

We might say that one who would profess to teach God's people, particularly from a public platform, ought be regarded as having lost that credibility and authority once lawful church authority has spoken in accountability and they have rejected that.

We are not to follow men, or personalities, or "factions" as we oft are prone to do (follow men rather than God, especially the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture).

It's important to understand that many believers are particularly vulnerable to the harm of the person's erroneous teaching or practice and often can not distinguish between areas where he might be "right" and those in which he is "wrong."

Graciously, we can be "wrong" about many things and still be a Christian.

But being qualified to the much higher standard of office, particularly teaching Bible doctrine is quite a different thing.

Also, no one person is so indispensable in His teaching that the Kingdom of God cannot go without it if he descends into major error or bad morals. In fact, Scripture would tell us, once there is witness of that among church authority God has established, the authority of his position is compromised.

We are, at minimum, not to seek that person out as authority on Christian doctrine and practice generally, unless and until they repent and are restored.


----------

