N.T. Wright is awesome.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html

But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.
As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?

His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.

I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!
You do know what we do to Blasphemers? :D
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wright is the best public speaker I've ever heard. He is a master with words.
Even better than Keyes? If you think so, then you need to link me to some material.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html

But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.
As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?

His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.

I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!
You do know what we do to Blasphemers? :D
While I treasure anything Gresham Machen has to say, Wright has the chronological advantage of responding to more recent attacks.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is not "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
John,
Are you putting Wright/Sheppard in the same category with Bahnsen?
No. I was answering to the things that Gabriel had already connected. This was in response to his post about defending the faith in his circle.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I thought he was against homosexual ordination.
He is not interested at all in the battle that is killing Anglicanism.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/009996.html

But that shouldn't surprise us, since it is all about fellowship and communion, and not doctrine, right?
I couldn't care less about defending him on Paul (except pointing out his good bashing of liberal infidels on the historical origins of Christianity). However, I came from a school that would take "conservative" students to task on critical issues. Ergo, I immediately went for those who had done yeoman work against liberalism, most notably Tom Wright.
As far as the origins of Christianity, I thought that one could get ahold of Machen and Nash without having to dodge the landmines involved in Wright's thoughts?

His opening statement on the resurrection of the Son of God against Christ-denying Dominic Crossan is among the finest 20 minutes I have ever heard in my life.

I will border on blasphemy here: It might have rivaled Bahnsen's debate with Stein!
You do know what we do to Blasphemers? :D
While I treasure anything Gresham Machen has to say, Wright has the chronological advantage of responding to more recent attacks.
Hence Nash, writing circa 1992.

I think I am still stinging from the stance that I think Gabe is taking. "Without Wright, we would be sheeps to the slaughter. No orthodox writer can assist us in the fight against the liberals."

Hopefully I am misreading him.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Hence Nash, writing circa 1992.

I think I am still stinging from the stance that I think Gabe is taking. "Without Wright, we would be sheeps to the slaughter. No orthodox writer can assist us in the fight against the liberals."

Hopefully I am misreading him.
You clearly are, since I never said anything like that.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is not "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is not "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
I wouldn't say those are definitions of the gospel though... more like, the ends of the gospel. The beef is with Paul, though, (and Isaiah). Romans 10 seems clear to me (cf. Isa. 52).
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is not "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
:amen:

Eph. 2:1-10 is another passage
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is not "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
How about: "Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief" or "The power of God unto salvation." or "He who was without sin become sin for us" or any other of dozens of like Scriptural passages.
I wouldn't say those are definitions of the gospel though... more like, the ends of the gospel. The beef is with Paul, though, (and Isaiah). Romans 10 seems clear to me (cf. Isa. 52).
Contrary to what the Uberbishop keeps saying, that is not the historic view of the Church. See Calvin for instance on Romans 10:9

9. That if thou wilt confess, etc. Here is also an allusion, rather than a proper and strict quotation: for it is very probable that Moses used the word mouth, by taking a part for the whole, instead of the word face, or sight. But it was not unsuitable for the Apostle to allude to the word mouth, in this manner: -- "Since the Lord sets his word before our face, no doubt he calls upon us to confess it." For wherever the word of the Lord is, it ought to bring forth fruit; and the fruit is the confession of the mouth.

By putting confession before faith, he changes the order, which is often the case in Scripture: for the order would have been more regular if the faith of the heart had preceded, and the confession of the mouth, which arises from it, had followed. 5 But he rightly confesses the Lord Jesus, who adorns him with his own power, acknowledging him to be such an one as he is given by the Father, and described in the gospel.

Express mention is made only of Christ's resurrection; which must not be so taken, as though his death was of no moment, but because Christ, by rising again, completed the whole work of our salvation: for though redemption and satisfaction were effected by his death, through which we are reconciled to God; yet the victory over sin, death, and Satan was attained by his resurrection; and hence also came righteousness, newness of life, and the hope of a blessed immortality. And thus is resurrection alone often set before us as the assurance of our salvation, not to draw away our attention from his death, but because it bears witness to the efficacy and fruit of his death: in short, his resurrection includes his death. On this subject we have briefly touched in the sixth chapter.

It may be added, that Paul requires not merely an historical faith, but he makes the resurrection itself its end. For we must remember the purpose for which Christ rose again; -- it was the Father's design in raising him, to restore us all to life: for though Christ had power of himself to reassume his soul, yet this work is for the most part ascribed in Scripture to God the Father.
And on Isaiah 52:7

7. How beautiful upon the mountains. The Prophet again confirms believers as to the certainty of the word of God, that they may be fully persuaded that they shall be restored to their former liberty, and may comfort their hearts by assured hope during that hard bondage. He pronounces magnificent commendations on this message, that believers may be convinced that God holds out to them, in their calamity, the hope of future salvation; and indeed, when God speaks, they ought to accept the consolation, that, relying on it, they may calmly and patiently wait for the fulfillment of the promise. Thus, in order that believers may bridle their desires by patience, he splendidly adorns the word of God. "Will you be so ungrateful as not to rest satisfied with that incomparable treasure of the word which contains so many benefits? Will you give way to unruly passions? Will you complain of God?" He wishes to guard against distrust the people who were drawn away by various allurements, and did not fully rely on the word of God; and therefore he praises the excellence of the doctrine, and shews that the Lord bestows upon "us more than we can say or think." (Ephesians 3:20.)

He states that he does not now speak of every kind of doctrine, but of that which is adapted to consolation, and therefore shews that "beautiful" and lovely is the approach of those who bring consolation from the mouth of God, which can not only alleviate our grief, but even impart to us abundant joy. Here he speaks of the doctrine of salvation, and consequently says that peace, happiness, salvation, is proclaimed. By the word "peace" he denotes a prosperous and happy condition, as we have already in other passages explained fully the signification of this term.

That saith to Zion. Hence we infer what is the beginning of that doctrine which Isaiah preaches, and what we ought chiefly to desire, namely, that the kingdom of God may be erected among us; for until he reign among us, everything must go in with us, and therefore we must be miserable, as, on the other hand, when God is pleased to take care of us, this of itself is the chief part of salvation; and this, too, is the only way of obtaining peace, though the state of affairs be ruinous and desperate. And let us remember that this message is sent to the Church; for it cannot apply to heathens that know not God.

Paul quotes this passage, in order to prove that the preaching of the Gospel proceeds not from men but from God, and that the ministers who bring the message of salvation are sent by him. He employs this chain of reasoning, -- "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. But it is impossible for any one to call on God till he know him; for there can be no entrance to calling on him till it is opened up by faith, that, embracing God as our Father, we may familiarly pour our cares into his bosom. Now, the foundation of it is doctrine, by which the Lord has revealed himself to us, and for that purpose employs the agency and ministry of men. Therefore he adds, lastly, that there will be none to preach till he be sent by God." (Romans 10:15.)

But it may be thought that Paul tortures the Prophet's words; for Isaiah does not say that God sends ministers, but that their approach and presence is desirable. I reply, Paul took this principle for granted, that nothing is desirable but what comes from God. But whence comes salvation? From men? No; for none but God can be the author of such a distinguished benefit. Justly, therefore, does he conclude that it proceeds from God, and not from man.
It is essential to the gospel that Jesus is Lord (else how could atonement be made?) but the gospel is more than that. It is good news, in the context of bad news.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
The Romanists and E. Orthodox agree that Jesus is Lord, do they not? Even many cults could in some sense affirm the same. As Fred just said, the gospel is more than that although of course Jesus' lordship is essential to it.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I don't get the point, Fred. "The Lord Reigns" summarizes everything you just quoted. To believe in this good news is to believe that the Lord does indeed reign over all (as Paul also says in Rom 10), and to live your life accordingly, in submission to His rule, fearing the Lord and obeying His commandments by faith.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Pilgrim
The Romanists and E. Orthodox agree that Jesus is Lord, do they not? Even many cults could in some sense affirm the same. As Fred just said, the gospel is more than that although of course Jesus' lordship is essential to it.
You're also missing the implications of this. To believe in this good news - the gospel - is to submit yourself to the Lordship of Christ, including proper doctrine, lifestyle, faith, etc. etc. etc... It is more than just saying "the lord reigns," it is an acknowledgement of it in actions and in your heart as well.
 

AdamM

Puritan Board Freshman
Gabe, although Jesus is Lord certainly is part of the Gospel, don't you think claiming that it is whole Gospel is a bit reductionistic? Afterall, the proclamation that Jesus is Lord has to come in a context for it to be good news to you and me.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by AdamM
Gabe, although Jesus is Lord certainly is part of the Gospel, don't you think claiming that it is whole Gospel is a bit reductionistic? Afterall, the proclamation that Jesus is Lord has to come in a context for it to be good news to you and me.
No, I don't. I believe Scripture clearly teaches that the actual good news - gospel - is "The Lord reigns." Paul helps us understand the rest, along with Christ and the rest of the New Testament (and some of the Old Testament prophets as well).
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Wayne, I asked this earlier, but could you please tell me why the gospel/good news is not "The Lord Reigns" alone? I'm confused as to what else it would/could be in your viewpoint. Wright is definitely not alone in this view ....
Gabe,
Even the devils believe the Lord Reigns. In fact they regretted it.

Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Paul had a warning that you would do well to listen to.

(Gal 1:3-9)
3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4) Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5) To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
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.
9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


Justification is the Good News of the Kingdom. We were in the Kingdom of Darkness, but God has adopted us and Reconciled Us through His dear Son, and brought us into His Kingdom of Light.

We are ambassadors of Christ in the Ministry of reconciliation.

(2Co 5:18-21)
18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20) Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
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.

I know you understand this but Wright screws this all up. He has a different Gospel at this point.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I know all of that, Martin. I'm not defending Wright's view of justification, and have never addressed it or approved of it in this thread (or ever). I did not even hear this view of the good news from Wright, but from a Reformed Presbyterian minister/professor at an RPCNA family conference this summer.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Well, the Lord Reigns only signifies His Sovereignty. The Gospel is more than just He is Sovereign.
I disagree. Everything springs forth from this good news.

Let me ask it another way. Why do you believe 'the Lord Reigns' is what the Gospel is? Is this the totality of the Gospel? Or is the Gospel implemented because He is Lord?

The Lord reigns doesn't reconcile me to God. Propitiation does.
He is able to Propitiate for me because He does reign though.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I believe that is what the good news is because that is what Isaiah says it is and that is what Paul quotes in Romans 10 when exhorting the Romans that preachers must be sent to preach the good news (which Isaiah defines).

Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "œeveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "œHow beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "œLord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of him who brings good news,
who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
who publishes salvation,
who says to Zion, "œYour God reigns."
8 The voice of your watchmen"”they lift up their voice;
together they sing for joy;
for eye to eye they see
the return of the Lord to Zion.
9 Break forth together into singing,
you waste places of Jerusalem,
for the Lord has comforted his people;
he has redeemed Jerusalem.
10 The Lord has bared his holy arm
before the eyes of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth shall see
the salvation of our God.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Well, the Lord Reigns only signifies His Sovereignty. The Gospel is more than just He is Sovereign.
I disagree. Everything springs forth from this good news.
There is a difference between: 1)If you have X, Y or Z wrong, you are sunk and 2)X, Y or Z is the sum total.

Saying that Jesus is Lord is saying that X is the sum total.

If I was a lost person, and you told me, "Lord is sovereign", I dont think that would warm my heart very much, if you just left it at that.

One question. Could the statement "The Lord reigns" be true and I could be without hope? Or did Jesus have to come and save us in order to reign?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I believe that is what the good news is because that is what Isaiah says it is and that is what Paul quotes in Romans 10 when exhorting the Romans that preachers must be sent to preach the good news (which Isaiah defines).

Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "œeveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "œHow beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "œLord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of him who brings good news,
who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
who publishes salvation,
who says to Zion, "œYour God reigns."
8 The voice of your watchmen"”they lift up their voice;
together they sing for joy;
for eye to eye they see
the return of the Lord to Zion.
9 Break forth together into singing,
you waste places of Jerusalem,
for the Lord has comforted his people;
he has redeemed Jerusalem.
10 The Lord has bared his holy arm
before the eyes of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth shall see
the salvation of our God.
This Passage is saying so much more than He Reigns.

I see Peace, Salvation, happiness, Redemption, being published. There is more to the Gospel here than Your God Reigns.

We need Propitiation. Now that is good news. He made a propitiation for us.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
As I said, He made propitiation because He reigns. Everything comes from that good news.
Unless you can say "He reigns therefore he made propitiation" then you cannot say that He reigns is the gospel.

Or put another way, you cannot deduce propitiation from Jesus Reigning. Jesus could reign and not have been made propitiation for us. His reigning was not dependent on him saving us.

The Muslims have a sovereign god but no good news.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by ChristianTrader]
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by AdamM
Gabe, although Jesus is Lord certainly is part of the Gospel, don't you think claiming that it is whole Gospel is a bit reductionistic? Afterall, the proclamation that Jesus is Lord has to come in a context for it to be good news to you and me.
No, I don't. I believe Scripture clearly teaches that the actual good news - gospel - is "The Lord reigns." Paul helps us understand the rest, along with Christ and the rest of the New Testament (and some of the Old Testament prophets as well).
I can answer the problem and solve the dilemma for both sides, but it would take about 3,000 words and I don't have the time right now. I think Gabe vs. PB are speaking past each other. Gabe is not denying imputation/propitiation (btw, Tom Wright has one of the best defenses of the word "propitiation" for Romans 3:25. If you don't believe me, ask Dick Gaffin). I think Gabe is saying, but has not yet said, is that Redemption should be viewed on the cosmic scale (including my own personal redemption).

The Creator God made the world (Creation), but something went terribly wrong (Fall). In the meanwhile Sin and Death began to reign. At the fullness of time (when Israel's narrative had reached a climax), God sent his Son. Not only would his Son redeem his people (which among other things involved a reorientation of Israel along the lines of the New People of God ( The Church). The Church would do what Israel failed to do: Carry God's plan of salvation--the reign of God (Isaiah 52)--into the Dark Corners of the World. They would, in other words, be a city on a hill and a light for the nations (Is. 42:6). This would be the turning of the tide against sin and Darkness in these parts of the world. Of course, this includes one's own personal redemption, which then raises questions about the atonement, justification, etc.--all of which I believe the Reformed Faith has answers.

I think this is what Gabe is getting at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top