Among women, this would be called "bitching", and among men with bruised egos, it seems to be a turf war that is often fought among "cultured" theologians via the so-called "rabies theologorum = fury of theologians". Unfortunately, this happens especially in religious debates, which is probably why discussing "religion & politics" is not welcome in certain places. Good John McArthur is probably pissed off because an equal opponent isn't talking his way, isn't he? It certainly seems that way! I find McArthur's reaction ridiculous and deeply disrespectful! Why does this witness of Christ come right out with a hammer and claim that the New Testament scholar is "going to hell"? Has McArthur perhaps forgotten that biblical texts can be understood in different ways & that God always seeks the good in people? A very impressive example is Rom 8:28, where God allows ALL things to work together for good: οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν! But maybe it was just a misunderstanding? Hahaha, now hear this joke: Misunderstanding Between Husband And Wife... A wife comes home late one night and quietly opens the door to her bedroom. From under the blanket, she sees four legs instead of just her husband's two. She reaches for a baseball bat and starts hitting the blanket as hard as she can. Once she's done, she goes to the kitchen to have a drink. As she enters, she sees her husband there, reading a magazine. He says, "Hi darling, your parents have come to visit us, so let them stay in our bedroom. Did you say hello?" Kindest regards from a German retired Lutheran minister.
John MacArthur refutes NT with one verse after NT’s false comments about the Gospel. You removed it from this video, was that on purpose? This was the verse: “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,” (1 Corinthians 15:1, NASB) NT doesn’t agree with Paul the Apostle’s statement, that’s enough for me to reject anything/ everything he says.
N.T. Wrong? It's. not just Johnnie Mac who has come to this conclusion. R.C. Sproul, James White , Wayne Grudem, Derick Thomas and other notables who also have videos arriving at the same conclusion. Someone here in the comments stated that Wright requires someone with a high degree of critical thinking to understand just what he is espousing. I read him in the '80's. What he writes today not only confuses what he wrote back then but contradicts it. He obfuscates the gospel. That is NOT how the gospel origins are presented. Yes, the gospel is not simplistic. However, it is simple. I just finished a 2 wk study on the inclusio, "descended into Hades." I know what mystical confusion is. I fear that is the avenue that N.T. W. has now taken. He is a brilliant man. But that doesn't equate to mean he isn't confused or confusing.
"The truth is not found in may words..." Proverbs 10:19. Wright has never been very straightforward in interpreting the Bible...instead he tells stories of what he believe the Biblical writer meant...instead of what they were saying to the audience at that time.
“Yet he himself bore our sicknesses, and he carried our pains; but we in turn regarded him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished him for the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:4-6 CSB ^^^ STRUCK DOWN BY GOD
John MacArthur is exactly right about N.T. Wrong. I disagree with MacArthur about Calvinism but on the essentials of the faith and cultural issues he is biblically sound. He stands for the truth of the gospel and against error and false doctrine. The Bible says 1 Timothy 4:1 KJV Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Timothy 4:3 KJV For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; N.T. Wright is a heretic whose teachings should be rejected and his books burned.
Slow down the video and you will clearly understand that NT is presenting a new teaching… brothers beware… do not be persuaded by the flowery words, examine the contents, it sounds christian but it is clearly not
When MacArthur honest enough to say where's the fear where's the dread where is that in the book of Acts I mean if she teach her to dread God when do you know he's no longer an angry God I mean how do you teach second Corinthians is he reconciled is he giving his son I mean I think dread is something that I have but I don't want to have it
Man, how many people have the same story, " I used to Love John Mcauthor and now I don't , because of this reason , this reason, this reason, it is kind of sad, I just can't watch him anymore at all, he comes across as a bitter man, who disagrees with everybody in the Christian Religion , he lacks humility, grace, and tears the Christian Faith apart. I wished his eyes could be open and change some of his preaching habits. I think Calvanism as a whole has had a huge part in it, but it is something else within him that just comes across as soo unforgiving.
_ JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
MacArthur is a merely a politician who has perfected the invalidated and straw manned smear. He lacks intellectual honesty and humility to have conversation and discussion that exists outside the bounds of his own concretized opinion.
Wright seems to explain the panal substitution at the end of this video (this he clearly rejects though). His understanding of atonement only explains what justification mean for the whole Israel, then for the whole humanity. He needs to say something on what it means for individuals. He might avoid this as western ideology of individualism. However, the Bible (Jesus and the apostles) actually dealt with this in their teaching and ministries.
The problem with Reformed Theologians is there absolutely neurotic obsession with denying deconstruction. They literally only read or notice the part of a person’s perspective that deconstructs traditional dogma, but never listen to what they have to say in the reconstruction. They only get to know their defectors by a series of negations, by what they are not.
@@hlokomani God was quiet when Jesus was abused and killed. Is it God's love for Jesus? Wright clown 🤡 goes around preaching that indifference as God's love for Jesus!!! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
N.T. Write is a man of God, he studies deeply to understand the scriptures! J.M needs to study more deeply because the scriptures doesn’t present gospel as human laws but one with love.
& JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
JMA is no narrow and strict in his dogma that he often misses what others are actually saying because he can’t get past the fact that they are saying something slightly different than what he believes
= JOHN3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him'. GOD IS INDEED ANGRY. SO WRIGHT IS PLAIN WRONG!
What the heck? John macarthur says what doesnt exist in the church today is fear. Where are the terrified people? This is exactly why so many people in this generation are deconstructing. Who wants to be apart of a religion that is based on fear and the sinner being terrified? I lived this way for many years. It was awful and pure misery. It is no way to live.
As someone new to N.T. Wright I get the perspective he wants a Christianity without the supernatural. A materialist only Christianity framed up in a metaphorical interpretation of scriptures so as to avoid the appearance of Christianity "looking like a pagan religion". I can see why such a view appeals to so many. Ironically, I find myself going in the opposite direction and believing maybe the pagans were onto something (so are the occultist) but whereas they seek transference of life from the taking of other's lives, Jesus gives it by offering his own.
John MacArthur and others like him suffer from the "sin of certainty" and this sin manifests itself in a complete unwillingness (and it is an act of the will) to honestly and with theological integrity engage biblical study that includes examination of translation issues, the complexity of Paul's theology, the context in which the Gospels and Epistles were written and the issues they were addressing and on and on. It is rich, that MacArthur accuses N.T. Wright of pridefulness in his teaching. It's been a while since I've seen pridefulness of certainty so fully on display as with this clip of MacArthur. If he doesn't acknowledge "mystery" in God's ways, he himself has put God into a Western Enlightenment shaped box in which "fear, terror, torture", etc. (to use MacArthur's words) are the essence of faith. Not a very helpful "gospel" for a world that is in desperate need of "Kingdom bringers" (to coin an N.T. Wright phrase).
I mean..... Wright _is_ an intense scholar and I may not really understand what he was saying about Romans 7 at the very end of this video but I *_DO_* understand 1John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."... a concept which is OBVIOUSLY lost on MacArthur: There is NO FEAR in love! What a creepy dude MacArthur is and how little he understands about the love of God which is in Christ Jesus to pervert God's love like that! Wow how evil to recast the MOST loving act in all of HISTORY in the utter darkness of fear!
I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that the harder John MacArthur rails against a theological position, the more theologically sound that position actually must be.
For both interlocutors "the West" is the same thing as "Christendom". I don't think they're the same thing at all. Perhaps Christianity has outlived its usefulness for the West. The West can go on getting better and stronger and spreading further its practices of freedom, education, tolerance, democracy, Capitalism, the rule of law, etc.
Protestants claimed they would save church by freeing all believers. But a mustard seed of freedom has drowned faith, it seems. But, I do think that tribulation does make hope for a better life grow in every age. Call that the human spirit.
@@johnstewart7025 Surely it was gigantic advances in man's material wellbeing; freedom of speech; education; advances in science that have destroyed religion. People are not so fearful now, are far less deferential to authority, including the authority of priests. We now know that Genesis is tosh. Few people think the bible tells us where we come from or what will happen in the future. Protestantism, inviting people to think for themselves was dangerous enough, but I don't think it's what did for religion, though it was Protestant countries (the Netherlands and England) that started the whole project of freedom, Capitalism and globalisation.
"The West can go on getting better and stronger and spreading further its practices of freedom, education, tolerance, democracy, Capitalism, the rule of law, etc." This statement would be comical if it weren't so earnest. The most "tolerant" and "educated" western cities have hardly kept themselves from collapsing, unless you want to argue that San Franscisco is the actually the cleanest and safest city in the world.
God created a blood covenant (requiring literal sacrifices) with Israel in the OT, and a new blood covenant (via the sacrifice of Messiah Jesus) in the NT. It's God's law, containing His contractual terms. Neither man explains this. NTW uses too many broad terms and sidesteps 'literalism' (St. Paul had no such concern), while JM uses too few words (instead making some rather rude assumptions). Be a Berean and study all of Scripture for yourself. You don't need either of these guys. God's message is plain enough to understand for all who have received the promised Holy Spirit.
# God was quiet when Jesus was abused and killed. Is it God's love for Jesus? Wright clown 🤡 goes around preaching that indifference as God's love for Jesus!!! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Theories of atonemtent are ALL correct and ALL inadequate individually. The Wikipedia article is pretty good. There's 3 or 4 main ones: "Atonement in Christianity, in western Christian theology, describes beliefs that human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.[6] Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,[7][8] Throughout the centuries, Christians have used different metaphors and given differing explanations of atonement to express how atonement might work. Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor or explanation they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective; however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of humanity have been forgiven,[9] enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation. Within Christianity there are, historically, three[10] or four[11] main theories for how such atonement might work: 1. Ransom theory/Christus Victor (which are different, but generally considered together as Patristic or "classical", to use Gustaf Aulén's nomenclature, theories, it being argued that these were the traditional understandings of the early Church Fathers); 2. Satisfaction theory developed by Anselm of Canterbury (called by Aulén the "scholastic" view); 3. Moral influence theory, a concept that had been developed by the time of Enlightenment, which Aulén called the "subjective" or "humanistic" view and considered to have been anticipated-as a critique of the satisfaction view-by Peter Abelard. 4. Other theories include recapitulation theory, the "shared atonement" theory[12] and scapegoat theory. Additional views include the governmental view, penal substitution view, and substitutionary atonement" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement The reason penal substitution is inadequate is because Jesus doesn't stay dead and he isn't forced to die; he freely gives up his life. Now, he is the Lamb of God, and in all blood sacrifice is a penal substitution. Otherwise the sacrifice is somewhat meaningless. But for Calvinists to demand a strict penal substitutionary view of atonement AND limit the extent of its effects is very wrong-headed. One drop of Messiah's blood ought to suffice to pay for sins. He's God in the flesh after all!
JMac is one of my resources as part of my teaching preparation. However, regarding NT Wright, he (JMac) is so far off base it isn't funny. Indeed, if he were honorable, he'd invite NT for a face-to-face discussion. And I would pay to see that.
