Defending historic Christianity and exploring truth for all truth is God's truth. When the church discourages principled debates and the free flow of ideas error abounds.
Typical of the Calvinist tradition. Anyone would think that nobody between Paul and Luther was a Christian. It's ludicrous this idea that you need to believe a doctrine to be saved. Children can be saved. Little old ladies can be saved who cannot understand a word of the epistles, let alone Luther or (God forbid) Calvin. Anyone who understands that it is by faith you are saved - not by works - cannot be a Calvinist, because essentially anything that requires you to understand and assent to a doctrine is precisely it condemns - it is works, not faith.
@@stephend7420 that is a dumb strawman argument. He never said nobody between Paul and Luther was saved. I took out his book and wright teaches justification by works. It’s a different theology.
It seems to me that it would be helpful for John MacArthur and N.T. Wright to have a focused set of discussions on the issues at question. These should be public, and held in front of an audience on neutral ground. There should be ample time for a Q&A session. There should be a pledge of good faith and Christian conduct made by both, the tone being characterized by the judgement of charity. I have read both men. I find value in both. I am no theologian, but I am no beginner in theology and the history of the church. I would find a face-to-face meeting enlightening. I only wish R.C. Sproul were alive to moderate such an event. He would keep things focused and good-natured.
NPP is a new gospel. NTWright also denies Gods’s creation as Holy Scripture explains in Genesis. Further the notion that God’s message of salvation as explained in the Bible can only be understood in the context of a Jew in 50 AD implies God obfuscates His simple straightforward saving grace for future generations. According to what the Bible teaches from beginning to end NT Wright is on the fringes. Not trustworthy.
The Bible tells us that Satan’s principal role is that of “the accuser.” It is sad that JM spends so much of his time accusing those who profess Christ. JM, plz cease criticizing the body of Christ, and concentrate on building it up.
For John Macarthur to say multiple times “I have no idea what he (NT Wright) believes” but then to go on taking him out of context in order to trash him in front of thousands is just painstakingly uncharitable and heresy hunting at its finest.
@@marshillnewengland2027he does a piss poor job of actually understanding what those passages are saying. Completely missed the point regarding the gospel
Bro Jesus Christ lived an obedient life and it’s credited to us. It’s clearing the scriptures. I read the quotes MacArthur is talking about and he is correct.
Ah yes, so Luther understood the gospel 1500 years after the New Testament but we can’t do so now because an additional 500 years have elapsed. Got it 👍
@@marshillnewengland2027 Setting aside that Luther’s gospel is a medieval Anselmian invention and that Augustine, in any event, lived hundreds of years after Paul penned his last letter, the idea that Luther or Calvin or any other Reformer could understand the New Testament knowing next to nothing about the culture in which it was written is blind faith at its most egregious. Seriously, in which other context would you expect someone without access to a certain culture’s sources to have the slightest idea of what such culture thought, practiced, believed? As much as they tried, Luther was in the dark. Calvin was in the dark. Like or not-the heretics are them.
@@arturopena5813 how did you come to the conclusion? They are heretics when they teach justification by faith alone? Your boy teaches the “new perspective on Paul.“ Talk about being removed from a culture.
This woman is right on the money. Peter spoke about false teachers twisting Paul's words in 2 Peter 3:16. To pick just one example of the misinterpretation of Paul's writings in this video, in Romans 14:5 @1:20 Paul is talking about fasting not the Sabbath. The Sabbath is not mentioned in the book of Romans.
@@marshillnewengland2027 She did not mention the book of Romans - You did. You incorrectly used Romans 14:5 to support your argument to not keep the Sabbath. Romans 14:5 is not about the Sabbath, it's about Fasting.
@@heartfortorah Romans 14 ”One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.“ Romans 14:5-6 ESV This has nothing to do with fasting I mentioned Colossians chapter 2, which says let nobody judge you in regards to a sabbath.
@@marshillnewengland2027 Romans 14 1-9 is all about fasting. Paul mentions eating 8 times. The topic of the Sabbath is not mentioned in the book of Romans. Regards Colossians 2:16, Paul is writing to a small group of Torah observant Greek converts living in a pagan culture who had come to faith in Yeshua. His comments are addressed to the believers not the pagans. He is encouraging them not to let the pagans judge them for eating clean, keeping the Sabbath and to abstain from drinking blood which was a common practice at the time among gentiles. Throughout his ministry, Paul is accused of teaching against the Torah to which he steadfastly states otherwise. In Acts 24:14 Paul said “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way (which they call a sect), I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything written in the Torah and the Prophets”. And Acts 25:8 where Paul said in his defense against the ruling Kohanim and Roman leaders, “I have committed no offense against the Torah of the Jewish people, or against the Temple, or against Caesar”. When studied in the proper context, it is clear to see that Paul never contradicted the teachings of Yeshua (who never taught against the Torah) or the Torah itself.
Christ has not yet fulfilled all of the feasts... you do not understand what the feasts represent... for example day of trumpets... coronation of our king with his return day of atonement...judgement . Tabernacles is the wedding supper of the lamb
Dude, what you are forgetting is that Jesus and the apostles followed all of the holy feast days and the sabbath. You need to study more. they are our examples. It's not what would Jesus do, but what did Jesus do? If jesus and the apostles did what you are saying to do and what is o k to do, then they would have been sinning. Remember Jesus says and does only what his father tells him. and God does not change from the Old Testament to the New Testament he does not change PERIOD He is the same yesterday today Day and .forever!!!! IF YOU THINK HE CHANGES THEN HOW CAN YOU TRUST HIS PROMISES??.?????
Where does it say the apostles kept the sabbath on Saturday? They argued with the Jews on Saturday. At least Paul did. You didn’t even deal with the scriptures I cited.
I have too admit my ignorance, I thought it was God's job too separate the sheep from the goats. Our job too share the Gospel. Seems like a total lack of humility to me.
@@marshillnewengland2027 I have read the Bible. We must exercise caution when criticizing another Christian: Mark 9:38-39, Luke 9:49-50, Romans 14:4, and 1 Samuel 16:7. Unfortunately, for many of us, the definition of a Heretic is "the one who disagrees with me". There's quite a few of us who disagree with MacArthur, Sproul, etc...
@@mtc4him201 bro define justification and imputation! Bible teaches Christ imputed his law obedience to us NT Wright denies this. He butchers Phil 3:9 with “covenant faithfulness.” Horrible.
And John MacArthur has been TOTALLY WRONG on basic stuff like Trump, slavery and guns. He has the chutzpah to critic N T Wright!! The name should be Pharisee John Mac Arthur.
It would help if Mr McArthur took NT Wright’s arguments in the context they were written rather than pulling phrases out of context. As he himself admits, he does not understand what NT Wright is getting at.
@@marshillnewengland2027 just that some of us go by the Bible before the shorter catechism. But what I am saying is that McArthur is doing to Wright exactly what we very often accuse critics of doing to the Bible - taking quotes out of context. Whether or not when agrees with him, his methodology is to me faulty in sustaining a fair argument. There are some good intelligent critiques of Wright’s book on line which certainly deal with the issues in a far more gracious and intelligent manner. There needs to be intelligent debate not denunciation on these things.
@@davidlittlewood4215 bro he changed to Philippians 38. When I get a chance I’ll open my PowerPoint and I have the documentation. He denies the active amputation of Jesus Christ. Open your eyes man.
The New Perspective on Paul attempts to undermine the findings of the Jerusalem Council which came down on the side of justification by faith: see Acts 15. especially verses 7-11 We must follow Paul and not let men like Wright dilute the Gospel. Maybe Wright never read Romans 2:16, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Paul's Gospel is laid bare in Phil. 3, which has to mean that Wright companies with the people Paul had in mind in 2 Cor. 11:13-14, " For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.."
i've made an attempt to try and understand NTW....a friend who is a supporter of his spent 30min trying to share NTW's definition / interpretation / view of salvation.... but after so much time, there was zero clarity.. it was just a sharing of a mish-mash of his ideas relating to salvation. then i turned to NTW himself..... spent an 1hr replaying a 15min video.....equally frustrating as he spoke like a fantasy novel writer covering irrelevant points and using terminologies loosely. it's either NTW is terrible at explaining his ideas, or my english comprehension is terrible... i doubt it is the latter (well, i aced my PTE test). unfortunately, i get the sense that NTW supporters just want to appear intellectual or was hooked by his mesmerising british accent. btw, after reviewing NTW's video, i ended up disagreeing with his view.. because he seems to have defined salvation incorrectly - it's a weird conclusion to say the least, but thats how bad NTW is.
_"It assumes there is no evidence for God"_ OK, I'll bite. Let's hear *one* piece of good evidence, then, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Just *one,* please. I'm not interested in a Gish Gallop of vague claims. If there really _is_ good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary, why is *one* specific example too much to ask? _"and that God's existence isn't obvious"_ Well, it's not obvious to _me._ And it's not obvious to _most_ human beings. After all, even Christianity - the largest religion in the world, if you combine together the thousands of different denominations which agree on almost nothing - is believed by only about one-third of all human beings. No, faith-based people worldwide _overwhelmingly_ believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. Implying that _your_ specific god is "obvious" is just silly. _"It assumes that if the evidence were available, belief would automatically follow"_ How many people don't believe that dogs are real? How many people don't believe that the Sun is real? How many people don't believe that other human beings exist? Overwhelmingly, belief _does_ follow clear, convincing evidence. We see that every single day. Would _everyone_ believe it? Maybe not. There are lots of faith-based people in the world who reject all evidence they don't _want_ to be true. (Just look at Trump supporters here in the USA.) But that's not _me._ I'm evidence-based, not faith-based. Show me I'm wrong - about anything, not just gods - and I will change my mind and thank-you for the correction. But it's going to take *evidence,* not just _claims._ After all, claims are easy. That's why _every_ religion makes claims. _"I believe"_ I don't care _what_ you believe as long as you have no good evidence backing it up. Again, if you've actually _got_ something, why is *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, too much to ask? _"What if the disease called sin"_ Please define "sin." What do you _mean_ by "sin"? Does "sin" actually exist, or is it just imaginary? And again, we all still believe that dogs are real, despite "sin." We all still believe that the Sun is real, despite "sin." We all still believe that other human beings exist, despite "sin." Why does "sin" only seem to affect what you can't demonstrate actually exists outside of your imagination?
As an atheist myself, I do not think any god that has been defined and presented to me is even possible, most if not all of the definitions that I have been presented with are internally inconsistent, full of nonsense and are mostly improbable, thus I am justified in rejecting them all until such a time as where good evidence is provided. Now, with that preamble out of the way, yes, if good evidence was presented for a god that was testable, falsifiable and repeatable based on novel testable predictions, I would be forced by logic to believe such a thing existed. Now, I used some words in there that many theists have a problem understanding, so here is a quick definition list for you: Evidence: A body of facts (A point of objectively verifiable data) which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other. Testable: able to be tested or tried - if it is not testable it is not evidence. Falsifiable: able to be proved to be false - if the evidence you provide does not include a method to show that it could be false, it is not valid evidence. Repeatable: able to be done again - if, while testing the evidence it does not consistently provide positive results that support the claim, it is not good evidence. But, just because I believe in such a being existed, it does not automatically gain my trust or worship. If you are advocating for the Biblical god, then that one I would actually would not worship. "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion And, Romans 1:20 is not actually intended for people who do not believe in a god: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-H8Nu5QXXtVU.html Also, Romans is just another cheap means by which Paul tried to cover what they knew was not going to be widely accepted and like how he wrote that “there will be mockers”, because no-duh, you write down some magic nonsense and someone somewhere is going to call you out on it one day. It’s just a way for the believer to assure themselves that they’re right without actually having to do anything.
This requires us to already believe in sin as a real thing, comparable to diseases we can detect, and presumably determined to be qualified as sin by a god that exists. It’s merely hypothetical, not based in any evidence and circular.
@@marshillnewengland2027 No. Explain how I, as an atheist, personally use circular reasoning, without even asking me a single question, or admit that you’re simply bigoted against atheists and driving an unnecessary wedge into humanity to separate us.
Certainly a fact that JMac in his education has not reached the heights of rigorous and critical thinking that characterizes the career of NTW. I strongly suspect that JMac has read but not really understood exactly what NTW was getting at. Comment from Rick Warren suggests that JMac is guilty of passing over verses and passages that are difficult or complex and ones which may not be entirely supportive of the JMac theology.
@@marshillnewengland2027 Not my Boy. I just question JMac's academic authority to be critical of NTW in such a derogatory manner. I do not see a Phd, and Bob Jones University is hardly an institute renowned for critical thinking, not to mention racial intolerance.
@@jamesstevenson1296 just because one has more education. Does it mean they are correct. Deal with the actual quotes or make like the wind and fly away. I’m not gonna waste my time with a person who won’t go back-and-forth about your boy’s actual quotes and if they fit scripture.
True, public false teaching can be rebuked publicly. I think the 3John 9 text is probably the most important quote. The other ones are from the pastorals - advice between pastors. Clearly pastors can be much more blunt with each other compared to speaking to the whole congregation. Since 3John is probably written to the church, it is a great text to cite.
Matt 18:15 appears to address personal sins on a horizontal level. They are your "brother" with whom you have a relationship and the point is to restore that relationship as Jesus did with Peter.
“To be a heretic is one thing. To be a confident, happy heretic is quite another.” John MacArthur Uh, what exactly? What “heretic” isn’t confident in their belief? Isn’t confidence a requirement of a belief? The knee-jerk “heretic” defense continues to be one of Christianity’s most embarrassing features. MacArthur doesn’t describe a heretic as much as he describes a critical thinker who has sensed the truth.
MacArthur’s counter-argument boils down to, “Wright’s interpretation is different from what we’ve believed for a long time therefore he is a HERETIC. And that’s super bad.” Seriously, Wright’s theory may be imperfect but I simply can’t stand the knee-jerk, dogmatic, and simplistic response - this too-common attitude is, for me, one of the biggest turn-offs to modern Christianity. Whereas MacArthur could have counter-argued based on exegesis he simply calls Wright “Wrong”, acts offended, and implies a bunch of insults.
There is no New Perspective on Paul, the Scripture speaks to every Generation and the Holy Ghost interprets it right everytime to everyman from every walk of life and it still speaks to me everyday, James in WA ST
Reformation theology always has a shelf life. It’s about to die out again. People that are walking away from Christianity are in fact walking away from Reformation theology.
@@bobsilling The doctrinal views of the “doctrine s of grace”are only 500 years old. John Calvin himself said this. You know what we call groups that say they they have a new revelation of scripture that all the Christians for 1500 years missed? - A cult!
You’re way out of line Ronald and to equate him with a Kenneth Copeland‘s is not Christlike. He doesn’t go around teaching Adam is God the garden of Eden. Either interact with the quotes of the false teacher NT Wright or go away.
I am not a fan of NT Wright, but Calvinism is also very confusing too! John 3:16 says whosoever but Calvin says only the elect? The cross limited to only a few? He died for ALL?
@@eugenejoseph7076 John 3:16 says all the believing ones in the Greek. I’ll get you some answers tomorrow on first John two. The bottom line is either his death was an atoning death or it wasn’t. What about John 10:11 & 15? Matt 26:28? He died for His sheep.
@@marshillnewengland2027 Don't bother, I've heard them all. I was a Calvinist until I realized God's love is longer, wider, deeper and higher than anything a Calvinist could understand.
Enlightening, will pass it on; Romans 4:21,Romans 14:5 lead me to believe that different denominations are possible and good. It allows for healthy debate.
Thanks for posting this, John. Chris will be greatly missed and I too look forward to seeing him again. Praise God that we have that hope in our hearts.
As one who believes and has a theological foundation which most closely aligns with Arminius, please allow me to say that this video, with regard to Arminius teachings is all lies. It may represent Calvinism accurately, as far as it goes, but it is grossly deceptive in what it has to say about what an Arminian believes.
@@marshillnewengland2027 I am not interested in proving anything. I know what I believe and it is not as described here. I should not have to prove I believe it nor am I trying to tell you what to believe. I am stating that Arminius did not believe nor teach what is described here as his teaching. I suggest that you read the works of Arminius along side your bible.
@@marshillnewengland2027 One simple question. Does salvation require repentance and cessation of willful sin? If the answer is no then refer to Romans 6, if the answer is yes then Calvin had it wrong. Your comments on this video may be Packer's but they are not Arminius. It seems that it is a dishonest video and should be based on Arminius writing and not hearsay. If one claims to be Arminian and they answer my question above no, then I agree with you, they are misguided, but so is your video.
My comment is dealing more with the general attitude of JM , and its an attitude often seen by speakers from the US , one see's little or no christian grace from him , one has to wonder why , it would seem there is a nationalistic arrogant fervour from him and others , with of course many exceptions , two of which I mentioned .
@@marshillnewengland2027 its not a question on how much grace , its a question of character , you are concerned with the doctrine , and that's fair enough , I'm addressing a problem , much more widespread than JM , for those of us , not from the US its something we often see displayed by a lot of speakers from the US , a kind of almost nationalistic fervour wrapped up in Christian thought , and it has no place in the Christian church , and its widespread , from Reformed , to Pentecostal and everything in between , and this is not the first time its been displayed by JM , to see more Christlikeness and humility from him is needed , someone who can admit he hasn't arrived , someone who can admit he doesn't always have his theology right , we see this with Paul Washer and others over and over again , maybe he is in reality is like that , but displaying it more , would be helpful.
@@robertsandeman4975 Again, what you’re writing about goes far beyond NT Wright. Your comments are a subject for a different video. Please keep your comments Germaine to the topic at hand on NT Wright not ALLEGED nationalistic fervor in America.
@@marshillnewengland2027 you are entitled to your opinion , as I also am , my comments are very relevant to the attitudes , displayed , I can see people like James White differ with N T Wright probably in the same areas as JM , but do it with christian grace ! so yes commenting on his ongoing arrogance is very relevant , the man demonstrates no christian grace not just in this situation , but continues to do so , and needs to be called to account , American right wing nationalistic pride pervades so much of what he says , and let make clear my theology is reformed , and Jesus substitutory atonement is huge to me , but its JMs attitude ! that I'm addressing , in my country his attitude would be rebuked very quickly .
@@robertsandeman4975 First of all the Bible says not to entertain an accusation against an elder unless you have two or three witnesses or in this case proof. While you have is your opinion. Secondly as much as I love James White, there are many Christians who think he has the attitude that you are accusing John MacArthur of. My point being your comments are nothing but subjective dribble. Third, you mention MacArthur and his right wing affiliation. I do believe the Bible teaches conservative principles. Are you a left-leaning person like Tim Keller? Fourth, I might channel you’ll notice I have a video of RC Sproul calling the teachings of NT Wright heretical. Is sprawl just as bad as MacArthur in your eyes?
John MacArthur tends to criticise , everyone who thinks different to himself , James White has a better approach he rather seeks to understand the others perspective , and whilst having differences , displays absolute respect to N T Wright , he can see that there is very little difference , when you look at the heart of the issues , John MacArthur would do well to take note , As someone looking in at American Christianity , there is often an arrogance very closely linked to nationalism , amongst many of their Bible teachers , but as always there are some wonderful exceptions , Paul Washer is one of my favourite speakers , a man who displays a humility an almost anti-nationalistic approach , a truly Christ centred , A truly , I'm a weak , man , clinging to a powerful God , as he often says , there are no true men of God , only men who truly know their own weakness and know how much they need to cling to the all powerful Lord Jesus , and to be fair, maybe that is John MacArthur , but he needs to be careful , to not demonstrate the arrogance and nationalistic fervour , that so often seems to be a characteristic of his talks and displayed attitude.
Thank you for your reply. Although it is interesting, and I am a big fan of James White not too much Paul washer please deal with the actual SUBSTANCE of Wright’s quotes.
I've finally realized what Calvinism is about, its about defending Calvinism not the Bible. You have to follow their thought process to understand what they believe. If you just read the Bible you never will. It's like going down the rabbit hole, theology in a tube. You can't argue with them, because they can't see out of their hole. The Bible is a Narrative, God's Story, from Genesis all the way through to Revelation. We have an invitation to be part of it. Calvinism is a usurper that tries to impose it's own ideas on to the message, completely ignoring the story.
@@marshillnewengland2027 Wrong question. What does PSA, John MacArthur, and an obsession with calling everybody who you disagree with a false teacher have to do with Calvinism? Tom Wright challenges it, but MacArthur doesn’t even understand why. He's only interested in justifying what he believes and condemning anyone who disagrees. Hence my last comment.
@@John-Christchurch-NZ bro Your daydreaming. Read “the day the revolution began” versus the Bible’s teaching on penal substitutionary atonement and imputation. Night and day difference.
MacArthur would have you believe that Wright is claiming to have a new perspective, and that’s not true at all. Wright is attempting to explain how this would have looked to 1st century Jews and by his own account, he’s not he first to make that attempt.
@@matthewturner4719 It's a lot more than just MacArthur. My church denomination even wrote a report against NT"s false views. They also sent that public report to NT with a letter telling him to repent for his false views. NT can try to justify (pun intended?) his views but at the end of the day, he denies the finality of Justification by Faith. As the Heidelberg Catechism says, “only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God'.
@@kyloooooo watching Reformed theology being gently dismantled is certainly going to upset some adherents, but that’s just normal. Wright is right. Neither MacArthur, nor likely your church, will defend their positions apart form disjointed, unrelated single verse proof tests, or just plain flailing about.
@@kyloooooo define immature and ignorant. I’m quite a bit more versed in this issue then you likely are, so be sure that whatever you say, doesn’t come back to make you look foolish.
I’ve come to dislike John MacArthur very much. He is arrogant beyond belief. Not a humble man! He misrepresents NT Wright. It would be more honorable for JM to have debate with the much more honorable NT. I never hear anything that sounds like love coming from MacArther’s lips. Praying for Mr. MacArther’s repentance.
I always get the feeling of how Evangelical theology is very much lightweigfht compared to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, even some Protestant older traditions.
“Here is something called the New Perspective; it seems to be denying some of the things we have normally taught; very well, let us demonize it, lump its proponents together, and nuke them from a great height. This has not made a pretty sight. Speaking as one of those who are regularly thus carpet bombed, what I find frustrating is the refusal of the traditionalists to do three things: *first,* to differentiate the quite separate types of New Perspective; *second,* to engage in the exegetical debates upon which the whole thing turns instead of simply repeating a Lutheran or similar line as though that settled matters; and *third,* to recognize that some of us at least are brothers in Christ who have come to the positions we hold not because of some liberal, modernists or relativist agenda but as a result of prayerful and humble study of the text, which is and remains our sole authority. Of course, prayer and humility before the text do not guarantee exegetical success. We all remain deeply flawed at all levels. But this is precisely my point. If I am _simul justus etpeccator,_ the church, not least the church as the Scripture-reading community, must be _ecclesia catholica semper reformanda._ Like Calvin, we must claim the right to stand critically within a tradition. To deny either of these would be to take a large step toward precisely the kind of triumphalism against which the Reformers themselves would severely warn us. But if we are siblings in Christ, there are appropriate ways of addressing one another and of speaking about one another, and I regret that these have not always characterized the debate.” N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” In _Justification in Perspective,_ ed. Bruce McCormack, 2006.
