I was an atheist all my life, and then I read the gospel of John. I had no intention of giving up my atheistic position when I began reading it, in fact, my intention was to debunk the gospel (though at the time I didn't know what the gospel was). I was saved while I read that book. It was the gospel of grace through faith that won my soul to Christ. I didn't need any further "instruction".
For anyone who would like to go beyond name calling and investigate the context in which Paul was using the terminology of justification, to see where it actually fits into the new creation plan of God, then go ahead and read N T Wright's book entitled simply "Justification". Nothing heretical in there. In fact, it is more in line with Calvin's conception than many reformed pastors might wish to admit.
More or less accidentially I bought one volume of N.T. Wright's commentaries and very soon found out that he is a liberal modernist that is more concerned about political and social questions than he is about the Gospel (or the Word of God -- his exegesis is very superficial). The sad thing is that he is widely accepted in evangelical circles in Europe and has the name of a very reliable scholar -- I beg to differ.
when asked are we saved by faith Wright says YES BUT and then talks about panning out- a cinematic term which implies starting out with the camera on a central point then panning the camera out until it becomes a tiny detail in the background.
I find it shocking that McArthur can claim to have read so many of Wrights works, and yet not recognise that even in the work he cited (The Day the Revolution Began), Wright is clear that Penal Substitution is taught in Romans 8. Wright is not rejecting any form of PSA, but simply the position that Jesus became a sinner and thus the angry God who wants a pound of flesh kills Jesus - that isn't even the Refornational view. This view severs the Trinity. The reformational view (as youll find in Calvin, and Bucer) is that Christ took upon the penalty, the result of our sin - that is God chose to take upon Himself the penalty in the place of sinners. So too, Wright is stressing that the Gospel is not only PSA, but rather has many dimensions missed by far too many - this isnt modernist, this is Reformational. I think the issue is that people dont read Wright carefully before critiquing him - N T Wright, understood in context, is thoroughly Reformer on Justification, far more than the anabaptist McArthur
I've never heard of NT Wright nor his doctrine. I'm grateful however that these men of God have taken a clear stance. Thanks for the heads-up Dr. Roach!
@tomchidwick "I've never heard of NT Wright nor his doctrine." I'm sure we will all hear more and more of him and his error. We are in the last days. Another false teacher who is gaining ground is the late Michael Heiser.
You should since all of that panel of calvinist don’t understand NPP, and also any of them are specialist in the topic , Wright has devoted his live doing research on it.
@@05TheMilo "Wright has devoted his live doing research on it." That's true of a great many liberal "scholars" who deny the basics of the Christian faith.
Do you believe in reading the Bible in context? How far will you go to Biblically contextual? Do you believe that we should bring the contextual understanding of the Bible to adress us in the context we live in, answering questions we are wrestling with? I believe you do, God bless you as you ponder my humble questions
To be honest i do not think well of MacArthur. but things are in an appalling state in the church if i MUST find myself agreeing with Mac on Wrights utterly blasphemous rejection of penal substitution I did not know that Wright spat in the face of the Cross so passionately as he has. OUT HE GOES. Clearly Wright is another great intellect full of intellectual pride ( I know the sort for, to simply state a fact I am, or hopefully WAS, one of that sort ) who has never humbled his mind before a holy God and has NEVER admitted that he is carnal minded and therefore does not get it. "It" being the gospel. and yet he DARES to preach. Thanks for confirming my own instinct that Wright really is a heretic. MY guess, founded on one quote of his, was correct.
I think you would do well to leave, and THEN start looking for a sound church. Staying under the proclamation of false doctrine is neither healthy nor obedient.
@@Packhorse-bh8qn Thank you for your advice. I appreciate it. I have to give some notice so they can cover my nursery duties at least. This week I attended a mid-week service at a baptist church that uses the 1689 baptist confession. That was good. I don’t know if I am baptist or presbyterian yet, but I know that I couldn’t stay in the anglican or episcopal churches I was raised in, and my current non-denominational church clearly isn’t for me either. I have been thinking back over the last 15 months I have been there and I don’t think I have heard the full gospel there ever. I really want to find a reformed church using one of the orthodox confessions.
@@Lonesoul9791 There's a web site called 9 Marks which may offer some resources in finding a sound church in your area. I know firsthand that the search can be frustrating. We currently drive an hour to church, and it's worth it. A Reformed Baptist would not be a bad choice. I don't agree with them on all points, but I would not hesitate to fellowship there if there were no other alternatives in my area. James White is Reformed Baptist. You can look him up here on The Tube. Alpha and Omega Ministries. Good stuff. You might also want to look up Ligonier Ministries. Excellent resource! R.C. Sproul's "Holiness of God" series is magnificent. I wish every professing Christian would simmer in it for a few months. The church would be changed radically. And that's true whether you are Reformed or not!
When you have tried to understand what a person means, and you cannot, when his doctrine is a "moving target", when he's asked very straightforward questions and does not respond with a straightforward answer, at the very least, you should be concerned.
Saying you are saved by loyalty is basically saying you are saved by works. You are loyal because you are saved. You aren’t saved by being loyal. By the way, N.T. Wright doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture. He said it was a weird American doctrine.
@irishchocolate3872 "He said it was a weird American doctrine." Wow. That could only be said by someone who is either very ignorant or very dishonest. Or both! Have you a source for that? Not that I'm doubting you, but it would be nice to have a source.
@@irishchocolate3872 Okay, just to be sure I understood you, you are saying that James White reported that NT Wright said that 'inerrancy is a weird American doctrine'?
@@lukewarmnomore7523 I think both men are VERY smart. Learning from God isn't about being smart. It's about being humble and teachable. There just might be a problem in those areas with both men.
First, leave personalities out of it - analyze whatever somebody says in comparison to scripture. With that said, I think one of the problems people have when it comes to justification is twofold. First there should be a change when someone comes to know Christ. No fruit probably means no salvation. I truly believe a person will act on what they believe. Think about that. Second, a believer will persevere to the end. We can’t necessarily qualify that because only God knows if it’s a complete turning away or a temporary backslidden condition. I think both MacArthur and Sproul would agree with these points. I’m not sure about Wright only because I am not familiar with him all that much. But in this short clip, my first impression is he would support that also.
