NT Wright vs. James White - St. Paul & Justification - Unbelievable? 

Thank you for that, I needed a good laugh

Literally hilarious. The forceful vibratory nature of the sound was unmistakable.

Only...He doesn't. During the time when each speaker is on, Justin and the other speaker are "muted" but you can still hear them muffled as if on a phone speaker or walkie talkie. When James says "maybe I can ask this question now", NT goes "mmm" as if to say yes I'll answer it. While I'm as amused by farts as the next guy, in this case...No fart.

@@tolsen8212 they’re not muted, they cut each other off a few times throughout the debate. Plus if Tom is muted, how can we hear him say mmm?

@@artvanderlay1308"mute" has the following meanings: "deaden, muffle, or soften the sound of." I was using the term in the sense of muffle/soften...Not deaden. That's why we can hear Tom say mmm. And Justin unmutes when he sees them start to talk, unless it's "mmm". Listen carefully you'll hear what I mean.

Right 🤣

AMEN! The interruptions are unbearable!

NT seems to me that he is Anglican, and if it is correct , I'm not surprised that he affirms Catholics' view of Justification.

michaelphiffer23 I’ve grown used to that feeling, but on the bright side, Jesus had strong words for the teachers of the law but open arms for the little children. I love to deep-dive into theology, but we should always temper our learning with humility, understanding how finite we are before an infinite God.

Nah mate dont worry 1Cor 1:17-31 The gospel message proper is a simple message for everyones intellectual capacity. Let's not distort "the good news"

@@artvanderlay1308 amen..CHRIST died for all who will receive the love of the truth..

You've got to be a Berean to protect yourself from false teachings like Wright's NPP.

Wright crushes this

There is no way that calvinism is compatible with what Wright is saying and he's correct for the most part it seems..

yeah, it's not that he has just come to realize that! Did you listen to this?

Check out the book "Was Calvin a Calvinist?", Daniel.

White is outclassed in content.

@@Deacondan240 no he's not

Whites pastoral concerns (from Calvinist) is that people will “feel” they have to perform for their salvation. BUT, even within a purified Calvinist community, people still have doubts if they are elect or chosen, Why?

Although he uses the word "Sense" alot so.............uhg. The deconstruction of justification by faith alone in Christ alone and double imputation is the heart of the gospel.

Lewis was, of course, wrong though. If we had accounts from any of those lunatics, he might have a point. But we don't and he doesn't. Rather than making the problem worse for the skeptic - it actually makes it worse for the believer.

@@TheSmithDorian It's not accurate to say we have no accounts from Jesus' apostolic followers. A skeptic could be justified in saying we nothing exclusively from one of the 11 and lack certainty in how 1st Century believers would have interpreted Jesus' words and those of his apostles. Additionally, use of the term "legend" in the Lord, Liar, Lunatic debate, at least in modern contexts, is a sort of golden mean fallacy among lay-scholars. And disingenuous when professional scholars present to lay-people (scholarly or otherwise). As it undermines the ingrained supernatural elements of orthodox (small "o") Christianity. I'd rather discuss this elsewhere. Inbox me if you're interested.

@@TheSmithDorian It's worth noting that Paul mentions many of the figures of the gospels: "And when James, Cephas (Peter, John 1:42 KJV), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave unto me Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" Galatians 2:9 KJV "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 KJV These being two obvious examples. Galatians and Corinthians were likely written, in the broadest sense in line with the broadest scholarly dating, somewhere between the 40s-60s (most dates are less broad than this, this can easily be checked), and both these letters are near universally regarded as Pauline. If Jesus was a created myth, and the twelve were living in accordance to a myth, the myth must have predated Paul's letters, because Paul seems pretty convinced. If then we say Paul is a lunatic, then I'd say: read the letter to the Romans. It does not seem like the work of a man not in control of his senses. The only alternative is, as Lewis says, to assume the 12 (spoken about by Paul in Corinthians and Galatians) either were lunatics, or made it up.

​@@harrydaniels1942 "It's worth noting that Paul mentions many of the figures of the gospels" Well, not "many" - just the three that you mentioned. And of those James (Jesus' brother) isn't exactly a prominent figure in the gospels - although James (John's brother) is. In contrast, look at those prominent figures that he doesn't mention - John the Baptist. Mary (Jesus' mother), Mary Magdalene, Judas, the other 9 disciples, Caiaphas, Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate, Lazarus, Herod the Great or Herod Antipas etc. As for his reference to Cephas - it's not clear from Paul's letters whether he knows that Peter is one of the 12 disciples or not or indeed if he knows who or what the 12 actually were. Paul never makes reference to anyone being a follower of the earthly Jesus at all. It's not even clear that Paul thinks that the Peter with whom he has a dispute is the same person as the Cephas who was one of the pillars he refers to in Galatians. "Galatians and Corinthians were likely written, [..] between the 40s-60s.." The 50's is probably the consensus. "... and both these letters are near universally regarded as Pauline." Yes they are. But is the text that has come down to us, the same as was originally written - or has it been edited or added to in its early history? The earliest surviving copies of both Galatians and 1 Corinthians date from around 200 AD - almost 150 years after the originals were written. It is also at least 50 years after Marcion gathered together a collection of Paul's letters and it is widely believed that he may have edited and altered them to suit his own purpose. We cannot know whether the versions of Galatians and 1 Corinthians that we have today are the pre or post Marcion versions. There are certainly some oddities in the texts that cast suspicion on the genuineness of some of passages that we take for granted today. For example: Galatians 1:18-20 "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not" Why would Paul say "I lie not" after these particular verses? He doesn't do this anywhere else in any of his letters and in the overall scheme of things these aren't particularly important statements. It's almost as if either, there was some doubt about the truth of what Paul was claiming such that he felt he had to add extra emphasis to it; or these events didn't really happen and somebody inserted these verses at a later date. Another example: Galatians 2:2 "And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" Here we have Paul saying that he went to the Jerusalem congregation to check whether what he was preaching was ok or not. Yet in Chapter 1 he's adamant that what he preaches came directly from Jesus Christ not from man and so convinced is he of it that he says that anyone - even an angel - is accursed if they preach something different to him. And yet he goes to Jerusalem to check whether the guys there are ok with it ? This makes no sense at all. Galatians feels like it is parts of two or more separate texts that have been poorly fused together. "If Jesus was a created myth,.." Nobody is suggesting that. The 4th 'L' is 'legend' not myth. The most common assertion of non-believers is that Jesus existed as a person but that the stories of miracles and of him being raised from the dead are legends rather than fact. "and the twelve were living in accordance to a myth" We don't know what they were doing though - do we? None of them wrote anything - or at least anything that they put their name to (I don't accept 1 and 2 Peter as being written by Peter). Paul says nothing about them other than his brief encounters with Peter and John. Even Acts says almost nothing about most of the 12. "because Paul seems pretty convinced" Yes - he does seem to be doesn't he.... based on a vision that he claims to have had. Muhammad claimed to have had a vision of the angel Gabriel about 600 years later and he was equally as convinced of his vision as Paul was of his. Does Muhammad's conviction convince you of the veracity of his claim or that the vision, if it occurred, had a divine origin? "If then we say Paul is a lunatic.." I'm more inclined to put Paul in the Liar camp rather than the lunatic camp. "then I'd say: read the letter to the Romans. It does not seem like the work of a man not in control of his senses" I don't think that anyone would accuse Paul of not being in control of his senses. As for Romans - the problem with it is that everybody that reads it is already convinced that it is some kind God inspired masterpiece before they begin to read it. Accordingly, when they interpret it they perform complex theological and mental gymnastics to make what it says appear to be some subtle nuanced truth with every word or turn of phrase holding the power of divine revelation itself. This is why even highly intelligent New Testament scholars who have dedicated a big chunk of their lives to studying it cannot agree on what various verses and passages in it actually mean. But rather than admitting the truth of it (i.e., that Romans is a poorly written, confusing ambiguous mess that was, without doubt, unintelligible to those to whom it was originally sent) they steadfastly stick to their own tortured and convoluted interpretation of it. Now it's never productive to bring common sense to the table when discussing Paul and his epistles, but surely someone in the Church - some monk or cleric or scholar or Church father during the 1,970 years since it was written, must have thought ... hang on, if this letter cannot be understood by your average Christian and its meaning cannot be agreed upon by experts who have studied it their entire careers ...then perhaps it isn't Holy Scripture at all. 'God breathed' isn't supposed to mean confusing. Divinely inspired isn't supposed to mean ambiguous. There were supposedly some very early Christian sects that didn't think that Paul's writings were Holy Scripture but common sense, it appears, died out with them. "the only alternative is, as Lewis says, to assume the 12 (spoken about by Paul in Corinthians and Galatians).." Actually Paul doesn't mention the 12 in Galatians he only mentions them in 1 Corinthians. And if you go with the current scholarly consensus, this reference to the 12 is part of an early Christian creed that Paul was simply copying. So technically Paul himself never mentions the 12 at all. "... either were lunatics, or made it up" You're missing the 'Legend' option. The possibility that the 12 (or at least 8 or 9 of them) were just a literary invention. Considering the historical significance and symbolism of the number 12 in Judaic history and culture (the 12 twelve tribes of Israel etc.) it’s not much of a leap to think that this might have happened.

@@TheSmithDorian Regarding the letter to the Galatians, I think we have to ask why Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians, a church he called. He seems to be replying to accusations of: 1. He lacks apostolic authority due to his being an apostle of man and therefore is subordinate to the Jerusalem church 2. Theological distance from the Jerusalem church, in that he is preaching a different gospel Paul answers these simultaneously: he was called directly by Jesus (1:1, 1:12, 1:15-16), the Jerusalem church is aware of him (1:18-19), aware of his gospel (2:2) saw that he was called by Jesus (2:7) , and subsequently commissioned him (2:9). Paul is saying: there's no distance between the church in Jerusalem and my preaching. He uses an example, regarding the practice of circumcision, by stating that the Jerusalem church isn't circumcising greeks (2:3), which can be interpreted as: if anyone is telling you that it's practice to be circumcised, it's not in the Jerusalem church. Paul is always linking himself with Jerusalem, in the sense that they are of one mind. (He then refers to an incident of Antioch, and I'm inclined to believe that the people who have preached a false gospel to the Galatians have informed them about this incident, and used it to undermine Paul's apostolic authority, so Paul is telling them what really happened). So, he has claimed his apostolic authority, asserted his oneness with the Jerusalem church. Why would he do this? Well, the letter indicates the people bearing the false gospel have wanted people to be circumcised, in direct contrast to Paul's presumed (from the text) original message. Paul, who will later prove his oneness with the Jerusalem church in the way I just described. Paul says: if anyone preaches a different gospel, do NOT believe them, whoever they are (1:7-8). There is one gospel, preached by both the Jerusalem church and Paul himself, and these people are not speaking it (1:6-7). He's telling the people in Galatia not to be led astray again, and to trust him (1:6). Regarding editing by Marcion, I'm not an expert in the history of the new testament, but by my understanding you can find early church fathers, contemporaries of Marcion, quoting the letters, either directly or indirectly. There's a whole website devoted to references to each verse of the New Testament by the early church fathers; they know better than I. I don't think Marcion was uniquely in possession of letters, and I believe people accused him of tampering with the text, based on texts they have. Regarding Romans, if you believe that it's a mess, then you believe that; I can't convince you. But I think you're part of a small minority who don't think it's a remarkable letter. In fact, you're the first I've ever read doubting that. Regarding the Twelve being a literary invention, that's too large a topic: does that mean you believe that the twelve as described in the gospels are made up? The characters and their names are subsequently created, in line with an earlier tradition? I'm not sure what you are saying there. Regarding what Paul mentions, Paul's letters were for specific reasons, made clear in and through the letters themselves. I'm not sure what you're expecting. If I've missed something, let me know. Your reply was all over the place! I couldn't structure a reply easily.

this is most likely the case since Paul continually uses his experience as the example

In fact, that is Pauls argument at the beginning of Romans and the end of Hebrews...

***** If you hold to imparted righteousness in Justification you will receive the wrathful anathema of both Lutheran and Reformed of every age. Just look at their debates with Catholics for hundreds of years, (White always lost his). Yet they insist these two passages are speaking of Justification, the great exchange, the empty hand that merely receives, the alien righteousness which is accounted only. You know......filthy rags and snow covered dung, and all that.

Skeptical Christian Read Romans 4

Skeptical Christian Rom 4:7 Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Sounds like snow over dung to me.

This was a a great discussion, but I must say that Wright thoroughly trounced White. Whenever someone has to resort to complaining about being talked down to you know that he has already lost the argument. White keeps doing this where he should have simply just focused on proving his point.

@@marcdavidson3676 it doesn't seem to bother white as he talks down to and just plain out insults other people and most of the time it's towards scholars much more learned and correct than him..White is stuck in a calvinist paradigm that keeps him from learning anything..Instead he just relentlessly spouts Calvin's philosophy over n over ..

I have read so much on the New Perspective, from Wright and others, over the years and at the end of it all, I am thoroughly unconvinced. It seems a relentless campaign to do away with any mention of grace, condemnation, personal salvation or forgiveness from Paul's writing on justification and when all is said and done, those themes cannot be repressed from his work. Besides, Acts 15 verse 1 proves that at least some first century Jews were trying to circumcise Gentiles in the name of salvation...

@@tommarshall3365 although I do disagree with Wright , I don't believe he's trying to do away with any mention of grace . Don't it seem that it just boils down to pretty much works salvation like catholicism or calvinism ? I believe the works are there in one who is saved because they're saved and THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST dwells within them but can also be saved without works because they are justified through faith , Roman's 4 : 5 sums that up doesn't it . White here is right about the faith alone aspect of it but doesn't understand biblical faith , as he is a calvinist that says if there's no fruits then there was no salvation to begin with . Where does a fruit inspector draw the saved or never was saved line and then can't actually know because one can't know who GOD has elected , if being consistent with White's theology ? I believe CHRIST when HE said one can have assurance of their salvation and depending on works , depending on one's self , one's works , puts an end to assurance doesn't it .

@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 subjective assurance of salvation is not the GOOD, what is the good is to hear God`s saying to us "you can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" and that my friend is not by faith alone, read Romans 2:6-8 and Galatians 6:8-10, salvation is not by faith alone, good works are necessary for salvation: faith without works is a dead faith and does not save.

Chris Robinson NT likely won't debate ever again. He's pretty busy and uninterested in most Christian criticism.

I don't. They're not equals. N.T. Wright is far more advanced as a scholar. It's not even close.

Very well said. Its obvious that Tom has a denominational bias when he apparently agrees with James (and essentially the apostle Paul) but ultimately sits on the fence, exactly like active members of the Orthodox church do when talking about the doctrine of justification.

Those saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) came to Christ by water baptism into Christ (Acts 19:1-5; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 18:8).

Who is the Reformed guy? One thing for sure, just because you are Calvinistic it does not make you Reformed. To be Reformed you must be confessional, hold on to infant Baptism. These so called “Reformed “ Baptist are anything but Reformed.

@@thereisnopandemic That's true. The idea of "reformed" means that you always go back to the scripture and that you hold Scriptures in a higher standard than you do traditions. But unfortunately, many people who call themselves "reformed" are just holding on to a tradition that they got from previous generation.

1689 London baptist confession is a confession. I would argue infant baptism is a holdover tradition from the Catholic Church. Just depends on your perspective and interpretation of scripture. Secondary issues, brothers 😘

I wonder where in Scripture the Reformed people read, that they believe in infant baptism...

Joseph Mauricio Flores You have to hold to infant Baptist Ian? Idk how you can say that. The 1689 LBC is a reformed confession of faith

Eli K please explain. If you don’t mind pointing out specifically It would be helpful for me. I grew up “a cultural Lutheran”, then became a Jehovah’s Witness and then left that cult and now am in the Christ. But I still have tons to learn.

You were not the first guy I see affirming it

Jane Smith have you read Romans 4?

Yes. Imputed righteousness through faith. This does not mean to me "I am the righteousness of God" as expressed in one Christian song.

But 2 Corinthians 5:21. How do you understand this and do you know David Ingles song which begins with those words? Anyone else care to comment?

Jane Smith I think 2 Corinthians 5:21 teaches substitutionary atonement.

Amen very few people are willing to accept this even though it’s blatantly the teaching of the Bible people can’t help but try and take the power away from God even though they don’t do it on purpose they still do it

Yes, this is definitely where he he is trying to bring the church into.

Have you changed much after 8 years?

Bloody heck! Yes!

39:51 lolololololololol

Flatus verified.

Omg, I'm dying

I thought that was a "hmmmm" by N.T. Wright, but it certainly could have been an air biscuit. lol

I totally agree. They're both biased in their denominational beliefs. James clearly expresses belief in monergism, while Tom agrees with him but ultimately sits on the fence like a typical Anglican

Ah but when a cage stage calvinist(James white) talks to anyone his man-made doctrine Trump's everything He can't help it Calvin made him do it

@Rodrick Evans The popular teaching is that righteousness of Christ is imputed to us while our sins were imputed to Christ. Even though Scripture never says that (Please feel free to correct me if you know of a passage that says otherwise). However note that righteousness was counted / reckoned to Abraham in response to Abraham's faith. This is without Abraham's sins being imputed to anyone

@@DrChrisPM Daniel 9:24, Jeremiah 23:6, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:21 Christ is our Righteousness. Isaiah 53 5,6,8,11, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Titus 2:14, Colossians 2:13-14 God placed our sins on Jesus

@@DrChrisPM Romans 4:24 literally says just that..

No. His point was to push back against Wright painting Reformers in a certain light, and James was simply saying that he has never had those views

Marty Robinson Academic credentials are not the issue, I agree, but White's deliberate deceit in having two dubious degrees from one dubious "school" (Faraston Seminary which renamed itself Columbia Evangelical) *is* an issue to me -- particularly when he is so ungracious to non-Calvinist Christians AND preaches a theology that is so repellent to unbelievers of good will and open mind.

+Marty Robinson Yeah it's pretty funny. It's usually attacks being made by uneducated and simple people that will attack credentials over the arguments being employed.

+20july1944 He preaches what the Bible says. Calvinism is very consistent with the Bible. People with your mindset that try to make Christianity appealing to people by changing it are why Evangelical Christianity and Christianity in general has suffered. You are taking away at God's sovereignty because you dislike the fact His will overrides yours. I don't care what unbelievers think, they are going to Hell so why drag me down with them. Also he went to a fairly new seminary, and even if he hadn't the amount of debates his done and books his published he would merit one just out of that. He's done more than most seminary doctorate graduates and has been a positive image for Christianity.

+Grapes of wrath Why does God *hate* the unelect so much, Grapes?

+grapes of wrath How do you define "love" in 1 John 4 "God is love"?

You're taking that out of context. Isaiah is speaking to a generation who sought righteousness by CEREMONY only. See Isaiah 1. So in the end of Isaiah when he says their righteousness is filthy rags, its because they rejected the MORAL side of the law. Learn to read. Also, Peter says "ADD TO YOUR FAITH VIRTUE, to virtue knowledge, etc." Real Christians are very well aware of that verse!!!!!!!! But you Calvinist devil worshipers only know Martin Luther's lies about faith alone.

David Brainerd "But you Calvinist devil worshipers only know Martin Luther's lies about faith alone." This coming from a man who rejects the Vessel God used (Paul) to deliver the gospel of Salvation to the Gentiles. You used a quote by Peter. Let's look at another quote: 2Peter 3:15,16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. So you call Paul false, quote Peter to prove a point, but according to you, Peter was deceived by the "false prophet" Paul. You should read to what Jesus says happens to those who slander the Apostles.

David Brainerd "Calvinist Devil Worshipers"? "A man that eloquent needs to be saved." -- Patton

Chad Daniels Amen...!

@@davidbrainerd1520 Isaiah 1 focus on Deuteronomy 32:1-42 which from verse 15 forward hits on negativity of both Jews and Christians. Then Isaiah 2 hits on Deuteronomy 32:43, the millenial reign verse and then he expounds on it. Also, not a calvinist, haha! Predestination is a garbage teaching and scripture is clear on the ability to lose salvation.

Ive heard him say that he does believe in an intermediary place, namely Paradise and he distinguishes it from heaven

@@artvanderlay1308 he does believe in heaven, but with an attempt to understand heaven through a Historically Jewish stand point. Largely, that heaven is the reality in which god’s will is done, treasures are stored, etc etc. bible project has a podcast series expounding on Israel’s understanding of heaven/afterlife. It’s our platonized western view of heaven that wright doesn’t believe in

+Nicholas Porter Thanks for the reply Bro, I agree NT Wright is formidable. However, I think that N.T. Wright's good scholarship and the relative lack there of in the opponent does not give warrant to the opponent to make ad hominem attacks. I think a good debater, if he finds himself in deep water, has to resort to a bit of humility in his conviction and not make ad hominem attacks. A humble conviction will at least make the listener respect him for the position his holds. I neither saw good scholarship nor humble conviction in Dr. White in this debate.

+Emmanuel Reagan To be fair, Wright also didn't answer White's final question to him: "Can you start along those line and lose that at some point down the road?" He was asking basically if Wright believed a believer and recipient of Jesus' life can fall away from the faith at some point down the line. Wright did not address his question (which is unfortunate because I would have liked to hear his answer).

+Josh Nielsen NT Wright answers that question at 1:11:30, spends about a minute and a half answering that question. You might say that the answer isn't satisfactory to you, which would be your rightful opinion to hold. Wright says that his ultimate ground is Jesus' death on the Cross, however he holds on the "Spirit driven holy living" Rom 8, 2 Cor 5, Rom 14 being given importance while fully depending on the Grace of God.

+Emmanuel Reagan James White asks if someone can fall away from God and instead Wright answers about what the basis of salvation is (which neither White nor I would disagree with). It was not an answer to the question. Wright said neither "yes" nor "no" - he only emphasized sanctification (good) and the fact that we will receive recompense for the deeds done in the body one day (also good). Yet he didn't answer is someone can fall away from God's grace permanently, as I believe Hebrews talks about (having once been enlightened by the Spirit but ending up trampling Christ and the blood of the covenant under foot). The closest Wright gets to saying anything on the subject in that minute a half is perhaps, via a slip on the first word(?), "Hopefully, what Paul says, the one who began a good work in you will bring it to completion". That "hopefully" is interesting. Perhaps Wright does think it is possible to fall away if you can only hope. As it turns out, if that's his position then I (currently) agree with him since I think one can lose their salvation in extenuating circumstances, but what is not so satisfactory is that he doesn't really address how that's possible given his view of justification. And that's exactly, however, what both James White and I wanted to know. I'm open to embracing eternal security (James White's position) if someone can disprove the possibility of falling away, but Wright did no favors for anyone on this subject since he didn't really say anything about it.

***** Unfortunately your reply doesn't bring us any closer to learning what Wright thinks about whether salvation can be lost or not. I am as capable as the next man of tracking people's counter-statements or the reframing/rephrasing of issues when someone doesn't want to give a simple yes/no answer to a question and address a root issue, but saying that I just don't understand the way Wright thinks is neither proven nor helpful to the matter being discussed. Nicholas though may be correct that he avoided answering the specific question because he didn't want to be the judge of the matter, yet non-committal could work against Wright (he must have an opinion or leaning in any case). However, If you know of another interview with Wright where he is clearer on the eternal security issue please feel free to share it, because he did not deal with it in this video so far as I have been able to discern.

@Caratacus who exactly mentioned Augustine

@Caratacus my apologies. Even so there are greek scholars today who disagree with Wright. Plus what Wright is doing is reading into certain passages what he want Paul to have said. Paul in Romans is very clear what justification means and Wright completely ignores that.

@Caratacus actually he has been situated in his historical context. What Wright is doing is taking Paul out of context. Jesus himself clearly stated that his rule isn't about this world. Our struggle isn't against the political establishment but it's spiritual. Wright does the same thing when talking about the law as Paul used it.

@Caratacus wow! The issue isn't creation as in the physical creation. When the scriptures say love not the world is it speaking about the created order?

@Caratacus you're just talking nonsense now. The problem is that Wright's and your view is that the justifying work if Jesus on the cross was to win victory over Ceasar which is utter nonsense. And for you to make such a nonsensical statement that Jesus command to love one another goes contrary to the statement love not the world and attribute that to me shows that you have very little understanding what is being discussed.

Well said and I totally agree, his Anglican bias can easily be seen and while he says time and time again that he agrees with James in the fundamentals of justification, he essentially sits on the fence regarding the issue. This is how the high Anglican church ultimately views the doctrine of justification. Its like Catholicism without purgatory, indulgences and penance etc

One only needs to look at the fruit of the souls from both camps. A tree is known by its fruits. And the old saying you are what you eat is true in the most spiritual sense as well. I had the fortunate/unfortunate privilege of being a child who’s parents divorced and had to attend a reformed camp one week and a orthodox (not catholic although I was raised by nuns) another week. And the difference in how people live their lives from the doctrine they believe is very obvious. We can look holy from different mind sets. From one that is grown out of faith and one that is grown out of works and one that is a healthy combination of both with Grace and faith as the catalyst. It wasn’t until I received the “Baptism of the Spirit” that it all began to make sense. I think this was a good debate and the a lot of the difference is in the semantics. It’s obvious that Holiness is expected in a son of God that is truly being lived and manifested but how that grows and how it s fed so that it does grow is the great question that has to be made clear. Both are right to a degree. Just like Paul would not throw the book of James in trash because he says we are justified by works. Paul said the same thing when he said “shall we continue in Sin that Grace may abound.? God forbid”. Titus says true grace and a living faith produces something. “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, TRAINING us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,” ‭‭Titus 2:11-12. And if these things be in you and working out in your life, your “faith” will be accredited as real righteousness. Jesus said many will say in that day, Lord Lord, and hear him profess, depart from me you who work lawlessness. Of course there so much that can be said, but in the end when Jesus looks at you, will he see a reflection of himself that is not from just a ethereal confession, but a genuine life that was like his. A life of Faith that was like his. A life of trust and obedience that was just like his. Shalom

@@preacherofthecross As a starting point, I believe in innerancy. Paul says we are Justified FREELY by God's grace. He states that Abraham believed God's promise and it was credited to him as righteousness. He teaches that receiving something that you worked for is receiving what you are owed, but grace is free and is the basis for our justification, therefore works have no merit before God and do not form the basis of our justification. James is addressing the issue of people claiming to believe who don't repent and he says that saving faith must be accompanied by works or else it is dead and was never genuine from the start. (But the works themselves do not justify) .As a footnote I believe James is taking about the justification (or vindication) of faith rather than justification by faith. He assumes that being declared righteous will lead to a changed life. Do you believe that Paul and James contradict each other? Do you believe in inerrancy? If you agree that Paul teaches justification by faith and not by works and James teaches that it's part faith and part works then you think God's word contradicts itself. I don't believe it does.

So, you don't understand what Wright believes

jahbrew I agree, I don't understand why it is so difficult to be honest as a christian, especially a theologian. I understand he didn't have time to prepare, but this stuff lives in Wrights head, it's part of him and is the truth for him, you don't need to go and study and prepare to have a discussion about truth. I am disappointed in White in this discussion.

margarita pri Reread your statement. For some strange reason, you accuse James white of being dishonest because he only had a couple days to study Tom Wright's work, but then you say Tom doesn't seem to be having any problems because this stuff lives in his head. Well...why would Tom have problems with articulating his own position? It's his own work. It lives in his head!

jahbrew 😁😁😁

NT Wright is kind of Arminian view.

In my opinion, White is ALWAYS in debate mode. I think from White's perspective he already knows the truth and for him these debates are more about influencing the audience through typical debate tactics than about getting to the truth. I find it to be dishonest and a disservice to the audience.

Synergy is seen many times in Scripture - but mostly in terms of evangelists working synergistically with God. Check out Strongs Concordance G4903, G4904. The word monergism/t is never used in Scripture. Finally, as regards salvation, it is Biblically more precise to use the term Conditional salvation as opposed to Synergistic salvation, at least as far as the evangelised person is concerned.

@@noelenliva2670 I have no memory of watching this video or commenting on it seven years ago. But I agree with your observation that monergy is not a Biblical concept. I don't know what you mean by 'conditional salvation' as being a Biblical term. I think I do know your meaning in saying that salvation is not synergistic, but I disagree. Salvation involves the ongoing process of being conformed to Christ in holiness, and of being fully freed of sin. While it is true that a person in one sense might say, "I have been saved", yet also, in view of the continuing need of sanctification, he might also say, "I trust that I am _being_ saved". If you take the time to look up each occurrence of the word 'save' and its cognates, I think you will find both of these senses used, and the latter of these senses implies synergism, especially. For example, I have been saved in baptism I Peter 3:21, but also, there are those who are in him who are in a process of _being_ saved I Cor. 1:18 (synergistically). There are other pasaages that I would read Scripture as saying that we save one another. (James 5:20, for example) Obviously, there is only one Savior, but we may be used of God in the ongoing salvation of brothers. Note, however, that Scripture does not restrict its use of the word 'save' to the narrow sense typical of modern Christian parlance.

@@Giant_Meteor Agreed with you 100%. When I say Conditional Salvation instead of synergistic salvation I'm really talking about semantics here. Because of all the baggage that Reformed folk have placed on synergism, using the term synergistic is now popularly understood as a form of works salvation. Conditional salvation on the other hand brings the dialogue back to a covenantal perspective in which Trusting/ Placing our Faith in Christ becomes a condition that we need to fulfil in order to become members of the New Covenant

Good point 👍

Absolutely, as Wright himself admits. He goes into this issue at some depth in his book The New Testament and the People of God.

I refer to NT Wright a lot in my studies, especially in his work on the historical Jesus and the resurrection. But on justification, I'll take what he says with a grain of salt. You can sense his biased denominational presuppositions as he sits on the fence regarding the theme. Justification and the gospel message proper go hand in hand, and Toms argument empties the cross of its power 1Corinthians 1:17-31

​@@artvanderlay1308😊

Piper misrepresents Wright. Read Wright's book on Justification.

Hellenic Prince “Justify” is used throughout the Bible to refer to someone “declaring [someone else] righteous”, using it to refer to “infuse righteousness” is rather odd, as what would you make out of “For by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified”? “... shall no flesh be “infused with righteousness”? Or “shall no flesh be declared righteous”. “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.” For if Abraham were infused with righteousness by works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God For if Abraham were declared righteous by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Which one makes the most sense to you? Penal justification through Faith Alone is the answer.

Perhaps you should try reading his book - a lot of great stuff! NT Wright has mentored JB in many ways.

There's only one thinker on that program.

@@padraighpearse8829 it's the moderator

Pathetic bias by most here, liberals being liberals

Not hard to confirm that Columbia IS INDEED a degree mill. Google it..

Columbia Evangelical Seminary. Really? I would not touch an honorary degree from that institution. D. Min is not rigorous enough for a conversation in New Testament theology. Enough said.

Tony Armour it’s always best to read Wright than listen to an hour discussion. You won’t have too hard of a time too since he’s written so many books. Also read the JETS article for a short summary of his view.

Tony Armor...Agree!

where

@Jesus Messiah 1 Corinthians 3:9

@@jacques9515 1 Corinthians 3:9

yes...nailed it.

it is in the context of evangelization not justification

I believe that James White did a fantastic presentation for the time allowed...

Why would you think he couldnt match his scholarship? Also, I hold no preference to one versus the other. I'd likely lean towards NT. I'm curious purely about the scholarship claim

Completely agree. Douglas Moo would have been a better match.

Faith is a thing of the heart. Verbal profession isn’t necessary. Also if she’s disabled to the point of not being able to grasp biblical truth then she will be saved. Not sure which church you went to this has pretty much been the stock reformed understanding as far as I can tell.

Textbook 1689 Baptist here… and you’re misrepresenting us.