Remember the lively discussion we had about whether being able to wave around a doctoral sheepskin entitles one to a "pass" from the First and Second great commandments? (I argued for the "No" position.)Today, I'm really wondering how those leaning in the opposite direction will, mm, "explain" the latest emulation from everyone's favorite oil-and-water man, the Bishop of Durham, the Right Hon. Rev. Dr. Nicholas T. Wright.
Offered yet another opportunity to sound the trumpet with a clear and hard-hitting witness to the waiting world, here's what Wright told The Australian (h-t James White), emphases and bracketed comments added:
"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.With our other recent discussion of Dynamic Equivalent versions fresh in my mind, I guess I have to allow that perhaps the good Bishop is reading out of a DE version of 1 Corinthians 15:14 that reads, "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is not as helpful as it might be, but still healthy and foundational; and your faith is in deep trouble, though you can still love Jesus and believe in Him passionately." Perhaps it also re-envisions verse 17 as really meaning, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith may still be passionate, and you can stop worrying about your sins."
"But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.
"Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. [My advice: don't even try to make sense of those two statements. That way lies madness.] The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. [In other words, Jesus and Paul were both wrong: some folks really do have a legitimate pretext for unbelief (John 9:41; 15:22-24; Romans 1:20; 3:19).]
"I actually think that's a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don't want to say he isn't a Christian. [Well, I guess if you don't want to say something, and you're an academic, you don't have to... is that it?]
"I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational." [But they can still love Jesus and believe passionately in Him... while calling Him a liar about arguably the central vindicating event of His earthly ministry.]
One must seriously ask the question: if Wright has a view of Christianity that pencils in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an optional add-on, and embraces Marcus Borg as a "passionate" and believing lover of Jesus... can there possibly be any doctrine that isn't optional? What would merit the apostolically-mandated "sharp rebuke" (Tit. 1:10)?
228 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 228 of 228Phil,
Your first paragraph contains factual errors.
Your second paragraph is nonsense.
I don't drink coffee. Espresso, yes. Coffee, no.
[Tim Keller gets abused. When I take issue, I'm the bad guy. N. T. Wright gets savaged. When I question the propriety of such attacks, my charity is questioned.]
Matt, DJP & others are the ones who asked for me to respond to the issue. I thought at the time that the request was disingenuous. (Your response makes me think I was right.)
Your reply makes my point in the previous post. ("OK, I've responded. Now you can all question my intelligence and state of grace.") You didn't respond to my statements or questions, either in the previous post or in an earlier one addressed to you.
Instead, you call into question my integrity.
If you go back to my first comment in this thread you will see that it is a question, not an accusation. My point was serious.
There is nothing anyone can say about the impropriety of the way people are being treated without that person being called a hypocrite.
You just did it again: Just a hint: take a hard look in the mirror.
I'm not complaining about your treatment of me. I don't need your approval. But this is the way you (pl.) treat everyone who disagrees with you.
Go ahead and dismiss me as an ignorant Arminian or a troublemaker. As you well know, those are logical fallacies.
At some point, maybe someone will get around to addressing the substance of my comments which I made after repeated entreaties.
Rod
leec,
This is quite amusing. You made a secoind post and started it with, Ooops, except for this part.
And what was your point? Your point was that I should have stopped before that statement and that it was there "only there to inflame and insult."
Is that not exactly what you and Phil did? Question my intelligence and state of grace? (Remembering that I'm on a Calvinist site, I now realize that I should have said "Christian maturity" rather than "state of grace.")
You said, "puts it in the perspective of a person who has some serious presuppositons and an axe to grind."
Was that intended to be an attack or a compliment?
Rod
Phil and LeeC -- I've been reluctant to say this, and still fear I'll regret it; but I more fear this generally very-well-focused discussion being diverted.
Since Rod's first drive-by, I have literally kept picturing a little yappy dog, running around and nipping at the heels of men who are trying to build something.
And when it succeeds in getting one to stop working and turn around, the dog runs away, yelping. Then, when they go back to work, it returns, with more nipping and yapping.
What we don't want to do is stop what we're trying to do, turn around, and let this worthwhile discussion degenerate into All About Rod.
It's not about Rod nor, for that matter, all about Wright.
It's about the Gospel, and the clarity with which it needs to be presented, and the responsibility borne by those to take upon themselves positions of leadership in the professing church.
One Dan's opinion, your mileage may vary.
"leec,
This is quite amusing. You made a secoind post and started it with, Ooops, except for this part.
And what was your point? Your point was that I should have stopped before that statement and that it was there "only there to inflame and insult."
Is that not exactly what you and Phil did? Question my intelligence and state of grace? (Remembering that I'm on a Calvinist site, I now realize that I should have said "Christian maturity" rather than "state of grace.")"
Lee here.
Ok, lets say you are correct. What I hear here is "Johnny did it so its OK if I do it too, even though I am complaining about Johnny doing it!" Now, I know for a fact that I never questioned your inteligence, or your salvation. I am not aware of where Phil did either.
Rod said:
You said, "puts it in the perspective of a person who has some serious presuppositons and an axe to grind."
Was that intended to be an attack or a compliment?
Rod
Lee here.
And thats the point, you seem to be here with a huge chip on your shoulder, and can only seethings in an attack or compliment perspective.
I have never intended to attack you. But I regularly read things from you that *I* can only interpret as snide. You seem gloss over that I am trying VERY hard to make it clear that this is how your posts read, as opposed to saying that is what you think or what you are.
Drop the sneering (or figure out why your posts are seen as such)and try to tell people why they are wrong using the Word and I think you would get a lot better responses.
GAH!
Sorry DJP. Too many posts to read I missed yours. (but in light of all that ya might want to rethink the whole yappy analogy, serves no point).
Yup, stay on target.
Is it loving to tell someone that does not believe in the ressurection, or even the diety of Christ that since they profess to love Jesus they are saved?
If that person got hit by a car and died only to find out he had been decieved and never knew the Christ of the Bible do you think they would thank you for your senstive stance while they were living that allowed them to continue on in their sins?
What would be the most loving thing that we could d for that person?
Lee,
You have this situation backwards. You accused me of something and in the process of that accusation did exactly what you were telling me I should not have done.
I do not think my comment was out of line. Your reaction and Phil's reinforce that.
I was serious that I meant "Christian maturity" rather than what you would understand by "state of grace."
When I asked, "Was that intended to be an attack or a compliment?" my point was that you meant it as a negative observation (an attack) but I see it as a compliment that someone believes that I have thought about things enough to have clear presuppositions.
Drop the sneering (or figure out why your posts are seen as such)and try to tell people why they are wrong using the Word and I think you would get a lot better responses.
There's not a thing I can do to keep people from seeing my comments as "sneering" short of agreeing with everything that Phil and Dan say.
I wouldn't say that I have a chip on my shoulder. But I would say that I feel that I am expected to abide by a standard that no one else follows.
Your heart my be in the right place. But if you took my perspective for a moment, you would see that even your comments would be taken as harshly as you take my comments. This is to say nothing of Phil who admits, "I may seem like a pretty hard-edged guy sometimes" and Dan who dismisses me as a yapping dog, a little one at that.
Thanks for your generosity regarding my intentions.
Rod
Now, an announcement that may provoke many varying emotional reactions:
That aroma (odor?) you smell is a further post I'm mixing, marinating and slowly baking, on various Biblical concerns highlighted by this whole discussion. Sort of a meta-reflection, to use the newly-popular Greek prefix.
You have been warned.
Dan, Phil and TeamPyro:
I have been recovering from oral surgery these past two days and have been on a fairly strong pain-killer as well.
I have just now read all of the follow up comments to my post yesterday. First of all, I want to apologize and ask forgiveness of Phil and the other TeamPyros for stirring the pot here - it was not my intention. In fact, my post came from the motive of burden for these men's souls; and not with the purpose to veer off thread or pronounce, what some might consider to be a "careless anathema" on N.T. Wright. I believe I have sufficient proof concerning his doctrinal moorings that necessitates us treating him as an unbeliever.
To clarify:
Dan said, "It's about the Gospel, and the clarity with which it needs to be presented, and the responsibility borne by those to take upon themselves positions of leadership in the professing church."
Amen dear brother. This is the nexus of the issue here, isn't it?
When a man like Wright affirms "Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately - it is very troubling.
But I believe it reveals something more about him more than it does about Borg. It reveals that he doesn't consider the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as essential or necessary truth/doctrine for someone to be a Christian (contrary to Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-17). But it also reveals what he believes the gospel to be; and if we take him at his words, he believes a different gospel which is no gospel at all.
Here are N.T. Wright's own disturbing words about other essentials of the faith (I have not included my own comments or comments from others about his views so to keep this comment a reasonable length-they speak for themselves):
1. “Justification: God's declaration, from his position as judge of all the world, that someone is in the right, despite universal sin. This declaration will be made on the last day on the basis of an entire life (Romans 2:1-16), but is brought forward into the present on the basis of Jesus' achievement, because sin has been dealt with through the cross (Romans 3:21-4:25); the means of this present justification is simply faith. This means particularly, that Jews and Gentiles alike are full members of the family promised by God to Abraham (Galatians 3; Romans 4).”
2. “This way of reading Romans has systematically done violence to that text for hundreds of years, and . . . it is time for the text itself to be heard again.” Wright goes on: “Paul may or may not agree with Augustine, Luther, or anyone else about how people come to a personal knowledge of God in Christ; but he does not use the language of ‘justification’ to denote this event or process.”
3. “Justification” in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about “getting in,” or indeed about “staying in,” as about “how you could tell who was in.” In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about sotierology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.
4. “What Paul means by justification . . . is not ‘how you become a Christian’, so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’ . . . [Justification] is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences.”
5. The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine in which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavour. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family. . . . The doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine.
6. “Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly . . . on the basis of the entire life.”
7. “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys, or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.”
Phil rightly concludes in his excellent paper on NPP and N.T. Wright in particular: [Wright] says he has no problem with what people mean when they say “the gospel,” and he also seems to try to stop short of explicitly denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the idea of propitiation, and the principle of penal substitution. But he does say that he can’t find those truths in Scripture. And if you’ll permit me to think in Greek categories for a moment, it seems to me that this is tantamount to suggesting that those doctrines are untrue.
There’s no room in the New Perspective—and no real need for—the classic view of the atonement as a vicarious payment of sin’s penalty. The idea of propitiation makes too much of divine wrath; the idea of penal substitution involves the imputation of my guilt to Christ; and the Reformation understanding of justification involves all of those things. Reject the historic principle of sola fide, and you’re left with every evil the Reformation rightly rejected.
That’s why I reject the New Perspective on Paul: because it’s not a new perspective at all, but a recycling and repackaging of several serious errors that have already proved their spiritual bankruptcy. May God raise up men who will take the Word of God and the problem of sin seriously, and refute this error for the heresy I am convinced it is.”
You may read Phil's excellent paper here. Phil is one of my favorite preachers and Christian thinkers today. He is a friend; and I am honored to minister at various conferences with him when in the providence of God I am afforded that opportunity. I wholly agree with his views.
So in conclusion:
This excellent post by Dan sparking us to reconsider these careless words by a church leader of Wright's notoriety; challenging us to uphold the gospel and stand for its truths uncompromisingly; and seriously asks the question "...if Wright has a view of Christianity that pencils in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an optional add-on, and embraces Marcus Borg as a "passionate" lover of Jesus... can there possibly be any doctrine that isn't optional?
Fair question; and the answer would be... no.
If some thought my language of calling Wright unregenerate as being too strong, I fully understand and will modify my words.
Let me say it in this way:
If one doesn't hold to the bodily resurrection of Christ as being essential for being a Christian; can deny and rewrite the classic and biblical doctrine of justification by faith--the heart of the gospel; rejects the imputed righteousness of Christ in salvation; and propagates the heresy of NPP as orthodox, can we--should we consider him a brother in the Lord? Should we not treat him as an unbeliever? For no other reason that he proclaims a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-9); and is factious by introducing destructive heresies into the church (Titus 3:10-11). He may not have rejected Christ (neither do the Romanists), but he has rejected His gospel (Matt. 7:21-23)!
Pastor Rod, thank you for responding to some of the questions before us. I wonder: Why have you ignored my posts, some of which were directly addressed to you?
Pastor Rod said:
Borg doesn't appear to be an orthodox Christian.
Is there any particular reason you've implied that, contrary to all his life's work and practice, he might be an orthodox Christian after all?
Pastor Rod said:
Wright was wrong to imply that he is.
Here, here.
Pastor Rod said:
This is an error of "wishful thinking."
I believe this begs the question. Can you show that this is an error of "wishful thinking" and not an error of ecclesiology? In the little of Wright's work that I've read, it seems that it is more likely that this is not a simple mistake that he wouldn't repeat with strangers, but that he would extend "Christian" status to all people like Marcus Borg. Wright implies this in the interview. Borg is the example, but Wright's words are, "I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection." You seem to assume that this is Wright, wishing against his theology, that Marcus Borg is a Christian. Dr. Thomas, who purports to have read much of Wright's work, implies in this comments thread that Wright is being consistent here. Probably, this indicates a carefully-worked-out position, rather than just rank emotionalism.
Pastor Rod said:
This one statement (in a nebulous context) does not overturn what he has written at length.
You're correct. It actually builds upon the foundation already laid. Men change over time, their beliefs generally developing along a track. I can trace my own theological journey over time. If, as you seem to be assuming, the interview clashes with the rest of Wright's work, we may assume:
1. That he has changed positions. This does not "overturn" his previous work, making it worthless, but it does "overturn" Wright's public position itself.
2. That he has made an embarrassing "goof." We can assume he will correct the mistake.
3. That he has attached an inconsistency to his otherwise unchanged system. We can assume that this, pointed out, will be acknowledged.
If Wright has previously indicated that men like Borg are not Christians, and now he comes out believing they are, then we see that he has changed his mind. However, all this is predicated on the assumption that the interview in question does not reflect Wright's mature position, and that, I think, is an unfounded assumption.
I may not be in a much better position to judge than you, but I have probably spent a good deal more time around Anglican priests and bishops and immersed in the Anglican Church than you, so let me offer the possibility that Wright is a "broad church" thinker. I realize that the comparison has become a cliche and is probably a caricaturization, but think of Douglas Wilson regarding the Roman Catholic Church. The famous Federal Visionist quote, "Grab them by their baptism," rings loudly in my ears when I consider someone like Wright. Wilson is a man with a high view of baptism (for a non-Anglican, non-Lutheran, non-Catholic). He believes that Roman Catholics are Christians by virtue of their baptism. Wright, on the other hand, is a bishop in the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church has a high view of baptism as well. In fact, in our (ECUSA's) Book of Common Prayer, the baptismal service is preceded by a rubric that begins like this:
"Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ's Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble."
~~BCP p.298
The Episcopal Church recognizes the baptisms of the RCC, the Orthodox Churches, every major Protestant group, and probably every minor one as well. Wright presumably has a similarly high view of baptism. I don't have a copy of the CoE's prayer book, so I can't be sure what their rubric for Baptism includes. The point is, being a good Anglican means having a broad view of the Church (hint: I am not a good Anglican for this and other reasons). One of many reasons the Puritans and other nonconformists left the CoE was because they did not share the broad road. We celebrate entirely open communion-- if you've been baptized in any denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.), you're invited. Marcus Borg would be eligible for Communion at most Anglican churches. He has been baptized, and he may receive communion. He has not been disciplined in the Anglican Church. As far as I can tell, Wright's declaration that Borg is a Christian agrees with his status in the Anglican Church.
So... that brings us back to my original point: I believe that Wright is being more consistent than you give him credit for.
Pastor Rod said:
Bring "right" does not give one license to be unkind. "Speaking the truth in love" is not automatically fulfilled by speaking the truth.
Amen. What is unkindness?
Is this the same Wright that James White will be debating tomorrow?
No, White is debating a Mr. White who is a former lawyer (I think?) and a Baptist. The debate will be over Calvinism. N.T. Wright is the Anglican Bishop of Durham, a world-renowned biblical scholar who basically makes it part of his job to hand the Jesus Seminar's work back to them with red ink all over it. He's also a man of controversy in Reformed circles not because he opposes Calvinism per se, but because he introduces an entirely new framework for understanding Paul (among other things). Wright is a brilliant man, but his work is extremely worrisome to many (including myself) who consider themselves evangelicals.
Like Steve Camp, I believe that there is ample evidence to be found in the writing of N.T. Wright to make us concerned for his soul, but if, like Wright, you consider justification by faith alone to be a "second-order" doctrine, you're probably scandalized by that statement.
OK, instead of spending any more time trying to figure out what Wright said here, I'm posting a request to all you Wright fans out there: what of Wright's do I need to read in order to understand what he believes? If I want primary sources, where do I go?
What I'm trying to get at is that, as I've read rebuttals of Wright's critics, they are referred to various other documents. For instance, I was over reading The Shape of Grace, and in there Wright says: "I spent two hundred pages in The New Testament and the People of God establishing my positions inch by inch", and then goes on to mention 2nd Temple Judaism literature. And this, it seems, is just the tip of the iceberg.
So, for those who are of a favourable persuasion, what is the minimum I (or anyone else so inclined) can read to understand Wright's views?
Wright's book Simply Christian is written as an apologetic to unbelievers, but I felt it was a good introduction to his overall approach.
NTAPG is the hardest Wright book because it contains about 200 pages of foundational methodology, mostly in historical method and literary/worldview theory. It is tough sledding, but there is no doubt that he builds on that foundation for the rest of his "Christian Origins" project.
Personally, I found Jesus and the Victory of God to be incredibly helpful to my own understanding of the New Testament. You have to realize that Wright is a historian, and he is going to put real demands on your presuppositions about a lot, especially in eschatology. Like any provocative writer, I think he often misses the target but stimulates the reader to really think and rethink.
For a person who doesn't like scholarly work, I would recommend either Mark for Everyone or Romans for Everyone, which is two volumes.
If you wanted to get a better/clearer view of Wright on Paul, he has a new book on Paul that seems better organized than WSPRS. The book is Paul in Fresh Perspective.
I would close by saying the audio library at the NT Wright page has a lot of basic material. Look at the four "Jesus and..." messages.
If you are willing to consider that Wright isn't the antiChrist and is a Christian brother, with his own failures and flaws as all of us do, he is a fine teacher.
Matt, if you stop posting here out of shame for the little voice in your head that begins to whisper, "This guy is good," I'll understand. Completely.
iMonk: Thanks.
CJD: Don't hold your breath.
Just because I don't think he's the antiChrist doesn't mean (per our other discussion) I'm ready to accept what he's teaching as biblical, particularly when it comes to his definition of justification. But I'm gonna dig a little deeper.
Seeing how he views God's work as being part of the covenant, at least now I can understand why Auburn Avenue folks would go for his teaching.
You've got that right (about the Auburn Ave. folks). When I think of sickeningly guru-like adoration of Wright, I think of them. But let's always be careful not to conflate Auburn Avenue with NPP.
To borrow from Steve Camp's earlier comment:
->Dan said, "It's about the Gospel, and the clarity with which it needs to be presented, and the responsibility borne by those to take upon themselves positions of leadership in the professing church."
Amen dear brother. This is the nexus of the issue here, isn't it?
When a man like Wright affirms "Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately" - it is very troubling.<-
One doesn't have to consider Wright to be "the antiChrist" to reach the conclusions stated above. All it takes is reading the comment that prompted this post as well as other statements Wright has given, such as undermining the doctrine of imputation in WSPRS with quotes like, "Righteousness is not an object, a substance, or a gas which can be passed along the courtroom" (98)," to conclude that Wright is NOT "a fine teacher".
For no matter how much Wright might provoke us to think, or how much insight he might have into certain subjects, when it comes to the main point- the point of all points, the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ- then Wright stumbles.
Luther has been famously quoted as saying, "the Cross alone is our theology," but Wright has obscured true theology- the true knowledge of God- by obscuring "the message of the Cross"- the teaching of what Christ actually accomplished for His people through His sacrificial death in our place. This message, which should rightly include the idea of imputation, is foolishness to him, as demonstrated by his own quotes in WSPRS, and if his friend finds the physical resurrection to be foolish as well, then Wright may respectfully disagree with him, but, in true post-modern fashion, Wright will not identify his faith as entirely false and call him to true repentance.
Concerning the things mentioned above, Wright can be contrasted with the current teachers of the Christian faith who clearly speak forth the Gospel message. Many of us are going next week to the "Together for the Gospel" conference. Now, there are many differences in the religious views of several teachers who will be there. Differences in matters such as eschatology and spiritual gifts, and even differences in such foundational areas for the Church such as the right observance of the ordinances (or sacraments) and in covenant versus dispensational theology. But the reason all of these men can be considered fine teachers, in contrast to Wright, is that they are entirely united when it comes to a clear presentation of the Gospel message. You will never find a quote from Mohler, Piper, Sproul, Dever, etc. that will leave you wondering whether they believe that a belief in the resurrection is necessary for salvation. You will never hear of them giving false assurance to those who clearly reject the teaching of Christ. And clarity in this Gospel message- fidelity to the inerrant and sufficient Word of God alone- and not philosophical ideas or historical speculations- should be what we look for first and foremest when deciding what teachers should be allowed to influence our thinking.
Romans 10:9,
"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." [emphasis added]
The original point of this post is that the statements like that given by Wright tend to obscure the fact that the emphasized phrase above is essential to the Gospel message.
didn't assert he wasn't a Christian, just not a fine teacher
dr. thomas,
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone, and this is for the glory of God, by becoming His workmanship, which is by His grace as well.
The devil believes Jesus is Lord, and trembles.
It is faith alone in the gospel truth, and we need to show our faith by our works. Fruit needs to be evident in the believers life.
There will perhaps be some in this life who have a tremendous ability to resemble Christians, but are not truly born-again. Judas was never detected by the Apostles, and the Lord allowed him to join Him as a disciple, though he was a false-disciple from the begining.
Thanks for stimulating my mind this morning with your fine questions.
dr "t",
Satan knows and believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He doesn't confess it as such.
How about where Legion says, "What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me."
Also, "And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, 'You are the Son of God.' But He sternly warned them that they should not make Him known." Mark 3:11-12
"And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying,'You are the Christ, the Son of God!' And He, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that He was the Christ." Luke 4:41
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
Amen, dr t.
The grace of God providentially works in the human heart, and because of His great mercy, brings that same heart into a relationship with the Lord of lords Jesus Christ, and we then are confessing He is our Lord.
I agree with your statement.
Dr. Thomas said:
Can someone tell me how I can be saved? I have faith in Jesus but I am not sure that my doctrine is perfect enough.
Why not, instead of asking loaded or leading questions, try doing something a bit more fitting a doctor? You assume the direction of the conversation at every step instead of attempting to ascertain by honest questioning what is being said. You sound more like a Cynic than a Socratic.
Back to the point: Your point fails to take into account that there is implied a level of "doctrinal purity" within the phrase, "faith in Jesus." What is faith? Who is Jesus? What does the word "in" imply? Each of these things have their proper context, outside of which they mean nothing salvific. When you say you have "faith in Jesus," my assumption (unless you prove otherwise) is that you mean what the Bible means. However, if you were to define faith as "mere mental assent," I would object to your profession. Your "faith" is not biblical faith. Likewise, if you define "Jesus" as an historical figure and a 2nd Temple Jewish "Spirit Person" who preached that the Kingdom of God opposes all "domination systems," who died on a cross, the end; and that "Jesus" is also Lord in the sense that his followers, after Easter, began to see that he really lives even though he died (though nothing happened to reanimate a corpse, nor did Jesus historically appear after his death in a disembodied state), that is, that he lives on in some other sense; then I'd say the object of your faith is defective, as well. If a man gives us reason to question his profession, it's our duty as Christians to warn the Church against his dangerous teaching. You are objecting because some people have questioned Wright's profession of faith. You seem to be under the impression that they don't have sufficient reason to do so. However, you haven't really given any type of framework within which you can expect a decent answer. Saying, "So, how reformed do I have to be?" is really a worthless question. Your question really seems to be, "What is the Gospel, according to those who believe Wright's confession is flawed?" That question, answered, would tell us who's "in" and who's "out".
Dr. Thomas said:
ok ajlin, that was what I thought. Now are we saying NT Wright doesn't beleive Jesus is Lord (he has written many books arguing that Jesus is Lord) or that NT Wright doesn't beleive God raised him from the dead (he has written expansivly to prove just that point)?
Again, Dr. Thomas, the declaration, "Jesus is Lord," has an important context. I believe that Wright's concept of Christ's divinity, lordship, and identity are sufficiently different from historical Christianity's that even that simple statement, which Wright affirms to be the most succinct proclamation of the Gospel, are to be scrutinized. You seem to be thinking all we have to do is make sure that Wright claims that Jesus is Lord, and all will be well, he'll be vindicated, and you've won a debate. This, of course, begs the question, since we haven't established that what Wright means is the same as what the Scriptures teach with regard to that central declaration.
Regarding the Resurrection, what you've failed to deal with in this entire discussion is that, whether Wright believes in the Resurrection or not, taking Marcus Borg to be a Christian indicates that believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ and believing, as Borg does, that the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith are not the same, are not differences which constitute a different object of faith.
Dr. Thomas said:
Now you have confused me. I am worried for my salvation. You see, I believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord and I believe that he was bodily resurrected but I am worried it is "just mental assent". I didn't see that disclaimer in Rom 10:9 but I am taking your word for it that it is a biblical qualification.
Dr. Thomas, I get the impression that you aren't taking this conversation very seriously at all. Is Romans 10:9 the only place in Scripture that tells us about saving faith? No. This is why I pointed out to you earlier that these words have a wider context. I assumed that, as one who obviously reads theology and participates in theological discourse, you would be familiar with the phrase, "mere mental assent." I apologize if this was an unwarranted assumption. The idea of "mere mental assent" is the concept broached by James in his epistle.
Jam 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jam 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
Jam 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jam 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jam 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.
Jam 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
The man "without works" is like the demon who believes in God, but who nevertheless do not serve Him. Their hearts of stone have not been replaced with hearts of flesh; they are not regenerated; they are not partakers of the New Covenant. We can spend a long time on this, if you need to, but I believe you knew what I meant before I began. Words have meanings, and the meaning of "Jesus Christ is Lord" within the Bible is controlled by the rest of the Bible.
Dr. Thomas quoted me:
"Regarding the Resurrection, what you've failed to deal with in this entire discussion is that, whether Wright believes in the Resurrection or not [because he didn’t say Borg was hell bound Wright is also hell bound – forgive the paraphrase]”
I'm sorry, Dr. Thomas, but our communication has broken down somewhere along the line. I did not say that, because Wright deems Borg a Christian, Wright is therefore not a Christian. Maybe it would be easier to understand if I said it like this:
1. Wright has faith in Jesus
2. Wright believes that only faith in Jesus indicates that a person is a Christian
3. Wright believes that Borg is a Christian
4. Therefore, Wright believes that Wright and Borg both have faith in Jesus
They have the same object of faith, from Wright's perspective. That's all I said there. Do you disagree with this? Is there an error in my logic so far?
Dr. Thomas said:
So Paul’s comment in Romans 10:9 needs to be qualified as to say that ‘whomever believes that Jesus is Lord, rose from the dead, and thinks that Borg and his ilk are going to hell’ will be saved?
I am being sarcastic here, of course, but is this what you believe? Is having a proper view of other peoples salvation key to your own? What is your biblical defense for such a claim?
Since this really isn't anything like what I said, I won't say too much about it. However, I will say this: Your argumentation proves too much-- if we can't "qualify" biblical statements by interpreting them in light of the rest of biblical data, then we should take Romans 10:9 to mean that one could hate Jesus, but acknowledge his lordship and resurrection, and be saved.
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
To deny Jesus resurrected from the dead, is to deny our justification.
This isn't optional--its essential.
Anyone who denies the resurrection is not saved; worse he worships a god of his own imagination---one that can't save and one that is no better than Buddah or a ghost.
What's astonishing to me is that many "conservative Christians" deny the necessity of beliving in the resurrection of Christ to be saved or even considered a Christian.
Has anyone looked at what John Frame of RTS believes about the resurrection? How about Matt Slick of the CARM apologetics website that so many articles and other Christian websites link to? These men have stated that its not necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. The arguement goes on to say that to reject it is wrong, but to not know it is totally different. After all, the saints in the NT, didn't know Jesus would be resurrected; babies don't know;someone dying on their deathbed who might be, say, a universalist, doesn't know. I couldn't disagree more, particularly after the ascention (sp) of Jesus and the completion of Scripture.
If Jesus is not proclaimed to be resurrected from the dead, one has not heard the gospel. If he has not heard the gospel, he isn't saved because he hasn't trusted in the Jesus of the Bible.
According to Marcus Borg, focusing on the actual Resurrection , "is an enormous distraction'. Using the text from a novel he quotes "Why should I worry about what happened with his earthly bones?" He's a sly one https://youtu.be/W9dsujHwKdE?t=176
Jesus is both Lord and GOD. He is The LORD GOD. To say He was not Resurrected exactly as He said he would be makes God and all the apostles liars. His Jesus is a different Jesus. The Spirit of Truth could not be sent in His Likeness if He had not died and been Resurrected. Knowingly knowing he is part of a committee the edited out large chunks of what they thought Jesus said, might have said, and likely never said. Here is more about him and his 'Jesus Seminar'. He speaks with all kinds of words, as we know: "I will frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent, the wisdom of the wise will be made for naught". "Being wise in their own eyes, they became fools". He might as well be a Muslim who says he was never Crucified yet ascended, which is the other side of the same coin. https://www.challies.com/articles/the-false-teachers-marcus-borg/
Post a Comment