Exposing And Expelling Heretics (Part 4)

Today we continue on our expository journey through the Epistle of Jude. Jude represents the first expository assignment I have been tasked with in our church plant in Denmark - Kristuskirken. Though short in length, Jude is a letter jam packed with information on why we should hunt down false teachers that conceal themselves in the church, how we should identify them, and that we as Christians should go to war against them secure in the knowledge of being kept in the safety of God's preserving grace. Much of the credit for this series must go to John MacArthur whose teaching on this Epistle has been my major source.

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: 2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1-4)

Jude wanted to comfort the true believers before he called them to fight a truth war against the false teachers who were among them. And he comforted them with the doctrine of election. Yes the doctrine that many people hate is the doctrine that Jude appeals to when he wants to comfort the true believers in the Father’s love.

To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ. (Jude 1b)

Those that the Father calls, He loves. Those that He loves, he keeps. If it was up to us we would fall away.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (John 6:37)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. (John 10:27-31)

As we can see, the Pharisees didn’t like election either. Some people argue that teaching this security is too much comfort. That it promotes freedom to sin. Is that the case? Teaching "once saved always saved" is not the problem. The problem these people have is a wrong understanding of conversion. Of the miraculous nature of conversion where God takes out our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh and causes us to walk in obedience to his laws. That’s why we have the story of the sheep and the goats. Because the works of the sheep did not earn them God’s favor, it demonstrated God’s transforming work in their lives. Our eternities rest completely in the finished work of our righteous substitute – Jesus Christ. What about free will? Unless God saves us and changes us then our free will, will always freely choose rebellion against God.

God’s church, the bride of Christ is beloved and precious to Him. It is difficult to discuss this in a therapeutic self-esteem society where we love ourselves so much. But if we understand our sinfulness and unworthiness then we have some context for how loved we are by God.

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Well where is God when life is hard? Go forward to Romans chapter 8:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Now most of us know that verse but what comes after? Remember that Jude comforted the believers that those who God calls, He loves, and those who he loves He keeps:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died-more than that, who was raised-who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:29-39)

Because Jude has experienced God’s great love he is able to express his love for his audience:

May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. (Jude 2)

As we go in to verse 3 we see that Jude’s call to fight false teachers was driven by his deep love for God and His church and His Gospel:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

Jude’s desire was to write to them about their common salvation – it is a common salvation. Christianity does not have a class structure. But what Jude is about to show is that it does have imposters, pretenders, and fakes. He could have warned about the lions in the coliseum but he was saying the greatest danger was from the inside. This common salvation was once for all delivered by Christ. There is One God, one Gospel, One Savior, one way. Don’t let people ever say to you that they think Jesus is one of many good teachers alongside Mohammed and Buddha and Gandhi. Paul said that:

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31)

Luke said there is no other Name given under heaven by which all men must be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6) and there is no other way – everyone else is wrong! (Not very postmodern, that Jesus.) These people who claim that Jesus is one of several or many ways should at least have the integrity and courage to either reject Jesus as a false teacher or reject everyone else and embrace Him as the only True Savior. There is no middle ground with Jesus. This once for all delivered faith is worth fighting for and Jude is calling the church onto the battlefield. This Gospel is so sacred it leaves no room for alternatives, no room for change, no room for expansion, and no room for adjustment.

“We do what we can and Jesus does what we can’t” – wrong get out from among us! This One Gospel is for people who see that there is nothing they can do.

“God helps those who help themselves” – wrong get out! This One Gospel is for helpless people.

“Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone . . . but you have to get baptized first” – wrong get out! This One Gospel is 100% delivered.

“You are saved by trusting in Jesus Christ alone, and then you maintain your salvation through your works” – wrong get out NT Wright!

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

This once for all delivered faith is for hopeless, helpless, hell deserving sinners who realize that they can do nothing but look in repentance to a perfect, righteous, and merciful Savior to take the punishment that they deserve and give them His righteousness that they don’t deserve. If that was a job description – it would be describing the thief on the cross.

Have you ever noticed how many church leaders think that those who expose false teachers are unloving? Jude’s motive for writing here is love. What would you think of a doctor who told your mother that her health is fine when the scan revealed cancer? That doctor would get fired for malpractice. Any preacher who tells people that there is no hell and everyone is going to heaven should be forever banished from the pulpit for spiritual malpractice and sent out into the world in the hope that he might repent and get saved. I’ve heard it preached in churches in Denmark and I struggle to think of anything more evil and unloving than to preach a message that will damn people. Paul pronounces damnation on all those who preach any other Gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) than the one that was once for all delivered. We are in the business of life and death, heaven and hell, repent or perish. Should we expect anything less than a war? And this is not a place for those who get some cheap thrill out of tearing people down. It is for people like Jude who love God, love His truth, love His Gospel, and love His church. If you are unwilling to contend then you are unloving.

To be continued next Friday . . .

Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

God Is Not The Author Of Confusion - But NT Wright Is A Strong Contender

Brian McLaren is getting some stiff competition from NT Wright in the "Confusion of the Obvious" stakes. NT Wright denies the truth of Genesis and that Adam was a literal person, thus denying the fall and grounds for redemption in Christ. He just has a very long winded, mind numbingly boring, and Gospel illiterate way of doing it . . .



Such an attack on the authority of Scripture is worthy of total mockery. And someone has beaten me to the punch:

Tom Wright Reads Humpty Dumpty

"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall"

Clearly the writer is telling an Israel story, and here alludes to the Temple. This echoes other lines in early 2nd Nursery Literature, such as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard (the “storehouse” of the Temple) and the bone (resurrection life) which she sought for her dog (“Gentiles”). “But when she got there, the cupboard was bare and the poor little doggie had none.” The temple had nothing to offer the Gentiles, and they thus remained in their state of Adamic sin and decay.

So here, too, one should not be surprised to discover that the Temple and its “wall” are bankrupt. The next line, then, is not a shock, but an expectation:

"Humpty Dumpty had a great fall"

Again, this is patently a forecast of the Temple’s destruction (and contra Crossan and Borg, an entirely possible historical forecasting). Doubtless this claim is intended to lead the reader to ponder the eschatological recreation of the Temple. Since Humpty stands for the Temple, he seems to be sharing in the divine identity, functioning as the locus of God’s presence, not outside of, but within creation.

Of course, this fall is an exile of sorts, the loss of God’s presence. The tension is palpable: how will humpty’s story not turn out dumpty? In other words, this line presupposes what I have called elsewhere the great metanarrative of humpty, not least the promise of resurrection.

"But all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put humpty together again."

So the Temple will be built again, but not by human hands. Many have undertaken to suggest that this passage runs counter to a belief in resurrection. But this atomistic reading of the text lacks imagination. Of course, it is the king himself who will put humpty together again, and this great act will complete the metanarrative.

After all, Humpty is the place where the Creator God is resident with his creation. But the human inability to recreate Humpty does not negate all human effort for creation, which should be done in light of the proleptic nature of the king’s restoration of Humpty and all creation.

Written in Durham Cathedral, dedicated to Rowan Williams’s left eyebrow.

(Courtesy of Jason Hood at the Society For The Advancement of Ecclesial Theology)

Exclusive Interview With Phil Johnson (Part 1) - Is NT Wright A Heretic?

During my visit to the USA earlier this year I had the great priveledge of interviewing Phil Johnson. For those of you who don't know, Phil is a thundering preacher with a sharp satirical wit who serves alongside John Macarthur at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. This satirical wit gets ably demonstrated on his immensly popular blog - Pyromaniacs - which is a rich blend of satire and reformed theology. Phil is also one of the world's foremost authorities on the great 19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon and runs the online Spurgeon Archive which contains almost anything and everything regarding the "prince of preachers". Phil Johnson is an outstanding and well researched Christian apologist and I was thrilled at the opportunity to ask him some questions.

In this first part of the interview I ask Phil Johnson about NT Wright and "The New Perspective on Paul". If you read much of NT Wright's work you will realize that he has had an enormous influence on most of the main teachers within the emergent movement, particularly concerning the Atonement. A lot of what Wright says and teaches is alarming and yet ambiguous enough for him to survive as a respected "evangelical Christian". Phil Johnson has done his homework on this subject and has some sharp things to say (which serve as a sharp contrast to the second rate cameraman).



Go On To Part 2

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 4)

Today I will continue responding to Gandalf's letter/response to my recent series on NT Wright where I severely criticized Wright for corrupting the Gospel by denying penal substitutionary atonement. I know Wright says he affirms it, but if you read the series you will see how this is standard practice for Wright to affirm something when he is really only affirming his own redefining of critical biblical truths.

The third point of Gandalf's letter I wish to respond to is the following:

You repeatedly note that certain concepts and issues are missing in Wright's books or are presented in sketchy or ambiguous manner (individual sin, hell etc.).

Have you read "Surprised by Hope"? I did not find you quoting that in your posts. In that book I found both explanation for his lack of mentioning certain things in other booke in detail, namely, that he likes to view all things as "big picture" where God wants to redeeem and bring back to right the whole cosmos (with the fate of individuals just being part of it, like in a puzzle consisting of numerous pieces but all belonging to the same story). However, in the same book he really gives explanations for questions like individual sin (includng an explanation of the word hamartia), final judgment and hell.

You probably will object to his view that hell isn't like a torture chamber in the midst of Gods kingdom and that he very much follows a middle ground between traditional teaching and a view that sees the lost ones simply becoming what they desire/practise (a grumble instead of a grumbling man or woman is an example for this from "The great Divorce") and hence being at some point no longer humans in Gods image. But I think you'll have to admit that he teaches final judgment with two outcomes, completely dismisses universalism and that God really cares for righteousness and is not laissez-faire with sin on an individual level.

The comments Gandalf is referring to is my critique of Wright's book "Simply Christian" which is supposed to be a book that summarizes the Christian faith. It is a bad joke when Wright tries to summarize Christianity in a book and ignores issues as big as Christ's deity, the Atonement, personal sin, judgment, and God's wrath (at least in a specific personal sense). Even if he discusses these things in another book (which we will get to next), it is unbelievable that these issues would find themselves scant or absent from his summation of Christianity. It is always difficult to figure out where Wright stands on so many issues because he seems to dwell in a shroud of smoke, never being explicit or clear on things in which Scripture is both explicit and clear. In these hazy postmodern times of vagueness I think it would be worthwhile to heed the counsel of the great theologian George W Bush - "if they're not for us then they're against us".

Anyway, for the sake of Gandalf I will close with Thomas Schreiner's (professor of New Testament at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author, most recently of New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ) assessment of Wright's book "Surprised By Hope".

How should we assess Surprised by Hope? Wright's fundamental thesis here is correct. Heaven will be on a new earth, and therefore it must not be regarded as floating in some kind of spiritual never-land. We look forward to our future resurrection, and to the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells. Wright's defense of the resurrection of Christ, defended more fully in his major book on the topic, is the finest treatment I have read on the subject. Wright does affirm the intermediate state, but he rightly stresses that the future hope of believers is the resurrection. Furthermore, Wright is on target in saying that we are to strive for justice, truth, and beauty in this world. Some believers have said that this world is destined for destruction, and hence only focus on the salvation of the lost.

Yet there are some significant problems with the book. Surely some believers have mistakenly thought that heaven was only spiritual, but many (most of those I know) do not conceive of heaven in this way. We could say that Wright exaggerates his thesis to make his point. Well and good. Still, he is excessively critical of the phrase "go to heaven." After all, we have a number of statements in Scripture about entering (going to!) the kingdom in the future (e.g., Matt. 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23-24; Mark 9:47; 10:15; John 3:5; Acts 14:22). Scripture also speaks of heaven as a realm above and separate from us (Matt. 6:1, 9, 10, 20; 18:10; Luke 24:51; John 1:51; Acts 1:10; 2 Cor. 12:2; Col. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:4). That does not, to be sure, communicate that our future destiny is non-physical, but it does stress that it is a realm separate from our present existence. Yes, Wright is correct in saying that heaven will be a transformed earth, and that heaven will come, so to speak, to this world. But since the Scriptures also speak of us "entering" the kingdom; since they speak of heaven as a world above and beyond us; and since the new creation is not yet here in its fullness, I don't believe it's wrong to say that we will "go there," as long as we recognize that this is just one of the ways to express the reality that awaits us. In fact, Wright's protests against using the phrase "go to heaven" betray an overly literal understanding on his part. Hence, against Wright, the hymn Away in the Manger does not contradict Scripture when it asks God to "fit us for heaven, to live with thee there" (p. 22).

As noted above, Wright often emphasizes that our work in this world is important. Christians ought not to think that their work in politics, economics, business, art, and so forth is insignificant. There has been a kind of pietism that has denigrated such work. Still, it isn't clear that forgiving third world debt is a moral obligation on the same level as abolishing slavery. Wright too confidently dismisses all who disagree with him on this matter, sweeping away any objections with rhetorical statements. Moral claims in the public sphere must be advanced by careful reasoning, and Wright does not provide arguments to support his conclusions. Perhaps in the future he will tackle the matter with reasoned public discourse instead of dicta from above.

Wright commends evangelism as part of our work as believers, but he clearly emphasizes being engaged in the political sphere. Surely Wright has his emphases backwards here. The Scriptures teach that only those who believe in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins will enjoy the new creation. Isn't the most important thing for human beings, therefore, to gain acceptance into this new creation? Aren't there great artists and gifted politicians who have improved our life in this world (for which we are all thankful), and yet who will not be part of the new creation because they have rejected the gospel? Moreover, while Wright correctly affirms that everything done in this world matters, there is also discontinuity between this world and the next. The curse of Genesis 3 will not be lifted until Jesus comes again. Our work in this world is provisional and always touched by the curse. The invention of the car solved a pollution problem in the streets caused by horses, but no one foresaw that it would cause pollution problems of its own.

All this is to say that the call for Christians to evangelize remains more pressing than any call to work in the political sphere, even though all our work in this world is significant. Wright emphasizes that the good news of the gospel is that Jesus is Lord, but, as John Piper has pointed out, this isn't good news if you're still a rebel against God; its terrifying news. The New Testament is permeated with the message that we must turn from our sins and put our faith in Christ. Wright does not disagree with the need to do so, but he seems to be most excited about our work in the political and social sphere.

I could perhaps understand why Wright would stress social concerns if England's churches were full and thriving—as if almost everyone was a believer. But what is curious is that England's churches are empty, and unbelief is common. It seems that a bishop in these circumstances would vigorously call upon the church to evangelize, and would emphasize the need to put one's faith in Jesus Christ and to turn from one's sins. I don't see that urgency in Wright's writing, and therefore he veers from the message of Jesus and the apostles.

I would also mention some bits and pieces of the book that call out for comment, even if I don't have space here to interact with them here in detail. For instance, Wright contends that Jesus never spoke about his return. He defends this claim in other works, but it's a controversial point. Here I simply want to register my disagreement with his exegesis.

Also, Wright correctly says that justification by faith and judgment according to works do not conflict (p. 140), but he gives us no help in seeing how these two themes fit together. Readers would be helped in knowing how the two themes cohere. Putting these truths together wrongly can lead to a final curse (Gal. 1:8-9), and hence Wright must be clearer in explaining the gospel in his exposition.

The section on purgatory is nicely done, showing that purgatory is absent from the biblical witness. But Wright falls into inconsistency when he endorses praying for the dead since this practice is not found in the Scriptures (p. 172). He does rightfully rule out invoking the saints for assistance.

Contrary to Wright, Jesus' statements about gehenna do not refer to the judgment of A.D. 70, though I cannot defend this argument here. Nor do I think Wright is correct in saying that judgment is a minor theme in the letters. The theme is pervasive in them, but, again, that would take too long to defend here.

Too often Wright prosecutes his case by caricaturing a view and then introducing his own view as the solution. Hence, he rightly rejects the notion that hell is a torture chamber, but his own view of hell seems to be shorn of any notion that God punishes those who refuse to believe in Christ. Wright argues that those in hell lose the divine image, and this may well be part of the picture. Nevertheless, many texts speak of God's active punishment of the wicked. Since Wright summarizes his view and does not engage in detailed exegesis, I assume he would offer a different interpretation of the relevant texts. Still, it's difficult to see how God's active punishment of the wicked can be denied (e.g., Rom. 2:8-9, 16; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.).

Wright appeals to many because he is brilliant and fascinating, and some of what he says is helpful. Nevertheless, his failure to emphasize the centrality of the gospel is troubling, and pastors who find his work illuminating need to be careful that they do not veer away from their central task of proclaiming the good news to a lost generation.

Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 2)

In my previous post I published a comment made by "Gandalf" which criticized my series on NT Wright. More specifically my emphasis on the importance of correctly teaching (and understanding) how the doctrine of the atonement actually works. There are several objections/points raised by Gandalf and I will respond to his first one today. Gandalf wrote:

First: Theories about how the atonement works (including PSA with all its content) are not the atonement or belief in the atonement itself. Therefore what Christians must believe in is the atonement of their sins through death and resurrection of Christ whereas ideas on how this works are secondary to this (In C.S: Lewis book Mere Christianity there is a discussion about this issue which I find very convincing).

Gandalf, what you say is true in part which can help to let the flaws in your comment sneak under the radar. It is very similar to NT Wright's modus operandi of reinventing the issue at hand. For example, when Wright objects (with regards to the doctrine of justification) that people are not saved by their ability to correctly formulate the doctrine of justification it serves as a very clever smokescreen to the real debate (RC Sproul responded brilliantly to this very issue here). When God graciously saved me as a biblically illiterate 20 year old I was certainly incapable of theologically formulating the doctrine of justification. But I clearly understood that I was a sinner with nothing to offer God. I knew that my salvation depended solely on the completed work of Jesus Christ. I clearly understood that my human works played absolutely no part in my redemption. I also clearly understood that my human works (or wickedness) were the main reason that I needed a Savior to rescue me from the damnation that I deserved. The issue is not our ability to formulate the doctrine of justification, it is whether we are trusting Christ's completed work alone, by faith, or trusting any other system that involves even the smallest level of works righteousness. And to consciously teach any view of justification that involves any degree of human achievement is a damnable offense. It is the reason Paul wrote to the church in Galatia.

Likewise, we might not understand all the inner workings of the doctrine of the atonement. But we do need to understand that the cross Jesus died on is what we all deserve. Remember these words:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Here we have a criminal who is most likely uneducated and lacking a deep working knowledge of the theology being played out on the cross beside him. But he does know that he is evil and deserves wrath. He does know that Christ is fully righteous. He does know that he has nothing to offer the Lamb of God. He does know that his only hope is to completely humble himself as a wretched sinner and beg the Savior for mercy. And it is to these that God grants pardon!

Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)

It is here we get to ground zero. In order to be saved we must respond in repentance and faith. And different models of atonement elicit different responses to the Gospel. We don't hear the thief thanking Jesus for identifying with the pain of his human experience. We don't hear the thief calling out as a poor victim of Satan awaiting his rescue. We hear a thief who sees his own enormous guilt. We hear a thief who sees the righteousness of the Son of God. And we hear a thief crying out in genuine repentance, trusting in the One Who was heading for His throne. Jesus did not come to provide therapy for victimized people. He did not come to feel the pain of hurting people. He did not come to coach untrained people. He came to save sinners - even really bad ones like me! He came to fulfill the law that everyone broke and endure the wrath that everyone deserves. Which brings us to the word Paul Washer discussed in my previous post - propitiation:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26)

Propitiation is a very special and important word that describes a sacrifice that takes away sin and satisfies wrath. God has wrath and you can't solve that problem by pretending that He doesn't. Every time you break God's law by lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, or even a lustful thought, or any other part of God's law - God cannot violate His demand for justice because He is good. Most people try to reassure themselves as they face eternity with the thought that God is good and loving. Yes God is good and loving - and that is exactly the problem. If God overlooks sin He stops being good and loving and becomes corrupt. So either we must burn in hell for all eternity to satisfy His wrath or a substitute must endure God's wrath in our place.

Gandalf, it is true that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. We are not saved by rightly understanding the correct view of the atonement. But it is also true that different views of the atonement impact greatly on our view of God. They impact greatly on how we view ourselves. They impact greatly on our view of Christ's life, death and resurrection. Hence it impacts greatly upon our response to the Gospel and whether we find true repentance. Ignorance of this is one thing, but conscious denial is another thing altogether. And to actively teach against penal substitution is a crime of epic proportions. Even, as in NT Wright's case, when it is a failure to acknowledge penal substitutionary atonement as the transcendent meaning of the cross. The doctrines of Christ as our example (Philippians 2:5-8), our compassionate intercessor (Hebrews 4:15-16), and our liberator (Hebrews 2:14-18) are only made possible through the satisfaction of God's wrath - that God can be both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus".

We have seen that the doctrine of penal substitution is necessary to safeguard the justice and holiness of God, for to deny it is to suggest that God is content simply overlook evil whenever He forgives someone. To discard penal substitution would also jeapordize God's truthfulness, for He has promised that sin will lead to death. Moreover, other aspects of the atonement cease to make sense if penal substitution is denied. Penal substitution is essential to Christ's victory over evil powers (something that Gustav Aulen's Christus Victor theory fatally missed), to His restoration of the relationships between sinners and God (reconciliation) and to the liberation He brings from captivity to sin and Satan (redemption and ransom). Far from being viable alternatives to penal substitution, they are outworkings of it. As the hub from which all of these other doctrines fan out, penal substitution is surely central.

To take another example, it is impossible to understand how the atoning death of Jesus could usher in the new creation and bring new life to the corrupt and degenerating cosmos if He did not endure and exhaust the divine curse on the old creation. The renewal of the cosmos by means of Jesus' death is explicable only by reference to penal substitution. (p211 Pierced For Our Transgressions - Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach)

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 1)

Gandalf (one of the Gandalfs who is not the guy in this picture - I just wanted to narrow the possibilities by one) recently posted a comment on my series NT Wright v The Gospel where he questioned whether people's salvation hinges on their view of the atonement. Here is what he wrote:

Hi Cameron,

having read your series about N.T. Wright (and other posts about him as well) I must say that I still think some of your conclusions are at least out of scope maybe misjudging Wright.

Here my arguments for that (maybe I posted some of this earlier but I want to make it as a summary here):

First: Theories about how the atonement works (including PSA with all its content) are not the atonement or belief in the atonement itself. Therefore what Christians must believe in is the atonement of their sins through death and resurrection of Christ whereas ideas on how this works are secondary to this (In C.S: Lewis book Mere Christianity there is a discussion about this issue which I find very convincing).

Notably much of the real discussion about the atonement comes from liberals/progressives who openly dismiss that Christ's death had anything to do with human sins and human redemption (Maybe the name of the German protestant pastor Burkhard Müller is known to you for causing some stir here for saying such things).

Discussions about how this works are probably interesting for theologians but error on how it works does not amount to something you quoted McArthur for (that without imputed righteousness no salvation is possible).

You know probably that Eastern Orthodox christians as one example do not believe (according to their churches doctrine) in PSA, imputation etc. are they all damned?

Second: You repeatedly note that certain concepts and issues are missing in Wright's books or are presented in sketchy or ambiguous manner (individual sin, hell etc.).

Have you read "Surprised by Hope"? I did not find you quoting that in your posts. In that book I found both explanation for his lack of mentioning certain things in other booke in detail, namely, that he likes to view all things as "big picture" where God wants to redeeem and bring back to right the whole cosmos (with the fate of individuals just being part of it, like in a puzzle consisting of numerous pieces but all belonging to the same story). However, in the same book he really gives explanations for questions like individual sin (includng an explanation of the word hamartia), final judgment and hell.

You probably will object to his view that hell isn't like a torture chamber in the midst of Gods kingdom and that he very much follows a middle ground between traditional teaching and a view that sees the lost ones simply becoming what they desire/practise (a grumble instead of a grumbling man or woman is an example for this from "The great Divorce") and hence being at some point no longer humans in Gods image. But I think you'll have to admit that he teaches final judgment with two outcomes, completely dismisses universalism and that God really cares for righteousness and is not laissez-faire with sin on an individual level.

Third: I generally think the amount of flame and vitriol in this debate goes beyond its purpose. People on both sides should handle it more in a manner like the one you advised in your post about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, otherwise we would only deserve the laughter of the Spongs, Borgs, Bells and McLarens in this world for our quarreling.

Gandalf, I welcome your comments and the ensuing discussion it will evoke. Over the coming days I will be responding to each issue that Gandalf raises. Unlike the emergent "conversation", I love to come to the table and reason together from the Scriptures with those who disagree with me. Our view of the atonement sets the framework through which we understand and communicate the Gospel. We must remember what Paul wrote to the church in Galatia:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

For this reason our view of the atonement matters and I will set forth my contentions from Scripture over the next week or so. In the meantime I offer this ten minute video of Paul Washer explaining the meaning of the word "propitiation" as found in Romans 3:25 (also in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10). The importance of this word is central to the issue at hand.



Go On To Part 2

NT Wright v RC Sproul

The latest edition of Tabletalk Magazine features an array of theological heavyweights taking aim at NT Wright and his new perspective on Paul (ok, I know NT Wright is not the originator, but he is the one gaining traction). I discovered this only after writing my recent series on "NT Wright v the Gospel". It serves as strong confirmation that NT Wright's writings and teachings are gaining a substantial corrupting foothold in the wider "church community".

When it comes to reformed theology, the authority of Scripture, and the purity of the Gospel, RC Sproul would be at the top end of the heavyweights. Some of his books, including "The Holiness of God" are classic landmark Christian literature. For decades Sproul has been an ardent contender for the once for all delivered faith. So it was with great interest that I read his response to NT Wright and the "new perspective". Sproul harnesses years of experience and biblical awareness to cut through the fog of Wright's assertion that he can do a better job of explaining the Apostle Paul than the Apostle himself (that's my cheeky paraphrase anyway). What follows is RC Sproul's response:

Tilting at Scarecrows
by R.C. Sproul
“We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself—in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.”
(N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” p 261)

In the past few years, the British bishop and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has emerged as an icon of biblical theology around the world. His excellent work on the resurrection of Christ has influenced many people including his own country’s most famous philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew, who has converted to deism. Wright is also known, however, for being one of the chief architects of the so-called new perspective on Paul, in which he recasts the doctrine of justification in such a way as to transcend the historic dispute between Roman Catholicism and Reformation Protestantism. In a sense, Wright says, “A pox on both your houses,” claiming that both Rome and the Reformation misunderstood and distorted the biblical view of justification. In his response to John Piper’s critique of his work, Wright drips patronizing disdain for Piper and for those who embrace the traditional Protestant view of justification. He is critical of theological traditions that he thinks miss the biblical point.

In the course of debate, one of the most effective and fallacious arguments often used is called the “straw man” fallacy. The value of a scarecrow is that it is a counterfeit human being designed to scare away a few crows. It is an effective device, but not nearly as effective as a real farmer patrolling his fields with a shotgun. The farmer made of straw is not nearly as formidable as the real one. This is usually the case in the difference between the authentic and the counterfeit. The straw man fallacy occurs when one creates a false view of his opponent’s position in a distorted caricature by which he then easily dismantles that position in total refutation.

One of the statements that N.T. Wright employs, using this same stratagem, is the statement that “we are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith.” To intimate that Protestant orthodoxy believes that we are justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith is the king of all straw men. It is the Goliath of scarecrows, the King Kong of straw man fallacies. In other words, it is a whopper. I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformed tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a pure and simple distortion of the Reformed tradition.

In Wright’s statement we see a straw man argument that falls by its own weight. It contains more straw than the stick figure can support. The doctrine of justification by faith alone not only does not teach that justification is by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but in fact, teaches that which is totally antithetical to the idea. The phrase “justification by faith alone” is theological shorthand for saying justification is by Christ alone. Anyone who understands and advocates the doctrine of justification by faith alone knows that the focal point is that which justifies — trust in Christ and not trust in a doctrine.

One of the key terms in the phrase “justification by faith” is the word by, which signals that faith is the means or tool that links us to Christ and His benefits. The concept indicates that faith is the “instrumental” cause of our justification. What is in view in the Protestant formulation is a distinction from the Roman Catholic view of the instrumental cause. Rome declares the sacrament of baptism in the first instance and penance in the second instance to be the instrumental causes of justification. So the dispute of what instrument is the basis by which we are justified was and remains critical to the classical dispute between Rome and Protestantism. The Protestant view, following Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, is that faith is the sole instrument by which we are linked to Christ.

Closely related to this is the hotly disputed issue of the grounds of our justification before God. Here is where the biblical concept of imputation is so important. Those who deny imputation as the grounds of our justification declare it to be a legal fiction, a miscarriage of justice, or even a manifestation of cosmic child abuse. Yet at the same time, it is the biblical explanation for the ground of our redemption. No biblical text more clearly teaches this concept of transfer or imputation than that of Isaiah 53, which the New Testament church singled out as a crucial prophetic explanation of the drama of redemption. The New Testament declares Christ to be our righteousness, and it is precisely our confidence in the righteousness of Christ as the grounds for our justification that is the focus of the doctrine of justification by faith. We understand that believing the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Faith in a doctrine is not enough to save. However, though we cannot be saved by believing in the doctrine of justification, the denial of that same doctrine can indeed be fatal because to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the apostle Paul indicated in Galatians is to reject the gospel and substitute something else for it, which would result in what Paul declares to be anathema. The gospel is too important to be dismissed by tilting at scarecrows.

Go Back To NT Wright v The Gospel

NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 3)

As we saw in part 2 of this series, NT Wright says he believes in Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). But the PSA that Wright believes in is just like the jesus that the Mormons believe in - a phony, a product of their own imaginations and not found in Scripture. But Wright's gross error on PSA and the Gospel continues to manifest itself in his understanding of the doctrine of imputation:

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 . . . If we leave the notion of 'righteousness' as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).

What God’s righteousness never becomes, in the Jewish background which Paul is so richly summing up, is an attribute which is passed on to, reckoned to, or imputed to, his people. Nor does Paul treat it in this way. (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm).

Hmmm

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Romans 4:3-8).

John Macarthur has this to say about the importance of getting imputation right:

The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it "imputed righteousness". Apart from it salvation is utterly impossible (p197 The Gospel According to Jesus).

But the problems don't end here. Wright confuses justification with sanctification, and salvation with eternal rewards:

Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works . . . I am fascinated by the way in which some of those most conscious of their reformation heritage shy away from Paul’s clear statements about future judgment according to works. It is not often enough remarked upon, for instance, that in the Thessalonian letters, and in Philippians, he looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. ‘What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ at his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f.; cp. Phil. 2.16f.) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a swift rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’. The fact that Paul does not feel obliged at every point to say this shows, I think, that he is not as concerned as we are about the danger of speaking of the things he himself has done – though sometimes, to be sure, he adds a rider, which proves my point, that it is not his own energy but that which God gives and inspires within him (1 Cor. 15.10; Col. 1.29). But he is still clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him. We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements? (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm)

The bottom line with all false gospels is works. Justification depends solely on Christ's finished work so that "no man can boast". There are rewards and also varying degrees of punishment dependant on our works. But the Lambs book of Life contains only names with the imputed rightoeusness of Christ. Those who entrust their personal salvation (a subject that Wright has a strong aversion to) solely to Christ's finished work. It is solely by faith as Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches so that "no man can boast". There it is! God wants ALL the glory for His gracious redemptive work in saving sinners fully deserving of eternal condemnation.



In some ways I regret delving into this subject because it should be pretty obvious that Wright is a heretic. Also, he is playing the same game as the emergents of using a term and then redefining it's meaning. Many Pastors in Denmark (where I live) read Wright's ideas indirectly through people like Brian McLaren who have latched onto them. This is why I take such strong exception to Wright. The shadow of NT Wright's teaching looms large in my own backyard - which is what provokes my severe response. What Paul really said is laid out for us in the New Testament. And much of it is avoided by Wright. One would think he's never read the first three chapters of Romans. Anyone can read the New Testament and see that all men are very evil sinners, God punishes sin, future judgment is a very real threat, salvation is a VERY major theme, that God wants all the glory for saving us, that the law condemns us because we cannot keep it, that Christ fulfilled the law by not sinning, that Christ took the punishment in the place of sinners . . . this stuff is so obvious I was able to grasp it the first time I delved into the pages of the Bible. Why does Wright continually deny, ignore, or downplay these issues. "that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life", "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life" etc. Individual salvation, and how it can take place is a HUGE theme in the New testament.

Wright's denial of imputation is flat out heresy. Secondly, good teachers are explicitly clear on the Gospel whereas Wright is obscure, and confusing. Thirdly, how can he write a book on a basic understanding of Christianity and ignore so many major themes such as the Atonement. People like NT Wright survive in a climate of niceness and civility where being vague entitles them to the benefit of the doubt. I think George W Bush was right when he said "If they're not for us, they're against us". Maybe you don't want to label him a heretic, but in an environment of biblical illiteracy and lack of discernment, you should at least tell people to read something more worthwhile and stay away from the fog.

We are not called to be passive or silent in the face of such opposition to the glorious Gospel.

Coming on Friday- NT Wright v RC Sproul

Go On To NT Wright v RC Sproul
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 2)

I realise it is easy to quote Wright in support of Penal Substitution in some of his earlier writings. But there are two things worth noting. One is that Wright himself confesses to having a theology that has changed over the years (ie moving from the old perspective on Paul to the new perspective). Secondly, that like emergents, Wright sometimes holds to a terminology but changes the definition. This is evident in Wright's support of Steve Chalke's book (The Lost Message of Jesus) and his refusal to retract that support and all the while claiming to hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Here is how Wright responded to calls for him to retract his endorsement for "The Lost Message of Jesus":

NT Wright And Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Steve Chalke's new book is rooted on good scholarship, but its clear, punchy style makes it accessible to anyone and everyone. Its message is stark and exciting: Jesus of Nazareth was far more challenging in his own day, and remains far more relevant to ours, than the church has dared to believe, let alone preach. Part of that was quoted prominently on the front cover. I stand by every word I wrote. Imagine my puzzlement, then, when I heard that a great storm had broken out because 'Steve Chalke has denied substitutionary atonement' . . .

And what did Steve Chalke say that was so controversial?

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement that "God is Love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil." (p182 The Lost Message of Jesus)

Wright continues:

Now, to be frank, I cannot tell, from this paragraph alone, which of two things Steve means. You could take the paragraph to mean (a) on the cross, as an expression of God's love, Jesus took into and upon himself the full force of all the evil around him, in the knowledge that if he bore it we would not have to; but this, which amounts to a form of penal substitution, is quite different from other forms of penal substitution, such as the mediaeval model of a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son. In other words, there are many models of penal substitution, and the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story is at best a caricature of the true one. Or you could take the paragraph to mean (b) because the cross is an expression of God's love, there can be no idea of penal substitution at all, because if there were it would necessarily mean the vengeful-father-and-innocent-son story, and that cannot be right.

Clearly, Steve's critics have taken him to mean (b), as I think it is clear Jeffrey John and several others intend. I cannot now remember what I thought when I read the book four years ago and wrote my commendation, but I think, since I had been following the argument through in the light of the arguments I myself have advanced, frequently and at length, about Jesus' death and his own understanding of it, that I must have assumed he meant (a). I have now had a good conversation with Steve about the whole subject and clarified that my initial understanding was correct: he does indeed mean (a). The book, after all, wasn't about atonement as such, so he didn't spell out his view of the cross in detail; and it is his experience that the word 'penal' has put off so many people, with its image of a violent, angry and malevolent God, that he has decided not to use it. But the reality that I and others refer to when we use the phrase 'penal substitution' is not in doubt, for Steve any more than for me. 'There is therefore now no condemnation' in Romans 8.1 is explained by the fact, as in Romans 8.3, that God condemned sin in the flesh of his Son: he bore sin's condemnation in his body, so we don't bear it. That, I take it, is the heart of what the best sort of 'penal substitution' theory is trying to say, and Steve is fully happy with it. And this leads to the key point: there are several forms of the doctrine of penal substitution, and some are more biblical than others. (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205)

The real problem here is that both models, (a) and (b), are not PSA. The caricature (a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son) Wright refers to is his own caricature. That is not what the Macarthurs, Pipers, and Sprouls of today are preaching. Wright's vague "forces of evil" never quite get specified. The issues of personal guilt, God's specific wrath aimed against guilty individuals, and Christ's love demonstrated as a substitute, is ignored in Wright's version whereas they are beautifully harmonized in the reformed understanding. This probably explains why Wright, when singing "In Christ Alone", changes the line "the wrath of God was satisfied" to "the love of God was satisfied". So much for authorial intent! There is a constant theme of absence when Wright discusses the Gospel and it makes sense in the light of his understanding of PSA. Wright believes that PSA must submit within the Christus Victor model of the atonement. Wright gets this back to front - and it also confirms that Wright holds to a different/wrong version of PSA if it is not the transcendant theory from which all others flow and find their meaning. This view again reveals Wright's faulty understanding - "it is only in Penal substitution that God must punish evil in order for His defeat of Satan to be consistent with His rightoeusness" (p142 Pierced for Our Transgressions).

What surprises me is that people focus only on the "cosmic child abuse" quote in Chalke's book. Here is a little more revelation of Chalke's view of the Gospel:

People are desperate for a message that they can buy into, that they can see will make a difference to them and to the world in which they live. The truth is that you can't engender a sense of lostness or need into people simply by pointing out that they are sinners. It just doesn't work. (p117-118 The Lost Message of Jesus).

So it would seem that they believe there are good pragmatic grounds for rejecting PSA.

But Wright's gross error on PSA, and the Gospel continue to manifest in his understanding of imputation which I will discuss in Wednesday's post.

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

NT Wright v The Gospel (Part 1)

I recently posted about NT Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, who is revered in many circles for his defense of the resurrection. However, there are major problems with Wright's understanding of the cross itself, and I was very critical of Wright when I posted on him.

Unfortunately, that answer just won't do for those who suffer from paralysis by analysis. I was heavily criticized by an apologist recently for passing sentence on NT Wright without reading some of his books in entirity. That is a bad argument in itself because it is only necessary to prove someone is not a heretic. You only need to get the Gospel wrong in one point to be anathema as Paul points out to the church at Galatia (Galatians 1:8-9). Furthermore I suppose I could ask my critics to read all of my relevant blog posts before passing judgment. Michael Horton even laid it out very plainly in an earlier post. However, for the sake of further clarity on a man who furthers his theological career by being vague and hazy about fundamental Christian truths, I will delve somewhat deeper in this series on NT Wright.

When I immerse myself in excellent works such as "The Gospel According to Jesus", "Desiring God", "The Holiness of God", "Pierced For Our Transgressions", "In My Place Condemned He Stood", "9 Marks of a Healthy Church", "Christless Christianity", "The God Who Justifies", "Justification and Regeneration", "The Trellis and the Vine", and Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology it becomes very obvious that some things are very wrong with NT Wright. I refuse to spend money buying one of Wright's books, and find him incredibly boring, and unable to give a clear answer to many simple questions (unlike the abovementioned books which are unmistakable crystal clear concerning soteriology). I have read good sized chunks of "What St Paul Really Said", "Simply Christian", and "Justified". I have also read Wright's online responses to both John Piper's "The Future Of Justification" and the book "Pierced for Our Transgressions". I have studied Phil Johnson's lectures at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 2004 concerning Wright and the "new perspective", as well as reviews at the 9 Marks website, and discussed the issue extensively face to face with both Phil Johnson and Todd Friel. All of this wasn't necessary anyway, as a plain reading of Wrtight's understanding of imputation (or lack thereof) and works based maintenance of salvation is stuff worthy of Pauls Galatian rebuke. It's really not that hard. In fact, I would even contend that Wright's confusing waffling on the question of homosexuality verifies either a low view of Scipture, cowardice, or incompetence.

How NT Wright Became The First Person In 2000 Years Of Church History To Figure Out What The Apostle Paul Really Said!

Reading Wright was not only exceedingly boring, it actually revealed where many of the emergents get their ideas from. He seems to be their "Yoda". Constant themes prevail in his writing. Sin on a corporate level but rarely on an individual level. Kingdom this, kingdom that, kingdom here (I remember Jesus saying that if His Kingdom were of this world then his servants would fight). Blurred lines between this world and eternity. Nothing of God's wrath against sinners who are law breakers, nothing of depravity, nothing of hell, complete failure to understand the function of the Mosaic law, all of which lead up to the gross distortion of penal substitution and the historic understanding of imputation. It is a telling sign that Wright's understanding of justification has influenced numerous evangelicals to do the unthinkable and "come home to Rome". In fact Wright has an amazing knack of missing what a plain reading of Scripture reveals. He denies the major problem in Galatians was that they were adding works to the Gospel or teaching works rightoeusness:

the tradition of Pauline interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by manufacturing a false Judaism for him to oppose (The Paul of History p78).

It is blindingly obvious when you read Romans and Galatians that virtually whenever Paul talks about justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ. As an exegete determined to listen to scripture rather than abstract my favourite bits from it I cannot ignore this. The only notice that most mainstream theology has taken of this context is to assume that the Jews were guilty of the kind of works-righteousness of which theologians from Augustine to Calvin and beyond have criticised their opponents; and, though Sanders’s account of Judaism needs a lot more nuancing, I regard the New Perspective’s challenge to this point as more or less established. What I miss entirely in the Old Perspective, but find so powerfully in some modern Pauline scholarship, is Paul’s sense of an underlying narrative, the story of God and Israel, God and Abraham, God and the covenant people, and the way in which that story came to its climax, as he says, ‘when the time had fully come’ with the coming of Jesus the Messiah. How all this works out is still very controversial within the New Perspective. But at these points, for good exegetical and historical reasons, I find myself saying Here I Stand (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm).

Here I stand???? What Romans and Galatians was he reading? The reformed understanding is the plain reading.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (Romans 9:31-32)

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:11-21)

One can only speculate as to why or how they (new perspective on Paul folks) would arrive at their conclusion. Possibly an attempt to avoid potential anti-semitism objections??? Everything unravels around this as seen by Wright's failure to recognize the law as a schoolmaster - I cannot find him writing on it anywhere. This is backed up by the critique of Wright's book "Simply Christian" over at the 9 Marks website:

In his zeal to avoid the "Old Perspective on Paul," Wright has missed a full, rich discussion of the power of the cross of Jesus Christ. The pale "exhausted the powers of evil" is too vague, and seems untrue, because Wright also avoids strong discussion of personal evil as exposed by the Law of God. The omission of talk about personal sin, repentance and Judgment Day necessarily follows from the previous discussion. If the Law is not meant to stand as a judge over our personal behavior, then our sin remains as indistinct and vague as the "powers of evil" Wright speaks so much of. Scripture is not so vague: everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

This is not a case of seeing the forest but not seeing the trees. Wright continually sees neither the trees nor the forest. Wright continually drags out oblique revelations from reading through his rabbinical filter but misses so much obvious fundamental truth. "Simply Christian" misses the mark on many other levels and is disgraceful. It is a bad joke when Wright tries to summarize Christianity in a book and ignores issues as big as Christ's deity, the Atonement, personal sin, judgment, and God's wrath (at least in a specific personal sense).

To be continued on Monday where we'll look at NT Wright's view on Penal Substitutionary Atonement and his endoresement of the controversial book "The Lost Message of Jesus".

Go On To Part 2

Is My Sarcasm Towards NT Wright Wrong?

My previous post about NT Wright's propensity for giving complex (and often foggy) answers to simple questions drew some fire. One response in particular zeroed in on my use of sarcasm towards Wright. "Anonymous" wrote:

I'd really like to understand how you think 1 Cor 13 should apply in the way you speak about other Christians. You are rude and sarcastic. How does that tie in with 'love is not rude...'. Love rejoices with the truth. You seem proud that you have the truth worked out perfectly, but where does love (which will remain) come into your behavior?

This is an interesting discussion and there is certainly a lot of voices out there renouncing the use of any form of sarcasm. Considering my somewhat frequent use of sarcasm, I thought it worthwhile to post my response to "Anonymous":

Anonymous, you quoted that "love rejoices in the truth". Then why isn't Wright loving homosexuals enough to give them the clear answer Scripture gives?

I never speak bad publicly about other Christians. Wright denies imputed righteousness (an essential component of the essential doctrine of justification) as revealed in last Wednesday's post. Exposing a heretic does not qualify as "speaking bad about another Christian". In fact, Romans 16:17 demands that I do so. Shepherds have two primary jobs, feeding sheep and protecting them from wolves. I would contend that both are loving actions.

As for sarcasm, you may be right. Maybe I crossed a line. You'll have to make that subjective call in your own conscience. Scripture, however, certainly doesn't forbid sarcasm - Scripture sometimes uses sarcasm and/or hyperbole to strengthen a point. How about when Jesus told the Pharisees that "they that are whole need not a physician" (Luke 5:31) and "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). Do you really think that Jesus thought the Pharisees "whole" and "righteous"? The apostle Paul uses the method of sarcasm and irony to teach the Corinthian church humility in 1 Corinthians 4:6-13. I would also point you to Christian blogs like Pyromaniacs where they defend sarcasm as something that can be a valid biblical approach. I also think that sarcasm can be innappropriate at times. My main point being that the use of sarcasm is not the problem but whether it's use is appropriate.

I have seen sarcasm used constructively in bringing out powerful truth about the Gospel. Watch these two videos as an example. The first is Rob Bell's dreadful mockery of the Gospel in his "Bullhorn Guy" video where he invalidates the preaching of Gospel truths such as hell, judgment, repentance, and our own mortality (only watch as much of this video as you can take). The second video is a satirical/sarcastic parody of Bell's "Bullhorn Guy" video called "Bullwhip Guy". I think it makes a powerful point in its use of sarcasm. See what you think . . .

NT Wright - Confusing Answers to Simple Questions

At the end of my last post I spoke about good preachers/teachers and how they are crystal clear when it comes to fundamental truths of the Christian faith. I also spoke about NT Wright's expertise in cutting a short story long. NT Wright has become somewhat of a modern day evangelical hero, but can he give a straight answer to a straight question . . .

Like is there a hell?



I thought a yes would have sufficed!

How about whether homosexual behavior is sinful?



Yes we should have a debate, if by debate he means something like this:

What does the Bible say about homosexual behavior?

Leviticus 20:13 says it is an abomination.

Abomination is bad isn't it?

Ok lets move on to the next subject on the agenda!

How about an easy question like is evolution compatible with Christianity? (Hint - the answer begins with "n" and ends with "o").



Maybe NT Wright thinks his beard is a transitional form!

I guess that's enough fog for one day. I would encourage any layman to feed on teachers who are explicitly clear about things that the Bible is explicitly clear about. Someone like John Macarthur . . .



And when you have a bunch of confused liberal theologians talking to Larry King, you can always count on John Macarthur to clear up the fog . . .

Why NT Wright Is Wrong

NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, enjoys tremendous popularity among "thinking Christians". He is even getting a foothold in the secular bookstores, as evidenced by finding his latest book on display at the front of a Barnes and Noble store I recently visited. This has prompted me to write a post about him as he has not been previously discussed on this blog.

It is true that Wright's landmark book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" is widely recognized as an outstanding defense of Christ's bodily resurrection. Getting the resurrection right seems to have opened a lot of people's receptivity to Wright's subsequent books where he discusses the cross, justification, and penal substitutionary atonement (Wright even endorsed Steve Chalkes book in which Chalke described the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as "cosmic child abuse"). Many reformed theologians have been greatly disturbed by the theology that NT Wright's subsequent works have revealed. It may well be that Wright's scholarly defense of the resurrection turns out to be a scholarly trojan horse concealing destructive heresies.

At the heart of Wright's many troubling ideas lies his view of the doctrine of justification, particularly the component of imputed righteousness. Over and over again, Wright attacks the classic Reformed and biblical doctrine that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, or reckoned, to the sinner's account, and it is on the ground of Christ's righteousness alone that we obtain our righteous standing before God. Wright says:

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 . . . If we leave the notion of 'righteousness' as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).

Phil Johnson responded to these exact comments in a sermon by saying "Well, I, for one, am quite happy to worship a God who justifies the ungodly and who is both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus."

John Macarthur has this to say about the importance of getting imputation right:

The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it "imputed righteousness". Apart from it salvation is utterly impossible (p197 The Gospel According to Jesus).

Here is an excerpt from an interview RC Sproul had with Michael Horton discussing the theology of N.T. Wright.

[Q] Considering Bishop N.T. Wright’s doctrine of justification, do you believe he is teaching another gospel?

[A] J.I. Packer has a great line: Tom Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds–but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes–in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.

There’s a kind of fundamentalist approach to Scripture that Tom Wright seems to want to confront. And while he does a wonderful job of highlighting the fact that justification in Paul’s writings is understood within a broader redemptive-historical framework, something not all presentations and defenses of justification do, he is not confronting historic Reformed theology. Reformed theology always has understood justification within a broader redemptive-historical framework. If he were to read the Reformers and more recent Reformed writers, such as Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, he would clearly see that justification is placed in its proper context with the believer’s union with Christ and within the whole history of redemption. Reformed writers speak of Paul’s treatment of justification being inseparable from the inclusion of the Gentiles. Then, when you read Tom Wright he makes it seem as if he’s the first person who saw these emphases of Paul, and that everyone else before him sort of taught the four spiritual laws. It’s an incredibly naïve view.

I know Tom Wright–not well, but we had a few conversations in my Oxford days; we’ve gone back and forth about these issues, and he simply doesn’t know historical theology. He’ll actually admit that when you catch him at a few points; he’ll say something along the lines of “well this really isn’t my area of expertise.” Well, if your thesis is that the Reformation fundamentally misunderstood Paul, it better be your area of expertise to at least know what the Reformers said–and he doesn’t. So, Wright creates a straw man. And the people who are swayed by him, who are enamored of him, are also in many cases ignorant of what the Reformers actually taught, what Reformed theology has taught on these matters. And let me offer an impassioned plea to folks: There are Reformed presentations of the doctrine of justification that include some of the very salient points that Tom Wright has raised and incorporated, without denying the very crucial component of imputation as Tom Wright does. Without imputation, justification isn’t good news. When he says that the Gospel is “Jesus is Lord,” I reply, there are many passages that tell me “Jesus is Lord” isn’t good news. There are many passages that tell me “Jesus is Lord” means to a whole lot of people “the great Avenger on the white horse with a sword in His hand, bringing the last judgment.” “Jesus is Lord” means that He will be your judge. On Mars Hill in Athens, Paul said there is a judgment coming, a last judgment coming, and God has given proof of this to everyone by raising Jesus from the dead. So Jesus is Lord is not necessarily good news. Only when God assures me that I am in Christ by grace alone through faith alone and kept by grace is the announcement “Jesus is Lord” good news rather than the worst possible news (online source).

It is worth noting that many false teachers survive on the basis of their lack of clarity. We tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they speak in a foggy and unclear manner. NT Wright has become (unwittingly perhaps) the Mr Miyagi of the emergent movement for this reason. Wright communicates a different gospel in a way that is obscure enough not to be pinned down outside of orthodoxy. He is the master of answering questions by cutting a short story long and burying the initial question in the process. With this in mind, I have found a good rule of thumb when choosing our feeding grounds for Christian teaching. Sound biblical teachers are aways explicitly clear about the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Choose feeding grounds that communicate the Gospel faithfully, accurately, and clearly.