NT WRIGHT on Heaven

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, Nov 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,367
    Likes Received:
    105
    I am reading up on Heaven as I prepare to open air. Wright thinks that heaven is amongst us just in another dimension. Like perhaps as I type on my iPhone in another dimension is a building with computers being the archives in heaven. Heaven is right here on earth just we can't see it. However macarthur in his book does not agree but uses more scripture to say that heaven is above and not on earth in another dimension. Since the bible supports both views I wonder whom is correct. If wright is correct then this means... Unless heaven is so large it fills up the earth and above it so heaven is all right here in a parallel dimension. What say ye?
     
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    Wright is a heretic and he is wrong and MacArthur is Biblically correct. Wright is confusing the invisible presence of God and Angels in our realm with heaven. The Bible always presents heaven as "above" and hell as beneath.
     
  3. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    How exactly?
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,347
    Likes Received:
    788
    I do not agree with Wright on a number of things but I have yet to see anything that would make him a heretic.
     
  5. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,367
    Likes Received:
    105

    Get my emails?
     
  6. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist is wrong. Wright is not a heretic. Wright has no greater probability of being incorrect on this than does Macarthur.
     
  7. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well simply because Biblicist said so. Although I am sure some eloquent diatribe in favor of his premise is sure to follow.
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    He denies the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ. He is a heretic!
     
  9. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Does he deny it? Or does he advocate multiple views?
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    What I have read from his writings is a denial of "penal" substititonary atonement while offering counter views.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,347
    Likes Received:
    788
    ...I just want to take a moment to clarify, with Wright’s own words, that Wright does affirm penal substitutionary atonement. He has been clear on this over the years, but somehow that’s been lost on many due in some cases to their willingness to read all sorts of faults into him because of his position on justification, or because to some people, affirming Christus Victor components to Christ’s atonement, the idea that in his life, death, and resurrection Jesus defeated the principalities and powers of satan, sin, and death, means a necessary denial of PSA. It doesn’t. The Reformers all affirmed both themes because both are in Scripture. Wright isn’t any different. So, without further ado here is Wright himself.

    Wright Speaks

    First, a short little video where Wright says it clear-out, 1:19 onward:

    http://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/09/11/n-t-wright-on-penal-substitution/
     
  12. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    371
    never mind (I was posting something similar to Revmitchell's post but he beat me to it ....and also used "without further ado"....I can't compete with that).
     
    #12 JonC, Nov 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2014
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Care to offer an apology now?
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,347
    Likes Received:
    788
    Why an apology? He was mistaken we need to let it go.
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    Here is a classic case of same language but perhaps different meaning. I saw and listened to the video very carefully. He has not the faintest understanding of the Old testament Sacrificial rites and ADMITS IT. However, he even goes further and denies the sacrificial system is essential to understanding the atonement of Christ. In so doing, he undermines the whole Biblical foundation for penal substitutionary atonement.

    His admitted ignorance is in regard to the two goats on the day of Atonement, which is the sacrificial type that penal atonment is primarily defended from in the Old Testament. There were two goats used on the day of Atonement and both were essential to understanding the nature of the atonement. One of course had its blood shed UNTO DEATH thus giving the WHOLE LIFE and it was THE LIFE of a ceremonial acceptable sacrifice which typifies the perfect sinless life of Christ offered up to satisfy the righteous demands of the Law. The second goat had the sins confessed over it and then taken by a fit strong man into the wilderness and released, which typified the complete removal of our sins through Christ. Both goats taken together give the full picture of "penal" substitutionary atonement for the complete remission of sins.

    The Christus Victorius false theory is defended by Wright's view of sacrifices, which makes them unnecessary and vague as the Christus Victorius view denies that any kind of sacrificial death is necessary, but at the same time does not deny that Christ did indeed die on the cross but his death on the cross was non-essential in regard to atonement. This is precisely the opinion of Wright in regard to the foundational Old Testament Type of Christ's atonement. So no wonder, he is accused of denying "penal" substitutionary Atonement as he does deny the very Biblical foundation that it rests upon in the Old Testament - which is the sacrificial system.

    So with his mouth comes out both salt and fresh water. He denies any relationship between the Old Testament type and Christ's atonement. By so doing removes the Old Testament foundation upon which the langauge of the New Testament is based, but then admits the New Testament langauge stands alone for the case of "penal" substitutionary atonement.

    His denial of the "penal" nature in the foundational Biblical types for the atonement opens the door to reinterpreting New Testament language for the Christus Victorius heresy.

    However, to be fair to Professor Wright, I cannot say he does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement at least in so far as he claims the langauge. However, he does deny and undermine all of the Old Testament typical foundation for the proper interpretation of the New Testament teaching for the doctrine he claims to embrace.

    At this point, I will withdraw the charge of being a "heretic" until I can examine more than just his use of common language and see exactly how he defines that language. At present he is embracing the very core argument of the Christus Victorus that Old Testament sacrifices do not demand a penal substitutionary atonement and he is clearly in error and it is a significant error on his part, perhaps due to mere ignorance and need of proper teaching.
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,347
    Likes Received:
    788
    OK well you are dead set in not being wrong. Nothing we can do with that.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    You need to read more carefully as it is obivous you did not read my article to the close or you would not have made this charge. Read it again and don't miss this part:

    However, to be fair to Professor Wright, I cannot say he does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement at least in so far as he claims the langauge.

    However, until I find how he DEFINES those terms and APPLIES them, the verdict is still out.
     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,347
    Likes Received:
    788
    For two reasons:

    1. You tend to drone on and on most of which is not helpful in many of your posts and they are beyond boring. I would sooner read the dictionary.

    2. You said "However, he even goes further and denies the sacrificial system is essential to understanding the atonement of Christ. In so doing, he undermines the whole Biblical foundation for penal substitutionary atonement." So at this point I would say that your language and explanation is as vague as what you are accusing him of.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,184
    Likes Received:
    207
    Truthfully, I am not writing for you as that is a waste of time. I am writing for those who seriously want to look at the facts. The facts are that he openly admits he is ignorant of the intent sacrificial system and claims no necessary relationship to the atonement of Christ. If you doubt that, you need to listen again to him. The fact is that he affirms the language of penal substitutionary atonement but same language does not mean same meaning as that depends on how he defines and applies those terms.
     
  20. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rev.

    My bet is that the biblicist WILL have the last word......always does.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...