N. T. Wright on Predestination and Election

[Humble Disciple]

Since N. T. Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship today, it's worth hearing what he has to say about predestination and election as taught in scripture:

It seems Wright understands election as a corporate election of the church, for anyone who freely chooses to be in Christ, rather than individual souls to salvation determined at the beginning of time.

As election was understood for Israel in the Old Testament, election was for Israel as a whole, rather than individuals to salvation.

The New Testament term for the church "ekklesia," which is related to the English word "elect," was also used for the people of Israel in the Greek Septuagint.

The Corporate View of Election

The main difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not whether God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel, but whether this enabling grace is given to all people equally or just a select few:

When Calvinists point to John 6:44 as an example of particular irresistible “drawing”, Arminians will often quickly refer to John 12:32 to demonstrate that the drawing of John 6:44 cannot be a reference to regeneration. The reason is that Jesus states in Jn. 12:32 that he will “draw all men” to himself. The same Greek word is used here as in Jn. 6:44. The implication is that if Jesus was speaking of irresistible regeneration in John 6:44, then his statement in Jn. 12:32 would lead to the conclusion that Christ will irresistibly regenerate all men. This would be a plain case of universalism (the teaching that all will be saved), a teaching that both Calvinists and Arminians reject (Luke 13:24)...

I have no problem with their consideration of John 12:20-22, nor with their statement that he includes the Greeks in “all men”. The part I take issue with is their conclusion that when Jesus says “all men” he means only “all without distinction” or “all kinds of people”. This is a conclusion that Peterson and Williams have read into the passage based on the necessities of their Calvinist theology. There is no exegetical justification for reading “all men” as “some men” from among “all men” in this passage. It makes just as much sense to say that because Jesus’ drawing power would go out to “all men” (without exception), that the Gentiles of Jn. 12:20-22 could then rest assured that they too would have access to the gift of God’s salvation. To say that the presence of Greeks in vss. 20-22 necessitates that Jn. 12:32 must be understood in a restrictive sense is a huge leap in logic, and a conclusion which the un-biased reader of Scripture would likely never come to on his or her own.
Is The Drawing of John 12:32 Universal or Particular?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Since N. T. Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship today

He absolutely is not! Much of his teaching is unorthodox.

 

[Marooncat79]

Who said he was orthodox?

he redefines the Gospel

 

[Humble Disciple]

Much of his teaching is unorthodox.

Please substantiate your claim.

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the actual issue, whether election is corporate or individual, according to the Bible.

 

[Humble Disciple]

he redefines the Gospel

Please substantiate your claim.

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the actual issue, whether election is corporate or individual, according to the Bible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Please substantiate your claim.

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the actual issue, whether election is corporate or individual, according to the Bible.

Why don't you substantiate your claim that Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship? After all, bearing false witness is a sin, isn't it?
There are numerous critiques of Wright's theology. Two that I have to hand are The Future of Justification by John Piper and The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson. I can quote you some extracts if you like.

And election is individual, not corporate, and was even under the Old Covenant (e.g. Isaiah 1:9; Jeremiah 3:14; 9:25-26 etc.).

 

[Humble Disciple]

Why don't you substantiate your claim that Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship?

If you have specific quotes from N. T. Wright which demonstrate him contradicting scripture, please share them.

And election is individual, not corporate, and was even under the Old Covenant (e.g. Isaiah 1:9; Jeremiah 3:14; 9:25-26 etc.).

Like a good Berean, people can be trusted to read this article and form their own conclusions:
The Corporate View of Election

 

[Rob_BW]

I may need to reevaluate my cessationism, because this thread went exactly as I thought it would.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Those who insist that N. T. Wright has a defective understanding of atonement need to look at this thread:

Anabaptists on the Atonement of Christ

Knowledge of church history is an antidote to Calvinism.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

View attachment 5015

You are the one who accuses everyone who disagrees with you of false witness

If you have specific quotes from N. T. Wright which demonstrate him contradicting scripture, please share them.

For this you will have to wait until later tonight (GB time) or tomorrow. It's a while since I studied anything by Wright and, Praise God, he is not as popular in Britain as he appears to be in the USA, so I need to do a bit of study.

Like a good Berean, people can be trusted to read this article and form their own conclusions:
The Corporate View of Election

Erm.......The Bereans (very wisely) did not examine articles by Leighton Flowers, but examined the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). I commend the same practice to you.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since N. T. Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship today, it's worth hearing what he has to say about predestination and election as taught in scripture:

It seems Wright understands election as a corporate election of the church, for anyone who freely chooses to be in Christ, rather than individual souls to salvation determined at the beginning of time.

As election was understood for Israel in the Old Testament, election was for Israel as a whole, rather than individuals to salvation.

The New Testament term for the church "ekklesia," which is related to the English word "elect," was also used for the people of Israel in the Greek Septuagint.

The Corporate View of Election

The main difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not whether God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel, but whether this enabling grace is given to all people equally or just a select few:

NT Wrong is NOT any gold standard, as he is the one whose mission has been to undermine Pauline Justification!

 

[Yeshua1]

He absolutely is not! Much of his teaching is unorthodox.

Sometime border on heresy!

 

[Yeshua1]

Who said he was orthodox?

he redefines the Gospel

as do all false teachers and heretics!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please substantiate your claim.

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the actual issue, whether election is corporate or individual, according to the Bible.

Corporate under Old Covenant, as the nation was elect of God, but individual in the new, as Jesus died in the place of his own!

 

[Yeshua1]

Please substantiate your claim.

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the actual issue, whether election is corporate or individual, according to the Bible.

He denies Pauline Justification!

 

[MB]

Please substantiate your claim.

Bearing False Witness is a Sin, A Warning of God's Judgment

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the actual issue, whether election is corporate or individual, according to the Bible.

Election is for the Jew. Gentiles are not elect. There are no elect Gentiles in scripture.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Election is for the Jew. Gentiles are not elect. There are no elect Gentiles in scripture.
MB

If one was not elected by God, were not saved!

 

[37818]

Since N. T. Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship today, it's . . .

N.T. Wright on the Bible and why he won't call himself an inerrantist

 

[37818]

Election is for the Jew. Gentiles are not elect. There are no elect Gentiles in scripture.
MB

Colossians 3:11-12, ". . . Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy . . . ."

 

[Yeshua1]

N.T. Wright on the Bible and why he won't call himself an inerrantist

He is good on the physical resurrection of Jesus, but that is about all good on!