• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

N. T. Wright's teachings

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
All - I have a request to make. If you espouse the teachings of N. T. Wright - please stop posting here. N. T. Wright is not reformed - has admitted his views on justification differ from those of Luther and Calvin. He has disagreed publicly with James White and John Piper on the teachings of Paul.

Posting in this forum on N. T. Wright are considered by most who post here regularly as being deliberately disruptive and divisive. At the very least please do not post NPP theology here.

It's just a simple request that I hope someone will take to heart.

Thanks,
 

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,491
10,859
New Jersey
✟1,343,794.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Posting in this forum on N. T. Wright are considered by most who post here regularly as being deliberately disruptive and divisive.

I agree. But I'm not one with a history of starting threads that are deliberately provocative.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,478
3,739
Canada
✟883,276.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I agree. But I'm not one with a history of starting threads that are deliberately provocative.

Perhaps not. I am guilty of it...but I always see you there, posting in the provocative threads hedrick. ^_^
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Posting in this forum on N. T. Wright are considered by most who post here regularly as being deliberately disruptive and divisive. At the very least please do not post NPP theology here.

There are three issues here: (1) are controversial topics forbidden because they could be seen by some to be disruptive? (2) can one be Reformed and hold to NPP? (3) Is Wright Reformed?

Let's deal with these in reverse order; the question of whether Wright is Reformed or not depends on (a) how we understand Wright and (b) how we are defining being Reformed. It is my view that those who say that Wright is not Reformed (a) misunderstand Wright and (b) have an overly tight definition of Reformed. The criticism of many in the Reformed camp by John Frame indicates that a number of leading Reformed theologians have become preoccupied with using the confessions to restrict biblical study and he has called for a return to 'something like biblicism'. We may have to agree to differ on this question.

One can be Reformed and hold to NPP or at least be sympathetic with it; its emphasis on covenant is amenable to Reformed teaching, especially the redemptive-historic teaching of Sydney Anglicans and those at WTS who are more focused on 'union with Christ' as a category. Michael Bird seeks a third way between traditional Reformed theology and NPP to have a more nuanced Reformed theology.

Should we avoid controversial topics? Perhaps, but surely it is part of growing in maturity to be able to discuss differences without resorting to name calling and so on and so forth. I am glad to see that both JM and twin1954 have returned to CF. I have always respected them both, even among our disagreements.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
All - I have a request to make. If you espouse the teachings of N. T. Wright - please stop posting here. N. T. Wright is not reformed - has admitted his views on justification differ from those of Luther and Calvin. He has disagreed publicly with James White and John Piper on the teachings of Paul.

Posting in this forum on N. T. Wright are considered by most who post here regularly as being deliberately disruptive and divisive. At the very least please do not post NPP theology here.

It's just a simple request that I hope someone will take to heart.

Thanks,
I personally don't have a problem with heretics voicing their views. Their heresy is usually made known quickly. I do have a problem with someone who seeks to dominate a forum with endless threads and posts in every thread with short one liners. That kind of behavior is not only crass and boorish but a self-serving play for power.
 
Upvote 0

DocNH

Junior Member
Feb 13, 2008
101
18
US
✟22,821.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wright is not Reformed. His theology of the NPP is not biblical, but heretical (cf. Phil Johnson, et. al.). Others say, it is as William Ames said of Arminianism, 'an error tending to heresy, but not heresy itself.' If not heresy, it is at least error and definitely false, as latter demonstrated. As Craig Branch says,

Close attention and stern warnings are to be given about false teachers who “twist the Scriptures to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). Paul even uses harsh words calling those who pervert and thus bring a false gospel, “dogs” and “evildoers” (Phil 3:2). Jesus calls them “whitewashed tombs,” and “You serpents, you brood of vipers,” and “ravenous wolves in sheep clothing” (Mat. 23:27, 33; 7:15).

If this forum is for posting and supporting heresy, then IMO individuals should be able to post concerning such issues. However, if this is a Christian (Reformed) forum: (1) heresy should be noted, (2) the poster "marked" and warned and reproved twice, (3) if they are non- repentant then they should be excommunicated, and (4) the divisive posting not allowed to continue as it is detrimental to the faith once delivered to the saints (Tit. 3:9-11; 1Tim. 1:3-7; cf. Prov. 23:9; 26:4; Matt. 18:15ff; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; these are Paul's and others responses to such controversial topics).

Wright's views are not Reformed. While the reasons for such a statement overlap one another, their overlap reveals the consistency of the Gospel against such heretical views:

1). Wright denies a biblical view of justification. Paul teaches in Romans that justification is faith is reckoned as righteousness, but Wright says, faith is but a badge of covenant membership. This is a different gospel, which is not Gospel at all (Gal. 1:7). See Hill.

2). Wright contaminates the true Gospel with an emphasis upon a “future justification” on the basis of works. In essence, such a position denies any true justification in the present and denies such texts as 'there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 8:1: 33-39, etc.). He confuses justification and sanctification, etc. See Venema and Waters.

3). Wright's view of 'the works of the law' is Wrong. Wright disagrees with Scripture. Christ's works, not ours are the ground of our justification (Eph. 2:8-10). See Fesko.

4). As any divisive teacher must do - as even in the early church (and even some members in forums such as these) - Wright falsely accuses his detractors from being biblical, or not being broad enough with their definitions, etc. See Thomas.

5). NPP denies the omniscience of God. See Mathis

6). NT Wright is not Reformed. See Greco and Duncan

Packer correctly calls the doctrine of justification by faith the “backbone” of Paul’s gospel, “God’s fundamental act of blessing, for it both saves from the past and secures for the future" (The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Eerdmans, 1962), p. 684). Packer is an interesting read; See Packer on Justification

For these and many other reasons, which I do not have time to express and post numerous other links to, Wright is wrong and his views are not consistent with the Reformed faith. "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God ..." (2 John 1:9; John 7:16: 8:31; 1 John 2:19).

From what I understand this "safe" forum is entitled, "Semper Reformanda," because it essentially agrees with the 5 Solas. Among other essential scriptural truths, the 5 Solas revolve around a proper Scriptural understanding of "justification." Since Wright not only disagrees with the Reformed view of justification, but literally attacks it (a WMD to the true Gospel attacking the twin towers of (1) the faith once delivered and (2) the Lordship of Christ himself), any such discussion and/or support for such should be considered "off topic."

Just because someone calls himself "Reformed" does not make one "Reformed." True doctrine does not consist of a title, but every jot and tittle of Scripture. While being Reformed consists of more than just 5 points, without the 5 points, one is merely an imposter; a wolf among the sheep (Matt.10:16) in Reformed circles. Though true Christians are sent out as sheep among the wolves, they are sent out also in how to deal with such - see above on how Paul dealt with such WMD False Teachers.

I pray that God will give all repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-26) and that they by grace be given the ability to separate themselves from such false doctrines as NPP and the numerous other dangers such views lead too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndOne and JM
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I personally don't have a problem with heretics voicing their views. Their heresy is usually made known quickly. I do have a problem with someone who seeks to dominate a forum with endless threads and posts in every thread with short one liners. That kind of behavior is not only crass and boorish but a self-serving play for power.

Yes - that's my main issue as well...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cygnusx1
Upvote 0