When Dr Wright says, “We are supposed to be in lament”, what does he imply regarding Christian expression? Is this prescriptive or somehow diagnostic or perhaps simply descriptive? “We are supposed to be in lament.”
@@JohnCahillChapel Great question! I think his point is that an essential aspect of the church's witness is to bring the present groaning of creation to expression through the biblical practice of lament. This can/should happen within the church's liturgy and public discourse. I think that's the gist of what he's saying.
Thank you for your response. I have great difficulty as I hear many of these statements not only as “oughts” but as denials of realities that are the case given that their causes (the Spirit, conviction, insight) are real. If we say something “is supposed to be” it seems ineffectual to me, pointless unless guilt constitutes you authority. What is the efficient cause of a lack of lament, or a lack of empathy, or a lack of love. “We are supposed to lament” in and of itself can only be condemning. It invites the practice of lament for the sake of lament. That’s a Dreadful burden leading to mimicry. Lament is a response to real insight into real sin, sorrow, suffering… “We love … because we know His love.” The 1John4 “equation” attaches our responses to the Gospel. Diagnostically we note that love is not evident in our people. It can only be because the Father’s love is not known at this point. The preaching may well be based in the demands of guilt … as I too often cop! As a preacher, do I say, “Love one another,” or do I declare Gods love for the congregation and thereby declare the creative fiat of the Gospel? Which reflects the efficacious revelation that bears fruit?
As an EO believer from a kind of fundamentalist Protestantism, I rely on Tom Wright to understand Orthodox soteriology. He is bitterly biblical, uses different terminology, and in it I recognize the Orthodox understanding. So helpful. Much of this conversation reminded me of Fr. Dr. Jon Behr’s description of St. Iranaeus. Great stuff! Edit: not “bitterly” but “utterly” biblical!
@@jaggedstarrPI nope, I meant Orthodox. His approach & understanding jive for the greater part with how I understand my Orthodox faith to teach it. But he arrives at it without an appeal to patristics or liturgical texts and using a western, academic vocabulary. I know he’s Anglican. He isn’t pressing “Anglican” soteriology either. He pressing what he finds in the biblical text.Interesting & fascinating.
❤ This is brilliant!!!! I came to Christ thru the Romans Road. I have always recognized that it is simple proof texting. I like Wright’s approach and I’m going to read this book
What a marvelous discussion, thank you! The part about assurance was particularly encouraging because so often, "teachers" or "preachers" ask believers to gaze inward (at our behavior) as a means of securing assurance of salvation. Assessing our performance as a means of confirming we've truly been justified, however, is problematic, to say the least. If we're going through a season of doubts or disobedience or struggles, it would be easy to question one's salvation. In other words, implementing a subjective method to observe one's subjective life, for the purpose of acquiring an objective sense of assurance, is a shaky method. But instead, seeking Jesus, looking to Him and His promises, words, and unfailing presence in one's life is a much more secure way to experience assurance.
we don't need to experience assurance, only to be faithful to the way Christ has given us in his Church - I gather that, having reject Christ's Church, protestants need to have 'assurance' - millions feeling secured despite their rebellion, denying the Church and the Eucharist, will be badly surprised
@@silveriorebelo2920or perhaps the Catholics have no assurance because they are not resting in the promise of God which states that one is justified by faith. The gospel message is assurance. It’s absurd to preach a gospel in which you have no assurance of. If you have no assurance in the gospel of God then you do not believe the gospel of God. How can one ever be justified by faith when faith IS the ASSURANCE of things hoped for? The Catholic who has no assurance has no faith & thereby no justification. Do you believe Jesus is the Christ? It’s a yes or no. Do you believe His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins? It’s a yes or no. Do you believe He was raised for your justification? It’s a yes or no. If you answer yes to these 3 questions you have assurance because God has said it & God is not a liar. Either you believe Jesus is the Christ & have assurance because you know God is faithful to keep His word or you do not believe. Which one is it?
@@BingoNamo-gb8pzAmen! We are not ashamed of the Gospel. It is faith in the Gospel that is the power unto salvation! Very few people discover this truth. Pride refuses to acknowledge the gift of salvation.
That was a brilliant interview. I loved the conversation about how we as humans lament through the Spirit on behalf of the world. It was very enlightening and inspiring. Thank you for posting this.
Yes, this was absolutely fantastic! 🙏🏼♥️👏🏼 I am woefully unschooled at this point , in terms of a theological education. I am not a pastor, but have been prayerfully studying for many years now on my own, and have just entered Bible school at age 44 earlier this year. Anyway, I find Wright to be so refreshing, with a sort of childlike joy concerning the new vistas that have opened up as a result of some of his findings. He's very much like Lewis to me in that way. He strikes me as a "Narrative" guy, and I mean that in the best sense of the term! And even though he mentioned Aquinas in sort of a derogatory way according to the context of part of your conversation, he does ironically remind me of Aquinas, again in the best possible way, as he is not afraid to sort of touch on the theme that "God is not in competition with human flourishing." (I suppose that's probably tied to the under emphasis on reading Jesus' humanity in the scriptures.) In fact, as the early church fathers put it, "The Glory Of God IS a human being fully alive!" (In Christ of course) That's how I read him today anyway. GREAT interview, and thanks so much for posting! God's richest Blessings my friend
what Tom is saying God is rather coming to dwell among us as we see in Rev 21 and also as we see in the Garden of Eden God himself coming to be with Adam and Eve as this represent a t total restoration of this created earth shalom
Wright makes such a valuable point that we must start with the texts themselves and understand where they lead. An emphasis on passing along deductive Systematics can stunt people from deeply learning the texts themselves. So many American preachers presume to “preach” a portion of scripture; but what they actually do is allude to verses that set them up to teach their dogmatics. Both they and their hearers imagine that they have learned God’s truth in the texts. No, the texts have been manipulated as proof texts and remain unexplored and under-developed.
I agree that this is prevalent. Scripture used out of context to get to certain catch phrases that trigger excitement. The search for reality as the Bible presents it is obscured. These are powerful ideas that will refresh us. Thank you!
Thank you for this interview with N. T. Wright & I actually love to read Rom. 8:18-28. I get upset when I see criticism of the Apostle Paul from some youtube comments to various videos about doctrine/theology. Love N. T. Wright’s books and will be sure to get this one! Great interview!
I am annotating and reading Romans for Everyone by" you know who". Its intro level but a great helicopter view... Also enjoying the summary in Doug Moo's theology of Paul and his letters ( no prizes for guessing the weight that NTW is accorded in this fine work..) Really so good to see this sort of writing becoming so accessible..
Great conversation. Really enjoyed watching. My take on Romans 8 is that Paul must have had Deuteronomy 30 in mind while writing it. We know he quotes from Deu 30 not one and a half chapters later in Romans 10:5-8. Rom 8:5-7 NASB95 - 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so,] To "set your mind" means to make a choice (similar but opposite to "change your mind"). 3 times Paul says to "set your mind" (choose) and that the result of the choice is "life" or "death." This echos Deu 30 where Moses says 3 times that life and death (the blessing and the curse) is a choice God has set before man. Deu 30:1, 15, 19 NASB95 - 1 "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call [them] to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, ... 15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; ... 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, Rom 8:16 NASB95 - 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, We also see a mirror between Deu 30:19 and Rom 8:16 - two of the most "synergistic" passages in scripture. I call heaven (the Spirit Himself) and earth (our spirit) to bare witness (testify) regarding the choice we make for salvation. Moreover, in Deu 30:6 we see the context of this chapter is the "circumcision of the heart" which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is a huge theme of Rom 8. In Rom 10:5-8 we see Paul confirm that Deuteronomy 30 is speaking of the "righteousness which comes through faith" and is about "the gospel they are preaching." Moreover, we see Deu 30 harken back to the Abrahamic covenant (v5 & 20). So if I am analyzing the Ordo Salutis from Rom 8 I would do so thusly: 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱: the offspring of Abraham are the predestined group. God's grace chose them in Himself before the foundation of the world that they would be called the children of God. God's promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the righteousness he received for his faith in the gospel (Gal 3:6-9) is the creative act which conferred on the unborn descendants unmerited favor (grace). Rom 4:16-18 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱: God calls heaven (the Spirit Himself) and earth (our spirit) to bare witness (testifies) regarding the choice we make between life and death, the blessing and the curse. The Choice is commanded, and is not optional. (Deu 30:19, Rom 8:16) 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱: There are two covenants wherein a man may be justified as righteous: Abraham's righteousness by faith and Moses' righteousness through works of the law (Gal 2:16, 4:24). The Abrahamic covenant is the only one able to impart life to the dead (Gal 3:21), and is therefore the only covenant capable of justifying the sinner to life. When we have the same faith of Abraham, we qualify as his descendants and heirs of the righteousness of Christ given to him and promised by grace to his descendants, therefore we are justified as righteous (Rom 5:17). 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱: as a result of Christ's righteousness which we inherit through our father Abraham, our spirit is no longer marred by sin, and therefore no we are longer separated from God. Having been justified by faith, and cleansed of our iniquity by the righteousness of Christ, we are glorified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is the pièce de résistance for God's chosen people! (Gal 3:14, Eze 36:24-28).
I am especially interested in his superb comments at about 39:00, in that area of the video, about the importance of "temple" thinking; so important. Barth and Torrance are right, that the Trinity is truly the ultimate revelation of the Bible.. The God of the Bible is the Christian God, and therefore the God who is trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen. But could this dilemma be important here that in focusing so much on the trinity, and properly so, that we have lost out on the need to rethink the relation between the Trinity and ...the Temple of the OT? Here I am thinking of Paul Young's work in The SHACK. I was deeply touched by that work, and it presented trinitarian spirituality in a new light... one that got most people's attention. But after reading/studying it I had a deep sense of ...lack. Just what was it that I think we all sensed? There was no place for this "temple" thinking in it, no place or meaning in the altar of sacrifice, in the importance of the royal priesthood passing THROUGH the LAVER, and then ENTERING IN to the presence of the light of the Menorah, and what is ultimately "the SHINING FACE OF JESUS" talked about at the end of Revelations 1. Dr. Wright has properly rethought these two VITAL elements of the Trinity and the Tabernacle, and in proper Biblical relation, which lands us into a much healthier spiritual place....
Very beautiful the way glorification is presented as "the Spirit coming to enable the Divine glory to dwell in and with God's people so they constitute the new temple" while at the same time "this is the fulfillment of Psalm 8". I just wonder if in Titus 2:13 the word "glory" is used to refer to the second coming of Jesus rather than the Spirit coming to dwell in God's people. Or how can we understand that Paul refers to glory in this verse not as something that has happened or is happening but something that will take place in the future? Titus 2:13 (ESV): "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ"
Great comment! Yes, you're absolutely right that "glory" in Tit 2:13 refers to *the divine glory of the resurrected Messiah made manifest at his return*. This would be the end point, as it were, of our conformity to the image of the Messiah, which involves a total ontological transformation and thus enables us fully to inhabit the vocation of God's image-bearers.
Thank you for your discussion of Romans. I really learned Romans from J. I. Packer at a college Briefing Conference at Forest Home, California in 1968 sponsored by the Presbyterians, although I am an American Baptist. Romans has been so important in my life. I experience the reality of Jesus Christ every day. I feel like he is walking with me every day. That does not mean I do not sin sometimes. But the Spirit lets me know and prompts me to correct my thoughts and behaviors (repent). I am always puzzled by skeptics of Christianity. How could they not experience the reality of Christ? I very much like you re-defining of the predestination problem towards the New Creation. I have lately been bothered by thinking of eternity as longer than three trillion years. Our universe only took 8.7 billion years (as far as we know). What is it going to be like to live that long? Or is heaven in another dimension?
Amen, brother! As for the length of the new creation, it's difficult (if not impossible) for us to fathom it. What does it look like to exist outside of "normal" time? The question's a bit above my paygrade, I must confess. ;)
I remember hearing Seminary as a cemetery back in the 1970s in the more fundamentalist Protestant world in which I was raised. It was part of the strongly anti-academic feelings of this religious world.
I think that expanding “ the gospel “ to the concept of Gods’s total cosmic transformation of his creation (our world) is scriptural, philosophically sound and existentially fulfilling. This means that all of the work that we do is sacred. If all we need to do is “get forgiven and then fly off to heaven” then what is the point of this life ? Why do we become mothers fathers lawyers doctors cooks builders etc ? Why do we engage in relationships and family ? All of life is sacred and God is redeeming ALL of it through His Son and His church. Christ also transforms us through forgiveness prayer and other mental and moral transformation. “Good works” are not some things we tag along with “our salvation” they are the very point of salvation ! To live in a world where everyone freely always does what is good - that is paradise. That is heaven. Not streets of gold. I also believe that we need to understand Jesus THE MAN in His 1st century Jewish context. I agree with Wright He was probably very clever savvy likeable and a profound teacher. He caused controversy with the religious leaders of His day. A fascinating, controversial and yet deeply wise and brave man who changed the world.
What Tom Wright missed here is that his granddaughter was correct; he is advocating free will, the Erasmian synergism as he puts it, that "we can partner with God." Paul's point in Romans 8 (not to mention in Romans 3) is the complete opposite, that all is already done in Christ ("It is finished.") Even our prayers are prayed for us by the Spirit. The key is v. 36, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long." Our Old Adam is being killed by the Spirit.We are dead as Paul says, it is no longer we who live but Christ who lives in us. We are not saved by faith in Christ, but "by the faith OF Christ" (Gal. 2:20). What then must we still do? Nothing! Dead people can't do anything. We are passive recipients of his grace, which enrages our free will (Luther's Bondage of the Will). As Isaiah says, "All of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags." The unfortunate synergistic problem of Anglicanism has historically been its melding of Roman with Reformation theology in order to leave room for the free will Little Engine to say, "I think I can, I think I can" - when in fact we can't. Thanks be to God!
I think you are mishearing Wright and misreading the Scriptures by leaning first on your deductive systematics. Wright focuses on BIG picture understandings that lend meaning and cohesion to the smaller parts. Why did God create man? Wright had spent half his career pursuing answering that question. He lands on being God’s regents in the world, being the means through which God reigns on the earth, as we reveal the image of God (or as we image God). So God is restoring His image in us and calling us into partnership with Him. Salvation is in this context.
Thank you for this important comment. The issue of synergism lives on in “post realization” Christian teaching (what they teach you after conversion). The so-called “three uses of the law”, particularly the second (guide to Christian living, Reformed theology), sets up the rational grounds for what might be called “synergistic sanctification”. Foundational to such teachings is dependence on and promotion of the Bible as God rather than on “the knowing of God” or the real knowability of the Life Giving Spirit. Here the living God is reduced to letter and the Spirit is reduced to explanation. Ultimately, or progressively, and even habitually, “scholarly” authority rules the seeking masses. This is not a nasty complaint for me; it’s at the heart of my angst as a believer whose proof of God is pure necessity, real angst. Saying or implying that we need to groan or that we can groan our prayers is quite different to seeing and groaning. I appreciate your ref to Gal 2:20 “by the faith of Christ” rather than “by faith in Christ”. I think “pistis” is not too stretch if we make that “by the faithfulness of Christ”. You will grasp what I mean easily. The teaching industry has created a parallel industry, franchises from which we can access “fingers that point to” fodder for the culture rather than revelation that demolishes for resurrection or rebirth. There is a passive nuance to the Gospel for the “converted” and its efficacy is not the moral persuasion of letter based imperative forms or mere intellectual persuasion or apologetics. The form through which the Spirit speaks is primarily declarative proclamation of facts otherwise unknown to the flesh. The narratives and explanations declare the “writing off” of Adam 1 and the complete success of God’s sovereignty in Adam 2. That’s good news. Tetelestai! What’s at stake here is NOT the Gospel but better articulations of the Gospel, those which conform to Being of God. The initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God are guaranteed by the initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God. That’s what we mean by “Divine Sovereignty”. This is very good news. Our belief or otherwise doesn’t change this. He has written off all so that he may have mercy on all (11:3?) Thus, our efforts to be more sincerely sorry, repentant, grateful, right, holy, do not change the chances or the pecking order in the outcome of Gods will. Sin is unbelief and faith is a gift. … The Gospel is not evolving and if our understanding of it is developing, it is in our realization of the thoroughness of grace. In short: thanks for your comment.
Thank you for this important comment. The issue of synergism lives on in “post realization” Christian teaching (what they teach you after conversion). The so-called “three uses of the law”, particularly the second (guide to Christian living, Reformed theology), sets up the rational grounds for what might be called “synergistic sanctification”. Foundational to such teachings is dependence on and promotion of the Bible as God rather than on “the knowing of God” or the real knowability of the Life Giving Spirit. Here the living God is reduced to letter and the Spirit is reduced to explanation. Ultimately, or progressively, and even habitually, “scholarly” authority rules the seeking masses. This is not a nasty complaint for me; it’s at the heart of my angst as a believer whose proof of God is pure necessity, real angst. Saying or implying that we need to groan or that we can groan our prayers is quite different to seeing and groaning. I appreciate your ref to Gal 2:20 “by the faith of Christ” rather than “by faith in Christ”. I think “pistis” is not too stretch if we make that “by the faithfulness of Christ”. You will grasp what I mean easily. The teaching industry has created a parallel industry, franchises from which we can access “fingers that point to” fodder for the culture rather than revelation that demolishes for resurrection or rebirth. There is a passive nuance to the Gospel for the “converted” and its efficacy is not the moral persuasion of letter based imperative forms or mere intellectual persuasion or apologetics. The form through which the Spirit speaks is primarily declarative proclamation of facts otherwise unknown to the flesh. The narratives and explanations declare the “writing off” of Adam 1 and the complete success of God’s sovereignty in Adam 2. That’s good news. Tetelestai! What’s at stake here is NOT the Gospel but better articulations of the Gospel, those which conform to Being of God. The initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God are guaranteed by the initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God. That’s what we mean by “Divine Sovereignty”. This is very good news. Our belief or otherwise doesn’t change this. He has written off all so that he may have mercy on all (11:3?) Thus, our efforts to be more sincerely sorry, repentant, grateful, right, holy, do not change the chances or the pecking order in the outcome of Gods will. Sin is unbelief and faith is a gift. … The Gospel is not evolving and if our understanding of it is developing, it is in our realization of the thoroughness of grace. In short: thanks for your comment.
Seeing that we have the Spirit interceding on our behalf and indeed, Jesus Himself, at the right hand of God is also interceding for the entire Church - if that's the case, why would I even need to pray? I'd likely be praying in the wrong direction. God knows what we have need of before we even ask; so again, why should I pray?
I had the same impression of tying Jesus' "why have you forsaken me" with Romans 8: 26,27. Indeed that whole suffering section of the chapter was played out by Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and his trial and crucifixion. Suffering however isn't so much to well up lament within us for the world's situation-even though it does. Suffering is more that salvation's "hope" is realized. Because it's not through what we call the blessings that we know God most profoundly. Rather it's through the frustrations of life that this faith is refined. (See also Romans 5.) Then are they truly sufferings? Or are they labor pains to be forgotten after the birth? I'd rather skip all hardships myself-but how can they be avoided in this world? With that as a given, suffering from God's point of view is also a necessary exercise in becoming "more than conquerors" as we are conformed to the image of his Son (vs 28-30).
You bring up a good point, and a tension in the Christian faith. On the one hand, Paul clearly asserts that God uses suffering to "train" his children. On the other hand, to say that God can "turn all things for good" is not to say that the things themselves are good. Evil, suffering, injustice, etc. aren't merely illusory, but the tragic consequence of a world under the sway of sin and death. Christians do not embrace suffering as a Stoic would (even though there is some overlap), but expect that the God who raised the Messiah from the dead is powerful enough even to turn the worst things in this world for good. Within this tradition, lament (as in the Psalms) is an important part of how Christians express their faith in the face of darkness and despair.
@@dr.maxbotner With his statements about finding "glory" in suffering, Paul-who also discovered the "secret" to contentment in every situation; and taunted death as having no victory or sting-presents a riddle to the flesh. These are not statements of lament. But what is pleasing (good) about suffering and death? (I agree, stoicism-or even dulling hopes-is not the resolution.) Either Paul is crazy for taking all this seriously, or I am crazy for not. So following his core logic about law and grace, I had to reevaluate everything I thought I knew. (One reason I enjoy listening to N.T. Wright who does the same.) And yes this was all triggered by some of life's bumps in the road-the "sufferings." This took me all the way back to Genesis. Short answer is that Paul's understanding of the human condition through a law/grace lens instead of the usual good/evil view was key. It would take a few paragraphs to explain, but I've come out on the other end understanding Paul's remarkable secret. As much as N.T. also talks about God bringing heaven to earth, he is absolutely correct!
Being justified by faith is in contrast to the futile attempts at justification by law (which Paul covered thoroughly in previous chapters). Jesus told of the dynamics of law in regard to murder, where calling someone a fool turned into anger, which turned into murder. The murder was entirely dependent on the anger. And the anger was dependent on the judgment (calling someone a fool). Take away the anger, and there would have been no murder. But anger is hard to manage (see Romans 7). So Jesus zeroed in on the trigger for all this-the judgment. Jesus demonstrated how this works as an example that I can follow: Like me, he called people of his day fools-even got angry once or twice. But though he was treated unjustly, he ultimately did not send fire down from heaven (as John suggested once). Rather "he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:23). In practice, when I get angry, I don't try to control the anger-neither do I expect or pray that God will. Focusing on the judgment that caused it, God instead asks "Who told you they were fools?" Faith then is to say to God, "You are the judge, not me." It's amazing how easily this works-as it simultaneously bonds me with God.
Where is Tom’s theology these days on the reformed understanding of substitutionary atonement and how does his biblical position explain justification by faith if different?
Following on Wright and Brueggemann I wonder why my generation who knows Stevie Ray Vaughans music and Buddy Guy and BB King why in the world have we not heard any Bible Blues music, that taps into the psalms with the music of the current generation rather than the saccharine praise music that makes me run for the exits.
I talk to many people who claim "Christianity" as their faith but when I ask if they are "born again" they are perplexed. I am concerned that many people have a false assurance or they are self deceived.
It's possible. It's also worth noting, though, that "born again" is modern evangelical speak, so depending on their tradition, this may not be how they think about their faith journey.
@@dr.maxbotnerborn again, saved, eternal life. There are different terms that denote the same thing. Another one: born of the Spirit. Now that I think about it, I don't think the term "born again" is used anywhere else except by Jesus when talking to Nicodemus.
@@graftme3168 I read the statement in John as "born *from above*" (but the idea is certainly another, heavenly generation). 1 Peter also has the idea, I think.
I love how NT uses much the same language T. F. Torrance used a lot. Not surprising both are Briton though T. F T. was systematician and member of scotish church and NT is an Anglican Biblical theologian. Both are controversial as well but wonderful scholars
I assume the controversiality comes in because of the depth and the difficulty and nuances of their thoughts which sometimes run against the traditional thoughts. I just heard him in this interview say he expects to be called heretic again because of his views about heaven which is contrary to what people have believed for so long. Likewise TF has lots of such recasted views which are sometimes misunderstood by some. I have Jesus and victory of God a wonderful book. Will be happy to find the NT and the people of God
I wouldn't rely on someone who calls the substitutionary atonement paganism for theological teaching, among many other statements undermining scriptures NT Wright has made, but if that's who you need to rely on then you're the one that will need to answer to that.
You know why it sounds Catholic? Because it is. We Catholics have the Saints and Crucifix teaching us proper lament and holiness. So much was lost in England. Aquinas is focusing on the God question, but we have the Creed that we will be resurrected in flesh. And we never said the Protestant "I got saved," as we always teach that we are (and Church is) a temple and we must become as holy as we can. Aside, evangelical Dr Heiser has a great book on "The Unseen Realm" and talks of a genuine 2nd Eden. Gloria in excelsis Deo and Ave Maria
Love Dr. Heiser's books and also podcasts at Naked Bible podcasts. He deserves much credit for the deeper understanding of Paul's work that is now being taught.
Church or England (Anglican) is an apostolic succession church not a Roman church, so it is Catholic just not Roman Catholic, like the orthodox, eastern rite and Coptic church, there is continuity with the apostolic fathers, desert fathers, monastics, saints, etc.
Hello Catholics. Love and respect you all. I’m seeing “real presence” a lot by contrast with listening to “correct descriptions” of God. I think we (of my breed) have been reared in a parallel universe constructed of words and semantics that leave one dry and fatigued. When a fact (reality) is described we turn it into a potential that is dependent on belief. We make “real presence” a work of faith when faith is, in fact, an initiative of real God.
Lament is of the nature of Jesus and of the Christian being. Certain approaches to “belief” see lament, sorrow and suffering as contrary to life in the Spirit. Eyes open, we do not “bring in” another aspect called “lament”; we lament! Directly.
Tom understands inaugurated enacted eschatology- Kingdom. Evangelicals, by and large don't. They skulk in safety ( so they believe) in a place where they believe themselves to be, and end up either explaining a transformation as if it were simply a turning of the page in a book or alternatively living (?) in the cloud cuckoo land of overenacted eschatology. How dissapointing for everyone- and especially those who observe them.( I love the comment about being challenged to think when you disagree with a view. That is so useful to remember. )
In the past few days I've watched videos from NT Wright, David Diga Hernandez, Mike Winger, Alisa Childers, John Crowder (!), Chuck Smith, Greg Hershberg, Bill Johnson, Jason Sobel, Josiah Trenham, Gavin Ortland, and others. I'm wondering which one is telling me the complete truth? One UA-camr says at the intro of his podcast, "the real talk doesn't come from me but directly from God's word" to which I insist that it comes from his *interpretation* of God's word and thus fallible. So I wonder, again, whom should I trust if it's a matter of another's person's personal interpretation? It can be very tiring at least, and very prone to give up at worst. There's a lot of division and going back and forth with some groups pronouncing damnation/anathema upon others of a different understanding. It's certainly not what Jesus prayed for.
I would say no one is telling you the *complete truth* because none of these people have a God's eye view of reality. The best we can do is be earnest and faithful in our interpretation, open to change, growth, correction, etc. I'd be wary of listening to anyone who positions him/herself as the sole arbiter of truth. I'd also be cautious of getting sucked into online echo chambers. Love people, invest in your local community, serve others, etc. Peace.
I mean no offense, sincerely, but what does it matter what he thinks of Wesley? And what does it matter what Wright thinks? When we get to that time where we are answering to God we won’t be able to say “well, Wesley taught me that…” or “well, Wright taught me that…” or “well, my church taught me that…” Listening to teachers can be beneficial but a teacher shouldn’t mold what you think. A teacher should at most expound on concepts that you’ve learned from the Holy Bible and guidance by the Holy Spirit. I have yet to hear a preacher that I agree with 100% - maybe I’m wrong or maybe they’re wrong in certain areas but I surely won’t explain my sin/error by believing what a teacher says.
There are words to say how terrible things are. Society banned out true conversations and won't talk about references to the past. Anakin Skywalker is way too relatable.
I think he’s talking about the kind of suffering and grief to which our words can never do full justice. Also, keep in mind that Paul wrote in the first century AD. 😀
Enjoyed the discussion. Tom is always entertaining and thought-provoking. But I’m not a fan of his theology in general. I was first introduced to his theology years ago during the “New Perspectives on Paul” debates. I completely disagreed with him on that issue. And I haven’t been too impressed with his thoughts on the Gospel that you find in his books on Jesus. My problem tends to be that I disagree with his meta-narrative. Though he picks up on themes and patterns that many miss (this new book on Romans 8 seems to be no exception), I don’t think the Bible, particularly the NT, is telling the story that he envisions. This is sort of camouflaged by the fact that he uses similar language and words as many evangelicals, but with a different dictionary. I just read a transcript of a discussion between Tom and Simon Gathercole on the nature of the Atonement. Tom insisted that “substitution” was an important aspect of what Jesus did on the cross. But it took me a bit to realize that he did not mean the traditional understanding of “substitutionary atonement.” His idea of substitution is wrapped up in a completely different meta-narrative of what he thinks Jesus did on the cross. To him, Jesus died on the cross to deliver us from bondage to idolatry and as an example of self-sacrificing love. Jesus did not die in my place. My sins were not imputed to Jesus, and His righteousness was not imputed to me. There is not this same understanding of personal salvation that I find throughout the NT. I certainly plan on reading this new book on Romans 8, but I have not yet done so. But I certainly appreciate the excellent interview, and always enjoy listening to Tom. Thanks.
Muse on what range of meaning this phrase may have: “Jesus bore our sins.” I think this gets at the distinction Wright makes that overlaps with but also differentiates from a standard Reformed view of PSA.
Humm ---it sounds like you guys don't understand what salvation all is about. The bottom line here is "DONE" and :FINISHED" by Christ and Christ alone. The difference between POSITION and CONDITION. Imputed righteousness is not imparted righteousness. When God supernaturally removes the sinner from Adam and places him in Christ, He is supernaturally reborn spiritually, but he is still a sinner. There are only two types of people. Unsaved sinners bound for hell and saved sinners bound for heaven. The saved sinner who doesn't understand his position [ Romans 4-5 ] will ever REST in his God given salvation. He will never be able to RECONE himself dead to sin and completely removed from the LAW while still trying to reform the SELF. He just doesn't understand that the Biblical doctrine of Positional salvation must be fully understood before he is able to receive all the grace was bestowed upon him at salvation. Romans 5:1 is what must be understood. God now deals with his sin as a child of HIS. Progressive sanctification is directly related to FAITH reconned on in our full and never-ending acceptance in the beloved. The poor folks that think they can somehow lose their salvation will never be able to rest in God. They come up with all kinds of verse support for what is absolutely unbiblical. Oh you need to obey to stay saved they say-----really just how much and how well does this obedience have to be. This is the message Jesus had to get through the Jews that thought that keeping all the Law was the key. Bottom line He told then in the sermon on the mount about "doing something that would get them to heaven' was "you have to be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48. Progressive sanctification is a work of the Spirit just like salvation. As the saves person finally approaches the scriptures for what it is [ a supernatural spiritual umbilical cord ] the Spirit of God moves in the individual through his spiritually renewed mind to will and do the will of God. Our desire to know and obey God does not come from the human mind unaided by God. Paul taught that within him was no good thing. Matthew 4:4, Galatians 2:20 . All was accomplished and furnished [ past tense at the cross] until a person is taught bible doctrine concerning his positional place in Christ, he will forever chase his tail trying to "do something "that will hopefully allow God to accept him in his sinful flesh. So very sad.
Thanks for your comment. With all due respect, though, I would submit that you have imported a foreign theological system onto texts that know nothing of it. If this way of parsing salvation is helpful to you, great. But please don’t suggest that others don’t understand salvation simply because they don’t subscribe to your doctrine. God bless. 😀
As Paul spells out, we are perfected forever in Christ Jesus when we believe. Jesus was showing the Pharisees and everyone else that they couldn't do anything to be saved! He said that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, but we know that the Bible teaches that nobody could ever keep the law. So, how can we exceed the righteousness of the law? ONLY by being in Christ!! THAT is the good news of the Gospel!! It is finished!!
we don't really need to experience assurance, only to be faithful to the way of salvation Christ has given us in his Church - I gather that, having reject Christ's Church, protestants need to feel 'assurance' - it's strange that people seek to feel secured about salvation while thinking it is OK to deny the Church and the Eucharist...
Does no-one think he is getting this all a bit back to front? The gospel is linked closely to faith e.g. Romans 1 v 16,17, including us starting by Faith. Justification is not the opposite of being outside the community of faith, its the opposite of being under the wrath of God (condemned already). Thus justification is to "no longer under condemnation", and thus also brings me into the covenant community. The new testament gives examples of those in the covenant community that were not saved.
Protestants have been beating this verse to death to get it to mean what Luther erroroneously misinterpreted 500 years. They cant move on spiritualy with Christ beause they worship Luther and the the kjv more than than Christ on the cross.
Every tiny splinter sect always claims that others are reading this or that bible verse wrong, and are being misguided by satan/demons/sin/whatnot. I simply assume that they are all wrong.
NT Wright did a great job in defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ but sadly his theology has been watered down and compromising so I don't listen or read his books especially the latest book...
Perhaps the problem lies in the fear that I might have to rethink my departure point- and that frightens me because the new or amended view I am hearing, demands I reconfigure...perhaps a lot of things I am comfortable with. EG -& personally speaking-I am a lawyer, hearing about Gustav Aulen for the first time" blew me away". I had to revisit " everything". Sans Aulen I had trundled on, gleaning the same repeated views from the edge of the same field. Of course you dont or shouldnt agree with everything you read. ...
@@dr.maxbotner I watched the video again to make sure I was not mistaken, however this time I think I misunderstood him the first time, so I retract my statement, until next time god bless.
John MacArthur, is correct when he says that Jews are both under protection and under judgment. When a Jew becomes a believer, they are under the new covenant, where there is neither Jew nor gentile. The unconverted Jew is still yet protected, as well as under judgment. it was John MacArthur, who made this very clear. Many theologians do not really comprehend this or get it right
Wright still rejects imputation and does so by making a straw man of it, viewing it as some kind of infusion of a reified essence which. being manifestly absurd, can be easily rejected? then he has struck at the heart of the gospel and eviscerated it, so is a purveyor of damnable heresies and what did paul say of those who preached a different gospel to him? assurance is NEITHER from looking inward NOR from looking at some mental picture of Jesus Christ, but from a one on one relationship with the Holy Spirit who will TELL ME this and PERSUADE me to repent of my fearful unbelief
Let us know what you think! Drop a comment below.
ua-cam.com/video/mrAmtwZivpQ/v-deo.htmlsi=t3-2dDjk3p7IeU6k
- For an interviewer, you have a lot to say.
When Dr Wright says, “We are supposed to be in lament”, what does he imply regarding Christian expression? Is this prescriptive or somehow diagnostic or perhaps simply descriptive? “We are supposed to be in lament.”
@@JohnCahillChapel Great question! I think his point is that an essential aspect of the church's witness is to bring the present groaning of creation to expression through the biblical practice of lament. This can/should happen within the church's liturgy and public discourse. I think that's the gist of what he's saying.
Thank you for your response. I have great difficulty as I hear many of these statements not only as “oughts” but as denials of realities that are the case given that their causes (the Spirit, conviction, insight) are real. If we say something “is supposed to be” it seems ineffectual to me, pointless unless guilt constitutes you authority. What is the efficient cause of a lack of lament, or a lack of empathy, or a lack of love. “We are supposed to lament” in and of itself can only be condemning. It invites the practice of lament for the sake of lament. That’s a Dreadful burden leading to mimicry. Lament is a response to real insight into real sin, sorrow, suffering… “We love … because we know His love.” The 1John4 “equation” attaches our responses to the Gospel. Diagnostically we note that love is not evident in our people. It can only be because the Father’s love is not known at this point. The preaching may well be based in the demands of guilt … as I too often cop! As a preacher, do I say, “Love one another,” or do I declare Gods love for the congregation and thereby declare the creative fiat of the Gospel? Which reflects the efficacious revelation that bears fruit?
As an EO believer from a kind of fundamentalist Protestantism, I rely on Tom Wright to understand Orthodox soteriology. He is bitterly biblical, uses different terminology, and in it I recognize the Orthodox understanding. So helpful. Much of this conversation reminded me of Fr. Dr. Jon Behr’s description of St. Iranaeus. Great stuff!
Edit: not “bitterly” but “utterly” biblical!
Bitterly biblical is a fantastic name for a book or band or something
@@jaggedstarrPI nope, I meant Orthodox. His approach & understanding jive for the greater part with how I understand my Orthodox faith to teach it. But he arrives at it without an appeal to patristics or liturgical texts and using a western, academic vocabulary. I know he’s Anglican. He isn’t pressing “Anglican” soteriology either. He pressing what he finds in the biblical text.Interesting & fascinating.
@@SibleySteve would they be basically Baptist?
@@traceyedson9652 Fair enough...and fascinating. I can't see it, broadly speaking; but I defer to your inside knowledge, thank you).
Wow! we need more conversations and teachings like this.
❤ This is brilliant!!!!
I came to Christ thru the Romans Road. I have always recognized that it is simple proof texting.
I like Wright’s approach and I’m going to read this book
Awesome!
Thankyou! I really love many of Wright's insights into the historical Jesus and other issues
Yes!
What a marvelous discussion, thank you! The part about assurance was particularly encouraging because so often, "teachers" or "preachers" ask believers to gaze inward (at our behavior) as a means of securing assurance of salvation. Assessing our performance as a means of confirming we've truly been justified, however, is problematic, to say the least. If we're going through a season of doubts or disobedience or struggles, it would be easy to question one's salvation. In other words, implementing a subjective method to observe one's subjective life, for the purpose of acquiring an objective sense of assurance, is a shaky method. But instead, seeking Jesus, looking to Him and His promises, words, and unfailing presence in one's life is a much more secure way to experience assurance.
Thanks for your comment! Beautifully said!
we don't need to experience assurance, only to be faithful to the way Christ has given us in his Church - I gather that, having reject Christ's Church, protestants need to have 'assurance' - millions feeling secured despite their rebellion, denying the Church and the Eucharist, will be badly surprised
@@silveriorebelo2920or perhaps the Catholics have no assurance because they are not resting in the promise of God which states that one is justified by faith. The gospel message is assurance. It’s absurd to preach a gospel in which you have no assurance of. If you have no assurance in the gospel of God then you do not believe the gospel of God. How can one ever be justified by faith when faith IS the ASSURANCE of things hoped for? The Catholic who has no assurance has no faith & thereby no justification. Do you believe Jesus is the Christ? It’s a yes or no. Do you believe His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins? It’s a yes or no. Do you believe He was raised for your justification? It’s a yes or no. If you answer yes to these 3 questions you have assurance because God has said it & God is not a liar. Either you believe Jesus is the Christ & have assurance because you know God is faithful to keep His word or you do not believe. Which one is it?
Yes amen
@@BingoNamo-gb8pzAmen! We are not ashamed of the Gospel. It is faith in the Gospel that is the power unto salvation! Very few people discover this truth. Pride refuses to acknowledge the gift of salvation.
That was a brilliant interview. I loved the conversation about how we as humans lament through the Spirit on behalf of the world. It was very enlightening and inspiring. Thank you for posting this.
Thanks! That was one of my favorite parts, too!
8:03 "For too long," we have been playing catchup with liberal scholarship. Yes. Same electric shock felt here-we need more people like NT Wright.
Amen! I love that he said this!
Yes, this was absolutely fantastic! 🙏🏼♥️👏🏼
I am woefully unschooled at this point , in terms of a theological education. I am not a pastor, but have been prayerfully studying for many years now on my own, and have just entered Bible school at age 44 earlier this year.
Anyway, I find Wright to be so refreshing, with a sort of childlike joy concerning the new vistas that have opened up as a result of some of his findings. He's very much like Lewis to me in that way. He strikes me as a "Narrative" guy, and I mean that in the best sense of the term!
And even though he mentioned Aquinas in sort of a derogatory way according to the context of part of your conversation, he does ironically remind me of Aquinas, again in the best possible way, as he is not afraid to sort of touch on the theme that "God is not in competition with human flourishing." (I suppose that's probably tied to the under emphasis on reading Jesus' humanity in the scriptures.) In fact, as the early church fathers put it, "The Glory Of God IS a human being fully alive!" (In Christ of course)
That's how I read him today anyway. GREAT interview, and thanks so much for posting!
God's richest Blessings my friend
what Tom is saying God is rather coming to dwell among us as we see in Rev 21
and also as we see in the Garden of Eden God himself coming to be with Adam and Eve as this represent a t total restoration of this created earth
shalom
Danke!
Vielen Dank!
Wright makes such a valuable point that we must start with the texts themselves and understand where they lead. An emphasis on passing along deductive Systematics can stunt people from deeply learning the texts themselves.
So many American preachers presume to “preach” a portion of scripture; but what they actually do is allude to verses that set them up to teach their dogmatics. Both they and their hearers imagine that they have learned God’s truth in the texts. No, the texts have been manipulated as proof texts and remain unexplored and under-developed.
I agree that this is prevalent. Scripture used out of context to get to certain catch phrases that trigger excitement. The search for reality as the Bible presents it is obscured. These are powerful ideas that will refresh us. Thank you!
Thank you for this interview with N. T. Wright & I actually love to read Rom. 8:18-28. I get upset when I see criticism of the Apostle Paul from some youtube comments to various videos about doctrine/theology. Love N. T. Wright’s books and will be sure to get this one! Great interview!
Thanks for your comment! It’s a fantastic book. You won’t be disappointed! 😊
I am annotating and reading Romans for Everyone by" you know who". Its intro level but a great helicopter view...
Also enjoying the summary in Doug Moo's theology of Paul and his letters ( no prizes for guessing the weight that NTW is accorded in this fine work..)
Really so good to see this sort of writing becoming so accessible..
Excellent discussion, what a fun find! have hit subscribe 😊
Thanks!
Great conversation. Really enjoyed watching. My take on Romans 8 is that Paul must have had Deuteronomy 30 in mind while writing it. We know he quotes from Deu 30 not one and a half chapters later in Romans 10:5-8.
Rom 8:5-7 NASB95 - 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so,]
To "set your mind" means to make a choice (similar but opposite to "change your mind"). 3 times Paul says to "set your mind" (choose) and that the result of the choice is "life" or "death." This echos Deu 30 where Moses says 3 times that life and death (the blessing and the curse) is a choice God has set before man.
Deu 30:1, 15, 19 NASB95 - 1 "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call [them] to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, ... 15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; ... 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
Rom 8:16 NASB95 - 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
We also see a mirror between Deu 30:19 and Rom 8:16 - two of the most "synergistic" passages in scripture.
I call heaven (the Spirit Himself) and earth (our spirit) to bare witness (testify) regarding the choice we make for salvation.
Moreover, in Deu 30:6 we see the context of this chapter is the "circumcision of the heart" which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is a huge theme of Rom 8. In Rom 10:5-8 we see Paul confirm that Deuteronomy 30 is speaking of the "righteousness which comes through faith" and is about "the gospel they are preaching." Moreover, we see Deu 30 harken back to the Abrahamic covenant (v5 & 20). So if I am analyzing the Ordo Salutis from Rom 8 I would do so thusly:
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱: the offspring of Abraham are the predestined group. God's grace chose them in Himself before the foundation of the world that they would be called the children of God. God's promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the righteousness he received for his faith in the gospel (Gal 3:6-9) is the creative act which conferred on the unborn descendants unmerited favor (grace). Rom 4:16-18
𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱: God calls heaven (the Spirit Himself) and earth (our spirit) to bare witness (testifies) regarding the choice we make between life and death, the blessing and the curse. The Choice is commanded, and is not optional. (Deu 30:19, Rom 8:16)
𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱: There are two covenants wherein a man may be justified as righteous: Abraham's righteousness by faith and Moses' righteousness through works of the law (Gal 2:16, 4:24). The Abrahamic covenant is the only one able to impart life to the dead (Gal 3:21), and is therefore the only covenant capable of justifying the sinner to life. When we have the same faith of Abraham, we qualify as his descendants and heirs of the righteousness of Christ given to him and promised by grace to his descendants, therefore we are justified as righteous (Rom 5:17).
𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱: as a result of Christ's righteousness which we inherit through our father Abraham, our spirit is no longer marred by sin, and therefore no we are longer separated from God. Having been justified by faith, and cleansed of our iniquity by the righteousness of Christ, we are glorified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is the pièce de résistance for God's chosen people! (Gal 3:14, Eze 36:24-28).
Thanks
Thank you!
I am especially interested in his superb comments at about 39:00, in that area of the video, about the importance of "temple" thinking; so important. Barth and Torrance are right, that the Trinity is truly the ultimate revelation of the Bible.. The God of the Bible is the Christian God, and therefore the God who is trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen. But could this dilemma be important here that in focusing so much on the trinity, and properly so, that we have lost out on the need to rethink the relation between the Trinity and ...the Temple of the OT? Here I am thinking of Paul Young's work in The SHACK. I was deeply touched by that work, and it presented trinitarian spirituality in a new light... one that got most people's attention. But after reading/studying it I had a deep sense of ...lack. Just what was it that I think we all sensed? There was no place for this "temple" thinking in it, no place or meaning in the altar of sacrifice, in the importance of the royal priesthood passing THROUGH the LAVER, and then ENTERING IN to the presence of the light of the Menorah, and what is ultimately "the SHINING FACE OF JESUS" talked about at the end of Revelations 1. Dr. Wright has properly rethought these two VITAL elements of the Trinity and the Tabernacle, and in proper Biblical relation, which lands us into a much healthier spiritual place....
You got N.T. Wright?! Congratulations!
He’s incredible. I was his research assistant for two years, and witnessed his charity and generosity on numerous occasions.
😅😅😅
Very beautiful the way glorification is presented as "the Spirit coming to enable the Divine glory to dwell in and with God's people so they constitute the new temple" while at the same time "this is the fulfillment of Psalm 8".
I just wonder if in Titus 2:13 the word "glory" is used to refer to the second coming of Jesus rather than the Spirit coming to dwell in God's people. Or how can we understand that Paul refers to glory in this verse not as something that has happened or is happening but something that will take place in the future?
Titus 2:13 (ESV): "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ"
Great comment! Yes, you're absolutely right that "glory" in Tit 2:13 refers to *the divine glory of the resurrected Messiah made manifest at his return*. This would be the end point, as it were, of our conformity to the image of the Messiah, which involves a total ontological transformation and thus enables us fully to inhabit the vocation of God's image-bearers.
Thank you for your discussion of Romans. I really learned Romans from J. I. Packer at a college Briefing Conference at Forest Home, California in 1968 sponsored by the Presbyterians, although I am an American Baptist. Romans has been so important in my life. I experience the reality of Jesus Christ every day. I feel like he is walking with me every day. That does not mean I do not sin sometimes. But the Spirit lets me know and prompts me to correct my thoughts and behaviors (repent). I am always puzzled by skeptics of Christianity. How could they not experience the reality of Christ?
I very much like you re-defining of the predestination problem towards the New Creation. I have lately been bothered by thinking of eternity as longer than three trillion years. Our universe only took 8.7 billion years (as far as we know). What is it going to be like to live that long? Or is heaven in another dimension?
Amen, brother! As for the length of the new creation, it's difficult (if not impossible) for us to fathom it. What does it look like to exist outside of "normal" time? The question's a bit above my paygrade, I must confess. ;)
I remember hearing Seminary as a cemetery back in the 1970s in the more fundamentalist Protestant world in which I was raised. It was part of the strongly anti-academic feelings of this religious world.
26:00 - 28:00 inject this into my veins. Correction, the whole thing is gold.
This really is an amazing book. It will challenge you. It will change your view of Paul.
You don't bring Pain and Unhappiness into worship. You worship God with Joys.Lousy Teachers here.
Have you read the Psalms?
I admire NT soo much. Greetings from South africa
Likewise!
Reminds me of Scott Hahn saying he spent months figuring out some detail that he later found in a Catholic Bible footnote.
Interesting - which part?
Really enjoyed this!
I think that expanding “ the gospel “ to the concept of Gods’s total cosmic transformation of his creation (our world) is scriptural, philosophically sound and existentially fulfilling. This means that all of the work that we do is sacred. If all we need to do is “get forgiven and then fly off to heaven” then what is the point of this life ? Why do we become mothers fathers lawyers doctors cooks builders etc ? Why do we engage in relationships and family ? All of life is sacred and God is redeeming ALL of it through His Son and His church.
Christ also transforms us through forgiveness prayer and other mental and moral transformation. “Good works” are not some things we tag along with “our salvation” they are the very point of salvation ! To live in a world where everyone freely always does what is good - that is paradise. That is heaven. Not streets of gold.
I also believe that we need to understand Jesus THE MAN in His 1st century Jewish context. I agree with Wright He was probably very clever savvy likeable and a profound teacher. He caused controversy with the religious leaders of His day. A fascinating, controversial and yet deeply wise and brave man who changed the world.
Well said.
“… the humanity of scripture.” 👍
I had not heard that he had been struggling with poor health. I hope it is all resolved.
What Tom Wright missed here is that his granddaughter was correct; he is advocating free will, the Erasmian synergism as he puts it, that "we can partner with God." Paul's point in Romans 8 (not to mention in Romans 3) is the complete opposite, that all is already done in Christ ("It is finished.") Even our prayers are prayed for us by the Spirit. The key is v. 36, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long." Our Old Adam is being killed by the Spirit.We are dead as Paul says, it is no longer we who live but Christ who lives in us. We are not saved by faith in Christ, but "by the faith OF Christ" (Gal. 2:20). What then must we still do? Nothing! Dead people can't do anything. We are passive recipients of his grace, which enrages our free will (Luther's Bondage of the Will). As Isaiah says, "All of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags." The unfortunate synergistic problem of Anglicanism has historically been its melding of Roman with Reformation theology in order to leave room for the free will Little Engine to say, "I think I can, I think I can" - when in fact we can't. Thanks be to God!
I think you are mishearing Wright and misreading the Scriptures by leaning first on your deductive systematics.
Wright focuses on BIG picture understandings that lend meaning and cohesion to the smaller parts.
Why did God create man? Wright had spent half his career pursuing answering that question. He lands on being God’s regents in the world, being the means through which God reigns on the earth, as we reveal the image of God (or as we image God). So God is restoring His image in us and calling us into partnership with Him.
Salvation is in this context.
Thank you for this important comment. The issue of synergism lives on in “post realization” Christian teaching (what they teach you after conversion). The so-called “three uses of the law”, particularly the second (guide to Christian living, Reformed theology), sets up the rational grounds for what might be called “synergistic sanctification”. Foundational to such teachings is dependence on and promotion of the Bible as God rather than on “the knowing of God” or the real knowability of the Life Giving Spirit. Here the living God is reduced to letter and the Spirit is reduced to explanation. Ultimately, or progressively, and even habitually, “scholarly” authority rules the seeking masses. This is not a nasty complaint for me; it’s at the heart of my angst as a believer whose proof of God is pure necessity, real angst. Saying or implying that we need to groan or that we can groan our prayers is quite different to seeing and groaning. I appreciate your ref to Gal 2:20 “by the faith of Christ” rather than “by faith in Christ”. I think “pistis” is not too stretch if we make that “by the faithfulness of Christ”. You will grasp what I mean easily.
The teaching industry has created a parallel industry, franchises from which we can access “fingers that point to” fodder for the culture rather than revelation that demolishes for resurrection or rebirth. There is a passive nuance to the Gospel for the “converted” and its efficacy is not the moral persuasion of letter based imperative forms or mere intellectual persuasion or apologetics. The form through which the Spirit speaks is primarily declarative proclamation of facts otherwise unknown to the flesh. The narratives and explanations declare the “writing off” of Adam 1 and the complete success of God’s sovereignty in Adam 2. That’s good news. Tetelestai!
What’s at stake here is NOT the Gospel but better articulations of the Gospel, those which conform to Being of God. The initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God are guaranteed by the initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God. That’s what we mean by “Divine Sovereignty”. This is very good news. Our belief or otherwise doesn’t change this. He has written off all so that he may have mercy on all (11:3?) Thus, our efforts to be more sincerely sorry, repentant, grateful, right, holy, do not change the chances or the pecking order in the outcome of Gods will. Sin is unbelief and faith is a gift. …
The Gospel is not evolving and if our understanding of it is developing, it is in our realization of the thoroughness of grace.
In short: thanks for your comment.
Thank you for this important comment. The issue of synergism lives on in “post realization” Christian teaching (what they teach you after conversion). The so-called “three uses of the law”, particularly the second (guide to Christian living, Reformed theology), sets up the rational grounds for what might be called “synergistic sanctification”. Foundational to such teachings is dependence on and promotion of the Bible as God rather than on “the knowing of God” or the real knowability of the Life Giving Spirit. Here the living God is reduced to letter and the Spirit is reduced to explanation. Ultimately, or progressively, and even habitually, “scholarly” authority rules the seeking masses. This is not a nasty complaint for me; it’s at the heart of my angst as a believer whose proof of God is pure necessity, real angst. Saying or implying that we need to groan or that we can groan our prayers is quite different to seeing and groaning. I appreciate your ref to Gal 2:20 “by the faith of Christ” rather than “by faith in Christ”. I think “pistis” is not too stretch if we make that “by the faithfulness of Christ”. You will grasp what I mean easily.
The teaching industry has created a parallel industry, franchises from which we can access “fingers that point to” fodder for the culture rather than revelation that demolishes for resurrection or rebirth. There is a passive nuance to the Gospel for the “converted” and its efficacy is not the moral persuasion of letter based imperative forms or mere intellectual persuasion or apologetics. The form through which the Spirit speaks is primarily declarative proclamation of facts otherwise unknown to the flesh. The narratives and explanations declare the “writing off” of Adam 1 and the complete success of God’s sovereignty in Adam 2. That’s good news. Tetelestai!
What’s at stake here is NOT the Gospel but better articulations of the Gospel, those which conform to Being of God. The initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God are guaranteed by the initiative, sovereignty, will and ‘character’ of God. That’s what we mean by “Divine Sovereignty”. This is very good news. Our belief or otherwise doesn’t change this. He has written off all so that he may have mercy on all (11:3?) Thus, our efforts to be more sincerely sorry, repentant, grateful, right, holy, do not change the chances or the pecking order in the outcome of Gods will. Sin is unbelief and faith is a gift. …
The Gospel is not evolving and if our understanding of it is developing, it is in our realization of the thoroughness of grace.
In short: thanks for your comment.
The old man died with Christ. The new man is alive in Christ. Jesus came to give life, and life more abundantly.
Let Dr Wright Speak
Am I the only one that finds it weird that NT seems to be the only theologian that can correctly interpret the book of Romans🤔
22:49 Discussion on book begins.
Seeing that we have the Spirit interceding on our behalf and indeed, Jesus Himself, at the right hand of God is also interceding for the entire Church - if that's the case, why would I even need to pray? I'd likely be praying in the wrong direction. God knows what we have need of before we even ask; so again, why should I pray?
I had the same impression of tying Jesus' "why have you forsaken me" with Romans 8: 26,27. Indeed that whole suffering section of the chapter was played out by Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and his trial and crucifixion.
Suffering however isn't so much to well up lament within us for the world's situation-even though it does. Suffering is more that salvation's "hope" is realized. Because it's not through what we call the blessings that we know God most profoundly. Rather it's through the frustrations of life that this faith is refined. (See also Romans 5.) Then are they truly sufferings? Or are they labor pains to be forgotten after the birth?
I'd rather skip all hardships myself-but how can they be avoided in this world? With that as a given, suffering from God's point of view is also a necessary exercise in becoming "more than conquerors" as we are conformed to the image of his Son (vs 28-30).
You bring up a good point, and a tension in the Christian faith. On the one hand, Paul clearly asserts that God uses suffering to "train" his children. On the other hand, to say that God can "turn all things for good" is not to say that the things themselves are good. Evil, suffering, injustice, etc. aren't merely illusory, but the tragic consequence of a world under the sway of sin and death. Christians do not embrace suffering as a Stoic would (even though there is some overlap), but expect that the God who raised the Messiah from the dead is powerful enough even to turn the worst things in this world for good. Within this tradition, lament (as in the Psalms) is an important part of how Christians express their faith in the face of darkness and despair.
@@dr.maxbotner With his statements about finding "glory" in suffering, Paul-who also discovered the "secret" to contentment in every situation; and taunted death as having no victory or sting-presents a riddle to the flesh. These are not statements of lament. But what is pleasing (good) about suffering and death? (I agree, stoicism-or even dulling hopes-is not the resolution.)
Either Paul is crazy for taking all this seriously, or I am crazy for not. So following his core logic about law and grace, I had to reevaluate everything I thought I knew. (One reason I enjoy listening to N.T. Wright who does the same.) And yes this was all triggered by some of life's bumps in the road-the "sufferings."
This took me all the way back to Genesis. Short answer is that Paul's understanding of the human condition through a law/grace lens instead of the usual good/evil view was key. It would take a few paragraphs to explain, but I've come out on the other end understanding Paul's remarkable secret. As much as N.T. also talks about God bringing heaven to earth, he is absolutely correct!
Being justified by faith is in contrast to the futile attempts at justification by law (which Paul covered thoroughly in previous chapters).
Jesus told of the dynamics of law in regard to murder, where calling someone a fool turned into anger, which turned into murder. The murder was entirely dependent on the anger. And the anger was dependent on the judgment (calling someone a fool). Take away the anger, and there would have been no murder. But anger is hard to manage (see Romans 7). So Jesus zeroed in on the trigger for all this-the judgment.
Jesus demonstrated how this works as an example that I can follow: Like me, he called people of his day fools-even got angry once or twice. But though he was treated unjustly, he ultimately did not send fire down from heaven (as John suggested once). Rather "he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:23).
In practice, when I get angry, I don't try to control the anger-neither do I expect or pray that God will. Focusing on the judgment that caused it, God instead asks "Who told you they were fools?" Faith then is to say to God, "You are the judge, not me." It's amazing how easily this works-as it simultaneously bonds me with God.
Please put a high pass filter to cut some of the low end frequencies from your microphone.
What about growth and transformation? Are we not saved being saved and ultimately will experience the redemption of our bodies?
I think Wright would say yes and amen. Do you hear him saying otherwise?
W episode 🙏
Where is Tom’s theology these days on the reformed understanding of substitutionary atonement and how does his biblical position explain justification by faith if different?
Following on Wright and Brueggemann I wonder why my generation who knows Stevie Ray Vaughans music and Buddy Guy and BB King why in the world have we not heard any Bible Blues music, that taps into the psalms with the music of the current generation rather than the saccharine praise music that makes me run for the exits.
I talk to many people who claim "Christianity" as their faith but when I ask if they are "born again" they are perplexed. I am concerned that many people have a false assurance or they are self deceived.
It's possible. It's also worth noting, though, that "born again" is modern evangelical speak, so depending on their tradition, this may not be how they think about their faith journey.
@@dr.maxbotnerborn again, saved, eternal life. There are different terms that denote the same thing. Another one: born of the Spirit.
Now that I think about it, I don't think the term "born again" is used anywhere else except by Jesus when talking to Nicodemus.
@@graftme3168 I read the statement in John as "born *from above*" (but the idea is certainly another, heavenly generation). 1 Peter also has the idea, I think.
I love how NT uses much the same language T. F. Torrance used a lot. Not surprising both are Briton though T. F T. was systematician and member of scotish church and NT is an Anglican Biblical theologian. Both are controversial as well but wonderful scholars
I agree that both are wonderful scholars, and it’s crazy to me that either are controversial.
I assume the controversiality comes in because of the depth and the difficulty and nuances of their thoughts which sometimes run against the traditional thoughts. I just heard him in this interview say he expects to be called heretic again because of his views about heaven which is contrary to what people have believed for so long. Likewise TF has lots of such recasted views which are sometimes misunderstood by some. I have Jesus and victory of God a wonderful book. Will be happy to find the NT and the people of God
@@edwinmwale6984 I think you're right that people struggle with nuance. Everyone is some else's heretic, it seems.
I wouldn't rely on someone who calls the substitutionary atonement paganism for theological teaching, among many other statements undermining scriptures NT Wright has made, but if that's who you need to rely on then you're the one that will need to answer to that.
You know why it sounds Catholic? Because it is. We Catholics have the Saints and Crucifix teaching us proper lament and holiness. So much was lost in England. Aquinas is focusing on the God question, but we have the Creed that we will be resurrected in flesh. And we never said the Protestant "I got saved," as we always teach that we are (and Church is) a temple and we must become as holy as we can. Aside, evangelical Dr Heiser has a great book on "The Unseen Realm" and talks of a genuine 2nd Eden. Gloria in excelsis Deo and Ave Maria
Love Dr. Heiser's books and also podcasts at Naked Bible podcasts. He deserves much credit for the deeper understanding of Paul's work that is now being taught.
Church or England (Anglican) is an apostolic succession church not a Roman church, so it is Catholic just not Roman Catholic, like the orthodox, eastern rite and Coptic church, there is continuity with the apostolic fathers, desert fathers, monastics, saints, etc.
I@@SibleySteve
Hello Catholics. Love and respect you all. I’m seeing “real presence” a lot by contrast with listening to “correct descriptions” of God. I think we (of my breed) have been reared in a parallel universe constructed of words and semantics that leave one dry and fatigued. When a fact (reality) is described we turn it into a potential that is dependent on belief. We make “real presence” a work of faith when faith is, in fact, an initiative of real God.
Lament is of the nature of Jesus and of the Christian being. Certain approaches to “belief” see lament, sorrow and suffering as contrary to life in the Spirit. Eyes open, we do not “bring in” another aspect called “lament”; we lament! Directly.
Tom understands inaugurated enacted eschatology- Kingdom.
Evangelicals, by and large don't. They skulk in safety ( so they believe) in a place where they believe themselves to be, and end up either explaining a transformation as if it were simply a turning of the page in a book or alternatively living (?) in the cloud cuckoo land of overenacted eschatology. How dissapointing for everyone- and especially those who observe them.( I love the comment about being challenged to think when you disagree with a view. That is so useful to remember. )
I guess we eventually got to Romans!
In the past few days I've watched videos from NT Wright, David Diga Hernandez, Mike Winger, Alisa Childers, John Crowder (!), Chuck Smith, Greg Hershberg, Bill Johnson, Jason Sobel, Josiah Trenham, Gavin Ortland, and others. I'm wondering which one is telling me the complete truth? One UA-camr says at the intro of his podcast, "the real talk doesn't come from me but directly from God's word" to which I insist that it comes from his *interpretation* of God's word and thus fallible. So I wonder, again, whom should I trust if it's a matter of another's person's personal interpretation? It can be very tiring at least, and very prone to give up at worst. There's a lot of division and going back and forth with some groups pronouncing damnation/anathema upon others of a different understanding. It's certainly not what Jesus prayed for.
I would say no one is telling you the *complete truth* because none of these people have a God's eye view of reality. The best we can do is be earnest and faithful in our interpretation, open to change, growth, correction, etc. I'd be wary of listening to anyone who positions him/herself as the sole arbiter of truth. I'd also be cautious of getting sucked into online echo chambers. Love people, invest in your local community, serve others, etc. Peace.
What would Wright think of John Wesley’s grasp
I mean no offense, sincerely, but what does it matter what he thinks of Wesley? And what does it matter what Wright thinks? When we get to that time where we are answering to God we won’t be able to say “well, Wesley taught me that…” or “well, Wright taught me that…” or “well, my church taught me that…” Listening to teachers can be beneficial but a teacher shouldn’t mold what you think. A teacher should at most expound on concepts that you’ve learned from the Holy Bible and guidance by the Holy Spirit. I have yet to hear a preacher that I agree with 100% - maybe I’m wrong or maybe they’re wrong in certain areas but I surely won’t explain my sin/error by believing what a teacher says.
What part of Wesley’s thought did you have in mind? I can’t speak for Tom but I might be able to make an educated guess. 😉
There are words to say how terrible things are. Society banned out true conversations and won't talk about references to the past. Anakin Skywalker is way too relatable.
I think he’s talking about the kind of suffering and grief to which our words can never do full justice. Also, keep in mind that Paul wrote in the first century AD. 😀
Enjoyed the discussion. Tom is always entertaining and thought-provoking. But I’m not a fan of his theology in general. I was first introduced to his theology years ago during the “New Perspectives on Paul” debates. I completely disagreed with him on that issue. And I haven’t been too impressed with his thoughts on the Gospel that you find in his books on Jesus. My problem tends to be that I disagree with his meta-narrative. Though he picks up on themes and patterns that many miss (this new book on Romans 8 seems to be no exception), I don’t think the Bible, particularly the NT, is telling the story that he envisions. This is sort of camouflaged by the fact that he uses similar language and words as many evangelicals, but with a different dictionary. I just read a transcript of a discussion between Tom and Simon Gathercole on the nature of the Atonement. Tom insisted that “substitution” was an important aspect of what Jesus did on the cross. But it took me a bit to realize that he did not mean the traditional understanding of “substitutionary atonement.” His idea of substitution is wrapped up in a completely different meta-narrative of what he thinks Jesus did on the cross. To him, Jesus died on the cross to deliver us from bondage to idolatry and as an example of self-sacrificing love. Jesus did not die in my place. My sins were not imputed to Jesus, and His righteousness was not imputed to me. There is not this same understanding of personal salvation that I find throughout the NT. I certainly plan on reading this new book on Romans 8, but I have not yet done so. But I certainly appreciate the excellent interview, and always enjoy listening to Tom. Thanks.
Muse on what range of meaning this phrase may have: “Jesus bore our sins.”
I think this gets at the distinction Wright makes that overlaps with but also differentiates from a standard Reformed view of PSA.
Humm ---it sounds like you guys don't understand what salvation all is about. The bottom line here is "DONE" and :FINISHED" by Christ and Christ alone. The difference between POSITION and CONDITION. Imputed righteousness is not imparted righteousness. When God supernaturally removes the sinner from Adam and places him in Christ, He is supernaturally reborn spiritually, but he is still a sinner. There are only two types of people. Unsaved sinners bound for hell and saved sinners bound for heaven. The saved sinner who doesn't understand his position [ Romans 4-5 ] will ever REST in his God given salvation. He will never be able to RECONE himself dead to sin and completely removed from the LAW while still trying to reform the SELF. He just doesn't understand that the Biblical doctrine of Positional salvation must be fully understood before he is able to receive all the grace was bestowed upon him at salvation. Romans 5:1 is what must be understood. God now deals with his sin as a child of HIS. Progressive sanctification is directly related to FAITH reconned on in our full and never-ending acceptance in the beloved. The poor folks that think they can somehow lose their salvation will never be able to rest in God. They come up with all kinds of verse support for what is absolutely unbiblical. Oh you need to obey to stay saved they say-----really just how much and how well does this obedience have to be. This is the message Jesus had to get through the Jews that thought that keeping all the Law was the key. Bottom line He told then in the sermon on the mount about "doing something that would get them to heaven' was "you have to be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48. Progressive sanctification is a work of the
Spirit just like salvation. As the saves person finally approaches the scriptures for what it is [ a supernatural spiritual umbilical cord ] the Spirit of God moves in the individual through his spiritually renewed mind to will and do the will of God. Our desire to know and obey God does not come from the human mind unaided by God. Paul taught that within him was no good thing. Matthew 4:4, Galatians 2:20 . All was accomplished and furnished [ past tense at the cross] until a person is taught bible doctrine concerning his positional place in Christ, he will forever chase his tail trying to "do something "that will hopefully allow God to accept him in his sinful flesh. So very sad.
Thanks for your comment. With all due respect, though, I would submit that you have imported a foreign theological system onto texts that know nothing of it. If this way of parsing salvation is helpful to you, great. But please don’t suggest that others don’t understand salvation simply because they don’t subscribe to your doctrine. God bless. 😀
As Paul spells out, we are perfected forever in Christ Jesus when we believe. Jesus was showing the Pharisees and everyone else that they couldn't do anything to be saved! He said that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, but we know that the Bible teaches that nobody could ever keep the law. So, how can we exceed the righteousness of the law? ONLY by being in Christ!! THAT is the good news of the Gospel!! It is finished!!
we don't really need to experience assurance, only to be faithful to the way of salvation Christ has given us in his Church - I gather that, having reject Christ's Church, protestants need to feel 'assurance' - it's strange that people seek to feel secured about salvation while thinking it is OK to deny the Church and the Eucharist...
Does no-one think he is getting this all a bit back to front? The gospel is linked closely to faith e.g. Romans 1 v 16,17, including us starting by Faith. Justification is not the opposite of being outside the community of faith, its the opposite of being under the wrath of God (condemned already). Thus justification is to "no longer under condemnation", and thus also brings me into the covenant community. The new testament gives examples of those in the covenant community that were not saved.
Protestants have been beating this verse to death to get it to mean what Luther erroroneously misinterpreted 500 years. They cant move on spiritualy with Christ beause they worship Luther and the the kjv more than than Christ on the cross.
Is that it?
Every tiny splinter sect always claims that others are reading this or that bible verse wrong, and are being misguided by satan/demons/sin/whatnot. I simply assume that they are all wrong.
Better not get brainwashed and read Romans for yourself.
Ha! No, not at all. The title was just being punny. 😉
NT Wright did a great job in defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ but sadly his theology has been watered down and compromising so I don't listen or read his books especially the latest book...
How so? What about his latest book is "watered down" or "compromising"?
Perhaps the problem lies in the fear that I might have to rethink my departure point- and that frightens me because the new or amended view I am hearing, demands I reconfigure...perhaps a lot of things I am comfortable with. EG -& personally speaking-I am a lawyer, hearing about Gustav Aulen for the first time" blew me away". I had to revisit " everything". Sans Aulen I had trundled on, gleaning the same repeated views from the edge of the same field. Of course you dont or shouldnt agree with everything you read. ...
You do not know what you are asking, if I tell you the truth will you accept it, because I will tell you now, NT Wright is in error.
How so?
@@dr.maxbotner I watched the video again to make sure I was not mistaken, however this time I think I misunderstood him the first time, so I retract my statement, until next time god bless.
@@TempleofChristMinistries Got it. Well, you are always free to express disagreement with me or any of the guest I have on this channel. God bless!
@@TempleofChristMinistriesI appreciate your gracious response. It helps me also to listen more than once to make sure I “get” what is intended.
John MacArthur, is correct when he says that Jews are both under protection and under judgment. When a Jew becomes a believer, they are under the new covenant, where there is neither Jew nor gentile. The unconverted Jew is still yet protected, as well as under judgment. it was John MacArthur, who made this very clear. Many theologians do not really comprehend this or get it right
Wright still rejects imputation and does so by making a straw man of it, viewing it as some kind of infusion of a reified essence which. being manifestly absurd, can be easily rejected?
then he has struck at the heart of the gospel and eviscerated it, so is a purveyor of damnable heresies
and what did paul say of those who preached a different gospel to him?
assurance is NEITHER from looking inward NOR from looking at some mental picture of Jesus Christ, but from a one on one relationship with the Holy Spirit who will TELL ME this and PERSUADE me to repent of my fearful unbelief
Does N.T. Wright stand for No Training and it should be Wrong not Wright.
Go in peace