N. T. Wright on Predestination and Election
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 гру 2014
- In this video, Dr.N.T.Wright explains what Paul meant by predestination and election and looks at 3 key texts: Romans 8, 9-11, Eph 1.
Full Q&A Session here: • Dr. N. T. Wright Stude...
I found this video very helpful and wrote up a paraphrase of this dialogue for my own notes. Maybe someone will find this useful.
Three passages disputed:
Romans 8: “those who are called according to his purpose” and “those he predestined he also called, those he called he also justified, those he justified he also glorified” That is a sharp close up compressed telling of the story of Israel as the chosen people whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus, in a sense Jesus is “the one chosen one but then that identity is shared with all those who are in Christ and he isn’t surprisingly talking primarily there about salvation, he’s talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole creation. Many will skip over Romans 8 18-26/7ish which is about the renewing of creation when humans are glorified, i.e. put in charge.
The second passage would be Ephesians 1 3-14 where again “Blessed be the God and the Father” etc.and, “he destined us in love to be his sons”. This is very much an Israel story very much an exodus story, so it goes back through Deuteronomy and Exodus where God says to Israel it wasn’t because you were numerous than anyone else that the Lord chose you it’s because he loved you and had purposes for you so again it’s sort of so that you might be the people through whom his glory would move out into the world and then the really difficult passage of course is
Romans 9-11 what he’s doing is telling the story of Israel so that it then ultimately focuses on Jesus himself. but the point then which has so often been missed is that he is not talking about a theory of how people get saved or not, what he’s saying is that God’s dealings with unbelieving Israel are as it were a reflection God’s dealings with his own son, because the question is: “Why has god apparently cast off his people and what on earth is God up to?” He made promises to the Jews that he would do A, B, and C and he’s now done them and they turn around say they don’t want it. Does this mean the Word as God has failed? Paul develops this very careful and subtle picture in which he says no actually even this too was part of God’s plan because by their casting away salvation, it has come to the Gentiles. If Israel had believed straight off the top then any Gentiles coming in would have had to just be part of Israel whereas the point is he says at the end of Romans 11 is that God has subjected all to disobedience so that all who come will be by my mercy and so he’s exploring the very strange ways in which the Christ shaped cross and resurrection shaped pattern of salvation has actually been written largely into the story of Israel.
Thank you!
Thanks!
It’s a strange thing when Christians start to identify more with Calvin, calling themselves Calvinists, and counting everyone else as non-Christians instead of just saying, “hey, we haven’t got it all figured out. The Bible is a complex book. But we believe in Jesus’ payment for our sins and we strive to worship Him as Lord.”
it's not complex. it's only complex because you don't want to accept what it says
Amen brother. Even Calvin admitted to not have had it all figured out and used "mystery" as his answer for certain topics that are not defined enough in scripture.
Christopher Kershaw but answers of scripture does NOT come from man by his own good works of mental thought but through the HOLY SPIRIT.
The HS speaks to the human and the man reveals to the church. That is how it works.
You try to understand the Bible and God by your OWN EFFORT
Likewise u can not get into Heaven by your own effort but through faith that Jesus is who He claims.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC Ahhh, the arrogance of a Calvinist!!
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC We are all free to disagree with someone but I feel you will get a lot more out of being courteous and respectful in your language/response/argument. There's no need to attack someone for having views different to yours.
It's a reminder that we have to understand scripture in the context it was written.
But Calvinist's THINK they know the right context here --- but THEY DO NOT!
GLORY TO GOD!
What a legend, guys there is freedom in understanding this whole argument correctly. To camp out totally in any position (Arminiasm, Calvanistic or a corporate view of election) is to stop the conversation surrounding the mystery of God choosing to love and save a disobedient people instead of damning them to hell. Its far more important throw up our arms in frustration regarding things we are not sure of and focus on the fundementals that we all agree on.
I have been saying this for many years and the understanding flows easily once chapter and verse is removed and all presuppositions are left behind.
Pure and real bible study shows no other doctrine!
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
@@itisnow Yeah, by your argument: "Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey and many other mighty men of God had dark hearts."
They had done a lot for the Kingdom of God, than you could ever imagine!
Be careful with your words, and look at the history too, as many Calvinists had done a lot of good for the Kingdom of God than the Scholars today!
@@itisnow most of the missionaries and most of the best preachers in our Protestant history were and are reformed/Calvinist. To say that Spurgeon, Owen, Whitefield, Bunyan, Lloyd-Jones and even Piper or Sproul, who have a huge evangelistic work, are dark hearted, is just wrong.
They didn't believe their own theology.
Calvinism is dark.
If the every sin is stoned for, why do people go to hell? That means either the atonement is limited or insufficient.
@@FRodriguez_ people don’t go to hell as punishment for their sins. Jesus already did the time for their crime. But some people choose (for eternity) to be their own king in the kingdom of self (hell) - rather than accept Jesus as their king in the kingdom of God (the new heaven & new earth).
NT Wright is amazing in his ability to trace where certain ways of thinking have stemmed from or shed light on what they were influenced by. It takes a historian like him to be able to be so dedicated and do such thorough research.
@New Eyes To See why don’t u first try to do the work of a historian with the same academic rigor as NT Wright before you are so quick to criticise what you obviously don’t appreciate as an incredibly complex endeavour. We can all then stand back with retrospective hindsight and pick out all the information you “left out”. Obviously NT Wright is also human and not perfect. His scope of research can be restricted by many things such as time frames.
@New Eyes To See you basically made a high accusation that NT Wright was deceitful and purposefully left things out and that people shouldn’t believe him because he is high learned and an academic. All I’m saying is you should back up your claims or clarify exactly what you mean by that before you make such bombastic statements about someone.
@New Eyes To See I think you should listen to NT Wright again - perhaps what you think he is saying is actually not what he is saying. It happens to all of us when we converse with people. It takes a lot of listening skills to hear people for what they are saying and not what we think they are saying. To hear them on their own terms and not assume we know all their motives. But I can also hear what you are saying.. the problem with NT Wright is he packs a lot into a few sentences - and without elaborating he is definitely not immune to being misunderstood by the wider audience who are especially unfamiliar to his “way of talking”. He has a frustrating way of speaking that is dense, “academic and scholarly” and lacks a lot of clarity. It is no wonder you interpret his words to mean what they mean. But it might help you to know that your interpretation of what people and text say might not align with what they actually intended to mean. We are also human - which means - we are not always perfect at articulating what we mean to others. People are always going to misunderstand us due to limitations in communication skills and listening skills. It’s also helpful to realise that all Christians go on a journey where their minds are being continually renewed. We are all going to be wrong about something because our knowledge is imperfect. No one is completely right or wrong. This black and white thinking of people is not helpful as it will make you intolerant of people who hold different views to you. The church will always be filled with people from different backgrounds who have many different perspectives. It’s part of being human. So how do we love people who are different to us? We humble ourselves knowing we are just as fallible and not perfect - and treat other people’s “shortcomings” with grace. We value the relationship and need to love them over our desire to always feel right and over our desire to always voice our opinions and impose our views over theirs. If we feel the need to tell them of our views we do it with respect, with gentleness of speech. I do agree with you in the sense that - NT Wrights views have limitations and are not all “correct” but his general academic work has been helpful to many people in other areas he has studied. Not all bible scholars are going to “get it right” on all aspects regarding the bible. To think any one human can do that is to have really unrealistic expectations of people. John Barclay does a really good job of explaining some of the limitations of NT Wrights’ perspectives on things in his book Paul and the gift.
Wow @MapleMeHoney. Just read this whole conversation and I really enjoyed reading your last comment. There's so much freedom in knowing we don't have it all figured out and God's not mad at us for it. This is not to say we don't pursue studying to learn what's true of course.
@New Eyes To See Let me guess... you're another member of the MacArthur cult.
It is so refreshing that a scholar of N.T. Wright's stature and erudition is NOT a Calvinist.
+elfuego9 Well actually, despite what it seems, most theologians, christian philosophers and scholars are not Calvinists.
+Samuel Selvin Fair enough :)
+elfuego9 I would provoke further: perhaps his erudition and stature comes precisely from the fact that he is not constrained by Calvinist rubbish.
+gre8 You ought to exercise some Christian charity before you dismiss an entire tradition of Christian thought so hastily. Most of the founding theologians of Wright's own (and my own) Anglican faith were Calvinists who were very much in line with the Continental Reformers. Based on your comment, I would assume that you have done very little actual reading of Calvin. Do not equate contemporary pop-Presbyterianism with the theologian who alongside Luther was one of the twin pillars of the Reformation. Your condescending comments will not help those of us who are down here mewling in our "Calvinist rubbish." Good day, and God bless you.
Wesley Owens
I happen to have a read a good deal of the Institutes a couple of years back and I did not impresse me. Actually, what strikes me as most amazing in Calvinistic thought is how modern and empirical it is, a radical culmination of western scholasticism and theological understanding that draws almost nothing on the greater tradition of ancient christian thought. When you read not only the New Testament, but also the very early Christian writings, you will notice just how differently those early christians understood the relation between God and man. Calvinistic thought, in my opinion, jettisons God away from humanity - in His throne of cold and indifferent sovereignty - in a way not even medieval indulgences and papal arrogance could.
Most everything that I have learned from the scripture I learned from 12 noon on Sunday until 10:30 the next Sunday morning.
The Bible tells me that the scripture speaks to every generation, and the application of what you learn is where the revelation
begins. It takes lots of prayer and study and I certainly like to listen to what other believers are getting. From Luther, Calvin to
many over the last 150 years it seems that the important position has always been "Are you in Christ and is He in you, James.
Love NT Wright's wisdom and approach to trying to find honest answers and looking at Scripture as a whole, including Israel and what Paul is actually trying to say.
........his wisdom is fallen..
You did not talk in riddles for 60 minutes so he has not rubbed off on you yet, which is good.
Prior to the reformation, this brilliantly stated view of Paul's teaching was obvious to true Christianity.
He is deeply wrong. Calvinism is the true Gospel. John 6,44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
The problem with that Wang is that in fact around 1,000 years before the reformation we find Augustine saying and writing the exact same things.
Alexander W. the Gospel is what is used to draw people.
@@myapologia Which was a controversial view of Augustine at the time, being that nobody had been saying it before he brought Manichaeism into the church.
Lander Jennings amen brother. The gospel is sufficient enough. That’s the whole point. Calvinism says that the gospel is not enough - that an ADDITIONAL work must be done behind the cross, beyond the good news - to draw and save people.
Just believe the word of God.
HE receives ALL the GLORY and HE will NOT share HIS GLORY with another
exactly what Dr brown has said.thx
Yes, N.T. Wright is great for taking 5 minutes to affirm he doesn't really know because it's complicated.
I’m so glad I’ve heard this explained through the long
Lessons of Tim Mackie through the history and the cosmology lessons and all the authors that support this. I grew up with this earn your salvation instead of “work out” your salvation in Ephesians . Love these lectures from different scholars like NT Wright and their books. I can’t read them fast enough. ! Thank you all.
I’ve been struggling with this election pre destination thing for a while. I feel like a weight has been lifted.
God bless you. 🙏
Did you read Romans 8? The whole chapter is about individual Christians, not corporate Israel.
Beginning with verse 1 and 2: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
"...has set YOU free..." The Greek here is singular. We can apply this verse to ourselves personally. Nothing in the whole chapter points to the nation of Israel.
The best way to understand the tension between free-will and predestination/election is that it's not an either/or proposition. Free-will and predestination/election are twin truths that co-exist simultaneously with no contradiction in the mind of God.
Remember, God is an infinite being with an omniscient mind. We are finite creatures who have minds darkened by sin. This is the point where we need the faith to believe what seems like foolishness. It's not free will or predestination. It's both simultaneously.
1.) Man is responsible for his choices and will have to answer for them.
2.) God sovereignly determine everything that happens, and without violence to man's free will.
That's why we can take comfort from another verse in Romans 8.
28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, and who have been called according to His purpose."
Faith like a little child, right? I don't fully understand it, but trust in my Heavenly Father.
Even if the doctrine is about corperate Israel, Israel cosists of "individual human beings" not mountains and valleys are predestined. It's not that your weight has been lifted up, you have listened to a heretic, deluded mind. Don't be deceived.
@@d_Howard I agree.
I struggled with this lots and I can’t to the conclusion that I need to humble myself and trust in god.
My one rule is this:
No matter how sovereign god is I am a sinner and he is not. When I sin it’s my choice he does not predestine me to do it.
Thank you all for the clarification. Legit. 👍
God bless
Brilliant! So grateful for NT Wright.
Even his heresy regarding the “new perspective on Paul”?
@@JeanmarieRod can you show how that is heresy?
But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through •sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The mistake John Calvin made was his misunderstanding of the Epistles of Paul. In Romans for instance Paul explains why Gentile believers are not required to observe the law of Moses and it's male members submit to circumcision. The background story of this of course is found in Acts 15 where the council in Jerusalem resolved these issues that emerged in the early days of Paul's ministry shortly after the first Gentile converts.
Calvin attempted to force a meaning from these writings and make them instead apply to his concerns of his time which were the abuses of Catholicism in the 16th century. His main focus was how an individual gets to heaven which is an odd interpretation considering these letters were written to churches where the individuals in them were already saved.
Paul on the other hand wanted to unify the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers into one group in these churches. In Ephesians 4 there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc., and not a Jewish and Gentile version of each. His emphasis is at an institutional or corporate level as a group - Gentiles and Jewish believers, and not on an individual basis for salvation.
For Paul when Gentiles come to Christ they receive the same benefits as the Jewish believer, namely election; being chosen by God. For Calvin this applies to an individual who is pre-selected by God for salvation, and thus his misunderstanding.
Beautifully put, especially the last paragraph. Thank you!
Exactly! You’ve spelled it out perfectly. Calvinism only makes sense if you read the Bible in snippets and quotes instead of all at once. It is clear when one reads the books in a consecutive and complete manner.
And I think I would want to add (as a former devoted Calvinist; now 'appreciator' of the Reformer) that a lot of the "individualism" sometimes seen in these passages misses the collective-singular personhood first named in Israel (Ex 4: Israel is my firstborn son, says YHWH), and later recapitulated in Jesus. Being called, predestined, justified, glorified etc. has nothing to do with philosophical categories of individual salvation, but everything to do with YHWH's purposed design and relationship. This was God's high naming for Israel among the nations (Ex 19; 24 cf. Eph 1:3-2:10), and is the naming we are privileged to have granted us as we are grafted in and sealed by his Presence (no longer the Fire at the head of the camp, but now rested upon people from all nations, represented in Acts 2). All held in the surety of the blood that speaks better than Abel's, and the love from which nothing can separate us. (Apologies, Larry McClain, if I have in any way muddled the elegance and simplicity of your post with my response.)
It appears not a single Calvinist here has read any old testament. In the old testament, we get to know god the father. What he values and to some extent how he thinks. It also shows that there are other wills in this world other than his, and if you stop jumping to conclusions and never reading anything other than Romans and Ephesians, you might get some context like this man has.
with Christian Brotherly love
a man who has struggled with the free will vs. predetermination debate for years.
Marshall Sanborn Have you read Calvin?
If you've read Augustine, you've read Calvin's heresies
What?
God is outside of time and space, he can know or not wish to know anything he wishes... If Calivinism is true, then God put Abraham through emotional turmoil for nothing, not to discover what he would do. Further, he tempted Abraham to kill his Son as a sacrifice to like God had had already planned (Gen 3:15) to do with his son Jesus for us. If Jesus was God, would he not ask Abraham to kill himself? No, he put Abraham in the same "situation" God was in... and Abraham ... freewill, set his mind and Heart to do it... God said... Nope... cool.. here is a RAM, relax.. WOW... Good Show. Your seed will become many my friend.... LOL Good Holy Show. Isaac... Dude... Relax... This is also how I know Pot was God given... for moments like these LOL
Freewill is Real, God doesn't Lie, God doesn't Change the Plans for Humanity over Satam , He Sent his son so the "Goal of Man On Earth Forever" comes to pass... otherwise "that PLAN came back to him void" didn't it? All the kids moving to Dad's House? UGH Rev 7, Not All.
"No man has Seen God at any time" - Apostle John
"No man can see my face and live" - YHWH
"I didn't come to glorify myself, but he that sent me" - Jesus
"But I say to you that everyone being angry with his brother will be liable to the judgment, and whoever shall say to his brother 'Raca,' will be liable to the Sanhedrin. But whoever shall say, 'Fool!' will be liable to the Gehenna of fire." - Jesus
"And you should not be afraid of those killing the body but not being able to kill the soul. Indeed rather you should fear the One being able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." - Jesus
Jesus knows, body and soul, asshes to ashes... the MAINSTREAM? Worships the God of Molech - He is the god of burning people alive, infants through the elderly. PRAISE MOLECH OR BURN IN HELL... LOL.... Praise God, or you don't have a house to live in. Praise Death and Die, or Praise Life and Live.
God and Jesus don't Torture your SOUL for Eternity in flames like MAINSTREAM ROMAN PAGAN CATHOLIC DESCENDANTS (Baptists, Protestants, Luthers, Omish, etc etc born again, evengelicals....PReach and when folks run they blame the sheep.. BAH) Wonder why people run? Torture in Hell, is a lie, cruel, unfair and a blasphemy about God's Loving Justice, replaced with The God Of Molech, Hel, and Hades... all Pagan, all "rulers of the underworld realm of the dead" where that "satan runs hell" business comes from. Purgatory too.. "ghosts" BAH... No Such thing.
When God observed what the people were doing, sacrificing people to Molech, burning them alive, he said "such a thing has never come up into my heart" so claiming he is and always has been the God of torture is a BLASPHEMY
"Death is the Wage of Sin" anything after that is cruelty. YHWH and JESUS... Lose Rome, Molech, the World man... Illuminati... just minions of darkness... They like Molech... Satan has the mainstream everythign supporting the GOD of FIRE
God said anyone putting any of his sheep through the fire.... ugh... Do your own research - Keep Seeking truth and you will find it, doesn't mean STOP when you think you we know everything and judge others as "not as enlightened" or "holy" - BAH - HEATHENS
Represent our God and King... Calvinists? You are wrong, and if you were right, I'd be a heathen myself, another LAME God of ZERO Heart. You either WERE chosen or not despite your choices in life? What a CROCK! God is fair, and when he plays favorites, its usually because someone has more figured out than you and resembles Honey versus salt that's lost its flavor. LOL
PRAISE GOD
wow--God does not owe man anything. "On the day ye eat of the fruit you will die". Yes--physically and spiritually. Man is spiritually dead. D-E A D. Man in his natural state cannot even see the Kingdom of God. Actually, man hates God--That is why he invents gods of his own imagination. Only God can change a man's heart through sovereign grace. You don't want justice, you need mercy. If God would have sent the whole human race to hell by Adam's sin, he would have been just. You see--Adam was our representative- Romans 5. You would have done the same thing as Adam because you were in his loins. You think you are good--you are not. You want to put God in the ""Dock". Here God, you answer this question. Nope,
N. T. Wright ... ah the beautify and the joy of obfuscation!
he's a semi pelagian who believes we get in by grace but maintain our salvation by works
and making Romans 8 about Israel is nonsense, Paul doesn't even start talking about Israel till the beginning of Romans 9 and even then, Paul speaks about sovereign election again
Thanks! @@tomtemple69
While I respect NT Wright as a scholar, I will have to disagree with his interpretation of Rom 8:28-30 where he says Paul is not referring primarily to salvation, but primarily to the healing of the whole creation.
v 30 says: " And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
To be called, justified and then glorified, as I understand it, refers specifically to salvation, rather than healing of creation(if you mean the earth, flora and fauna etc).
NT is wrong. He's always able to see beyond clear and plain scripture... he's what I call a Christian gnostic. The text never means what it clearly says.
NT Wright's Seemingly wise and brilliant idea " Let's just read the bible and see where it takes us" Philosophy brushes aside And puts you into doubt every core christian doctrine that has been leave been believed by The church throughout all history.... And then it focuses all the attention on NT Wright To be the spokesperson of the whole world for the bible and what it teaches.
A brilliant way to make money on books!
I've never read Barth But I've heard he was very close to Universalism. For that I would applaud him.
Really brilliant and interesting
Brilliant
Calvinism lives or dies in Romans ch. 9.
If it's interpreted correctly in the light of WHY Paul wrote the letter we can put this to rest....
Paul wrote the letter to the Roman Christians there in Rome because of their teaching that God replaced Israel with the Gentile church which we call today "replacement theology".
A quick history lesson:
It began with the reign of Claudius Caesar who told all Jews to leave Rome
(Acts 18:2). There was a 12 year absence of any Jewish presence in Rome until Nero asked them to come back for economic reasons. When the Jewish believers came back they were NOT RECEIVED of their Gentile believing brethren hence the reason why Paul wrote the letter!
In Romans 9, 10,11 which are the core chapters of the letter, Paul made it clear to the Gentile believers that Israel (Jacob) was chosen to lead "the way" of salvation to you Gentiles! (Hence, God chose Jacob over Esau). Question is why? No one really knows. But it is made clear not " for salvation" but to show " the way" of salvation to the rest of the world who would become the children of Abraham!
Jesus made this clear to the woman at the well who was half Jew half Gentile that salvation belongs to the Jews!
Why would Jesus bother to witness to her if she wasn't a recipient of His grace?!
In summary it all makes more sense now:
Chapter 9:
Verse 4-God made the Jews recipients of His covenant to show "the way" of salvation.
Chapter 10
Verse 12-God has made His covenant available to all who call upon His Name whether Jew or Gentile!
Chapter 11
Verse 23,24-Paul warns the believing Gentiles because of their BOASTING that as they were grafted in to provoke the Jews to jealousy that they can be GRAFTED OUT themselves!
Good stuff
Calvinists don't read the beginning of Romans chapter 9 that clearly refer to.the nation of Israel.
Nah! You haven't read John 6.
supersessionism is absolutely correct. The true Israel are those who are in Christ just as the true sons of Abraham are those who walk by faith. Judaism as a religion died the moment the Crucifixion/Resurrection took place.
Replacement theology is a misnomer. Nobody was replaced by anybody else and no one who supposedly teaches "replacement theology" teaches that anyone was replaced. Rather, the argument is that there is only one people of God throughout all time and it is those who, like Abraham, believe and judged righteous on the basis of faith. Abraham is the father of every Gentile who believes, just as he is the father of every Jew who believes. The issue is faith. Those who don't believe are shown not to be children of Abraham, even if they are physically descended from Abraham. Gentiles who bear no relation to Abraham physically, nonetheless, may call him their father, because they believe as he did. This is Paul's whole argument throughout Romans. God sees all people in exactly the same manner and the only basis by which anyone has ever or will ever be saved is by faith.
Me: Wright, how much is two plus two? Answer: well, we are not just talking about a simple answer here, two could be the representation of one plus one, if one plus one represents two, then I think we are exploring the representation of something more big. One plus one plus one plus one, I think that could be the most accepted understanding of your question. Because I don’t think Einstein wanted to ever say two plus two, but perhaps a shortened version of one plus one plus one plus one.
Sir, you should be proud of getting me to spill the water I was drinking and almost ruin my keyboard. Thank you very much.
Agreed, he truly is so smart that he can’t ever understand such basic Bible teachings.
So I am to understand the Scriptures are simple mathematics? If the answer is beyond 1+1=2 it is not worth repeating? Or that if a Calvinistic or Reform even Arminian answer is not right on your lips you are foolish?
Cartoon: “Do you have a minute for a problem whose solution has evaded mankind since the beginning of civilization?”
One may not be certain of the absolute correct answer a question… is the “correct” answer always the right one?
Wright is postmodern gibberish. Intentional though. Demonic.
I have a lingering impression that Calvinists are the most reactive christians out there. They react against criticism to Calvin's blunders with a zeal that amazes me both for the vitriol and repeated consistency. They really don't mind conveniently setting aside all the scholarly work on the greek wording of Paul (and his deficient latin translations) or being completely oblivious to the greater tradition of patristics (most truly think that patristics begin and end in Augustine) that assert free will and the active participation in salvation. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, on the XXXI chapter of his Great Cathecism is quite clear on the matter and he is by no means the only one to voice such an opinion. What matters is to defend Calvin against all that opose him, even scripture itself. Calvinists hold to the Institutes, despite every concievable proof of his failings, with a ferocity and extremism that borders the irrational. So much for Sola Scriptura...
Sadly your impression seems relatively accurate in my experience as well. The whole philosophical dilemma of determinism vs. free will is a category that Calvin inherited from the early church fathers (think Augustine vs. Pelagius), who inherited that framework from their contact with Greek philosophy. Fate is clearly from Greek philosophical thought, not the Hebrew Scriptures or their sharply focused embodiment in the messiah. N.T. Wright steers clear of all of that in a way that is very threatening to people whose reading of the Bible is overshadowed by Greek philosophical concepts, rather than the Hebrew story, stories, poems, songs, prophets, etc. It is likely that, as an Anglican, N.T. Wright will invariably be criticized and misunderstood by Reformed Christians of the Calvinist tradition and he will not be beholden to Greek concepts when reading the Bible. That disagreement is a continuation of the disagreement arising out of the particular circumstances of 16th century Geneva and 16th century London.
Excellent
J.I. Packer has a great line: N T Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes-in denying imputation,
Wright is preaching another gospel.
It's always hard to look at scripture without bias. Tom Wright just might challenge you to let scripture shape your theology rather than your theology shaping scripture. We can't take or 21st century culture and apply it to 1st century culture. Individualism is a modern concept and not something that is actually biblical but is very American, if I can say that without offending. Our own culture always taints our vision.
+David she I love this comment. You understand hermenutics and exegesis on a deep level simply by having this view. So many people cannot remove their bias. It may take a lifetime, but boy, do the scriptures come alive.
+David she Reading Scripture in communion with the saints who have gone before us is not the same thing as bias. Everyone performs exegesis in the context of a tradition. To suggest otherwise is to be dishonest. We should not impose our modern cultural understandings onto the text, but we should also take into serious consideration the views of readers who preceded us in history, which is why Wrights general attitude of 'everyone since the Reformation has gotten this wrong except for me' is bogus and unhelpful.
Wesley Owens I thing that is somewhat bogus, but the reformers did not have the knowledge and understanding of scripture that we have now.
This is why you must learn about Judaism before you can interpret scripture. It is funny to me that I have spent more time in the Holy Land than 90% of scholars with their Ph.D. in New Testament. Not to blow my own horn here, but there is an issue in scholasticism.
Can someone please tell me to which book he is referring to at the 2:35 mark? Thank you and God bless.
This is a great explanation.
Beware of false teachers, if a sermon goes directly to a reformation like Calvinism or a highly misinterpretation of a large idea like Calvinism, I would advise to get out. For this is not the main message. Having the beliefs is one thing or your own interpretation, but when people go straight to the argument and try to start making all these points for their own, they are forfeiting their effort and it results to self desire. Jesus didn’t teach this way. He actually called them hypocrites
Nice.
There is a corporate and individual aspect to predestination in Paul. It's not an either/or, as if election us a concept in Paul only relating to Israel or only relating to "how Christians get saved." The principle of election is thoroughly connected to Israel and the exodus, but to deny God's same unconditional choosing with regards to individuals is a real mistake and misreading of Paul.
+Mark Evans I strongly agree! Theologians like Wright create a false dichotomy when they separate the unity of the Church from the individuality of its members.
Examples?
I don't have time to go into all of it at this moment, but it's clear - if you read the text of Romans 9-11 - that Paul is making an argument for both corporate AND individual redemption. Yes, Wright is correct about Paul's argument in Romans 11. But he doesn't mention at all Romans 9 where Paul specifically says that God chose one man over another to prove his right of election. Then Paul goes on to explain - anticipating our objections - that God has the right to make that choice for the simple fact that he is God. And there is no question that Paul is referring to individuals there. There is more that could be shared, but, as I said, I am pressed for time.
Salvation is of the Lord, it’s nothing of us ,we don’t want it unless God wakes us up by his spirit.
When I am in Christ I am able to be called according to His purpose. God’s purpose was before the world, not you - 2Tim 1:9
Predestination is a destination predetermined = heavenly place - Eph 1:3, 2:6
Never has error sounded so pleasant, N T Wright is a very dangerous man...
Brentwood Horn Club you need to do a better job picking who is and is not dangerous.
I think that it should be the force of argument and not the argument of force. NT Wright is right. Calvinistic predestination is soundly misleading and unscriptural. .
David Bentley Hart seems to be also interested in a "big picture gospel" relating to principalities etc... so maybe N.T.Wright and Hart's broader cosmological understanding of the New Testament could actually be a point of connection rather than antagonism?
What's this book that N.T Wright mentions?
Good answer, though my English accent is not quite the same as his...
Does anyone know what book he is referring to at 2:34?
It is his book on Paul. Just search in Amazon N. T. WRIGHT PAUL and you will find it.
so, you want to put the surety of your salvation on something you did, this is why you think you can loss something that is everlasting
What is his book he references?
He looks almost just like my grandpa. A Christian, british version of my grandpa... Huh. I'm cool with this.
To me it seems like the apostle was giving his interpretation of the resurrection at the last day Jesus talked about in John chapter six.
Does anyone know what the name of his new book is that he's talking about?
Paul and the faithfulness of God by N. T. Wright.
Thank you Samuel Selvin!
+Samuel Selvin I am hoping that he will do a popular-level book on Paul similar to "Simply Jesus" ...PFG is pretty lengthy!
"he's not talking primarily about salvation" ??? the chapter starts with "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Paul spend 3 chapters saying all of humanity is lost and under the wrath of God, then he talks about Christ, and propitiation, and faith. Hmmmm, sounds like Paul is talking about how to be saved. If Paul isn't in Romans, where is the Bible talking about being saved. Wright presumes evangelicals have steered into the ditch of oversimplification, but he misses the forest for the trees making it too complicated.
It seems to me that Wright is saying Paul’s not talking primarily about individual salvation (as evangelicals emphasize almost exclusively) but about salvation in the larger sense of all creation being “saved.”
@@3WordsTV yeah, he says that all the time. but you can build a platform on balancing what you perceive to be others imbalances and become imbalanced. i would love to hear Wright just glory in the cross without all the qualifiers.
Romans 8 states that "those" who are called are justified and glorified. Those are individuals, not creation. NT seems to always be in error.
Framing scripture as mysterious and deep and barely tenable by "scholars" only serves to reinforce 1Jn2.27.
I'll let the Spirit of Truth lead me into truth, and use teachers who are not so fascinated with their vocabulary and heady estimation of their own intellect to confirm what Scripture is intended by God Almighty to communicate.
Jn 15.25, 16.7-15
We must pray for ourselves to receive the ministry of the Holy Ghost who is sent to reveal to us the inspired Word of God.
Unfortunately, I cannot make sense of Wright's last two sentences, regarding Romans 9-11.
1. "If Israel had believed straight off the top, then any Gentiles coming in would have had to just be part of Israel, whereas the point is---he says, at the end of Romans 11---that God has subjected all to disobedience so that all who come will be by my mercy.
2. And so he’s exploring the very strange ways in which the Christ-shaped cross and resurrection-shaped pattern of salvation has actually been written largely into the story of Israel."
He'll have to defus the Calvinist Bomb in Romans 9 if he wants Reformed folk to agree with him. There's a reason so many dispute Paul's meaning.
I'm curious which Medieval theologians ignore Israel when talking about the Church. It seems many of them largely concurred that the Jews rejected their standing as the Chosen People. St Hildegard of Bingen makes this a prime point of her Scivias.
He takes all the hope and joy out of any bible passage, and somehow makes it say something it can't possibly be saying.
From your perspective, I'm curious where do you believe the joy and hope has been taken out based upon his explanation, and what do you believe he said that must be an incorrect interpretation? Others do have a differing theology on this matter, so it is ok to disagree on the basis of thoughtful exegesis but I do not think his view is obviously false.
+Zach Fox Well I was also alluding to his take on justification, namely that its first and foremost about being included in the people of God, rather than about how one stands before God, and moreover, that justification has zero to do with salvation. In the same vein, here he is claiming predestination really isn't what we think predestination is, namely a pre-electing or pre-choosing by God of people for salvation. I guess what I take issue with is his subtle, but intentional and continual, deconstruction of traditional (evangelical) Christianity in favor of not even a Catholic reading (which is concerned with a relationship to God and salvation) but a benign scholarly one. I did not mean to offend, and I certainly think Wright was one of the best scholars of Christianity in the late 20th C. My apologies if I have gone too far with the rhetoric .
Drinking Piper Punch?
+troutdog is that your argument?
+Duane Armitage not an argument, my friend. Just a funny play on the letter "P", while making a point about the contemporary sides of the debate. I don't really care to be honest. I am tired, however, of the new reformed movement talking down to non-calvinists as though they are kindergarteners without really engaging the arguments that Wright makes here. How, for instance, is Nicholas Thomas misrepresenting Paul's meaning in Romans 8-11 and Ephesian 1?
Everyone has free will - you have no choice (Oscar Wilde)
Thanks Robin
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.
By this logic NTW was predestined to say the things that he is saying: so there is no point in complaining.
is NT Wright a "Traditionalist?"
I think some people believe in the predestined salvation becoz of another verse in the Bible that says "Many are called but only few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14).
"Many are called" which means not all are called. So what happens to those who are not called? They have ZERO chance of availing salvation?
That is why I can't blame some people in believing in the predestiny theory. Of course I don't want to believe that theory but some verses of the Bible seem to suggest just like that.
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 9:23-24.
Respected Scholar, always beat around the bush..
Paul is actually explaining what Jesus taught him personally probably during Paul's experience of the Third Heaven, which could have been a Near Death Experience. Paul isn't "riffing". When the glorified Lord knocks you off your horse and proceeds to teach you the gospel, you aren't "riffing".
When you say "third Heaven," what scripture explicitly or implicitly teaches of a "third" heaven? I know two meanings from solid Jewish theology.
To follow up on my previous posts why did Jesus say Oh Israel why did you not come to me like a mother hen calls her chicks in other words he was bleeding in his heart for his own people why they would not hear his words but because of their own blackened hearts they would not listen all man has the ability to listen but some listen and some will not when Jesus came sent by God knew from the foundation of the world his master plan he already knew the choices that the Pharisees would make and also all of mankind the choices that they would make did not Adam and Eve have Choice some Calvinists will say well after Adam and Eve sinned we had no more choices that is absolutely hogwash and incorrect you can take Bible verses and twist them anyway you wish but if you have the spirit of God in you God will tell you the meaning of such verses when the thief on the cross ask God for mercy he gave it to him he simply had to ask Jesus knew his heart right then and there and yes God the Father knew this would happen before that the earth was formed in the womb there is a certain mystery as NT Wright said but God is not a puppeteer of your life all and everyone can come to God many religions of the world are built upon Pride what you must do to be saved example and I'm not just picking on Islam but that is a good choice a honor killing the daughter goes with a Christian for example and Mary's you burn a Quran or say something bad about Muhammad and they will kill you why are they do this for God or for their own pride and self-righteousness Man is full of self righteousness and God although he knew the choices of men new the work that he would do through Jesus to bring those who will listen to the call of the shepherd
"those whom He called He also justified"
Dr.N.T.Wright and Arminius Twist Scripture Because as Arminius said: God would be the Author of Sin. for that reason he places God's plan of salvation after the fall. by doing this he has a Powerless God. What Paul meant by predestination is crystal clear from Scripture . Certainly, since God knows everything, it would have been possible for God to base His predestination and election of individuals upon His foreknowledge of the future. In fact it is Arminius's view of predestination. The problem is that it really is not what the Bible teaches about predestination, election, and foreknowledge. In order to understand why the view that “God made His choice based on merely knowing the future” is not what the Bible teaches. First consider a couple of verses that speak to the reason God elected or predestined people to salvation.
Ephesians 1:5 tells us that God “predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” According to this verse, the basis of our being predestined is not something that we do or will do, but is based solely on the will of God for His own pleasure. As Romans 9:15-16 says, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.” Similarly, Romans 9:11 declares regarding Jacob and Esau, “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls.” Then again in Ephesians 1:11 we see that people are “chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” From these and many others passages, we see that Scripture consistently teaches that predestination or election is not based upon something that we do or will do. God predestined people based on His own sovereign will to redeem for Himself people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. God predetermined or predestined this from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) based solely on His sovereign will and not because of anything that He knew the people would do.
But what about Romans 8:29 where it says that those “He foreknew, He also predestined”? Doesn’t that seem to say that predestination is based upon the foreknowledge of God? Of course, the answer is yes, it does teach that predestination is based on the foreknowledge of God. But what does the word foreknowledge mean? Does it mean “based upon God’s knowledge of the future,” meaning God simply looks down through the future and sees who will believe the gospel message and then predestines or elects them? If that were the case, it would contradict the verses above from Romans and Ephesians that make it very clear election is not based on anything man does or will do.
Fortunately, God does not leave us to wonder about this issue. In John 10:26, Jesus said, “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” The reason some people believe is that they belong to God. They were chosen for salvation, not based on the fact that they would one day believe, but because God chose them for “adoption as sons in Christ Jesus” before they ever existed. The reason one person believes and another person does not is that one person has been adopted by God and the other has not. The truth is that the word foreknew in Romans 8:29 is not speaking of God's knowing the future. The word foreknowledge is never used in terms of knowing about future events, times or actions (God’s omniscience). What it does describe is a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God whereby God brings the salvation relationship into existence by decreeing it into existence ahead of time.
The word know is sometimes used in the Bible to describe an intimate or personal relationship between a man and a woman. In a similar sense, before God ever created the heavens and earth, and a long time before we were ever born, God knew His elect in a personal way and chose them to be His sheep, not because they would someday follow Him but in order to guarantee that they would follow Him. His knowing them and choosing them is the reason they follow Him, not the other way around. The issue really is not whether or not God knows who will believe, but why some believe and others do not. The answer to that is God chooses to have mercy on some and others He leaves in their sinful rebellion.
The following quote by John Murray is excellent in dealing with this issue: "Even if it were granted that ‘foreknew’ means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproved. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; He foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith, which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith He himself creates ( John 3:3-8; 6:44, 45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Peter 1:2). Hence His eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by His decree to generate this faith in those whom He foresees as believing."
Foreknowledge just means knowing someone or something beforehand. The Greek word proginōskō is used in various verses, some of them being something man does.
Act 26:5
They have known for a long time (proginōskō ), if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. (talking about Jews)
2Pe 3:17
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginōskō ), take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (talking about men)
So, who was known beforehand in Romans 8:29 that Paul is giving as an example of how "God works together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" from verse 28? The Old Testament saints... they are the only ones who can be spoken of in the past tense as "Glorified." Nobody else has been glorified to become "the firstborn among many brethren. transformedtheology.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/a-critical-look-at-romans-829-30/?fbclid=IwAR0CBp1Fs8kqGRbbrDkqDz6llXtMPYVJK2_9FgTfqDcx1MgLC8O_2j8Xtys
@@toddclower5939 There was never a time that God started to Foreknow it is from eternity like God Himself is from eternity without begin or end. God's foreknowledge is not in conflict with the degrees of God. If men has freewill God does not.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
1 Peter 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied
I appreciate Wright, but this is a non-answer. He completely ignores the verses in Romans 9 about the choosing of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-11). The fact that God chooses the second-born over the firstborn in these instances is highly significant, especially given that the election took place "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad" and thus is "not because of works but because of him who calls." Also, why does Paul immediately anticipate that listeners/readers will respond by accusing God of injustice if predestination is as loose and flexible as Wright suggests? There is SO much that he overlooks. This is just the beginning.
+Wesley Owens Good point. You really need to handle Paul's anticipated objection. if you don't make sense of that (or the one in Romans 6) you haven't understood the preceding argument.
+Matthew Miller First, nations are comprised of individuals. Secondly, you have to pay attention to how Paul is using the quote, not just the original context of the quote.
***** the entire narrative is trying to explain why some Jews believe and most don't. That context supports Calvinism. Chalking everything up to national election misses the point that nations are comprised of individuals so you are back to the same conclusion you are so vigorously trying to avoid in the first place.
***** when a nation's course gets predetermined you are by necessity predetermining results for individuals. Even if you want to argue that God just predetermines set percentages of unbelief within a nation, that still filters down in its effect to individuals.
***** I'm sorry you can't take your view and put that back into Romans 9 and make sense of the flow of the text. Paul is specifically trying to answer why most Jews didn't believe.
1:00 So it sounds like Wright is explaining that those who are "justified" and "glorified" aren't necessarily those who we would call "saved."
The question is who is Israel in Pauline theology? It's not Israel after the flesh.
+Dion Sanchez Yes, the true Israel of God are those of Abraham's seed IE Believers
he deals with all versions of the word. he talks about the nation/race and uses Jacob as their federal head, but then he goes on to talk about future believers as Israel as well. it's not either or, it's both and.
Israel was and is always the Israelis, if you aren't a Jew as I am not, God still has a plan to save Israel, corporately.
@@kaueseoane4796Dispensationalism is wrong
Romans 9 verse 8 says the promise the Holy Spirit is the children of the promise. (The Holy Spirit) are counted for the seed. The Holy Spirit is the promise.
Cool, so Israel is the Church, therefore God calls us into salvation. Definitely some mystery, but predestination is biblical.
calvanism is great. a wonderful biblically true doctrine.
armidaleconcrete
Yeah. Wink, wink. It’s really biblical.
@@evanu6579 How many books of Calvin did you read? It is so bad that people belief the twist and lies about Calvin
Calvin in his Institutes teaches double predestination but preached the Free offer of grace. Here is how Calvin preached the Gospel.
FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120)
He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.
Calvin died 27 May 1564 (aged 54) He did a phenomenal work with his complete Bible Commentaries in his time all that was available was portions and only explained Spiritually. Calvin never made up the 5 points. The Remonstrants made the Five Articles of Remonstrance. It was the theological propositions advanced in 1610 by followers of Jacobus Arminius who had died in 1609, and had been professor of Theology in Utrecht. Arminius opponent was Gomaris, professor in Leiden Holland [NOT Calvin he died 60 years earlier] Gomaris followers were called the Contra remonstrants. At the synod of Dortdrecht 1618 the articles against the remonstrants were put together. www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm Although it was condensed from the works of Calvin including his Commentaries and the “Institutes” one of the main and important works of Calvin. Calvin after writing Commentaries on the whole Bible except Revelations could never have come to any other conclusion But. Matthew 20: 3 But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last. FOR MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN.”
Calvin’s writings mainly were a rejecting of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Special Salvation by works. Vs. Justification by Faith. The main thing for Calvin was to bring back the WORD as the center of worship and stop the vain liturgy. His main work “The Institutes” of the doctrine was about the work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of men against the false teachings of the R Catholic church. People speak about Calvin but know nothing about Calvin. He was Called by God to oppose the heresies of the Roman Catholic church.
Arminianism under Cornherd [Arminius had Died] Were writing the 5 points against mostly Gomaris [Contra Remonstrants] On the international Synod of Dordrecht 1618-1619, 60 years after Calvin 5 pionts agains the remonstants were made.
The 5 points of Calvin T.U.L.I.P are not from Calvin but from the Synod of Dordrecht. 60 year later. www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm
There was a controversy between Supra and Infra Labsariens [Fall of Men] about what was first in the eternal counsel of God, The Fall or the salvation trough Christ. Now there is no sequence in the thoughts of God. However Arminius came up with the Heresy that God’s plan of Salvation came after the fall but now in real time. God did NOT have a plan of salvation from eternity. They argued if God already had a plan of Salvation before the fall God would be the Author of Sin. That was rejected at the Synod of Dort. Putting Calvin in this all is just simply wrong and shows ignorance.
In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
Acts 16:14 tells us that Lydia was saved when, "... the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will ... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 2:8 says even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."
2 Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,"
Someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, We have to understand That God’s Foreknowing is from eternity and never had a begin and included predestination. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." [AT THE SAME TIME] And Divine foreknowledge cannot simply mean God's knowledge of what will happen in advance. But God’s foreknowledge is in complete harmony with the degrees of God and there is no time difference in the thoughts of God.
JOHN 1 THE ETERNAL WORD 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, AND THE DARKNESS DID NOT COMPREHEND IT.
Wright reads everything in the light of what he thinks second temple Judaism was about. He starts with a presupposition and ends up talking rubbish. If the listening wants to understand Romans 9 listen to John Piper and James White.
This is a simple explanation as many confuse it God gives all of us Free Will and choice as he gave Adam and Eve Free Will and choice yes in the instance of the Apostle Paul that was God intervention by revealing to Paul who he was God calls all of us even those who are not willing to listen some hear the call and others because of their own Pride four ways such as Pharaoh will not listen or hear when he said he foreknew who was predestined he gave us Free Will and he knew that if he created us the choices that we would make Calvinists like MacArthur or sproul will say no God threw 100 pegs in the air some went on one side those are the Saved and the other on the other side goes with the unsaved then they will go on and say God owes us nothing and it is amazing that he would even save any of us this is not the god that is he loves all of us and calls all of us to be saved but he also knew before the foundation of the world that there would be many who rejected him but then you say why would he let them go to hell if he loves them because he gave them the choice when he created Humanity forgive the spelling and lack of punctuation I am using voice recognition
Affirmation without exegesis, the root of synergism.
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
Romans 9:15-16
Yeah but also Moses intercedes for them to not be destroyed and God relents and accept his prayer; the whole narrative of the Bible is that God's Will and human will are constantly interacting; God's is always subverting human will to get what He wants without erasing the consequences of those who not decide to align to His will, on the contrary He honors human will by giving it what it wants: judgement and death.
@@cristianfernandez1874 and you know what? Even repenting is gift of God
We have been predestined (predetermined) to be conformed to the image of His Son. God's foreknowledge seems to be a knowing in advance of who He will choose to be conformed to the image of His Son based on our response to His Grace in Christ. Once we are called, God justifies and then glorifies, signifying that salvation in Christ is secure based on God's foreknowledge of us and the complete set of our lifes choices and responses the His Word. The point is that God will never let us go if He has chosen us to be in Christ. He knows in advance that we will be conformed to the image of His Son because He has predetermined (predestined it) it based on His foreknowledge. I do believe however, that we can reject Chris'ts gospel and as a consequence His Grace. If we reject the grace of Christ, He cannot know us. If we deny Him He will deny us. Can a Christian lose their salvation if they have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, A: NO. Can a Christian willingly walk away from Christ, A: YES. Does that mean he was not a Christian to start with? I really am not sure. I simply do my best to exercise faith in the Living Word of God that tells me the news of Salvation is amazingly good because of God's great love for sinners. I am rambling a bit now/. God bless friends.
Why is every passage so complex and complicated? What about the plain reading of Scripture?
Problem with that view is that you are reading a translation of a text written in a completely different social context and culture. A plan reading of scripture assumes that your current understanding of a translation is the authentic view when in reality it is a translation of a text with a heavily different culture.
For roughly the first 400 years of Christian history, no one thought of passages like Romans 9 in the way that the reformed/Calvinistic camp did. Certainly makes one wonder, especially considering the early church fathers were taught by the apostles.
Could also be that you are just misunderstanding the early church and the different issues that they faced during their time?
@@mikegreene9137 Have you read the church fathers discussion of Romans 9? Their opinions are very straightforward on the topic of predestination.
@777Eliyahu I honestly have a very limited exposure to some of the writings of early church fathers, so I in no way claim to be an expert on them, but if you give me some original sources of who/ what you are referring to I'll be happy to look that up when I have a chance. I prefer to stick to and mostly draw my doctrines from the scriptures though since they are the only God inspired sources of revelation. That doesn't mean that I won't read or atleast contemplate the thoughts of very learned and scholarly brothers to get their opinion in an area. Especially if many wise scholars are lining up in agreement on a particular subject then I think it only prudent to atleast see why. However, I also try to realize that many of these men whether it be the early fathers, or Augustine, or the reformers where also influenced by the primary arguments and challenges that they faced in their day. God bless you
@mikegreene9137 I agree on the primacy of scripture, but outside sources such as the church fathers or 2nd Temple Jewish literature can help give context for what people of the era were thinking. I appreciate your reasonable dialogue.
So Paul at the very outset of his letter to a body of gentile believers uses the term “us” to describe....Israel? He literally says in V1 “to the saints in Ephesus” I really don’t get the fascination with this guy, just gives off weird vibes and is confusing, almost speculative at times in theological points that are otherwise clear in the Bible.
He is deceived my bro and now is deceiving the people but not the elect...they cannot be deceived.
He's clearly trying to recontextualize these passages in a way where they don't read as they explicitly read because what they directly say is a problem for his theology. The issue is that what he presents is not compatible with what those texts actually say.
Romans 8 is talking about salvation
verse 24-25 'For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.'
This is after all creation groaning for redemption (18-23), Paul then goes on to say that 'the Spirit himself intercedes for us', who is the us? It's not Israel (nothing in the text would lead to this conclusion), it's the Spirit-filled Christian's in the church in Rome that Paul is writing to. What he's saying is true of all Christian's who have the Holy Spirit (V1-17) . He's not giving some really abstract story about Israel without mentioning Israel.
Likewise, Romans 9 is concerning salvation
verse 27 - 'And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel[c] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved'
I implore you to go and actually read these passages rather than letting one man (who denies that God's wrath towards sin and punishing Jesus for our sin on the cross) repaint the way you approach God's Word.
..its only tricky if you dont like what it clearly says..
Love how NT Wright had to develop his own translation of the NT to squeeze in his “theology”. It’s all nice and wordy, but I’m not convinced yet. I Need to pray on it and ask for the Spirits help.
Andrew Jarrett As if other translators didn’t translate with any of their own bias 🙄🙄
God is not a puppet master ive always believed this thank you NT Wright
this seems basically barthian to me, is there a difference between Wright and Barth's position?
+Nathan Soper What's wrong with Barth? He's reading all the text of Paul in it's context and doesn't want to apply for any side.. calvinianism and armenianism, but holds unto trinitarian theology of inclusionism, focusing on high christology and seeing both predestination and acceptance by faith through grace perspective?
never said there was anything wrong with Barth. It seems that he hold's a barthian positon on election without just saying "I'm barthian". Hence the question, is there a considerable difference between Wright's and Barth's beliefs?
Nathan Soper you better ask what's the difference between Pauline view and Barthian view on predestination and choice of man seeing it through the New Covenant lins of Grace? What about difference, cannot really say, since I know some things from Barths theology, haven't gone deep enough. I have more read from and listened to N.T.Wright. But I see the context that they're both applying to Pauline view. In future I would like to dig more about those things.
well I think both Barth and Wright (and calvin, arminius etc.) would all claim they represent Paul's theology of election!
Nathan Soper fair enough... but Paul's letters could be read all by themselves while spending time on reading and meditating on Scriptures with open mind and heart... Paul himself said that we can get to know about that Mystery of Christ or the Mystery of the Gospel by reading his letters. Context plays a lot. As you watch the movie, you began to understand the genre of that movie.. and little by little all the pieces start to stick up together into one whole picture about Christ and Him crucified.
NT wright is the master of taking clear, glorious scripture, and making it say nothing at all
All Humanity has the right and the gift to read holy scriptures it is written that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God if you are an atheist and claim to be so and say that the gospel is false but you have never read the words yes how can you come to Faith because God says faith comes from hearing and hearing only from God many will not hear because they do not bother to seek if a cannibal and Africa who knows that he is doing wrong and he does in his heart because God Gave All Mankind the ability to have a god conscious but not all people respond to goodness as evil and Blackness is in their heart that is what God means by predestined from the foundation of the world he knew the choice of mankind yet he created them because he loved us he created man with a choice some will respond and others will not it is like the blind man when he was cured and asked by the Pharisees who did this how did you see and his response was I was blind but now I see this is for those who come to Christ when it is written Jesus said and no wise I will cast out those who the father has given me he was talking about those who the father knew before the foundation of the world who would be saved God most definitely gives all man the choice to choose
There are many more passages you didn’t address.
I.e. Calvinism is wrong and those, including NT Wright, correctly interpret the whole counsel of God to mean that it is possible for people to say no to God. We are humans, we are made in His image and we have real ability to chose to accept or reject the offer he gives us. Salvation comes through the Cross of Christ alone and there is one true Good News. It is this: Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live. It is a real free gift of eternal life. But, we have to believe and trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. We need to accept what Jesus has done for us and have faith in him alone. If we do not, we perish in our sin.
Jesus was chosen and just had to wait till someone raises his hand and say yes. O yah only jews were justified Romans 8: 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Does it hurt to twist Scripture? Jesus is the Word and the Word was with God from Eternity. And thank you I'm not going to read your book. instead of writing books start reading and studying THE BOOK.
I take issue with John Calvin's election and predestination, too. Jesus was speaking to His contemporaries, as were His apostles. Election and predestination was for that generation. God elected that generation to bring in the New Covenant. He also predestined that generation for His wrath that was poured out on the Jewish nation that rejected Jesus as Messiah when the temple and city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. Over a million Jews were killed during this war. I thank God that I was not part of that elect generation. He desires that all would be saved. Jesus died once for all, not once for some. Calvin got this wrong. There is much heresy today born out of a false understanding that all that the apostles and Jesus spoke is for us today. No. It was for that generation. It was imminent for them. It is relevant for us. We need to be about the healing of the nations. That is what the leaves on the Tree of Life are for. If you have a false end-time view you have missed this mandate from God.
What dos Wright think about the “Narrow Way” and the few who find it. I don’t think Wright believes in a Hell..
Keep yourselves in the love of Jesus Christ .
Much study is wearisome to the soul .
Of the many books - there is no end .
Jesus upset money changers .
John 14:21 sums up the gospel and puts to silence stupid froward mouth questions.
Shut up or read the Bible out loud so your ears hear the truth.
Jesus says - who ever comes to Jesus by obedient faith will never be cast out !!
So do acts 1:8 yourself and be revived by the Holy Spirit .!!
If any teaching doesn't lead to Christlikeness, the divine power and love life we see in Christ, freely given by Jesus blood and indwelling spirit, get rid of it. It is not worth following.
I have some reformed friends. They do not understand the Gospel: the restoration of a wo-/man back to the image of God. A very sad thing.
Once spoke with some of their pastors. When i mentioned spiritual giftings given to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Spirit changing us into the image of God again, they looked at me as if they saw water burning.
They really had no clue what i was talking about. They follow some weird doctrine, a teaching of man and forefathers. So sad. Because it leaves a vast community powerless and mere human.
Calvijn on the other hand is pretty ok. I once looked at his writings: a whole chapter was on spiritual gifts by Holy Spirit. Calvijn was pretty spot on. Nowadays Calvinists don't get Calvijn theached but a watered down version.
The only pre-destination that God ever made is that Salvation will only be through Yahshua (Jesus Christ) ; apart from that HE has not from the beginning condemned or predetermined that any particular individual should go to Hell. HE has given man a free will to choose to believe it or disbelieve and bear the consequences.
Ephesians 1:4-5 > According as HE hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before HIM in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to HIMSELF, according to the good pleasure of HIS will,
Jacob was chosen and not Esau because GOD predestinated that Yahshua (Jesus) would be the chosen vehicle (for want of a better word) to gather believers unto Himself ; Yahshua is the Lion of the tribe of Judah a child of Jacob and therefore in His omniscience HE chose Jacob over Esau because HE had to protect the lineage of Yahshua ; just like HE commanded the anhilation of Amalekites, Hittites etc only to protect the lineage of Yahshua till He was born at the appointed time and for the purpose that he was ordained for - according to the good pleasure of HIS sovereign Will.
(Whom HE foreknew in Romans 8:20 is a reference to man, in fact the nature of man, because only Divinity is perfect while every being created has the propensity to fall and sin.)
Calvinism is a false interpretation pushed for ulterior motives.
Looks like Dr. Wright needs to read Chosen by God by Dr. RC Sproul and The Potter's Freedom by Dr. James R. White
Actually Dr Wright debated Dr White on Justification and I am undoubtedly sure that he is also familiar with Dr Sproul. He has still come to the conclusion he has, and for good reason.
With regard to ethnic Israel, God's gifts and callings are irrevocable. Once chosen, always chosen. Gentiles need to accept that...especially the "reform theologists," who become arminians wherever it concerns the election of the Jewish nation.
chosen for what?
It’s not Barthian, it’s Pauline!!
(Barth’s cool though)
If you have ever read what N.T. Wright teaches on heaven, hell, salvation, gospel, eschatology, on the major Essential Doctrines of the Bible in his books like, "The Day the Revolution Bagan", "Surprised by Hope", "How God Became King" (all three are kind of summary from his popular book "Perspective on Paul"), no one would listen to him. Regardless of how clever he can explain any topic, his explanations are out of a deluded mind. Don't follow him and deceive yourself. The issue is not whether he is a Calvinist or Arminian, the issue is whether this man is saved or not. Anyone who thinks that the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus is a pagan idea, going to heaven is a platonian view, what hope is left for such people? Anyone who is a fan of N. T Wright is either ignorant of Bible doctrines, or a liberal, or Universalists & annihilasinist, or have never read his/her bible.
Listening to this man is like having the world open up for me! I love him so and may God bless Him!
I even dreamt about meeting him in a charity Shope. He was there working and showing me his newly found roller skates. (A very strange model it was. )
Tom is really for me the soundest theologian I have ever heard. He does not seem to
Be partisan and only explains scripture as he has read them: in the Jewish frame. And that is the only way they teleologically can be read. ❤️❤️❤️
"Telling the story of Israel?" Wow, this guy really takes away the gift salvation. I'd prefer to interpret the scripture on the plain meaning and in relation to the Church, the bride of Christ.
What did Jesus say about these things? Nothing? Why do Christians accept what Paul said as if it was from the Holy Spirit?
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC Do you know the Epistle of James? Does it teach the same thing as Paul?