They’re Doing It On the Altar [UPDATED]
just because we have changed the primary focus of our blog does not mean that we won’t “slum it” every once in a while and see what the buzz is on our favorite odm sites. it’s the same fascination that allows me to argue the nuances of justification AND watch shows about people driving badly… or buildings collapsing…
over at crosstalk they are offering this commentary:
Evangelical Church Tattoos Woman on Altar
In the you-just-can’t-make-this-up department, a Seattle church decided to tattoo volunteers during the “live tattoo final” to a sermon series. I predicted tattoo parlors in church some time ago and was jeered at for doing so. I was wrong. They aren’t building parlors to tattoo anyone in church. They’re doing it on the altar. Read more from the Seattle Times.
i particularly like the angst of “They’re doing it on the altar” – complete with shock value and double entendre.
our church has had artists creating works as a form of worship while a pastor delivers a sermon, but we have never had a human as the canvas. and i’m not sure we would – but that is not the point. the point is the interesting use of the term altar, the use of a sexual double entendre, and the appeal to the slippery slope of sin.
i am not sure why crosstalk uses the term “altar” – particularly since evangelical churches usually do not have them – they do not need them. and crosstalk ignores a great opportunity for a jab since the linked article uses the term “stage.” i have a hunch it is used for shock value, and to make an illusion to paganism.
this latter reference, of pagan altars, plays into the use of the sexual double entendre, which i find mildly hypocritical from folks that find this abhorrent when used by others. remember, christians should not talk about sex in public. this is a deliberate sexual reference, i believe, because of the popularity of the “so and so’s do it…” jokes/bumper stickers/etc…. clearly this has not eluded the editors.
the inuendo was clearly seen by truthinator who posted the follow-up comment:
First coffee shops and now tattoo parlors… can the temple prostitutes be far behind…?
i find this appeal to a slippery slope interesting for its sheer grade of the slope; from coffee to church sanctioned prostitution in three simple steps (emphasis on simple). it seems to slip the mind of truthinator that coffee and tattoos are neither illegal, immoral, nor biblically prohibited (and only quote leviticus 19:28 if you also obey 19:13a, 16-18, 19c, and 27.)
finally, what really mystifies me is why crosstalk (and truthinato) even cares what this church in seattle does – since what they did violated no biblical injunction. i have a hunch that it is just another objection against folks doing things different – it’s probably not coffee that is objectionable… it’s that it’s not served the way we do it.
[UPDATE: it was pointed out that the newspaper article opened with the use of "altar" - this explains crosswalk's use of the term. i should have seen this in my reading.]
239 Comments(+Add)
I find it personally unseemly to tattoo people during a church service. But my objection to that pales in comparison to the vile stream of self righteous refuse that continues to emanate from the disingenuously named blog called “crosstalk”, which by its name alone qualifies it as an antipode.
I find nothing redemptive at that site at all, and I intend to continue to inform the small band of readers at my site that blogs like that are not Christian in any sense of the word. Just because you are against people and things does not qualify you as “Christian”. It is also a striking example of what can happen when women are loosed to become self appointed divine mouth pieces that screech sarcastic venom at any targets that happen to invade their e-mail alerts.
As Ingrid suggested for Carrie Prejean, I would suggest someone sit Ingrid down and teach her the basics of the gospel and the literal interpretation of male leadership in the New Testament.
Oh yea, I don’t like tattoos especially in church. Did I mention that? And although my oldest son has many, he witnesses more than anyone I have ever known and he will graduate from Liberty University next month and enter medical school to study to be a medical missionary.
I don’t like tattoos.
I had a dear old friend who used to say, “Those that scream the loudest about the moral decadence of others are probably hiding the most perversions.” All the tabloid like titles, lies and double entrendre makes me think she might have been right.
yes, and now we know that if there’s a church doing this it must be an epidemic.
gimme a break, who cares?
I didn’t get it on an “altar”, but here’s my tattoo (which I designed):
Neil – I would note that the article uses the word “altar” in the opening sentence:
Granted, since it was in a secular source, I doubt they understand the nuance of using “altar” in a church setting – since no Protestant churches have altars. Ingrid, on the other hand, does “get it”, so your point remains true.
Chris L.,
Noted. I saw the reference to the stage, but not the reference to the altar.
#4 – Neil – That’s a freaking sweet tattoo! I love it! Where did you get it tattooed? I have a large celtic cross that takes up most of my back, though I still need to get it shaded in. I’m very much NOT looking forward to the pain for that.
I’ve yet to learn anything about the Hebrew language in my classes yet, what are the red letters highlighted for?
Errr….I meant Chris L’s tattoo. My bad.
Your (general) hatred for Ingrid misses the point (again).
It is not about tattoos. It is about what is appropriate in church. My goodness people, since when did the preaching of the Gospel cease being enough?!?!?
And Neil, having a perverse mind does not mean everything is a double entendre.
why is doing a tattoo in a church service wrong?
i’d like to hear people’s thoughts…
Aaron -
I had my Tattoo inked at a place in Broad Ripple (Indianapolis) – Metamorphosis. I suppose I could have had it done on stage, Sunday Morning, but I don’t think that was Hebrew tattoo month
1) The Hebrew is the shema.
2) The red letters are symbolic of a) the places Christ was wounded; and b) the places the Hebrews purified (washed) each Sabbath – head, heart, hands and feet.
Sigh – another false dichotomy from Pastorboy. Community worship is not a defined ritual, and (if we are to believe Paul) not simply a weekly reiteration of the gospel. Rather, it is a time for exhortation, singing, celebrating and reading from the word.
The last time I checked, artists and other right-brain types were welcome in the kingdom, and were welcome to worship there, as well. I also do not recall prohibitions on art in corporate worship or other corporate meetings of the body…
I love how Rob Bell can’t say anything without the ODM’s screeching about “Words have meanings” and “What he really means…” but Ingrid isn’t held to the same scrutiny. Not saying she should be but at least be consistent in your standard of judging.
Found Here
Also PB you make like those two sites.
Stuff Christians Like and Stuff Fundies Like. You can google them.
#12 I had mine inked in Broad Ripple also.
It wasn’t in a church, it was a biker tattoo joint.
I witnessed to the artist doing the job while Marilyn Manson blazed in the background.
Still more appropriate than doing that during a worship service while we are supposed to be magnifying God, not artists.
BTW, I was stuck at Barnes and Noble yesterday while my car was serviced. Noted ‘Drops Like Stars’ on the top shelf, ‘christian’ literature, $40, no gospel. Would have been better placed in the art section.
the Gospel and Christian identity found in most art sections of bookstores tend to be vastly superior to what passes for Biblical and “gospel filled” in your mind, PB.
Happy Thanksgiving.
please don’t go there pastorboy. this is not about ingrid, i have complete ambivalence regarding her. This is about the post on crosstalk.
there are two grids that determine appropriateness: scripture and culture. the former is objectively universal, the latter is not. you are confusing the two. the appropriateness of this is culturally subjective.
can you not see the silliness of saying things like this? does your church never use illustrations? that is all this is. besides, there is soooo much more to worship than preaching the gospel.
the comment by truthinator shows that the double entendre was obvious. so obvious it’s incredulous to believe ingrid could be so naive as to not realize what she wrote.
pastorboy, you are grasping at straws. why do you think this about magnifying the artist? unless you think anything anyone does in front of the church is intended to magnify that person.
when a singer sings a solo – is that magnifying the artist, not god?
when an organist/guitarist/pianist plays a solo/duet/etc- – is that magnifying the artist, not god?
of course not.
the only difference is, the former examples are things you are comfortable with, the tattoo artisst you are not.
it’s not about what you find comfortable.
would you say that creating any art in front of the church is inappropriate?
why must something have a gospel presentation to be valid in your eyes?
for the record, i would not include a tattoo artist in a worship service. i think it too distracting. yet, i am not going to thrust my preferences on others as if my comfort, my criteria for appropriatness were gospel truth.
I object srentuously to tattooing in church services. But Nathan made the salient point. Why does magnifying a miniscule element of church practice serve as a ministry?
And Ingrid adds her recent “I told you so” prophetic utterance. I am a prophet and here is my prophecy:
Ingrid will continue to find her brand of Christianity via the secular and evangelical gossip columns.
rick!
seriously!
you need to be careful. you might start an online gang rape on Thanksgiving!!!
have you no shame?!?!?
Thanksgiving? What is that?
ingrid is not the point. the points are telling others they must worship by your standards and the lame slippery slope from preferences to sin.
Re: #26
and what’s worse is the sin of elevating one’s own preferences to the level of moral absolute.
and these people say everyone else is a moral relativist, led about by their own desires and wants and agendas…
to me it’s a missiological question. i have sat in on worship services that included all sorts of things we might think inappropriate – nursing mothers, goats wandering around the church, dancing, etc…
Neil – When you put it that way, and juxtaposed against the early church, how much of our worship is “ambiance”? And given that backdrop, how much more offensive is it when people suggest their construct is divinely approved?
(I still do not like tattoos – it’s a personal thing!)
#28 there are plenty of goats wandering around in the church today.
and a few asses as well.
it’s the “body”…somebody’s gotta be one…
#29: ambiance can be a great tool, but it can be abused. regarding enforcing constructs, it’s easy to see in history and across cultures… but it’s as destructive within a culture.
very good nathan.
Good thing we have
the Holy Spirit.Ingrid and Pastorboy to point them out for us…Maybe John should change his name from ‘pastor’ boy to ‘whipping’ boy?
I’m gonna get pictures of NT Wright and Eugene Peterson tattooed on my skin…one on each arm and then, when I flex my massive, manly muscles, a little vein on their temples will bulge and make them look angry.
“Don’t mess with the angry pastors/theologians,” I’ll say. Then people will back off.
I just do not see how this glorifies God, so I will not use it in a worship service any time soon.
I guess when you attract a crowd of 20 somethings, whatever you bait them with, you better not switch it because they will leave. You gotta keep up the stunts. Soon they will have a strippers pole in there and have someone shed the grave clothes as an illustration to John 11…
#36 I was thinking of a similar Tattoo, Jerry, but with John Piper on the right arm, NT Wright on the Left, with the words grace by Piper, works by Wright, and then the whole flexing thing.
Pastorboy,
If this is a veiled accusation that Wright believes in salvation by works – stop right there.
If you have a rational statement to make – go for it.
We will allow discussions on the validity and accuracy of a person’s interpretation.
We will even allow accusations and discussion of unbiblical character and theology.
We will not allow blatant false-statements about a person’s basic beliefs.
nor would i
you and truthinator fail at the same spot. face it – you are enforcing your extrabiblical construct on others as if they were universal.
extrabiblical constructs are fine… until you loose track of which lines are biblical and which are of your own creation… and then start judging others by construct that your created.
#38 – it is statements like those from PB which serve to illuminate either his extreme bias or just plain ignorance.
Agreed. Wright is so far from works righteousness that he makes Piper look like a works righteousness kind of guy. Piper is so far from grace he makes Wright look like the inventor of grace.
That said, we should not miss the important connexion between grace and acts of righteousness.
from what i have read the whole piper vs. wright thing is based on splitting some theological hairs.
sure, it’s fun.
sure, we should be as accurate in our language as possible.
but let’s keep in mind both men are orthodox and brothers in christ… even if one wears a purple shirt and a clerical collar.
Neil,
That’s not nearly my point and, to be sure, the debate is not just about splitting theological hairs. The debate is much deeper and involves more than just Wright and Piper.
I think you know that, so I’m not trying to ‘inform’ you of this information. I just wanted to say it for the record.
jerry
the sad reality is that Wright has a more consistent position of balance and no one could rightly accuse him of not understanding the import of holiness and righteous action…unless they are (a) stupid, (b) deliberately picking a fight, or (c) the worst kind of behavior obsessed ___________ (fill in the blank with the best term of deserved derision).
Give me Wright any day over Piper.
Wright makes me proud to be a Christian…Piper, not so much.
#35:
be careful Chris L…you might get accused of blasphemy…
#35:
oh, yeah…or cyber-rape…
re 43 – i was thinking of pastorboy’s swipe.
pastorboy, you and truthinator fail at the same spot. face it – you are enforcing your extrabiblical construct on others as if they were universal.
extrabiblical constructs are fine (we all have them)… until you lose track of which lines are biblical and which are of your own creation… and then you start judging others by a construct that you created.
wright does not preach justification be works. he preaches justification by faith and faith alone.
pastorboy, i call you to recant and repent of your false comments regarding our brother in christ.
Why would anyone take anything PB has to say about Wright or Piper seriously? I’d be willing to bet money that he actually hasn’t read anything by either of them.
I find it difficult to believe that God instructs people to search the internet for the most provocative, the most aberrant, and the most sensational ecclesiastical anomlies in order to draw people’s attention to them. This is not doctrinal confrontational, this is as much of a freak show as the articles to which she links.
Perhaps Ingrid should create a newsletter and offer it at the grocery store checkout line.
this whiny crosstalk article fails to mention how the church in question also linked in a live feed of someone getting a tattoo removed.
#51:
well, Rick, everyone else knows that anecdotes and freak occurrences are the worst basis for “trend stories”, but she’s obviously failed to get the memo.
besides, there’s no self-validation in believing the alien stories, and lurid tales of Oprah’s rumored lesbianism.
then again, on the Oprah thing, that might be right up their alley since it’s a chance to hate “the gays”.
understood.
yet in this thread he misrepresented wright, he misrepresented the purpose of an illustration, and he perpetuated his construct as more than a preference – but universally superior.
Reading a great book right now which challenges this construct of justification.
“The Deliverance of God: An Apocalytpic Rereading of Justification in Paul” by Douglas Campbell.
Riveting.
Wright teaches that all we have in justification is an acquittal in God’s court. And that acquittal is not even the ultimate thing, because it is just an anticipation of an eventual acquittal on the Day of Judgment, when OUR lives will be part of the basis of the final verdict, (p 129, 131).I think Paul did not teach a temporary justification with the eventual ultimate justification resting in any way on our obedience. (it is no wonder a number of his fellow evangelical Anglicans are so dismayed with his doctrine.)
Here is a major part of Wright’s system. We have always thought when Paul denied that our salvation was by ‘the works of the law’ that Paul meant by that, any and all good works. Wright insists that justification is not about how one becomes a Christian, but only how to define one. He understands Paul’s strong words in Galatians 2 that we are not justified by the works of the law as meaning simply that we are not defined as Christians by circumcision, Sabbath keeping or kosher food laws. If we take it to mean that we are not justified by any of our obedience to the law, Dr. Wright will say that is not what Paul was talking about. (This has deservedly caught the attention of many evangelical scholars.) If all Paul was warning about was justification by those things and no more, then the door is opened for those who think their faithfulness contributes to justification. Against this radical revision, I must stand with the tradition that Paul in Galatians 2 was talking about not being justified by anything we do.
Wright reduces the warnings in Galatians to smaller matters. Notice how justification is reduced: “Justification, in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences…” 120-122. I know that sounds good, but when it dawns on us that Wright is telling us that that is all Paul meant by justification in this epistle, we then see, I hope, that a great deal has been lost. Wright thinks the words “works of the law” refer only to the ethnic badges that identified and distinguished Jews as true Israel, things like circumcision, dietary laws and the Sabbath. So he argues that when Paul speaks against justification by ‘the works of the law’ those ethnic markers are all that Paul has in mind, and not the whole range of moral activity.
HT David H. Linden
Oh, and I have read works by both Tommy Wright and Johnny Piper.
Most of all, I read my Bible. I recognize a counterfeit doctrine when I see one, no matter the fancy words or the british accent.
Many of the “works” Paul refers to are inedeed part of the Mosaic Law, but his teachings on justification by faith alone amplifies those teachings to include all works. I just cannot see by your comment where Wright clearly rejects justification by faith.
Please provide a statement from him that is clear, what you provide is actually Biblical. And the British accent swipe reveals your insatiable urge to demean even in the midst of a serious doctrinal discussion. It reminds me of someone else who you fellowship with.
What’s funny about the things PB cuts and pastes is they have an aire about them that suggests it is more important to defend and uphold man’s theory of justification than it is to engage and interact with what Paul might actually be trying to say to us.
I love British accents, especially when people are reading the KJV. It is no swipe, really.
I consider Tom a Christian brother insomuch as He seems to have a right understanding of salvation. He is just a little screwy on what justification is. I believe the scripture teaches we have justification by faith alone in Christ alone RIGHT NOW. Tom believes that we have a partial justification NOW and we will receive full justification, based upon our works IN THE FUTURE.
What Paul is not saying is what Tom is interpreting, Chad.
We are not justified based on the works of the law at all. That is what Paul is saying. He is saying elsewhere that if we add anything to the Gospel we are damned (Galatians 1). What NT Wright is saying, within his Anglican construct is that we have some Justification now, and as we live as Christians (including practicing the sacraments within the church) we will receive our full justification in the future based upon how we lived as a Christian.
That is not BIBLICAL. It brings man’s works into it. The glory is now on the man, and not on God.
PB- that is incorrect
#62
Which part?
PB – quit embarrassing yourself.
Everything you’ve said of Wright is a lie, and the sources you quote misquote him.
I don’t have time to give a detailed answer right now now as I’m about to step out the door, but it’s obvious you know nothing more about Wright says than what people who distort his position say about him.
PB- all of it.
#64
This is how I read it, show me where I am wrong. Tommy Boy believes in partial justification (lack of a better term) now, and full justification later. In the orthodox view, we are fully justified now, and we will be glorified in the future, all based on the work of Christ accessed through faith alone.
#66 – If we all will be justified in the end, then who cares about doctrinal chronologies? Doesn’t Wright still teach that it will all come by faith in the end?
#67 I do not think so, it appears that it will come by faith supported by the works we do. I could be wrong, but that is my reading.
#61–as someone who has read many of Wright’s books (which includes books of his sermons), and heard him speak, and read some of his scholarly stuff I can say, without equivocation, that is not what he teaches at all.
Comment 61 is simple, profoundly, wrong.
As someone who has been worshiping with an Anglican church for the past 5 months, and as someone who counts among his closest friends in the world an Anglican Pastor, I can say, without equivocation, that is not what (at least in my experience) not what Anglican’s believe at all.
Some might, but not the ones I have read or worshiped with. Read JI Packer? He doesn’t teach that. Nor does John Stott. Nor does NT Wright.
#61–epic Fail.
I’ve read all three of Wright’s books in his The New Testament and the People of God series, plus probably half a dozen of his other books – that’s probably between 3,000 to 4,000 pages altogether, and I can absolutely say Wright does not teach anything close to salvation by works.
What Wright says about justification is this. We are justified by faith alone, but it really would be more accurate to say that we are justified by the faithfulness of Christ alone. From God’s perspective, we are seen as members of the family of God because of Christ’s faithfulness that included death and resurrection on the Cross. Subjectively, we partake in this justification through faith in Christ. Faith is a pure gift of the Holy Spirit, and there is nothing in and of ourselves that we can do to save ourselves.
As far as what Wright says about future judgment, he says that Christians will in the future be held account and judged for what they have done. The things we do for the Kingdom will last, and all else will burn away. This future judgment doesn’t have anything to do with our status in the Kingdom, but rather it is simply God demonstrating His justice.
Where Wright and Piper disagree is specifically about the phrase “imputed righteousness” (a phrase that never appears in Scripture, btw). Wright’s position is simply that righteousness isn’t really something that can be imputed to us because it’s not a word that describes a moral state of people. The Greek work “dikaiosis” is translated both as righteousness and justice, but the connotation the word “righteousness” has taken on in the English vernacular usually is akin to moral purity or innocence. This has roots from the Medieval idea that people could somehow add virtue to their character, and that God kept track of this. This, however, is really a foreign concept from the original meaning of the word.
“Dikaiosis” is really speaking to God’s faithfulness to His covenant – it is God’s answer to those who would say He is not just or that He has forgotten His people. Through Christ, God has proven Himself righteous, and he simultaneously has pronounced a verdict that says we are not guilty of breaking the Covenant. So in conclusion, Wright’s portrayal of justification is based completely in the single narrative of God’s faithfulness to His people starting with Abraham and reaching its climax in Christ.
You didnt deal with what future justification is in Wright’s wrong view.
yes he did, PB:
Justification must be all by faith, unless you are Charles Finney.
The faith of whom, Rick?
It’s becoming increasingly intriguing to me as to why “faith” is the privileged virtue for attaining salvation vs. other, even more notable virtues (love comes to mind).
Dr. Doug Campbell in his new book, “The Deliverance of God,” argues that the “saved by faith alone” notion that Protestants have used since Luther is wrong and is not what Paul had in mind.
So far in the book (i’m at page 100 of 1200) I am shocked by how much I think I agree with him.
As Chad noted, I did.
Our future justification (which is really a misnomer – it’s probably more correct to say our continued justification or guaranteed justification) is simply an extension of what God has already done. Christians can have assurance of their standing before God because of the sealing and work of the Holy Spirit which is really an extension of Christ’s faithfulness. So in essence, what Christ did on the Cross is not only the assurance of our present justification but it is also our assurance that we will be found not guilty (or perhaps more accurately, fulfilling the demands of the Covenant) in the future.
As far as justification by faith alone, again Wright is clear on this point to. It is only through faith that we can become a member of the family of God.
maybe the lesson is people should have a more accurate understanding of their own reading skills…
or, if the skills are there, learn to recognize where ones assessment of a text is more about parroting the
whinecritique of others who remain trusted despite their clear lack of reading skills OR consistent inability to grasp issues beyond their comprehension.i wonder if PB will admit he’s wrong about Wright now?
now, read this and recant pastorboy:
here you are proven wrong when you say wright believes in works.
here you are proven wrong when you say he teaches our present justification is partial.
here you are proven wrong when you say wright teaches our future justification is based on works.
here it is clearly shown that our current justification is based solely on faith in jesus christ… and that our future justification is made sure by our present justification. in fact, here wright teaches the very opposite of what you say he teaches.
since you said “show me” – i have. YOU ARE WRONG when you say “Tom believes that we have a partial justification NOW and we will receive full justification, based upon our works IN THE FUTURE.”
if you use the pejorative “Tommy Boy” again I am gonna call for you to be put on moderation.
“with the verdict issued on the basis of faith alone”
Game, set, match.
#80 – Not something to get that upset about.
…and if this does not, the “Tommy Boy” swipe certainly did. this is as unacceptable as referring to mac arthur as JMac or Johnny Mac.
Re 81 – there wsa a place were wright even wrote “faith alone in Jesus alone” – or something like that… but i could not readily find it.
when’s the last time somebody referred to J-Mac as, well, j-mac?
juuuuuust kidding…
Could John Piper be “Jo- Peeps”?
We should make up “rapper” names for all of ‘em…
bell, mclaren, piper, etc…it would be funny.
they could be battling rap posses…
yo, yo, yo. I got this. my theology, you can’t top this. my commentaries rain down incessantly.you can’t mess with me. they be heavier than any Nooma film short-eeezs…I’m J-Mac and I write books that attack. Yeah! Reformed Gangstas in the house! Ain’t no stoppin it.
nathan – it has been a while. but just like we would not let pastorboy demean rob bell by calling him rob baal, we should not tolerate demeaning terms like tommy boy either. and to be consistent, that applies both ways.
that said, i readily admit i react to these things quicker than most.
Neil,
i still think the battling rap posses would be awesome
Jo-Peeps is pretty good.
John “Snoop Dog” Chisham.
I am less offended by tattoos at the altar than I am a blog which elicits comments like this one:
“At the White House outdoor “Thanksgiving” photo-op, Hussein Obama pardoned a 45lb Jaindl turkey to live forever more in Disneyland. The symbolism is eery. Why? Shades of the concentration camp commander in “Schindler’s List” who practiced pardoning in a drunken state, but resumed shooting inmates from his balcony. Too harsh, you protest? Not really. Just imagine those jive turkeys as you and I. With an outstretched hand, Obama will give a thumbs up or thumbs down, Nazi style, to pardon you to live forever more in his secular Disneyland where there is no right or wrong except as he defines, or he will condemn you to a forgotten world of irrelevant indignant religiosity, and/or death at the hands of the executioner.”
Hate is powerful and contagious. I will let you guess which blog embraces hate like this.
actually “snoop” could serve as a pretty good name for some of the ODM’s…
91 – WOW… no paranoia there! :rolleyes – don’t all presidents pardon turkeys? i cannot imagine approving such stuff.
I am sure the Holy Spirit grieves over such hatred exhibited in the name of Christ. That blog is a training ground for hatred on many levels.
I call John MacArthur JMac alla the time. I happened to be watching Tommy Boy last night, so I gave the nickname to Tom Wright.
Those quotes you provided are compelling, Neil, However, he still states that He believes that we are justified in the future by works. As a former Episcopalian who has Anglican ties, the works that he may well be referring to are those works which identify us as part of the covenant, such as church attendance, covenant baptism (infant), taking part in things like communion and marriage within the church etc. In other words, the works may identify them as part of the covenant people.
This is not such a bad way of approaching things, however, I do not believe that we await a verdict, the verdict has already been rendered. If Tom believes in grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as a means for salvation, I would consider him a brother, but one whom I feel the scripture disagrees with about justification.
My old nickname when I rapped was ChizDogg….
look up fabdogg and fabpro on the net you might find a lil sumpin.
PB,
You are an idiot. Honestly.
I don’t know any other word for someone who when shown plain facts about something simply refuses to believe them. You have not cited anything Wright has actually said. You have simply again and again stated what you think he says, which has been proven again and again to be wrong.
It is a waste of time and pixels dealing with your willful ignorance.
Well, I will whip out my NT Wright, and my book of common prayer and the years I spent in the church learning doctrine, and the catechism that He holds to and I will show you that as an anglican bishop, he subscribes to and supports works based doctrine!
Look, you cannot point to Rob Bell’s narrative theology and say see- he is a part of that church therefore he believes this, and then turn around and say a bishop in the Anglican church does not hold to what his church teaches. It just does not pass the smell test.
So, Phil, come off of your Bell standard which says he holds to his narrative theology despite what he writes or teaches means we have to assume he is a Christian, or else admit that Wright, an Anglican Bishop, holds to His Church’s catechism and theological underpinnings.
He does state that he believes in future justification as the final test a Christian must pass. Sounds works based to me. But, of course, you will state that I am wrong even though I quoted earlier from his book Justification.
And Phil, it is offensive that you call an elder and a Pastor an idiot. I have not stooped to do that to Tom, or to you, so you should at least act in love.
Ha Ha I got to 100 first
You have repeatedly proven yourself incapable of ordinary reasoning. Either you’re being purposely dishonest, or you’re unable to understand what we’re talking about. For your sake, I hope it’s the latter.
Also, you are not my pastor nor my elder.
comparison FAIL!
whenever i point to the doctrine of mars hill it is to clarify something bell has said.
in the case of wright we have plain clear statements from him that clearly and plainly declare his belief in justification based on nothing else than our belief on jesus christ and that it is applied to us by faith alone in christ alone.
if this is true than he contradicts himself given the quotes i provided that show he says our present justification is the basis of our future justification.
now, who should i believe:
what wright clearly says he believes
or
or what you say he must believe (contra his clear statements)?
******************************************************************************************
so you have gotten to the point of denying what he actually says because you know better what he really believes.
I believe Chris L’s “moron” opened the door for adolescent “I know you are but what am I” interaction.
maybe i missed it… but shortly after pastorboy said “show me” we did.
has pastorboy shown any direct words of wright to back up his statements?
clearly pastorboy is not so dim as to be unable to comprehend the sections of justification by wright that i quoted.
it’s not lack of intelligence, so it must be lack of willingness to learn… to be corrected… to not dislike someone outside his construct.
I generally refrain from using those types of terms, but I honestly am at a loss for what else to say. PB might as well be saying, “quit trying to confuse me with the facts!” He hasn’t offered one single quote from Wright to support his accusations, but somehow he claims to know what Wright believes.
If you hold Wright to the baotismal regeneration standard as proof of works justufication, will you also hole Chris Rosebrough to the same standard?
** sigh**
not that i expect you to believe a direct simple quote that is against you construct.
agreed… although i don’t think it a matter of intellect or comprehension. it’s a matter of stubbornness. he holds to his construct of what he thinks wright believes – even when confronted with clear statements by wright to the contrary,
i will admit, when we talk about bell i have to give him a lot of benefit based on his church’s statement of faith – but with wright there is no ambiguity.
Re 107:
this is why i find trying to discuss anything with pastorboy so frustrating. he is not stupid – if he were i would not bother… just like i do not bother talking deep theological topics with a 2 year old.
#110 – Statements of faith are nothing but doctrinal museums if there are no living examples. Statements of faith without corresponding teachings are dead. (Unless you are willing to give someone a “lot of benefit”)
HUH?
You think that just because you wear the title “pastor” that this makes you immune to the charge of being an idiot? I know plenty of pastors who are idiots. You are no exception.
What is confounding (and perhaps due to your idiocy) and hypocritical is that you would have the nerve to assume your office ought to, out of necessity, be respected when you make it your living to attack and malign pastors and elders at every turn.
Perhaps you justify this with a little mind game. If in your mind you can convince yourself that someone (Rob Bell, Wright, Warren, Pagitt, or the pastors on this site, etc) is not really a “pastor” than you can treat them however you like, call them anything you like and even label them as heretics.
Perhaps Phil doesn’t really see you as a pastor and therefore has no problem calling you an idiot?
Paul called himself a fool. They called Jesus “that fellow” and “Beelzebub” and we scurry to protect our “reputation”. Would to God I was completely relieved of the burden of my reputation and was free to be a complete fool for Jesus Christ.
(I am ordained, does that impress you?)
God help us if we have to use our office to demand respect. Not only did Paul call himself a fool but also the “least of the apostles” (granted, this was later in his ministry after earlier calling himself the first. This only to highlight that a life of ministry ought to humble, not exalt, oneself).
To me, the irony is that PB will insist the office of “pastor” is in some way important and ought to be respected while he will at the same time take sides with Ingrid, a woman, who in his worldview can’t hold that office nor instruct a man (let alone judge or ridicule a man).
Odd.
Um, cause Piper is not God, is not objective and has his own theological axe to grind.
Piper is as mistaken on this as he was about the tornado happening in Minneapolis a few months ago.
N.T. Wright, Romans, NIB 10 (Nashville: Abington, 2003), 440.
[2] N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 129.
Whatever doubt there may have been about Wright’s view of future justification, his book justification is abundantly clear: in the end, believers face a
Tom Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 160.
120: PB- do you deny that believers will be judged on their works?
Scripture is quite clear that we will be.
What you seem confused about is the purpose of judgment.
I have read some interviews by Wright, and although I find no convincing evidence of a works salvation, I do find many more words than are necessary to communicate some clear and simple truths. All the rest always seems to be confusing erudtion and verbal obstacle courses designed so as not to be pinned down.
Yes, and that is extremely Biblical. We will be judged according to our works. That judgment will not determine whether we are in or out, but it simply means that things of God will last and things that are not will not.
You still haven’t proven anything PB. You’ve only given a few brief sentence taken out of context. You simply are proving that you don’t understand what Wright is saying.
All Wright is doing is properly separating the term justification from salvation, and he’s placing assurance of salvation in it’s proper context. Our future justification is based on the same thing as our present justification – God’s faithfulness. There is not anything we can do to earn it.
#121
Not in the same way that non-believers will be judged.
The scripture is clear where Tom Stumbles- Romans 2- to put it simply for you Chad, is written to those (Jews at the time) who place their trust in their good works will be judged according to those works. No matter what you think, Chad, the Bible declares those people GUILTY and they are sent to HELL.
We who are believers will be judged based on the works of Christ- and declared NOT GUILTY- and those, and only those people who have been reborn and regenerated through the work of God will be accepted into eternal life in HEAVEN.
The former will meet God as Judge; the latter as Father. The former will reap the benefits of God’s JUSTICE the latter, the benefits of His MERCY.
#122
In my readings of Wright, he muddles the justification and sanctification aspect of salvation together, making simple minded people like me go HUH?
Again, PB, you are an idiot.
This is why Wright says that BELIEVERS will face a judgment based on their works.
He makes the same distinction you do.
Duh.
Words mean things, Phil, and the word anticipates is the wrong word.
guarantees would satisfy my need. Present justification guarantees future.
Well, you are a fine christian Chad. Thanks for the personal attack, I wear it as a badge of honor.
guarantees would satisfy my need.
Well, sorry, PB, but no one is going to bow to your needs. Get over yourself.
“anticipates” is the proper virtue. Who are you to claim any “guarantee” about anything? Anticipates embodies humility and suggests that judgment is for God alone, not us.
Your desire for “guarantees” is a convenient way for you and others like you to establish on earth who the goats and sheep are.
Well, then you’re not reading the same Wright I’m reading. What Wright says is that our assurance of being found “not guilty” in the future is the same as being found “not guilty” now – Christ’s work on the cross. Wright does not say we get saved through faith and stay saved by works. On the contrary, he says that the Holy Spirit is the seal or the guarantee on the people of God, and that because of this, the people of God will naturally bear fruit. It is not confusing.
I do not buy the idea that just because there is an interpretation of Scripture that is simpler to understand, but wrong, compared to one that’s a bit more complex, but correct, that we should simply stick to the simpler one for simplicity’s sake.
The ironic thing is that is that in the quote I posted, Wright did use the word “guarantee”…
#129 Guarantees is what the Bible says Chad- it does not use the word anticipate. The english also uses the word surety- that is the future is assured. It is not anticipated. The seal of the Spirit is a guarantee….a surety!
Also, Chad…Jesus Himself made the same guarnatee as He is the Good Shepherd, who knows His own, and the Father has given His sheep to Him, and NO ONE will snatch them out of His hands…sounds pretty much like a guarantee to this idiot.
Personally, I wish Wright would emphasize works more than he does. I think justification theory pays too high a price when insisting salvation is based on “faith alone.”
Campbell writes:
Right John. IF that is what you came away with from Wright, then you have either not read Wright or not read right. Because that is not what he is saying or writing.
Wright uses the word “anticipates” simply because the future judgment hasn’t happened yet. It’s not complicated. Actually, the way I see it, “anticipate” connotes an event that’s assured to happen more than one that might happen. I would suspect the word to connote expectation of an event that may happen is “hope”.
Phil, I was just about to say the same thing.
“Anticipate” captures the spirit of what Christians are meant to embody (our ought to embody) — HOPE.
The whole cosmos stands on tip toes, groaning, anticipating (HOPING) for the return of Christ.
Anticipation is not about angst or worry or fear. It’s about looking forward to judgment, when God sets the world to rights.
Nothing wrong with that.
I find the finer points of theology tedious and without a real purpose in everday lives.
What must you do NOW to be guaranteed a postive outcome in the FUTURE??
There, simple question.
Why worry about tomorrow? – Jesus.
Simple answer.
Rick,
That’s why Write wrote the book–because people like Piper, Driscoll, et all, have obfuscated that question. All Wright is doing is showing the absurdity of their argument, position, and exegesis, and writing polemic against their charges that he is a heretic or, worse,–a ‘Christian’ in some mangled sense of the term.
I’m sure Bishop/Pastor Wright would much rather be writing sermons, tending his sheep, or writing a book about the glories of resurrection than debating what you call the finer points of theology. But like I told Neil the other day, this is NOT a finer point nor tedious.
What he is writing about IS every day life and how we go about the exercise of our faith in Christ and live out the fullness of Christ’s faithfulness. Reading his work helps understand that.
jerry
There is something about what Wright writes that creates a profound sense of humility in the reader and the christian. Not so with what his opponents write. Theirs creates a sense of privilege and pride. What Wright says creates a sense of ‘wow, I’m part of something much bigger than I had imagined’. We see God’s kingdom expanding. Not so with his Calvinistic opponents whose theology shrinks God’s kingdom and God’s vision.
In my opinion, that is every day living and far from tedious.
That’s very true, Jerry.
Our theology will shape the way we think about everything, really. I have never gotten the idea from reading Wright’s books that he’s writing simply to prove he knows more or for simply academic reasons. I really do feel that he is all about the rubber meeting the road.
re 116
pastorboy, who are you quoting?
and why must you continually ignore what wright himself says just to copy and paste what others say about him?
wrights words in #109 are sufficient
As he points out in his book, almost mocking Piper, he is writing as a pastor. That’s pretty important, I think. (He says this because, if I understood properly, Piper challenged him at this very point. I guess Piper wrote something to the same effect in his book.)
exactly – our future justification is based on our present faith and is affirmed publicly by a life lived.
you seem to misunderstand that “affirmed” is not “earned” -
re 119 & 120 –
please provide greater context. because i do not trust you to quote one sentence in the way the other intended it.
this is just ridiculous.
more stabbing in the dark hopping to find SOMETING to accuse the man of…
he is clear.
we have shown clear statements.
and you have the nerve to make stuff up like this?
#139 – Out of context answer. The New Testament is full of admonitions to prepare and anticpate His return. The verse you quote is about worrying about God’s ability to provide for His people.
i find it tedious when men use it dishonestly – as pastorboy has shown here – trying to confuse an issue instead of explore and clarify.
even arguing would be less tedious with out the dishonesty.
pastorboy, this is as orthodox and evangelical and clear as it gets. if this were written by silva, you’d be agreeing and posting it in bold-face.
The one thing that I have seen that’s near universally true about Piper and Driscoll is that the people they are critical of are much more charitable towards them than vice versa. I guess that is the one thing that always ticks me off about many Calvinists. They really do manage to turn everything about that specific theology into a major point.
I guess part of that is simply because of the “house of cards” or “row of dominoes” nature inherent in that theology where if one point falls, they all do. When it comes down to it, you can’t really reject one point of TULIP without rejecting them all.
“The works in question will not earn their performers their membership within God’s true, eschatological, covenant people; they will demonstrate that membership.”–Wright, Justification, 146
RE 120 – pastorboy –
can any find the quote pastorboy uses and ascribed to wright? pastorboy gives us this quote
and this notation
i cannot find that quote on that page in that book.
i realize that the judgment of which paul speks is different than the justification of which paul speaks – we all do.
including pastorboy i am sure.
but it goes to the point of showing his stubbornness and his dishonest means of argument when he willingly confuses two very distinct topics just to use the word “works”
which i cannot find find that page anyway.
You become, in many respects, like your Master.
No one here expects PB to take all of this evidence to heart and to then say he was wrong, mistaken, or whatever, and apologize.
he is just like Calvin in this respect.
Calvin updated the Institutes a number of times. As his knowledge grew, so did the volumes. But not once (to my knowledge) did he ever retract or recant anything he said earlier, even though his theology changed. Rather, he just wrote more, expounding on what was in error before, adding to it to the point where the error before is forgotten. This was a common practice of the day.
#153 you must have a different version then. On that page, it is stated that way once, and throughout as well, look on 162 and 163 as well.
Charitable reading does not mean blind reading.
(sarcasm)but jerry… how do we know this is really what wright means – he is, after all – anglican.
and i am not satisfied with this statement. it is not clear enough.
he should have said that works will “never earn salvation.” instead he talks of membership and covenant people… it’s all too unclear.
as i read it, he leaves it open to a works salvation sometime in the future.(/sarcasm)
I am not a Calvinist, for the last time.
I am a Christian- born again, God honoring, Bible believing (including Genesis 1-3) Christian.
Driscoll is such a conundrum. A grungesque, hard charging, hard language type of relevant preacher who insists on being doctrinally profound.
Why should we believe you, PB? Written statements are not enough. Sorry.
i must be blind, then. i have read page 160 three times and no where do i see him use the phrase “judgment according to works.”
i will read it again.
i assume though, that you do understand he is not talking about justification or salvation at this point. so it is moot to your accusation.
ok – clearly we are reading different books.
i have reread pages 160 – 163, from justification; god’s plan & paul’s vision, by n. t. wright, Inter-varsity Press, 2009.
i see no references to salvation or justification by works.
i see no use of the phrase “judgment according to works.”
Bottom line:
on page 10 we have a clear and orthodox statement of how salvation is appropriated when wright writes:
and on page 146 he clearly denies any requirements of works (present or future) for justification when he writes:
OK - that issue is settled... let’s get back to arguing about imposing OUR cultural constructs on others as standard of judgment.
Not to derail (yet again) the OP, but since it’s slow I have a pastoral question and would love some feedback (and it has to do with what we do around the altar).
I women’s group in my church paid to have the carpets in the sanctuary cleaned a few weeks ago. They look great. In their last meeting they brought up some concerns to be passed on to me. They are:
Since the carpets are now clean, could we either switch to the little individual cups for communion (we do Intinction) or if not that could we put out a piece of plastic like a shower curtain to prevent the carpet from getting stained?
How would you respond? I’ll wait before sharing how I have already responded.
i think plastic would look tacky. if i thought it was a real concern and might create an issue (something i do not face very often) i’d look into a matching/coordinating throw carpet to catch spills.
also, i might try varying the manner in which communion is distributed. we do it various ways.
my $.02.
#155 – Those who are predisposed to like Calvin may not even norice any inconsistencies. That phenomenon exists today as well and with a variety of different men.
#164 – Two possible responses.
* Perhaps gently reminding them that communion is more important than carpet, but we will try harder to be careful.
* Go with the cups and use it as an object lesson about what’s in the cup being more imporatant than nthe cup itself. (earthen vessels, etc.)
you have carpet in the sanctuary? How very modernist of you!
Same problem, different concern at a church I used to serve at. People would bring doughnuts and coffee in the sanctuary. After carpet cleaning, people were concerned about stains etc. I was very proud of the head Pastor who said I would rather have coffee and doughnuts in the sanctuary and stains on the carpet than potentially denying one person access to the Gospel!
Of course, at your church, that does not seem to be a concern, Chad, because everybody gets saved anyway.
Chad–I personally would not let a group of ladies pay for anything in the church. I wouldn’t let anyone in the church pay for anything that doesn’t go through the board or vestry. trust me when i say, from hard experience, that people who give designated money end up controlling the money they gave.
i can give the address of a church who makes that a core value of their ‘christian’ ‘faith’.
Seriously. I feel badly for you. Now they have you over a barrel.
Oh, Neil, I think John might be referring to this statement on page 160: “All this is then set (because otherwise one might wonder how an apostle, faced with this awful vocation, could bear to continue) within the larger eschatological framework which Paul everywhere assumes and only occasionally spells out. Present life is lived in the light of the coming fact of resurrection, which itself is set in the context of the coming great day of judgment (1 Corinthians 5:10). Then everyone, not least apostles themselves, must stand before the Messiah’s judgment-seat, so that each ‘may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil.’”–160
But I hardly think that justifies what John is asserting.
Either that or John is reading from the version of the book published by IVP UK and we are reading the version published by IVP USA. The pagination might be different.
Still, John is taking that quote out of context because Wright is not talking about works justification. And Scripture clearly teaches that our works will, in fact, be judged.
That actually is very good advice, Jerry.
Too often when people give more for a specific area or item, it comes with strings attached.
The best analogy I’ve heard for talking about people giving an offering is getting people to think of their offering in a similar way as a burnt offering. Those sacrifices were offered to the Lord, and they were totally consumed. The person had no say over it once it was given.
seriously pastorby, cannot you not make one comment without being an…?
our church has a similar policy. no one can give to a particular need. one problem is what jerry pointed out, the other problem is ministry needs becoming a beauty contest.
#171 But I left a little smiley!
RE: 169.
it may be true jerry, that pastorboy was referencing wright’s quote of corinthians on page 160.
but that leaves this problem:
pastorboy quoted wright as saying “judgment according to works.” – a direct quote with notation – and i cannot find that statement anywhere on page 160, or 161, or 162, or 163…
and this problem:
the context of those pages does not refer to justification or salvation by works. it’s all about a life lived that attests to the same.
Thanks for the feedback, most of you.
I ended up sharing with them that their concern is a valid one while also highlighting a deficiency on the part of pastors (self included) of properly teaching the significance of the Lord’s Supper (most of these women have decades in the church and ought to know better).
I got to explain (again) why we don’t use individual cups (and won’t). We partake from a common cup thus signifying our unity with Christ and with one another. The Lord’s Supper is a sharing in the life, death and resurrection of One Lord, and the one loaf and cup point to that unity, as well as anticipate the unity we will one day share around the heavenly banquet.
I told them that while I would not have a piece of plastic brought out which is a)distracting and b) suggests that the state of our carpet is of more import than the meal we are about to receive, I said I’d be happy to allow them to purchase a dark, solid colored rug that would be a permanent fixture in front of the altar where I serve.
But I also added that I would not mind if the carpet were stained. It would give me AND them an opportunity to point to those stains and say to people, “Look, we meet Jesus here every week – and it leaves a mark.”
Jerry – those are valid concerns your raise. Fortunately I am a Methodist which means I can’t be released because I stick to my theological guns. There are some hills I can do battle on – this is one I knew I’d have the full support from Bishop on down.
woo hoo – i win!
although i do like the comment about the significance of any stains.
Yep. I get that too. I searched too and I didn’t find that quoted comment he put up. I guess I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with you that pages 160ff have nothing to do with what he is suggesting. We’re OK.
#171 – That is just one more example of PB speaking out of his ???
He knows no more about what I teach than he does N.T. Wright.
That’s cool Chad. It must be nice to be afforded that luxury. That has always been one of my problems with the COC: we are so independent that most preachers have no formal backup whatsoever. We are on our own and it really makes it tough to get anything done. I’m glad you don’t have to face that sort of pressure daily!
Maybe someday there will be a church for me again to preach in, to, at, and with. Maybe I need to give serious thought to my current pastor’s idea that I seek ordination in the Anglican church and become a parish pastor/preacher.
Ha! Can you see me vested!
Jerry –
I have many colleagues who fact those same dilemmas. I feel sorry for them (and you in yours). I can’t imagine taking the pulpit each week being worried about pissing the wrong group off.
I can see you vested
Maybe you should take their advice. If not Anglican, the UMC would love to have you in their ranks.
I just started “Justification” last night. And I am eagerly looking forward to getting into it.
Did anyone else find Mr. Wright’s metaphor about the sun revolving around the earth a brilliant picture for so much in Christendom, not just the doctrine of justification?
It even applies to the cultural dogma addressed in the OP where the issue is not a Biblical one, but it’s just not how we’ve always done it.
**yawn**
Anglican would be a great way to go, Jerry. I have full confidence that you would be a guy that would take that excellent theology and teach it and live it well.
Imagining you in a vestment saying to the old parish priest..ya know the difference between you and me? I make this look GOOD…..
pastorboy,
would you please post the first five words and the last five words as they appear on page 160 of your copy of justification by n. t. wright?
i want to settle this question one way or the other. it must be one of three scenarios:
1) you are quoting from a differnet version of the book – different pagination/different book, or
2) you made up the quote/misquoted, or
3) i missed it all four times i read page 160 and those that follow.
you should look in the british version, as pb noted it is on page 160
So long Charlie Weiss. Bring back Sweet Lou!
that is why i asked him for the first five and last five words on his page 160, to see where the quote falls in my pagination.
The funny thing with PB having a problem with the phrase “judgment according to works” is that it’s a direct quote of Romans 2:6. So perhaps PB’s problem is actually with the Apostle Paul rather than Wright.
I’ve actually looked in my copy of Justification to see what PB is actually quoting, and from what I can tell, it may be Wright’s discussion of Romans from pp. 182-193. Wright unpacks what Paul is saying, but the long and short of it is that our works are not something that earn us anything. He is abundantly clear on that.
Actually, this article, which is a review a panel discussing Wright’s book addresses this very issue.
22 pages seems like more than pagination differences.
it’s not like i have time to reread the whole book looking for one quote.
Can anyone see the obvious distinction/tenison between justification and judgment? A believer will have both while an unbeliever will only have judgment. But even a believer will endure some kind of judgment of his life, but that will not overide his complete justification.
Only God knows how someone can be completely and eternally justified and yet still face a judgment of his works. I guess it would be like my son being my flesh and blood son but yet facing my judgment as to something he did or did not do.
I am sure Wright includes some as believers that I probably would question, so I cannot in any sense hear him constructing a works salvation. I am somewhat amused by “Calvinist leaning” people who get all up in arms that someone might be teaching a works salvation or even easy believism, which by their theology, changes nothing.
And some act as if Wright impacts the entire evangelical community. The percentage of people who have heard or even know about Wright is miniscule compared to the American preachers. What is baffling is that Bell endorses him, yet if you peruse Bell’s teachings you would be hard pressed to see clear evidence of that. If you think Wright is a little hazy, Bell is a complete fog…or maybe very clear.
Bell endorses Wright, in my opinion, for the simple reason that Wright takes the Bible very seriously. And contrary to what some may say, when you listen to Bell’s sermons every week, he clearly loves God’s Word.
i believe we all see the distinction, including pastorboy. although he is willing to blur the lines in an effort to inject “works” into wrights argument.
true. i find him refreshing because of his depth of thinking and his lack of “american evangelicalism” baggage.
re 183: i guess not then.
not sure what to think, although i can easily narrow it down to just two options.
Sorry, Neil, been preaching open air all day, didn’t have time to show you exactly where. You remind me of the young man Solomon I spoke with when he asked “where exactly does it say in the Bible that we deserve Hell?” I can fax you a copy of the page from which I took the quote, but like I asked Solomon, if I showed you that would you actually repent and believe the Gospel” and he said no…so I wonder if my time and effort for it will be worthwhile.
I read what he says on 160 in my version and it says that. Clearly. Sorry, without faxing or scanning it I cannot show you where. I suppose I could count words and paragraphs, but would it really matter?
Wright believes in two different justifications. One, when you are ‘brought into’ faith, which, as an Anglican, begins at Baptism, and is confirmed after catechises. In other words, it is about becoming part of the covenant people, the body, the church.
The second justification is the justification where you are judged by the way you lived your life between the first one and the second one, when you are judged based upon the way you lived your life, or, functioned as a part of the church. that, my friend, no matter how you slice it, is works.
The difference between that view and Biblical Christianity is that we are justified by faith in the FINISHED WORK of JESUS CHRIST not based upon our works, but based upon FAITH in the finished WORK of JESUS. When we are justified, we are declared not guilty, and the judgement for our sins PAST PRESENT and FUTURE are all atoned for in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Not one of my GOOD WORKS nor any of my BAD WORKS will ADD TO or TAKE AWAY from salvation in Jesus Christ. It is by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE…not by any works that I have done but by HIS MERCY…He saved us.
Tom Wright is Wrong if he holds to 1. Anglican theology
2. The fact that we are not completely justified when we are Born Again.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is more than enough evidence for the former, and VOLUMES of evidence for the latter.
Out and out lie. Amazing.
You will go and ask people on the streets if they’ve ever broken any the 10 Commandments, but yet you been doing it continuously here… simply astounding.
ah, yes…the whole of Anglican Theology in it’s manifold expressions and multiple voices can be swept away with a single assertion…
this is an interesting pattern, when you are challenged, you compare us to unbelievers.
all i asked for were ten words from page 160 in your version – the first five and the last five.
i cannot find the quote you provided. and to be honest, based on what i have seen you do before – i do not trust you.
show me where wright says justification is based on works. show me the source of that alleged quote.
and this is exactly what wright says. he would agree with you and i have shown clear and definitive statements by him to the same.
i find your refusal to accept what he has said he believes mind-boggling.
it scares me that you have authority over people. it scares me that you refuse to accept the clear statements of a brother in christ. it scares me the damage you may be doing to people who think you are honest in your research.
this is no longer a matter of reading vague things differently – like we have done with bell.
wright has made statements that are absolutely clear, evangelical, and with which you would agree if they were made by piper – yet you cling to a construct that you have decided MUST be true against all evidence to the contrary.
i can come to know other conclusions than you are either completely blinded by your self-deception or you are a liar.
n. t. wright on salvation:
pastorboy on salvation:
I guess the main argument is his views, as in the NPP, about justification. He argues that justification is not about how you get into God’s family; it’s proof that you are in. It’s God’s declaration that you are, in fact, part of His covenant family. He thus questions the doctrine of imputation.
I am no liar, this is my reading. I am with him on the quote, (#199) I have not questioned his salvation, but I have issue with the idea of infused righteousness and the idea that somehow, someway, based on our life (what we do) justifies us.
You can attack my person and my reputation all you want, it does not change my reading of the text.
Which is a point that I brought up a long time ago. Imputation, as John Piper and other Calvinists present it, is simply not a concept that the Apostle Paul would have really understood. Righteousness was not really a quality that God could impart on someone. That idea is really a holdover from Medieval theology that found its way into the Reformer’s thoughts. It’s ironic that those who are supposedly so dedicated to sola scriptura are so committed to an idea that isn’t really found in Scripture.
Your “reading” consists of posting a fragment of the text with no context, and when questioned about where this was in the actual book, you can’t even provide us with the context. My actual guess is that you don’t really own the book and that you are simply copying and pasting these quotes from some other whackjob blog.
If this were a court case, your supposed “evidence” would be thrown out. Heck, if this were a Junior High Social Studies class, a teacher wouldn’t accept it.
No one here is doing anything to attack your reputation. You are doing a good enough of destroying it yourself.
Like I said, Phil, I am not going to fax a copy of the page. I cited it, it is for you to read, thats all I need to do.
You are as blind about NT Wright as you are about Bell. Nobody is perfect (not even John Piper) which is why we should study the scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit and come to a right understanding ourselves.
Justification is an immediate act by God where the criminal is declared NOT GUILTY on the basis of the fine or the wages being paid on the criminal’s behalf. Sanctification is the process by which we become more like Christ. This is demonstrated by works, but not accomplished by works. As with justification, it is the gift of God. Glorification is the immediate reality when we die that we will be with Christ, and we will be like Him, and we will see Him as He is. Again, not based upon our work, it is based upon His work. Glorification is not final justification; it is not justification PLUS works. From beginning (justification, redemption)
to end (glorification) Salvation is a gift from God.
Alert: John Piper’s conference speaker named Mark Driscoll will be joining Rick Warren for a conference about Christian “radicals”. Sometimes the targets get blurred!
PB,
A moment of honesty. Is this where yo obtained the cite, as opposed to the book itself?
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-according-to-works.php
Please be honest.
Of course PB doesn’t own the book. He perused at the local BnN or is cutting and pasting from somewhere.
granted, you have not questioned his salvation. but you implied he advocated a works salvaiton based on you contrasts in comment 194.
and he does no such thing.
#206
He believes in a judgement based upon works for final justification. Now thats works no matter how much perfume you pour on it.
point a) i grant you this is a new perspective. and i am not completely sure how he addresses the imputation passages – i have not got that far yet.
point b) but you are, again, incorrect when you say he bases our justification on works… or our life lived. he has clearly stated that any future justification is based on our present justification and affirms a life lived – why you refuse to see the difference, how you can continue to argue otherwise is reprehensible.
I started to write another longish reply, but at this point is any more evidence needed that PB simply refuses to believe the truth? Either he’s an idiot (as noted earlier) or he’s a liar. It’s not worth my time arguing with either.
I really regret that I’ve wasted so much time and energy into him here. It’s no use investing in trying to argue with someone who refuses to learn.
I think I understand why Wright himself seems palpably frustrated in his book. It would get old refuting people who are constantly telling lies about you. It reminds me of some of my relatives who constantly insist to me that Obama is actually a Muslim… You just can’t argue with such entrenched ignorance.
Actually, he does a very good job of dealing with the supposed “imputation” passages. Basically imputation is not really a concept that the Apostle Paul would have understood. Righteousness is simply not something that could be transferred from one being to another – basically simply because it describes an ongoing action (God’s covenant faithfulness) more than a quality. It be sort of like saying I could impute my faithfulness to my wife to another person. It just is a concept that doesn’t make sense once you define the terms correctly.
pastorboy on justification:
n. t. wright on jusrification:
both speak of an immediate declaration.
both speak of the law court metaphor
both base is soley on the finished work of christ.
wright simply adds the eschatological step on including the resurrection as well.
i expect he does, i just have not gotten that far yet.
202 – why you keep harping and repeating what no one is denying is annoying.
there is nothing you assert in comment 202 that i have seen wright deny or argue against… or argue an oppossing or contradictory position.
One can have legitimate disagreements with Wright about any number of things, but he seems very clear on justification by faith alone. And when we attack things that have no clear basis we lose our credibility if not our Christian witness as well.
I am not intelligent enough to parse out and nano-divide theological issues, all I know is that when a sinners believes on Jesus he stands justified completely before God. And if that saved sinner wins 1 billion souls to Christ, prays 15 hours a day, and feeds the poor all over the world, he will stand justified before God solely upon his faith in the finished work of Christ.
I have read nothing that makes me believe Wright does not believe the same thing.
Neil,
Don’t you get it yet? PB is omniscient and knows what Wright thinks even if it contradicts what Wright wrote. Obviously PB, a CMA pastor, knows more about Anglican theology than an Anglican Bishop, I mean, duh!
Phil,
the risk that you and I and Neil, and Tom take in putting things down in written form (blogs, books, etc.) is that the reader may or may not interpret the words you write the way in which you intend them to interpret them. They bring different perspectives.
I am aware that I bring a more reformed and orthodox mindset to what Tom is saying here. You may not agree with my reading, but it is uncharitable to say that @ I am an idiot or b) I am refusing to learn. I have read Tom Wright’s writings on the subject and I am satisfied with my assertion, Piper’s assertion, Dr. Horton’s perspective, et.al that Tom, with his New Perspective on Paul, is at least intimating that works have something to do with justification, and that justification is about identification as a people as opposed to an individual and judicial declaration of not guilty on the basis of Jesus’ finished work.
Many respected (and disrespected) people have stated and proven to my satisfaction the Biblical basis for the debate against Tom’s view.
I believe he is wrong. I did not call him an idiot, or one unwilling to learn. He is just wrong on this topic. Case closed in my book.
I could say the same about you, Phil (you are an idiot, a liar, unwilling to learn) because of your perspective. I have not. I have simply lined out the CLEAR biblical refutation of what Tom teaches. You can take it or leave it, I will not call you and idiot or a liar.
*Rob Bell was not mocked in this post, Neither was NT Wright
i only question you ethics in siting someone’s work. you quoted wright as saying believers will face a“judgment according to works.” yet, this statement is not to be found where you sya it is.
of course it is ultimately moot, since this is a a true statement, even if it is not an accurate quote.
#215
I was raised an anglican, baptized an anglican, received religious training as an anglican, have the book of common prayer in my library, know the catechism, my mother is a cathedral canon and ordained in the anglican church, I studied anglican theology in college,
I really don’t know how much more I need to be qualified to say what Anglicans- ESPECIALLY an Anglican Bishop, believes.
re 215:
Phil,
i understand that wright’s comments are not in line with what one would expect from an anglican bishop. the outrageous comment from sprong would be more like it.
i guess i (and others) are willing to give him the benefit of believing what he actually writes and says – instead of assuming some gba based on what his greater affiliations may teach or hold.
seems barth suffered a similar fate.
#215
And yet I have VOLUMES of tapes, videos, written works on Bell which at the most charitable OBFUSCATE what his ‘narrative theology’ teaches, and you say that since his narrative theology is ‘orthodox’ we should assume he is a christian pastor DESPITE everything else he writes.
So which is it: Do we hold NT Wright as one who signs on the the Anglican Confession, and do not take into consideration his works? Or do we judge him according to his written works?
Remember, to be consistent we must judge Bell, Hipps, Pagitt, Jones, and McLaren the same way- as well as Piper, MacArthur, Driscoll, et.al.
PB,
Just out of curiosity, but any response to 204? Is that where you got your Wright quote?
it is one thing to disagree with his view of imputation or even his belief in a future justification.
it is disingenuous (and in moments of sheer frustration brings our calls of idiocy or lying) when you continually harp about justification and/or salvation based on works.
something wright clearly argues against.
if we could just discuss the finer points, without addressing these false tangential comments – this might be fun.
you’d think wright
s comments on page 10 (cf. # 163) of his book would put those false tangents to rest – i am sure that is why he included them…
PB,
I am not denying that there are points that can be legitimately debated on, and that actual scholars have debated them. But to have an honest debate about these points requires that those debating stick to the rules and standards of the debate. Simply putting forth assertions with no evidence or not having an answer when presented with evidence that refutes your point is unacceptable in any type of scholarly or just normal debate.
You have given no evidence that you have actually read any of Wright’s books in their entirety. As far as I can tell, you are simply cutting and pasting from others’ reviews. And, honestly, as someone who read a great deal of what Wright has written, I will always trust my opinion on something I have read above yours on something you haven’t.
[insert comment 219]
Appeal to authority fallacy
#225
No, wrong fallacy.
I actually asked if it were enough….Apparently not.
Chris,
even beyond the potential abuse of that fallacy, pastorboy refuses to grant wright’s own words credence.
i say his works take precedent. just like they would with anyone. and if those are vague (e.g. bell) we appeal to other sources.
fortunately, with wright, his works are clear.
that said, we also remember the context in which he lives and breaths and has his being – and given that context – i am even more impressed.
because – [insert 219 again...]
so instead of saying “he’s an anglican, therefore he must mean… instead of….”
i say
“wow! he’s an anglican and says… how refreshing!”
Actually, even in the 39 Articles, salvation by works is denied.
You actually said:
You were asserting your knowledge based on an appeal to authority.
Borderline
Appeal to pity
it is kinda funny… when it comes to bell pastorboy says:
i don’t care what his church doctrine states – look at what he says.
but when it comes to wright pastorboy says:
i don’t care what he says, looks at what his church teaches.
That does seem to be the case, but as I noted earlier, even the official Anglican position doesn’t seem to contradict what Wright is saying.
Of course there are individual Anglican/Episcopalian congregations or ministers who are off the mark, but that can be said of virtually any denomination.
#231
Well which one shall we do? Because if we hold Bell to the Wright Standard, he is not a Biblical Christian.
If we hold Wright to the Bell Standard, He believes in works.
So lets please be consistent.
At what point should we give up dealing with your specious aspersions?
First off, with Bell: Your primary mode is to quote Bell and then take the absolute least charitable view of what he’s said (like expecting a gospel exposition full of approved Christian ‘buzz words’ in a setting where it is assumed the audience is primarily Christian), filling in the gaps with your own uncharitable interpretations. So, it is only natural to point out his church’s doctrinal statement, which “fills in the gaps” you’ve chosen to fill with skubala of your own making.\
Next, with Wright: Your primary mode is to seek individual church doctrines/interpretations and treat them as Wright’s. Unlike Bell, Wright is heavy with exposition, filling in any “gaps” with his own words and explanations. In this case, you (again) assume the most uncharitable position in direct contradiction with Wright.
Your basic problem seems to be with a) reading comprehension; b) logic; and c) taking your own base assumptions and altering the facts to fit them. Much like the IPCC CRU and the “proof” of “global warming”…
not neseccarily, since in the bell case it’s an issue of vagueness – the church statement can be used for clarity.
in the case of wright, his statements are clear in themselves.
the bottom line is -
re bell: the conundrum he is – as rick said. and assume somewhere in there is a guy who agrees with the biblical statements made by the church.
re wright: no reason what so ever to question his belief in salvation and justification based on faith in christ alone.
ok – what chris l. said in 234…
instead of saying
“he’s an anglican, therefore he must mean… instead of….”
say
“wow! he’s an anglican and says… how refreshing!”
Also, Bell and Wright are two very different positions. Bell is a teaching pastor who’s messages are crafted primarily to people in his congregation or the people watching his Nooma videos. These audiences are generally Christians, and Bell isn’t trying to present something like an academic work.
Wright, on the other hand, is someone worked at a university for many years and who writes on the academic level. If anything, Wright gives much more information than the average person would ever want to know. As far as I’m concerned, Wright’s position is abundantly clear to anyone who wants to see it. PB just refuses to acknowledge the truth.
i can see a bit of pastorboy’s point when it comes to bell… (only in that) bell likes to be provocative and stir up stuff. that said, what chris said in 234 is true regarding pastorboy’s reading of bell.
but with wright i am at a complete loss as to why this is even an issue. sure, he has a different perspective on justification – but there is no vagueness, no reason at all to argue he advocates a role for works in justification or salvation.