That's fair because one of my biggest complaints about NT Wright is that he's never clear about anything lol

The question was on Wright's the New Prospective alone which is a singular proposition and can be discussed apart from the rest of wright's works read or unread, comprehended or not. But if it helps: 2:12 .

@@nosegrindv4951 The issue is that NTW has made the claim that we are not saved by “faith alone” but rather by “faithfulness alone.” NTW is saying that grace alone brings you into the covenant but obedience through works is essential to keep you in the covenant. In essence, this is identical to the Roman Catholic view of justification. It’s no wonder RC and the other reformed Protestants find the New Perspective to be repulsive.

@@mosesking2923 oh, i see. thanks

Certainly not Sproul.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9hxoNeov8_aoIU.htmlsi=lb0U0CEXVwcFAL06

no, he is ignorant.

What does this have to do with anything? Let's say he is, are you suggesting that geniuses can't be wrong?

Read Rev 3:3…Rev 4 Rev5

@@rexxanderson1016I stand firmly behind my original comment. ✔️

Too bad R.C. Sproul didn't double-checked his heresies on Calvinism (Reformed Theology). He gave no proof how wrong he thought N.T Wright was. Full of hotair.

RC Sproul who taught Calvinism and smoked for years found out he was wrong when he stood before God

If you believe justification follows sanctification, as Wright does, you're a heretic as well. RC was completely correct in his evaluation of Wright and his damnable soteriology.

That NTW thinks we'll be physical in the afterlife tells us he is going to be off track on a lot of topics.

@@lawrence1318are you arguing we won't have physical bodies in the afterlife? Jesus rose physically and He is the first fruits for our resurrection. Our corrupt bodies will be changed into incorruptible bodies and we will live on a new earth forever. Please read 1 Corinthians 15 brother.

Being a scholar doesn’t mean you are always correct. Also his new perspective on Paul is problematic. If you come up with something in scripture that hasn’t been taught by the early Christian community up through the reformation until recently, there is a serious problem.

This is just an appeal to authority is it not? So NT Wright is a scholar so is Bart Ehrman so what? He has more speciality training does that equate to a deeper understanding of the text? It should I’ll grant you that but, it ain’t necessarily so. We can all read and draw our own conclusions. With a little effort towards study anyone can rightly divide the word. Did not Jesus himself say “I have hid these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them unto babes”. Also “not may many wise, not many mighty has he called, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”. NT Wright’s credentials don’t make him right nor do Sproul’s. Are their teaching consistent with the whole of the New Testament? It would be tedious to list all the verse to support justification by faith here are a few Romans 4:5 Romans 5:1-2 Romans 5:9. It’s not unreasonable to call something heresy if you believe it is.

@@frimports this whole clip is nothing but an appeal to authority. Spruill makes these bombastic statements, in one fell swoop dismissing N.T. Wright, a foremost New Testament scholar, without any explanation whatsoever. And everybody is satisfied because it's Sproul. Welcome to the Fanboy club.

@Faison Cochrane If the doctrine of the early church is a puzzle we want to piece together, "sola fide" is a solution that dumps most of the puzzle pieces on the floor.

Excatly. They just don´t understand.

That's his problem, not ours

@@tonymercer7759 exactly, its his problem. And it is obvious that he can´t solve it.

He certainly makes things complicated; he is very talented in obscurity!

Diste en el punto brother

@@edgarrocha2009 I suspect the Sproul just didn´t read carefully.

Restraint?

no need. read the bible

@@mr.deconcini3262 Yeah I did, and N.T Wright presents Biblical theology unlike Calvinism (which is literally named after a man.) I find your statement a tad ironic.

@@bobbuilder5123 Im not defending Calvinism, rather scripture, and is you change the doctrine of Justification than what the man said stands true, it ruins the gospel. You can find it ironic all you want to, Im not the one advocating the changing of scripture to realign with Catholic tradition.

@@mr.deconcini3262 Catholic? No one's Catholic here, neither is NT Wright. You mention he's wrong on justification, what exactly about it is he wrong on? That's what I was hoping this guy would explain. Just calling someone a heretic isn't enough evidence. This is genuine question, I watched this video hoping he would explain what was wrong with NT Wright because I just got one Wright's books recently which I rather enjoyed. I don't know his stance on justification, so I want to know what's wrong and why. Just shouting "heretic!" Or "read the Bible" seem either lazy, or, they don't have a good scriptural critique.

@@bobbuilder5123 ok. I’ll try it this way since you took the time to explain your genuine questions regarding what a person should believe. This is where the arguing starts with most people so I will say it plainly and allow you the opportunity to do the due diligence for verification. Paul is responsible for the majority of the New Testament. He has core doctrine that he repeated over and over again. One main doctrine is that of justification. Simply put Paul tells us that the Law does not justify us but rather Christs atonement imputes to us his righteousness. If you change that in any way. Then we do not have a way for us to gain entry into heaven. Which is why he said it destroys the gospel.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9hxoNeov8_aoIU.htmlsi=lb0U0CEXVwcFAL06

so the new thing is always better and any sort of tradition is RC and EO in your view?

@@tomtemple69 Nope. There is nothing new about knowing that we are saved by the faithfulness of Christ,

Wright turns the gospel of salvation and peace with God into salvation of earth and peace with man. While that is not entirely wrong, he utterly ignores what it means to be saved and justified before God. Since that is central to the gospel, I would also think that it is heresy to conflate or obfuscate that. Certainty isn't wrong when it's about the (wright) things

To be fair those who have read Wright don't understand much of what he's saying either. Wright recontextualizes the epistles on the subject of soteriology to be about ecclesiology. Less of how is someone saved and more about how can someone join church and he has a lot of reasons and a lot of implications of this. After listening to hours of him talk I would probably agree with RC and the younger guy. Wright gets away with a lot of heterodoxy and heresy by being thought of as really intelligent which he is.

Total misrepresentation. N.T is a heretic because he denies the Gospel, justification by faith alone.

@@puritanpioneer1646 - Is the Apostle James a heretic? Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith only (Jam 2:24)

Yes, it is obvious that they haven't read or watched N. T. Wright!

@@CyntheaAnderson 2:12

The issue is that NTW has made the claim that we are not saved by “faith alone” but rather by “faithfulness alone.” NTW is saying that grace alone brings you into the covenant but obedience through works is essential to keep you in the covenant. In essence, this is identical to the Roman Catholic view of justification. It’s no wonder RC and the other reformed Protestants find the New Perspective to be repulsive. A 5 minute coffee would have ended up as a fist fight.

@@mosesking2923 I appreciate the conviction, but I have too much respect for both of these men to believe that.

@@mosesking2923 yup, a 5 minute coffee would clear up that fact that his view is heretical

Your perspective that the Catholic POV hasn't changed is a hilariously absurd.

@@Benjamin-fu5ij Well, If you have a problem with it, write your complain to N.T. Wright, he was the one who wrote about the NPP.

Yes, and election is corporate, and real Christians do lose their faith. Augustine and Aquinas were wrong regarding these points (that only the "truly elect" will persevere to the end), and so scriptural gymnastics - regarding Hebrews 6 for instance - are not necessary. The Greek Fathers hold and maintain the post apostolic ante-Nicene (non Augustinian) concensus / view.

For me, a major building block in the case for the Reformed understanding is the account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Here we read that at least some Jews DID equate circumcision with salvation (Acts 15 verse 1) and the Apostles respond in their letter by talking about salvation by grace. That's the Old Perspective loud and clear!

Did the Judaizers teach that circumcision merits salvation? Or is it that salvation is for the Jews - and one becomes a Jew through circumcision? Reading Paul, it looks like the latter.

@@emilesturt3377 what is heretical? the doctrine that the Holy Spirit can and does seal us until we obtain the inheritance promised to us? until the day of redemption? what you are saying is that it is up to you to get to heaven, if you don't do certain things, you will lose your access to heaven so you believe in faith + works maintenance, not sola fide

@@tomtemple69 Cooperation is not a work of the Law. Neither did Paul say that the Exodus was an example for us who believe for no reason (some did not enter the promised land therefore we should not get too lax with sin and think we are standing firm). Yes we stand and rejoice in faith, in Christ. And yes, the fulfilment of the ages is upon us and with us, but we do have an unequal but equally necessary part in our salvation... i.e., we must work out what He works in. You will probably call this semi Pelagian, but that is a myth. It is the Orthodox position. X

Well, except maybe to translate "faith in"... because it could also read "faithfulness of" ☕🐸

@@joachim847 Except most scholars would disagree "Christus pistis" in it's various contexts, is almost always used to mean "faith in" so it's a leap of logic to assume that this one time in scripture he flipped it to faithfulness of. Faithfulness of also doesn't make sense with the rest of the verse "Not of works, so that no one may boast", what? why would he write that if he intended it to be "faithfulness of". Why is the language of "free gift" used as well? how is it a "free gift" if we have to cooperate with God for it? If someone "gives me" a gift, they don't ask i pay for half of it, that's a half half purchase at that point, not a gift.

First of all, we need to know what "faith in Jesus Christ"is really means. I think that it doesn't just mean we have some knowledge of Him, but we have to follow Him, and "follow Him" means that we have to take our cross.

@@davidyan815 You just redefined what faith means then. You can't just redefine a word and then say "see, this is what it REALLY means". Faith does not mean follow, they're two different words for a reason. Now faith will inevitably produce following, sure, but the following is an effect of the faith, not the faith itself. Kind of like, say, if i love my Dad and give him a present for farther day, the gift isn't the source of my love, it's the natural product of it, but love comes first.

@@23045678Thanks for your comment！I am not an English speaker, so I am usually not very good at expressing my thoughts clearly in English. I hope you can understand me, if my expressions are not clear. I agree with your view, faith and follow is two different words, and following is an effect of the faith, I think your definition is quite correct. But, at the same time, I think there are different kinds of "faith(believe in)" in the Gospel of John, John2:23, 8:30-31, 10:42, 13:42-43, these faiths can not inevitably produce following. My focus is that true faith inevitably produces following and obedience, it makes us bear our cross. If we say we believe in Jesus, but do not follow him, it is like saying that Jesus said he loved us, but was not crucified. Just as Jesus' love was completed on the cross, so our faith must be completed by following Jesus. From this point of view, "following" can reduce the ambiguity of the word "faith".

Would that not be scripture?

@@cynthiahunter2570 Hi, Cynthia! There is a distinction between authoritative and normative authority. It's a rough analogy, but one could use the example of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Constitution is authoritative, but the normative authority, which may be defined as that authority which can identify, judge, and bind, is the Supreme Court. Likewise, the Divine Scriptures are authoritative---the very oracles of God---but a normative authority is necessary to identify, judge, and bind. This is what Protestants and Evangelicals do not have----rather, they have it, but it is totally an internal, subjective authority unto themselves. I wrote a thought exercise about this---too long to post here, but I am willing to share by email, if anyone is interested---and the premise is basically this: if someone says that the Bible is their authority, and if I can show them something from the Bible, are they compelled to submit to that? I have shown various persons things within the Bible and yet they do not believe or submit to them. This indicates that the Bible, in a vacuum, is not their normative authority; rather, there is something else in play, which I would argue is the internal, subjective authority within themselves. In other words, they will only submit to what they are personally convinced of, even if it can be reasonably demonstrated to contradict the Scriptures.

​@cynthiahunter2570 yeah. Ever since the advent of "we have scripture to define such and such" the viewpoints have only expanded and exploded. That notion is becoming an extremely weak one to me. "Well we have scripture" well then there should be one answer no?

@@privatepyle2200 It would seem that until Martin Luther, everyone was heretical. The gates of hell prevailed from the death of the last Apostle until Luthor nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. At least to hear these "Unsent" ones. They have no succession, just a tradition of men that teaches the bible practically fell out of the sky with the table of contents arranged by God "Just So" hundreds of competing interpretations of said book.

MacArthur is not a real calvinist.

He does no such thing. All he does is insert more confusion into the mix.

have read what NT Wright said about imputation ???

If Sproul treats another brother (NT Wright) as an enemy, I don't think he understands one major aspect of Jesus' teaching.

So don’t call out heresies?

Reformed theologians need to learn the extent of God's love. If they do, their entire game of cards will fall apart at the seams

@@solitarypawn5076 well then, enlighten them or repent.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9hxoNeov8_aoIU.htmlsi=lb0U0CEXVwcFAL06

Yes, he probably reads the Bible instead..

@@tonymercer7759 This is would we should do. And then we start to think about the meaning of those words. N.T. Wright describes his thoughts. And his thoughts are interesting and helpful.

@@ericwollenschlager2686 NT Wright is very intelligent but does not help himself. He doesn't make things clear; he goes round and round with fancy words. There is a need for clarity which he obviously finds hard to convey.

@@joaobolzan4349 For me it is clear what he is expressing in his books.

Eric, are your that arrogant to think that Dr. Sproul would have given his opinion without reading NT Wright books? Seriously.

Maybe check out the channel listed below. 👇

Living 👇

Waters KZfaq channel

Sproul is a Calvinist, end of story… Wright is typically right, though I’m not 100%sure what they’re referring to here…

What’s arrogant about seeing pure heresy and calling it what it is? N.T. Wright is a heretic who mocks the Gospel of God

For those who are true believers and endwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, the truth will be revealed and illuminated

1 John 5:20 20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life Colossians 1:9 9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives Isaiah 11:2 2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD

@@TruthEvangelism ah yes more scriptures written about a God that you only know through the scriptures you read that are written by other people.

What doesn't he get?

@@jamesverner2812 what NT Wright believes. So he calls it Heresy

Fo I sense soft palagianism here

I would hardly call myself a NT Wright scholar, more just a fan. With that, a handful of articles and some lectures into his work. He is a Pauline scholar, not a theologian. He delves into 1st century Judaism. His challenge to the Christian church is that substitutionary atonement theology is a middle age concept rooted more in greco-roman history than jewish. His challenge is that Paul’s use of the word “justification” is not necessarily a court room word, rather a word to describe God’s righteousness, and his righteousness being fulfilled at the day of the Lord. That’s all I got for now. Hopefully this helps. Again, I’m just a casual fan of his.

@@joshuahenderson that is not the source of the controversy. The issue is that NTW has made the claim that we are not saved by “faith alone” but rather by “faithfulness alone.” NTW is saying that grace alone brings you into the covenant but obedience through works is essential to keep you in the covenant. In essence, this is identical to the Roman Catholic view of justification. It’s no wonder RC and the other reformed Protestants find the New Perspective to be repulsive.

Interesting discussion I just happened to pick up on, much later than everyone else unfortunately. I believe that NTW is saying that you get saved with the holy spirit coming into you. AND then by the work of the holy spirit and yourself merged together, you are able to accomplish the works you need to be a disciple of God. I don't NTW is saying that its a works based process, but rather a process that yelds works as a result of being saved. Sproul (who I disagree a lot of stuff with) is a calvanist 100 percent. He believes you are chosen. PERIOD. You are chosen by God to be saved. Its almost egotistical to say you have been singled out from your own freewill to be saved by God. I do not believe that.

@@daveconner9520 The issue (for Protestants) is that NTW makes the argument in the NPP that Christians are INITIALLY saved by faith alone to receive the spirit but that obedience is needed to KEEP the spirit. That is repulsive to Reformed Calvinist doctrine and entirely alien to Protestantism (though it is the view of the Roman and Eastern Churches).

@@mosesking2923 I did not hear him say that about works. I'm not doubting you that he didn't say it. But there's a slew of other verses in the bible that contradict that belief. Jesus said himself "who so ever I have in my hand, who can take it out?" As one example that comes to mind. But, I admire some of Sprouls teachings while others I do not agree with. So I have a hard time when he just uses a word without explaining his position.

Always knew there was something wrong with Wright.

What's the pope got to do with it ?

@@tonymercer7759 its a general term, dr sproul seems to have been at the level of reformed style popery