It's hard to see Grudem's physical strength leaving him, but I'm so glad he is still teaching and still recorded this video. I've been very blessed by his love for God and His word for many years at this point, and it's good to see him remain faithful.

I am so glad that God did not leave the saving of souls in the hands of men. We have made salvation so complicated and convoluted! The Holy Spirit drew me to the gospel: Jesus Christ's blood atonement paid for all my sins. Because of that, God sent the Holy Spirit as a pledge until the day of redemption (our new, sinless bodies). Now, having believed, I have been justified by God. I am not guilty before God. Anyone who wants to add to the simplicity that is in Christ, I will ignore.

@lukemartin7029

2 жыл бұрын

Amen

@williamoarlock8634

2 жыл бұрын

More mental pathology than 'simplicity'.

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, sister Mary, you speak like one who has been schooled. Just you and the Holy Ghost, not a drop of teaching, no church, nada. Ok, maybe.

@joncapps2753

Жыл бұрын

Amen,Wayne...give us that old time religion,Brother!!!!!

@mtc4him201

9 ай бұрын

​@@joncapps2753actually its only about 500 years old.

This is the clearest take down of the new perspective that I have heard. So helpful.

Love you prof. Grudem! I've read the entire second ed. of Systematic Theology. Amazing magnum opus!!

I appreciate the clarity of this presentation.

@cbailey1978

4 ай бұрын

I agree. He is easy to understand, which is not something I can say about listening to N.T. Wright. Not meant to be a criticism of Wright, just thankful for the simplicity of this presentation.

I am so happy to come across this clear and concise explanation of what the New Perspective is all about and what is wrong with it.

The only "new" I need is the New Testament. All these other new interpretations try to elevate man's understanding above the simple Truth as revealed by the Word of God through the Holy Spirit through the ages. It is the prideful work of idolatry of having "special" knowledge. Thank you Dr. Grudem for your simple and clear defense of the Truth and exposing the error of these false teachers.

I am doing a project trying to name all the gods of history and their properties and attributes & requirements..the list is very long and it is taking much longer than I initially thought...amen

They are both right; God's grace makes us new, we are justified (singular) and made to be a part of the body of Christ (corporate) at the same time.

May the Lord bless you and your family. I appreciate the work you do. Love and שלם

Soo if you want to hear more NT Wright actually claims about justification and sanctification please KZread ‘NT Wright’ on justification as well. Even if you come to disagree with Wright, it is truly his attempt to put Paul’s writing into completeness and not ignore verses like Romans 2:6-11. His expertise is 1st Century Judaism. Don’t think he Finds his delight to disagree with many Protestants of this day, however his duty to be honest to scripture.

@koosvanzyl2605

2 жыл бұрын

Just wonder about the man on the cross next to Jesus?

@louisaccardi2268

2 жыл бұрын

@@koosvanzyl2605 That is an excellent point that tells us a story different from Wright's theory. Although, there are other doctrines that have not been emphasized as they should. Justification is a work of God for us, but what is not emphasized (Which hurts new believers) is that there is the immediate work of the Holy Spirit within called regeneration Titus 3: 5-6. That verse reveals the work of justification by faith on the merits of Christ's finished work on the cross for us; (v. 5a "He saved us, not by the righteous deeds we had don, but according to His mercy"), then His work within us by the Holy Spirit ( v. 5b "through the washing of new birth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. he saved us.") both justification and regeneration take place at that initial saving act of new birth, including sanctification which is a life long process. Then there is the life long work of sanctification in conforming us to the image of Christ. There are probably 40 things that take place when a person is genuinely born of the Spirit (John 3: 5). These days I think we have too many counterfeit conversions.

@koosvanzyl2605

2 жыл бұрын

@@louisaccardi2268 And then at the end of our earthly life: Glorification. Sound Theology. I totally agree with you.

@savedchristian4754

Жыл бұрын

* What does Scripture say about the religion of the Jews, and the Pharisees in particular? Scripture clearly teaches that their central error was that they trusted too much in their own righteousness rather than resting their faith in the Old Testament truth that God would cover them with the garment of His own righteousness. Paul says this explicitly in Romans 10:3: “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.” Jesus also said it repeatedly. He constantly criticized the Pharisees for trying to justify themselves. Remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican? Luke 18:9 says Jesus told that parable “unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.”

@ohyau2

15 күн бұрын

Yes, what you said. This seems to be a statement of don't look at what Wright is actually saying. Just listen to why I disagree with him.

I study Wayne Grudems systematically theology. It's really excellent.

My best wishes him, because his book I love so much

I think Wright has clarified his statements and, perhaps more likely, moderated his opinion, more recently. Certainly there are theological and hermeneutical issues with how reformed Christianity understands justification - the biggest issue I would raise is that they narrow the atonement to mean *only* a forensic view when the gospels clearly teach a much larger narrative that includes but is by no means constrained by law-court language. There is also the cosmic victory over dark powers, which happens simultaneously with individual justification through the victory of Christ over death. All I’m trying to say is that both sides need to realize they are seeing part of the gospel, but only part.

@jeffyelton5346

2 жыл бұрын

Your comment is very unfair to the reformed faith.

@CodeRedCoder

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffyelton5346 anytime you speak about a tradition, you’ll be unfair to some portion of it. I’ve talked to enough reformed to know that when it comes to soteriology, law court is almost the only game in town for many… but certainly not all. Here, of course, my comments are primarily about Dr. Grudem, for whom I have deep respect.

@SibleySteve

2 жыл бұрын

I live in a Dutch reformed community and they are the nicest people, very godly, and not at all obnoxious, so when I am attacked online by reformed baptists, it is because they are neo-calvinists not true calvinists. These new baptist calvinists can be very mean spirited. The Dutch reformed people are mellow, and do not spend all day defending atonement theory. I love Wright, and American evangelicals don’t get him because they don’t get high church with long haul memory. Wright is able to speak of the universal church not just the Protestant development.

@CodeRedCoder

2 жыл бұрын

@@SibleySteve it’s funny, for years I kept asking myself, “why do Reformed Christians hate me?” Turns out, they were just really rude people. More recently I have found quite a number of Reformed who are genuinely Christlike people. It’s a shame they aren’t the face of their tradition… but then, they don’t want the spotlight. All that to say, I understand where you’re coming from. I pray for our Reformed siblings.

@GabbyKunga

Жыл бұрын

Look at Wright"s reading of 2 Cor. 5:21 on KZread. He finds Christ as exemplary only in this text, illustrating Paul's apostolic ministry as an ambassador for Christ. No more, no soteriological sense at all.

The question NPP creates is: In Modern Church, faith is lacks context. To a point it created to notion of Blind Faith. While in 2nd Temple and Early Church times, Faith was understood to be an action or verb. Equating Genesis' 1 "created in Image," the word Image being a verb or action. So Faith has a duality of belief and action. That's where people misunderstand it. That's what NPP is trying to bring into attention. It's about living out faith, because we are supposed to be Imaging God or Representing God. It's how we are supposed to bring God to the world. Believing Loyalty. Not a life in faith, yet living out faithfully. It's not a inwards concept, it's and outward concept.

@gordoncrawley5826

Жыл бұрын

We have to accept the legal pardon first, then we can go free to live out a faithful life. That is not a new perspective, it is plainly put in the bible. Our understanding of the legality of our salvation, enhances our faith and our appreciation for the totality of what Christ did for us. Christ is the center of all our Christian life, from beginning to the end, if we are of the household of God. No need to be super theological, to the point of being nonsensical.

@Kintizen

Жыл бұрын

@@gordoncrawley5826 It's not super theological. It's Biblical Context according to Biblical writers. All dive into the subject one way or another. It's something not to be ignored. Because the entire Exile of the Israelites/Jews are the reason for it. The destruction of the Temple is because of it. The first and second coming of Christ is because of Loyal Believers.

The great benefit of these controversies and even open heresy is that the faithful are driven to think and rethink their relationship to the Lord. The result is a clarification of the Christian's position in Christ, making us stronger, better equipped to deal with these "evil days".

Wayne Grudem is spot on right.

@paulguevs4226

2 жыл бұрын

NT Wright is now NT Wrong.

@davidkugel

2 жыл бұрын

Dr. Grudem is able to take a very complex issue and explain it in 5 minutes so that the average evangelical can understand.

@fernandopaulus9088

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidkugel Grudem got it wrote actually 😂

As NT Wright himself has said, there are as many New Perspectives on Paul as there are people with those perspectives. Just because Tim says Paul meant something doesn't mean that someone else's perspective says the same thing. Really, the only thing held in common is that Luther and Calvin essentially "got it wrong" and were pulling from Augustine who also "got it wrong". Maybe there is some eliteism on the NPP's part, but there's something to be said for the fact that the Reformers were basically coming from the perspective of reacting to and making a clean break from the medival Catholic Church and reading from that perspective, while most NPP proponents are trying to look back at what we know of Paul's time and place and see how the Epistles read in that light. I'd also say that the most "orthodox" new perspective, and the one held by most proponents on the more conservative end, is simply that Paul and James in Acts 14 weren't at odds with each other over justification and works, but rather whether Gentiles had to convert to Judaism to become Christian, or whether Christianity is a new paradigm entirely. This is most clear in Colossians 2:16-17, where Paul basically lays out that adopting Jewish customs like Sabbath and Circumcision are merely shadows that point to the work Jesus already completed on the cross. Paul would have never said "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." (Romans 2:6-8) if he thought works meant nothing. We must have faith in Jesus, that much is given, and i think even think it's biblical to say that Christ's righteousness is imputed on us through His victory on the Cross, but the signs of that righteousness and justification will be made manifest in how we live our lives, and how much we trust in Christ to compel us to live the life He outlined in the sermon on the mount. In other words, a faith without works is dead, just like a tree without fruit.

All of the people who are going to tell God about how righteous they were on earth while they were still alive. They get to explain to God Himself why Jesus didn't actually need to die on the cross because they got rid of their sins on their own and then lived perfectly afterwords never committing a single sin whatsoever. WOW..!!

@mikeschaller9233

4 ай бұрын

I doubt this will be the case with anyone who does not agree with you. Show a little grace for your brothers and sisters.

I heard some people talk about Wright and how it was false, but none explained the issues as clearly as you did.

Great Analysis of Wright's New Perspective on Paul.

I wish more scholars would 1 on 1 dialogues on these topics.

I love Tom Wright. He teaches a great many helpful things and he seems like a great guy. But he does have a tendency for seeking novelty. He loves to say, "Now wait a minute, is what we've always thought about this been wrong?" Which in and of itself is not a bad thing. But then he proceeds to make pronouncements that are paradoxically both heterodox and non-committal. By non-committal I mean he always finishes up with empty statements to the effect of, "So if we really look at what Paul is saying in the context of his first-century Jewishness, we may perhaps find that he is possibly saying something very interesting and very intriguing indeed." Always.

I fully agree with what he said about justification and it was spot on. 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." If you don't believe this then you need to get saved because you are on your way to eternal damnation. Romans 5:1 " Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 4:3-5 " For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted (imputed or reckoned) unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned (IMPUTED) of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted (IMPUTED, Recorded, Reckoned) for righteousness." N.T. Wright's statements are outrageously heretical. The man does not even know what the gospel is nor does he understand imputation apparently.

Very respectfully, and I mean very, I don’t think Mr. Gruden really understands the argument. The NP is not salvation through works, but merely slightly different framework to make room for acknowledging that a changed heart will generate works, which will be recognized by God, just not as a basis for our salvation. The NP gives pause to those who say the magic words but whose lives reflect no changed heart. Faith, without works, is dead. Works won’t get you saved, but a faith without works is really no faith at all.

@ProfVonW

Ай бұрын

Same responses NPP proponents always give: “you just don’t understand!” If so, maybe that’s because NPP is nonsensical.

@N8R_Quizzie

27 күн бұрын

And that's fair because grace is a powerful thing and it WILL change a person because God can and will change people. I think Wayne Grudem's critique if flawed in understanding NP, is correct about understanding NT Wright who seems to waive off heaven, salvation, justification, and hell. If not ignoring it, he redefines it.

Brilliant analysis.

1 John 1:8-2:2 King James Version 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

He says his belief of justification is since the reformation not since Adam. As if his belief wasn’t discovered until the reformation. And he’s proud of that.

According to N.T. Wright, justification is not soteriology but rather ecclesiology.

When Matthew chapters 4 and 9 and Mark chapter 1 talk about Jesus proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God, are we to believe that some version of Penal Substitutionary Atonement was proclaimed? You just don't get an evangelical sense of atonement out of what follows in Matthew and Mark's accounts of the gospel. Even the title Christ (Anointed One) makes more sense if you consider the Early Perspective framework.

@breblackmusic

2 жыл бұрын

The call of repentance And trust in Jesus was there but the message of forgiveness through Jesus was not clearly proclaimed until after the resurrection After the resurrection Jesus death and resurrection was proclaimed and commissioned by Jesus and the apostles in the gospels and acts.

It's easy to dismiss the Covenant story of Israel, the context in which the writings of Paul on Justification take place, and revert back to traditional paradigms on the subject. Wright has not brought a new perspective but an old one which furnished the thought of the new testament writers, one that he simply has dusted off and unburied from the clutter of traditional theology of the middle ages. I highly doubt Grudem has seriously and honestly engaged the works of NT Wright. One does not dismiss an argument by saying "that's wrong because we have always believed this way" (Not that Grudem said that) but he sure might as well have. One has to engage an argument based on it's own merits, which Grudem has failed to do. I determine a math problem incorrect because I see where in the problem I went wrong, not because I looked at a different problem. Grudem has essentially done this. He has looked at NT Wright and said, you are wrong because we have always believed this way not because he has considered the merits of Wright's arguments. That's not intellectual honesty. I'm sure Grudem means well and is sincere in his statements. The new testament story does not happen in a vacuum. It is a flower nurtured in the greenhouse of Israel's covenant/kingdom/temple story. We must enter this greenhouse to see what makes this flower what it is. That's the greenhouse world where Jesus, Paul and the 1st century church were nurtured and this is the greenhouse NT has gone there and back again.

@gordoncrawley5826

Жыл бұрын

When someone comes up with a new perspective, they are usually the ones to be suspect. There has been throughout history and even today, many who have come up with new ideas about scripture and were proven to not be right. The Protestant Church has reproved the scripture and over and over again, by many highly qualified, conservative, godly men, and the consensus is largely the same on tenets of salvation. Has anyone else over the last 500 years, come up with this perspective?

@3:47 > But I don't know if Wright ever in his writings explains what it is to trust in Jesus as one's personal Savior for forgiveness of sins. Grudem then goes on to quote @4:57 2 Cor 5:21. From NT Wright in Paul for Everyone on that verse > The answer is in the cross, on which God made the sinless Messiah to 'be sin' on our behalf. All our sins, our failings, our inadequacies, were somehow dealt with there, so that we - the apostles, and all who are called to be 'ministers of reconciliation' - could embody in our own lives the faithfulness of God. I do think Wright sometimes makes some of his arguments overly complicated and difficult to understand, but I wouldn't conclude that he has deviated from traditional NT doctrine in the regards that Grudem is stating. Also, a lot of what Grudem is reading are Wright's words relating specifically to the passage in Galatians, but Grudem reads them in such a way that it implies that this is Wright's view on the entire doctrine, which I don't think is the case.

I hope he had a opportunity to seat down with Wright and discuss it. Maybe there is a debate out there.

When you justify something, you set it right. You do not declare it to be right when it is wrong! “Declared righteous" actually requires two words, either "anaggelló dikaioó” or "apaggelló dikaioó.” The Greek word “dikaioó” (Strongs #1344) can be more accurately translated as “set right,” “rectified,” or “corrected,” as it is not primarily a declaration but a change from wrong to right.

Faith is works. Paul was concerned with the works of the law, not works (effort/obedience) in general. The original meaning of faith is trust, loyalty, allegiance. It’s not just belief. Faith doesn’t impute anything to us. Where is imputation in the Bible? We become the righteousness of God: that’s transformation not imputation.

Wayne consider Dr Micheal Heiser. NT is a continuation of the OT.

Amen!

either by works or by faith, you need the justification by God. It's about the time to change "Sola Fide" into "Sola justificatio"

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

No, it would better to get rid of the sola part, which means "only" or "alone," as nothing is alone in the New Covenant. Not even Christ, as he sends the "other Comforter." Not even grace, since it's "grace for grace" in John 1. Not even the glory of God, since those he called he also "glorified." As if God abides Reformed bullet points. The are a few Solas in the Scripture: Only the name of Jesus--"there is no other name given to men..." Only the Church--one bride of Christ, one body Only until the perfect comes. Until then abide as you are.

@gordoncrawley5826

Жыл бұрын

@@duncescotus2342 "Alone" is used for emphasis, because God is very precise and complete when the Holy Spirit tells us about the only way to salvation and the essential and exclusive parts to it. It is like, make no mistake about how this comes about.

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

@@gordoncrawley5826 Yeah, I have no problem with using alone to mean basically, other than it doesn't really mean that. As if God abides tidy little bullet points! You people prove my point with such disingenuousness. You should have at least appealed to the Latin. Only by the blood of the Lamb. That's a good one. Only in the name of Jesus. That's Bible. Only the will of God will endure. That flies.

absolute legend

The view held by Protestants did not originate with the Reformation. It can be found in Genesis 6:8, "BUT Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

Your faith without works is dead. So yeah it is justification by a living faith. Namely, works.

It will be great if Dr. Wayne talks to NT WRIGHT for much more clarity, Commenting on NEW PERSPECTIVE in 5mins seems like not giving the totality of what NT WRIGHT is trying to explain. Even NT WRIGHT says about the matter that it cannot be explained in a very short amount of time. Both scholars should engage in dialogue even in private.

@savedchristian4754

Жыл бұрын

# What does Scripture say about the religion of the Jews, and the Pharisees in particular? Scripture clearly teaches that their central error was that they trusted too much in their own righteousness rather than resting their faith in the Old Testament truth that God would cover them with the garment of His own righteousness. Paul says this explicitly in Romans 10:3: “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.” Jesus also said it repeatedly. He constantly criticized the Pharisees for trying to justify themselves. Remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican? Luke 18:9 says Jesus told that parable “unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.”

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

We are declared “positionally” righteous when we come to Christ. But if we don’t “practice” righteousness by how we live our lives, the the position is revoked, and we are condemned. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God. (1 Jn 3:10)

@gordoncrawley5826

Жыл бұрын

So you are saying that to stay saved we must have a certain righteousness of our own or we become unsaved? We lose our position in Christ? If we become righteous again, do we gain our position back again? That cannot be the biblical gospel. The reason that Christ died is because no person can be righteous, for to be righteous by the standard you are putting forth, one sin, one time, would be enough for us to be considered unrighteous. Who then could be saved? That is why Christ himself must be our righteousness, and we gain that by having faith that Christ died for all our unrighteousness toward God. First John 1:9 is the provision that God made for us to stay in good graces with Him, as we grow in sanctification. The sinful nature is in our flesh being, there is no way we are going to not sin, for we are unable to perform the law perfectly. That is the whole point of having Christ as our savior, no one can be saved without faith in him. I am not saying that we should not fight against sin, because we without a doubt should. We fight the fight of faith, but we will fall into sin along the way. Just confess and ask for forgiveness, for God's Spirit is working in you, to change you.

@Bobepc

Жыл бұрын

@@gordoncrawley5826 - I simply explained 1 Jn 3:10. That is the biblical gospel, anyone claiming Christianity, but not making a practice of righteousness, is lost and not a child of God. Not a righteousness of our own apart from Christ, but the righteousness that comes forth as a fruit of our walk with him. This is further reinforced in 1 Jn 3:7-8 - Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

I would say NT WRIGHT IS NT WRONG on this matter!

The reformers stated that the church had been wrong on the real presence and the Virgin Mary for 1000 years, so really ? Rich coming from you

This is also the Eastern Orthodox view. Just FWIW.

@bornagaingg6223

2 жыл бұрын

You also pray to the dead lol

@js1817

2 жыл бұрын

What is FWIW?

@Tom-qo4mz

Жыл бұрын

@@js1817 for what it's worth

The Bible never says that “Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us”

@user-ib4wf6jd6b

10 ай бұрын

Ya it does

@paullaymon5746

10 ай бұрын

@@user-ib4wf6jd6b …where?

The problem with Grudem's point of view is that it's limited to the legal perspective. Jesus came that we might have "life," not legal justification. So Paul presented an overall argument of law vs grace. The forgiveness of sins or crediting of righteousness was only to get the law out of the way toward a walk of grace through faith on our part rather than a walk of justification through obedience to law.

Certainly his criticism of NT Wright is utterly inconsistent because he as a protestant has to take the position that the Church was wrong about justification in the first 1,500 years of its existence. If “justificatio est articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae”, then the Church never understood the gospel until Luther appeared, which of course is an extreme version of ecclesial Deism. If he has the nerve to hold that the Church only got it right until Luther, why someone like NT Wright cannot hold a similar view? Scholars like him taking this position make Protestantism look inconsistent at its very core

@brianmidmore2221

3 жыл бұрын

My Tradition, yes! Your tradition, No!

@HosannaInExcelsis

3 жыл бұрын

@@brianmidmore2221 exactly!. How can a Harvard educated theologian cannot see that this is a case study on special pleading?

@joehass86

3 жыл бұрын

Please read the book

@HosannaInExcelsis

3 жыл бұрын

@@joehass86 I think he summarized his position in the video very well. By the way, as NT Wright says in his book “justification”, the worst proof-text that a reformed theologian can use to argue the “great exchange” is 2 Cor 5:21. If anything that verse probes the Catholic position of transformative justification rather than the juridical-only view of the reformers. “So that we might become the righteousness of God in him” Where is the word imputation in that passage?

@taikuodo

3 жыл бұрын

Hugo, trying to hear you out here, but I'm not sure what you are trying to get at? Protestants believe you can trace justification by faith all the way through church history, long before Luther - in the writings of the Apostles, in the early church fathers, and even in Augustine. We don't believe the church was wrong about justification during the first 1,500 years of its existence, but that eventually the institutionalized church - did - lose it along the way.

I’d sure love to know your view on progressive dispensationalism. A NT prof in seminary at Liberty pushed NT Wright and William Lane Craig, and insisted that we express faith in the works of Jesus. He was met with resistance from students though because we believe in both the person and the work of Jesus Christ.l, not one to the exclusion of the other. Wright limits it to just the works, the things we can’t do.

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Wright at all. He's here on KZread in a hundred bits and lectures, and speaks clearly for himself. But allow me to speak out of scant knowledge on Liberty University--you might have wasted your money.

@savedchristian4754

Жыл бұрын

@@duncescotus2342 What does Scripture say about the religion of the Jews, and the Pharisees in particular? Scripture clearly teaches that their central error was that they trusted too much in their own righteousness rather than resting their faith in the Old Testament truth that God would cover them with the garment of His own righteousness. Paul says this explicitly in Romans 10:3: “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.” Jesus also said it repeatedly. He constantly criticized the Pharisees for trying to justify themselves. Remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican? Luke 18:9 says Jesus told that parable “unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.”

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

@@savedchristian4754 Sounds like you.

@savedchristian4754

Жыл бұрын

@@duncescotus2342 Your apparent hero Wright misinterprets the purpose of Paul's writing & you seem to support Wright wrongly.

@savedchristian4754

Жыл бұрын

@@duncescotus2342 Wright's notion of “covenant faithfulness,” where a person maintains his membership in the covenant by legal means, through obedience, and looks for a final justification grounded at least partly in their own works-smacks too much of neonomian legalism for my tastes. It turns the gospel into a “new law”-a toned-down legal system where the requirements are diminished so that imperfect obedience counts as true obedience. And that makes the sinner’s own works either the ground or the instrument of final justification. That kind of thinking frankly has the stench of semi-pelagianism all over it. It is a subtle form of works-righteousness. But because that is Wright’s own theology, he can’t seem to discover the error of it in the New Testament’s condemnations of Pharisee-religion.

My brother in Christ, let's get those glasses cleaned. :)

Always knew there was something wrong with Wright. Typical Anglican waffle and obfuscation. Grudem is spot-on.

“It is by works we are justified and not by faith alone”

@savedchristian4754

Жыл бұрын

Are you self-boasting?

@gordoncrawley5826

Жыл бұрын

How many works do you need to do to be justified? That is flat out a works gospel, which is not a gospel at all. It is a total insult to God's grace, to think that. Why did Jesus have to die, if we could justify ourselves by our good works? This is Paul's argument, good works cannot save anyone, Jew or Gentile. Work is involved in justification, but it was Jesus's work, not ours. James was correcting those in his day, who did not exemplify a changed life and attitude after accepting Christ. Paul would not have disagreed with James on that. We do not do good works to gain justification, but because of justification. Unbelievers do good works while on earth, but on the day of judgment, it will not qualify anyone for salvation. The only thing that can qualify us for salvation, is faith in Christ, alone. His work is sufficient for our being made right with God.

@christsavesreadromans1096

2 ай бұрын

@@gordoncrawley5826 Matthew 25:31-46.

Yeah, what exactly the gospel is does not seem clear from scripture or from preachers. Look up your top three favorite preachers definitions on the gospel. I think John Piper had a particularly detailed explanation. Not that it was the most accurate. It is interesting how much content in protestantism is just centuries old misunderstanding. I would like to see this guy give a definition of atonement. To "call forth" indeed.

Say what!? I've never heard of this "new perspective" and I reject it, flat out!

Being saved for a Christian in Bible has past, present and future tenses. We must be committed to all the verses on the subject. 1 Peter 2. 21 :"Baptism now saves you." We are not saved by works but neither will we be saved without them. We are saved into the Church, into God's Covenant Family, the Body of Christ.

@Oops232

2 жыл бұрын

The thief on the cross?

@paullaymon5746

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oops232 The theif on the cross did “do” something to be saved - he confessed with his mouth that Jesus is Lord. And he said unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."- Luke 23: -I2. Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

@Oops232

2 жыл бұрын

Paul, If you consider faith confession as works then yes but it is not the confession that he made saved him but the faith in which he made the confession saved him. There are millions who perish after making “confession” through their mouth and even baptism

@paullaymon5746

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oops232 As James said, show me the person who has salvific faith with no works of righteousness…prove it.

@Oops232

2 жыл бұрын

Paul, Faith always shows itself by works but work doesn’t save but faith does as Paul said in Romans 4. We are not saved “based” on works but saving faith always “accompanied” by works.

Amen, thank you Brother Grudem, I listened to NT Wright's books and teachings and became so confused. The more I tried to nail down what he believes the more confused I got. Thank the good Lord that due to the Holy Spirit I have been grounded on the Word of God, this enabled me to reject NT Wright's teaching. All the while I listened to NT Wright Ithere were flags on the play (per say),. So I guess people like Jonathan Edwards and the great men of God got it all wrong, what nonsense. NT Wright is a dangerous false teacher. I dont say that lightly. I am thankful that one day after reading a ton of Gospel tracts I came under conviction at home one afternoon and I fell on my knees in terror of the Lord and in fear of HIs judgement, I have committed treason against the Lord Jesus and I KNEW IT!!! It was the Love of Christ that reached out and said "come to me" and I did. It was all God, not me. In some strange sense there was a decision on my part but only after the Spirit of God showed me my condition before the Lord Jesus. I am so glad through all those years I never got tangled up in NT Wright's teaching.

How is it that all the denominations got the gospel wrong? I guess that's why they keep splitting up!

Very well articulated .I have not heard a clearer presentation of what the New Perspective really teaches.I thank God for Christ's Imputed righteousness..So clearly shown right through scripture. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ that the righteousness of Christ might be imputed onto us Romans Ch 4.

@lawrence1318

Жыл бұрын

The believing is itself righteousness, but that is not imputation in the sense it is used today. Imputation in the sense it is used today means that what is not ours becomes ours by a 'stroke' of God's pen. Contrasting, imputation in Rom 4 is really about the fact that one would not normally consider believing God to itself be righteousness, therefore it is said that such righteousness is imputed to us. But the believing itself is righteousness for it is the witness within of the Holy Ghost. In terms of the word "imputation" as it is used today in theology, all that can be said is that we are imputed with innocence, not righteousness. That is, God does not see our sin, and this is the case even before we come to Christ. For the elect are betrothed to Christ before they are born again. They are married to Christ when they are born again. It is in this betrothal period (when the elect do not yet know Christ) that their sins are necessarily ignored by God, which is to be imputed with innocence, which is in fact our sanctification. Sanctification simply means to be set apart, and in particular, from judgement. So the elect are sanctified before they are born again, and then when they are born again (when they come to faith) they have no need of sanctification, for they are then justified. So the modern theology of the doctrine of sanctification is incorrect, being equated to faith + works, which is not sanctification, but simply faith + works.

Grudem's clarity is a tremendous blessing to the church. His systematic theology has been a source of blessing to his readers. Thank you for your comments. Personally, I skip anything written by Wright. Without Christ and HIS righteousness given to me by God I would be doomed. I am too great a sinner.

@aaronsmith4894

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't skip everything just because it seems different or shocking... I'm not sure of your reasoning. But if we follow the spirit of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) then we should be unafriad to challenge long-standing traditions and go back to the Bible. By the way, Wright definitely agrees with you that you are doomed without Christ and the righteousness conferred on by God. Wright just has a slightly different look at what justification is in light of all scripture (covenantal promises reaching back to OT, etc).

@joncapps2753

Жыл бұрын

I have been a believer now for close to 45 years and I tried to read two of Wright's works and when he said that God was a barbarian for making Christ take on the world's sins in a bloody sacrifice..I closed those books so hard and took them back to the library..lol Wright's new perspectives are old heresies that have been put down centuries ago by orthodox Christianity!!!

john mcarthur said n t wright is nt wrong.

If salvation counts on human works then the term tetelestai is not accurate...

Ezekiel 18:19-23 King James Version (KJV) The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Christ defeated sin and death so now the soul that believes shall not die but have eternal life. He took away our sins and in Him we have life.

1 Peter 2. 21: Baptism now saves you. We are saved into the Church, God's Covenant Family, the Body of Christ.

@toomanymarys7355

3 жыл бұрын

Not all who were circumcised were saved. It serves the same purpose--the inclusion in the visible Ekklesia of God. But not everyone in the Ekklesia was saved then or is saved now. And those who weren't circumcised (babies too young and women) are still in the Ekklesia and could be saved. (Hebrew word is miqra).

@ericv3975

2 жыл бұрын

finish the verse

@lyfe_of_lai

Жыл бұрын

Scripture also says women will be saved through childbearing. Read Scripture in context

Protestants claiming that challenging traditional views takes audacity is pretty lacking in self-awareness.

It is not correct to say that we are made fully righteous (only in regards of past sins; present and future sins upon repentance hence applying the ultimate atonement of Christ to us). He should know that we have not received the crown of righteousness when we had been born again, but that we will only receive it in the future (Gal 5:5, 2Tim 4:8, Jam 1:12 ...). Every Calvinist should ponder why we did not receive the crown of righteousness yet and why God intentionally waits until the very end. There is no big-bang of salvation, it is a process (Past-, Present- and Future) and only Calvinists such as Washer or Piper understand it a bit better when they reject an heretical Single-Tense-Salvation commonly preach by Calvinists. But still, their theology is a patchwork. We need to acknowledge the tenses in regards of Salvation, Justification, Righteousness and the outmost important difference between Works of the Law and Works of Faith. Then we get on the right track, but obviously far away from Calvinism which simply blends all works and all nuances of salvation together into one ugly potpourri.

To be honest I’m not exactly sure what the new perspective on Paul is saying, and I don’t want to create a strawman argument. But it seems to me that the NPP suggests that our faith qualifies us for salvation. And the free gift is qualification. This may be a strawman (sorry), but our faith in Christ is nothing more than something like an acceptance letter to Harvard university. That doesn’t mean you're graduated and have your degree. There’s a lot of hard work ahead to be awarded that. Or should I say earned? If I’m wrong, tear this apart because I genuinely want to know.

@cynthialewis3785

2 жыл бұрын

It sounds as if you are speaking of sanctification which is the process of becoming holy and living righteously. Justification occurs when by faith, you submit to Christ and accept what He did on the cross to pay for your sins. God then sees you as righteous.

@greysonvoutsas6969

2 жыл бұрын

@@cynthialewis3785 Thank you for your reply, Cynthia. I wasn’t thinking of sanctification but actually that kinda goes with my point of what it appears the NPP is saying. Like when we stand before God, we must have a certain level of sanctification. I think Dr. Heiser has said he believed that we are kind of judged by the “pattern” of our heart. In that if you truly believed, you would produce good works. How many good works? I don’t know. But even Heiser has said this which I quite like - “That which cannot be earned by moral perfection, cannot be lost by moral imperfection.” But he would deny the once saved always saved doctrine as would I. Remnant radio just did an episode yesterday on re-looking at the NPP and one of the guys said exactly what I had been thinking about. That the NPP sees believers as justified, but that we are maintaining our salvation daily by good works. They would disagree with the NPP. Having said all this, I can’t help but think about the thief on the cross and his salvation through believing in Christ with zero works or time to prove if his faith was genuine.

@cynthialewis3785

2 жыл бұрын

How can you deny the “once saved always saved” doctrine if you know that you can’t lose by moral imperfection what you didn’t earn by moral perfection? Once you are justified by God, that’s it, you’re saved and sealed eternally by the Holy Spirit, see Ephesians 1:13-14 as well as other verses.

@cynthialewis3785

2 жыл бұрын

P.S. remember, the thief on the cross didn’t have to prove anything because God looks at the heart and knew that he was truly repentant. Once we have a change of heart through regeneration we want to please God, so good works will be evident in our new life in Christ. Blessings to you as you study further.

@greysonvoutsas6969

2 жыл бұрын

@@cynthialewis3785 I have often had to use the case of the thief as I think on these things. Thank the Lord for his testimony. Thank you so much for your responses, Cynthia. I’ve enjoyed our brief conversation on this topic.

Paul was not given the authority, given to the 11 disciples of Jesus if you compare Mathew 28:20 and Acts 26:18. For example Paul was not given the authority to give baptism. His authority was limited to preaching and deliver the sheeps of Jesus from the power of Satan.

Gruden and MacArthur and Sproul are putting tradition before Scripture. Let the original perspective of Paul speak from the Bible. We are not saved by works but neither are we saved without them as per Scripture. We must be committed to all the verses on the subject. Salvation has three tenses.

@garyboulton2302

3 жыл бұрын

Can you show that in scripture?

@HosannaInExcelsis

3 жыл бұрын

very well said.

@mike21822

3 жыл бұрын

When we repent and follow Christ, works are the result. Works come after salvation, they are not the cause of it. They are the effect. Read Ephesians 2:8-9. Salvation is "not of yourselves, it is a gift of God." The faith that James is referring to is a false faith in which there are no works. A false faith in which is there is no repentance. "Can that faith save them?" He asks. The answer no, because it's not true faith. By genuine belief in your heart and confession with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, we receive salvation. Romans 10:10 NASBS - "for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." If we truly believe in our hearts that Jesus is Lord, we will repent. We will have works to follow. We will have change in our lives. We will be sanctified and grown into Christ's image.

@doublecutnut753

2 жыл бұрын

We must put on the wedding garment if we are to enjoy the feast. Simply accepting that there is a wedding feast will not cut it.

@ThisIsGonnaBFine

2 жыл бұрын

Well Stated Mr. Kiernan! Well Stated!

The Gospel i.e. the good news is not about how to be saved from hell after we die. The good news was about the coming of God and his kingdom. That’s what jesus preached. The problem of going to hell after we die is unknown in the old testament and jesus is a messiah that has a witness of the law and the prophets i.e. jesus came to solve the problem that was the main problem in the old testament, problem that the law and the prophets couldn’t solve and pointed to him. Jesus never came to solve a problem that was never mentioned by the law and the prophets. They never mentioned that a messiah will come to redeem us from hell after death. This problem was nonexistent. Their main problem is how to live in a relationship and covenant with God and jesus brought God and his kingdom among humans so anyone who believes can have a covenant relationship with God aka enter the kingdom of God. The good news is the coming of God and his kingdom not about escaping something after we die.

I do not understand where is he right might be coming from. But I can't help but think that by assuming that those two words or what he's referring to instead of the adoption as sons of God conform to the image of Christ being what God did I feel like when you ignore that you turn salvation into something something unknowable and unable to be sought and I unfortunately think I disagree with Gruden's take on that predestination and you study election set a standard for how he was going to save people through the blood of Christ via people putting their face on him like it or not those were the steps that God dictated

The gospel is not about "going to heaven". Going to heaven demonstrates dualism which was taught by Plutarch. Paul taught "new creation". We are transformed by the Spirit as new creatures in Christ to advance God's kingdom in His good creation, here on earth.

This new perspective on Paul is just more heresy. This has been going on since eden. God says something and the father of lies twists it.

What does Grudem or any of you think is more likely... That the earliest church fathers had it more correct? Or that the modern theologians have it more correct? God let the earliest church be the most confused and wanted a bunch of Europeans to figure out real theology 1500 years later? Really?

Mr. Grudem looks troubled, anxious, or uneasy in this video

@lyfe_of_lai

Жыл бұрын

He's suffering from a neurological disease.

NT Wright rejects the notion of an angry God….. When that reality is clear in scripture. Who is God angry with then, the trees the grass? The animals? He also says that the gospel has been hijacked and made all about saving souls. Then why at the Zenith of Jesus’s teaching, does the crowd zero in and get to the nitty-gritty, and ask him who then can be saved? This question cuts to the heart of the gospel. Also apart from anything, it says in first Peter the conclusion of your faith, which is what? “The salvation of your souls”. NT Wright is mistaken about a great many things.

He should have taken more time to study the issue in question before making a video. I admire his sincerity and his work but he’s terribly unprepared.

The new perspective is indeed false as it is focused on the corporate Body rather than the individual's relationship with Christ. However Wright is correct when he says that God's righteousness is not imputed to us and that no court of law does the equivalent. That is, the doctrine of vicarious atonement is incorrect: no-one can die for another's sins (Deut 24:16). The atonement is rather marital in nature: it consists of the Holy Spirit's entering into us so that we become "one spirit" with the Lord.

Considering that Augustine's view is not the same as protestant view, Protestants must hold that the Church has been wrong on justification since at least Augustine... Yet this statement is shocking to Grudem... Hypocrisy.....

@zacharynelson5731

Жыл бұрын

Weird how he’s referencing a catholic bishop

What bothers me about people who hold to reformed theology is they spend the majority of the time quoting and referencing other reformers, but I didn't hear him make his case with a single Bible verse. That should make your red flags go up quickly. Why is he ignoring the nearly 200 verses that state justification is by faith alone? Acts 16:31, John 3:16, John 6:47....

@robbieschweigert2700

2 жыл бұрын

The only part of the Bible where the words faith alone are found is James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

@mikeandkaitie

2 жыл бұрын

@@robbieschweigert2700 context is so important. In James, justified by works just means faith being useful while on earth. James doesn't contradict anything Paul has said. Plus, he's writing to a believing audience anyway. Thanks for bringing that verse up!

Stop forgoing righteousness. It is God you are rejecting. Do not be constantly learnging things that are not the truth. You may lead astray silly women laden with sin but you can't avoid the wrath of God. Stop rejecting the convictions of God.

We are saved by becoming part of God's covenant family, the Body of Christ. 1 Peter 2 21 "Baptism now save's you". Salvation has three tenses for christians in Scripture. NT Wright does talk about what trusting in Jesus means. We must be committed to all the verses on the subject. It's not the righteousness "of God" but the righteousness "from God". Let the Bible speak more fully!

@NateDogtheSurfer

3 жыл бұрын

Fist off, we are saved by GOD and His grace on account of Christ's merits imputed onto us. If we allow the Bible to speak "more fully", it teaches the concept of imputation and solidarity. God gave us examples where He views the life record/actions of a person as belonging to those whom they represent (Israel's kings, the king of Nineveh). But the fullest expression is seen in Christ as our representative head in whom we are reckoned as righteous "before God" (in keeping with Paul's usage of the term). Also keep in mind that the greek word for justification means "to declare righteous" or to be "shown right" before someone. When you go to court to dispute a ticket before the judge, you are attempting to show them that you are "justified", or that you perfectly obeyed the speeding-laws rather than breaking them. So when it comes to salvation, how will God positively declare you righteous, or a law-keeper rather than a law-breaker? That is, if God were to look at your entire life, would He only see righteousness and not any sin whatsoever? Either you would have to live a perfectly sinless life from start to finish (which is impossible) or the righteousness of Christ imputed onto you account is you only hope. The thing with NT Wright is he cannot answer how God can declare us righteous before Himself when we are in fact not since, for him, justification has nothing to do with imputation of Christ's righteousness. As for 1 Peter 3:21, Baptismal Regeneration is an unfortunate heresy/"tradition" of the early church. If you keep reading, he warns against making an assumption about the kind of baptism he is referring to. It is not the "water" or the removal of dirt as so many water baptismal regenerationists are prone to assume, but our having been died, buried, and resurrected in Christ. This is a further nod, or tip of the hat to the idea of solidarity, or union, in Christ's righteousness. "The righteousness 'from God'" You do realize that the righteousness "from God" is exactly what Protestants have used to make the point that the righteousness of God is an "evangelical" righteousness imputed onto us?

@suaptoest

2 жыл бұрын

@@NateDogtheSurfer Peter's teaching was to the Jews. To the members of the Old Covenant who were "baptized out" of the Old Covenant and thus moved to the New Covenant. Paul says he was not sent to baptize anyone because his work was with the Gentiles. What, then, does the religious baptism of Christians mean? That is clearly stated in the baptismal event that the baptism is associated with the church that performs the baptism. This, in turn, has nothing to do with Biblicality in the biblical sense. Baptism shows through whom the formalities of faith are obtained. Through whom should I be baptized when my faith is born through my own Bible study and I do not belong to any religious community? Do I have to baptize myself without someone's help?

@NateDogtheSurfer

2 жыл бұрын

First off let's tackle what it does not mean. It does not mean that the effort being baptized is what causes a person to obtain God's grace of salvation. For if that were the case then, grace would no longer be grace (unmerited). Unless we understand this point, there is no need to continue.

One day all of us, including the greats, Augustine, Luther, to Grudem, Wright and the popular celebrity pastors to the young youth pastor will all be held accountable to the heresy of wrong hermeneutics of Gods intention in the Word.

Wright doesn't claim to be a Reformed theologian. Rest assured there's many, many Christians worldwide who disagree with Reformed theology. Some who predate the Reformation by about 1400 or so years. Preach the Gospel as you understand it and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest. If you believe that one is saved by grace through faith, why do you get exorcized over someone who has a different take. Romans 14:4

Grudem coming in with special pleading once again

the praying class offers The Fountain of Youth....they are so delusional..amen

Thank You Dr Grundem for exposing the false teaching

Maybe we should ask Jesus what the most important thing in the Universe? AND IT ISW A HIDDEN SECRET! New International Version At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

It worries me when known and legendary scholars like Wayne Grudem fail to understand Tom Write, does being a reformed theologian automatically blocks your mind to anything that isn't reformed? sounds very cultish to me

@geraldklinetobe4551

Жыл бұрын

You do realize that Mr. Grudem is not Reformed?

@fernandopaulus9088

Жыл бұрын

@@geraldklinetobe4551 In this video he clearly stated to hold the reformed view

@travellingmac2177

Жыл бұрын

How did he fail to understand Tom? He just quoted Tom's words accurately.

@fernandopaulus9088

Жыл бұрын

@@travellingmac2177 1. N.T Wright never claimed that Dikaiosune and dikaioo means group of people, he said those terms Paul was arguing that they also apply to gentiles in as much as it applied for Jews hence Paul's justification argument is who are God's people hence Romans 3 hits a climax of "Or is God the God of the Jews only and not that of the gentiles" 2. Also it is a big surprise that Mr. Gruden didn't tell you that Wright spoke of two justifications, present and future, future justification is based on works romans 2:6 and James 2:20. present Justification is both Jew and Gentile Galatians 3:14 and Romans 3:20 to 35 with specific emphasis on verse 29, something the calvinist ignores. 3. Also simple English, the gospel is not about HOW you get saved, it is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus therefor the gospel is by WHICH we get saved and not HOW.

@marialamb6781

4 ай бұрын

Yes, it blocks your ability to discern

NT Wright is now NT Wrong

@joncapps2753

Жыл бұрын

Amen

NT Wright is NT Wrong in his theological proposition.

It’s such a shame that Grudem makes this argument while imposing the systematic of Augustinian/Calvinism to interpret scripture instead of interpreting scripture to form his systematic. I’m so glad I left the false tenets of Calvinism.

Wayne Grudem clearly explains the protestant view of justification, but does NOT clearly explain the New Perspectice view. Mostly Grudem presents a strawman. Also, note, that Grudem does not quote any early Christians.

It most certainly is exactly that. But only new "winds of doctrine" keep the seminaries filled, so go ahead, have at it. If I find out you're a Cessationist, IDK what I'll do. Maybe try the Holy Spirit before you teach us.

there really is no good reason to believe in Moses Jealous God or Allah, high god of the ancient Arabic pagan pantheon. no good reason to believe in angels and divine revelation..

If anyone bases their theology on Calvinism they have erred. If anyone reinvents the original intent of the Bible then the Bible's original words are meaningless. The Bible is true-Calvinism is not from the Bible but the doctrines of men.

Unfortunately sir, I believe you are letting your bias cloud your reading of Scripture. The infusion of Grace by God has always been taught by the Church and by Paul. To deny this is simply an incorrect reading of the New Testament.

For people who believe Scripture and Solas, need to ignore Mr. Wright and his “New Perspectives.” I believe he is a good man but has been deluded by his own self-worth.

So either Grudem thinks Church history is relevant, or he doesn't. Pick one. Uniquely-Protesant doctrines did not show up in Church history until 1400 years after the Apostles.