Corban College

"Imputed Righteousness and Plight of Complacency" by Ryan Welsh

GBC Podcasts — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:22:00 GMT

Imputed Righteousness and Plight of Complacency

By Pastor Ryan Welsh

I had the great opportunity to attend Wheaton’s Theology Conference this last weekend. The campus is beautiful and the buildings are grand, however I was not there for sight seeing. The title of the conference was “A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright.” Tom Wright is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and is one of the most popular and well-respected theologians of our generation. So what’s the need for dialogue?

Bishop Wright has taken an interesting stance on some of Paul’s writings over the past few years. In what you might have heard called “The New Perspective on Paul”, N.T. Wright has reinterpreted what he calls the “correct interpretation” of what Paul was really saying to the early church. There are many facets of his perspective on Paul’s writing and space is not sufficient to exhaust. However, I would like to discuss the most polarizing doctrine of Wright’s theology.

It would be inappropriate and unfair to mention the disagreement that the Bishop and I have, without also mentioning the great profit that Christianity as a whole has experienced from his work. A brilliant man, a loving husband and father, and a lover and follower of Jesus Christ is how I would describe Tom Wright. With that said, I obviously did not write this article to tell you about the man N.T. Wright, but instead to share his one, major theological distinction that sets him apart from most evangelical scholars, pastors, and church members.

To say it forthright, the Bishop does not believe in imputed righteousness. What is imputed righteousness? It is the righteousness of Jesus that is “put on” us when we believe. When Jesus died on the cross He didn’t only take away (forgive) our sins, but also gave us His righteousness. There are countless scriptures to support; however for the sake of this article I will just mention three. 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The Father made the Son, who never sinned, to become sin on the cross (to bear our sin on the cross), so that we will become righteous from Him. Also, Zechariah 3:1-5 “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan! The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’ The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?’ Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And to him he said, ‘Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.’ And I said, ‘Let them put a clean turban on his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.” Joshua’s filthy garments (his sin) weren’t just taken away (forgiveness), but he was also given clean, pure garments to wear (righteousness). Finally, Philippians 3:8-9 “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I might gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith…”

You might be wondering why such a great man of God and intelligent theologian disapproves of the basic evangelical stance of imputed righteousness. I myself was asking this question before I attended the conference. I couldn’t bring myself to understand why he would take it to the extreme of denying imputed righteousness. Hearing Tom Wright speak at the conference answered the question for me. N.T. Wright, Tom Wright, Bishop Wright takes this extreme stance because he is sick and tired of Christian laziness and complacency in this world based on the righteousness that was given to us. In other words, he thinks that far too often we as Christians are satisfied with being saved, and counted as righteous, and we forget all the commandments from Jesus Himself to love the world, to share the gospel with the world, to redeem the world, to care for the world, and to “work out our salvation (sanctification or holiness) with fear and trembling.” To be completely honest I don’t personally think that N.T. Wright has a problem with imputed righteousness as understood in Scripture (he would say he does), but instead has a problem with the way Christians respond to that imputed righteousness. I think for Wright it is an extreme stance taken for the purpose of forcing Christians to ask themselves the question “Do I live like I’ve been given Christ’s righteousness?”

Although I think ‘Wright is wrong’, and I will continue to take the very important theological stance of imputed righteousness as taught in scripture, I completely agree with the Bishop in his agenda to change the mindset of Christians. We need to be far less comfortable in our salvation and be ever reaching to act like Christ. We not only are counted as righteous, we need to live like we’re righteous!

"Seriously?" by Ryan Welsh

GBC Podcasts — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:18:00 GMT

“Seriously?”

Pastor Ryan Welsh

Wednesday’s, June 9, 2010 L.A. Times included an article that reads asfollows:

Claremontseminary reaches beyond Christianity

June 09, 2010|By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

In abow to the growing diversity of America's religious landscape, the ClaremontSchool of Theology, a Christian institution with long ties to the Methodist Church,will add clerical training for Muslims and Jews to its curriculum this fall, tobecome, in a sense, the first truly multi-faith American seminary.

Thetransition, which is being formally announced Wednesday, upends centuries oftradition in which seminaries have hewn not just to single faiths but often tosingle denominations within those faiths. Eventually, Claremont hopes to addclerical programs for Buddhists and Hindus.

Althoughthere are other theological institutions that accept students of multiplefaiths, or have partnerships with institutions of other religions, Claremont isbelieved to be the first accredited institution that will train students ofmultiple faiths for careers as clerics. The 275-student seminary offersmaster's and doctoral degrees.

It'sreally kind of a creative, bold move," said David Roozen, director of theInstitute for Religion Research at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut."It kind of fits, to some extent, California.... I think there will be alot of us who will be watching that experiment."

Claremont's administration sees the multi-faithexpansion as the wave of the future in American theological training. But it isstraining relations between the school and more conservative elements of theUnited Methodist Church, which this year was expected to provide about 8% ofClaremont's $10-million budget. The church suspended its support for the schoolearlier this year pending an investigation.

Marianne E. Inman, president of the church'sUniversity Senate, which oversees Methodist seminaries, declined to comment onClaremont's plans, referring a reporter to a January statement in which shetook the school to task for failing to consult with the church body on budgetmatters and on "a substantial reorientation of the institution'smission."

MarkTooley, a conservative Methodist who is president of the Institute on Religionand Democracy, a Washington-based ecumenical organization, was more outspokenin his criticism.

"Claremont seems to be moving away from itsresponsibility to the United Methodist Church," Tooley said. "Italmost seems that they're trying to fulfill the stereotype that many in thechurch have of liberal Methodism on the West Coast."

____________________________________________________________________________________

TrainingJews, Muslims, and Christians for the ministry. I am reminded of the Genesis saga, regarding the birth of Isaac and Ishmael. Sarah and Abraham cannot have akid; therefore Sarah comes up with the bright idea (that she will of courseregret later) that Abraham should have a kid with her maidservant named Hagar.Abraham doesn’t argue, has a kid with Hagar and names him Ishmael, with means“God hears”. Finally at the age of 90 Sarah conceives and has a child with her husband Abraham and they name him Isaac.

Whyam I reminded of this saga you might ask? In the 8^th century B.C. a man by the name of Muhammad comes and decides that he is okay with the Genesis narrative up until Ishmael is sent away and Isaac is treated as the promisedson (Genesis 21). At this point Muhammad decides to call Ishmael the promisedson in place of Isaac. Remember that Muhammad does this approximately 700 yearsafter Genesis is written. Why does Muhammad do this? The answer to this one iseasy. Muhammad is an Arab and the Arab people come from the line of Ishmael.Muhammad wanted to make his line the line of the promised people.

TheJews have a very different understanding of this narrative. The Jews stick withthe Old Testament as recorded in Holy Scripture. It is told to Abraham andSarah that their son, the son named Isaac, will carry the blessing and thenation of Israel, which is God’s chosen nation. All this is true; the Bible records these promises. Isaac is the promised son. There is still one problem however.

TheApostle Paul makes it very clear in Galatians 3:16, that the promised seed isactually Jesus. Wait a second; I thought the promised seed was Isaac?

“Now the promises were made to Abraham and tohis offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, butreferring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.”

Isaacis the promised seed, but only to bring about the Messiah through his familyline. So what does this mean? It means the Jews are focused on Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob, those that were given the promises of God, and they are not focusedon the Messiah, the one that came from the line of these men to save the worldfrom their sins. So what does this mean? It means that we have three verydifferent religions with three very different beliefs of who the promised sonis. It means that we have three different views of who God the Messiah is andtherefore we worship three different Messiahs or lack their of. Suffice it to saythese three religions cannot agree on wh0 to worship, who to serve, and who to evangelize about. In the midst of these disagreements, Claremont School ofTheology in Claremont, CA is meshing them together to be more politically correct. In doing so, this historically Methodist school is choosing to be biblically incorrect.

If this school really believed John 14:6 in which Jesus says, “I am the way, andthe truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” then Iwould not be writing this article, because they would have put a stop tothis nonsense before it ever started.

Jesusis the Way, Jesus is the Truth, and Jesus is the Life. No one comes to theFather except through Jesus. As politically incorrect as this might be, this means Muslims cannot come to the Father through Ishmael or Muhammad, and Jewscannot come to the Father through Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

Sothere is one lingering question to ask Claremont School of Theology…SERIOUSLY?