John MacArthur Rebukes false teacher N.T. Wright

2 Peter, chapter 2，verse 1 and 2,"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."
N.T. Wright rejects the doctrine of "imputation", rejects the doctrine of "justification by faith", instead he redefined those sound doctrines in other way with his tricky words. Even,
N.T. wright argues that the "penal substitution atonement" of our Lord Jesus is pagan idea. What a ungrateful man N.T. Wright is! What a heart of false pride he has! N.T. Wright brings privily in "damnable heresies" and denies the Lord that bought him. He perfectly fits the qualification of the false prophet according to the apostle Peter. Look at the "church" he serves. What a shame! Like the church in Sardis (Revelation 3:1-3) ! Like the church of the Laodiceans (Revelation 3:14-18)! As our Lord Jesus said," Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Bad theology is like corrupt tree, it will brings forth evil fruit.
I absolutely agree with Dr. John MacArthur, and I appreciate him for being a faithful pastor, a genuine servant of God with loyality. He fears God and loves the truth of God, so he exposes the damnable heresies of N.T. Wright and gives warning to true believers. I don't care whether you like N.T. Wright, his "gentleman" appearance outside, his teaching or his "sweet" tricky words or else. What I care is that "I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."(2 Corinthians 11:3)
This video clip is excerpted from the sermon "Getting the Gospel Right" by John MacArthur.
Original sermon:

[DonJay]

Since MacArthur provided no sources for Tom Wright's denial of penal substitutionary atonement but only mentioned the book title, I thought I would do some of the heavy lifting: "The doctrine known as "penal substitution" (Jesus bearing punishment in the place of his people [is] indeed biblical and patristic" (The Day the Revolution Began, p. 30). "The death of the "servant" is seen as the ultimate punishment of Israel's sins" (p. 136). "the means of salvation does indeed involve the death of Jesus as the representative and then the substitute for his people" (p. 148). "The covenant-keeping God took the full force of sin onto himself" (p. 185). "He would go ahead of his people and take upon himself the suffering that would otherwise fall upon them" (p. 189). "The representative substitute takes upon himself the fate of the nation, of the world, of "the many" (pp. 193-4). "Forgiveness of sins comes about because the one will stand for the many. It comes about because Jesus dies, innocently, bearing the punishment that he himself had marked out for his fellow Jews as a whole" (pp. 210-11). "Jesus, by taking upon himself the weight of Israel's sins and thereby of the world's sins, dies under the accumulated force of evil" (p. 217). "He must drain to the dregs "the cup of the wrath of God" so that his people won't have to drink it" (p. 221). "Jesus, representing Israel and the world, took upon himself the full force of divine condemnation of Sin itself, so that all those "in him" would not suffer it themselves" (p. 229). "The "curse" has fallen on the Messiah himself...this is undoubtedly "penal" (you can't get more "penal" than the Deuteronomic curse), and it is undoubtedly "substitutionary" (the Messiah's accursed death means that others are no longer under the curse" (p. 240). "Because he is Israel's representative, he can therefore appropriately act as substitute" (pp. 240-41). "Anyone, Jews or non-Jew, who is "in the Messiah" cannot therefore any longer be categorized as a "sinner" (p. 243). "At the heart of the gospel is the innocent Jesus dying the death of the guilty...Jesus was innocent, yet he died the death of the guilty" (p. 253). "The way sin is dealt with is by the appropriate substitution of the one who alone is the true representative. The one bore the sin of the many. The innocent died in the place of the guilty" (p. 254). "If anywhere in the whole New Testament teaches an explicit doctrine of "penal substitution" this is it" [Rom. 8:3-4] (p. 286). "If exile is the "punishment" for Israel's sin, that punishment now falls on the "servant" alone" (p. 334). "Jesus shared and bore the full weight of evil, and did so alone. In his suffering and death "Sin" was condemned" (p. 351). "The sacraments are the celebration that Jesus has paid the price" (p. 381). "He can be their substitute, the one bearing the sins of the many" (p. 408).

[tonythornton]

It accomplishes nothing to take a person’s words out of context and call him a heretic.

[scottmercer]

Talk about a slight of hand. Wow!! Hopefully MacArthur’s followers will actually read Tom Wright for themselves.

[Eloign]

Nevermind, comments section has it covered.

[mchschrm]

If you read NT Wright in context, it's abundantly clear that he thinks that Justification through faith is something accomplished by the gospel... but that it is not the gospel itself.
Glossing over that sort of nuance, and misrepresenting Wright's own words is a violation of the 9th commandment. You're free to disagree with Wright, but bearing false witness against him is not acceptable.

[stephenchapman]

Thank for reminding me what a brave and intelligent man Bishop Tom Wright actually is. We would all benefit from being more humble and Jesus like in our love for neighbour.

[elel]

The funny thing is, Wright would probably laugh, call John, ask him to drink some tea, and talk about his views.

[JILOA]

I read N.T Wrights books and have been greatly helped in my understanding of the Bible. I believe Mr. MacArthur is not accurately telling us what N.T Wright has said. For example when N.T Wright said "the gospel is not about salvation" Mr. Wright carefully explains that the gospel is basically the message that Jesus Christ is Lord and that salvation and justification is the result of the victory of Jesus over sin and death. Which is an accurate statement. John MacArthur gave us only one small part of Wright's statement. The only problem I have with N.T. Wright's views are concerning Israel in prophesy and his views on the rapture of the church. But certainly, Mr. Wright is not a false teacher. He's one of the best N.T. teachers in the world in my opinion. But if you're a pre-tribulation rapture enthusiast you just have to put aside his views on that subject, he does not believe there will be a rapture.

[kylebarney]

I’ve never been more proud of an online comment section. You guys are right on.

[Jonjzi]

It's unfortunate when doctrinal disagreements are misconstrued as malicious and we call each other false prophets over it.

[tpbergen]

These sound like the words of an insecure person trying to put down someone else who threatens their power, not the words of someone who cares about the people listening to him. If he so badly twists the words of others, what makes people think he should be trusted as someone who can rightly handle the word of truth? (2 Timothy 2:15)

[australiainfelix]

This is exactly the sort of thing that led me to give up listening to this man.

[davidmachemer]

You should have read beyond the cliff notes. There's a whole lot more to N T Wright's thesis that you're leaving out. He is uncovering a much greater depth in the gospel, not contradicting it.

[joshuakeene]

I'm late to the party and only recently started reading any theological work beyond the Bible, but I'm a little confused by this. I've read the book he's quoting and it seems like maybe he just skimmed rather than read. I would almost go as far as to say that the "academic slight-of-hand" he's accusing Wright of is exactly what he's doing. He's capitalizing on the fact that most of the audience wont check out the book, and many who do will stop reading after a few pages simply because he is certainly not a casual read. It takes work to read and understand his work. I'm not saying he's perfect but in my opinion, he's not guilty of the charges being made here.

[monicawarren]

JM says, “If you are without fear, you are going to hell….happily.” Gee, I guess when the Apostle John said, “There is no fear in love; perfect love casts out fear, " he was mistaken. Or how about when Paul asserts, "The kindness of God leads to repentance."

[debbiereay]

I'm not a scholar but I listen to Wright and he has deepened my understanding of the scriptures. I believe N.T.Wright is trying to communicate Jesus is MORE than a son killed by an angry God. MacArthur seems very comfortable bashing fellow brothers / sisters. He should note that Paul talks more about unity in the church than justification.

[gordonbrown]

What crass misrepresentation. The disagreement is on imputation. That is correct. The rest indicates that he has not read Wright's books. And if the clarity is not there, it is because he reads academic scholarship through his own pre-determined systematic theology.

[robertmae]

Can't let this one go. MacArthur is really undermining Christianity. I add my support to all those who have been blessed, yes "BLESSED", by N. T. Wright's writing. He has shown me just how wonderful the Word is and I so appreciate Paul more for Wright's perspective. All that said, I have also grown (in the early days of my faith, mind you) from MacArthur. This is so sad. I'm not sure MacArthur is ending well, like so many others.

[dougpeitz]

I am reading Wright's book for the second time. John MacArthur clearly does not grasp Wright's profound and nuanced arguments and expositions, which, when they come into focus, are convincing and convicting. For MacArthur to agree with Wright would be to expose him as the theological lightweight that he is, and expose his own theological errors that he has so self-righteously expounded. Beware the man who labels anyone who disagrees with him as a heretic!

[kenlandry]

John WAS one of my heroes of the faith. After decades of walking with the Lord I have found much more insightful teachers like NT Wright. John should debate Wright! This would allow his followers to discover a healthier more nuanced understanding of our holy, faithful, and righteous father. God bless John for his faithfulness and so much of his very good teaching but he fails to understand the goodness and mercy of God as reflected in Wrights prayerful, thoughtful, and academic teaching. You are hearing only one side of the argument if you listen to John only! John shame on you for attacking a wonderful man of God! John, where is your grace toward other faithful servants?