N.T. Wright Trashes American Christians Because of How We Vote / Gun Ownership

Hello, in this video, I'm going to be addressing N .T. Wright. He is a British theologian, pretty well known, mostly for his new perspective on Paul.

We'll talk about what that is in a moment, but N .T. Wright is in the news right now because he has made some statements, derogatory statements, about Christians in America and the way evangelicals tend to vote.

So N .T. Wright has an issue with guns, and let's just listen to what he has to say.

When I go to America, it always astonishes me that the same people are vitriolically opposed to abortion and vitriolically in favor of everybody carrying guns and being prepared to shoot people at any time.

And on the one hand, you'd have thought if they're so concerned about preserving human life, even in embryo and in vitro, etc.,

then why are they not concerned about preserving human life when it comes to, say, a school shooting?

OK, so he's saying that American Christians are hypocritical because they vote, you know, they're going to be voting against Kamala Harris and abortion is one of those big issues.

But if they're so pro -life, how come they support the Second Amendment? How come they think that, you know, people should be carrying around guns just to be ready to shoot people at any moment?

Well, I know a lot of gun owners and I myself am a gun owner.

Ninety -nine percent of American gun owners, these guns have never harmed anybody.

They never will. So if you're in a situation where, let's say, if a intruder, someone was trying to do harm to my wife or to my daughters, they were trying to harm them or kill them, would

I neutralize the threat with my firearm? Absolutely, because that would be the right thing to do.

OK, it would be the righteous thing to do. So anti -right is anti -wrong on this issue.

So he wants to take away people's guns, I guess, right?

Typical for a British person, right? Then we fight a revolution over this, but of course, that's why

Americans own guns to protect themselves. This is what the Second Amendment is about. It's not about hunting.

It's about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government because dictators and tyrants, they always try to disarm the public.

But if you did, and this video isn't really about the Second Amendment. I'm going to make a theological point in a moment.

But if, let's say, anti -right has his way and we just ban guns and take away

AR -15s, what would that do? It would ensure that only the bad guys have guns because there's,

I don't know, hundreds of millions, billions for all I know. I mean, so many guns out there, you're never going to get rid of them all.

If you pass a law against guns, the only people that obey the law are law -abiding citizens.

So that would only ensure that law -abiding citizens are disarmed and only the bad guys would have guns.

I mean, that doesn't make people safer. But listen to what he had to say again. Let's just pick up on this one thing.

Preserving human life, even in embryo and in vitro, et cetera. Then why are they not concerned about preserving human life when it comes to, say, a school shooting by somebody who's been able to walk into a store, even though mentally disturbed, and buy a weapon -grade automatic rifle?

I mean, for somebody from the other side of the Atlantic, and I suspect for you in Canada, this is just nonsense.

So weapons -grade rifles. What is a weapons -grade rifle?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt because that makes no sense. What he meant to say was military -grade.

Now, is the AR -15 a military -grade rifle? No, it's not. Because in the military, they had automatic weapons.

And right now, they have automatic capacity where it's like a three -round burst.

So, you know, you pull the trigger and multiple rounds fire. Okay. So that's automatic or a three -round burst.

Those guns are illegal. You can't buy them. Okay. So he's simply incorrect.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. He makes it sound like, oh, in America, you can just go in and buy automatic weapons.

No, you can't. The AR -15 is a semi -automatic weapon.

Automatic weapons are illegal. So when he talks about weapons -grade rifles, like, what is that?

He doesn't know what he's talking about. And again, an AR -15 is not a fully automatic weapon.

So he doesn't understand what he's talking about. But let's make the theological point because clearly his liberalism is bleeding into his theology.

So I just want to pull up this article from GotQuestions .org.

Essentially, if I can summarize this, the new perspective on Paul is a doctrine taught by N .T.

Wright that essentially denies the gospel that Paul taught.

Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, that a person's salvation, their personal salvation depends on believing the gospel, faith alone.

That's the rally cry of the Protestant Reformation, salvation by faith alone.

And many scholars believe that N .T. Wright's teaching, the new perspective on Paul, is a denial of the

Reformation and the gospel itself. So this is what GotQuestions .org

says. Anytime a new perspective on some biblical doctrine arises, red flags should go off warning

Christians of possible danger. In many cases, such quote -unquote new ideas, teachings, and perspectives are not new at all.

Rather, they are the same old lie from the Garden of Eden. When Satan first cast doubt on God's Word, did

God really say? And they quote that from Genesis 3 .1. In that sense, the new perspective on Paul is ancient and that it tries to deny what the scriptures clearly teach and what has been accepted by Christians for centuries.

The new perspective on Paul is not biblical. It appears to be an attempt to redefine and even deny key biblical doctrines that are the foundation of the

Christian faith. Now, someone might say, well, does this matter? I mean, most people probably have never even heard of N .T.

Wright. The problem is your pastor has heard of N .T. Wright. Among pastors, he is very well known.

A lot of evangelical pastors love N .T. Wright. They have his books. They quote N .T.

Wright in their sermons. So this is bleeding into evangelical churches.

The article continues. Again, this is from GotQuestions .org. They say, sadly, however, the teachings propagated by the few who champion the new perspective on Paul are gaining ground, even among evangelical churches, despite the fact that some of its leading proponents are liberal

New Testament scholars from secular universities. Most well -known among the new perspective on Paul proponents is

N .T. Wright, a noted Bible scholar and bishop in the

Anglican Church. And by the way, the Anglican Church is pretty much apostate. There was an article a week or two ago about how the

Anglican Church, they're trying to be hip and relevant, so they don't even want to call their churches churches.

They actually are trying to get rid of the word church. They don't even want to call it a church anymore.

Wow. And of course, they're pro -LGBT and all the rest, right? So N .T.

Wright is a bishop in the Anglican Church, and his books seem to be influencing the spread of this troublesome teaching in evangelical churches.

The heart of this teaching is that for hundreds, if not thousands of years, Christians have seriously misunderstood the

Apostle Paul and his teachings. Thus, the need for a new perspective on Paul.

See, I was taught, coming up, I was taught, if it's new, it's not true. And if it's true, it's not new.

Like we've had the Bible for 2 ,000 years, you know, the complete Bible. You're going to tell me that N .T.

Wright has come up with some brand new doctrine, brand new understanding that people have missed all these years.

They go on and they say that this is, it's arrogant. That's what it is to think that you can come up with a new understanding on Paul.

They compare it to the Jesus seminar, who several years ago decided that they could, you know, the words of Christ and scripture are there, but we don't think

Jesus actually said these things. So we're going to vote to decide what Jesus really said.

Basically, hey, let's vote to decide what parts of the Bible are true and what parts are not.

So let's just watch the rest of the clip. Thomas Jefferson said that for a democracy to work, you have to have an educated electorate.

And unfortunately in Britain and in many other countries, I look around and I do not see an educated electorate.

I see newspapers and television stations beating the drum for a very oversimplified version of the issues facing a country.

And I grieve over that. That's not a good or healthy way to be. All right. So that's all

I can take of that. N .T. Wright clearly is insulting the intelligence of American Christians.

He doesn't think we are intelligent. He doesn't think that, well, he thinks we're hypocrites.

If you want to own a gun to defend your family, I guess there's something wrong with you.

You should be like the British who are pretty much not allowed to own guns. And as an

Anglican, I mean, think about this. The Anglican church was founded by King Henry VIII because King Henry VIII wanted to commit adultery.

King Henry, this is literally how the Anglican church was formed. King Henry VIII wanted to commit adultery, ditch his wife and hook up with a new woman and marry her.

And the Pope wouldn't allow King Henry VIII to get that divorce.

So King Henry VIII just broke off from the Catholic church, started his own church, declared himself as the head of the church, the

Church of England. And that's literally how the Anglican church was born. And, you know, they were

Catholic and then they turned Protestant for that reason. And obviously people had to come, you know, the true

Christians had to come to the United States because they were being persecuted by the Church of England. The Church of England, the

Anglicans have been a mess ever since their inception. So do we really care what an

Anglican theologian has to say? I don't know about you, I don't. But yeah, this is pretty bad, especially the new perspective on Paul, which is a, when it comes down to it,

I think it's a denial. It's a denial of scripture, definitely, but maybe even a denial of the gospel itself.

So I would avoid N .T. Wright, but that's my two cents. Thanks for watching. Until next time, may the