Interview with N.T. Wright - Responding to Piper on Justification Kingdom People

I have just begun to follow this whole thing. I am reading Wright's books and listening to his lectures, and also reading Piper's book. I am not sure Piper was the Right person to to after Wright since he is dispensational and therefore misses many of the main points of scripture that even Wright holds to be true.

I have noticed that outside of Wright's NPP his is fairly close to most reformers in his beliefs but is following a rabbit down it's hole with this new teaching, which is Richard Hays' doctrinal thesis, and it does what a doctrinal thesis should do, it comes up with a new way of looking at something. I am going to have to do more reading on this before coming to a conclusion. But I know one thing, it is not the same thing as the Federal Vision.

Piper isn't dispensational, and neither is he strictly covenantal. See this link: What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Originally Posted by shackleton

Interview with N.T. Wright - Responding to Piper on Justification Kingdom People

I have noticed that outside of Wright's NPP his is fairly close to most reformers in his beliefs but is following a rabbit down it's hole with this new teaching, which is Richard Hays' doctrinal thesis, and it does what a doctrinal thesis should do, it comes up with a new way of looking at something.

Would this be Hays' work on the pistou Christou (faith/faithfulness of Christ)?

Originally Posted by ChristianHedonist

Piper isn't dispensational, and neither is he strictly covenantal. See this link: What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

You are correct. Piper is nowhere near dispensational. He is in between covenantal and NCT. He is historic pre-mill and not dispensation pre-trib. He believes in the continuous church from NT to OT and does not believe Israel is ethnic Israel but the church.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 05:13:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by shackleton

Interview with N.T. Wright - Responding to Piper on Justification Kingdom People

I have just begun to follow this whole thing. I am reading Wright's books and listening to his lectures, and also reading Piper's book. I am not sure Piper was the Right person to to after Wright since he is dispensational and therefore misses many of the main points of scripture that even Wright holds to be true.

I have noticed that outside of Wright's NPP his is fairly close to most reformers in his beliefs but is following a rabbit down it's hole with this new teaching, which is Richard Hays' doctrinal thesis, and it does what a doctrinal thesis should do, it comes up with a new way of looking at something. I am going to have to do more reading on this before coming to a conclusion. But I know one thing, it is not the same thing as the Federal Vision.

I think Piper is the perfect guy to deal with this issue because of his expertise on justification and imputation. The 1st book he wrote against NPP (Counted Righteous in Christ) was said by John Frame to be the best defense of imputation in over 50 years since John Murray wrote his. Michael Horton called it "essential reading".

I've read Piper's critique of Wright. If Wright is criticizing Piper on the grounds that Piper is dispensational, then he has misunderstood Piper. Of course, this would be highly ironic, since none of Wright's critics have EVER understood him, if you believe Wright.

I don't always enjoy Paul Helm, but I did find the posts on his blog where he referenced Wright to make some very important points about Wright's methodology.

Helm's Deep: Analysis 15 - Baxter's Soup and Wright's Soap

Helm's Deep: Analysis 16 - Aspirational Theology

[quote=Marrow Man;544032]

Originally Posted by shackleton

Would this be Hays' work on the pistou Christou (faith/faithfulness of Christ)?

It might be. Wright has mentioned that he got his ideas about the NPP from a doctrinal thesis written by Richard Hays.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Helm's Deep: Analysis 15 - Baxter's Soup and Wright's Soap

Helm's Deep: Analysis 16 - Aspirational Theology

Interesting read. I wouldn't equate Baxter and Wright given that one is more dogmatic and the other exegetical, and because Baxter is working within the framework of individualistic salvation while Wright is drawing out the salvation-history emphasis of Pauline thought. Though I think it is possible to show what is missing in both presentations so far as the doctrine of justification is concerned, as Paul Helm has done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianHedonist View Post
Piper isn't dispensational, and neither is he strictly covenantal. See this link: What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

ManleyBeasley
You are correct. Piper is nowhere near dispensational. He is in between covenantal and NCT. He is historic pre-mill and not dispensation pre-trib. He believes in the continuous church from NT to OT and does not believe Israel is ethnic Israel but the church.

Thanks for the summary.
It sounds like Mr. Piper, who God is using as a great blessing to many, is heading toward a complete reformed theology, at least trending that way.

It is amazing how powerful reformed theology is ("five points" + covenant theology + confession) and how it comprehensively puts together the whole of scripture to refute the error of those theologies that do not put together systematically the whole counsel of God's revealed will (His Word, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments).

[quote=shackleton;544154]

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by shackleton

Would this be Hays' work on the pistou Christou (faith/faithfulness of Christ)?

It might be. Wright has mentioned that he got his ideas about the NPP from a doctrinal thesis written by Richard Hays.

It might be "Moral Vision of the New Testament," but I do not know that for sure.

"Richard B. Hays is the George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. Hays is well-known for his criticisms of the Jesus Seminar and the modern Historical Jesus movement. Recently, Hays has been vocal about his criticisms of Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code for its controversial historical claims.

Christianity Today named Hays' "Moral Vision of the New Testament" book one of the top 100 most important religious books of the 20th century. His nuanced treatment of homosexuality in "Moral Vision" has drawn some considerable attention. He offers what some may consider a more conservative position while at the same time pleading for charity and friendship. Hays is a committed pacifist. He makes his position clear in The Moral Vision of the New Testament, in which he argues that Jesus Christ taught his disciples to be non-violent." (wikipedia)

Wright talks a lot about the Anglican struggle to know what to do about the homosexual issue. I fear that he might, in an attempt to find the positive in the situation, start loosening his views on homosexuals. However, I hope that I am wrong because I rather like N.T. Wright. As mentioned above Hays has written on the subject. I am not familiar with it but if he influenced Wright on the NPP he could very well affect his view in other areas.

I do agree with Piper that it is not necessarily good to go looking for "A-HA" moments in theology. It usually leads to bad things.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I've read Piper's critique of Wright. If Wright is criticizing Piper on the grounds that Piper is dispensational, then he has misunderstood Piper. Of course, this would be highly ironic, since none of Wright's critics have EVER understood him, if you believe Wright.

That's one sure way of deflecting criticism. The Mormons use the same tactic. If you're not a Mormon in good standing you can't understand them. If you can't understand them, you can't criticize either.

I have noticed that Wright is a "big picture" person. It is not that he does not see or deny the details but he is mostly concerned with where it is all going.

I got my hands on a DVD copy of a pastor's conference where Wright and Gaffin argued their perspective on Pauline theology. I hate to say but Gaffin did not say much and it was mostly disjointed and sort of rambling, while Wright surprisingly, sounded very reformed in his understanding of scripture. There is a sense in which they are saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles, i.e. one guy says an elephant consists of four legs, while the other guy says no an elephant consists of a large trunk and a tail. They are both right they are just describing it from their perspective.

Wright is not a Calvinist nor a Covenant Theologian but he is explaining things the same way just from a different perspective. He does not use the terms COW, COG or imputation but when asked specifically he has the same definition of justification, that is, law-court, legal, forensic. But he says that it is not belief in justification by faith that saves but faith in God through the Messiah that saves and justifies. He says justification puts one into God's family, it is when he says this that he gets into trouble. But he is not denying the forensic aspect of it he is looking at the big picture of what justification ultimately does.

He is trying to understand it from an historical-Jewish perspective. How would a first century Jew have understand what Jesus was doing or had done? And then reads Paul's writings from this perspective.

My opinion: Wright explains the big picture of biblical salvation but does not focus on the details. Reformed people hear what he is saying and say, "Yea, but what about this?" He then goes on to explain things basically the way the believe but using different terminology and this throws them off. They want to hear it said a certain way or they feel they can't trust what he is saying. Piper in his book even states that Wright's beliefs might lead uneducated people astray because they won't understand his perspective. I think that should be up to the people to decide.

Originally Posted by shackleton

He does not use the terms COW, COG or imputation but when asked specifically he has the same definition of justification, that is, law-court, legal, forensic.

He certainly does talk about a forensic element of justification, but he absolutely does not share a common understanding of justification with us. In fact, it is grossly divergent.

Originally Posted by shackleton

I have noticed that Wright is a "big picture" person. It is not that he does not see or deny the details but he is mostly concerned with where it is all going.

I got my hands on a DVD copy of a pastor's conference where Wright and Gaffin argued their perspective on Pauline theology. I hate to say but Gaffin did not say much and it was mostly disjointed and sort of rambling ...

That is not surprising, but don't take too much from that. I've heard Gaffin speak before; he is brilliant and all, but a good public speaker he is not. It's not that he's bad, just a bit dry in my purely anecdotal experience.

Originally Posted by shackleton

My opinion: Wright explains the big picture of biblical salvation but does not focus on the details. Reformed people hear what he is saying and say, "Yea, but what about this?" He then goes on to explain things basically the way the believe but using different terminology and this throws them off. They want to hear it said a certain way or they feel they can't trust what he is saying. Piper in his book even states that Wright's beliefs might lead uneducated people astray because they won't understand his perspective. I think that should be up to the people to decide.

The problem is, however, it is not just the differing terminology. Even when Wright uses the same terminology, he means something entirely different than us by it (just as was commented in another thread today regarding the fact that Pope Benedict can say without issue "We are justified by faith alone." He simply has a different meaning for each word.)

It is not his differing terminology that throws me off, nor his refusal to use familiar language that causes me to not trust what he's saying: after having read almost all of his major works (and at one point being quite sympathetic and trying/hoping to agree with him), I can honestly say I don't trust his teachings because, whatever language or terminology he does use, they are 1.) Certainly not in accord with our confessions; 2.) Nor in accord with scripture.

Originally Posted by shackleton

I have noticed that Wright is a "big picture" person. It is not that he does not see or deny the details but he is mostly concerned with where it is all going.

I got my hands on a DVD copy of a pastor's conference where Wright and Gaffin argued their perspective on Pauline theology. I hate to say but Gaffin did not say much and it was mostly disjointed and sort of rambling, while Wright surprisingly, sounded very reformed in his understanding of scripture. There is a sense in which they are saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles, i.e. one guy says an elephant consists of four legs, while the other guy says no an elephant consists of a large trunk and a tail. They are both right they are just describing it from their perspective.

Wright is not a Calvinist nor a Covenant Theologian but he is explaining things the same way just from a different perspective. He does not use the terms COW, COG or imputation but when asked specifically he has the same definition of justification, that is, law-court, legal, forensic. But he says that it is not belief in justification by faith that saves but faith in God through the Messiah that saves and justifies. He says justification puts one into God's family, it is when he says this that he gets into trouble. But he is not denying the forensic aspect of it he is looking at the big picture of what justification ultimately does.

He is trying to understand it from an historical-Jewish perspective. How would a first century Jew have understand what Jesus was doing or had done? And then reads Paul's writings from this perspective.

My opinion: Wright explains the big picture of biblical salvation but does not focus on the details. Reformed people hear what he is saying and say, "Yea, but what about this?" He then goes on to explain things basically the way the believe but using different terminology and this throws them off. They want to hear it said a certain way or they feel they can't trust what he is saying. Piper in his book even states that Wright's beliefs might lead uneducated people astray because they won't understand his perspective. I think that should be up to the people to decide.

My issue is that they are determining the meaning of the text by the very uncertain field of history. The history we can rely on is what is given in scripture. The scripture is clear that the Jews of Jesus' day were self righteous because they believed in their own good works (see the parable of the pharisee and the publican). The NPP is exactly that, new. Only the arrogance of these times produce so many people that think theology is a creative enterprise for people to make their mark on the world. It's the opposite. It's a teaching and defending of the old glorious truth.

Originally Posted by shackleton

Wright is not a Calvinist nor a Covenant Theologian but he is explaining things the same way just from a different perspective. He does not use the terms COW, COG or imputation but when asked specifically he has the same definition of justification, that is, law-court, legal, forensic. But he says that it is not belief in justification by faith that saves but faith in God through the Messiah that saves and justifies. He says justification puts one into God's family, it is when he says this that he gets into trouble. But he is not denying the forensic aspect of it he is looking at the big picture of what justification ultimately does.

I hear you. However, this is not what Wright is doing. He will never say this on the record, but off the record he has said point-blank that he thought the Reformers were wrong on justification (Carl Trueman is my source on this). Wright does not believe in imputation, for instance. As soon as I say this, all sorts of people yell and scream at me, saying, "but haven't you read this, where he says that his formulation does what imputation was supposed to affirm, without actually using that language?" In other words, he doesn't believe in imputation. You cannot play musical chairs with the theology of justification and wind up in the same place. He stresses union with Christ. But, as I've said countless times by now, union with Christ does not make imputation redundant. Roman Catholics believe in union with Christ. They don't believe in imputation. Simply stressing union, and then affirming forensic-but-not-imputation is not enough when it comes to justification.

And Wright's NPP on Paul is simply wrong. His understanding of "the righteousness of God" as God's covenant faithfulness is utterly wrong, as is his usual subjective understanding of "faith of Christ" to mean "faithfulness of Christ" (here is where he is indebted to Hays). His Romans commentary is off all over the place, and hardly contains any actual exegesis.

I am certainly still on the journey trying to find out his beliefs of various things. His teaching is remarkably refreshing and sounds so much like good news the way he puts it but I have by no means made up my mind on the matter. I am going to read through his books, since they are short easy reads, hopefully learn something, develop an opinion and then move on. I like to read things from various viewpoints and then formulate my views after getting all the facts.

I have learned a lot from N.T. Wright, don't get me wrong. However, he is a very dangerous man, precisely because he is so winsome and so correct on some things, and also because he angles himself to be attractive to the Reformed world, especially in the US. In the UK, so I've heard, most of the top-level evangelicals do not think very highly of him.

I can sympathize with feeling like a lot of what Wright says really does sound like good news. When I read What St. Paul Really Said, particularly, it was very engaging and eye-opening (though it was obvious that there were some problems as well: one notable one is the curious fiction of thinking that if you make victory over the powers of evil the central point of the cross you lose nothing else: whereas it is not hard to see that victory over the evil powers could only come by dealing with sin, which had to be by way of propitiation and expiation). But the funny thing is that as I went on reading older writers, I found all the good things from Wright, but without the problems. So in Leo the Great (who naturally does have a few interesting issues of his own), in Alfred Edersheim, in B.B. Warfield, in Hugh Martin, to name just a few, I found what was true and thrilling in Wright, but without having to give up or marginalize any of the great truths set out by the Westminster Assembly. The upshot for me was that I realized that if I read the Reformed of previous times, I didn't need to read Wright.

Once again, I guess I found him appealing at this time because he sprung up after dealing with some particularly legalistic people who's idea of the gospel and the bible did not seem like good news at all but legalistic oppression, and it was refreshing to hear it from his point of view. But I can already see a thread of his missing the main points in some major areas, like sin and dealing with sin, and giving people the benefit of the doubt that if baptized then possibly saved. There is not a distinction because he calls this "dualism," and says that the bible is not broken down into, "saved and not saved" but is expressing how God is restoring his creation through the covenant people. But in being a big picture person he sort of misses the details as to how this comes about.

After feeling condemned for so long it was nice to hear someone say it differently where it is not all about condemnation.

Originally Posted by py3ak

I can sympathize with feeling like a lot of what Wright says really does sound like good news. When I read What St. Paul Really Said, particularly, it was very engaging and eye-opening (though it was obvious that there were some problems as well: one notable one is the curious fiction of thinking that if you make victory over the powers of evil the central point of the cross you lose nothing else: whereas it is not hard to see that victory over the evil powers could only come by dealing with sin, which had to be by way of propitiation and expiation). But the funny thing is that as I went on reading older writers, I found all the good things from Wright, but without the problems. So in Leo the Great (who naturally does have a few interesting issues of his own), in Alfred Edersheim, in B.B. Warfield, in Hugh Martin, to name just a few, I found what was true and thrilling in Wright, but without having to give up or marginalize any of the great truths set out by the Westminster Assembly. The upshot for me was that I realized that if I read the Reformed of previous times, I didn't need to read Wright.

Exactly. I think reading solid orthodox writers who have stood the test of time ought to be a pre-requisite before reading contemporary teachers with "new" perspectives. I know that New is exciting to moderns but we confess a catholic, universal faith that should not be undergoing seismic change in each generation. I'm not afraid of reading contemporary writers but they ought to be evaluated within the stream of historical orthodoxy and, if we don't understand that stream, it is perilous to take them on.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

My issue is that they are determining the meaning of the text by the very uncertain field of history. The history we can rely on is what is given in scripture. The scripture is clear that the Jews of Jesus' day were self righteous because they believed in their own good works (see the parable of the pharisee and the publican). The NPP is exactly that, new. Only the arrogance of these times produce so many people that think theology is a creative enterprise for people to make their mark on the world. It's the opposite. It's a teaching and defending of the old glorious truth.

The Scripture is even more explicit in its affirmation that the Jews of Jesus' day were self righteous. Rom. 9:31,32 explicitly makes the point that "Israel did not succeed...Because they did not pursue it [righteousness] by faith, but as if it were based on works."

Since discovering that Sanders' never discusses this text in his books that launched the NPP, I have never had a problem with being misguided by it.

As one who has been called to labor in the mainline circles of Presbyterianism, I can testify as to the havoc that Wright has brought into the evangelical camps in the PC(USA). Many who formerly held true to Reformed orthodoxy (even within a mainline denomination no less!) have been led astray on the core doctrine of justification by his writings.

I can't tell you how many times I have encountered peers who have fallen victim to the NPP, who in years past might have been Reformed in their doctrine. Yet more teachers are being led into error by this man's work.

I know that it comes as no surprise to those of you who are in doctrinally sound denominations that this would happen to those within the mainlines, but Wright has brought yet more harm into the already shaky doctrine of many in my denomination.

He'll have to answer for that someday.

As for me, I'll hold fast to the OPP (the original perspective of Paul) that we find in the Reformed confessions!

These guys are dangerous, that is my simple assessment.

There is no neutrality in science, social, natural or other. Historiography also has an hermeneutical aprioristic.

James G. Dunn, for instance, had a definite agenda (a commission given by E. P Sanders) for his research, one he himself admits, research the relation of 1st century Judaism and early Christianity to object the «preconception» of Judaism as a righteousness by works religion and Christianity as a righteousness by faith instead.

He actually differentiates both by blending them, for instance Dunn denies that Paul «converted to a new religion».

He uses a reversed teleological approach, first accusing traditional conservative Christianity of having an over realized eschatology, while he in fact inverts it and projects justification overlapping sanctification.

In Dunn, Justification also becomes a process, a dynamic justification, eventually one of the contact points with FV.

His «fresh look» at justification (from the title the justice of God: a fresh look at the old doctrine of justification by faith.) is just a continuous exchange of hermeneutic glasses, reading Paul through Judaism and reading back the apostolic writings, and even the Messiah, through this «new found still Jewish Paul».

I imagine that through this manipulative ping pong way you can get anywhere.

He makes Redemptive History go back and forth till it is twisted to his own liking.

This is made with a lot of erudition, cultural and historical apport, that’s why it is so dangerous.

as also in all his (Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.2 peter 3:16

I guess the appeal to it is that it seems to follow a consistent hermeneutic, a historical/cultural understanding and what would the original audience and the original believers have thought of this?

Originally Posted by shackleton

I guess the appeal to it is that it seems to follow a consistent hermeneutic, a historical/cultural understanding and what would the original audience and the original believers have thought of this?

As opposed to an inconsistent hermeneutic like that of the Reformed orthodoxy of the confessions? Calvin and his heirs were after pure Christianity, as it has always been and always will be. Are you denying that the Reformed faith is not a consistent hermeneutic?

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

Originally Posted by shackleton

I guess the appeal to it is that it seems to follow a consistent hermeneutic, a historical/cultural understanding and what would the original audience and the original believers have thought of this?

As opposed to an inconsistent hermeneutic like that of the Reformed orthodoxy of the confessions? Calvin and his heirs were after pure Christianity, as it has always been and always will be. Are you denying that the Reformed faith is not a consistent hermeneutic?

I deny that the Reformed faith is not a consistent hermeneutic.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

Originally Posted by shackleton

I guess the appeal to it is that it seems to follow a consistent hermeneutic, a historical/cultural understanding and what would the original audience and the original believers have thought of this?

As opposed to an inconsistent hermeneutic like that of the Reformed orthodoxy of the confessions? Calvin and his heirs were after pure Christianity, as it has always been and always will be. Are you denying that the Reformed faith is not a consistent hermeneutic?

I deny that the Reformed faith is not a consistent hermeneutic.

Ack! I wrote that last sentence wrong!!! I was asking if he denied that the Reformed faith IS a consistent hermeneutic!

[quote=shackleton;544184]

Originally Posted by shackleton

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

It might be. Wright has mentioned that he got his ideas about the NPP from a doctrinal thesis written by Richard Hays.

It might be "Moral Vision of the New Testament," but I do not know that for sure.

"Richard B. Hays is the George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. Hays is well-known for his criticisms of the Jesus Seminar and the modern Historical Jesus movement. Recently, Hays has been vocal about his criticisms of Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code for its controversial historical claims.

Christianity Today named Hays' "Moral Vision of the New Testament" book one of the top 100 most important religious books of the 20th century. His nuanced treatment of homosexuality in "Moral Vision" has drawn some considerable attention. He offers what some may consider a more conservative position while at the same time pleading for charity and friendship. Hays is a committed pacifist. He makes his position clear in The Moral Vision of the New Testament, in which he argues that Jesus Christ taught his disciples to be non-violent." (wikipedia)

Wright talks a lot about the Anglican struggle to know what to do about the homosexual issue. I fear that he might, in an attempt to find the positive in the situation, start loosening his views on homosexuals. However, I hope that I am wrong because I rather like N.T. Wright. As mentioned above Hays has written on the subject. I am not familiar with it but if he influenced Wright on the NPP he could very well affect his view in other areas.

I do agree with Piper that it is not necessarily good to go looking for "A-HA" moments in theology. It usually leads to bad things.

It's probably Hays' commentary on Galatians, which is good in many respects. Hays Conversion of the Imagination is awesome.

As to AHA moments, in my Piperian days, I remember Piper mentioning about a dozen that he had. Kind of odd for him to critique others on "aha" moments.

Erick, I agree that there is much allure in Wright. However, I must disagree about the consistency of the hermeneutic. By nature, it must be a fluid hermeneutic, constantly changing with the trends of historical analysis. With every new text or new way of reading a text from the second temple Jewish period, the thesis which underlies the reading of the New Testament is forced to change.

The question one has to answer before they can read the New Testament is: whose model of Second Temple Judaism do I hold to be true? Sanders? Neusner? Wright? Someone else? To say anything positive of the New Testament requires first an accurate interpretation of another religious system.

Now, I will certainly not deny the great added value which can come to our understanding of of the New Testament through study of the relevant Jewish literature (actually, a copy of the Damascus Document and of the Mishnah are open on my desk right now); but, contra Sanders et al, I think we ought to be much more centered on the biblical description of Judaism of Paul's day which is found in scripture itself. For instance: do we, with Sanders, study the relevant material and decide that the Pharisees wouldn't really have had too big of a problem with Jesus doing what he was doing, and thereby modify the biblical accounts? I don't think that's a responsible method.

It seems, rather, that scripture itself contains enough material that we can adequately interpret Paul without having a necessary recourse to secondary Jewish literature. Of course, such literature can only be helpful, and grant more insight, but the Qumran community should be consulted for help only after we have received the testimony of the Holy Spirit himself: the author. Instead of assuming that the DSS must contain the key for unlocking the theology of Paul's opponents and therefore the key to Paul and the scriptures themselves, we ought first to interpret scripture, and then in light of this, decide whether and how relevant the DSS are.

When reading people like Dunn and Wright, it's easy to overlook the fact that scripture is not an ordinary book or a human composition. It's author is divine, and included within his work the best interpretive key, and continues to abide in his words, speaking them to us as we read it in faith.


In the end, I guess all I wanted to say at the start of this horribly long and winding (perhaps irrelevant post), was that I think the Reformed tradition has a much more consistent and credible hermeneutic.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I've read Piper's critique of Wright. If Wright is criticizing Piper on the grounds that Piper is dispensational, then he has misunderstood Piper. Of course, this would be highly ironic, since none of Wright's critics have EVER understood him, if you believe Wright.

That's one sure way of deflecting criticism. The Mormons use the same tactic. If you're not a Mormon in good standing you can't understand them. If you can't understand them, you can't criticize either.

Without the Burning in the Bosom, there can be no understanding?

Prufrock: Outstanding response. I wish I had not exceeded my Thanks quota. You are spot on. "Scholars" do the same with Paul offering a "new perspective" on head coverings relating to prostitution when Paul interprets the reason right in the text of 1 Cor. But, at least they're consistent.

Originally Posted by shackleton

I guess the appeal to it is that it seems to follow a consistent hermeneutic, a historical/cultural understanding and what would the original audience and the original believers have thought of this?

I think it comes as quite a shock to people who erroneously believe that the Jews didn't believe in grace to hear that they actually did. It's the same kind of thing that sends people over the deep end when they learn that Roman Catholics believe in grace and salvation by faith.

Wright assumes that, in reading of the nature of 2nd Temple Judaism, he is a more astute observer of the Pharisee's understanding of grace than Paul was. It's not that Paul doubted the Jews held to a form of grace but, as Galatians points out, there is a difference between beginning and ending by grace through faith and beginning by grace through faith and finishing by grace through cooperation.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

It's probably Hays' commentary on Galatians, which is good in many respects.

I believe you are correct. This appears to be the book in question:

The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

I read a good portion of this for a seminary paper back in 2001 (objective v. subjective genitive reading for pistis Christou). Is this one of the sources that influenced Wright?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I think it comes as quite a shock to people who erroneously believe that the Jews didn't believe in grace to hear that they actually did. It's the same kind of thing that sends people over the deep end when they learn that Roman Catholics believe in grace and salvation by faith.

Wright assumes that, in reading of the nature of 2nd Temple Judaism, he is a more astute observer of the Pharisee's understanding of grace than Paul was. It's not that Paul doubted the Jews held to a form of grace but, as Galatians points out, there is a difference between beginning and ending by grace through faith and beginning by grace through faith and finishing by grace through cooperation.

Excellent. I mostly just wanted to quote this so it would show up a second time, in case someone missed it the first time around. Very important observation.

I think we too often see a similitude of words, and thus assume that we have common teachings; all the while forgetting that we all get our words from the same place: even the most outrageous of heretics use the same Bible. We're always going to, prima facie, sound similar. This is one of the reasons why our pastors and elders are so crucially important: their lives are dedicated to the study and teaching of these things to the flock, and can show us where things differ, though they sound the same. If you're reading Wright, and find that you like him, and can't figure out why the rest of us confessional-types don't seem to like him: talk to you pastor. I'm sure he'd love it.

Very sharply seen, they even know more about Paul than Paul himself.

Oddly enough Sanders started by defending Imputation and Salvation by Grace alone as a Jewish Doctrine.

Something that the Abrahamic covenant makes clear, as does the Ceremonial Law, the offering and sacrifice of innocent blameless animals, the laying of hands, etc

But then Wright builds from Sanders, away from Imputation in Soteriology, to a kind of engraving in the Visible Church, as just a premise of salvation, putting forth the substance to an uncertain eschatological fulfilment.

Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church

N. T. Wright . What Saint Paul Really Said. Was Paul of Tarsus the Real founder of Christianity?
(…)

So when the Apostle Paul makes clear those shadows are the foresight of the Imputation of Christ’s righteousness and His Vicarious Work, N T Wright goes forth to deny that clear doctrine from Scripture.

Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favour. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge's righteousness is simply a category mistake. N. T. Wright

This way Wright also completely denies all the Forensic Scope of the Vicarious Expiation of Christ, so clear throughout all the New Testament.

Behold the lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world. John 1:29

Amazon.com: Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ: Michael S. Horton: Books

Mike Horton devestates the NPP in this book - including showing how poorly Wright seems to even understand the Reformers at times (or at least how he misrepresents if he does understand them).

Originally Posted by shackleton

I hate to say but Gaffin did not say much and it was mostly disjointed and sort of rambling, while Wright surprisingly, sounded very reformed in his understanding of scripture. There is a sense in which they are saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles, i.e. one guy says an elephant consists of four legs, while the other guy says no an elephant consists of a large trunk and a tail. They are both right they are just describing it from their perspective.

I am not (though I know of it) familiar with this particular debate, so heistate to comment.

However....

Originally Posted by shackleton

Wright is not a Calvinist nor a Covenant Theologian but he is explaining things the same way just from a different perspective. He does not use the terms COW, COG or imputation but when asked specifically he has the same definition of justification, that is, law-court, legal, forensic. But he says that it is not belief in justification by faith that saves but faith in God through the Messiah that saves and justifies. He says justification puts one into God's family, it is when he says this that he gets into trouble. But he is not denying the forensic aspect of it he is looking at the big picture of what justification ultimately does.

I have read several of Wright's works (NT & the People of God, What St. Paul Really Said, The Climax of the Covenant, Paul in Fresh Perspective, and several smaller pieces) and even more of the published critiques; and I will say that (IMHO, I am thoroughly uneducated) Wright is not basically Reformed or even trying to say the same thing.

Sorry, but I am currently way to busy to document this argument, but I am sure others will concur.

I have been reading and listening to enough of Wright's works now that I can see where it is lacking in areas. He never focuses on why Jesus was killed. By that I mean that he puts such a spin on other areas and such a different spin on the beliefs of the Jews that it is like he misses the fact that it was the Jews who crucified their own Messiah because he did not live up to their legalistic notion of the law.

He is trying to interpret the NT and Paul based on intertestimental writings and trying to understand what the Jews of the first century would have thought based on these and the Qumran texts. But the fact is that all these people got it wrong and brutally killed their own Messiah, so they must not have understood something.

It also has the "liberal" flare to it in that it pushes the doing of your faith and that fact that if one has been baptized then we are not to debate their salvation. He calls it "dualism" saying that most of western Christianity is concerned with are you a sheep or a goat and how one becomes one or the other. The notion is that if you are a part of the visible church and have been baptized then technically you are justified, since to be justified simply means to be a member of God's family.

I think the same spirit is driving this that is driving Osteen and Joyce Meyers and that is they are led to find something more appealing than the "hell fire and brimstone" preaching of the early part of this century. Under this system God does not seem mad all the time but it is about how God is renewing creation back to it's original glory through his people, Israel and then the church.

Originally Posted by shackleton

I have been reading and listening to enough of Wright's works now that I can see where it is lacking in areas. He never focuses on why Jesus was killed. By that I mean that he puts such a spin on other areas and such a different spin on the beliefs of the Jews that it is like he misses the fact that it was the Jews who crucified their own Messiah because he did not live up to their legalistic notion of the law.

For all of Wright's flaws, I don't think this is one. It's been a while since I read it, but I vaguely recall that several hundred pages of Jesus and the Victory of God discuss this. And The New Testament and the People of God spends hundreds of pages discussing how different Jewish sects got their theology wrong. You can't assume that Wright thinks the first-century Jews had it right just because he uses intertestamental writings to shed light on the New Testament -- he doesn't. Honestly, understanding why first-century Jews would want to crucify Jesus is precisely the area where I think Wright is helpful. His teachings on justification, on the other hand, are rightly critiqued.